Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0412 PECA E • 01 .- M, MMATMWI April 12, 1993 Project Orientation/Brunch 10:45 a.m. Site Visits 11:15 a.m. Applicant: Anneliese Taylor Planner: Shelly Mello 2:10 - 2. A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knudtsen 0 El 2:20 - 2:30 p.m 3. A request for an exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of the American Ski Exchange located at 225 all Street/Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert Lazier PI.-.nner: Mike Mollica 2:30 - 2:40 p.m. 4 A request for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation Distric! PlQnner: Tim Devlin r-'� BREA& 4:00 - 4:15 P.11,11. LP 4:15 -5:15 p.m. 6. A request for a proposed SD D 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 R. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knucltsen :15- . -30 7. A request for a wall height variance to allow for the construction of a hazard mitigation wall located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Mike Grisanti Planner: Jim Curnutte & A request for a setback variance, a stream setback variance, and a density variance to allow for an addition to the residence located at 2129-B Kel -Gar Lane/Lot 13, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Bryan and Sally Hobbs Planner: Jim Curnutte F, 9. A request for wall height variances in order to construct a driveway to a new primary/secondary residence located at 2683 Cortina Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Cortina Joint Venture - Bob Borne Planner: Tim Devlin 10. A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road /Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED TO MAY 24,1993 11. A request for a work session for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots A-1 and A-2, a request for a variance from the subdivision road standards, and variance from the wall height standards at Lions Ridge Subdivision/1 139 and 1109 Sandstone Drive. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO APRIL 6, 1993 12. Approve minutes from March 22, 1993 PEC Meeting. -A proposal to expand the existing equestrian facility at Berry Creek, Fifth Filing. Planner: Mike Mollica -A proposal for a "cremation-only" cemetery in the vicinity of the Shrine Mountain Inn. Planner: Andy Knudtsen I I 'A ALI", • • U111121111IMPM MINUTES Starting at approximately 2:00 p.m., the Planning and Environmental Commission w called to order for request for a work session for setback and site coverage variance • allow for the construction • an addition and a garage located at 240• Chamonix Road/Lot 19, Block A, Vail clas Schone Filing No. 1. 1 Applicant: Anneliese Taylor Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello made a presentation per the staff memo and summarized the zoning analysis for this project. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC is concerned with the site coverage variances being requested. April 12, 1993 The applicant replied that there would be no floor in the garage structure which would create GRFA. Dalton Williams stated that, given the steepness of the lot, there is justification for the enclosed stairs. He suggested that maybe the roof could be made flatter by decreasing the pitch. He felt the storage at the end of the entry could be removed. III• U MI Greg Amsden stated that the roof connection needed to be worked on with the focus on design and he agreed with the previous comments. Kristan Pritz stated that the impact of the structure on the street needed to be minimized. Bill Anderson stated that he had some concern with the site coverage overage, but that, overall, he felt that this proposal was • positive addition to the site. M-71 1 RATOWIR I ffiro I a I M IMMELOW91 0 a MUIR JIMI&TILIMINIIINGIMMIA . Diana Donovan stated that they were looking for • compromise on the roof pitch from the applicant. She said the flat roof diminishes the impact on the street. Greg Amsden stated that the area where the retaining wall is currently located could be a possible area to work with in order to make this proposal work. He also suggested that the stairwell could be built in such a way so that the storage area could be located underneath. Diana Donovan stated that a of the PEC board supported this request, but that the applicant should try to tighten up the site coverage. 2. A request for • minor amendment to SDD No. 27 to relocate the private pedestrian easement ("pool path") between Lots 5 and 6, Forest Glen Subdivision. Applicant: RAD Five Limited Liability Company Planner: Tim Devlin Diana Donovan spoke on behalf of the PEC and stated that they supported the staf decision to approve this request. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve th request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 27 to relocate the private pedestrian easement ("pool path") per the staff decision and the memo with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote approved this request. I Planning and Environmental Commission 0 April 12, 1993 2 1�1 3. A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knucltsen After a brief review of the conditions of approval by Andy Knucltsen, Jeff Bowen mad a motion to approve this request for a setback variance per the staff memo and the conditions contained therein with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A unanimou 6-0 vote approved this request. Staff was directed to make sure that the Town recei an agreement on the existing encroachments on Town of Vail property. I -4. A request for an exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of the American S Exchange located at 225 Wall Street/Block 5-C, Vail Village 1 st Filing. i Applicant: Robert Lazier Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that the staff was recommending approval of this request for a minor exterior alteration . Erich Hill, the architect for this project, stated that two schemes were proposed with this project. He said that he disagrees with the staff concerning their comment of to much glass". Erich also stated that since the pedestrian approach to the American S;I Exchange is either from the north • south, the glass is not that obvious. Jeff Bowen stated that he does not have • problem with design Alternate t He commented that he would like to see windows that were smaller and more'*' I pane- like"us•d. He also stated that a roof drain needs to be put in and that a window lattil Im ky'a I I #i • ra a WXO I %A Alm a fr. W.1r, i# MIN I I &10 ROA M Kathy Langenwalter stated that she preferred Alternate A and Greg Amsden and Bill Anderson concurred with this statement. forgivolar, Inv Planning and Environmental Commission 0 April 12, 1993 3 Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve this request for an exterior alterati per the staff memo and approving Alternate A and verified that the applicant was willing to contribute into both the Town's Parking and Newspaper Funds. Greg Amsden seconded the motion and a unanimous vote of 6-0 approved this requesti 5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that the staff is recommending approval of this conditional use permit with the condition that the applicant provide a surface drainage plan and an access and construction parking p11I prior to the issuance of a building permit in conjunction with this project. -1 Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned with the removal of the large aspen and evergreen trees from this site. David Peel, the architect for this project, stated that the Town Landscape Architect requested a construction access and surface drainage plan prior to building permit an,'i that the applicant does not have a problem with this condition • approval. He stated that they have been to Town Council and DRB (conceptual) with this project. Dalton Williams stated that he feels it is reasonable that the PEC ask that the trees that are lost be replaced with similar sized trees. Diana Donovan stated that she does not think that office space can increase without increasing the parking requirement as well. Rristan Pritz stated that parking was available in the evening at the parking lot adjacent to the Vail Valley Medical Center and that the staff for VRD would not be increased per Rob Robinson. Tim Devlin stated that Rob Robinson, VRD Director, maintains that there will not be additional employees hired ♦ a result of this addition and that the parking requireme for the site will not incre;-�.se. I Planning and Environmental Commission April 12, 1993 4 E r] Diana Donovan stated that she voted against this request because she feels that the parking requirement is being increased on the site. 6. Appeal of staff interpretation of the calculation of ridge height and staff review of DRB application for the proposed primary unit on Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing #1/784 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Loper Development Appellant: Mr. and Mrs. Andy Daly and Mr. and Mrs. Wiegers Planner: Shelly Mello Bill Loper, the applicant, stated that the Town Council has determined that the plans can not be built and that he has withdrawn the plans. Shelly Mello stated that the purpose • the appeal was to determine whether staff was interpreting the zoning code correctly as it pertains to ridge height and that Art Abplanalp (the representative for adjacent owners, the Weigers and Dalys) could pursue this issue aside from Mr. Loper's present situation. Larry Eskwith stated that there was also the issue referred to in the staff's memorandum concerning the zoning check • the Loper project not being completei prior to going in front of the DRB. Larry felt that this was a moot issue. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC would focus on the issue of how the Town staff calculates ridge height. Shelly Mello made a presentation per the staff memo summarizing how staff calculates ridge height and went over the two examples shown in the memo pertaining to ridge height calculations. Bill Pierce stated that he felt that the appellant's interpretation of the ordinance was "absurd" and that he feels that the ordinance is clear and the meaning of it is obvious. Kristan Fritz stated that the zoning code has definitions addressing existing and finished grades and that height is the distance measured vertically, according to th-11 code. She said that she was unclear as to what Mr. Abplanalp's concern was. Planning and Environmental Commission April 12, 1993 5 Bill Anderson stated that he agrees with Art Abplanalp to the extent that the wording of the code could be clearer. 