Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0222 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 22, 1993 AGENDA Lunch/Prolect Orientation 11:30 A.M. Site Visits Gillett May Curtin/Hill Bartlett Uptown Grill 12:00 P.M. 2 Saabs 1 Blazer Andy, Tim and Shelly are drivers. Executive Session 1:40 P.M. Public Hearlnq 2:00 P.M. 2:00 - 2:15 1. A request for setback variances to allow an addition to the residence located at 4582 Streamside Circle/Lot 1, Distelhorst Subdivision. Applicant: Drs. Fred and Ines Distelhorst Planner: Jim Curnutte 2:15 - 2:30 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, for the May residence, located at Lot 6 and the east 1 /2 of Lot 5, Vail Village 7th Filing/1119 Ptarmigan Road. Applicant: Paula May Planner: Tim Devlin 2:30 - 3:00 3. A request for a conditional use permit for an addition to the Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally described below: A part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 16 seconds West and along the East line of said Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6 72.75 the East line of said Southeast 1 /4 of said Section 6 72.75 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeasterly from the southerly right-of--way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds West and along a line parallel to said southerly right-of--way line 145.50 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence North 16 degrees 08 minutes 47 seconds East 78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West 192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeast from said South right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as 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 3:00 - 3:15 4. A request for a site coverage variance to allow an addition and garage for the residence located at 1888 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 50, Vail Village West, Filing #2. Applicant: Christopher Bartlett and Donna Mumma Bartlett Planner: Andy Knudtsen 3:15 - 4:00 5. A request for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, and a request for a wall height variance for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1 /2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1 /4 bearing south 86 20'W a distance of 167.80 ft.1o a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point: Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft, distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 114 of the SE 1/4 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft, to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 114 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, being the point of beginning. Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Erich Schmetzko Planner: Andy Knudtsen 2 4:00 - 4:30 6. A request for a conditional use to allow for an outdoor dining deck for the Uptown Grill Restaurant, located at 521 East Lionshead Circle/Lot , Block 1, Vail/Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Joel Fritz and Richard N. Brown Planner: Tim Devlin 4:30 - 5:30 7. A request for a work session for a major exterior alteration to allow exterior modifications to the Hill Building located at 254 Bridge Street/a part of Lot L, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Blanche Hill Planner: Shelly Mello 5:30 - 6:00 8. A request for a work session for a site coverage variance to allow an addition to the residence located at Lot 8, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing/3090 Booth Creek Drive. Applicant: Rose Foster Gillett Planner: Tim Devlin 6:00 - 6:30 9. A request for a work session for a wall height variance for a property located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing Applicant: Johanne Mueller Planner: Shelly Mello 10. A request for a wall height variance to allow the construction of hazard mitigation located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Mike Grisanti Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO MARCH 8, 1993 11. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO MARCH 8, 1993 12. Update of environmental programs and presentation of the Environmental Quality Award. 13. Approval of February 8, 1993 PEC minutes. 3 J 14. Council Update; -Kindel Park/Mill Creek Court landscaping -Lighting Ordinance -Cascade Village SDD -Dobson Arena expansion -Open Space acquisition 15. A reminder to the PEC regarding the representatives to DRB - 1993 Schedule Jan. - March 1993 Kathy Langenwalter Diana Donovan (alternate) April - June 1993 Dalton Williams Diana Donovan (alternate) July - Sept. 1993 Jeff Bowen Diana Donovan (alternate) Oct. - Dec. 1993 Greg Amsden Diana Donovan (alternate) Chuck Crist will serve as second alternate for Diana Donovan. 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1993 MINUTES v PRESENT STAFF Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Greg Amsden Tim Devlin Chuck Crist Shelly Mello Kathy Langenwalter Jim Curnutte Gena Whitten Andy Knudtsen Dalton Williams Russ Forrest Larry Eskwith 1. Starting at approximately 2:15 p.m., the Planning and Environmental Commission was called to order for a request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, for the May residence, located at Lot 6 and the east 1 /2 of Lot 5, Vail Village 7th Filing/1119 Ptarmigan Road. Applicant: Paula May Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff recommends approval of this request for a conditional use permit with the condition that the applicant needs to enter into an employee housing agreement with the Town of Vail. Jeff Bowen commented that it looks difficult to get from the EHU to the EHU garage. Bill Pierce stated that you do have to go outside the EHU to get to the garage. Tim Devlin said that there are actually two entrances to the unit, and pointed them out to the PEC on the floor plans. Diana Donovan stated that there is a problem with this site because it is located on a portion of Ptarmigan Road that belongs to the Forest Service. Herman Staufer stated that the property line seems to be 3 to 4 feet further west and that there have been parking problems in the past. He then inquired whether there was a way for the PEC to address the parking issue on Ptarmigan Road. This is a concern due to the construction activity that will result with approval of the conditional use permit on this site. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 Kristan Pritz stated that there would inevitably be some construction workers parking 10 on Ptarmigan Road, but the applicant can request that construction workers park in the driveway and fill it up before parking on the street. Chuck Crist inquired whether the lot would be resurveyed. Bill Pierce responded that the lot would be resurveyed in the spring once the snow melts. Kathy Langenwalter motioned to approve this request per the staff memo and asked that the applicant not impede the neighbors access to parking. Chuck Crist seconded this motion and a unanimous 7-0 vote approved this item. 2. A request for setback variances to allow an addition to the residence located at 4582 Streamside Circle/Lot 1, Distelhorst Subdivision. Applicant: Drs. Fred and Ines Distelhorst Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo reiterating the encroachments, wetland impacts and the requirement of mulching any trees that are removed. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for a setback variance and requested that the applicant add a cluster of three aspen trees in front of the west unit and additional spruce and aspen trees along the east side of this site. Kyle Webb stated that the DRB has approved the landscape plan as is and that he did not want to add aspen trees to the front of this site because he wished to utilize this space for snow storage. He also inquired about whether a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers would be required if the deck is moved further to the west. Jim Curnutte stated that a letter from the Corps would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Kyle Webb inquired whether it would be possible to obtain a building permit for the house without the deck. He proposed this option so that he would not have to wait for the letter before beginning construction on the remodel. Kristan Pritz stated that staff needs to see where on the site the deck is to be constructed and that there are options such as removing the deck from the drawings and getting a building permit, then the deck could be added later when the applicant receives the Corps letter. Chuck Crist stated that he would still like to see the tree saved. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1998 2 Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to see some lodgepole pines planted on this site rather than the proposed spruce because lodgepole pines are more indicative of the site. Diana Donovan stated that she liked this proposal because it gets three cars off of the roadway and onto the site. She also reiterated that any vegetation removed should be mulched on the site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she respects Kyle Webb's desire to keep aspen trees out of the front space for snow storage purposes. Kathy Langenwalter then made a motion to approve this request per the reasons enumerated in the staff memo with three additional conditions: 1) that the applicant attempt to save the largest tree in the group of three, on the east side of the addition, 2) that whatever vegetation is removed be mulched on site, and 3) that no additional aspen trees are necessary at the front of the west unit. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and added that the building permit be conditioned on receiving the Army Corps of Engineers letter of review and approval of the deck, if still proposed, when a building permit application is submitted. Jim Curnutte stated that the staff memo suggests that additional spruce and aspen trees be planted on the east side of the remodel. Kathy Langenwalter stated that lodgepole pines should be planted in place of spruce trees but no additional trees are required beyond what is shown on the plans. A 6-0 vote approved this request for setback variances with Dalton Williams abstaining as he was not at the last work session when a site visit was made. 3. A request for a conditional use permit for an addition to the Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally described below: A part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 16 seconds West and along the East line of said Southeast 114 of said Section 6 72.75 the East line of said Southeast 114 of said Section 6 72.75 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeasterly from the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds West and along a line parallel to said southerly right-of-way tine 145.50 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence North 16 degrees 08 minutes 47 seconds East 78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West 192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeast from said South right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence South 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and along aline 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 Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 3 Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo summarizing the review criteria and findings pertaining to this project. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this project with the seven conditions outlined in the staff memo. Jeff Layman of the Police Department went over a parking analysis for the Municipal Complex that he conducted from February 15 through February 19, 1993. Dalton Williams stated that the central lot at present is not large enough to meet the Municipal Building's needs. He feels that if only 3 to 4 parking spaces are available at any given time of the day, that people are parking elsewhere and walking to the Municipal Building. It is his feeling that this study is skewed. Mike Mollica explained that there are 109 parking spaces between the 3 Municipal Complex parking lots. There would also be 10 additional parking spaces if "We Recycle" were to move to another facility off-site. Chuck Crist inquired about how many spaces were open for the general public. Kristan Pritz stated that there are 10 to 16 spaces available for the public. Chuck Crist stated that if the Town restricted the east lot to just the Police Department the problem would be exacerbated in the central lot. He also said that he does not have an accurate view of what the public's parking needs are. Kristan Pritz said that the staff is recommending to wait and see what the situation is after the Police Department addition is finished with the intent to re-evaluate who uses which lots and possibly relocating. Chuck Crist stated that this problem will show up after the Police Department addition is built. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC needed to make their decision irrespective of what Town Council wants and the money issue. Jeff Bowen stated that parking has been tight as long as he has lived here. He also stated that the PEC is required to work within the existing budget and the PEC needed to make strong recommendations concerning parking and the architecture of the existing Municipal Building. Dalton Williams stated it was his concern that the PEG, as a public body, has to make decisions for the public. If the PEC requires the general public to meet certain standards, then we must hold ourselves to the same. He said that he could not support this project. He also stated that the public demand for parking was still an unknown factor. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 4 Chuck Crist stated that he likes the proposal aside from the parking issue. He 110 suggested that the east lot be open for Municipal employees (non-Police) and the west lot should be expanded. Greg Amsden stated that there needs to be a commitment from the Town of Vail concerning cleaning up the west lot and some consideration for structured parking in the central lot. He feels that the parking situation is survivable but tight. Jeff Bowen stated that it was his feeling that the Town employees should start using the bus system and car-pooling. He said that approximately two-thirds of the Vail' Ski School utilizes the bus system and that he personally rides the bus. He feels that this would be a real solution to the parking problem. Diana Donovan stated that perhaps specific parking spaces need to be designated for the public and Municipal employees and that Municipal vehicles could be parked in the east lot. Kristan Pritz stated that pavers rather than poured concrete would be a better design solution for the sidewalks so that other developers who have built paver sidewalks do not feel the Town is getting special treatment. Diana Donovan stated that not enough money has been budgeted from this project in order to put in pavers, and felt that concrete would be acceptable. Dalton Williams inquired what the difference was between pavers and concrete. Mike Mollica stated that pavers are initially more expensive, but that they are generally more cost effective in the long run. Diana Donovan stated that something needs to be done with crosswalks. She also stated that she disagrees with condition #3 of the staff memo, regarding the parking study. She felt that the parking study needed to be done before the project as opposed to after so that the PEC could address the real parking needs. Kathy Langenwalter asked what exactly was in the budget for this project because the crosswalks and sidewalks are not, landscaping is not and architectural changes to the Municipal Building are not. Jeff Layman added that signage relating to the center lot and the Municipal Building are also not included in the budget. Dalton Williams stated that unless modifications to the current building, all sidewalks and all landscaping are included as part of this project, it will be built in a piece meal fashion. He also stated that this situation looks similar to that of the Village Transportation Center in that the public is going to be unhappy. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 5 Kristan Pritz stated that it was her feeling that Town Council was anticipating some possible changes and will look at what the PEC is recommending. Mike Mollica added that Town Council will look at the staff recommendations as well as the public's comments. Jeff Layman stated that "the door appears to be open" with Town Council and they will listen to the additional recommendations. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the staff has come up with a recommendation of approval and it is her belief that it would be a stronger statement to deny this request then to approve the request with the conditions stated in the staff memo. If this request is denied, then the Town Council will not overlook this item. Jeff Bowen stated that since the PEC is an advisory board they should tell the Town Council what is viable in reference to this project. He also stated that conditions need to be laid out so that the Police addition has the same requirements as private sector projects. He added that if the Municipal Building needed to be sprinkled, it would be extremely expensive. Chuck Crist agreed with Jeff but thinks that the PBC should make a positive statement and send it forth. Diana Donovan stated that this is the PBC's final decision and it needs to be something that they can live with. She also stated that they were not there to deal with the monetary issue. She stated that she was going to vote against this project but she would like to see Town Council address the conditions. Kristan Pritz told the PEC that if they feel comfortable with the project and feel that it meets the criteria set out in the staff memo, then it would be a positive statement to approve the project. If not, then they should move to deny the project. She also stated that if the PEC wanted to approve the project with conditions, then they could do that. Greg Amsden stated that he planned on attending the Town Council meeting at which time the council would hear this decision. Jeff Bowen motioned to approve this request in accordance with the seven staff conditions set forth in the staff memo. He also added that the Town of Vail should immediately initiate a program to reduce the parking requirements of full-time Municipal employees by encouraging bus ridership and car-pooling. Greg Amsden seconded the motion and added that the usage of the 13 parking spaces in the west lot should be available to Town of Vail employee, prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Planning and Environmenial Commission February 22, 1993 6 Dalton Williams asked how many spaces were available in the east lot. Mike Mollica stated that if "We Recycle" was moved off-site, there would be approximately 20 to 23 parking spaces available. Chuck Crist moved to amend Jeff Bowen's motion to show that the east lot would be for non-Police employees until it is shown that the Police need all of the spaces in the lot. A 4-3 vote resulted with Greg Amsden, Jeff Bowen, Gena Whitten and Chuck Crist approving the request and Dalton Williams, Diana Donovan and Kathy Langenwalter opposed. Diana Donovan stated that she supports the direction of the project and the direction of the motion, but felt that the parking was still inadequate. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Diana with regards to the parking issue. Dalton Williams stated that since there was no applicant present with the authority to accept the ten conditions, he could not support the project. He also agreed with Diana concerning the parking issue. Kristan Pritz stated that this item would probably be called up at the March 2, 1993 Town Council evening meeting. 4. A request for a site coverage variance to allow an addition and garage for the residence located at 1886 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 50, Vail Village West, Filing #2. Applicant: Christopher Bartlett and Donna Mumma Bartlett Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that the staff recommended approval of this request with two conditions: 1) that the applicant obtain a revocable right-of-way permit, and 2) that the driveway be modified. Chuck Crist motioned to approve this request for a site coverage variance with the two conditions outlined in the staff memo with Jeff Bowen and Gena Whitten seconding the motion, with a unanimous 7-0 vote to approve this request. 5. A request for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, and a request for a wall height variance for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1/2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 7 Beginning at the NE comer of the SW 1 /4 of the BE 1 /4 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line' of said SW 1/4 of the SE 114 bearing south 86 20'W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft, distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point: Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 114 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 114 of the BE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the BE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the BE 1/4 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 114 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE comer of the SW 1/4 of the BE 1/4 of Section 11, being the point of beginning. Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Erich Schmetzko Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. Greg Amsden asked what portion of the mitigation basin wall requires a variance. Andy Knudtsen responded that 48 feet of the wall tapers from 6 feet to 14 feet in height. The 14 feet section is only 3 feet in length. Diana Donovan inquired how the maintenance of the drainage basin is being taken care of. Rick Rosen, the architect for this proposal, stated that they are open for suggestions and that whatever is comfortable and workable would be considered. He suggested that the drainage basin could be inspected annually and cleaned as needed and then inquired whether this would be acceptable. The PEG members generally agreed that Rick Rosen's suggestion was acceptable. Wolfgang Lampe, an adjacent property owner who owns Lots 13 and 14, stated that a previous request for an eight unit project in this neighborhood went before the PEC and was denied. He stated that the density of the properties should remain Primary/Secondary. He also said that property values will be down graded if this request is approved. Brian Lax (owner of a condominium on Lot 4) provided a letter from Cecil Spadafora and stated that he had recently purchased this condominium and it was his concern that property values would decrease as a result of this request being approved. Fred Schmidt stated that he had installed the sewer line which runs through the Schmetzko parcel. He also said that presently, there is no easement for the sewer line. He feels that it is common practice that adjacent property owners should be given Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 easements. Larry Eskwith stated the Town of Vail has been in litigation with Mr. Schmetzko. H stated that they are dealing with a Primary/Secondary subdivision and that the Water and Sanitation District has the authority to require the easement. He also said that due to the nature and size of the request, the Town is not in the position to require the easement. Fred Schmidt stated that it is not fair for Mr. Schmetzko to deprive the sewage line from the adjacent property owners. Greg Amsden stated that this is an existing problem and that any time utilities are put into private property it becomes a matter to resolve between the two private parties. He also pointed out that the Schmetzkos are looking for a rezoning. The purpose of this review was not to establish a sewer line easement. Rick Rosen stated that Upper Eagle Valley is negotiating with the Schmetzko's counsel to figure out a solution to this situation. Larry Eskwith stated the power of eminent domain may have to be used by Upper Eagle Valley in this matter. Greg Amsden stated that with regard to a downward trend in property values, the type of building proposed on this property will improve values. He also stated that if this request is granted, traffic flow on this site will be less than that on adjacent lots because the density will be less than on other sites. Greg Amsden asked whether mitigation was required regardless of building activity. Andy Knudtsen responded that mitigation was required only if building permits were applied for and construction was completed. Kathy Langenwalter then inquired whether the fire truck turnaround could be used for parking. Andy Knudtsen responded that the turnaround could not be used for parking. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she feels strongly that two guest parking spaces need to be provided. She also stated that five out of the nine units have no guest parking available. She feels that at least two guest parking spaces should be provided to prevent people from parking in the turnaround or on the street. Andy Knudtsen stated that this had been discussed previously and had been deleted from the design, but that if the PEG feels the parking situation is a problem, then the spaces could be added back into the design. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 9 Kathy Langenwalter stated that this brings up her original concern that this project should be a SDD. She said that this would be a guideline for what could be done in the future. Rick Rosen stated that it would not be a problem for the Schmetzkos to put two guest parking spaces in and that Mark Donaldson could easily do it with a CAD system. Diana Donovan then asked the PEC whether they wanted two guest parking spaces to be a part of the plan. Dalton Williams stated that in June of 1992 the PEC decided that the two guest parking spaces would not be required and it was his feeling that they should abide by that decision. Jeff Bowen stated that he was ambivalent about this issue. Chuck Crist stated that he does not care whether parking is in or out. Greg Amsden and Diana Donovan stated that they thought the two spaces could be eliminated. Diana Donovan concluded that the majority of the PEC is not concerned with the guest parking issue. 40 Gena Whitten stated that she was against the idea of the retaining wall. Rick Rosen stated that a catch basin will protect over sixty properties and 3,100 cubic yards of debris flow could be caught by such a catch basin. Andy Knudtsen stated that Mark Donaldson has bermed up the wall on the north, east and south sides so that the wall is screened from view. Larry Eskwith said that the Town of Vail requires mitigation for multifamily construction in an effort to protect the public. Dalton Williams made the motion for the PEC per the staff memo recommending approval of the rezoning to Town Council, and making the approval of the minor subdivision plat and wall height variance contingent on the rezoning becoming final. Concerning the wall height variance, he cited findings B1, B2, B3(a, b, c) on page eight of the staff memo. He also cited the three conditions of approval on page 10 in the staff memo and added that an annual cleaning be incorporated within the deed restrictions. Jeff Bowen seconded this motion with a 5-2 vote resulting. Jeff Bowen, Dalton Williams, Diana Donovan, Chuck Crist and Greg Amsden approved this request with Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 10 Gena Whitten and Kathy Langenwalter opposing. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she thought the proposal should have been an SDI and that parking is still a concern to her. Gena Whitten agreed with Kathy and added that she feels that the mitigation wall is too much. 6. A request for a conditional use to allow for an outdoor dining deck for the Uptown Grill Restaurant, located at 521 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, dock 1, Vail/Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Joel Fritz and Richard N. Brown Planner. Tim Devlin Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo, and stated that the staff was recommending approval of the request for a conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck with several conditions discussed in the memo. Joel Fritz stated that if the Bird of Paradise sculpture is moved 8 or 9 feet to the east, that it would not impede pedestrian traffic. He stated that there was more than one option available with regard to the Bird of Paradise's location. Dalton Williams stated that it looks as though the Bird of Paradise should line up with the Krismar wall. He said that the deck should be clearly delineated by flowers, planters and evergreen trees to make it look attractive. He feels it makes more sense not to fence off an already tight area. Gena Whitten stated that she is still opposed to this request because the function of the espresso cart is different than that set forth in the ordinance addressing outdoor dining decks. She added that the Town of Vail presently has no provisions for vending carts and needs to address them specifically. