Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0426 PECProject Orientation/ Lunch 11:30 A.M. Discussion of Environmental Health brochure Site Visits 12:30 P.M. Lauterbach/1 139 Red Sandstone Dr. Lauterbach/1335 Westhaven Dr. Erickson Garton's Saloon Police Addition Public Hearing 2:00 PM 2:00 - 2:05 PM 1 Update on minor change to variance for Berkowitz residence located at 315 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Howard and Judy Berkowitz Planner: Shelly Mello/Kristan Pritz 2:05 -2:15 PM 2. Discussion of a proposal to enclose balconies at the Lifthouse Condominiums. Applicant: Doug Walker, representing Lifthouse Condominiums Planner: Andy Knucltsen 2:15 - 2:25 PM 3. A request for a conditional use permit to expand the hours of operation and add lights to the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course located at Tract D, Lionshead First Filing, between the Lionshead Center Building and the base of the Bornfree Express Chairlift. Applicant: Charlie Alexander Planner: Jim Curnutte 2:25 - 3:15 PM 4. 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 Knucltsen Ci 5. A request for setback and wall height variances to relocate a garage in an existing residence, located at Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing/716 Forest Road. Applicant- Neal Erickson PI-9-nner: Tim Devlin PM 8. A request for 8conditional use permit and aparking variance 03 allow for aD outdoor dining deck atthe Gar1oD'3 Saloon located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Tim Devlin 7. A request for G vvD[k session for a [niDOr subdivision to vacate the |0t line between Lots A-1 and A-2. 8 request for variances from the subdivision Q}&d St3Odards, vva|| height standards and to allow parking in the front setback at Lots Al and A2, Block A, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing NQ. 1/1130 and 1109 Sandstone Drive. Applicant: Michael Lauted]ach/The Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Shelly Mello/Mike Mollica 8. An appeal of a staff interpretation to not allow a cantilevered portion Of @ building into an area exceeding 40% slope. Applicant: Michael LaVte[b2ch/The Reinforced E3[Ul Co. Planner: Shelly Mello/Mike MQUica 8. A request for a work session for an amendment to 8 previous PEC [OcOUnDleDdaMOO for approval of major amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A, Millrace |||. 1335VV8Sthaven Drive, Cascade Village, more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW 14, NE 1A, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning ma point m the North-South centerline m said Section o whence w iron pin with unlaslic cap marking the center msaid Section 1u bears soo13nns"W4no.va feet; thence along said centerline wv01oosn"E 1zu.m feet ,v the southerly ROW line u//m' thence departing said ROW line woe15m'c5"coo.1u feet; thence departing said ROW line an1~un'`9"s1en.*u feet *x point v/ curve; thence 1cu�oo feet along the arc v/u14o.xn fool radius curve w the left, having v central angle o/4y�n's1^ and a chord that bas a1 55r*o's`1y.,ouo, * hence s^o3c',Wsoovom,,menmvo.nnev,a/unomoucorar/.e` wo,mmmovmowmo nom. xuvmnawn/m/anu/euf *mx'/u'anoaoh"mmat baon1u"6no`eo^.zvum'monoouu4onn`w000reo,�m^om N38'42'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S78'1 0'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: W1idl@H|L@Uterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte 0 2 5:15 - 5:30 PM 10. Appoint new PEC Chairperson. 5:30 - 5:35 PIVII 11. Approve minutes from April 12, 1993 PEC Meeting. E, 40 3 ^ ��. . � ONWIM Mike Mollica Jim Curnutte Tim Devlin Starting at approximately 2:05 p.m., the Planning and Environmental Commission was called to order for an update on a minor change to a variance for the Berkowitz residence located at 315 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Howard and Judy Berkowitz Planner: Shelly K8eUo/KdSbgnPritz Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve this minor change to the variance for the Berkowitz residence located 81 315 K8iU Creek Circle/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing with Jeff Bowen seconding this rnObOn. A unanimous 7'Ovote approved this request. Applicant: Doug Walker, representing Ufthouse[|OndOnniniurnS Planner: AndyKnudtSen Doug Walker, the applicant, stated that he wanted to remove the wood burning fireplaces and enclose the balconies at the Lifthouse Condominiums. He then inquir of the PEC what the criteria of such a request would be. Diana Donovan stated that this request would not be looked at favorably because tR,'-7 building would lose its dimensions, shadows and depths. 0 April 26, 1993 1 Planning and Environmental Commission Packy thanked the PEC for their time. 3. A request for a conditional use permit to expand the hours of operation and add lights to the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course located at Tract D, Lionshead First Filing, between the Lionshead Center Building and the base of the Bornfree Express Chairlift. Applicant: Charlie Alexander Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was recommending approval of this request to amend a conditional use permit with two conditions: 1) that the operation's hours be limited to 10:00 p.m. at night, and 2) that the applicant upgrade the temporary building, i.e. s siding, etc. Jim pointed out that the temporary building and lights would be taken to the DRB for their review. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC board did not have a problem with the lights but that there was some concern about the hours of operation and that if there were complaints about the hours of operation of the golf course, the applicant would have to close the course at an earlier time in the evening. Jeff Bowen stated that it was his opinion that this was a positive recreational option for the Lionshead area. Larry Barnes, representing the Lionshead Center Condominium Association, stated that they had concerns with the noise associated with the golf course and the lighting after dark. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request to amend a conditional use permit for the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course per the staff memo and conditions. Dalton Williams seconded this motion and amended it to reflect the closing time of 10:30 p.m A 7-0 unanimous vote approved this request. 4. A request for a conditional use permit and a parking variance to allow for an outdoor dining deck at the Garton's Saloon located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Tim Devlin Planning and Environmental Commission April 26, 1993 2 Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo summarizing the applicant's request. He said that the applicant was willing to valet park in order to meet the on- site parking requirement, therefore negating the need for • parking variance. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for a conditional use permit with four conditions which are addressed in the staff memo. Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned that granting a parking variance would set a precedent. She then inquired how clean the smoker was and stated that the smoker at City Market in Avon was quite "messy". Shirkie Evans, stated that the smoker that they would be using was mainly for effect. He also said that the City Market smoker uses hickory and that they would be using mesquite, which produces less smoke. Tim Devlin replied that twelve parking spaces were being removed and replaced by valet parking spaces for this proposal. [I a Lei V.X01 R.-M OIL*] *3 rdo IK* [#Ili aem I A gragor, 1111111 a Dave Garton suggested that the conditional use permit be issued on a yearly basis and subject for renewal each spring so that the situation could be evaluated. Greg Amsden inquired of the applicant whether parking could be gated off for a specific use. MIXED MINIMUM ill iiiiiiii I � 11 1 1 1 -1 i # i -- Dalton Williams inquired whether it was the PEC's responsibility to address the allocation of parking spaces and that it was his understanding that all mixed uses are figured into the parking requirements. He stated that he felt this situation could set a dangerous precedent. Jeff Bowen inquired whether Crossroads designated each business a specific number of parking spaces. Planning and Environmental Commission April 26, 1993 3 Dave Garton stated that the parking spaces were primarily used • the employees, and that most bar patrons that needed parking used the Vail Transportation Center. Jeff Bowen stated that the parking structure was not full most of the summer except for the 4th of July and the bike races. He wondered whether it would be possible for employees to park elsewhere during these times. Dave Garton stated that he would be sensitive to the parking situation at such times and explained that the whole idea of this project was predicated on the summer off- season. Diana Donovan stated that the they needed to determine what the total parking requirement was for Crossroads so that the PEC could be sure that they were making consistent decisions. Kathy Langenwalter inquired how informed fellow tenants at Crossroads were of this proposal. At this point, Tim Devlin showed the PEC the list • adjacent property owners w were notified of this request and this PEC Meeting. I Dalton Williams commented that he was concerned what other businesses would think of this proposal if the PEG approved it. He stated that future applicants could use this proposal as justification for approval of a similar proposal. Bill Anderson stated that this request was for a conditional use permit and that the applicant was requesting the permit for a year and that it could be reevaluated at such time. Kristan Pritz stated that Club Majik's was given the option to valet park when they were at Crossroads but they never used it. Diana Donovan stated that if valet parking is used, that it should be available twenty- four hours per day. Dalton Williams stated that he wondered what would happen if the Christiania wanted to pursue a similar request. IW_r'II NO IN10,11111611110 Planning and Environmental Commission is April 26, 1993 4 Bill Anderson stated that he disagrees that by granting this request that the PEC would be setting a precedent because a precedent situation to him means a situation with identical circumstances. He thinks this is a positive request that makes better use of the space at Crossroads and that it is better to allow an operation like this as opposed to letting the space just sit there unused. Jeff Bowen stated that they were looking at a time of the year when parking was generally not a problem. He also said that since they were only looking at granting this request for a year (June 1 - November 1) that they were not creating a hardship on other parties. Dave Garton responded that live music would be inside the establishment and would not start until 9:00 - 9:30 p.m. Greg Amsden stated that the PEC board needed confidence that valet parking would be used. Dave Garton responded that twenty-four hour valet parking was not feasible but that he would be willing to offer valet parking after 5:00 p.m. Greg Amsden inquired whether the applicant had considered to have the proposed operation going during lunch hours, 0 Shirkie stated that it would not be cost effective to do so. Greg Amsden stated that he had no objection to approving this request for a conditional use permit. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she had no objection to the conditional use permit but parking was a concern to her. She said that valet parking would be a workable solution for the loss of parking spaces during evening hours but wondered whether tht, storage of equipment would effect the availability of parking spaces. Allison Lassoe suggested that the applicant be willing to begin valet parking at an earlier time during busy times such as the 4th of July. Dave Garton reiterated out that most of the parking spaces are for Garton's employees. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 April 26, 1999 5 Diana Donovan stated that she supports this project and wants to see the parking accommodated on-site. She said that she would like to know what the parking requirement for Crossroads is. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like more information on the parking requirement. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC needed to look more closely at this situation because she did not feel that a parking variance was the best route to go. Kathy Langenwalter pointed out that this was a multi-use situation. Diana Donovan stated that the situations do vary but that the underlying concept does not. She said that if they make an exception to the way they vote on this proposal that it will make it more difficult to say "no" next time. Kristan Pritz stated that continuity in decisions is important but that the individual circumstances of each situation deserved to be looked at as well. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC needed to keep in mind whether this request would be positive for the Town. Planning and Environmental Commission April 26, 1993 6 5� A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision 1O @]|Vw for the development of single family homes located on Tracts and BValley, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Applicant: St8v8G8DS|er/ParKvvO0d Realty Planner: Andy Knucltsen [)BKOn Williams inquired whether the building footprint Of Building B had changed or if the changes were to the exterior only. Randy stated that only the exterior of the buildings had changed, not the building Dalton Williams stated that the buildings looked like the mirror images of one anoth i.e. that they had the same garage and the same windows on the lower level (three windows in a row). He commented that he did not believe this is what the PEC intended when they directed the applicant to make the buildings different. I [}igOa Donovan inquired of the PEC board whether they felt that the changes were enough/not enough and whether further direction from the DRB was necessary. It was agreed that the condition that was part of the memo at the previous meeting regarding Building B would be added back as a condition of approval. Staff read that from the previous memo, which was as follows: "The architectural design of Building B must be redesigned so that it is Planning and Environmental Commission April 26, 1993 7 distinctly different from Buildings A or C as determined by the DRB." The PEC added that the architect should revise the roof lines, the entries, the materials and color so that these elements are distinctly different from either Building A or C. Diana Donovan then directed the PEC to focus on upper development area issues. Kristan Pritz stated that staff would like the drawings revised prior to going in front of Town Council. She further stated that staff would like to try and avoid future variances on this site. Randy Hodges stated that a soils report had not been done and consequently the depth of excavation had not been determined. Diana Donovan asked the PEC whether they felt that this project was doable without variances. FROM== Greg Amsden stated that the PEC would see variances at this location due to the excessive slope. Diana Donovan stated that due to platting, the excessive slope would be a self- imposed hardship and that would not be grounds for granting a variance. Dalton Williams stated that he would like to see a soils analysis, garage, wall thicknesses, concrete grades and cuts. Randy Hodges stated that the relationship between the garage and the road would remain the same. Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see future variances eliminated by documenting a solution at this time. Jeff Bowen stated that Tract B presented no problems in his mind. Concerning Tract A, he stated that it was his opinion that the scope of the project needs to be reduced to one unit. I I mm rd 1 or, 1&-1911 6-1r.-I fll I He said that he wondered whether the site should have development even though the county has said that it is buildable. Planning and Environmental Commission April 26, 1993 8 E E Bill Anderson stated that he would like to see a soils analysis done and would also liflyi a structural engineer to look at the retainage necessary for the site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC needed to take a closer look at the site work, i.e. zoning restrictions on wall heights, driveway grades, etc. Jeff Bowen stated that he had a real problem with Tract A and that he was not sure whether the site was buildable. Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see the soils and structural engineer's reports and see future variances on the site restricted, but that she would support the design. Dalton Williams stated that if it is a given that the site can be built without variances, then the PEC should not restrict building on the site. He said that he would like to s soils and structural engineer reports and could support the design. I Kristan Pritz then summarized what the -Soils analysis -Structural engineer report -Drawings of the retaining walls and the refined MORUNTURIZIrl She said that it appeared Tract B did not need further changes per PEC direction. Kristan Pritz stated that the drawings would need to be submitted by May 10th to allow two weeks for the staff to review if the applicant wanted to be on the May 24, 1993 PEG Agenda. Dalton Williams made a motion to table this request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision until May 24, 1993 with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote Planning and Environmental Commission is April 26, 1993 9 6. A request for setback and wall height variances to relocate a garage in an existing residence, located at Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing/716 Forest Road. Applicant: Neal Erickson Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that the applicant had dropped the wall height variance request and that the proposed garage would encroach 4 feet into the east side setback variance. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the east side setback variance with the condition that the applicant plant a mix of evergreen and aspen trees per the staff memo. Bill Pierce, the architect for the 0pp|inRrd. stated that o|8niinQ the evergreen and aspen trees posed no problem for the applicant. Bill Anderson stated that hedid not have a problem with this request, and Greg Arnsden and Jeff BQvveO agreed with Bill. 7. A request for a work 8eSSiOD for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots /\-1 and A-2, a request for variances from the subdivision road standards, wall height standards and to allow parking in the front setback at Lots A-1 and A'2, Block A, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 1/1139 and 1109 Sandstone Drive. Applicant: Michael Lautedbach/Tho Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Sh8|k/ Mello/Mike MOUica The applicant, Michael Lauterbach presented the PEC with the proposed project. He stated that the property line currently has a 15 foot utility easement on either side an 'I that he would like to have the easement moved 30 feet to the east in order to allow f more room to build. He said that this placement of the easement would allow for additional GRFA for one of the proposed units. A general discussion was held and it was determined that the PEC did not have any objection to vacating the existing lot line and associated easement, assuming that th't remaining issues concerning this project are resolved. 0 April 26, 1993 10 Planning and Environmental Commission Diana Donovan asked the PEG what their thoughts were concerning the proposed access plan and whether they could envision any other options for access onto the site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the only other feasible access option would be from the southeast corner of the site. Mike Lauterbach stated that the wall was 6 feet at the bottom of the parcel tapering to 2 feet at the top • the parcel. He stated that the fire turnaround was 20 feet. WO-11 MINI 1 11111 111111111 MINMEMEM Diana Donovan summarized that the PEG would like to see reduced pavement, reduced walls, the addition of curves to the walls, a detailed planting plan at a scale of 1 " = 10' (i.e. use of aspen and evergreen trees to camouflage the wall). �= i I 11111 R � � 1 0 IM OWNS I 1 -1 11 1 1 1 •• .• . "I Gire• Amsden suggested that the applicant consider moving one of the westeFR I- — -oluildings to the eastern end of the site. Mike Lauterbach stated that with regard to debris flow, "if its major, its not going to be minor." Xathy Langenwalter stated that the site plan design needs to be worked on. Diana Donovan commented that the design seemed tight with three houses and a road on the western end. Greg Amsden stated that he felt that the site, with its 40% slope, seemed too confining for three houses. Dalton Williams stated that he would like to see two larger houses (instead of the proposed three houses) that blend better with the neighborhood and with the land. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 April 26, 1993 11 Kristan Pritz pointed out that staff did not feel that building envelopes were necessary is with this project because of the constraints created by the 40% slopes and hazard. A general summary of the DEC's comments was given by Diana Donovan, who said that the PEC had no problem with the curve radius or vacating the existing lot lines and that the PEC would work with the applicant concerning the wall height variance. 8. An appeal of a staff interpretation to not allow a cantilevered portion of a building into an area exceeding 40% slope. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Shelly Mello/Mike Mollica Diana Donovan stated that the PEC had discussed this issue with the staff during their project orientation and that, at first, she had agreed with the applicant, but, on further consideration, determined that a cantilever is still part of a structure and therefore should not be allowed to encroach into an area exceeding a 40% slope. Kathy Langenwalter stated that if a deck or roof overhang encroaches into a 40% slope area, perhaps it could be considered as currently addressed in supplemental regulations. Jeff Bowen, Dalton Williams and Allison Lassoe stated that they agreed with the staff interpretation. Mike Lauterbach stated that he was of the opinion that a roof structure should b8 allowed to cantilever into an area exceeding 40% slope. Diana Donovan advised the staff to consider rewording the appropriate section of the zoning code to clarity the difference between 40% slope (site disturbance) and hazard areas (inherent danger). She also asked the staff to consider the possibility of allowing Planning and Environmental Commission 0 April 26, 1993 12 11 r `• w i :. i i i r. • i' i i,:..: ..:r • r . r �i i I.• *•.•. t a request for r work session d i• previous PEC recommendation for approval of a major amendment to Cw .• ag Dr .,t Area a Millrace Westhaven Drive, Cascade Village, more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW IA NE ' /n, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 61h P.M., described as follows: Beginning at a point of the North -South centerline of said Section 12 whence an iron pin with a plastic, cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S00 °38'56 "W 455.06 feet, thence along said centerline N00 °38'56 "E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of I -70; thence departing said ROW line N66 °53'25 "E 39.15 feet, thence departing said ROW fine S81 °23'1 9 "E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence, 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49 °08'51" and a chord that bears S1 5 °57'45 "E 11910 feet, thence S40 °32'1 0 "E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49 °12'10" and a chord that bears S15 °56'05 "E 64.28 feet; thence S8 °40'00 "W 90.27 feet; thence N38 °42'24 "W 224.55 feet; thence S78 "10'32 "W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte .i` • i � i i Bill Anderson began the discussion by stating that he has no problem with the new roof lines being proposed. Kathy Lanenwalter agreed with Bill but stated that the proposed exterior building materials were a problem. a i wi ".,,• r• i Dalton Williams stated that he liked the old roof lines better but that he was not that concerned about it and had no comments to add concerning the proposed new roof lines. regards The members of the PEC held a general discussion concerning the siding and determined that additional siding on the buildings would improve their appearance. With ' • i' determined that this was a D R i Concerning i i the duplex, D i Bowen, Diana Donovan Allison Lassoe and Kathy Langenwalter all preferred the old roof lines but did noi fel illy about it one or e other. Greg Amsden • d Bill Anderson o stated that 0 Planning and Environmental Commission April 26, 1993 13 E Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like this request to go to DRB with instructions from the PEC concerning the siding and the trim on the structures. 10. Appoint new PEC Chairperson. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 12, 1993 •EC Meeting with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote approved the minutes. Planning and Environmental Commission April 26, 1993 14 E SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit and a parking variance to allow for an outdoor restaurant, bar, and dining deck operation at the Garton's Saloon, Crossroads Center, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Garton's Saloon/Dave Garton Planner: Tim Devlin I --- - ........... ...... - ....... --- ...... --- ....... ....... . ......... ................... ............ ........ ................. .............. ...... ...... `,""""", ...... .......... .......... ........... ........... ........................... ................ ....... ...................... ............. ........ ............ ---l-1-1- ............. ............. ........... ............. ..................... ....... ............................................ .................... -- .......... ............ ................ .......... . ... ... ..................... . .............. ....... ...... I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE Section 18.28.040(l)(Conditional Use) of the Vail Municipal Code allows for "any use permitted by Section 18.28.030 which is not conducted entirely within a building." Section 18.28.030(E) allows for "eating and drinking establishments, including the following: ...Cocktail lounges, taverns, and bars." Please see the attached site plan for the proposed "ranchyard" configuration. Conditional Use: The proposed operation is allowed as a conditional use per the aforementioned sections 18.28.040(1) and 18.28.030(E) of the Municipal Zoning Code. Ill. RELATED POLICIES OF THE VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street - making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. A review of successful decks /patios in Vail reveals several common characteristics: • direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases use by many days /year and protects from wind • 2 F. •sun -views -wind -pedestrian activity 1y; I OEM �V!p MOR 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural actives should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time business, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. rams The Vail Village Master Plan does encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses, and specifies the following policy to achieve this objective: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. In addition, a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas are encouraged, and states as a policy that: 3.3.2 ELI C-Y-1 *utdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall bt ­ncouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. — ZNEMM�,�� The Streetscape Plan addresses this area as follows: "The character of this portion of East Meadow Drive is divided into two distinctive zones. The east zone, from the intersection of Willow Bridge Road to Village Center Road is characterized by a standard street/curb/sidewalk section, the presence of vehicular traffic, varied building setbacks and a wide variety • landscape tre�2_tments. East Meadow Drive, (Village Center Road to Slifer Square) is dominated by the Village parking structure to the north. The large grass slope south of the • 3 The Streetscape Plan calls for the construction of a sidewalk along both sides of Village Center Road. Because this proposal is temporary and has minor impacts on circulation, staff believes it is not necessary for the applicant to build the sidewalk. The staff believes that a parking variance would not be required if the 12 valet parking spaces are an acceptable solution to the PEC. If this solution is not acceptable to the PEC, then a parking variance would be required. Section 18.52.080 (Parking--Standards) does may be provided in lieu of self parking space the following: "Aisles of adequate width for convenient and easy access to each parking space shall be provided, affording unobstructed vehicular passage between each parking space and one or more accessways. This requirement may be waived oniv durina such times ;_?s vg-let Therefore, upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested parking variance and approval of the conditional use permit, based on the following factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff believes that valet parking spaces are acceptable for the proposed months operation (June 1 - November 1), and recognizes that some of the twelve displaced parking spaces might be "absorbed" by the Vail Parking Structure, which is directly 4 adjacent across Village Center Road to the east. The applicant has agreed to provide (and staff) the twelve valet parking spaces in the lot below the proposed "ranchyard" at the request of the Community Development Department. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff believes that the twelve valet parking spaces associated with this proposal would still allow Garton's Saloon to meet their parking requirement on-site, thereby negating the need for a parking variance. The staff supports the use of valet spaces in this instance for the following reasons: The staff does recommend that the valet parking plan be approved for one (1) year, at which time it should be reviewed by the staff and PEC if necessary. 3. The effect of the requested variances on light and air, distribution o? population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. VI. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: II 0 5 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. 9-10 IS F W, I MMM�� a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifi,429 regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this titill 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. I 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. 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. 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. • 6 2.) Loading for Garton's Saloon shall not be impeded by the proposed use; to be reviewed • the Public Wo mmunity Development Departments. 3.) The hay and other potentially combustible material be reviewed and meet the requirements of the Vail Fire Department. Also, the Fire Department would like the applicant to provide a detail of the barbecue operation and fuel sources. 4. Effect upon character • the area ir located, including the scale and bui' the surrounding uses. As previously discussed, the staff feels that the proposed western-style ranchyard would be a positive entertainment option for visitors and locals alike during the off- season months (June 1 - November 1). The staff also feels that the use would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area, which has retail, restaurant, an*' office uses. granting a conditional g.§* •*rmit. 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 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. • 7 The staff believes that a parking variance would not be required if the 12 valet parking spaces are an acceptable solution to the PEG. If this solution is not acceptable to the PEC, then a parking variance would be required. Therefore, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested parking variance and approval of the conditional use permit. The staff feels that the parking variance (if required by the PEC) does not meet the findini iiscussed in section IV B 1 and 3 (a-c) • this memorandum • an alternate solution ?.vailable to the applicant. I The staff feels that e for a conditional use permit meets all • the findings discussed in sections IV D of this memorandum. As a condition of approval, the staff recommends that the following be resolved to the satisfaction of various Town departments before the operation may commence: 1.) Handicapped access to Garton's Saloon must be maintained per the American Disability Act (ADA); to be reviewed by the Town of Vail Building Department. 2.) Loading for Garton's Saloon shall not be impeded by the proposed use; to be reviewed by the Public Works/Community Development Departments. 