7. A request for a proposed SIDID 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 Knucltsen Andy Knucltsen made a presentation per the staff memo concerning this request for 9 proposed SIDD and minor subdivision. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this request with conditions, and that the applicant has said he is agreeable to the recommendations contained within the staff memo. He noted that staff has not seen all • the plans for the upper development area as of this meeting. Kristan Fritz presented a letter from Phillip Taylor, Montgomery and Larmoyeux Attorneys, concerning the Architectural Review Board for Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2. Planning and Environmental Commission April 12, 1993 6 Kathy Langenwalter stated that the plans for the upper development area need to contain more information addressing slope and how this proposed SIDD will work since the slope is excessive at this site. She also stated that the plans do not show how parking is addressed or whether cars will have enough maneuverability, etc. Dalton Williams stated that the project for the upper development area did not appear to meet many Town standards. He said he would like to see detailed plans that show how the project would function. He further stated that he feels that this site is not buildable given the way the applicant is approaching the design. Diana Donovan stated that the applicant needs to design a proposal for the upper development area that will conform to Town standards so that variances are not necessary with this project. Jeff Bowen stated that he will not approve any proposal for the upper development area with two units on it because he feels that this is contrary to the zoning code for this area. 0 Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with Jeff. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the retaining wall elevations for the upper development area. Tom Braun stated what changes in design had been made to Tract B. These include: 1) that there will be a total loss of eleven trees to this area; 2) that fill would range from 4 to 8 feet; 3) that off-site drainage had been provided for; 4) that hydrants had been located per Fire Department standards; and 5) that six of the seven houses had been reloc---- Planning and Environmental Commission April 12, 1993 7 Bryan Doolen, an adjacent owner, stated that he is concerned with the additional mass and bulk brought about by the garages. He stated that although the plans for this 40 project have changed substantially, they still do not address all of the concerns for this site. Sally Brainerd, an adjacent property owner, stated that this plan is an improvement over the previous plan but that she would like to see clustering of the structures because it goes along with the rest • the neighborhood. Jeff Bowen stated the current plans are a great improvement over the plans from January of this year but he would still like to see a reduction in asphalt and more of the trees in this area saved. He said that the garages are critical and that he would like to see some duplexes. Building A to Building B: 13' Building B to Building C: 19, Building C to Building luilding D to Building 'Iuilding E to Building F: 3VI 'W tuilding F to Building G: 5r Diana Donovan stated that she wants to see The Valley, Phase 11 work with what is already in existence there, particularly in respect to materials. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she sees the upper and lower development areas of this project as separate sites. Planning and Environmental Commission April 12, 1993 8 E County allows GRFA in excess of what the Town allows and that the County plan is being amended according to the annexation ordinance. He would also like to see a slight bend in the access road. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the asphalt coverage reduced and that he is not in favor of shingles. Bill Anderson compared the proposal to the development statistics listed for Residential Cluster (RC) zoning. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see a commitment that Phase 11 utilizes similar materials as that of Phase 1. She added that she would also like to see the issue • snow storage addressed and more trees located between the proposal and Grouse Glen. Kathy Langenwalter said that building B must be redesigned, that the shingles must be deleted, and that she would like to see the GRFA reduced in the upper development area. Dalton Williams inquired of staff whether it would be possible to separate the lower and upper development areas into two separate projects. Kristan Pritz stated that she is concerned with pulling the upper and lower development areas apart and that the project, in its entirety, should be voted on in order to avoid problems with development rights. Jay Peterson inquired what the issues were that needed to be addressed so that they would be prepared for the next meeting. Andy Knucltsen stated that all of the outstanding issues were listed as conditions of approval with the addition of the detailed drawings of the automobile access to the upper development area. Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item until April 26, 1993 to allow the applicant to make additional revisions to the plans with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this request until the April 26, 1993 PEC Meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission April 12, 1993 9 8. A request for a wall height variance to allow for the construction of a hazard mitigation wall located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Mike Grisanti Planner: Jim Curnutte Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned about the big rock being removed from the site. Kurt Se•er•erg, the architect for this project, stated that the rock encroaches on the area of the proposed mitigation wall and that it was the applicant's intent to save the rock and as many trees as possible but the Town Engineer requested that the wall be where it is shown on the plans. Kathy Langenwalter stated that it would be necessary to raise the grade to get the w • work at this site, which would most likely bury the rock anyway. I Kurt Segerberg stated that it was his feeling that a 5-1/2 foot wall made more sense than an 8 - 10 foot wall which is what was originally proposed. Jim Curnutte stated that the Town Engineer required a 35 foot turning radius for tl- cul-de-sac plus 8 feet for a shoulder and road maintenance purposes. Jim Curnutte stated that snow is stored for the most part on Tract D, which is across the street from the Grisanti residence. Diana Donovan stated that there is currently a house located across the street and west of Tract D. Jeff Bowen made a motion per the staff memo to approve this request for a wall heigh) variance with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote approved this request. Kathy Langenwalter added the addendum that the applicant try to find a better solution concerning the removal of the large rock from this site. 9. A request for a setback variance, a stream setback variance, and a density variance to allow for an addition to the residence located at 2129-B Kel-Gar Lane/Lot 13, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Bryan and Sally Hobbs Planner: Jim Curnutte Planning and Environmental Commission 0 April 12, 1993 10 Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff is recommending denial of the setback variances and approval of the density variance 10 request. He stated that the density variance would not have a negative impact to adjacent property owners. Diana Donovan stated on behalf of the PEC that they were all in agreement that the density variance should be approved. The applicant, Bryan Hobbs stated that 56% • this lot is taken up by the stream and associated setbacks. He said that if his request was approved, he would have an additional 240 square feet living and kitchen area. He also stated that he had approval from adjacent property owners to go forward with this request. At this point, Mr. Hobbs supplied the PEC with copies of letters from six adjacent property owners. Bill Anderson inquired of staff what the rule was concerning what percentage of total deck area can encroach into a setback by right. Kristan Pritz replied that a deck which is more than 5 feet off of the ground can encroach 5 feet into a setback area without requiring a variance. Decks that encroach beyond 5 feet into the setback would need to be approved by obtaining a variance. Bryan Hobbs added that in response to staff's comment about reasons for having a stream setback requirement, the proposed addition is on the 2nd level and the risk of flooding would be minimal. Dalton Williams stated that he felt that an extraordinary circumstance did exist at thd site which constituted a hardship since 56% of the lot is taken up by the stream and associated setbacks. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Dalton concerning the west it deck but she felt th the width of the GRFA addition should be reduced to 7 feet. i Diana Donovan stated that she felt that a 7 foot, instead of a 9 foot, addition could • a solution for this situation. She also stated that she has no problem with the side setback variance being requested for this site. Planning and Environmental Commission 40 April 12, 1993 11 Kathy Langenwalter stated that a 7 foot addition was reasonable because it would relate to the existing rock wall. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that enough of a hardship exists on the site that he was willing to allow the entire 9 foot addition and the entire requested amount of the stream setback variance. Dalton Williams stated that the impact to Gore Creek would be increased with the additional 2 feet and that the 7 foot stream addition was a good compromise for this situation. MEMUM. ............................... i ...... ; . ..... ii; ...... ...... . Bill Anderson stated that he disagrees with Dalton, Kathy and Greg because he feels that the issue is the same regardless of whether it is • 7 foot • a 9 foot addition and that if this request is granted, it would not set a precedent because each future request should be reviewed upon its unique circumstances. Diana Donovan stated that whether it is 2, 3, or 4 feet is immaterial. t s a ow ng t e encroachment to go out as far as the existing rock wall along with the fact that 56% o� the site is unusable that would allow her to approve the variance request. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request for a 2-1/2 foot side setback variance, a maximum 5 foot stream setback variance to allow for a 9 foot wide addition and a density variance. Bill Anderson seconded the motion and a 3-3 vote was taken. Since there was no majority, the motion failed. 10. A request for wall height variances in order to construct a driveway to a new primary/secondary residence located at 2683 Cortina Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail Ridge- Applicant: Cortina Joint Venture - Bob Borne Planner: Tim Devlin MOL Planning and Environmental Commission 0 April 12, 1993 12 the applicant add 5 to 7 evergreen trees in order to screen the wall from view. 1101 Bill Anderson stated that he preferred a stone veneer wall to stucco on the proposed retaining wall. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve this request for wall height variances ,#.er the staff memo with the additional condition that the lower retaining wall be veneered with stone to match the building. Greg Amsden seconded this motion and a 5-0 unanimous vote approved this request. 11. A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED TO MAY 24,1993 Kathy Langenwalter made ♦ motion to table this request until May 24, 1993 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabled this item until May 24, 1993. 12. A request for a work session for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots A-1 and A-2, a request for a variance from the subdivision road standards, and variance from the wall height standards at Lions Ridge Subdivision/1 139 and 1109 Sandstone Drive. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO APRIL 26, 1993 ml I Lord &-gel I wwwol I Loll M I$ E III RE A 91[011011�-W*11 I - -- —, 13. Approve minutes from March 22, 1993 PEC Meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission April 12, 1993 13 Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 22, 1993 PEC Meeting with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous 5-0 vote approved the minutes from the March 22, 1993 PEC Meeting. 14. Discussion of Eagle County referrals: -A proposal to expand the existing equestrian facility at Berry Creek, Fifth Filing. Planner: Mike Mollica -A proposal for a "cremation-only" cemetery in the vicinity of the Shrine Mountain Inn. Planner: Andy Knucltsen ��# # Mliiliiii IN 16. Council follow-ull A general discussion was held concerning the revocable right-of-way process and two standards were addressed. The first standard pertained to encroaching on Town of Vail land and the second standard pertained to encouraging public and private projects to be in conformance with the Streetscape and Urban Guidelines. 17. Bill Anderson was appointed to the Environmental Task Force. Planning and Environmental Commission April 12, 1993 14 18. Kristan Pritz informed the PEC that seven applications had been submitted for the vacant PEC position and that interviews would be conducted by the Town Council on April 13, 1993. E Planning and Environmental Commission 40 April 12, 1993 15 0 W4 MI DATE: April 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance in order to construct a driveway to a new primary/secondary residence located at Lot 7, Block A, Vail Ridge/2683 Cortina Lane. Applicant: Cortina Joint Venture - Bob Borne Planner: Tim Devlin The 24,682 square foot lot has slopes which exceed 30% beneath the areas in which the structure and paving is being proposed. Therefore, site coverage for this project is limited to 15% for structure and 10% for paving. The applicant is proposing 10.75% site coverage for structure and 9.61% site coverage for paved areas. Aside from the requested wall height variance, no other variances are being requested. Please see the attached drawings. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 24,682 square feet am-MAMM, =0 , aa*-I • 25' 15' (both sides) 110, d) Parking: 5.0 spaces { re 'd. ) 5 spaces (4 encl., 1 surface) e) Building Height: 33' 28' (maximum) f) Wall Height: Front Setback: 3' maximum 6' (n. driveway walls)* 4' (s. driveway wall)* Others: 6' maximum 6' Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Cocill the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based • the following factors: I A. Consideration of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff does not believe that the proposed stucco retaining walls will have a negative impact on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Due to the fact that the lot is in excess • 30% slope, the staff recognizes that in order to access the residences with a driveway, retaining walls will be needed. The parking requirement for the two units is 5 spaces. 0 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity ♦ to attain the objectives • this title without grant of special privilege. The staff recognizes that the steepness of the lot makes access very difficult. 01 We believe that some relief from the strict interpretation of the code is warranted, and for the reasons cited above feel that the variance request is reasonable given the site constraints. I The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff does not feel that the proposal as presented would have a substantial adverse impact on any • the above items. -61 The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. I That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified 9 E E I OARIN Im Isar, I go 6111102 1#10101 a m [aws I avyj I III a Is rK#1 W law" 41M • 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. The staff recommends approval of the requested wall height variance, As discussed in Section III of this memorandum, the staff supports the retaining wall height variances as proposed by the applicant, with the condition that 5 to 7 additional evergreens be addleii to the area between the driveway and Cortina Lane to aid in screening the retaining walls. The staff recognizes that the steep topography of the lot makes building on it difficult, and feels that the retaining walls are necessary to support the proposed driveway. In summary, the staff feels that the request for wall height variances meet Criteria IV B. 1, 2, and 3 (a, b, and c) cited above. Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval of all variances shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, • if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within two years. El Hill j7 � tw . 6 • Z xr2 _ k N i r ., e _ . ` '-1 te' i �<�i . ..i —•.O ___1\ T,,'1, �;—.J -Lr- a I y C... �7 L. • r n .i r f r. i' I 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • wo WATE: April 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of a trash enclosure, located on Part of Lot A, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595 East Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge Planner: Andy Knucltsen FRIITHWD��� Lot size: 219,896.9 square feet Proposed addition: 308 square feet n I Allowed Existin ELoposed Setbacks: North 20' 150' 150, *East 20' 0' 4' South 20' 240' 240' West 20' 350' 350' Stream Setback: 50' 94' 98, Site Coverage: 120,943.3 sq. ft. 61,344.4 308 sq. ft. Common Area: 46,18.4 sq. t 41,920.4 sq. ft. 236 sq. ft. Height: 48 ft. approx. 36 ft. 10 ft. GRFA: 131,938.2 sq. ft. 114,606.3 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Required Parking: none required for common area Variance required Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: I KI. 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 • this title without grant of special privilege. B The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: ME= 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. a • M-WIMITIMIM. 1 Prior to issuance of a TCO, the applicant shall plant a minimum of four 6 foot spruce trees and five shrubs to be located between the proposed clumpster 40 enclosure and the pedestrian path. LI 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a license agreement addressing the retaining wall encroachment on the Town of Vail land shall be submitted to the Town Attorney for his approval. Upon receiving approval from the Town, the agreement shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders Office. Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval sh lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligentl pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within twR years. I rd 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission Hill DATE: April 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a setback and site coverage variance to allow for the construction of an addition and a garage located at 2409 Chamonix Road/Lot 19, Block A, Vail clas Schone Filing No. 1. Applicant: Anneliese Taylor Planner: Shelly Mello Total Size Area: .2048 acres • 8,921 square feel Zoning Primary with restricted Secondary E it ':,. #* � Parking Proposed: Enclosed: 2 spaces Surface: 2 spaces (completely on-site) UANNOrdF:Mnziriwiltkiiaii The following are the criteria and findings that the Planning and Environmental Commission should use to review the variance. D37M I 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 faces, public faces and utilities, and public safety. K Allowed Density: One Primary with one restricted employee unit Existing Density: One Primary with one restricted employee unit GRFA: Allowed: 3,080 square feet Existing: 2,814 square feet Proposed: 3,074 square feet E it ':,. #* � Parking Proposed: Enclosed: 2 spaces Surface: 2 spaces (completely on-site) UANNOrdF:Mnziriwiltkiiaii The following are the criteria and findings that the Planning and Environmental Commission should use to review the variance. D37M I 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 faces, public faces and utilities, and public safety. K B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following_ pdings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the publi* ear 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 reasoq3l 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 regulatior would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Staff is concerned with the mass of the proposed garage structure in the front setback. We suggest that the ridge of the garage be lowered to minimize the impact of the structure on the street. The proposed building addition could also be decreased on the north side to reduce the amount of site coverage. The staff feels that the garage addition should be minimized to decrease the need for site coverage. 