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the deck should maybe be placed in a more central location so that the space feels more open and possibly placed so that the deck lines up with elevator shaft. Joel Fritz stated that he felt that large pots with permanent trees and seasonal foliage would look best to delineate the boundaries of the deck. Kristan Pritz stated that the staff wants the deck to look and function like an outdoor dining deck so that a precedent for outdoor vending carts is not set. Dalton Williams stated that the Uptown Grill is an unusual site and agreed that he does not want to see a precedent set allowing for carts. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 11 Joel Fritz stated that the space is rather small to set up fences and should be left as is open as possible. Kathy Langenwalter stated that since this is private property, she does not have the usual concerns. She said she would like to see a deck that is open and aesthetically pleasing. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC could recommend the deck be delineated with trees and flowers along the perimeters of the space, and to allow the wail of Krismar to be the south edge of the deck boundary. Greg Amsden inquired whether the cart would have identification signage. Kristan Pritz stated that this was an issue that staff did not wish to address at this time, but later at DRB. She said that there would be a menu board but that it remains to be discussed whether other signage will be present on the cart. Signage has not yet been applied for by the applicant. Joel Fritz stated that he was willing to help build the base for the Bird of Paradise, if necessary. Chuck Crist stated that he agreed with the basic design of this proposal. He believes that it is important to use pots and not wails or fences to delineate the deck's boundaries. He also stated that chairs (in addition to the tables) should be at least 5 to 6 feet away from the Bird of Paradise to allow access, and that the chairs and tables not come out past the front of Colorado Insight if the sculpture is moved out of the general location. Tim Devlin stated that staff does not want the cart to be situated in the eastern corner of the proposed deck and facing outward because they do not want to allow products to be served off the deck. Customers must come on to the deck to purchase products. Diana Donovan pointed out that concern was outlined in the staff memo. Kathy Langenwalter stated that with regard to the relocation of the Bird of Paradise piece, if it is to remain in its present location, it should be understood that the base of the sculpture will be a minimum of 8 feet by 8 feet and that it should be held back at least 1 foot from lining up with the Colorado Insight entry. Steve Stockman stated that this area is blocked much of the year by clothes racks. Bob Schultz, who owns and operates the Lionshead Popcorn Wagon, stated that vending carts and wagons are not an approved use according to what presently exists in the Town of Vail ordinances. He stated that this proposed espresso cart is not really a deck, but is actually a disguised application for a separate business, i.e. a vending cart with a deck. He also said that most restaurants have outdoor dining decks, and Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 12 approval of this proposal is inviting every business with an outdoor dining deck to get a Is vending cart which defeats the purpose of Vail's zoning laws. Jan Wening, owner of the Vail Village Popcorn Wagon, stated that a grandfather clause was created to address this issue. She said that people will not buy retail space if they can get a permit for a cart, which is a much cheaper endeavor. Steve Stockman stated that it was his understanding that vendors can apply for a cart subject to approval by the DRB and PEC. This present application is for an outdoor dining deck, not a vending cart. Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with Ms. Wening but that this request for a conditional use permit met all of the requirements. Kristan Pritz stated that it was her understanding that the grandfather clause allowing for the popcorn wagons did not prevent restaurants from having outdoor dining decks. Greg Amsden stated that such rules have been in place for years to allow for decks. Jan Wening stated that if this request is approved, similar requests will pop up every year from now on. Kristan Pritz stated that if a food service operation is associated with a dining establishment's outdoor dining deck, that it would not pose a problem for the Community Development Department. Jeff Bowen stated he is in favor of this request, partly because it is a conditional use permit and it can be retracted if the deck does not work out. He said that ordinances need to be drafted to address this situation (i.e. vending carts) so that there is a system that can be followed. He also stated that there are not criteria established at the present. One final note he added was that trees or greenery would be preferable to a fence because they will soften and delineate the area and improve the appearance of the space. Joel Fritz stated that it needed to be understood what brought about his decision to pursue this proposal. One concern to him were health issues. He said that he never intended to trick anyone and that he has been up front with the Community Development staff and the PEC from the start about what his intentions were with regard to this project. He also stated that if he becomes nothing more than a vending cart, his landlord will "take care of him" and make him cease operations. Kathy Langenwalter motioned that this request for a conditional use permit be approved per the staff memo and 5 additional conditions; 1) that winter and summer plants be used instead of railings to delineate the deck boundaries; 2) the cart should function as a food service area and not a vending cart; 3) that the applicant be required to take care of any/all trash that results; 4) that a 16 foot space be maintained Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 13 between the corner of the dining deck and the eastern-most wall of Colorado Insight (front to back); and 5) that 5 to 6 feet of space be required between the base of the Bird of Paradise sculpture and the chairs and tables. Jeff Bowen seconded this motion. A vote of 6-1 was taken, with Gena Whitten voting against this request. Gena Whitten stated that she opposed this project because there were no ordinances in place to address vending carts in particular. 7. A request for a work session for a major exterior alteration to allow exterior modifications to the Hill Building located at 254 Bridge Streetla part of Lot L, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Blanche Hill Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that this application has merit. She outlined the concerns that staff has with this request. Kristan Pritz added that this request is positive, but it needs refinement. Jay Peterson stated that there were some corrections to be made on the plans. For instance, there was a portion of planter that was indicated on the drawings as existing that does not exist. He also stated that a portion of the proposal had already been approved by the PEC. This area is on the west elevation at the existing entry. As approved, it was to be an entry and is now proposed as windows. He said that they are trying to open the plaza and ticket window area on the west elevation by moving this entrance. He also stated that trash and snow trucks are constantly hitting the planting area on the east side which this proposal removes. He stated that they are in disagreement with the staff concerning the bay windows. Gena Whitten stated that the proposed bay windows are visually encroaching because the street is narrow and this type of window takes space away. She also asked about the plastic seating and other elements on the west elevation on the west side. Jack Curtin stated that staff and PEC needed to consider the location of this request. He said that staff has identified that they want the public to be able to sit down and that this area by the plaza is a service area. He also stated that the Sonnenalp ski lockers are a good service and that some of these things have to be lived with as a guest service. Jay Peterson inquired of the PEC whether there was anything that they would like to see happen with the building plan. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22,1998 14 Greg Amsden stated that he had no problem with the building. Jack Curtin stated that the space being added was not retail space and that it was his feeling that the modifications they are proposing will draw people to the plaza. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she does not want to see the front landscaping that is presently there be done away with. She said that it was not necessary to take the whole pad when only two-thirds is necessary for the reasons stated. She also stated that she disagrees with the staff in that the windows being proposed by the applicant are appropriate for the building. Chuck Crist stated that he agrees with Kathy. He inquired whether the trash receptacles currently in place are adequate for the building and whether there were requirements in place addressing garbage pick up. Jack replied that yes they were adequate. Dalton Williams inquired whether a commercial kitchen license was necessary for the operation of the Daily Grind cart. Chuck Crist inquired what the rationale was for the coffee shop and stated that he was under the impression that the enclosed food service areas had to have a triple sink, etc. 40 Jack Curtin responded that all of the requirements pertaining to a commercial kitchen license had been met with the kitchen provided in the lower level. Dalton Williams stated that he would encourage planters with seating on the west side of the building. He said that in the summertime, people sit on the metal railing and that if planters with a 6 to 9 inch rock surface were put in, that people could sit on these and in the wintertime, locks could fit on top of these planters to accommodate skis. He also stated that he agrees with Kathy concerning landscaping and Greg concerning the comments on the west side of the building. With regard to the bay windows, he stated that he felt they would make the street to narrow. He then inquired about a car parked in the vicinity and whether it could be enclosed. Jeff Bowen stated that he also agreed with Greg about the mess on the west side of the building. He said that he was not concerned about the Sonnenalp ski locks. With regard to the bay windows, he feels that this type of expansion is too much for the busy, narrow street. Diana Donovan stated that it was her feeling that the Sonnenalp signs needed to be more discrete and that it would be good to incorporate the benches into the plan. Planning and E=nvironmental Commission February 22, 1993 15 Jack Curtin stated that the tables and chairs were there for the public use and a large number of people use them. Jeff Bowen stated that the white plastic detracts from the area. Jack stated that he was merely matching what the Popcorn Wagon had done with the tables and chairs. Kristan Pritz stated that the popcorn wagon has been asked to go in front of the DRB because of the concern over this issue (white plastic chairs and tables) which were not approved by DRB. She further stated that the use of the area by pedestrians was something staff wanted to encourage. Diana Donovan inquired where the corner of the Plaza Building was located and where the corner of the sidewalk was. Jack Curtin showed her these items on the plans and stated that the car has been there for a long time. The owner of the car has not sold her property there, and she still lives there. Diana Donovan stated that the owner of the car needs to move it because it no longer belongs there visually. Jay Peterson stated that they would like to do bay windows for this proposal because they are very transparent. He then inquired of the PEC whether cutting the windows back and articulating them with a transom across the top would be appropriate. Kathy Langenwalter stated that this was not appropriate. Kristan Pritz stated that staff feels this type of window would be too modern looking and not in keeping with the guidelines for this area. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to see small divided lights on the side windows with a picture window in the center. Kristan Pritz responded that that could work and stated that the staff was mainly concerned with the guidelines and Kathy's suggestion was a good one. Diana Donovan added that the space should not be made any tighter. It should be noted that Chuck Crist left the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and Jeff Bowen left at 6:15 p.m., prior to the conclusion of this item. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 16 8. A request for a work session for a site coverage variance to allow additions to the residence located at Lot 8, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing/3090 Booth Greek Drive. Applicant: Rose Foster Gillett Planner: Tim Devlin It should be noted that Chuck Grist and Jeff Bowen abstained from this item due to a conflict of interest. Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo for this work session item. Ned Gwathmey stated that the applicant is aware of the site coverage problem with this site and that they wanted to discuss the potential for adding the garage and additional storage space. He also said that traffic and snow build up was a real problem with this site and visitors are continuously ticketed for parking on the road. He further stated that he has an alternative proposal if this one will not work. Kristan Pritz stated that the driveway was a DRB issue and an issue that the Public Works Department needed to review. Greg Amsden stated that this proposal was a tough one because of all the mistakes that have occurred. He said that the second floor overhang encroachment did not present much of a problem but he does not see where the site coverage can be removed. Kristan Pritz suggested that the storage/closet area on the east portion of the first level was a possible area where site coverage could be removed. Greg Amsden stated that he could not go for the garage addition request. He also said that the driveway proposed by Ned is worth pursuing and he does not wish to see it taken out. Gena Whitten agreed with Greg and stated that she likes the parking solution that Ned came up with as well as the proposed landscaping. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she can not see hardship warranting additional site coverage and can not see a feasible reason to allow for additional site coverage. She said that she sympathizes with the applicant about the parking situation but she does not like the double driveway out. Dalton Williams agreed with Kathy Langenwalter regarding the parking situation and stated that he does not mind the double driveway cut but the Town does not seern to like that concept. He further stated to the applicant that he would hate to see the addition torn down but that they were "between a rock and a hard place". Diana Donovan stated that she agreed with Dalton and Kathy. Planning and Environmental Commission DID February 22, 1993 17 Kathy Langenwalter stated that there was adequate length that could be taken from the 116 garage and added to the width to give a wider garage area. Ned Gwathmey stated that this would not work. Diana Donovan stated that site coverage was fairly sacred and that there had to be line where the PEC had to say no. Ned Gwathmey inquired whether there was a way to mitigate the 1 foot overhang. Diana Donovan stated that mitigation was perhaps possible with additional landscaping but nothing more could be added to the garage. She also stated that the 2 curb cuts addressed the parking problem but not the variance that the applicant was asking for. Kristan Pritz explained that the Town of Vail owns the land along the stream tract and the land further down called Katsos. She said that the PEC could think about whether landscaping can mitigate this situation. Dalton Williams, Kathy Langenwalter and Greg Amsden stated that they had a tough time with this idea. Dalton Williams added that he has a tough time setting a precedent with this proposal. Kristan Pritz stated that she feels that the staff is partially at fault and that they should have caught the note that was on the plans. She said that miscommunication occurred on both ends and that the honesty and directness of the applicant has been appreciated. Kathy Langenwalter stated that had the applicant come in for a variance to allow the garage to be widened to 24 feet from 22 feet she would have gone for it because she believes that 22 feet is too narrow. Greg Amsden inquired whether there was a way to handle this proposal in such a way as to avoid setting a precedent. Kristan Pritz stated it was difficult to determine malicious intent but that at the present time staff could not think of a way to avoid setting a precedent. She said that the staff would need to think about this request some more. Kristan also added that there have been situations in the past when variances have been approved where there were extenuating circumstances. Greg Amsden inquired whether the applicant's neighbors had any problems with this request for a site coverage variance. Ned Gwathmey stated that he did not know but that the applicant is friendly with his neighbors. He stated that the drawings for the DRB and the building permit are the Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 18 same and that he saw it after it was built. He added that every building project has modifications between the start and finish and he hopes that the PEC can use Diana Donovan's suggestion concerning mitigation. Greg Amsden stated that the house might be unreasonably disrupted if square footage was taken away from the lower part of the unit. He also voiced his concern with the law and how future projects may be effected. Ned Gwathmey stated that it was his desire to mitigate the site coverage problem through landscaping. Diana Donovan stated that it was this board's feeling that this might be allowable. It was also recommended that the applicant look closely at the floor plans to see if site coverage could be removed. Ned Gwathmey agreed to submit a specific landscape proposal to mitigate the overhang encroachment as it effects site coverage. This item will be reviewed again by the PEC on March 3, 1993. 9. A request for a work session for a wall height variance for a property located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing Applicant: Johanne Mueller Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello made a presentation per the staff memo regarding the boulder retaining wall. Bill Pierce, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant came across these rocks when digging on the site and these boulders were consequently made into the existing wall. He stated that in his opinion, they are more attractive than concrete walls. He also said that other houses in the neighborhood have large retaining walls. He stated that the only other option available on this site was to build a house close to the road. Diana Donovan stated that this wall was an environmentally sound idea as well as being attractive. Diana Donovan read Chuck Grist's comments concerning this project into the record. He feels that the upper wall needs to be more stepped and additional landscaping for the site was needed. Gena Whitten inquired at what point is it considered a wall. Bill Pierce responded 1.5:1 which is pretty flat. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 19 Gena Whitten stated that she likes the look of the rock but the driveway is "long and crazy" and the tolerance tight with regard to all angles. Shelly Mello stated that the staff, Public Works and the DRB do not condone this type of driveway, but that it does meet the development standards. Kristan Pritz inquired about whether the top boulders of the wall could be removed. Bill Pierce responded that he did not know. He stated that 2:1 is such a flat slope and that he does not know the size of the rocks because they are currently not visible due to the snow. Kathy Langenwalter stated that it is her feeling that the walls are too high. She said that this issue needs to be addressed in another way because the PEC sees so many variances. She suggested that possibly the garden wall concept could be looked at. She said that she would like to take a look at the wall in the spring after the snow has melted and suggested tabling this request until May to allow the snow to melt. She added that without an as built survey, it is difficult to know what space is there. Dalton Williams stated that that this solution looks good and matches the site. He stated that his position is that he would have granted the wall height variance in the first place because the wall looks good and makes sense. Diana Donovan stated that the applicant had told her that in order to get the road to 8% that (the wall) is what he had to do. Shelly Mello stated that there is another concern regarding the boulder retainage wall possibly being on the adjacent property. Bill Pierce stated that this was a valid point. It should be noted that Jeff Bowen wished to abstain from this item, but Chuck Crist did not. A motion was made and seconded to table this item to the first PEC meeting in May. 10. A request for a wall height variance to allow the construction of hazard mitigation located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Mike Grisanti Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO MARCH 8, 1993 Kathy Langenwalter motioned to table this request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 7-0 tabled this request until March 8, 1993. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 20 11. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO MARCH 8, 1993 Kathy Langenwalter motioned to table this request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 7-0 tabled this request until March 8, 1993. 12. Kathy Langenwalter motioned that the minutes of the PEC meeting of February 8, 1993 be approved with Gena Whitten seconding the motion. The minutes were then approved. Planning and Environmental Commission February 22, 1993 21 C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for setback variances to allow for the addition of an enclosed garage and additional GRFA to the duplex located at 4582 Streamside Circle/Lot 1, Distelhorst Subdivision. Applicant: Drs. Fred and Ines Distelhorst and Kyle Webb Planner: Jim Curnutte .u .....:........ ...... ... ...... ......:. .n....... +?. F. .. ... ... ...........?.......... ......... ....... r.. ....,.... ..v. .... 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are requesting setback variances to allow for the addition of a two-car garage and additional GRFA within the front and side setbacks on the east half, and the addition of GRFA in the side setback on the west half, of the duplex located at 4582 Streamside Circle/Lot 1, Distelhorst Subdivision. The lot is currently zoned Two Family Residential (duplex) which has a setback requirement of 20 ft. in the front and 15 ft. along the side and rear property lines. The building currently encroaches into the front and west side setback areas. The existing building encroachment into the front setback is approximately 14 ft., or to within 6 ft. of the front property line. The extent of the building encroachment into the west side setback is approximately 12 ft., or to within 3 ft. of the west property line. Portions of the western half of this duplex are also currently located in a 20 ft. wide sanitary sewer easement. The applicant has provided a letter from Fred Haslee, Regulations Administrator for the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District, which indicates that the District has reviewed the plans and is willing to grant an "Encroachment Agreement" for those portions of the remodel proposed to be located within the easement. Mr. Haslee has further indicated that the District will soon be realigning the easement further to the west and south to cover portions of the sewer line that are not in the easement. The variances being proposed are a part of a mayor remodel to the duplex located on Lot 1. The west unit currently has 1,220 sq. ft, of GRFA and the east unit has 562 sq. ft. of GRFA. The proposed addition would result in a net GRFA gain of 5 sq. ft on the west side and 2,071 sq. ft. on the east side. The allowable GRFA on the lot is 5,028 sq. ft. After the remodel, 1,170 sq. ft. of GRFA will remain available. The proposed remodel to the west side of the duplex involves the expansion of the main level dining room. This addition will be located directly above the existing storage shed/crawl space access. Above this expansion will be loft area with three large windows to allow for additional light into the living area. The east side addition includes a bedroom and storage rooms on the new lower level, a new two car garage, expanded kitchen, living and dining rooms and a new deck on the entry level and three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the new upper level. The proposed building remodel involves the removal of several large trees currently located on the east and south sides of the building. To the east is a group of three Engleman spruce trees. Two of these trees are approximately 25 ft. high, with the third being approximately 35 ft. high. To the south is a 2 ft. diameter Engleman Spruce, which is approximately 50 ft. high, and a small deciduous tree. The applicants have stated that although they have considered various ways to save the trees, they are unable to do so and would like to remove them. The applicant has provided a landscape plan for PEC review. The plan shows that all disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grass and wildflower seed mixes. A cluster of 2" min. caliper aspens are proposed to be located adjacent to a new flower bed immediately east of the garage addition. Another cluster of aspens, 3" min. caliper, is proposed near the southeast corner of the building addition. 6 spruce trees, ranging in size from 8 ft. to 12 ft., are proposed to be added to the lot. One spruce will be located in the planting area in front of the west unit and the remaining 5 spruce will be placed along the east side of the building addition. The applicant is also proposing to replace the existing asphalt paths leading to the entrances of the two units on lot 1, as well as the west unit on lot 2, with sandstone pavers. East side setback variance requests Front and side setback variances are being requested to allow for the proposed remodel to the east side of the duplex. That portion of the remodel which encroaches into the setback area involves the construction of a two car garage on the first floor and a portion of two bedrooms and a balcony on the second floor, directly above the garage. The proposed garage and bedrooms encroach a maximum of 7 ft. into the front setback area and approximately 2-1/2 ft. into the east side setback area, however the building°s overhang on the east side encroaches approximately 5-1/2 ft. into the side setback. Section 18.58.040 of the Vail Municipal Code (Architectural Projections) allows roof overhangs to encroach up to 4 ft. into a required setback area. However, since the building overhang in this particular location is approximately 5-1/2 ft. into the side setback area, the last 1-1/2 ft. of this overhang must receive variance approval in order to allow for its construction. Variance approval is also required to allow for the last one foot of the covered entry which encroaches total of 5 ft. into the east side setback area. The setback variances would allow for a 7 ft. encroachment Into the 20 ft. front setback area for the garage and second floor bedroom and a 1-1/2 ft. and 1 ft. encroachment into the 15 ft. east side setback area fpr a roof overhang and a portion of the covered entry. West side variance requests The requested variances associated with the west half of the duplex are for the addition of GRFA located at and above an existing storage shed on the west side of the building. This shed currently is used for storage as well as access to the unit's 2 crawl space. The proposed remodel would not enlarge the horizontal dimensions of the existing encroachment. However, this addition will be carried all the way up to the building overhangs. It is this second and third story addition which is prompting the need for obtaining a variance. It should be pointed out that the new second and third level encroachment on the west side does not project further west than the existing building overhang. The setback variance is to allow for a 12 ft. encroachment Into the 15 ft. west side setback, 11 BACKGROUND The Distelhorst duplex was built in 1967, in Eagle County, prior to annexation of this area into the Town of Vail The building is considered to be a pre-existing non- conforming use. The applicant has stated that at the time of construction of the building, Eagle County's setback requirements were 5' and Streamside Circle had not been widened to the full extent of its 50' right-o-way. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Total Site Area: Allowed Density: Existing and Proposed Density: Two Family Residential (Duplex) 19,275 sq. ft. Two dwelling units Two dwelling units Allowed GRFA: Existing GRFA: Proposed GRFA: Maximum building height allowed: Existing building height: Proposed building height: Allowed Site Coverage: Existing Site Coverage: Proposed Site Coverage: Required Parking: Proposed Parking: Minimum Landscaping Required: Existing Landscaping: Proposed Landscaping: 5,026 sq. ft. 1,782 sq. ft. , 3,858 sq. ft. 33 ft. 24 ft. 28 ft. 3,855 sq. ft. (20%) 1,240 sq. ft. ( 6%) 2,140 sq. ft. (11%) 4 spaces (currently located off-site) 5 spaces (3 spaces for the east half located on-site and 2 existing spaces for the west half located off-site) 11,565 sq. ft. (60%) 17,125 sq. ft. (89%) 16,175 sq. ft. (84%) 3 IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the criteria and findings in Section 18.62.060 of the Vall Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances. Staff does, however, have some concerns with regard to the large trees that will be removed in conjunction with the proposed remodel as well as possible impacts to the wetland area located directly behind the building. These concerns will be addressed later in this memorandum. The staff's recommendation for approval of the variance requests is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. East side setback variance requests Staff feels that the addition of the proposed two car garage, which is prompting the need for the front and east side setback variances, is a positive addition to the building. If the variances are approved, up to three cars will be able to park on-site as opposed to out in the public right-of-way where the tenants are currently parking. The proposed GRFA addition does not encroach any further into the front setback than portions of the existing building currently do, due to the angle of the building in relation to the front property line. Staff feels that this encroachment will not have a negative effect on existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. The owners of Lot 1, Drs. Fred and Ines Distelhorst, currently reside in the residence located on Lot 2, Distelhorst Subdivision, directly to the east of this duplex . The distance from the proposed remodel to this residence is approximately 29 ft. There is currently a platted joint parking and driveway easement located on Lots 1 and 2, as well as a pedestrian path across Lot 1 to Lot 2 The proposed two-car garage addition does not negatively effect the use of the path for access to Lot 2. The applicant's proposed landscape plan calls for the replacement of the existing asphalt path to Lot 2 with sandstone pavers which improves the overall landscape scheme between the two buildings. North of lot 1 is the Ruder duplex which is separated from this property by the 50 ft. Streamside Circle right-of-way. The distance from the proposed east side remodel to the Vail Racquet Club to the south is approximately 200 ft. As mentioned previously, the proposed remodel involves the removal of 4 large spruce trees located on the south and east sides of the existing building. Staff recommends that the applicant attempt to save the largest tree in the group of three trees located directly east of the building, since its present location is not within the foundation line of the proposed building addition. 4 The plan shows a proposed 12 ft. x 12 ft. deck located south of the expanded building. Although the applicant has cantilevered the deck as much as possible, and removed one of the two support columns shown on previous plans, the remaining support column is still env.uaching into a wetland area. Also, even though the deck is located approximately 7 ft. above grade, it appears that it will have a negative effect on the existing willows in the wetland area. Staff suggests that the applicant consider relocating the deck further east in order to lessen the overall wetlands impact on this side of the building. West side setback variance reauest Staff feels that the proposed addition to the west side of this duplex will not have a negative effect on existing or potential uses of structures in the vicinity. The Byers duplex to the west of lot 1 is approximately 50 ft. away. The distance between buildings will not change if the proposed remodel is allowed to proceed. The addition will not encroach further into the side setback area than the existing shed and building overhangs currently do. Although staff generally recommends the addition of trees in the immediate area of a variance request, we do not believe that the area between the west side addition and the west property line is of adequate width to support additional plantings. This 3 ft. wide strip provides the only available access to the rear of the west side property without trespassing onto the adjacent lot. Staff recommends that the applicant add a cluster of 3' aspen trees (3" min. caliper) to the planting area in front of the west unit. 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. East side setback variance reauests Staff believes that the extent of the front and side setback encroachments resulting from the addition of the two car garage and second level GRFA is the minimum necessary to achieve relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation and would not constitute a grant of special privilege to this property owner. The applicant is attempting to add allowable GRFA while dealing with the existing constraints on the lot. These constraints include the location of the existing building, well within the front and side setback area, a 20 ft. wide sewer easement wrapping around the west and south sides of the building, a wetland area located approximately 10 5 ft. from the existing building on the south side and a considerable amount of large trees located on the south and east sides of the property. West side setback variance reauest The location of the west side unit, well beyond the existing setback lines, leaves very little room to add GRFA without obtaining a setback variance. The applicants' proposed addition does not appear to be an excessive request for relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. East side setback variance requests As mentioned previously, the planning staff feels that approval of the proposed front and side yard variances will greatly improve the existing transportation and public safety situation which currently exists at the site. The addition of a two car garage should alleviate some of the vehicle congestion in the public right-of-way directly in front of this building. West side setback variance reauest The addition to the building on the west side will not negatively effect light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed parking situation on this side of the duplex (within the public right-of-way) will not change as a result of the addition being proposed. Section 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking and Loading, Additions or Changes) of the Vail Municipal Code states: "For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, the additionalparking shall be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not for the entire building or use." No additional parking spaces are required to be provided as a result of the proposed remodel to the west side of the building. S. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 6 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exception 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 owner's of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed setback variances. The required findings necessary for granting a variance are met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below: 1. Staff believes that granting approval of the variances would not constitute a grant of special privilege as the Town has approved similar variance requests for lot owners when certain development standards (setbacks, bldg. height, etc.) were imposed after the building was constructed. 2. Staff believes that approving the variances will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Public safety may actually be enhanced by virtue of allowing as many as three cars to park on the lot, rather than in the public right-of-way where they are currently parking. 3. Staff believes that the variances are warranted because the location of the existing building in respect to setbacks, vegetation, the sewer easement, and the wetlands area creates an extraordinary circumstance and physical hardship which warrants some flexibility in the setback requirements. As a condition of approval, staff recommends that the applicant attempt to save the largest of the three trees located on the east side of the building. Any trees that are removed should be mulched on the site. The proposed deck on the south side of the remodel should be moved further to the east in order to lessen its impact on the wetland area. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant will be required to provide a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that they have reviewed the proposed addition and that neither a general permit #26 nor an individual Section 404 permit is necessary. Staff recommends that the applicant add a cluster of 3 aspen trees (3" min. caliper) to the planting area in front of the west unit and additional spruce (6 ft. min. height) and aspen trees (2" min. caliper) in the area east of the east side remodel. These trees may be placed on Lot 2 if deemed appropriate by the PEC and the applicant. 8 I • -l?.noy?s _ .?"NT^tY +1EL.t?/r ta?e,e:.MEH'r-1 / ;' t? r °? / ? ? qe_a. 1{ 'np. F4gapP4YPt Ma ? / ? ? PI.2001 tf?? ??_?.•._....--.° -' _ %" Y4th?f'?t94• ? ?4??,/ / ' , \' ; ?_ ?K MPH?°°L't Fjyt? ? ( txvnN,?.? ._--- .. ? t5'sy61^q..Gk„ ? ! "'°"-`. J?` +?~C4TMICIME ti's ?? u'T t tC'Y..sTFS OHS 1 _ ?'KP1'wL A LL, ?a p°`T>w'A 12. Y,TP^?t.E wtt'?.`f?rU/v0.?-,py Es ML$. M pf.iy?„?t p+it9boNw>y,: fft ?. n n KYta H. Webb Datigner Drawer 4052 Yafl, cblora6o 9o9s7 303.479.0296 C a > Fr a .- Om _ ? O ?UU LL'" XW O (L N C b ~ .a ; Q) w U W \ g _N Q N a?C', Al Kyle H. Webb n Designer ---------°--"" ? Deawec 4452 do ?.._. ._..-.. -` 7 7-1- -- 81667 { i 303.479,0265 1I ~• ? gytp•?q..16 fJNISLA9K>`- o :d o wpm 0 .2 -r r o o y W o 4 4 _dN ? Gv`°N+2 t?bm'? ? N C] m } 0 ' f b GL.G, E ? .u ° Ki E- ? N 1.ossa, Eel ? i Gxb W9 COL- ? Aj? Y? - aLa+.f.T ?I Lei 1 ??VErL P' tom- A2 E 1 I? • -^-------""fir i ?? MI j gsHt ,tt acw ?. r?arrx? ? a t (2? p{Y3e 94. webta . pEe;¢?rser prawns 1052 Va;1, Cotosndo 81657 303.479.0265 C G o G c?J U y ? a c N O b t N N Ay N R O N N 0 A3 KYIe H. Webb I t . I I I Drawer 1052 Vail. Colorado 81657 .. I I 303.479.0265 oPEK ¢L.Ifi W ? detl?JT. L?"P SM.V+t. td P?Y?'F?I`, r S'I I ? YI uv?r6s NM. of i ,u W?r4m?.1---? 4o W G I I ? O O 0 O o c G ° 3 , ? .y o I N. N -- f ? f1,.9N+f4} ?? ? I N °r1 i- mil( ? ® °o pm .tl o 1wl ? r L?r ? Lo °? I i ' ? y?.' ?J lsss-cam ! ? j P ? ? - c?a,.L- I? l 6eolavN ?`2 33 r /,lp ? I I I IT a j.-a-- GPKY?C( n -r yule up Psur.*w..? I b.Mirb *&A-.d ° --LMO•a. wp 9-F *&&.W A4 • • i Kyle H. Webb ..signer Drawer 9052 Vail, Colorado 89657 303.478.0265 Nc.,F-TH r- , tt'/-Ter; I/,&, ja n ? Y' FFF - ? . i 171r, T., 71 ii =? .l *1 ?Wlil L?-- c 0 W O C o ?UU d o C ? w C H V N yU ° m c° re par p,=in Z o? N w ° N t."P'3 A5 i Kyie H. Webb Designer Drawee iD62 Vail, Colorado 01657 Y y? 309.479.0265 w*vri?6 •_y}'{4,Mrb6 E'As4Y 1'tOt.?Eg•' 4•E.9 ?+4F{D41 bS+M? dP h4f+.iG? O O iy{{rya{{l^YPP U U 7 1 c ? V A2 3 eS to . 7, r a _ I- .r y ? ry+Ja4'ei.yspff'? in p L 11 • • Kyle H. Webb Desig.er Drawer 1052 V.7,1, c.wada 61667 303.479.0265 xz/ O w o y r°> ci OC °' gxi ui `o c 0°y3 ?._1°- a? 0) y V L a" E N ?p C h m .d ° G? n.,preer?? ' j ; ?l. r?CS Pt4? 0. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance to allow an addition and garage for the residence located at 1886 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 50, Vail Village West, Filing #2. Applicant: Christopher Bartlett and Donna Mumma Bartlett Planner: Andy Knudtsen r: 1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants are proposing to construct a two-car garage in front of their existing single family home located at 1886 West Gore Creek Drive. The site exceeds 30% slope, and as a result, the applicants may put the garage in the front setback without requiring a setback variance. However, for lots such as these, the allowable site coverage is reduced from 20% to 15%0. With the addition, the applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 1.0%. The total site coverage will be 16% or 1622.5 sq. ft. This exceeds the allowable by 98.6 sq. ft. The proposal includes a garage and an entryway. Originally, the applicant had proposed these two spaces as well as a master bedroom addition, a bay window expansion in the living room, and a carport area. During the review process, staff told the architect that we would support only the minimum amount of space required for the garage and the connection to the house. As a result, the bay window, the master bedroom addition, and the car port were eliminated and the garage was downsized to 20 feet by 20 feet (interior dimensions). The garage will have a site coverage of 442 square feet. Section 18.54.050 (1) of the DRB guidelines requires that, for this zone distriet, "dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure...". As a result, the connection between the house and the garage is required. Staff had requested the architect to narrow the width of this connection. He pointed out that the footers for the garage will be poured approximately eight below the footers of the existing house due to the slope of the lot. Because of this difference in grade, a reasonable distance away from the house must be provided to maintain the structural integrity of the existing footers. Staff has reviewed the design with the Town's Building Official and he believes that the proposed design provides the minimum distance that is needed, but is not excessive. The entryway will have a site coverage of 102 square feet. II. ZONING STANDARDS r Zone District: Primary/Secondary Lot Size: 10,159.0 sq. ft. Allowed Existing Proposed GRFA 2964 sq. ft. 1552.7 sq. ft. 2242.2 sq. ft. Setbacks Front 20 ft. 28 ft. house - 22.5 ft. garage - 3 ft. Side 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Side 15 ft. 21 ft. 21 ft. Rear 15 ft. 66 ft. 66 ft. Height 33 ft. 26 ft. 33 ft. Parking 2.5 spaces 4 spaces 4 spaces *Site Coverage 1523.9 sq. ft. 1078.5 sq. ft. 1622 sq. ft. Landscaping 6095.4 sq. ft. 7535 sq. ft. 7000 sq. ft *Requires Variance Ill. CRITERIA Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed additions to the existing home on West Gore Creek Drive will be reasonably compatible with surrounding development. Currently, the applicants have a driveway and parking area in the same location as the proposed driveway and garage. Staff believes that enclosing the parking area with this garage and then screening it with the proposed landscaping will improve the appearance of the lot. The garage will be 14 feet high at the roof ridge and 10 feet high at the side closest to the street. The applicant is proposing to plant 3 spruce, 7 aspen and 15 shrubs between the garage and the edge of the pavement. 0 2 Since the garage will be located 3 feet from the property line, most of this landscaping will be in the public right-of-way. The Town Engineer has reviewed the planting plan and is requiring the applicant to get a right-of-way revocable permit prior to the issuance of a building permit. He has said that as long as the spruce and aspen are planted a minimum of 7 feet from the edge of pavement, which is feasible, he will be able to support the right-of-way revocable request. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites In the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff has supported variance requests on other projects similar to this one. In this case the applicant is proposing a two car garage and connection of this garage to the residence. Staff believes that the garage is the minimum size possible while still accommodating two cars. The Design Review Guidelines state that in this zone district, garages must be attached to the residence on the site. Because the elevation of the garage is 8 feet below the footers for the existing house, the two can not be adjacent to each other. The entry way portion of the request maintains structural integrity and fulfills the requirement of the DR13 guidelines that structures be connected. Staff believes that these two additions are reasonable because they are not excessive in square footage, and are generally consistent with what we have supported on other variance requests. During this remodeling effort, the applicant will be installing a new driveway and rebuilding an existing deck on the west side of the structure. Both of these elements are currently nonconforming in that the driveway exceeds the maximum slope allowed by the Town and the deck encroaches into the side setback. With the proposed plans, the new driveway will be at 8% and the deck will be in compliance with the setback standards. Staff believes that bringing these elements into compliance with the code is an important aspect of this proposal. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that there will be no impact on the criteria referenced above. The Town Engineer, during his review of the project, has required that a valley pan be installed at the intersection of the driveway with West Gore Greek Drive. Other than this minor change to the plans, the proposal is consistent with all of the Town's standards regarding transportation. IV. FINDINGS B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before arantina 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. E 3 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. M b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. We believe that the 98.6 square feet of additional site coverage (which is approximately 1.0%) which the applicant is requesting is reasonable. Staff believes it meets the criteria as discussed above as well as the findings. Specifically, staff believes that the request meets Finding (13)(1) as the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. The Town has supported variances similar to these for a minimal amount of excess square footage for the purpose of constructing a garage. Finding (13)(2) is met in staff's opinion as there will be no impact to public health, safety or welfare. Finding (13)(3)(C) applies to this request, in staff's opinion, as the strict interpretation of the site coverage standards would deprive this applicant from an addition that has been allowed in other variance situations by the Town. Based on the criteria and findings, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall: i } Secure an approved revocable right-of-way permit from the Town of Vail for the landscaping to be planted between the garage and the edge of the asphalt of West Gore Creek Drive. The landscaping is to include approximately three 6 feet to 8 feet spruce, seven aspen (2" caliper) and fifteen shrubs (5 gal. minimum size). 2) Incorporate a valley-pan into the driveway design at the intersection of the driveway and West Gore Creek Drive. E 4 M }` 1 ?. 4 we-14 > Vim-t tib.E. , 7-1 1 M `t7' ("t g _ Aj/ 0 liV t? ?x yy 1 ,`.? ?f _ ... .._... -?... -vim ? w. -^. ?;? ?' 1' 1 „` ?F? ? ? O ell r tic ?_. CPA ? f t , ? ?vt-,?'"?, 5t,+1? ?+??o?,? 11.*?'i? D o ???5+?:13'r ??i ; "ti; i ;'•11t ?P , S u. , 04 iN I LAF? r .y i I Nk•. k 4 ? ? f ! I too kt f ? -ke y !" 1 t • 1 ? t 1 t ,44 r r • 9 0 9 t ?r I .J _ f h f4 ? i i 7 F , N v ( ? t 1?: • • • r i _-.___ _ . j ?\??_ .... _. 1 # r ? { i ? ? } ? t`I?T t'1 ? ? ? 7 ? ? I I F? i 6 Pt - - '-?---- ?-?' t ? ? !I t ? i I r , ? I t ? ii C f! ?` ? - - - -_- --'-'- z ?? ???T? ? L ? Y?????- MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit for the May residence, located at Lot 6 and the east 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 5, Vail Village 7th Filing/1119 Ptarmigan Load. Applicant: Paula May Planner: Tim Devlin DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create a new Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing, for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts within the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance states: Section 18.04.195 "Employee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in Chapter 18 of this Code. Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing. For the purposes of this Section, a full-time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week. There shall be five (5) categories of EHUs: Type 1, Type 11, Type 111, Type IV, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing of this Code." The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Housing Unit to be located on her property at 1119 Ptarmigan Road, which is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential District. Presently, a single family residence is located on this 16,559 square foot property. The applicant is proposing to demolish and rebuild the primary unit on this lot and create a Type II EHU, utilizing two 250 square foot GRFA additions as allowed by 18.57.050 B5. There will be no secondary unit located on the lot. The area of the proposed EHU is 425 square feet. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. The Town Council and Land Use Plan encourage EHUs in the Town of Vail as a means of providing quality living conditions and to expand the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents. 2. The effect of the use on liaht and air, distribution of poDulation. transoortation facilities, utilities, schools, narks and recreation facilities. and other eublic facilities needs. The 425 square feet EHU is proposed to be a one bedroom unit with a full bathroom and kitchen facilities. One enclosed parking space has been designated for the EHU use. There is a Town of Vail bus stop in the vicinity. It is felt that the impact on the use of parks and recreation facilities and on transportation facilities would be minimal. 3. Effect aeon traffic with particular reference to conoestion, automotive and eedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access. maneuverabilitv. and removal of snow from the street and carkina areas. It is likely that there would be one additional vehicle driving to the residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon traffic. 4. Effect uoon the character of the area in which the orooosed use is to be located. including the scale and bulk of the orooosed use in relation to surrounding uses. The staff feels that the character of the area will not be negatively impacted by the addition of an EHU in this area. The proposed EHU I$ to be 425 square feet, and the primary residence is to be 4,831 square feet. There is no secondary unit on the property. However, the overall GRFA for the property will not exceed what would be allowed for a "traditional" Primary/Secondary that utilized both of its 250 GRFA additions. 2 5. Emplovee Housina Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, Emolovee Housina and shall be subiect to the followina conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Sinale-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential and Primarv/Secondary Residential zone districts. The subject property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. b. It shall be permitted only on lots which comely with minimum lot size reauirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. The minimum lot size for a Type ii EHU in this zone district is 15,000 square feet. The applicant's property is 16,559 square feet. C. It shall be located within, or attached to. a sinale-family dwelling, or be located within, or attached to. a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section 18.54.05001 - Desian Guidelines Duplex and Primarv/Secondarv Development. It may also be located in, or attached to, an existinq?aaraae provided the aaraae is not located within anv setback. and further provided that no existing parkina reauired by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. The proposed EHU is attached to a single-family dwelling. Existing parking is not being reduced or eliminated. Please see paraaraph h, below for further explanation of proposed parking on the site. d. It shall not be counted as a dwellina unit for the purposes of calculating density. However. it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom, as defined in Chanter 18.04 - Definitions of the Municipal Code. It shall be permitted to be a third dwelling unit in addition to the two dwellina units which may alreadv exist on the lot. Oniv one Tvoe II EHU shall be allowed per lot. The proposed EHU contains kitchen and bathroom facilities as defined by Chapter 18.04. Since no secondary unit exists on the property (although one is allowed), the EHU will be a second dwelling unit in addition to the one that already exists on the lot. However, for the purpose of calculating density, the EHU does not count as a dwelling unit. 0 3 e. It shall have a GRFA not less than three hundred (300) square feet. nor more than nine hundred (900) square feet. An applicant. however. shall be oermitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional GRFA not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU. The aoolicant shall submit an application for the additional GRFA on a form provided by the Communitv Development Department. Approval or denial of the request shall be made by the Desian Review Board in accordance with Section 18.54.040. If an applicant obtains Desian Review Board approval for 500 square feet of additional GRFA for the EHU. he or she shall not be entitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant to Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of this Code for either unit on the lot. If an applicant obtains Desian Review Board approval for not more than 250 square feet of additional GRFA for the EHU, he or she shall be entitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant to Chanter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of this code for one dwelina unit on the lot. The applicant has applied for an additional 500 square feet of GRFA to be used in the construction of the EHU. 250 square feet is being used for the EHU, and 250 square feet is being used for the single-family dwelling unit pursuant to Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area. The final approval of the 250 square foot GRFA additions will be determined by the DRB. f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed EHU will be a studio unit with a combined bedroom/living area. 9. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) vears of aae shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Ty2e 11 EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen (16) vears of aae shall reside in a two (21 bedroom Tvpe II EHU. Since this is a proposed one (1) bedroom Type 11 EHU, the above regulations will need to be applied. h. Each Tvpe II EHU shall be required to have no less than one (1) parkino soave for each bedroom located therein. However, if a one (1) bedroom Tvoe 11 EHU exceeds six hundred (600) square feet, it shall have two (2) parkina spaces. All parkina soaves required by this Code shall be located on the same lot or site as the EHU. 1f no dwelling exists upon the bropertv which is 4 proposed for a Tvoe 11 EHU at the time a buildino permit is, issued, or if an existing dwellina is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwelling. not less than one (11 of the parkinq spaces reauired by this r)araaraph shall be enclosed. A 360 sauare feet GRFA credit shall be allowed for the construction of one enclosed Darkina space for the Tvoe 11 EHU. The proposed one-bedroom EHU, to be built at the same time as the existing dwelling unit being demolished and replaced by a new dwelling, has one designated enclosed parking space of 300 square feet for which a garage credit has been given. S. 1=indinas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with-the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 13 of the Vail Municipal Code. Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for an Employee Housing Unit. Staff finds that all applicable review criteria and findings have been satisfactorily met. The applicant understands that she needs to enter into an employee housing agreement with the town, which also will be recorded with the county. Please note that under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and (Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE.: February 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use permit for an addition to the Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally described below: A part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows; commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 16 seconds West and along the East line of said Southeast 114 of said Section 6 7215 the East line of said Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6 7215 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeasterly from the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds West and along a line parallel to said southerly right-of-way line 145.50 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence North 16 degrees 08 minutes 47 seconds East 78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West 192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeast from said South right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as 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: Miko Mclllca >..: :. 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST The Town of Vail is requesting a Conditional Use permit to allow for the expansion of the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage Road. The property on which the Municipal Building is located, (which includes the existing Vail Police Department) is zoned Public Use District. Public buildings and public service facilities are considered Conditional Uses within the District, pursuant to Chapter 18.36.039 of the Town's Municipal Code. Because the proposed expansion to the Vail Police Department is a modification to an existing use, a Conditional Use permit is required. The Public Use District is fairly unique in that the development standards for the district are specifically prescribed by the Planning Commission during the review of a development proposal. This review is not unlike the Special Development District process whereby setbacks, building height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and the general site development are specifically tied to a development plan. The off- street parking requirements are also established by the Planing and Environmental Commission. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS The proposed expansion to the Vail Police Department would be located immediately to the east of the existing Police facility. The existing floor area (approximately 5,944 square feet) of the Police Department would continue to be utilized by the Police and would be reconfigured and remodeled as a part of the project. A two-story building of approximately 26,035 square feet of office space, and 34 structured parking spaces, would be constructed. No underground parking is included in the proposal. Architecturally, the proposed addition has been both internally, and externally, redesigned to facilitate the use of the existing Police area. The overall layout (site planning) of the addition steps back from the South Frontage Road, as viewed from west to east. This design solution, as recommended by the PEC and the Design Review Board at previous work sessions, is intended to break up both the overall mass and bulk of the structure, as well as the linear form of the building. Please see the attached elevation drawings for further details on the design. The gross area of the structured parking would consist of approximately 10,530 square feet. This includes areas dedicated to the sallyport, the vehicle impound and all vehicular circulation corridors. The common areas of the building, which include stair corridors, a pedestrian ramp and the elevator core (ADA requirements), storage rooms and mechanical areas, total approximately 3,619 square feet. The gross area of the entire project (office space, common areas and structured parking) would be 31,979 square feet. Please see the attached site plan and floor plans for more specific information regarding the layout of the proposal. a. Site Area: The Municipal site consists of 89,132 square feet, on two parcels. The Municipal Annex is on a separate parcel from the main Municipal Building, however for zoning purposes, and per the PEC's suggestion, the entire site has been analyzed as a whole. b. Site Coverage: The existing site coverage for the Municipal Complex is approximately 16,265 square feet, or 18.2%. 2 The proposed site coverage of the Municipal Complex, with the new Police addition, is approximately 30,262 square feet, or 33.9%. C. Building Helaht: The maximum height of the existing Municipal Building is approximately 34 feet. The maximum height of the proposed addition to the Police Building has been designed so that it would not exceed the highest ridge of the existing Municipal Building. In general, the main roof ridges of the proposed Police addition range in height from 30 to 34 feet. d. Parking Analvsis The existing parking for the Municipal site is as follows: 47 spaces - east of Municipal Building 49 spaces - between the Municipal Bldg. and the Municipal Annex (central lot) 13 spaces - west of the Municipal Annex 109 spaces - TOTAL The existing surface parking which is located between the Municipal Building and the Municipal Annex (49 spaces), and the parking spades west of the Municipal Annex (13 spaces) will be retained with the Police expansion. If the We Recycle facility moves to another location (off-site), then an additional 10-11 parking spaces would become available for municipal use. The proposed parking garage for the Police addition is designed to accommodate 34 vehicles, (this includes one parking space in the vehicle impound area, but does not include the two spaces in the sally port). In addition, it is proposed that there be 13 exterior parking spaces. All of the exterior spaces would be located immediately to the east of the new parking garage. The surface parking spaces would be screened by the use of berming and landscaping. The proposed structured parking (34 spaces), the proposed new surface parking (13 spaces), and the existing surface parking in the central and west lots which will be retained after the Police addition Is constructed (62 spaces), totals 109 spaces. As presented, the new parking garage would be used exclusively as secured Police parking. The general public, and all the other Municipal employees who work in the Municipal Complex, will be directed to the 49 surface parking spaces located between the Municipal Building and the Municipal Annex, and to the 13 spaces located west of the Municipal Annex. 0 The staff has reviewed the parking requirements for the Municipal Complex using two methods: a) Parking determination based upon the Zoning Code standards (area calculations), b) Parking determination based upon number of employees. Both methods include parking for the six Town vehicles (non-Police vehicles) which are stored on-site at the Municipal Complex. These vehicles are used by the Building, Planning, and Administration Departments. a) Zonina Cade standards (area calculations): This method utilizes the standard Town of Vail parking requirements listed in the Zoning Code, which are based on square footage measurements. In addition to the Municipal offices, the analysis also includes some office areas currently occupied by the Police Department, which would be utilized for other Municipal offices, once the Police move into the new addition. Due to the unique nature of the Police Department's staffing needs, and the shift overlaps, the parking requirement for this department is based upon the "worst case" scenario of numbers of employees and vehicles. Please see the attached report of the Police Department's staffing and parking analysis. Overall, the planning staff's analysis using this method indicates that a total of 96 parking spaces will be required to meet the project's needs. Since the proposed number of parking spaces with the new Police addition is 109, there would be 13 spaces available for use by the general public, using this method of calculation. b) Number of emplovees: This method determines the parking requirement based upon the number of current employees working on-site at the existing Municipal Complex (including the proposed Police addition). This calculation assumes a "worst case" situation where there is a full Town staff and all employees have reported to work. It should be noted that this scenario does not include any of the existing conference spaces (including the Council Chambers), which attributed 10.9 parking spaces to the "area calculation" method as described above. The staff's analysis using this method indicates that a total of 106 parking spaces will be required to meet the project's needs. 4 tl Since the proposed number of parking spaces available is 109, there would be 4 spaces available for use by the general public, using this method of calculation. In summary, it is anticipated that there would be approximately 4-13 parking spaces available for use by the general public, depending upon which calculation method is used. e. Setbacks; The following table indicates the minimum building setbacks from all property lines, (existing and proposed conditions): Existinq Proposed North: 0.0' 0.0' South: 7.6' 7.6' East: 353.0' 190.0'- to building 106.0' - to surface parking West: 116.0' 116.0' 1101 f. Buildina Areas: The following table outlines the different areas of the proposed Police addition: Office faross areas) Common-storage, ParkinafCirculation stairs. elevator, mechanical Lower Level: 3,443 sq. ft. 2,188 sq. ft. 10,530 sq, ft. Upper Level: 14,387 sq. ft. 1,431 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 17,830 sq. ft. 3,619 sq. ft. 10,530 sq. ft. Total gross area of new Police Department = 31,979 square feet 11 5 Ili. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Town's Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use permit based upon the following factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan has identified the Municipal Complex site as being in the land use category entitled Public/Semi-Public. This category includes schools, post offices, water and sewer storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other public institutions. The staff believes that the following goals and policies of the Land Use Plan are applicable to the Municipal Complex and the proposed Police addition: 6.1 -Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 -The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 -Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. The Recreation Trails Master Plan indicates that pedestrian crosswalks should be provided immediately adjacent to the Municipal Complex. Additionally, the Recreation Trails Plan indicates that a sidewalk should be located along the south side of the South Frontage Road, from the Vail National Bank east to the Alpine Standard service station. To aid in pedestrian safety and access to the Municipal Complex, two pedestrian crosswalks are proposed as a part of the Police addition. One crosswalk is proposed to be located to the northeast of the Scorpio Condominiums and would direct pedestrians to the new pedestian entry into the Municipal Building, facing the South Frontage Road. Additionally, a sidewalk would be added along the south side of the Frontage Road from the new crosswalk, east to the Alpine Standard service station. It is intended that the main pedestrian access to the new Police addition will be via the existing Municipal Building west entry. All public parking is proposed to be located between the Municipal Annex and the existing Municipal Building. It is intended that public access to the Police addition will primarily be from the existing western entrance to the Municipal Building, and secondarily, from the new pedestrian entry, 6 which would be adjacent to the proposed elevator tower on the south side of the project. To further facilitate pedestrian access around the south side of the Municipal Building, a new sidewalk is proposed which would tie the new pedestrian entry with the existing surface parking lot to the west of the Municipal Building. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, school, parks and recreation facilities, and other public needs. The staff believes that the proposed expansion to the Vail Police Department would meet a public need in providing a more efficient public service and, more importantly, the expansion would bring the facility into compliance with the existing Federal standards regarding jails. 3. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from street and parking areas. Vehicular access/CDOT access Dermit - The vehicular entrance into the Police parking garage, and into the eastern-most surface parking lot, is proposed to be located in approximately the same location as the existinq,, eastern-most parking lot entrance. The project landscape architect, Sherry Dorward, has been communicating with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) regarding the required State access permit. Additionally, the CDOT has indicated that they would allow the placement of landscaping within the State's right-of-way. Incorporated into the landscaping and grading plan are the State's guidelines for maintaining a 30' clear zone from the edge of asphalt. The surface parking lot to the east of the Police addition has been designed to accommodate snow storage and snow removal. The project addresses pedestrian safety and convenience in that crosswalks and sidewalks are included in the project, per the Recreation Trails Plan. Two new crosswalks would be installed 0 the South Frontage Road. A sidewalk would be installed along the south side of the Frontage Road, from the eastern crosswalk, east to Vail Road (curb & gutter will also be necessary). A sidewalk would also be installed on the north side of the Frontage Road, from the eastern crosswalk, west to the western crosswalk (curb & gutter will be necessary and possibly a storm sewer to carry drainage). Although the Recreation Trails Plan calls for a sidewalk along the full length of the South Frontage Road, the staff believes that the sidewalks which are proposed as a part of this project are reasonable in that the sidewalks would provide complete 7 pedestrian access to all pedestrian entries of the Municipal Complex. The proposed sidewalks would meet the Town's standards, as designated in the Streetscape Master Plan, and would be a minimum width of 6' and would be constructed with concrete unit pavers. As with all the elements of this project, the final design of the crosswalks and the sidewalks will require Design Review Board approval. The staff believes that a signage plan for the entire Municipal Complex should be included in this project.. The plan should specifically direct the public to the appropriate parking lots and to the primary entrance into the Municipal Building. 4. Effect upon the character of the area In which the proposed use is to be located, Including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the surrounding uses. Buildina footurintlaeneral lavout - The staff believes that the overall site planning for the Police addition works well given the narrowness of the project site. The proposed building has been designed so that it steps back from the South Frontage Road, as indicated in the southeast corner of the project. The building continues to have azero setback along the north property line, and the staff feels that the reduced scale of the building, coupled with a very strong landscape plan, can mitigate the building's close proximity to the north, and the adjacent 1-70 eastbound off-ramp. It should also be noted that the edge of asphalt for the South Frontage Road is located approximately 0 feet further south of the southern-most property line of the Municipal Complex. Hence, the "perceived south setback" would be more in the range of 28-30 feet. Mass and bulk/scale and compatibility with the existing Municipal Building and with the surrounding area - The staff believes that the proposed design of the Police addition achieves a scale which is very compatible with the existing Municipal Building, and with the adjacent structures in the area. We believe that the design team's responsiveness to the comments and concerns expressed at prior work sessions by the PEC, the DRB and the staff is very positive. The staff believes that the facade modifications to the existinq Municipal Building, which are indicated on the elevation drawings, should be a part of this project. We believe these changes are necessary to architecturally tie the new addition with the existing structure. In addition, we also believe that modifications will also need to be made to the existing western entry of the Municipal Building so that it is clear to the public that this is the primary entry into the Municipal and Police Building. These changes to the primary entry are indioated on-the west elevation drawings. 8 Buildina materials - As proposed, the building material$ for the. Police addition would be compatible with the existing Municipal Building and with the alpine character of Vail. Stucco and wood are proposed to be the siding materials, and the roofing material is designed to match the existing Municipal Building (gravel). The retaining wall which is proposed to be located on the north side of the eastern-most surface parking lot would be faced with stucco to match the building. Parkinq - The two methods of calculating the parking requirement for the project, as indicated in the parking analysis above, indicate a difference of nine parking spaces. The staff is recommending that the PEC utilize the most conservative approach when determining the parking requirement for the proposed Police addition. We would recommend that the PEC review the parking analysis utilizing the "number of employees" approach, which would require a total of 105 parking spaces for all the municipal functions on-site. Overall, there would be exactly the same number of parking spaces as currently exists on-site (109 spaces). Although the overall number of Town employees is not proposed to be increased beyond the existing level, it should be noted-that the proposal suggests that the new structured parking, and the eastern-most surface parking lot, be used exclusively as secured Police parking. The existing, eastern-most surface parking lot is currently utlilized by the Police, as well as by Town employees who work in other departments within the Municipal Complex. The staff has some concern about a potential parking shortage if all non-Police Municipal employees, as well as the general public, are required to park west of the Municipal Building. It may be appropriate to designate some Town of Vail employees to park in the eastern-most surface parking lot to utilize these spaces as much as possible and to reduce parking congestion in the other two parking lots. The Police Department is in the process of conducting a "parking study„ for the Municipal Complex. Parking lots are currently being monitored and all vehicles are being counted and license plates are recorded to determine if the vehicle belongs to a member of the Town staff, or if the vehicle is a "public" vehicle. This information should be available for Monday's PEC hearing. In addition to this work, the staff is recommending that a parking analysis for the entire Municipal Complex be performed upon completion and occupancy of the Police addition. The intent of this parking analysis would be to determine the types of users and occupancy percentage of all the Municipal parking spaces. Based on the results of this study, it may be possible to have some Town of Vail municipal employees park in the east lot if it is determined that the Police Department does not utilize all of the east lot spaces. This would in turn open up more spaces for the public in the central lot. 9 The staff would insure that the PEG be updated on the results of this analysis. Setbacks/Landscapinq - Essentially, the staff believes that the proposed setbacks are reasonable. We feel that the proposed landscaping and grading plan strongly buffers the proposed Police addition from the north, as well as from the south. A total of 75 new trees are proposed to be added (25 evergreens and 50 deciduous), and 100 new shrubs. Most of the existing vegetation that would be disturbed as a result of the new construction would be relocated, and all attempts will be made to insure that the vegetation survives the transplanting. Please see the attached site plan for the specific planting and grading design. Staff believes that additional landscaping should be installed adjacent to the Municpal Building and the Municipal Annex, and the central and west parking lots, as a part of this project. This additional landscaping would be located between these areas and the CDOT right-of-way to the north. Snow storage needs, as well as the helicopter access to the landing pad, would be accommodated in the landscape design. This landscaping will help to screen the central and west parking lots as well as the Municipal Building and Municipal Annex. Trash Facilitv - The proposal calls for the trash facility to be located immediately to the west of the Police parking entrance. The trash storage area would be completely enclosed and truck access to this area would be via a 50' long driveway. The driveway to the trash facility would be heavily screened by landscaping. Many other options for the location of the trash facility within the new addition were explored, however, due to the Police Department's desire to keep the main parking lot access open at all times for emergency egress, the other options were eliminated from consideration. Compatibility with the existing Municioal Buildinq - The staff believes that the proposed floor layout of the Police addition will be compatible with the existing Municipal Building, as the main hallway through the existing Municipal Building will be at the same elevation as the upper floor of the Police Building. The main lobby for the Police Building is also proposed to be located on the upper floor to facilitate public access. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - An elevator is proposed to be added to the Police addition and would be located just southeast of the existing interior stairs in the Municipal Building. The location of the new elevator is situated such that both levels of the existing Municipal Building, as well as both levels of the Police addition, will be completely accessible to disabled persons. Noise/Exhaust fans from oarkinq_garage - The exhaust fans are proposed to be located on the north elevation of the new Police addition. 10 The detailing of the garage exhaustlintake is designed to be "louvered" and would be located on the north elevation. Substantial quantities of screen plantings are proposed to be located between the Interstate and the Police addition. In addition, any noise generated by the exhaust fans will need to meet the Town of Vail's noise standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation of the request for a Conditional Use permit for an expansion to the Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, is for approval with conditions. Staff believes that the proposal meets the Conditional Use permit review criteria as indicated in Section 111 of this memorandum. Staff is recommending the following conditions of approval: 1) That a Colorado Department of Transportation access permit be secured prior to the Town's issuance of any building or grading permits for the project. 2) That the proposed architectural modifications to the existing, Municipal Building, as depicted on the north, south and west elevation drawings, be a part of the Police addition. 3) That a parking analysis for the entire Municipal Complex be performed upon completion and occupancy of the Police addition. The intent of this parking analysis would be to determine the types of users and occupancy percentage of all the Municipal parking spaces. This analysis would allow the Town staff to better understand the parking situation at the Municipal Complex and would provide the staff with the necessary information to fully utilize all the available parking spaces. The staff would insure that the PEC be updated on the results of this analysis. 4) That the project be reviewed to insure compliance with the adopted Building and Fire Codes of the Town of Vain. Preliminary code reviews have indicated that it may be necessary to sprinkle the existing Municipal Building as a part of the new construction for the Police addition. 5) That the following items be included as a part of the Police addition: • Two new crosswalks on the South Frontage Road. • A sidewalk on the south side of the Frontage Road, from the eastern crosswalk, east to Vail Road (curb & gutter will also be necessary). A sidewalk on the north side of the Frontage Road, from the eastern crosswalk, west to the western crosswalk (curb & gutter will be necessary and possibly a storm sewer to carry drainage). 11 6) That additional landscaping be installed as a part of the Police addition. This additional landscaping would be located between the Municipal Complex and the CDOT right-of-way to the north. The landscaping would extend the length of the northern property line of the Municipal Complex, while still allowing for snow storage and helicopter access. 7) That a signage plan for the entire Municipal Complex be submitted and approved by the Design Review Board. The plan should specifically direct the public to the proper parking lot and to the primary entrance into the Municipal Building. peolmemoslpolice.222 12 Itu i l l ? a 1 W ND N't-H. I LL 1i ti IIUJ .-Q) TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL COMPLEX MASTER PLAIN POLICE DEPARTMENT PARKING REQUIREMENTS Mid Day Swing DIVISION Watch 1 O'lap Watch 2 O lap Watch 3 O'lap ? ??-s?3s ??oo-?a3 , a L??-a Administration zz?, 670-osda 640-1150 Chief of Police l l 1 Stab (. Staff Support Lieutenant COMM. Mh A Staff Sergeant Records -? 4- 3 2 J Communications ? 1- 3 _..3 Qt)eraitions Patral Lt. Investigation Sc,-r. µ I C 1 -- _.` Patrol b t lQ Investigations - 3 __ m. .. _ Cornmunity Ser. 2, TOTALS 34 32. 3 1 - Maximum Overlap Parking Required at maximu m overlap - 36 Reserve( Volunteers ?- -- Marked Police Cars -- I Unmarked Police Cars Impound/ Others - I TOTAL POLICE PARKING VISITOR PARKING - -- TOTAL LARKING -- '? 5" s • rr?i T 1 .. ?, 'Z a'? 2 ?•J ' ' ' 1 I ?t as Al. s 7 i5tilllq GOVl2'? N „S nc. tJt' r f Q .. ? v • _ 46` •t: ?? ?tD""'` '"ti"p "` r.'b'ti ..?v e?nnv4, ? i All r .. {tp? , '', A, cyea fl at.Ii l;"«/'+$LG.'KClIJ (-: LJ FfiJ O. SG7 - c?74t.. eralcv"v.C: 1. Y. A. G. ? ? _ _ , • __t_LJ-.,•: 5°z'? tc;r rX ter - UGM ? tirt! Phx7!? fLt:.Cr:13,3 ?+Yr.F;.3. WAZ A.4T?u? ... f ? '''? t ? ? 9 -?. ,? I i sir. ?r. y:v6 R7: Ord _ a' G?i trey r .r 7t ?nuFtc serT sir. M6 W, I-rj 'L ouloc 14. ?'Q ? ?sr `- ? (i ?.r.?.3Go? :vc.?t7ss ?: , C y t"`e .a`"`' ? rx? . L? ( I ? c?''r•' r ?1 ? yf ? ? ? . ? Y Id.. ?? Gtcfi.? L r? ? I AJFE3CY. ? FnrT:rJ< k( !/,1)'taJ?: - t fi w r - ??_. . -...u , s./ 1 ? v I ? .? IN ,!c ?' f ? .halo- sv» >? i nch I ?) r. a 1V L . _ L - . .` j f cG Y I? Lkw- ` 51 P2t3 , i a ?.j 1 71a:' If ---? H If - - i ` l Mirt` UN: i f u -- fs1 141, ?+? _ G!K&7' 47 47 rt?KnJ -SGb ! L J 2 3 a' - ,? i-f`?? ?. llZVSr l..... tGOS/' Fboy' ifs?rr E.7 (..^` N:f 7.?' ,--I ' A !•-tr I -I EM m i Pft7?K ct+v r, 0115 f' n • t i F'( • Elev4lofy • -- I ? ?,y ?,;,;,..?+ tut •^4 "'`i .,A^t+.? s-? -5?-,t " t ? 1 n F ? #: L ? i c ?, 'r'' ..? i ?? •?? RE: OF tt L _ y (..?} ?? ?...?- t.... =?Y?•r r?_ C" ..:: - 7 f'v it t`_?„" ? ? f??}?? . t:. "- go wo k,'?Er e c: wb? 6 r? 4..,'•'.?,,._...y} s,,.,t?.? ?:?„??`l '. y+?3 ?t. iii ?TLy? 1 + '? .-? ? ?, i?r?'..?,tc.?r? StL .-t} 73 'tit '.-m.m.w'. _._-._... 1 0) :tr _ ".f _ tom"' ,; r, • .:-- ? QL???f?-- s sn ??'}:` T"? s ? s ?''R R ?G3fl?I`. /-1 i f tTr sit t ;IIA [7 C7 n f ?&xr?ru•.r?- Y NF_ffti `? 511. .t it Y?. - .v.,..>_r??•???, , 1 / n. ,r. m e .. r csrx Fcr? _ y y < ZVI r t !f 4t rI I 1 rl o ='' l "? m S00.00 0-005 X-9 .,,n1ua* '`' m s n g9a 5gfl _ % IIxan µ » »? x bets x ppyy?`}?i?g?((?? II^^??nnTTI'[(? .0 A dM?O tsgta r . ao 1111101 ?n? we6**ed ? n? •t3 `.I AQ. t'lUy .4il? ?? s ;tLtb qrc e,°°•y+,° >q,»,re wr ane % .---•-"` :.? A•}*n 3w^'0 t.,?b° 5e?',• ? -,^^ ?', m*hrrs*e se _q, t0gtb 'u"' °'!*?"? ?"''..,?7, ..•." Sa y, q ?'tl I ' '' rrc•sxcn w°--ice ? t, xnw+ '1 J+y : ` -."?-'ns r ? /} ?" ,? ? - w„w C:--' u<xmm+Mnv+d+r wup.w° .q?e ` _•.,..r??'.'ti?-+, (r+ % IY Yi"'?J- t ** ua- .wuuub / i nu°. e3°.n,°w?n ? ? %'° °" swe ?,. •i°roeA t ?+ ? ?,.-?` J - s _ ? --._ . ? ?., tflCtO I 15 sewdrc 6u *ry A b pwns °,m? gift g0910 ? **n**** .. A f/'/ x ye x s6.Nrcw wucmm? ..;: ¦ W..'^"'?. ? L ? -_ .f+n-. ?Cn3 '? BgCte gggt0 1 F****¦*as* 40 Y i _ _.{, ?1,/`. nrM ernu• ( ?t? '0 ("? ?+•., yC4 n.*.*¦***.*.ren**•.r f°` ?:. a EE+ p..'t . ". _. x° [ .?, -,°,r j ?` } }I fW) **•s*** <fi*4r ; i - ` ? ??? ,3 3 p •a' to3J4 na Peus,xb tf yC b,Ctb ¦ N?-'+' ? 5 'ws?`? ? 9 .? ?i ry .?:? 701 ?,???? \ /q µ ? ?' D • ,,. / xarcnv xmox / N0A1k00Y OP10d bt 5 ?? µ?? 3• I % 'R s ./""`¦ 4'°t0 ?'y Is c»bwo a . k?j r,b_,a ? ? ^ ? ?'.ets brats t? I ?? ?f r O ayy Iff ? t,- ? A* I ? 1410p d ?4 e iV'M?uyR* I ?t i ?YW ONIt Y3 ,`Q a ¢? • w xa:. is to . p " < - _ x ?" 33 ? \ "•p"+?.^•? i, .r,' 1, 0 a AcA,»r* ? ` - .., ((''''?? i f l??"