7 m u a a v Z a J ui r [Fj °® � t Z Q O F r i ra \ LBl LL w I Pill w , -4 EXISTI �1 -'Sty! %.wyT G✓ :J RE FORCE XISTING CARPORT BE REMQyED `` A ASPHALT 2'$ �T�7 i W UC1 L-t) •U of. •® A 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission smmzm� =1 DATE: April 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to SDID No. 27 to relocate the private pedestrian easement ("pool path") between Lots 5 and 6, Forest Glen Subdivision, Applicant: RAD Five Limited Liability Company Planner: Tim Devlin 1 10 --- Section 18.40.100 (Amendment Procedures) of the Municipal Code stipulates the following for minor amendments to Special Development Districts: or amendments: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.40.020B (attached) may be approved by the departmeni of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed • the department • community development." In addition, the Municipal Code also stipulates that the Community Development staff shall Inform the PEC of the staff action on the request for a minor SDD amendment. m 6 $* . $ k F-,"'P`�eto mWe w"MIZO ART Ass . �a °80X 978' 9�24%9G; 0910 HOTTIHGHAH ROAD • • :41420'Y STREET' s AYOK COIO. 81820 Ltd. IAKEM .Ca.O 8021 x 13031232 -0159 sne.t 13031948-5072 r z .. -w x EXHIBIT T lots °` "'t 7 t t a .p sit x i ' 18,02 . s uare ' feet " = .414 acres k�WNW, r� as VJO_�_ro' 'CON NO- 4445 19797.4 squaree�' 0.454 acres;�k , MET 14 is y s �r,� s. t,� 4455)nzr °G!,�'r ��,, "" ter a- 1-' �`� 3� a �.. "°. •+. �,, a �' � a �s W R ! .72 e'"it2t]� � "'.'... �° .�,�`,���o� ar 61410. � 1 : ` ` ", �'3yg3x 0 w `g � `" 7 �y % mid+ 1 ! 6M ,. /A.. 4455 � a VALAN ply �qnny R'j 9UlGDlNG �' 20,563.8 square feet �� m , 0.472 acres joy I ASS snout r 7 t Rv ' C ` s s Ir WARM look "to–, r i i- N A St- ° J "fit l l���y�,a'"°7 € ^® } s a x„ -4�i�"' 4xv, ­Af 1 root t- 1 ri �xr y x e 5 f P ki 217 _. Yom" 4°.... 5,?�'tr' a }'x t fi 0 tr r X ✓ S �'4'§£Nw' s "s4ufi�i�, is s r t S. � r t }M Engine'erxingLtd. LWE, esf EXHIBI T t t x r s square 0.414 acres #;. e 5 f P ki 217 _. Yom" 4°.... 5,?�'tr' a }'x t fi 0 tr r X ✓ S �'4'§£Nw' s "s4ufi�i�, is s r t S. � r t }M 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission us SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of the American Ski Exchange located at 225 Wall Street/Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Aobert Lazier 101 'Trommargm, space located immediately to the north, would be removed for GD increase Of 17 square feet s Of floor area. The /\rneMCaO Ski Exchange would then expand into this lease area. AdditiVOa||y. an 18 square foot bay window would be added VO the east e|Bv01iVn' matching the existing bay windows that the American Ski Exchange constructed during the summer Qi 1992 III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY On September 10, 1990, the PEC approved an exterior alteration request for the American SI Exchange which included the addition of 96 square feet of additional floor area, the relocatio of the store entry, and the addition of bay windows. I On December 16, 1991, the PEC approved an exterior alteration request for the Right Fit Sports retail shop, which included a 15 square foot floor area expansion. The Right Fit retail shop is located immediately to the south of the American Ski Exchange in the Wall Street 2) Lot Area: 7,318 square feet E 11 3) Site Coverage: Existing: Proposed: • RISMAIR • V- covered by the second floor of the building above. • • 9 1 1 ; MOU:81 Iorg"Roull It is the staff's opinion that the proposed changes to the American Ski Exchange retail space would • in compliance with the Purpose Section of the Commercial Core I Zone District as stated above. We also believe that the addition will not negatively effect the scale of the building and should improve the overall quality of the pedestrian space adjacent to the structure. 0 11 COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE i I I I I I I iii I ii I I I I iiii I I i I I ii I ill I I' ill I I ii I ill I ii I I I iiill The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to ensure new development is consistent with this established character. These considerations include the following: The proposed additional bay window will have limited, if any, impacts on the pedestrian traffic flow because of its proposed location. The bay window will add interest to the existing pedestrian area with an increase in window area transparency and increased bility into the retail shop. ROM Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscape Framework: a I 0 G. Views and Focal Points: The proposed bay window does not affect any of the Town's adopted view corridors. In addition, the bay window will have no impact on the line-of-sight from either the top or the bottom of Wall Street. H. Service and Delivery: 61MTlR1H= There will be no increase in the shadow patterns as a result of this addition as it is located within the existing shade patterns of the building. zupllffr x � I iiii ill U11 The following are the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan which are relevant to this proposal: Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity more I . 1, 19 � - The proposed bay window is consistent with established zoning and the existing uses in the area. Overall, the staff believes that the proposed bay window will provide additional interest and activity to the Wall Street area. E 9 El 0 %,coPasolot Thw • • • ��I f ( `�' _ ._ !9 ��1 ��. - �� � i -- i��i�' , � j I i; � �� � � � __ � _ _ � _ _ -�� - � - -- • El uew r—Y ,i 0 LU 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: April 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District/Vail Avalanche, Inc. Planner: Tim Devlin In addition to providing office space for the new hockey club, the proposed locker room facilities are intended to ease the burden on the limited existing facilities and are to be dedicated to the Avalanche, thus freeing up the existing locker rooms for arena event use. It has been expressed by the applicant that separate, private locker rooms will enhance the recrung ability to attract a quality team to represent Vail. The addition also includes approximately 500-600 square feet of area to be used as VRD offices and arena management. The new offices are intended to lessen the demand on the current VRD offices in the Vail Public Library and will also allow for the relocation of the existing arena management office currently located by the main entry to the arena. Plans are being explored to allow for potential future seating capacity expansion in the entry area. E 11 • additional landscaping is being proposed, as the existing trees nearby are intended to screen the addition from view. • WE 0 =1 1=1 OEM ME al 01 11 E El III MWEI I ma i *1101 'It 3-m-11 The Dobson Ice Arena is located in the Public Use District (PUD), the purpose of which is the following: Public recreation facilities are allowed as conditional uses in the PUD per 18.36.030(1) of the Vail Municipal Code. Development Standards: Section .8 •. of the Municipal Code stipulates that prior to acting on an application for • conditional use permit for any • the conditional uses prescribQ4 in Section 18.36.030, the planning commission shall prescribe development standards for each particular development proposal or project in each of the following categories: Parking and Loading: Section 18.36.060 stipulates that off-street parking and loading requirements shall be established by the planning commission and town council for each project. No new parking is being proposed as part of this project. Please see section A 3 of this memo for further explanation. I 4 E locker room and office expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena as proposed based on the following factors: W-M • Relationship and impact • the use on development objectives of the Town. The staff believes that the new hockey team will be a positive entertainment option for visitors and local residents alike. Staff believes the proposed locker room and office addition are consistent with the development objectives of the Town, and are in response to upgrading the facility and to accommodate VRD staff that are now in limited office space at the library. 2. The effect • the use • light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public needs. The staff feels that the addition will improve the Dobson Ice Arena as a recreation facility, and responds to the need for space inside the facility for more seating by removing the existing offices near the south entry. 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. A(. Effect upon character • the area in which the proposed use is to • located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the surrounding uses. The staff believes that the proposed one-story addition is consistent in scale and bulk, and compatible with the existing facility and the character of the area. All exterior construction materials and finishes are proposed to match existing materials and finishes. K 0 B. Findings: gr Ming a conditional us nit: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which i) 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 The staff recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit for the addition to the Dobson Ice Arena • proposed, as we believe all • the findings discussed in Section III B • this memo have been met. No trees are proposed to be removed by this proposal, and given the amount • adjacent trees, the staff does not feel that additional trees will be necessary as part • this project. In response to concerns raised by the town landscape architect, Todd Oppenheimer, Community Development recommends the following condition of approval for the conditional use permit: That the applicants be required to provide a surface drainage plan and an access and construction parking plan for Public Works review before any building permits are issued for the project. Ell m OOL3SoN ICE I In LOT 4 J12.80' ASPHALT SIAIE . 8154.p4 8154.19 8153 ?1 8152.9Q 92 6154.30 x 6153.10 615284 (`�F15 6152 g152A4 8152.21 ,ktr) F11 75 56.,.7 PA 7Y 5154.3 615 2 6.50 3 3, la, 50.65 S5-"G 47 3.44 81, 1 55. 144.80 1&, ------- 19.34 0 6145.= C C TRA ?0� .6- 149.4 .34 1 i .0. 40 id 4611 5� 0 4 • 0 0 WIN wffivr� • • r_�. _� • r . j • • • 8. i 111 ��II '': �,' L.e i" • • •. � �� -r — , -�ar� -,_ � _ --- _ -- - -- 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commissior DATE: April 12, 1993 SUBJECT: Appeal of staff interpretation of the calculation of ridge height and staff review • DRB application for the proposed primary unit on Lot 15, Blo 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing #1/784 Potato Patch Drive. I Applicant: Loper Development Appellant: Mr. and Mrs. Andy Daly and Mr. and Mrs. Wiegers Planner: Shelly Mello WN10111DW The DRB decision to approve the project was appealed by the it and the Weigers. The Town Council reviewed the DRB decision on April •th. They voted 4-1 to overturn the DRB's approval based on Section 18.54.050 - (A),(B,1)(B,2)(l). (See attached guidelines.) The appellant wishes to pursue the remaining appeals to the PEC for clarity to preserve future rights of appeal. All appeals of staff interpretations are reviewed by the PEC pursuant to Section 18.66.030(A) Appeal of Administrative Actions of the Town of Vail Zoning Code which states: I E L� The following are the sections being appealed: 6-t� -V%#=; - - "Height" means the distance measured vertically, from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof • to the highest ridge line of a sloping roof. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed 30 feet. For sloping roofs, the height of buildings shall not exceed 33 feet. E It is the intent of height calculations to control the height of buildings as they relate to the specific topography of the site. In most cases, the most restrictive calculation is from the highest point of the ridge to the existing grade. Our method complies with the zoning code's definition of height. The intent of the regulations is to encourage the layout of the building to follow the existing topography of the site. 4 L Ill. SECTION 18.54.0 40 E 0 J fi- li m M i .. m r ° /J A Ki a LI i I 1 • : , 9 1 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance, a stream setback variance and a density variance to allow for an addition to the residence located at 2129-B Kel -Gar Lane/Lot 13, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Bryan and Sally Hobbs Planner: Jim Curnutte E #)n the site (two) exceed what the current code allows. The code only allows two units on a lot less than 15,000 square feet if the secondary unit is restricted for employee housing. Because both units are separately owned and neither is deed restricted for employee housing, z variance from the non-conforming section of the code is needed to allow for the use of the remaining GRFA. MEM Allowed Density: a # .i +� a ■ .i, a a* 'Ojsjjlzjlmr�# 9 # I MMMI 3,051 square feet 2.296 -ir * 71 50 feet from the centerline of Gore Creek 20 feet from the front property line 15 feet from side and rear property lines . = - - - M - =0 U 3m Pr, mr.-Im'M Am MR I I I III Maximum Building Height Allowed: Existing Building Height: Proposed Building Height: • I .t - - WAIRTF-XIN Existing Landscaping: Proposed Landscaping: ME= 33 feet (for structures with a sloping roof) 30 feet 30 feet A M MMr,V.%Wff LO OJNMMIIWW". E 41 E 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 • to attain the objectives • this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the history of this site makes it unique from other properties with less than 15,000 square feet of lot area. Because the structure was constructed as a two family residence prior to the Town's regulations pertaining to lots less than 15,000 square feet, staff believes it is reasonable to allow the structure to maintain its original M 11 development potential. The zoning establishing the restrictive unit requirement was adopted after the structure was approved by the Town and creates a hardship for the property. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance requests will not have a negative effect • any of the above-referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ----------- - ------ I 41. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. R E The planning staff recommends approval of the proposed density variance and denial of the proposed side and stream setback variance requests. The required findings for granting the proposed setback variances are not met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below: The required findings necessary for granting the proposed density variance is met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below: Staff believes that granting approval of the density variance would not constitut- • . • special privilege as the Town has approved similar variance requests. Although previous situations may not be identical to this, they are similar in that there was available, unused GRFA on the site. 2. Staff believes that approving the density variance will not • detrimental to the public health safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or 0 11 improvements in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed remodel is a positive addition to the building and enhances its overall appearance, provided the proposed remodel be limited to existing setback requirements . Should the applicant desire to proceed with an addition to his building entirely within his existing setback requirements, staff would recommend that the following condition be attachei to the approval of the density variance request: 1 That the applicant add a cluster of three aspen trees (3 inch minimum caliper) along the west property line in the general vicinity • the proposed addition three evergreens • foot minimum height) on the north side of the proposed addition. 0 �t ii g �r. . •.. � -sl / �� �� I� L�� J .:. .� INSULAMNG GL, j FF • C r ' A I INSULAMNG GL, j FF • C r INSULAMNG GL, j FF • C f i �/ j ��• �� - / I INSUTA'T'Fp y /, - -- 1 I .i '�I 4Vh'S (FiXEC)) / tiIZN3 w21J3 __ II I I TI 13 I • , I W2N5 a L( 1I I! EXPOSED CoNG. FNO STAINED TO MATCH . o WCY�L2 SIDILIG C. I I ,QrefVSPA WEST EL- -VArION SCALE I /q" C -O' i I I II jll ; Ij�l �Ij�,l � FIXED XED � i � '► WINS WINS I. I ! I II ► I I INS I INSULATING GL.(nAED) II I ; II ' i i� -- r 1 -�I t— -iIJ- If i II II I II I I I // WINS I INSULATING 4L FIXED I I I i � I I -�_ _ - -- WSO68 -XO -- - - WZN3 i I I I � I �� is��hg _Ie1er�� eL2vRT't ®l�? 1 t�l O i1Tf� F [_ s V AT 10 N r SCA 1.£ 1/4 ete • S43 °17�18��E 45. 30' 95, 00 ,1I UTIt_ITY Q OftA!nAGE EASEMENT � � I C_ 6� gore, Grp I � 3511 Sq. T. 8 CTW4Ew I ! I NQC'T.H FL. .�`- 60'SET��ICY. LINE ' 3'PCGOE T�/AN E.43EME/JT� �� � -`s 3/'l2 __ -- o-e �r ' n _ VJ, I 5 PARCEL A I PARCEL B N 0.I50 qc.i . 1 o. Z7. Cn X7.5' 11 Pf:OP^•SED.a.NDFLP. %DDI, ION J; I mI_ nn. 3, 511�I1CT�C4, Nne 111 ,� I �..y..�iCt� l�.o' ' N47' 1.Ir" 0304 "'vV I II OCCK Cz Fmr i I Q I N47.0,504 "N/ IZ.9f' .. . I 0.0'. 7 H2GE 5'7"O�Y �VGUO I-, ,9 FRAMC QLOG. I.o N ? N I I I 0 V1 5.0' ! I V'7 � I I o� I Q � WALLS N h "J n` ,z.`J N X6.0" � N 49.3• w _:.NAIL- ,,- COtiKISO —' a nJ� • SHEET 2 OF 2 IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE PARCEL B, RIVERA DUPLEX A Resubdivision of Lot 13, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision Eagle County, Colorado 0. UTILITY It DRAINAGE t5M'T t` \ RS k 100' F'LooD. FLAIM LOT I z \ Te A, GoRE GREEK $o' CSR< =BK SETBACK —Z.. \� �\ (DEErBST- c4"NEL) D� �p / 3 Tor ANK OF CKEEK !V"�w t��C IT � a � -5' PEDESTRIAN ESM'T �� Deck A*tp N y 0.36 AG. ' h%Tt3 �lY11�WI �tdlk��rt TIt, MAPLEX iE 1 12- DUPLEX M "TY WALL FOLLOWS ALONG I- KoPERTY LINE PARCEL A S91, 41 PAVED DRIvr_ �oN NORTH N� SCALE 1" Ao' ADDRESS: 512,9 KHL. -GAK LANE 2 T1 N 47 °08'04" W 3.91' T2 S 42' 51'56" W 20.91' = 23506 T3 N 47 °08'04" W 12.91' T4 S 42'51'56" W 7.30' F�•.. .•��Q� T5 S 47' 08'04" E 2.33' `� /0 "'�• OS,��'� T6 S 42' 51'56" W 4.00' T7 N 47 °08'04" W 1.16' Leland Lechner P.L.S. 23506 Box 3463, Vail, Co. (303) 949 -5387 A: -2!a 12. MOSS IZO,'KJj VENnl� 11 0 E • : TO: Larry Eskwith FROM: Shelly Mello DATE: April 1, 1993 SUBJECT: Loper property - Lot 15, Vail Potato Patch 1st Filing The following is a chronological review of the approval process for the Loper project located on Lot 15, Vail Potato Patch, 1st Filing. -September 21, 1992 Loper Construction Services applied for design approval of a three-story single family residence and corresponding site work developed within the Primary/Secondary guidelines (with possible future second residence). A motion was made by George Lamb to approve the application with conditions and recommendations. Sherry Dorward abstained from voting as she was the Landscape Architect for the project. There were four conditions of approval for the application: 0 1 . That the application must comply with zoning; 4. That the applicant needed to obtain approval for gradi from the adjacent property owner to the west, due to t proximity of the driveway to the property line. -November 17, 1992 A building permit was released for the secondary unit as proposed and approved by the DRB. The GRFA for the building was less than 40% and therefore, qualified as a secondary unit. This had also been indicated in previous reviews. I -March 17, 1993 There were two items on this agenda relating to Lot 15. The first was the review of the changes to the secondary unit under construction and the second was the review of the proposed primary unit. 9 Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwiii Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located on either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase 11 of "The Valley". The site is made up of an upper and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow: In conjunction with the Special Development District request, the applicant has submitted a minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single family homes on the upper development area only. It is the intention of the applicant to use the single family subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell off individual houses as they are constructed. 