?"" • /r f ? ,:.? , tia.lj? ?` ? i'„W' ,y?J?.. ? b Cl g ? t f ? Y ¦ } .M ?t s _y 3.:14iP ?. to J tb (^} pp?p9' // x ?_ ° ¦ 1 ?y?Pb 1?-? ? ?or,i9 ?'?? y ? g'4g ,?,,,.f¦ 6pCt0 C J xD.IX rnn+xmp g0 ^ 48Cib Cty' ugace vau k•e ¦ s" % "? / P54 -''1 ? kd?5k.2rmbmena *, ..ss ?.r? rtl ....?,+kd':M... ,r¦ Q •A?? ?? / • 0x' ptbt4 1, s,,cc°° t _.•^"" w w,c+»wnw ¦ b ° CCCfff ? /f x / ¦ %?betb o ti***** t<rw**¦*¦ xy.,,,4 4 +b j0 ? ... x •rrmr*ptltC x ? syLt{. 1 yStte x \ `CCib \ ttfl g ? ?flbtb ? flt0t4 y; t CbtO x r? daumv ?6te % ; D6.e ? ` a --r.^-.- to t aroawa•a ^n fl Gtbt9x &0i 3NV7 NOUt7W.97303©., wn.•www n*w -?'??' yb1xA- % x rcm»µvr.imwe;rarwp x ..--- _ r-„ ?_ pZptO N -e6tb ,y6t0 ?}I. e MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and a request for a zone district change from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, and a request for a wall height variance for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1 /2 of the South East 1 /4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE comer of the SW 1/4 of the BE 1/4 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly, line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1 /4 bearing south 86 20'W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 1/4 of the BE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point: Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the BE 1/4 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft, to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 114 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, being the point of beginning. Parcel 8: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Erich and Lily Schmetzko Planner: Andy Knudtsen ..,....: ......c .. . ................. .: :...i ... ....:.... ..........,. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS Erich and Lily Schmetzko are requesting that the Town review three requests for their property located at 2239 Chamonix Lane. These include: -- Rezoning the property from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family Residential. -- Repiatting the two existing parcels to create one lot. This requires a minor subdivision. -- Creating a debris flow basin which requires a wall height variance. 11 The proposed L.DMF zoning would allow 9 dwelling units, two of which the applicants are proposing to permanently deed restrict as employee housing. The lot is currently vacant and is located in both rockfall and debris flow hazard areas. I1. BACKGROUND During work sessions on March 9, 1992, June 8, 1992, and July 13, 1992, the primary focus of the PEC related to hazards. Specifically, the PEC requested information from the applicant indicating the extent of the site needed for mitigation as well as any adjacent properties which would be required to construct the hazard mitigation. This piece of information has been provided at this time. The PEC had expressed concern that if extensive areas of the adjacent properties were to be disturbed for mitigation, that an upzoning may not be appropriate. A copy of the minutes from the July 13, 1992 meeting are provided at the end of this memorandum. The summary of the comments made at that meeting was that if staff could find a way to document the design for the mitigation basin and the townhouse development, then the request was generally supportable. In April of 1992, Art Mears was able to thoroughly evaluate the hazards. His report is attached to this memo and provides the information which the PEC requested. Within the report, Mears states that "rockfall mitigation will not be necessary at this building site" because the "analysis using the CRSP model indicated that rockfall will not reach the building site." Regarding the debris flow hazard, Art Mears recommends that adequate mitigation can be provided by a drainage basin, located completely on the Schmetzko property. The proposed design for the mitigation is attached to this memo. Vegetation on this site is limited primarily to sagebrush and aspen, with the exception of two large evergreen trees on the northeast corner of the site. The site rises above Chamonix Lane at approximately a 2025% slope. To the west, most of the lots around this parcel are developed. To the east is the Pine Ridge Condominium complex. All of the land north of Chamonix Lane is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential and most of it has been developed in excess of the density standards of Primary/Secondary zoning. Many of the lots have multi- family housing on them. In the early 1980s, the Town of Vail created a drainage channel across the Schmetzko property. This was done immediately after a severe debris flow event, during a spring when debris flows were occurring frequently. The Town acted in an emergency situation to try to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Schmetzko brought a lawsuit against the Town in an effort to have his property restored to its original condition. The Town and Mr. Schmetzko settled this legal action and as part of the settlement, the Town agreed to restore the site to its original grades. The Town regraded the site in early July of 1992 to fulfill its obligations to Mr. Schmetzko. In the past, several utility companies installed utility lines across the Schmetzko property. In the same settlement, the utility companies understood that they would have to compensate Mr. Schmetzko for the use of his property. The utility companies decided that a simpler solution was to relocate the utility lines off the property than to pay for the use of the land. Staff understands that most of the lines have not been removed at this time.- 2 Ill. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Some of the assumptions made for this site plan are that the building envelopes for the free market units would be 24 ft. by 32 ft., or 763 square feet. The envelopes shown on the site plan represent the first floor with a solid line and the second and third floors with a dashed line. The development of each townhouse would include a two-car garage in the basement and 2 stories of GRFA above that. The resulting 3-story townhouse shall conform to the 33- foot height limitation in the LDMF zone district. The resulting GRFA would be approximately 1,623 square feet for each free market unit with 1,052 square feet in each of the 2 employee housing units. The total GRFA would be approximately 13,500 square feet. These numbers will be slightly reduced, after deducting the allowable GRFA credits. The areas of overlapping stairs and the first 25 square feet of an airlock would be deducted from GRFA calculations. Garage area would not be counted either, and has not been included in the numbers above. The approximate total GRFA of 13,500 is less than the 13,686.3 sq. ft. allowed under LDMF zoning but more than the 11,405 sq. ft. allowed under RC zoning. The site coverage proposed is approximately 6200 sq. ft., which is less than what is allowed by RC zoning (12,201 sq. ft.) or LDMF zoning (17,031 sq. ft.). With the proposed site plan, the applicant meets the parking standards. With this plan there are 16 enclosed spaces and 10 exterior spaces. The parking requirement is 13 spaces. Six of the nine units will have parking spaces available in front of the garages. Three units will only have the garage spaces. Per the Zoning Code, Residential Cluster zoning requires that one parking space per dwelling unit be enclosed. This proposal, as currently designed, would meet this requirement. Under the requested LDMF zoning, there is not an enclosed parking requirement. Previously, staff was concerned about a conceptual architectural design that included structured underground parking. Staff was concerned that this was not financially feasible. Staff does believe that the plan for 2-car garages at the lowest level of each townhouse is generally consistent with other development that is being built in the Town of hail at this time and is a reasonable expectation from the potential developer of this site. Concerns from other departments in the Town have been addressed. None of the driveway slopes exceed 8 percent. The Fire Department concerns have been addressed as a fire truck turnaround has been located at the top of the driveway, which meets Town standards. The Fire Department will require a fire hydrant to be located at the top of the driveway. The applicant is proposing that two of the nine units on-site be restricted as employee housing units, which is a positive benefit to the Town. The applicant and staff have discussed the timing of the construction of these employee units and have agreed that the units will be constructed simultaneously with the rest of the development. Specific wording regarding the timing is included in an agreement to be recorded as a deed restriction. 3 0 • U IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Below are tables showing various development potentials. Table 1 - Area Total Total Acreaae Square Footaae Parcel A 1.04 43,564 sq. ft. Parcel B .1204 5.244.6 sa. ft. Totals: 1.1204 48,804.6 sq. ft. Density Allowed Per Code 3 Dus + 1 Employee Unit Table 2 - Development Potential Under Different Zone Districts Comoared to the Proposal Primary/Secondary (Existing Zoning) with 2 Parcels Residential Cluster Combined Lots LDMF Combined Lots Land Use Plan/MDR Sohmetzko Proposal Buildable Buildable Square Footaae Acreaae 40,744 sq. ft. .935 4,877 sq. ft. .112 45,621 sq. ft. 1.047 Allowed GRFA 6,190.2 sq. ft. 6 Dwelling 11,405.3 sq. ft. Units 9 Dwelling 13,686.3 sq. ft. Units 3-14 DUs NIA buildable acre 7 DU's + 2 Employee Units 13,500 approx. sq. ft. 4 Table 3 - Densitv on Surroundina Lots* 0 Approximate* Approximate* Existing Number Density Lot Acreaae Zoning** of Dwellina Units (DU/Ac) (Vail Heights) 1 .5 P/S 6 12 2 .5 P/S 10 20 3 .5 P/S 11 22 ° 4 .5 P/S 10 20 Gail Das Schone) 4 .18 P/S 4 22 5 .2 P/S 6 30 6 .18 P/S 4 22 7 .16 P/S 2 12 8 .18 P/S 2 11 9 .18 P/S 2 11 11 .32 P/S 4 12 12 .32 P/S 0 Undeveloped 13 .4 PIS 2 5 14 .5 P/S 0 Undeveloped 15 .6 P/S 5 8 19 .45 P/S 0 Undeveloped 20 .45 P/S 2 4 * Without complete survey information, staff estimated the lot size using the address map and comparing the lots above to lots in the vicinity which staff had survey information on. ** Primary Secondary zoning allows for two dwelling units per lot having a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. On lots less than 15,000 sq. ft., one dwelling unit plus a restricted employee housing unit are allowed if the EHU is approved by the DRB. V. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST Is the proposed zoning consistent with the Town of Vail Land Use Plan? Staff would like to point out that the tables in the zoning analysis show that the nine units per buildable acre proposed with the Low [Density Multi-Family zoning falls within the range allowed by the Land Use Plan, and is less than the density on most of the sites in the vicinity. The Land Use Plan designates the parcel as Medium Density Residential which allows 3-14 dwelling units per acre. This proposal would allow nine dwelling units per buildable acre and does comply with the master plan. Staff believes that the nine units requested under LDMF zoning would not appear out of context with the neighborhood, given the densities of development on adjacent properties. All ° 5 of the sites in the vicinity are zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. However, they are legal non-conforming in that they exceed the current density standards of the zoning code. Please see Table 3 on the previous page to compare the approximate densities of the surrounding property to the density proposed for the Schmetzko parcel. Considered alone, the nine units appear to be a reasonable use of the site. However, considered with the mitigation, staff believes that the development capacity of the site is fully maximized. Staff believes that this level of density should be approved only with the guarantee that the detailed information (such as finished topography and landscaping) will be incorporated into the development in the future. Staff believes that this concern is addressed with the agreement that will be recorded as a deed restriction. Please note that part of the deed restriction requires that any amendment to the restriction be awroved by the Town of Vail. Minor changes (shifts in building location up to 5 feet) may be approved by the staff and DRB. Any change more significant than that will require PEC review and approval. Staff believes that these requirements will allow some flexibility while still maintaining the critical components of the deed restrictions in perpetuity. Four neighbors have expressed concern about the rezoning request. Letters from three of them are attached at the end of this memo. In conversation with these neighbors, staff has emphasized that the character of development along Garmisch Drive is much different than the character of development along Chamonix Lane. The developments along Chamonix Lane are much denser than the proposed Schmetzko development. Staff would like to reiterate the importance of the information shown in Table 3. It appears that the Schmetzko development will be less dense and will be reasonably compatible with the properties surrounding it. VI. WALL HEIGHT VARIANCE After Art Mears evaluated the rockfall and debris flow hazards for this property, he recommended a drainage basin to collect the debris flow. The basin will be located to the north of the proposed nine townhomes. A portion of the wall creating the basin will be integrated into the foundations of the townhomes. Fill will be graded up around the wall, so that a majority of it is not visible to surrounding properties. Immediately around the drain, however, the grade will slope down and expose a total of 14 feet of wall. Per Section 13.58.020, walls are not to exceed 6 feet in height. A variance for the additional 8 feet of wall is reauired. Criteria and Findings Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval the requested variance based on the following factors: 6 A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed mitigation basin will be created by a wall that is approximately 140 ft. long. Some of this wall will be incorporated into the foundations of the townhouses. Portions that extend to either side of the townhouses will be set below grade so that only the top is visible. To the neighbors east, south and west of the Schmetzko parcel, the upper 2 ft. of the well will be seen. As viewed from the north, the upper 6 ft. of the wall will be exposed. Thirty feet of the wall will be located around the spillway and drainage area. It is this portion that must be exposed to a greater degree to allow the basin to drain. For approximately 3 ft. of length, the wall will be exposed at 14 ft. of height. This is the most extreme case and from this point, the exposure of the wall tapers to 6 ft. p The architect is proposing five 6-8 foot spruce and nine 2 caliper aspen to be planted near the wall within the basin. These will screen the wall where it is exposed, but will not reduce the required capacity of the basin. Please see the attached landscape plan/site plan. Staff believes that at the time of development, when drawings are completed that are more specific than the site plan attached to this memo, that additional landscaping should be required. Staff believes that the 'landscaping shown on the site plan is the minimum required to meet Town standards. Staff's primary goal with the landscaping that is shown is to screen the mitigation basin and wall height variance. We see a need for additional landscaping at the entry and around the perimeter of the project to buffer it from neighbors. Staff believes that given the nature of the mitigation solution, most of it is reasonably screened from the neighbors. The one section with the greatest exposure will be screened with clusters of trees. Staff believes that the architect has designed a solution that integrates a relatively technical solution into the hillside and into the foundations of the adjacent townhomes and protects surrounding properties and uses. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation Is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that relief from a strict application of the wall height regulation is warranted in this case due to unique circumstances of the hazards affecting this parcel. According to this design, the individual who develops this land will be protecting all of the surrounding properties from this debris flow channel. Due to the fact that this parcel is located in the direct line of this debris flow channel, we believe that a mitigation solution for this location is needed and that the wall height variance that is required as a part of the mitigation is reasonable. 1] 7 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. One concern staff has at this time regarding the design of the mitigation basin involves the drainage culverts. Currently, the architect has designed the basin to be drained by five 12 inch diameter culverts. These culverts would drain the basin for rainstorms and snow melt. These are not intended to function during a debris flow, as the basin is intended to collect the debris. After a debris flow event, the only way to clear the basin will be to manually excavate the debris and haul it away. The culverts are sized based on a percentage of the 1 00 year flood. However, at this time a drainage study has not been conducted. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide the study prior to first reading of the rezoning at Town Council. The architect does not anticipate that the design will change significantly. The study is intended to confirm the estimate made by the architect with the current design. Staff feels comfortable allowing the developer to address this drainage issue before the first reading of the rezoning ordinance. Staff believes that the proposed variance will not impact light, air, population, transportation, traffic or utilities. We think it will have a positive impact on the public safety of the area. S. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before arantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 8 VII. SUBDIVISION REQUEST At this time, the applicant meets all of the subdivision standards for a minor subdivision in the LDMF zone district. These standards include lot area (10,000 sq. ft. of buildable area), frontage (minimum 30 feet), and size (minimum 80'x 80'). The replatting process provides an opportunity to document the resolution of the hazard mitigation issue and the employee housing issue. The applicant could hypothetically develop the site as single family residences without the debris flow basin since the Town code does not require mitigation for single family or duplex construction. However. staff believes requirina mitigation, regardless of development tvge, is critical. This position is based on the belief that a request for higher densities should only be approved if mitigation is mandatory. The deed restriction covers more than the mitigation issue, including the following key points; • the permanently restricted employee housing, including size, location, and timing of construction requirements; • the mitigation plan, requiring it to be completed and finished in a manner that is sensitive to the neighborhood; • a landscape plan, specifically one that is designed and planted in a way that buffers the mitigation from the rest of the neighborhood; and • the distribution of CRFA, such that it will be allocated evenly among the 7 "free market" units and not be grouped together in a few "high end" units. In general, staff believes that the amount of work that has been invested in the site plan design to date by both the applicant and Town staff, provides for a sensitively designed development. The intent is that when the project is built it will be constructed per this plan. VIII. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending approval of all three requests. These include the rezoning, the wall height variance, and the minor subdivision. As a point of clarification, the Planning and Environmental Commission is making a recommendation to Town Council regarding the rezoning. The PEC is making a decision regarding the wall height variance that, if approved, will be valid for two years from the date of the hearing. The PEC is the approving authority for the minor subdivision which, if approved, would be effective immediately. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as, in our opinion, we believe it is consistent with the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. We also believe that it will allow a development that is compatible with surrounding properties as long as it is in compliance with the site plan. The site plan will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and the plea will be deed restricted, requiring all future development to conform to this site plan. We believe that it is very positive that the proposal involves two deed restricted employee housing units. Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision as it conforms to all applicable zoning standards as well as approval of the wall height variance as it meets the criteria and findings 9 as discussed in the memo. Specifically, staff believes that Finding (13)(1) is mot in that the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege as the hazard impacts to this property create a unique situation. Finding (13)(2) is met in staff's opinion as the granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare. In fact, granting the variance will increase the safety and welfare in the neighborhood, in staff's opinion. Finally, Finding (13)(3)(b) is met in staff's opinion as the hazards constitute an extraordinary circumstance applicable to this site that is not generally found on other properties in the same zone district. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the requests with the conditions that: 1) the applicants provide staff with a drainage study, specifying the size and number of culverts needed to adequately drain the debris flow basin prior to first reading of the rezoning request. 2) the applicants submit the plat, the deed restrictions, and the site plan following the second reading of the rezoning request and the staff will submit this information to the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office for recording. The applicants shall pay for recording fees. 3) the applicants provide additional landscaping as required by the pRB at time of development. 10 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION, made this day of , 1995, by ERICH SCHMETZKO and LILY SCHMTZKO, hereinafter called "Declarant", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant desires to preserve the integrity and beauty in such community, and to this end, desires to subject the real property described in Exhibit A to specific covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens, hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of the owners thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the real property described in Exhibit A is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinbelow stated, ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following words used in this Declaration shall have the following meaning: a. "Hazard Mitigation" shall mean and refer to the hazard mitigation catch basin as provided on the Site Plan and further described in the Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. reports dated April, 1992 and July 19, 1992. b. "Owner" shall mean and refer to the duly recorded owner of the fee simple title to any residence situated upon the Property. C. "Property" shall mean and refer to all properties described in Exhibit A. d. "Residence" shall mean or refer to any townhome unit situated upon the Property. 1 e. "Site Plan" shall mean and refer to the development plan identifying foot prints, setbacks, accessways, landscaping, grading and hazard mitigation which is recorded in the zeal property records of Eagle County, Colorado in Book - at Page f. "Substantial Completion" shall neap when the designated portion of any work to be completed is sufficiently complete so that the owner can occupy or utilize that designated portion of the use for which it is intended. g. "Town of Vail" shall mean or refer to any agency, board, commzssion, or otherwise, including all officers, board members, employees, or agents, that is created, regulated, and transacts business in the name of the Town of Vail, Eagle County, state of Colorado. ARTICLE II PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THTS DECLARATION The real, property which is subject to this Declaration is located in the Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and is more particularly described as follows: 0 SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PAR.'S HEREOF ARTICLE III LAND USE AND RESTRICTIONS Section 1. Residential Usaae;. No building shall be constructed other than for private residential purposes on the Property. Each residential unit is to contain no more than one (1) dwelling unit as defined by the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Section 18-04-070. Section 2. Easements and. Riahts--of-Wa„y. Easements and rights-of-way for roads, lighting, heating, electricity, gas, telephone, water, sewage, pedestrian traffic, and any other kind of public or quasi-public utility service are reserved as shown on the plat for the Property. No fence, wall, barrier or other improvement shall be erected or maintained along, on, across or within the areas reserved for easements and rights-of-way.. 0 2 Section 3. Hazard Mitiaation No Residence shall be completed and approved for a temporary certificate of occupancy or a certificate of occupancy from the Town of Vail without substantial completion of the hazard mitigation catch basin as shown on the Site Plan. Hazard Mitigation shall include :finished topography and retaining walls and berms in reasonable conformance with the Site Plan. Section 4. Site Improvement. No residential development shall be completed and approved for a temporary certificate of occupancy or a certificate of occupancy from the Town of Vail without substantial completion of the driveway, fire truck access and turnaround, all landscaping, and grading, in reasonable conformance with the Site Plan. Section 5. Emplovee Units. Two (2) residential dwelling units shall be deed restricted for employee housing units a defined, and governed by Section 18.57.060, Town of Vail Municipal Code. A temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued on the two (2) employee housing units prior to the issuance of a building permit by the Town of Vail for the construction of the last three (3) unrestricted dwelling units. If all units are to be constructed simultaneously, a temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the Town for the two (2) employee housing units prior to issuing any temporary certificates of occupancy for the last three (3) unrestricted dwelling units. ARTICLE IV ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES a. Each provision of this Declaration may be enforceable by the Town of Vail by a proceeding for a prohibitive or mandatory injunction or by a suit or action to recover damage. If court proceedings are instituted in connection with the rights of enforcement and remedies provided in this Declaration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses in connection thereof, including reasonable attorney's fees. b. The Declarant, the Town of Vail,, and any subsequent owner thereof , hereby agrees that any and all actions in equity or at law which are instituted to enforce any provision hereunder shall be brought in and only in the District Court of Eagle County, State of Colorado. 3 C. Failure to enforce any provision of this Declaration shall not operate as a waiver of any such provision, the right to enforce such provision thereafter, or of any other provision of this Declaration. ARTICLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. _Duration. The covenants and, restrictions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the land, and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Declarant, or the owner of any land subject to this Declaration, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, for a term of twenty-one (21) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years. Section 2. Notices. Any notice required to be sent to the Declarant, the Town of Vail., or any subsequent owner under the provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been properly sent when mailed, postpaid, to the last known address of the Declarant, the `lawn of Vail, or any person who appears as an Owner on the records of the Clerk and Recorder, Eagle County, State is of Colorado, at the time of the mailing. Section 3. Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions shall be by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction, either to restrain violation or to recover damages, and against the land to enforce any lien created by these covenants; and failure by the Town of Vail or any owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Section 4. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by judgment or court order shall in no wise affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. Section . Amendment. The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, agreements and covenants contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned., terminated or amended without the express approval of the Town of Vail. Manor modifications to the site plan and this Declaration will be allowed pursuant to the amendment procedures for minor amendments as provided in Section 15.40.100, Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. 0 4 IN WITNEss WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the Declarant herein, have hereunto set their hands and seals this day of , 1993. DECLARANT: Erich Schmetzko Lily Schmetzko STATE OF } ss» COUNTY OF j The foregoing instrument was subscribed, affirmed, and sworn to before me this day of , 1993, by Erich Schmetzkos Witness my hand and seal.. The foregoing instrument was subscribed, affirmed, and sworn to before me this day of , 1993, by Lily Schmetzko, Witness my hand and seal. My commission expires. Notary Public /decschm3 0 5 ARTHUR L MAM, P.E., INC. NatuMl l-laW& Cauvlt"U 222 E,# Cvthk Ave. GL. r . Cdorxda 81230 303 -641-3236 July 10, 1992 Mr. Mike Foster Victor Mark, Donaldson Architects, F.C. Box 5300 Avon, CO 816,20 Dear Mr. Foster: I have reviewed the site plan and cross sections dated 7/7192 of the proposed Sclumetzko debris-flow defense in West Vail and offer the following suggcstions and commCizts. As noted on page 11 of ray April, 1992. report, the mitigation design must consist of three parts, (a) design of an impact wall 11 feet high, (b) design of a basin to contain 3,100yd' of mud, water, rack, and dc;bris, and (c) design of a drainage channel for water runoff. (a) ]IMPACT WALL. Your drawings show an impact wall 11--feet high, a.s I recommended, although a portion of this surface is the sloping bed of the basin. This differs from the vertical surface Iprogoscd in my report, I tetrostrmentl increasing the height from 11 to 12 feet Me use the enemy of the flow will not be dissipated as quickly with the sloping surface and debris climbing heights will be slightly gseatcr. The impact surface, bath vc3-tical and sloping, must be stable against the loads shown in Figure ? (E) of my report. The constant load (2,170psf) acts over the lower 4.5 ft and their decreases to zero at 9.6 feet. The 121-foot height provides a "freeboard" of 2.4 feet above this level. Safety factors have not been included in the loads I provided but are somctinics added by the structural engineer during the final design process. I recommend that safety factor ate of a magnitude consistent with factors used in design of catthett structures exposrd to dynamic leads of other types (earthquakes, etc.). (b) BASIN VOLUME. The required basin volume is 3,100 yd3, calculated below a horizontal plw,.e that intersects the impact wall 2.4 feet below the top (1. additional font of, freeboard has been added, as discusser) in [a]). 1 have not calculated this Storage volume from your drawings, but you are responsible for ensuring that this storage volume exists. (c) DRAINAGE CHANNEL. A drainage chanme;l is an essential part of the total mitigation design system. Debris flows are rare events at thl.* location, but snowmelt runoff may produce substantial water runoff during many years, even during years with no debris flows. Water from the upper channel must, therefore, be conveyed through the debris basin and safely thrmigh tale property at all times, including non-debris flow years of high water runoff. The water drainage channel must be designed through usual open-channel hydraulics procedures, given a design center flood discharge (i.e., the 100--year flood or whatever standard is used at Vail must be assumed in calculations). The flowing water must not erode Cantra'F, Crtnp Mx4Wwu4 • Ao4"-&s • A hc the basin structure, become ponded in the basin, or it advertLntly diverted to another direction where it may damage downstream facilities or property. Furthermore, the debris basin must never become a pond unless this is desired. If this is desired, the lower basin wall must be designed in accordance with State of Colorado standards for design of darns and spillways. If a pond is not desired, the normal flood runoff roust at all times be conveyed through the basin. The alignment of the drainage channel is not important as long as drainage conditions are satisfied. I did not specify a surface drainage swale on the west side of the property as indicated can your site plan. I believe this was specified by Michact Hazard. After a debris flow occurs and solid material is trapped in the basin, the normal water-runoff channel may be obscured or blocked by debris. The debris (rucks, mud, etc.) will not flow out of the basin by itself. When channel blockage occurs water will become temporarily ponded in the basin and may rise to a height that is greater than the debris. This is why a spillway opening trust be provided in the darn wail to convey water to the lower drain.ige channel. '11 is spillway must be designed to convey the water flood discharge that may immediately fellow the debris flow and collects on top of the debris in the basin. Dace again, a 100--year flood discharge may be appropriate in Vail. I believe the driveway you show in your plans will convey this %vatcr, however, final design must ensure that the conveyance structure to the driveway/flood channel never becomes blacked. If it does become; blocked the entire basin may overtop and fail suddenly, cresting widespread damage below the dam. Engineering design for flood runoff is an important part of the final design process and is separate from work I have completed for Mr. Schmctzko. The work I have done simply calculatcs and quantifies the dynamics, fbrcew, and mitigation of the debris flow, not the flood. A safe design must consider both parts of the hydrologic event. I hope these comments have been of some help to you. Please contact me it you have any questions. Sincerely, Arthur I. Mears, P.E. cc. Prick Rosen F .10 3Y 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 13, 1992 Present Staff Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz Jeff Bowen Jill Kammerer Chuck Crist Shelly Mello Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Kathy Langenwalter Tim Devlin Dalton Williams Andy Knudtsen Mary Caster Absent Gena Whitten The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. by Chairperson Diana Donovan. Worksession 1. A request for a work session for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as: Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the South 1/2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Rahge 81 Vilest of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 114 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 114 bearing south 86 20'W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point: Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east line of said SW 114 of the SE 114, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point: Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1 /4 of the SE 1 /4 to a point on its east line; Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point: Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 112 of the SE 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting » July 13, 1992 F ILE 30?Y 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1 /4 of said Section 11; Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, being the point of beginning. Parcel S: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat thereof. Applicant: Erich Schmetxko Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made the staff presentation followed by the applicant's presentation by Mark Donaldson and Rick Rosen. Mark Donaldson asked a question regarding the statement in the staff memo stipulating that the GRFA would have to be distributed evenly among all 7 units. Andy responded that once the acceptable number of units were determined, that the Town would be interested in seeing that number of units with an appropriate amount of GRFA in each one. It was not the desire of the Town to see LDMF densities of GRFA used on the site for only a few dwelling units. After some discussion of the employee housing unit issue, each of the Planning Commission members stated his or her position. Chuck Crist said that the requested density of 9 units was acceptable. Requiring an SDD to document all of the decisions would be nice, but not necessary if a different document could be recorded that would be as effective. Chuck wanted to know who would own the employee housing. Rick Rosen said that ideally they would be free market units restricted to purchasers who were employees. If that alternative was not suitable to the Town, then a homeowners' association would rent the units. Kristan Pritz told the Commission that employee unit deed restrictions do not allow the sale of the units. Rick then said that he may want to reconsider the two unit employee housing component of the proposal. What he had in mind when he suggested it was something like the Pitkin Creek situation. Mark Donaldson asked the Commission if the two employee units that had been proposed were a critical component of the request. The PEC responded that they were. Chuck Crist continued with his comments and said that for sale units for employees would be acceptable to him. His last comment was that the view corridors from the property should be addressed with the site plan. Dalton Williams said that for sale employee housing units were acceptable to him. However, he would prefer that they be rented by the Condominium Association. Dalton had questions about the water channelization. Specifically, where would the water go once it left the spillway of the debris basin and went down the driveway? Would it impact the Days Inn parking lot? 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting • July 13, 1992 2 FIL E ;OPY Kathy Langenwalter said that the current site plan was a good design solution. Given this site plan, Kathy said the density of 9 units was okay. However, in order to insure that this site plan would be constructed in the future, requiring an SDD was imperative for her to support the rezoning request. She believed the site plan could be improved by reducing the 2 to 1 slope, documenting how the annual cleaning of the basin would take place, and preserving the 2 guest parking spaces. Greg Amsden had no problem with the 9 units and agreed with Chuck Crist about the view corridors. Jeff Bowen was concerned about density, unless the request included an SDD component. With an SDD, Jeff believed that the density would be okay. Jeff was particularly concerned about page 4 of the Arthur Mears report. He wanted to know who will be responsible for the annual cleaning of the debris basin. Mark Donaldson responded to this comment and said the homeowners' association would take the responsibility. Diana specifically had questions about the site coverage. She requested the applicants show all of the area which would be site coverage as the current plans only reflected the first floor. In general the Commission believed that the site plan was a good solution for providing a debris flow basin without impacting the adjoining properties too much. They all agreed that this site plan should be documented in conjunction with the rezoning so that a future developer would have to comply with its standards. However, they did not necessarily want to require an SDD if documentation requiring this particular site plan to be constructed in the future could be handled in a different manner. 2. A request for a work session for a conditional use permit, a minor alexterior alteration and site coverage variance to allow for the expansion of an existing outdoor dining deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant. 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Kevin Clair Planner: Shelly Mello Ned Gwathmey presented the proposal. There was general consensus that the location of the deck was acceptable as long as more planting was added to the plan. 3. A request for a minor exterior alteration to add an elevator to the Mill Creek Court building. A part of Lot I Block 5A, Vail Village 5th/ 302 Gore Creek Dr. Applicant: John Kaemmer/Ann Brown Planner: Mike Mollica Mike presented the request to the Commission. The Commission requested that the size of evergreen and aspen trees, proposed to be located, be documented and felt that the elevator would not be a problem in this area. After some discussion a motion was made by Dalton Williams to approve the minor exterior alteration and Greg Amsden seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting • July 13, 1992 3 r ` fftNetworkHair Replacement Process 889 SOUTH BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD f SUITE 100 CLAYTON MISSOURI 63105 • AC 314 • 721.6657 • August 11th, 1992 Town of VaiL Designed Review Board REC??v ,7 75 So. Frontage Roadw V a i L, Colorado 81657` ")` RE.: Re-Zoning of Property from Single DweLLinq to Multi High-Density DweLLinq G e n t L e m e n, - tr I am the Property Owner of 2308 Garmisch Drive and it has been 0-i brought to my attention that SCHMETZKO REALTY CO. is trying to J obtain Re-Zoning from SingLe DweLLinq to Multi High-Density Dwelling. They are supposed to be planning Employee Housing in West Vai L. ?1'?" Being an adjacent Neighbor to the Property in question, I more than strongLy protest such Re-Zoning and ask the City Council to reject such changes. I herewith ask the City Council to please advise me immediately in writing to my St. Louis Address above of any and aLL Meetings and Hearings etc. regarding this matter. Such Re-Zoning would definitely adversely affect my Vacation Home. Again I wish to emphasize that I am totaLLY opposed to Re-Zoning as being petitioned by Schmetzko Realty Co. y yo r , 4NSWV;IEMANV cc: fi Le • r r I a ® INE TMT Town of Vail Dept. of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road VAIL, CO. 61657 Atn. Mr. Andrew Knudtsen Town Planner Annemarie Lampe 2328 Garmisch Drive . P O. Box 2775, Vail, Colorado 81658.303/476.1106 Sep.6, 1992 Ref.: Proposed change of zoning for the SMETZKO Property in West-Vail Dear Mr. Knudtsen, Together with Birgit and Peter Lampe,I, Annemarie Lampe am owner of lot 13 and 14, Vail Das Schone. Only through neigbors was I informed of the proposed change of zoning for the above mentioned property, with which we share a common corner, from primary/ secondary to multifamily housing. Since the time of annexation of West Vail it was decided that in the future it would be primary/secondary only in this peticular area. Since then, all new constrctions were accordingly and new property owners were confident that the appearance of the-area would be secured under this zoning ordinance. If a single owner for reasons of profit would be allowed to build 6 units on a lot zoned for 2, it would set a very unfair precedent for more similiar requests, putting real estate values in doubts. The new construction of a multifamily unit in an area where for over 10 years only primary/secondary homes were permitted would certainly have a very negative impact om the surrounding properties, considerably lowering their values. I therefore strongly oppose any change of the actual zoning and request to be informed about any further steps being taken in this matter. Sincerely A tnema?iea?pee I P_ 2 YlY q f?L August 17, 1992 Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 So Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Water & Sanitation Districts 846 Forest Road Vail CO 81657-5075 RE: 1) Application to Rezone Schmetzco Property Generally Located at 2239 Chamonix Lane from Primary/Secondary to Low Density Multi- ple Family and 2) Request for Sewer Line Easement. As the owners of record of Unit 15-A, 2308 Garmisch Townhouses, we wish to go on record as vigorously opposing the Schmetzco applica- Lion by reason that, when we purchased the property in 1975, we were of the opinion that the zoning status of all the properties in the area would be upheld for the indefinite future except by the unanimous consent of all the affected owners. Approval of the Schmetzco application will downgrade the area, in view of 4 ts proposed intended use, and introduce a population and vehicular density that the area cannot tolerate. It will, also, contribute to a further reduction of surrounding property values which already have suffered enough deterioration it. recent years. We also urge the granting of an easement for the purpose of rerout- ing the comnon sewer line from the 2308 Garmisch Townhouses around the Schmetzco property in order to correct a builder's oversight of long standing. It is completely indefensible to permit an i.ndivid- ual to hold the current owners accountable for something that they had no part in whatsoever and that they had every reason to believe was accomplished in accordance with normally accepted, building and legal practices in effect at the time of construction. How many home buyers and/or attorneys check easement details at clos.ng time? In all fairness, the Schmetzco application for rezoning should not be approved and the 2308 Garmisch Townhouses should be granted an appropriate easement around the Schmetzco property and be permitted to relocate the controversial sewer line without suffering any financial penalty. We firmly believe that the authorities owe us no less than that. We apologize for the late input but, being absentee owners, we had .C1 C. p I1 L rs v ?o1v?:.c3 '? r "ti-on be--ore they ever reachec'_ this stagza. We were also w" a letter, dated 14 May 1992, from the legal represextati,ve of the Holy Cross Electric Association in which we were told that, „holy- Cross and the Town would be putting together a settlement proposal in the near future, and you will be contacted at that time to determine the extent to which you wish to participate. You will probably also need to make your decision fairly quickly. Holy Cross is sending you this advance letter to enable you to be better prepared to decide at that time". There never was any follow-up to the letter. SHIAx{?NREVIT? r-i" G4( A I? HIXOXIaEV'IT Info: Terence J Quinn Esq Susan R Fox E'sq Hans Wiemann FILE:01-PERSONAL.4/TOWNVAIL.082 E tr 3411 SILVER MAPLE PLACE, FALLS t;,avrxCH VA 22042-3545 D lafk15 1: a oNcep" .j 4 Pat, C C f-KO P d ?r Q??pax?d fat P- 'RosetA PrBPared 13Y P.., Inc. pehur I. ears` g92 Gun6lson 6"Po: ? 1's add ; t Jr 1 OBJECTIVES AND L1MITA,TIONS This analysis of debris-flow and rockfall hazard and mitigation on the Schmetzko property in West Vail was requested by Mr. Richard Rosen. The analysis has the following objectives: a. Analysis and quantification of rockfall; b. Specification of rockfall mitigation; • c. Analysis and quantification of debris flow; d. Specification of debris-flow mitigation; and e. Description of the risk from geologic hazards. The report has the following limitations which should be understood by ail those planning and permitting development in this hazard area: a. This site specific analysis may be appropriate for this site only and is not necessarily applicable to other sites; b. The dimensions (depth, width, length) of the debris-flow mitigation system proposed in this report must be maintained at all times in order for the system to be effective; and c. There exists some small probability that the design debris--flow volume assumed in this study will be exceeded and the protection plan proposed will not contain the entire flow. • 1 2 ROCIKFALL ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION 2.1 RCCKFALL HAZARD According to Town of Vail mapping, a portion of the property is exposed to "moderate severity" rockfall hazard. This study analyzed potential rockfall hazard in detail so that structural mitigation could be incorporated into design, if necessary. The rockfall source area affecting the property and building site is located in and directly below sandstone cliff outcroppings approximately 850 feet northwest and 850 feet above the proposed building site. A site investigation conducted on March 28 evaluated the following: a. Design rock size (found to be a 2-foot diameter rock); b. Terrain profile; and c. Surface roughness, hardness, and vegetation cover. These factors ("a," "b," and "c") were used in the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) to compute rockfall velocity, bounce height, and travel distance. The analysis using the CRSP model indicated that rockfall will not reach the building site. This conclusion could not be supported by site inspection of the proposed building area because this area has undergone extensive earthwork modification since a debris flow in May, 1984; earthwork removed field evidence of previous rockfall. 2.2 ROCKFALL. MITIGATION Rockfall mitigation will not be necessary at the building site. Although rockfall may reach the northern edge of the property during extreme conditions, any rack reaching the property would stop in the debris--flaw mitigation basin discussed in Section 3 of this report. A --- ray ' t rl ? 'tu?f4 ?,ya a U 2 3 DEBRIS-FLOW ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION 3.1 DEBRIS-FLOW HAZARD A debris flow occurred on the property during May, 1984. This flow spread laterally over the property, transported large boulders and mud into buildings east of the property, and caused moderate damage. Because debris flows may occur in the future and constitute a hazard at this location, mitigation is required. 3.2 DEBRIS-FLOW CHARACTERISTICS AT SITE Debris flows may result during times when the soil cover is saturated, internal soil strength is small, and surface and subsurface runoff is high. In 1934 the debris flow resulted as a small debris avalanche occurred at approximately 9,800 feet elevation on the east-facing slope in the canyon north of the property and deposited into the stream channel. The stream was experiencing high snowmelt water runoff at the time, combined with the debris avalanche, and produced a debris flow. The resulting debris flow consisted of a mixture of water, mud, rocks, and organic material that descended the stream channel and deposited on the alluvial fan upon which the buildings and property are located. Rocks up to three feet in diameter were transported by the flow onto the private property. The flow transported some of the debris against the buildings and deposited some debris on the alluvial fare above the building sites. Debris flows of this magnitude appear to be rare events with relatively long return periods at this site. No similar events have been reported since the early 1960's when Vail was founded. Furthermore, inspection of aerial photography dated 1939, 1950, 1962, and 1974 indicates that flows have not occurred at least since the early part of the 20th century; they probably have not occurred at this site for at least 100 years. Events of this magnitude may have a return period of roughly one century (an annual probability of 1%). However, specification of a return period is speculative given the available data base and the statistical interdependence of debris-flow and landslide activity on steep slopes in the Vail area. 3.3 DEBRIS FLOW DYNAMICS Debris flow dynamics must be calculated to design structural defense facilities and prevent flows from reaching and damaging buildings. The important design parameters resulting from a dynamics analysis are. (a) flow thickness, (b) impact pressure, (c) velocity, and (d) flow volume. The following assumptions and procedures were used to compute these design parameters. a. An initial release volume of 1000 m3 (1,300yd3) released as a debris avalanche from the steep east-facing slope at approximately 9,000 feet elevation similar to many releases observed in May, 1984. 0 . 3 b. The debris-flow mass is assumed to stop at approximately the 8,000--foot elevation level, thus zero velocity was assumed for this elevation. High-water discharge will, of course, continue to transport and disperse debris below 8,000 feet. c. Flow velocity, flow thickness, and mass distribution through time was computed by applying a stochastic flow model that simulates flow distribution through time. Additional details of the modeling procedure are in Appendix A. This detail of debris-flow dynamics can be used by the engineer In final design modifications of the defense system, if required. 3.4 DEBRIS-FLOW MITIGATION Debris-flow mitigation will consist of three parts: a. Designing a debris-flow impact surface on the uphill side of the building or downhill side of the basin; b. Providing sufficient storage volume for the flow; and c. Providing for water runoff during periods of normal high water runoff and providing channelization from the deposited debris. mass. Farts "a" and "b" are discussed in this report. Design details of the water channelization must be provided as in standard storm runoff studies, are beyond the scope of this study, and probably cannot be specified without architectural design details or final building layout. The debris flow basin and dam system are sketched in. Figures 1 and 2. 3,5 EFFECTIVENESS AND MAINTENANCE OF MITIGATION SYSTEM In order to remain effective against debris flows of design magnitude,-the basin and impact wall mitigation system must be maintained at the design size even if another debris flow occurs and partially or completely fills the basin. The following must be inspected each year, or after any debris flow: a. Impact wall height --- a wall height of approximately 11 feet must be maintained (Figure 2 A, B, and C); b. Basin volume -- the basin storage volume (3,100 yda) must be maintained (plan view shown in Figure 1, cross-section shown in Figure 2A); 4 c. Normal water-runoff channel -- the channel, designed to convey normal stream water runoff (not debris flows), must be maintained at all a times above, through, and below the basin/dam system. The annual inspection must determine if conditions "a," "b," and "c" are satisfied. If they are not, the mitigation system may not be effective against a debris flaw of design magnitude. Some small' probability exists that flows of larger than design magnitude will occur. An example of a larger event occurred in Booth Creek during May, 1984. Such a large debris flow appears to be unlikely at this location because large volumes of unconsolidated glacial deposits are not present on the valley walls above the site. • • 5 4 HAZARD TO ADJACENT PROPERTY The proposed debris-flow mitigation system will not increase the hazard to adjacent public or private property. The damistorage basin system proposed will, in fact reduce the hazard to adjacent property if (a) the basin and channel are tied in properly to the uphill terrain, (b) the wall and basin are built to the design standards specified, (c) the design flow volume is not exceeded, and (d) the drainage channel is property located and designed. 5 RESIDUAL HAZARD IN AREA The structural defense system proposed in this study is intended to protect buildings and persons who are in the building when the debris flow occurs. However, the persons one wished to protect may be outside when the debris flow occurs and therefore could be e::posed to the hazard regardless of the mitigation system. Although rockfall does not reach the buildings and does not require structural defense, rolling rocks may constitute a hazard to persons within the debris basin or on the slopes behind the property. These residual risks are small and usually are discounted in planning residential development. The Town of Mail has no hazard restrictions in residential areas where buildings or other fixed facilities are planned. This small risk outside of buildings can be reduced even further if residents are aware of the potential problem and take normal precautions during periods likely to produce debris flow or rockfall. Self- education about debris flow, rockfall and other geologic hazard is recommended for residents of this area. 6 t APPENDIX A: Debris-flow dynamics Debris flow dynamics were calculated through application of a 27steP procedure as follows: a. STARTING AND STOPPING POSITIONS. The debris flow starting and stopping positions were determined from studies of valley geometry, locations of previous source areas, and depositional features on the alluvial fans. No attempt was made to predict debris-flow stopping positions through dynamics modeling. b. DEBRIS FLOW DYNAMICS. Debris-flow dynamics were computed through application of a stochastic particle-dynamics model in which the initial avalanche mass was represented as a large number of particles accelerating down the slope into the debris-flow channel. The model was used to represent the assumed release volume and further simulates additional entrained material as the flow spread between lateral and longitudinal boundaries observed in the field. Approximately 9010 of the flow volume (3,100 yd3)is found to pass the design location (8,010 foot elevation), in a period of 9.2 seconds. This is considerably more than the release volume (1,300 yd), and accounts for i entrainment of debris in the channel. A flow width of 65'feet (20m) is assumed on the upper alluvial fan from field evidence. The peak flow thickness is computed as 6.1 feet. Flow velocities of 22 to 28 feet/sec ! were calculated at the 8,010 foot elevation level. The computed flow thickness, impact pressure, and velocity at the 8,010-foot elevation are shown on Figures 3, 4, and 5. Each of these flow parameters are shown as a function of time since the beginning of the debris avalanche. 