0 Upper development area description 19 Tax-rill r#Tv ZVI M. mom ri-mm Buffer Creek fiftw4a0wi-MA 'MMM I Ll 9 IV, Zoning r is Zoning: Residential Cluster Lot Area: Upper 40,740 sq. ft. Lower 105,318 sq. ft. Total 146,058 sq. ft. April 12, 1993 Gensler Proposal Dwelling Units 9 *GRFA 19,466 sq. ft. Site Coverage 10.9% or 15,889 sq. ft. Setbacks 10' front 20' sides !I Buildable Lot Area: Upper: 8,386 sq. ft Lower: Total: 73,009 sq. ft.** January 11, 1993 Residential Gensler Proposal Cluster 9 19,966 sq. ft. 11.3 % or 16,489 sq. ft. 20' on all sides Other comparisons (please note that these are not zoning standards) Asphalt coverage 9.5% • 13,892 sq.ft.*** 9.2% or 13,500.6 sq. ft Impervious surface 22.1 % or 32,228 sq.ft.*** 22.3% or 32,624.6 sq. I 51 10 18,252 sq, ft. 25% or 36,514 sq. ft. 20' front 15' sides n/a n/a 11 OMEMMEal 7.3% or 10,742.3 sq. ft. 14% or 20,385.6 sq. ft. LZ ITIRT ImmWAR - - - On January 11, 1993, the PEG reviewed the proposal at a work session. Minutes from that meeting are attached to this memo. A summary of the PEC comments for the lower development area were: .1 11 A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation • the amount of site disturbance which will be allowed. In an effort to prohibit any scarring on the back • sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be added to the plat: E Staff believes that this proposed language will ensure that the development, which is to be designed • a future date, will be well integrated in the hillside. A E TO � -* � �* � L* P R-Wo rA Base Floor Credit GRFA current overage which Area must be eliminated. A. 1816 225 2041 16 B. 1816 225 2041 16 C. 1845 225 2070 - D. 2148 225 2373 24 E. 1673 225 1898 3 F. 2157 225 2382 26 G. 1859 225 2084 21 Upper development area: A-1. 3252 225 3477 A-2. 2900 225 3125 �* � L* P R-Wo rA E A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 11-11 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient an"t workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. All of the home sites in both the upper development and lower clevelopmen) areas comply with the Town's parking requirements. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The Land Use Plan designates this parcel as Medium Density Residential (MDR). As proposed, the development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre. MDR allows a range of 3-14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with The Vail Land Use Plan designation. Identification and mitigation • natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Please see the analysis done by Mr. Nick Lampiris discussed above and attached to this memo. Staff has listed the recommendations from his study as conditions of approval. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Rl G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional ?nd efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. The minor subdivision that is proposed ensures that there will be a functional and efficient relationship throughout this portion of the development and the rest of The Valley. Easements will be shown on the plat to accommodate both on- site and off-site drainage. At this time, the Town Engineer has not received HM The standards for creating lots in this zone district are as follows: Section 18.14,050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand square feet, containing no less than eight thousand square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet on each site within its boundaries." WIMEK!Us i i I Staff believes that this project meets all the SIDID review criteria and is recommending approval • the proposed development plan with the following conditions. Assuming that the following changes can • incorporated into the drawings, staff recommends that the PEC recommend to Town Council that this SDD be approved. A. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following changes must be incorporated into the drawings: 1) The information provided in the completed drainage report must be incorporated into the drawings, including proposed improvements as well as easements; 2) The landscape plan must be amended so that the sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase 11 and that the sod type matches Phase 11; 3) The landscaping plan must be amended to add 6 spruce trees and 6 aspen trees in the area between the proposed development and Phase 11. 4) The deck on Building A must be redesigned so that it provides a 5 foot setback. B Prior to scheduling a DRB hearing for any individual home, the applicant shall provide documentation that: 2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the interna,- hazard mitigation recommended • Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazar,*-' analysis dated September 18, 1992 and January 22, 1993. 4) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart; GRFA may not be transferred from one residence to another. Base Floor Credit GRFA Area A. 1816 225 2041 B. 1816 225 2041 C. 1845 225 2070 D. 2148 225 2373 E. 1673 225 1898 F. 2157 225 2382 G. 1859 225 2084 WEIMI A-1. 3252 225 3477 A-2. 2900 225 3125 04 E 11 5) The architectural design of Building B, must be redesigned so that it is distinctly different from Buildings A or C, as determined by DRB; 6) The siding material, proposed as shingles, must be revised to siding similar to that used on other buildings used in The Valley. C. Prior to Town approval • the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for thit common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; D. The minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the SIDID receiving final approval from Town Council, im BASIS OF ELEVATION BASIS OF ELEVATION al x 0J, L u nx. 4/0 ad o7. S —E, al x 0J, L u nx. 4/0 ad o7. S A, :,��, , n ��; Mt 6 V "t" ro box 1297 dillon.colorado 80435 303 4685871 'A TOPOGRA—CAL MA)k T A ^T 0. A PoRT OF >'-14 A LLGII —GI U OF —L. EAGLE CG-TL. —ORAGO —E, 7- oT - - ------- - ------------- - -- A, :,��, , n ��; Mt 6 V "t" ro box 1297 dillon.colorado 80435 303 4685871 'A TOPOGRA—CAL MA)k T A ^T 0. A PoRT OF >'-14 A LLGII —GI U OF —L. EAGLE CG-TL. —ORAGO C 163I.�1' a s <r zs' a.59' L 5c'.C3' , csc _.r IJ a / z E � L = 5 � ' Z 0' -id box 1297 _ - d,lbn.cobrado a= 8,0435 5871 da #e revised Nate �� 4P.1 tF�Mt -f1 sx�CE 7 6 -id O5a b S a�_S II 3' n __SEE G ✓ i �'.2 G ]NtiL. ?J � E 1 86 E 415.03 62c' --- ------------ N V 6 �_TRACT -A 10, 14 1— 84SIS Or ELCV4TION 8460 'A60 �44 lz JON o ,40 106RAPMCAL SURVEY ­CT A I-" I.- IS 1­1 box 1297 dilbn.cobrado 80435 303468-5871 issued datif, iqq E00:= AL -2 (6) b no-Z, 61 E-13j, CONSULTING GEOLOGIST ��� V1d5|NGERSOLLLANE n��^ SILT, COLORADO 81652 p0387e-5400 (2*xounS) January 22, 1993 Steven Gensler Parkwood Realty 5299 ID 'T Blvd; #500 nglewood, CQ 801 RE: Tract A, Lion~s Ridge Subdivision Dear Mr. Benslerx I have been asked to clarify my position on the rockfall mitigation I suggested in my previous letter. I believe that one of two mitigation techniques is in order. One possibility is to either scale or grout loose rocks in ��he low outcrop directly above the sites; better is to construct the ��m rear foundation wall of the buildings to protrude at least three feet above finished grade and to have no windows in this interval (from ground level to the top of the stem wall). This wall should have a strength of at least 300 pounds per square foot. This wall would also act to protect the home in �he event snom should slide up against the home. If there are further questions please contact �e. Sinc r ly, � ' � Nicholas Lampiris �onsulting Geologist ' � Nicholas LaDODi[iS, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST n1nu|wsERaoLLLANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS) September 18, 1992 Steven Gensler Parkwood Realty 5299 DTC Blvd, #500 Englewood, CO 80111 RE: Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Dear Mr. Gensler-, I have reviewed the two sites as shown on the accompanying map for purposes of Rock Fall and Debris Flow review for the Town of Vail. The two sites have been chosen to be out of and to the the debris Van and channel' The driveway must enter and west of roads, streets, cross the fan, however. or The rock fall 'area is more severe further west than these two r— building sites and the low outcrops above these sites can be easily grouted or otherwise neutralized because they are thin and discontinuous. The more hazardous outcrops much higher on the hillside will shed mostly to the west. Although mitigation at the homesites is possible through walls or berming, it is of probably not warranted due to the low chance of rocks reaching sites. If there are questions the sites. Outcrop work prior to construction will bc beneficial. This is in a location wherc the ridge, containing the source 0f potential falling rocks, is at such a low level with rssPect to the sites that rocks will rarely reach the sites, and, if tmey do, will have very little onergy. Few unstable rocks occur above this site. �» The construction of these units will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public rights-W-wuy` buildings, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind. Let me rcstate that the sites are not in the debris hazard areas. Soils engineering studies are nccessary due to the steepneqs of the sites. If there are questions pleasz contact me. Sinc a rel Vol Nicholas Lhmpiris ��� Consulting Geologist Steven Gensler Parkwood Realty 5299 DTC Blvd, 050(::,j Engley5o& CO B0111 RE: Lion's Dear Mr. Gensler: Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 876-5400 (24 HOURS) September 18, 1992 Ridge Subdivision I have rcviewed the seven sites as shown on the accompanying map for purposes of Rock Fall and Debris Flow review for the Town of Vail. The seven sites are out of the debris fan and channel. All of the northernmost site and parts of the next two are within the Modium Rock Fall Hazard (see accompanyinmg map). , The rock {all area is more severo further north than these building sites on the other side of Tract A where it has been reported in a contcmporaneous letter that thQy can be easily grouted or otherwise neutralized because they are thin and _ discontinuous, The more hazardous outcrops much higher on the hillside will shed mostly to the west. Although mitigation at the homesites is possible through walls or berming, it is not warranted due to the low chance of rocks reaching the sites. The construction of these units will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public rights-of-way, buildings, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind. The other sites are not in either \ of the hazard areas. If there are questions please contact ma.. S�nc rely �zc�o�as �ampzrzs Consulting Goolzgist E Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion ,?nd a unanimous vote • 6-0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993. 8. A request for a proposed SIDID 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 Andy Knucltsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from the code. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized th the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further research before the final hearing regarding that issue. i IBM • Neighborhood input was then requested# i the first speaker was it Doolan. He requested that the applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and come up with an alternative design. Steve Lindstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr. Gensler to reduce the amount of asphalt in his design. O and Environmental Commission January 11, 19♦ 3 Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a preparei. report done by RKD, Inc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the details of the drawings, specifically trying to understand the amount of fill that would be located at the lower end of the proposed road. Sherry Dorward was the last neighbor to speak and she requested that the PEC require the applicant to maintain the character of the area. She described aspects of The Valley and requested that some of these characteristics be included in the new :iesign. Dalton Williams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness of the slope. He said that the square footage of the structures was an issue but the major issues to him were nailing down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the two homes. He also said that the character of the local area should be preserved. 0 Gena Whitten concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1•• 3 11 should be clustered. She said that by clustering, some asphalt could be eliminated and the amount of grading needed could be reduced. She said that saving the trees was very important. Reducing the size of the units, combining driveways, and shortening the length of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan. Dalton Williams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved, He said that too much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be i character with the existing area. He also requested that the applicant set the buildincl into the hillside to make them look smaller. E Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence from the PEC that the single family style of development was not an issue. However, he emphasized that issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have to be resolved and the design improved before the PEC could support the plan. Staff: Tim Devlin Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A. ASPLANALP, JR. ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUS DIANE L. HERMAN SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH LAW OFFICES DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.0 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SUITE 300 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST VAIL, COLORADO 81657 Town Council of the Town and the Planning and of the Town of Vail Vail CO HAND DELIVERED #f Vail Environmental Commission Re: Application of Loper Construction Services, Inc. Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch TELEPHONE: (303) 476-7552 TELECOPIER: (303) 476-4765 The Vail Design Review Board considered the application • Loper Construction Services, Inc., on the 17th • March. Some administrative decisions were apparently made the day before that hearing, but it is our understanding that no administrative E decisions were made regarding the current proposal prior to the 15th of March, which was the first working day after the current plans were delivered to our clients. This appeal is, therefore, being filed within ten days of any determination, whether by the Vail Department • Community Development • the Vail Town Council. At this time, the following facts are central to requirement for the disapproval of the proposal and plans submitted by Loper Construction services, Inc.: Ll p Development and the Design Review Board have determined that the 'applicant need not conform the proposed second phase of the project with that earlier representation made by the applicant, and that determination is one decision from which this appeal is taken. For a flat roof or a mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet. For a sloping roof, the height *f buildings shall not exceed thirty-three feet. At Section 18.04.170 the Vail Municipal Code describes the manner in which the measurement is to occur as follows: "Height" means the distance measured vertically, from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any, aiven Doint to the top of a f lat roof, or mansard roof or to the highest ridge line of a slo2ing roof. (Emphasis added) 0 E E E 4. Absence of a Model. When the application for the original dwelling was before the Design Review Board in the Fall of 1992, the applicant presented a model intended to illustrate the intended construction. The Design Review Board relied upon the model, as well as the plans establishing the intended building 0 E 18.54.05O.A.1 Structure shall be compatible with possible, these existing features should be preserved and reinforced by new construction. The objective is,to fit,the f4uildings to their sites in a way that leaves the natural land forms and features intact, treating the buildings as an integral part of the site, rather than as isolated objects at *•ds with their surroundings. 0 ONE N. v 7. Other Objections. other objections which are contained i the letters previously submitted, to the extent those objection have been overruled by the staff of the Department of Communit Development, are also the subject of this appeal, and thos objections are incorporated by reference. I E The consideration by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council of the Town of Vail, of the objections of the residents of the Potato Patch neighborhood, and the reversal of the approval by the Department of Community Development and the Vail Design Review Board, would be greatly appreciated by your constituents, whose protection is, after all, the goal of the zoning regulations and the design review process. I AAA, j r Enclosures xc: Mr. and Mrs. Mr. and Mrs. George Wiege Andy Daly I N M-rm 16 mmmsa�� • vegetation or landscaping upon a site. In the above-specified cases, the zoning admin- istrator may review and approve the application, approve the application with certain modifications, or may refer any application to the design review board for decision. All other applications shall be referred to the design review board. (Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) 1.) 18-54.050 Design guidelines. Actions of the design review board shall be guided by the objectives prescribed in Section 18.54.010, the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations and Guide Plans, b all of the applicable ordinances of the Town of Vail, and by the -01 ing design guidelines: ial I _6 ures shall be compatible with existing structures, heir surroundings, and with Vail's environment. It is not to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be compatible. Compatibility can be achieved through the proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning, landscaning- materials and colors- and compliance with • q to Oi7. en I - /� \ \ \� � � \ �� I445 454e "Av ZONING f7: Rooftop heating and air conditioning equipment, large #, vent stacks, elevator penthouses and similar features z should be avoided, however, if necessary, shall be de- signed to be compatible with the overall design of the kp, structure or screened from view. Rooftop antennae shall A not be permitted unless as allowed under a conditional Cyr use review as specifd °thin the zoning code. 8. Solar collectors shalt lie flat on pitched roofs, however, when retrofitting an existing building with active solar the collectors should be designed and placed in a manner compatible with the overall design of the building. 1 -9 Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building features that provide shelter from the elements are encouraged. Fenestration should be suitable for the climate and for the k orientation of the particular building elevation in which " d the fenestration occurs. The use of both passive and active l solar energy systems is strongly encouraged. II`. Exterior lighting shall be designed and located in a manner to minimize impact of lighting upon living areas r within a proposed project and upon adjacent structures .. .., and properties. 