7 \0 fILL -f- . IT o' 19 2",5 I^.' ,7 J FIGURE 1. Proposed layout of debris-flow basin/wall system. Final basin shape may differ from that outlined here, but wall position and s height (Figure 2), and basin volume (3,100 yd'), as specified in text must y be maintained. Water drainage channel (dashed line), must also be designed in accordance with hydraut'ic-engineering practice and regularly maintained. g80r , 1 1 r it r? (A) Basin cross section _?. Debris flow ? _ ._. direction zxx -- moo tCl tY tCtCV to . s ? '` ?d: ' 1 I i (B) Impact wall detail (O) Spillway detail ` (1"-10') (1"=10I . . . 1. 0 ' .? ? J S=l" (Impact (Impact Wall Wall) tt/ .. .r s... . ? .... . _ ? °. . ... a 2170 -- ?`?0.s ya:'• Psf NOTE: Drainage channel must be designed for peak water runoff associated: with this drainage basin. Runoff discharge is not calculated in this report. FIGURE 2. Debris-flow mitigation basin, showing cross-section view (A), impact loads on wall (B), and "spillway„ design. Steel bars across spillway must also resist the loads shown in (C). E F.OWT? ctv_ss Debris flow at 8010 feet elevation 7-- 6-x cn c? 4- c x a ? 2- ti 1-/ r .. 41.8 44.9 48.0 51.0 54.1 57.1 60.2 63.3 66.3 69.4 Time Since Flow Start (Sec) FIGURE 3. Debris flew thickness as a function of time since the start'of the flow. For design purposes, the average flow thickness (4.5 feet) over the three maximum time intervals (from 44.9 to 54.1 seconds) was used for the design flow thickness. 8 -.OW V . OC1 1"'Y Debris flow at 8010 feet elevation 35- 30- r N 25-z 20-? 15-? a0 10-' 5-1/ 4 FIGURE 4. Debris flow velocity as a function of time sine the start of the flow. For design purposes, the average velocity (26 fusee) over the three time intervals of maximum flow thickness (from 44.9 to 54.1 seconds) was used for the design velocity. 9 41.3 44.9 43.0 51.0 54.1 57.1 60.2 63.3 66.3 69.4 Time Since Flow Start (Sec) ? t rt . e t? • 3000-1 2500-, 2000-1 1500-/ CL CL 1000-° E 500-11~ 0-,/ FIGURE 5. Debris impact pressure as a function of time since the start of the flow. For design purposes, the average impact pressure (2,170 psf) over the three time intervals of maximum flow thickness (from 44.9 to 54.1 seconds) was used for the design impact pressure. IMPACT ESS U I WE Debris flow at 8010 feet elevation 0 10 41.3 44.9 43.0 51.0 54.1 57.1 60.2 63.3 00.3 69.4 Time Since Flow Start (See) APPENDIX B: Design of Mitigation Mitigation design consists of (a) specifying an impact wall height and strength to re ist impact, (b) specifying a debris basin volume, and (c) maintaining an open channel for normal spring runoff. The procedures for calculating "a" and "b" are discussed in this appendix. a. IMPACT WALL. The height of the impact surface is determined by adding the average of the three maximum flaw thicknesses shown in Figure 3 ((6.1 + 4.1 + 3.3]/3 = 4,5 feet} to the modified velocity head V2/4g, where velocity, V is the average velocity during these same three time intervals. Thus the modified velocity head, from Figure 4, is calculated (j28 + 27 + 221/3}2/128.8 = 5.1 feet, and the impact wall height is 4.5 + 5.1 = 9.6 feet. The impact loading on the wall is the average impact pressure (2550 + 2350 + 1600)/3 = 2170 psf over a height of 4.5 feet. This pressure decreases linearly to zero from the top of the flow at 4.5 feet until the top of the impact wall is reached at 9.6 feet. The recommended wall height of 11 feet provides a "safety factor" of 1.4 feet. The impact design parameters are shown in Figure 213. Depositional loading will occur against the wall after the flow has stopped, but depositional loads will be less than impact loads. b. BASIN VOLUME. The debris storage basin can be any shape as long as the volume of the dam can contain the design debris flow (3,100 yd). A recommended layout for this basin is shown on Figure 1 however, a final shape can be modified in final landscaping plans. The basin must be designed so that water will drain freely through the basin and down the channel. Maintenance must ensure that the basin does not serve as a pond for standing water. We recommend that a site inspection be conducted to ensure the basin serves the intended purpose of protecting the site. c. DRAINAGE CHANNEL. A drainage channel must be maintained at? the eastern side of the property. The purpose of this channel will be to convey normal spring runoff through the property, it is not intended to convey debris flows. This channel must also convey water after a large debris flow occurs, therefore an opening must be built into the wall that will stop debris but allow water to flow into the channel. This channel "spillway" must be blocked by horizontal pipes approximately 18" to 22" apart that will enable passage of water and fine debris but not rocks. These pipes must be designed to resist the impact loads specified in Figure 213. 1, n aXa`AC? ahutwea sWNr ? WTew°T rMa" ref-rr'r Lm ' m- nw'ew,+ ? rreRA rte, ru.._ v Tar ar WA" aaos? ` 00 -1 OOAXM rrr A_? IN LOT S PWVA a VW" / Ta r rt ? / ..rTH.a? ? r?v+x rx rr. r ? ?rt.w*e rm. I'"?- ou x?+c ausue 0 L ! // ????! i /f l( 1 i 1 I (!f!!!!/,? LO // 1 t I I I f !7111/! 1 =unm I" / A24t 1 I 1 i(I('JE / .- r r y/ i ? t I I i I/ / / emrwiwrr ram "a b MI WIfN 111_ r r um rm 1 . {ry+ ! d. LOT 5 VAL"WI,*0KriFgi vrb w..aww ?,. na I J ? ` & -71W ?s r PLAN dgft%., 13 -71 NOTEa 7F - "A" - 1 ST. LEVEL. (6.R.FAJ - 92 50.FT. - PAFtrlN6 REOURED - 16 SPACES - re "A" - 1 ST. LEVEL &ARAGE - 480 541.FT. PARKt'kr SHOWN - 26 SPACES n '74 t f I j "A" - 2 ND. LEVI t6:R.F.AJ - 766 SOFT. ?r 22L0" WIDE DRIVE 74 "A" - 5 RD. LEVEL t6.R.FAJ - 766 50PT. 6% GRADE ALOi "A" - TOTAL *.KFAJ - 162a SOFT. - FOR ZONlNro REVEW ONLY. CIVIL/WaZARD eMMERM AND DETAILS 7' 'w 72 "A" - TOTAL Wfz F.Aa X 7 UNITS - M96 SOFl% ftVa ARED FOR ANY FURTHER APPROVALS. 72 r ? - WORMA noN RE&Af D-VM THE MPACT t WALL; AND CATCH 13A5IN PREPARED 6Y r1?I ? , ? r 10 "5" - 1 ST. LEVEL WKFAJ - 92 50-FT. ARTHUR L MEARS. P.E.. M. &UMISOM r ,tea COLORADO, APRIL. 1992. "5" - 1ST. LEVEL frARAFsE - 240 SOFT. "S" - 2 ND. LEVEL t?.R.FAJ - 460 5OFT. y '5" - 5 RD. LEVEL (6.KFAJ - 4410 SOFT. 2" - S" CAL.. ASPENS CHflMONix LR E (50') "5" - TOTAL *.KFA.) - 10:52 SOFT. "6" - TOTAL (&.R.FAJ X 2 UNITS - 2104 SOFT. 6' - d' COLORADO &LUE SPRUCE tr -T01- OP WALL 7vo l I $ r: ?II?N. I .yr •- , r .,.. .?.. .... ._.. a .., r^ / / / W NLTAtMi LOT 4 .a. - Y99a - \ r r , j ,.wum Lm li -t 06 Waco nt" 11116 Y' ?` p fit/ p y .? s "Lm "A" - TOTAL (6.R.F-4J X 7 UNITS - 11596 SO.PT. "8" - TOTAL tS.R.FAJ X 2 UNITS - 2104 SOFT. TOTAL *A.F.A.) 9 UNITS - IS500 54LFT. 300/949-5200 FAX/949-5205 VICTOR RK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS, P.C. Anrr rrw•rr^re rnr nr ,crr rrtrr• It rr.-nrrvnr n_ 44- n t v ro 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 8, 1993 (Revised memo for February 22, 1993) Ali revisions are indicated in bold italic type SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck for the Uptown Grill Restaurant, located at 521 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail L,ionshead, First Filing. Applicant: Joel Fritz and Richard N. Brown Planner: Tim Devlin . .. ; DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The applicant is proposing to create an outdoor dining deck adjacent to the east entry of the Uptown Grill Restaurant, in the area which presently surrounds the "Bird of Paradise" sculpture. The Uptown Grill is part of the Vail 21 Building, and the property is zoned Commercial Core 2 (CC2) District. Outdoor patios (dining decks) are allowed in CC2 as a conditional use per section 18.26.030 of the Municipal Code. Please note that presently an outdoor dining deck exists on the south side of the restaurant. If approved, the outdoor dining deck seating will be available for year-round use and is proposed to have an espresso cart located on it from which coffee products and food items would be sold. The staff considers service carts of the type proposed by the applicant to be a part of restaurant operations, thereby allowing them to be placed on approved outdoor dining decks. All such carts are subject to Design Review Board approval. The dining deck is proposed to have approximately 10-12 tables with seating for 40-48 persons. Three site plans are attached showing the location of. 1.) the existing conditions; 2.) Alternate Deck Configuration #1; and 3.) Alternate Deck Configuration #2. The alternate configurations for the deck will depend on the relocation of the Bird of Paradise Sculpture, and are explained in detail in Section 11 of this memo. It should be noted that the Art in Public Places (AIPP) committee has allocated funds to move the "Bird of Paradise" approximately 36-40 inches to the east of its present location. The boundary of the deck is proposed to be of the same type used to define the dining deck on the south side of the restaurant, which is a lattice-type fence with planter boxes located on top. Please note that the applicant has agreed to have the Uptown Grill open at all times during which the deck is in open to customers to enable patrons to use rest rooms inside the restaurant Ii BACKGROUND At the February 8, 1993 PEC Meeting, this item was tabled to allow the applicant to propose a different location for the Bird of Paradise sculpture to the Lionshead Merchant's Association. It was decided that once a location could be agreed upon by the Lionshead Merchant's Association, Community Development staff was to present this proposal to the AIPP for final approval On February 16, 1993, the applicant submitted to the staff a letter written by Mr. Packy Walker, president of the Lionshead Merchant's Association, that stated that the association never agreed to move the sculpture 40 inches to the east of its present location. Mr. Walker's letter also states that the association did agree to move it directly east of its present location to the planter between the bus stop and the pedestrian walkway in front of the Vail 21 Building. A copy of Mr. W'alker's letter is attached for review. During the summer of 1992, Community Development and Public Works staff looked at the above described planter location, and it was determined that not enough room existed in the planter to accommodate the sculpture, even if several aspen trees located in the planter were removed. The sculpture needs a base of at least 6 feet by 6 feet, and It was determined that the sculpture could not be placed in the planter without increasing the size of the planter, for which funds are not available. Therefore, at this time, the proposed planter location is not feasible. As a result, the staff and the AIPP opted to move the sculpture forward approximately 40 inches to accommodate the merchant's desire to keep the piece in this general location as well as the concern to allow for pedestrian access through the area. The staff has agreed to present possible alternate locations for the sculpture to the AIPP as soon as possible. If any or all of these alternate locations are acceptable to the AIPP, they will be presented to the Lionshead Merchants at the next association meeting, which has been scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 3, 1993. At that time, the merchants can decide (or vote) on the new location of the sculpture. These suggested alternate locations include the following: 1.) In the area of the southwest corner of the Frontage Road and East Lionshead Circle; please see the attached Site Plan - Alternate Deck Configuration # 1. 2.) 8-9 feet east of its present location, to line up with the east facade of Colorado Insight and to not impede pedestrian traffic through this area; please see the attached Site Plan - Alternate Deck Configuration # 2 A brief site visit is scheduled for the February 22, 1993 PE'C meeting to show these possible locations for the sculpture. If other locations (in addition to the two above) 2 are recommended by the AIPP, these will be taken to the Lionshead Merchant's Association meeting on March 3rd as well. Assuming this request for a Conditional Use Permit Is granted by the PEC, and the sculpture Is removed from the general area in which it is presently located (i.e. Alternate Location #1), the staff could support an outdoor dining deck for the Uptown Grill which extends up to the southeast corner of the Colorado Insight building. The deck should not extend past this point in order to maintain pedestrian access through the area. Please see the attached Site Plan - Alternate Deck Conf'iauration #1. However, If the new locution for the sculpture Is to be 8-9 feet east of its present location (i.e. Alternate Location #2), then the staff would recommend that the eastern boundary of the deck be located 3 to 6 feet away from the sculpture to allow complete public access to It. Please refer to the Site Plan - Alternate Deck Conflouration #2. Subsequent conversations between the Community Development staff and the applicant have taken place, and the applicant is agreeable to the process and recommendations discussed above. A copy of the February 8, 1993 meeting minutes for this item is also attached for review. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The Town of Vail zoning code does not stipulate the need for any additional parking spaces for outdoor dining decks. None of the other zoning or development standards would be affected with this proposal. IV. RELATED POLICIES OF THE VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The proposed deck is consistent with the following Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan Guidelines. The site is zoned Commercial Core 2 and these guidelines should be used in reviewing the proposal: Decks and Patios: E.1. "Functional decks or patios primarily for dining are strong street life elements in Lionshead and are highly encouraged, on either the ground or second floor level". E.2. "Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: sun, wind, views, pedestrian activity, accessibility." Accent Elements: F.1. "Judicious use of colorful accent elements, consistent with existing character of Lionshead are encouraged, such as:... annual color flowers 3 0 and beds or planters, in balcony or window boxes." Staff did not find any applicable elements in the Streetscape Plan. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits of the zoning code, the Community Development Department recommends proval of the conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck based on the following factors. A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The staff feels that an outdoor dining deck in this area could be a positive addition to this area of Lionshead. However, the staff feels that the deck should be located entirely to the west of the 'Bird of Paradise" sculpture (if the sculpture remains in the same general area) so as to not impede access to the sculpture. If the sculpture is moved to a location out of this general area as described in Section 11 of this memo, the staff would support the east boundary of the dining deck extending up to the southeast corner of Colorado Insight. It is felt that this configuration would not impede pedestrian flow through the area. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public needs. The staff feels that the "Bird of Paradise" sculpture should remain fully accessible to the general public and should not be located within the confines of the proposed outdoor dining deck. Further, the staff feels that the boundary of the deck should be no closer than 5 to 6 feet from the sculpture to allow for unimpeded access to it. If the sculpture Is moved to a location away from the general area in which it is presently located, these concerns would not apply: The staff does not feel that this proposal negatively effects the other above listed criteria. 3. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from street and parking areas. Depending on the final outcome of the Bird of Paradise relocation, the staff feels that the sculpture (if it remains in the same area) should not extend east of the Colorado Insight east facade. If the sculpture is moved out of the general area, the staff feels that the deck should not extend east of the southeast corner of the Colorado Insight Building. The staff feels that such configurations will minimize 4 0 the negative effects on pedestrian traffic flow. Please note that the Public Works Department has also expressed concern that snow storage for the area needs to be addressed by the applicant. Presently, the Vail 21 Building is responsible for snow removal in the area, and snow is "stored" on the base of the sculpture. 4. Effect upon character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, Including the scale and bulk of the proposed use In relation to the surrounding uses. The staff believes an outdoor dining deck in this area would have a positive effect upon the character of the immediate area. However, the staff feels that if the deck is allowed to extend east of the "Bird of Paradise" (if the sculpture remains in the same general area), the sculpture would be less accessible to the public and that pedestrian traffic flow through the area, would be negatively impaired. If the sculpture is relocated away from the general area in which it is presently located, the staff feels that the dining deck boundary could extend to the east up to the southeast corner of the Colorado Insight building without negatively impacting pedestrian traffic. B. Findinos: The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before cgrantina a conditional use aermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code a'hd the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V1. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends p2proval of the request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck to be located in the general area of where the Bird of Paradise sculpture is presently located. Since the final location of the sculpture is yet to be determined by the Lionshead Merchant's Association and the AIPP, the staff recommends that the following conditions be placed on the outdoor dining deck if it is approved by the PECa 10 1.) If the Bird of Paradise is moved away from the general loqation in which it 5 Is presently located, the staff recommends that the eastern boundary of the deck should extend no further then the southeast corner of the Colorado Insight building. Please see the attached Site Plan - Alternate Deck Configuration #1. 2.) If the Bird of Paradise is moved 8-9 feet to the east of its present location, the staff recommends that the eastern boundary of the dining deck shall come no closer than 5-6 feet from the western edge of the pedestal on which the sculpture is mounted. The staff feels that this will allow for public access to the sculpture and pedestrian traffic through the area. Please see the attached Site Plan - Alternate Deck Configuration #2. 3.) Until the sculpture is moved, the staff recommends that the eastern boundary of the deck shall remain at feast 5 feet away from the Bird of Paradise to allow complete access to the sculpture. 4.) Staff also recommends that a railing, bollards, or a combination of planters and railings should be used to define the boundaries of the deck, as discussed in Section IV of this memo, except in the area where the boundary is defined by the north wall (facade) of the Krismar Building. The staff believes that the delineation to be used should be presented to the ©RB for final determination on its design. 5.) Customers must come on to the deck to purchase coffee and food items; products shall not be served over the railing to patrons that are outside of the deck area. 6.) The Uptown Grill Restaurant shall be open while the deck Is being operated to allow customers to use facilities inside the restaurant. 7.) The applicant (or Vail 21) shall provide snow removal and storage for the deck area that is acceptable to the Public Works Department.. In no Instance should the base of the Bird of Paradise sculpture be used for snow storage. Please note that under Section 16.60.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or thb use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two vears from when the aDoroval becomes final. 11 11 EXHIBIT A - IT DOO GvJ?, 4 4 S; I C-4 C _GZt s MAr. 3t/ `v:{7 z , ` _ i I :' l fqri EXHIBIT A -?` EXHIBIT A • • is 2? l3 1 F f_ MA (Z /ev 31 d° { 1 Pr s" 1 ?i S tL & . r ? ` el?,eAL? /NSt?tf! ?r^e n LIONSHEAD MERCHANT ASSOCIATION February 10, 1993 Joel'Fritz Uptown Grill By Hand Dear Joel: The Lionshead Merchants Association never agreed to allow the bird of Paradise to be moved forty inches to the t6A5:7- We did agree to allow it to be moved directly of its present location to the planter between the Bus Stoll and the pedestrian walkway in front of the Vail 21 Building. The Arts in Public places people and the town staff were told this at a regular Lionshead Merchant Association meeting. S' ly, P y lker President 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a work session for a major exterior alteration to allow exterior modifications to the Hill Building located at 254 Bridge Street/a part of tot L, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Blanche Hill Planner: Shelly Mello DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting to add 120 square feet of additional retail floor area to Curtin Hill Sports. All additions are on the first floor, and involve the enlargement of existing bay windows, changes to entries, and the addition and deletion of landscaping. A total of 214 square feet will be added and 94 square feet will be deleted fora net increase of 120 square feet of retail floor area. The applicant proposes to infill the notched entry door on the northeast corner as well as the notched entry door on the north elevation. 69 square feet of planter box at the northeast entrance will also be removed with the proposal. The applicant also proposes to cut the northwest corner of the building at a 45 degree angle which will remove 94 square feet of floor area, and 56 square feet of landscaping in order to add a new entry which faces Eaton Plaza. This will be similar to the entry treatment located adjacent to this property at Christy Sports. The west entrance will also be infilled for an additional 108 square feet. This addition was approved by the PEG under a separate application in 1992. The previous application moved the doors out to be on the same plane as the building elevation. The current proposal shows windows where the doors were to be located. The additional floor area for this addition has been included in the calculations for this proposal. A total of 66 square feet of retail space will be added by expanding bay windows on the north and west sides of the building. These windows will be cantilevered over existing paved areas and planted areas. While it will not remove existing soil, these bay windows will decrease the amount of plantable area. A net total of 146 square feet of landscaping will be lost due to the enlargement of the bay windows and the other modifications. 102 square feet of new planting beds are proposed. There is a net loss of 42 square feet of planted area. There are no signs proposed with this application. All requests to change signage and to amend the approved sign variance for this property must be reviewed by the Design Review Board. C ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Size: Zoning: Site Coverage: Allowed - Existing - Proposed - 8407.8 sq. ft. Commercial Core I 6726.24 or 80% 5963 or 71% 6022 or 71.6% Parking: .37 parking spaces The applicant will be required to contribute $3013 to the Town of Vail parking fund. The proposed addition will require .37 of a parking space. The parking fee for retail expansions in Commercial Core I is $8000 per space. Ill. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements that establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Piarl which includes a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use, planning and design considerations and architectural/landscape criteria for evaluating a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan and the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan also address specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. In addition to these master plans, zoning considerations are also a factor in reviewing proposals of this nature. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND CONSIDERATIONS: There are three specific sub-area concepts in the Urban Design Guide Plan relevant to this proposal. They are as follows: 10. Seibert Circle. Feature area paving treatment. 10A. Mountain gateway improvements. Landscaping screen, minor plaza, pedestrian connection loop to Wall Street. 11. Limited building expansion/improvements. Increase facade transparency on south side to strengthen pedestrian activity, with entry to street. Potential expansion of building to south property line. Additional vertical expansion may be considered on south end of building to improve street enclosure proportions 2 but must respect designated Hill Street - Gore Range view corridors. Potential second level open balcony deck (sun pocket) to restore activity to street lost from ground floor terrace. NOO? =\ The first of these deals with improvements to Seibert Circle. The plan calls for paving improvements. This intent is also repeated in the Vail Village Streetscape Plan. We are recommending that the applicant construct a paver treatment along the south and east side of the building which will be compatible with the plan for Seibert Circle. (Please see page Section Vill, 7 of this memo.) Concept 1 OA discusses mountain gateway improvements. This calls for increased landscaping, a minor plaza and pedestrian connection loop to Wall Street, This concept does relate to this proposal as it suggests that landscaping should be maintained in the area between The Golden Peak House and Curtin Hill Sports. The Staff feels that the paver treatment discussed in the previous paragraph would improve this pedestrian connection Sub-area Concept 11 relates to building expansion improvements on the south side of the Curtin Hill Building. It discusses the desire to increase facade transparency on the south side, to strengthen pedestrian activity, and also discusses creating additional entries on the south side. The proposal includes a new entry on the southwest corner of the building which is a positive addition to this corner. This proposal does not include any other improvements to this elevation. 3 V. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE: The following design considerations are critical elements of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development is consistent with this established character. The Design Considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan relating to this site are as follows: 1. Pedestrianization 2. Vehicular penetration 3. Streetscape framework 4. Street enclosure 5. Street edge 6. Building height 7. Views and focal points 8. Service and delivery 9. Sun/shade 10. Architectural and landscape considerations The staff is specifically concerned with how this proposal relates to the streetscape framework and architectural and landscape considerations discussed in the Urban Design Guide Plan. The Design Considerations identify two alternatives for improving the Streetscape framework and pedestrian experience in the Village. These include the development of open space including landscaping along pedestrian routes and the development of in-fill commercial store fronts along pedestrian corridors. While landscaping can provide a softening of buildings and a colorful framework, commercial infill can provide activity generators and visual interest for the pedestrian. Increased transparency of shop frontages, planting and landscaping, paving design, all add to the visual interest of buildings. While the application includes all of these items, the staff feels that further refinement to the application should be made to maintain existing landscaping and to increase the facade articulation of the proposed bay windows by adding some smaller panes to the windows and breaking up the large bay windows into smaller bays. The architectural/landscape considerations discussed in the Urban Design Guide Plan specifically speak to window and door details in the Village. In this regard it says: "In addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an important source of pedestrian scale giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the street adjacent. For close-up casual pedestrian viewing, windows are typically sized to human-sized dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass store fronts suggest uninterrupted viewing from a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is diminished.) Grand floor display windows are typically raised 18 inches and do not extend much over 8 feet above the walkway. Ground floors which are noticeably above grade are exceptions. The articulation of the window itself is still another element giving pedestrian scale (human related dimensions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements and 4 are further subdivided by mullions into small panes which is responsible for much of the Old World charm of the Village. Similarly, windows are often clustered in banks juxtaposed with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window elements especially over long distances, should be avoided. Large single pane windows occur in the Village and provide some contrast, as they are generally consistent in form with other windows. Long, continuous glass is out of the character. Bay, bow and box windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to facades and are encouraged. Reflective glass, plastic panes, aluminum or other metal frames are not consistent in the Village and should be avoided. Metal-clad or plastic-clad window frames, having the appearance of painted wood have been used successfully and are acceptable." n V ?Br-FLV"S pr-t,,rMJr.;JV1J P M15111-1 s `-°Ot;?Hd ?lt?