12. In no instance shall a duplex structure be so constructed as to result in each half of- the structure appearing substantially similar or mirror image in design. drainage/ erosion control. ' ;ALandscaping/ l" Various natural vegetation zones exist within the Gore Valley as a result of the form and aspects of the land itself. _. _.. 454E (v,l 1 -8.91) • DESIGN REVIEW V& ?ja1jL3 &V ub; wilca designing a landscape plan. Final selection should be based upon the soils and climate, case of establishment, suitability for the specific use desired, and the level of maintenance that can be provided. New planting shall use plants that are indigenous to the Rocky Mountain alpine and sub-alpine zones or as capable of being introduced into these zones. A list of plant materials indigenous to the V,-dl area is on file with the department of community development. ,Also indicated on the list are ornamentals which are suitable for planting within the Vail area. The minimum sizes of landscape materials acceptable are as follows: Required trees. Deciduous - two inch caliper Conifers - six foot Required shrubs - "S gallon container Foundation shrubs shall have a minimum height of eighteen inches at time of planting. 2'. Landscape design shall be developed to locate new planting in order to extend existing canopy edges or 454g ZONING planted in natural looking groups. Geometric plantings, evenly spaced rows of trees, and other formal landscape patterns shall be avoided. u= 3. P iul attention shall be given the landscape design of off - street parking lots to reduce adverse impacts upon living areas within the proposed development, upon adjacent properties, and upon public spaces with regard to noise, lights, and visual impact. Parking lots of fifteen or more spaces shall comply with the landscape require- ments found in Section 18.52.080(F.) of the Vail unici- pal Codc. 4. All landscaping shall be provided with a method of = irrigation suitable to ensure the continued maintenance of p lanted materials. 5. Whenever possible natural drainage patterns upon the site shall not be modified. Negative drainage impacts upon adjacent sites shall not be allowed. . Runoff from impervious surfaces such as roofs and pavement areas shall be directed to natural or improved drainage channels or dispersed into shallow sloping vegetated areas. 7. Slope of cut and fill banks shall be determined by soil characteristics for the specific site to avoid erosion, and _ promote revegetation opportunities, but in any case shall be limited t0 a maximum of 2:1 slope. Measures shall be taken to retain all eroded soil material Y on site during construction, control both ground water and surfact water runoff, and to permanently stabilize all disturbed slopes and drainage features upon completion -: ' 9 ®- of constructions All plants shall be planted in a good quality topsoil mix of ` a type and amount recommended by the American °; h Landscape Contractor Association and the Colorado° Nurseryman ®s Association. h t 10. All plantings must be mulched. Paving near a tree to be saved must contain a plan fora "tree vault" in order to ensure the ability of the roots to ° "° receive air. Fencing] walls. ;l :< The placement of walls and fences shall respect existing :- v Iand forms and fit into land massing rather than arbi• 454h (Vail 11-1543) U] JE, • trarily follow site boundary lines. Fences shall not be encouraged except to screen trash areas, utility equip- '71 I-f ... • ..., f "; , rii'' • t �1 •. r`r a ° t . .. v �ry. Y J T.. t , ;m .t vow '� � ski $ z E.4. ... $ .. 1P i i{:... � :x �4. fS: .. i :, DESIGN REVIEW C. •Z•.. r s:. - .... .•. • may be designed t accommodate the development of dwelling units r garages in more r. one design structure if the board determines constraints significant site on s e lot. The of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined in Section 18.54.050 Hj. shall be required for the ME I] • 15 NO development. In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following U common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorpo- rated to create unifled site development. (Ord. 46(1991) §§ 2, 3: Ord. 12(1988) § 2: Ord. 24(1985) § 1: Ord. 9(1985) §§ 2, : rd.39(1983) § 1.) ZONING mortar and detailing should reflect concern for local climatic conditions. '-o�-,—' 3. t Pedestrian walks/ plazas 'X„ g L a. Impervious surfacing' - may, he" used,-to7emphasiz6',,—`- important features or pedestrian areas'. Natural materials and colors are encouraged,- " they blenc in well with wood, stone and plant materials.* Asphalt is discouraged except when necessary`- for' bike paths and parking areas. 1:3. AC V- In 454j-2b, (Vail 1-3-91) . • W I`- ti DATE: April 12, 1993 irUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance to allow for the construction of a 5-1/2 foot geologic hazard mitigation wall to be placed within the front setback on Lot 16, Vail Valley, 3rd ng/2039 Sunburst Drive. Applicants: Mike Grisanti and Kurt Segerberg Planner: Jim Curnutte Section 18.58,020(C) of the Vail Municipal Code (Fences, hedges, walls and screening) limits walls located within the front setback area to a maximum height of 3 feet. The setback variance request is to allow for a 5-1/2 foot tall geologic hazard mitigation wall within the front setback area. MCI. The Town of Vail issued a building permit for this duplex in January of 1981. In 1982, the Town adopted hazard regulations to provide certain requirements relative to the development of subdivisions or building lots within areas of geologic sensitivity. No substantial improvements have been made on the property since the building was completed in 1982. a-01. vu =-- I W.4 6-11 Ill$ 0 l 161 IVA Allowed GRFA: Existing GRFA: Proposed GRFA: Required Setbacks: INN&JI111tor-I JL� IAV61711F'Iell I Existing Parking: Minimum Landscaping Required: Existing Landscaping: Proposed Landscaping: ME 20 feet from front property line 15 feet from side & rear property lines 33 feet 30 feet (no change as a result of proposed addition) # 0 5 spaces (2.5 per unit) 4 spaces 6 spaces *Although the existing buildings already exceed the maximum allowable GRFA allowed on the lot, the proposed addition may be allowed through the Town's "250 square foot addition" Ordinance. K E Upon review of the Criteria and Findings in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development recommends approval • the requested wall height variance. The staff's recommendation for approval of the wall height variance request is based on the following factors: 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 4 attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 0 Staff believes that the applicant's 5-1/2 foot tall avalanche and rockfall mitigation wall is K r-3 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of I population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities and utilitiel 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. BRIFF-MP-11=2 I MEMMMEM= a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifie* 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. M 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. The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed front setback variance request. The required findings necessary for granting a variance are met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below: Staff feels that granting approval of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege since the Town recognizes the need to mitigate geologic hazards on one's property. The applicant is attempting to adequately mitigate the geologic hazards which exist on the lot. 11 3MERMI =0 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the wall or garage/entryway addition, the property owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying acknowledgement of receiving personal notice of the fact that said building and structure are in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto. 2. Additional landscaping should be provided at the east and west ends of the new wall, especially in the area of the electrical switchgear box. The landscape treatment behind the new gation wall must be installed in conformance with the recommendations of the PEC and DRB. I A revocable right-of-way permit will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed addition in order to cover the proposed gation wall and associated landscaping. 0 i i hfoTr: � f'K�r�'✓ -R(� � � i IA LoMP�KIGi fzEPal�l TTF�7 2f25�`l'� / / \ �UIz-N uNrr a �Gtutz�. �• o t i \ \ : •''• � / �' ..151-0 . \ i DCF� hG �RUGTURE ' - f�KX�nlCt i� Kr. «HT •4 . \\ � YF�Y bEFCa -ka Iw I N • �•`� c rre+c 1N \v�- -TAT dG11 '� E'Xl�iitfIC,t J� [i'• ?�D a Boom Gf I ti4� E j FGR To SHT. 4 lob�oK GVL•D�•�•C t, orA 1oN o'r �Copal`- f �/F L1 n�GH� t-w LL Lw�y �KTH SITE PLAN_ ---T_ 1- - io•-o- \ rl M a CC M Q U p��y Vl -� aui��a s • • PLAN OF WALL 1/2'- V-0' ELEVATION OF WALL 1/4' - l'-O" SECTION THROUGH WAL & s t GRISANTI REMODEL AVALANCHE WALL REVISION: Job No. Sheet: wa: : 4 8 P.C. aI.A, • • mfl�M W', 0 rn f. I �W 500 BROADWAY P.O. BOX 179 EAGLE, COLORADO 8 1631 FAX (303) 328-7207 File Number: ZC-256-93-Berry Creek, Filing 5, Equestrian Center Adhga,Tame of Applicant: Hobby Horses, Lt IWW' I Location: Located in Edwards at the intersection of 1-70 and the access road, directly east and south from the eastbound access ramp. Proposal: To amend the zone district designation in order to improve and expand the existing equestrian facility. Eagle And Colorado Valley Planning-Commission: May 5, 1993, beginning at 1:30 p.m., Commissioners Meeting Room, 500 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado. MES39193915ME ZTITM%��� May 11, 1993 beginning at 9:30 a.m., Commissioners Meeting Room, 50 Broadway, Eagle, Color ado. I Your comments concerning this application are invited. For further information, do not hesitate to contact this office at 328-8745 or P.O. Box 179, Eagle, CO 81631