+'Spr?dz?rr,.,;??tY ? „??5ya?ii p¢rct bow Li) box 5 tec Liar Y ,Ji tUt Cal f ' I?fl P QC;d fey?Y1Leu5 C3'°"' B?t In addition, the Urban Design Considerations also specifies that decorative door treatments are desired for Vail. '+?1iniGlBr?C 0 11 d poet k dark kizi+rim of leapt ttZ„ et arL,.CJtafeJ !;Vey I RE I In regard to landscaping, the Urban Design Considerations say this; "Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant selection and design for the sites that do exist." 17J While the applicant does a good job at providing landscaping during the summer months with flower and other plantings, it is the staff's general feeling that it is critical to maintain areas for permanent planting for vegetation such as evergreens and shrubs. While the staff recognizes that the removal of some portion of landscaping is necessary if the bay windows are expanded, the staff feels that the reduction in landscaping could be minimized and the window and door articulation improved. VI. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I Section 18.24.410 Purpose: "The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. 6 The Commercial Core i District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribes site development standards which are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village.,, The staff believes that this proposal is in conformance with the intent of the purpose section of Commercial Core I zoning as stated above. VII. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Goal #2 -To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health viability for the village and for the community as a whole. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. This proposal is generally consistent with the established zoning, the existing uses of the area and will also provide interest and activity to the area, however it is not consistent with the objectives listed under Goal #3 of the Master Plan. In an effort to meet these objectives, the staff finds that there can be modifications to the proposal which will decrease the amount of v 7 landscaping that is removed. This can be accomplished by using standard bays instead of creating expansive single bays. In addition, the staff does not feel the removal of all landscaping at the northeast entrance is merited. Vill. RELATED GOALS OF THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN The following items are discussed in the Streetscape Master Plan and relate to this project. "Where adequate room for permanent landscaping does not exist, seasonal, movable planters should be used. In addition, each new light pole installed should be equipped to handle hanging flower baskets. Seibert Circle is proposed to be replaced by a large planter that is surrounded by low steps for informal seating. A large "specimen" evergreen tree should be maintained in the Circle. Seibert Circle's focal point could be a fountain or an artwdrk feature that will be visible from much of Bridge Street. One theme currently being discussed is a public art project honoring the 1 Oth Mountain Division. Seibert Circle's ability to be used as a performance site should also be considered." The staff does not feel that it is appropriate to require the improvements for Seibert Circle in conjunction with this project. However, we do feel that the applicant should be responsible for providing funds or make improvements that further the goals of the Streetscape Master Plan. After further investigation, the staff would like to see the applicant make improvements to the walkways on the south side of the building and along their property line on the east side between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building. These improvements would be in the form of adding brick pavers to these areas. A similar treatment can be seen across the street at the Red Lion Building where there is an undulating brick paving line adjacent to the building. The staff feels that this would be an appropriate addition to the corridor to the mountain between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building. The staff would ask the applicant to investigate this prior to the final approval for this project. In doing this treatment both the pedestrian area on the south side of the building and the street edge between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building will be improved. IX. CONCLUSION The staff feels that the general design concepts of the proposal are good. There are, elements which the staff feels should be further refined which include window articulation and landscaping. The staff feels that while there is minimal decrease in the amount of landscaping on the site that the landscaping being removed on the north and the east elevations is critical. The staff would suggest that the applicant consider keeping the existing landscaping on the northeast entrance to the building and also modify the proposed bay windows to create individual bays similar to the existing, but larger which allows more planting area to be retained. In conclusion, the staff has the following concerns: 1. Reduction in landscaping along the north elevation and a northeast entry. 2. Window Delineation of bays. 3. Provision of Streetscape Improvements. 8 The staff is also concerned with a longstanding issue which remains on this site. This involves the parking of a vehicle in the right-of-way which is associated with the use of building. While the staff does not feel it is appropriate to associate this issue with the approval or denial of this project, the staff does feels that this issue should be address would like further comment from the Planning Commission on this item. 9 this ed and • 11 lilt 1 { 2l `'' ? 4 t ? f'~ T P._! - Lam-- r it • - ... ? ?? ?'' p??..-.: ,p J a..ra 'K F . iK J. as?wY.•w?2. -.Vt. w-l- t 65 ;? 1 }l >F-_ ?i vvlt? yrr} t -tj , lit K n, • Ot . wee 9xrrryi F.a7 tibap i i ? ? G : ? t 11 ( 1 I ?? t E {f _ ? N?tJ?Mkr?N L-J }t'W wow N p18.GOr'.(6c?2 ?} . @XC??rN.i( CURrvy ANA F:hL i" H ???` _ ? ? /fir N?w ?C.Y 1Nv Vv N S:JE ?/' / ??tw Ra"E35E.> t04- cR ?\ ' ? VNY WD.*/?R ? Tu%11N6. bP.; W?f/ ?t?W WarJ 1 OP haW cO4NE?L 2h1''i>:JGC ./ f ? R?RP4E EYa /'[1f?'s , ? hNtM+EN MM,rf! PP?:h // tvR? wawy E$CYl'; fNV k:F;uc w.?Jl'N / N= v Pxc wca? P?t-?.?1cs x;aFe ? E ?-i ??'C.k?L ? ( ?1NOwN w lavtiu'N :' ash cacti ib. P:>?aH N+O c?.tt ?cyCrri",N'y rmn er+lry .. OF'@NItY3. FFtiN'i' FINI6N ?X,?, ?b REf^f/1N 0 . Wa57 ?4 cVr'cTiaN T? I ?iL?awi? ?woRJ? E? }? \ f f- .'GOR'1. :FrKf FNttrt t t ?' o p f d. ?! J'IV' Mr.'Fr%?Q?lid a?t ` ' \,h`" <? J?y.R AWN;?E{ NBR ' F bAt20NY A - -'- 4 5 t ??Lrnr'? I ?, j ` 1 - `t IE f ^-i' N w,a:' e5r•1 "G.fhot? ? ? s'. r f .[. t? - 4 i""" -4vJ ww wt7JJ ecY? 4- Nd .11Z RHL L ) _ - nil, < pct r ?^-r4iCY5, P./.Y ?ft ? fit, eXiL':FY, [UF$R'C4tu wlf ? ,' ?vP:X-6 `'M -0 ww."s wl°l L { Ncv.? PUN: ax a. NBVJ F3;EyfiEC? L4P.N=C. IP. F+[, ., 698. MIrT H,.?.; ML FWt+£R LbxE?J.- '.,FEAR 5 UNT wav triY wrri?NJ b v?UP { PAIUNeetr GEC^.!o't RzF ML sFSYtN a. it Exyrr? cauac :.o[,?lrs?+v m F6`i'tih4kt. f m tan-rerr A?.V??1T I+a"E-fem. ExsS 2f YoNff . ' kt2w Pvir.°87t< ?5' t P+=y+ ? uNi t' 6yaY YUUa - ats GaaKrrM&- wat.. _ wiNUw+, E)Gbtd? f..F,rcn Y i i R??ti Fltt?{Ca LCC:?i?1C? ,f t ? W cakjweg -a ? Wf New Aj7 E{ WQ7U --. y ?'-'.at`+G bP EXtS?LNG .. ,. .. _... _-. S k N?sY Wo6p WAN Z ' u _lo.2?. WFf'Y FPSr. rf .. Ytt.QUC?r+T ir?c1-{ '-r.{ WY WDJv ? cxt?. rt6 wr*ou?aT --- ? ??-? ! a f ' k4 { a ?tci7lr f? Cor! GU7 47 PAv?Rh ? ? `;'='i Ew,r,irtra 5- N5w, ?D 6a's42. Sriv .. `v -- ?; DI r i x+?fSmdi Vii. '? izeMAiri • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a work session for a site variance to allow an addition to the residence located at Lot 8, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filingl3090 Booth Creek Drive. Applicant: Rose Foster Gillett Planner: Tim Devlin 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a work session for a variance from the maximum allowable site coverage to allow for the expansion of the existing two car garage and to allow for a second floor addition to cantilever out 1 foot over the existing footprint below. The latter addition has already been constructed, and is explained in further detail in Section Il of this memo. The residence is located at 3090 Booth Creek Drive, and the property is zoned Two-Family Residential District (duplex). The maximum allowable site coverage for the Two-Family Residential zone district is 20%. For this particular lot, 20% of the lot area would consist of 2,856 square feet. Before the second floor addition was constructed, the property had 3,353 square feet, or 23.5%, of building located upon the site. The proposed garage addition would add 160 square feet of site coverage, and the second floor addition adds 62 square feet of site coverage for a proposed total of 3,575 square feet or 25.03%. The existing garage is 515 square feet, and the 146 addition would bring the total garage area to 661 square feet. Since 600 square feet is the allowed garage credit for the two spaces, 61 square feet is attributed to GRFA. The existing GRFA for the structure is 3,917 square feet, including the second floor addition already constructed; 3,995 square feet of GRFA is allowed on this site. The additional 61 square feet from the garage added to the existing would bring the total GRFA for the site to 3,978 square feet, or 17 square feet under the allowable. H. BACKGROUND It should first be noted that when the house was constructed, the Town's site coverage definition did not count cantilevered spaces. In 1991, the Town's site coverage definition was changed to include cantilevered areas, and as a result, the existing residence had a site coverage of 3,353 square feet (23.48%), 497 square feet over the allowable 2,856 square feet (20%). Approximately 706 square feet of GRFA was added to the residence in December 1992 in a second story addition that was supposed to have been built completely over, but not to extend past, the existing building footprint below. However, it came to the attention of the Community Development staff during final inspections for the remodel on February 12, 1993, that the addition was built cantilevered out 1 foot over the existing structure below, thereby increasing the site coverage by approximately 62 square feet. A variance has not been obtained for this increase in site coverage, and the applicant has agreed to explore options to remove 62 square feet of site coverage from somewhere else on the house if a variance can not be obtained. It should be noted that the second floor addition was approved by the DRB on Decetuber 2, 1992. At the time the application and drawings were submitted by the applicant's 'architect, issues concerning site coverage were discussed, and the architect submitted a letter to Community Development staff stating that site coverage would not be increased by the addition. This letter to staff from Mr. Ned Gwathmey dated October 30, 1992, is attached for review. The cantilevered space was indicated on the DRB and Building hermit plans by the architect. During the review of the floor plans for the project, the increased site coverage area of the addition was not detected by the staff. During the final inspection for the addition on February 12, 1993, the cantilevered space became an issue because it was realized that an unauthorized increase in site coverage had occurred. Mr. Gwathmey will provide more background information on this issue at the PEC meeting. Ill. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this request: A. Zone District: Two-Family Residential (duplex) B. Lot area: 14,280 square feet C. Density: No change proposed D. GRFA: Allowable GRFA = 3,995 square feet Existing GRFA = 3,917 square feet Additional GRFA proposed = 61 square feet ** Total GRFA: = 3,978 square feet Remaining GRFA after garage addition = 17 square feet 2 E. Site coverage: Allowable site coverage = 2,856 square feet (20%) Site coverage before any additions = 3,353 square feet (23.48%) Existing site coverage with 2nd floor addition = 3,415 square feet (23.91%) Additional site coverage proposed (garage) = 160 square feet Total site coverage proposed: = 3,575 square feet (25.03%) F. Parking: No additional parking is required for this proposed expansion. * Includes already constructed second floor addition. ** 61 square foot is for the amount of garage area exceeding 600 square foot credit. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The criteria and findings used to evaluate this pwposal are set forth in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code. The criteria and findings are as follows: , A. Variance Criteria: E, 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. ` 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. B. Variance Findings: 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 prop:.-Les or improvements in the vicinity. 3 0 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal inte?p c tation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION On the issue of the garage addition, the staff does not support the 160'square foot site coverage addition FwFosed by the applicant because a two car garage presently exists and presumably functions reasonably well. The existing garage is 515 square feet in area, and the proposed addition is 146 square feet, bringing the proposed total for the garage to 661 square feet. Since the garage credit is 600 square feet, 61 square feet would be added to GRFA. - The staff does not support the additional site coverage of 62 square feet for the second floor addition which has already been constructed. If the PEC dotes not support this site coverage addition, the staff would recommend that the applicant explore possible ways to remove 62 square feet of site coverage from somewhere on the property. The architect for the applicant has asked the staff to look at the possibility of removing the trellis covered walkway, which currently exists on the north side of the house, to decrease the site coverage on the property. The staff's interpretation of trellis coverings is that they do not count as site coverage, an into,pietation of the site coverage definition that has been applied to various properties in the past. The definition of site coverage is as follows: "Site Coverage" means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building, carport, Porte cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the exterior face of perimeter walls or support columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, 4 deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck, or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of the perimeter walls or supporting columns. E n 5 October 30, 1992 Mr. Tim Devlin Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 01657 Re: 3090 Booth Creek Drive proposed Modifications in Excess of Allowed GRFA DRD Submittal Dear Tim: After our pre-application conference, we have modified the plans and completed documentation for the two required submittals. We understand that the hearing date is 2 December and that we could hear both 250 and DRD issues. We are not increasing site coverage or exceeding GRFA plus 250. The other known aspects of the ordinance are met. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ARCHITECTS, P.C. A EMG/ad Enclosures copy to: Rose and George Gillett ric(; a "q , 93 1 5TI An -LIA jl I ? II I I IIII I III I - - ?? l?/II III III ? Jlu I,I III I I , V? j )k L ????- ? 111111 I .II ?? ,III?II . II III Il•i l ? I I ull i s t-40. .. III??? '.s' He' vk?ot 1 4A, MO. l}qI _ ? .f Y :F" T? ?"T ? ? 3 ? _ - ? ? ' !k ? ? ?r? ?. a y?? %'$ «?'•i" ?.."? ,!'f -SF? 7' ? ? gg 77 t t-A ?u? #??? Ca'' x i';.iC {L ,1L,???yc';? •."x ?? c. ?? ?. ? . _ ??rF??$ ? ? ,?,y.?,xy;,ad?` .el?`'«Kw+! 4 ? . 'v' 0 PRO" t,a' ?, ?'.°? •--°' - ,.. _ ? . ?g ?{ t"? . f t '? ? _ Jay /? ? ? t} JJ? j/? ? ( y .-.... ?+( ... , - ,Y{f{ _ y: ..... ......r? I. ?? ) yam` ? 4 ... a . ?[ { e + - - may„ ,+.?„' - - - Q P1T ?w w b-Tiz ? awu? X 1/4 6 p? ter- n MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to review a wall height variance for a property located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Johanne Mueller Planner: Shelly Mello E In addition, a variance may also be necessary for a second lower set of walls located directly u• { iv (. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a work session to review a request for wall height variances in order to allow for boulder retaining walls in excess of the allowable height of 3 feet in the front setback and six feet on the other areas of the lot. The first set of walls on the front portion of the lot, as approved by the DRB and as indicated on the approved building permit plans, were to be (3) three foot stone faced concrete walls with landscaped steps. The walls which retain the driveway are built on the site with heights ranging from 6 to 12 feet across from the garages. In this area, two tiers of boulder retaining, 1 six foot and one 3 foot, with landscaping between them were to be installed. Portions of this wall exceed 6 feet in height. The staff is unable to determine whether the walls meet the requirements and has asked the applicant to provide a survey. The driveway has a grade of 8% and is unheated. It has been approved by the Public Works Department. The applicant has requested this work session in order to get feedback on the possibilities of obtaining a variance. Should the PEC not approve the variance, the applicant would be required to remove the existing boulder walls and build the concrete retainage walls as initially proposed. II. BACKGROUND Upon review of this application, by the DRB, the proposed walls were in compliance with the wall height regulations stated in Section 18.58.020 - Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screening which read: "Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed 3 feet in height within any required front setback and shall not exceed 6 feet in height in any other portion of the site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls or landscaping screens may be authorized by the zoning administrator where necessary to screen public utility equipment. No barbed wire or electrically charged fence shall be erected or maintained." In reviewing boulder retaining walls, the staff has determined that if a wall lays back at a slope greater than 1.5 Y (1.5 feet of run to 1 foot of rise) that it should not be considered a wall. Whether or not these wells meet that criteria will be determined upon receipt of the as-built survey. During the process of construction, the applicant changed the materials from the approved stone faced concrete walls to boulders. Because of this, the stepping of the walls was not achievable. In addition, it is not possible to install the landscaping approved by the DRB. This has been confirmed by the Town Engineer. The staff has requested a stamped as built survey from the applicant to determine the differences between the proposed driveway configuration and the built driveway in addition to determining height and slope of the walls. Clue to time constraints, the applicant has not been able to obtain this prior to this hearing. Ill. VARIANCE CRITERIA, In reviewing variances, the PEC shall use the following criteria and findings, listed in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code. These criteria are as follows: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 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. B. The Planning. and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons. a. The strict literal intc,.t,?etation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the, same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF CONCERNS Until such time that the staff receives an as built survey,'' it is difficult for us to make a recommendation on this request. It has been confirmed by the Public Works Department that the driveway meets the standards for grade, however without an as-built survey the staff is unable to determine whether or not the driveway configuration has been changed and if the boulders have a slope greater than 1.5 feet of run to 1 foot of rise. If the driveway was not constructed as proposed in order to meet the driveway grade requirements, the staff recognizes that it may have been difficult to have constructed the walls as proposed and meet the wall height requirements. We also believe that the deletion of landscaping, necessitated by the new retaining wall design, is an issue. • 1 LOT 7 y5 i b ID r, I a # °a 53 017'48 - R = 25.00' L - 2,3..18 / '? /' -/ a- - l/ ~ ~ ~ ?' S ? ` ? ?J f ?? • G ? ? , \"?L?' ? C?'?i\? \ ~ y ? ` a?•.. yt t :C*? Tx ? , ?1 z `a,- "" '.? 62106'45" ?0100, ?`, ?:,? ? ? "»GG ? / ? •. ? ,? f ..ra •.K. ? ?i ? , - ?. ?`t - l ?i."n? ;?j } I.t 5 ?` !"- .'t. ?2' v\ pyiG z RASlS OF ELEVA ' ? _ ? •?f"" r (? RIM EL£'t. = B376.5 ,??y, ``•, \\ 1 3 ( r ,I:. t V INV. 5 = B_'E2 Fo INV IV LOT 12 t t au` SQL \ w 10'? ?- N f + \ \ \ 0 0 0 %¢.5 X8.5 7 / Gr?• G ? G 4 .G l 1 _ 3.25 0 707 -72. d r 25 .3O?J 6filly dnY,LCCTYR) l1 t?\ Fz7?lt? fob} • r'i 5 '?` ? i--t r oN, 14?f Ff 7 ?y4 w an ?:--? LOF 12 t PFrc 7AI o ate, `M co, ? • 0 ' . .. ?" •: - " . ?-?' ' ? \' ?' ? --"' '! it _. i . A . C,tl ?l 1 -7-Ac . 53 0, u ro'" ` R = 25. HOC . 23 1 6 ? , . ter.:' ` ' \ ? 2, ?f :.;.. . ;'F+oPCfztY GitJr_ 4 X,e 2 LOF 5 r 1 41 1 t r ' srf m! ??r ?i r m, C C s • 11 TO: Planning and Environment Commission FRONT: Community Development DATE: February 2, 1993 SUBJECT: The Vail Environmental Quality Award Staff: Russell Forrest & Caroline Fischer Purpose: The purpose of the `fail Environmental Quality Award Program is to recognize lodges, businesses, and residents for outstanding actions or programs that protect the environment and promote sustainable development. This award is intended to promote environmentally sound practices and encourage innovative environmental initiatives to protect our resort community. This award will be used in helping to market Vail as an environmentally friendly community. Vail businesses could also use this award to promote their environmentally friendly practices. The Town of Vail is also seeking businesses or individuals who would be interested in supporting the Environmental Quality Award program by donating prizes, making monetary contributions to defray the cast of the award, or providing advertisement space or time. Businesses and individuals who assist in the program will receive their name on a permanent plaque placed in the Vail Municipal Building, media recognition, and a Vail Environmental Quality Award certificate. Potential benefits of this award include: promote environmental awareness; encourage residents and businesses to implement creative programs to protect the environment; make environmental protection a marketing tool for Vail and its businesses. Background: The success of Vail as an internationally recognized ski resort is largely attributable to the outstanding natural resources and pristine environmental quality of the area. Ensuring the integrity of our natural resources requires proactive environmental action from gove.tiwkent, businesses, and residents. The Town of Vail is implementing programs and policies to protect sensitive natural habitat, reduce water pollution from runoff, and promote voluntary conversion to gas fireplaces. However, government can only do so much to directly reduce pollution and protect natural resources. Using environmentally friendly products, converting to gas fireplaces, recycling, planting trees, and conserving water and electricity are just a few steps that businesses and individuals can take to improve environmental duality. These actions protect the environment and they often make good economic sense. For instance, a local lodge which recently converted to gas fireplaces will save $12,000 annually on fuel. Award Criteria: Businesses and individuals will be considered for the award by demonstrating the successful completion of any one of the actions or projects in the categories of air quality, waste management, natural habitat protection, and resource conservation which are described below. A) Air Quality Convert from woodburnng fireplaces to gas burners, EPA phase 11 wood burning fireplaces, or EPA certified wood pellet stoves. • Use natural gas, solar energy, or electricity to power fleet or individual vehicles. B) Waste Management: Significantly reduce waste output at home or in a business by generating less waste, reusing materials, and/or recycling. Applicants must demonstrate that they are: 1) producing less waste because they are using less wasteful products, 2) maximizing the reuse of products, and 3) have implemented an effective recycling program. Replace toxic materials used in a business with more environmentally friendly products. Develop for your business a program to purchase recycled office supplies as well as implement a recycling program. Volunteer over 40 hours at We Recycle. C) Natural Habitat Protection Donate sensitive habitat or its development rights in the Vail Valley to a protective land trust or a government agency willing to manage and protect the land. Organize and lead a program to protect natural habitat (e.g. erosion control, litter pick-up, vegetation remediation, trail work). The applicant must receive authorization from the property owner or the governmental agency where the project will occur. Volunteer over 40 hours of time to working on a natural habitat preservation program in Eagle County. D) Resource Conservation Develop and implement an employee program to carpool, bike, walk, or take public transit to work. Reduce energy or water usage by 20% over a 1 year period. The applicant must show a water or power bill to demonstrate savings and show that the use of the house or building had not changed significantly. • Design and build energy and water efficient homes or buildings in the Town of Vail. Other types of environmental programs will be considered (e.g. sponsoring environmental workshops/or symposiums, developing environmental education programs, providing assistance for environmental programs in the Vail Valley). However, it is recommended that applicants contact the Environmental Health office before initiating the project. To apply for an award, applicants must submit a letter to the Town of Vail, Environmental Health Office, Community Development Department with the following information: a. Name of individual or point of contact for a business, address, and phone number b. Description of the environmental project or program c. Benefits of the program Award Procedure: Applications will be reviewed by the Environmental Health Office. Those applications which meet the award criteria will be recot, L) tended for an award to the Planning and Environment Commission. Each award will consist of a certificate to display at the recipients place of work, and recognition in the local media. Each year, all the environmental award recipients will be reviewed and the business and the individual having the best environmental program 40 will receive the Vail Environmental Business/Individual of the Year Award. Staff is currently evaluating the following prizes for individuals: parking pass, ski pass, or recreation pass. Potential prizes for businesses include a parking pass, ski pass or $1000 off their annual business license fee. In addition, annual winners will receive a personal plaque, have their names added to a plaque displayed in the Town building, and receive media recognition at an awards ceremony. Staff is currently finding sponsors to provide prizes or monetary contributions to defray the cost of this award program. Public Service and Vail Associates have already expressed interest in supporting the Vail Environmental Quality Award.