3.) The hay and other potentially combustible material be reviewed and meet the requirements of the Vail Fire Department. Also, the Fire Department would like the applicant to provide a detail of the barbecue operation and fuel sources. 4.) The staff does recommend that the valet parking plan be approved for one (I year, at which time it should be reviewed • a. and PEC if necessary. I Please note that under Sections 18.60.080 and 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a variance and 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. • 8 r pk� Lq - IX T 19TAtN3 toh IL, 4p 47 57A ul� gg Lq - IX T 19TAtN3 toh IL, 4p 47 11 I ov Ac IA A • Dave • Saloon PO Box 705 Vail, CO • a« N « N a This letter will serve as approval • your " i " for blocking off the upper parking lot deck in the summer for the purpose of having outdoor barbecues. I have attached a copy of your letter dated March 16, 1993 which details your proposal. rf you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Em Steve Stafford Managing i • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 26, 1993 SUBJECT: A request by Douglas Walker (alias Packie Walker) to discuss enclosing the balconies at the Lifthouse Lodge. Applicant: Doug Walker, representing the Lifthouse Lodge Planner: Andy Knudtsen Staff understands that Mr. Walker would like to discuss the potential of enclosing balconies at the Lifthouse Lodge. Our records show that the site is 20,334 square feet and r potentia' of 16,267.2 square feet of GRFA. Because the existing GRFA is 17,640 square feet, the building size exceeds the allowable. E I ky, M ky, •`_ Z LOW WOR ME =4 Me DATE: April 26, 1993 SUBJECT: A request to amend a conditional use permit for the Lionshead Miniaturit Golf Course to add lights and expand the hours of operation, • parcels generally located west of Chair 8 (Born Free Express); more specifically located on Tract C and D, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates/Charlie Alexander Planner: Jim Curnutte OMMEM MIMINUI I • • 1 • 1 "1 a0l 1131640 This request has been considered previously as a public parks/recreation facility, which is listed as a conditional use under Section 18.26.040 (D) of the Commercial Core 11 zone district. IL CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment request, with modifications, based on the following factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect • the use • light and air, distribution • population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that the proposed conditional use permit amendment will not have any negative impacts on the .ii •# services. Over the past two years, the golf course facility has provided another positive recreational opportunity for the public. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 0 2 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts, and the design considerations 4o not specifically address miniature golf courses. 0 3 NNNNN�rWl r— -11 The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before vll� granting a conditional use permit: A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. r, That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment request to add low level lighting and extend the hours of operation of the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course with the following conditions: 1) The hours of operation be limited to 10:00 p.m, at which time the lights would be turned off and the course would be cleared of guests. 2) The exterior of the temporary building used for ticket sales will be upgraded to make it More aesthetically pleasing i.e. addition of a shake roof, lap siding, appropriate paint color, etc. The proposed temporary building upgrades will be taken to the Design Review Board for their review. 0 4 GONDOLA BUILDING 4:--- amm 18 ME dmx� PHOTOMETRIC CHARTS 35 MR-16 NFL (FMV) 35 MR-16 FL (FMW) 50 MR-16 FL (EYN) 35 watt narrow flood 35 watt flood 50 watt flood PRIMARY FUNCTIONS COLORS MATERIAL WEIGHT PKG. OTY. CAT. # SPECIALTY LIGHTING RED LEXAN PATHLIGHTING BLUE XENOY DOWNLIGHTING G= UPLIGHTING YELLCT 6 W1101irl". in] 4=0 1 LB. 12 AK-1 03 'T_*N:1 121161 REFLECTOR- Minimum thickness 0. 1 in. held in place by mechanical insert fitting into 6 ribs molded on inside of base. 24 ventilation holes around the circumference of the reflector. Available in four standard colors, other colors available on request. BASE- minimum thickness 0.1 in. overall dimensions of light 7 3/4 IN. long by 6 1/4 in. diameter at the open end, by approximately 1 7/8 in. diameter at the base. MOUNTING ARM- 1/2 in. trade size threadeoi- nipple, approximately 3/4 in. long. Adjusts position of light. The swivel bclt is preventel from touching inside wiring by a molded-in sleeve made of same material as mounting arm. Wires bear against smooth edgos. wiring material (AVLV2), # 18 AWG min. suitable for 105 C, min. 1/32 in. PVC insulation. LAMPHOLDER- Listed, medium base porcelain; keyless rated 660 watts, 250 v. STANDARD LA"- Uses 120 V. medium base PAR 38 150 W. max. bulb, (not included). WN 75 Par 38 FL 75 at flood "I 3 Footcandles at 47 feet 3 Footcandles at 25 feet 3 Footcandles at 25 feet 5 Footcandles at 36 feet 4.5 Footcandles at 20 feet 4.5 Footcandles at 20 feet 16.25 Footcandles at 20 feet 5 Footcandles at 19 feet 5 Footcandles at 19 feet 5 'A v ROM: Community Development Department MATE: April 26, 1993 Staff comments made since April 12,1993 are made in boll SUBJECT: 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 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: Loa MO I E range from 27 feet to 30 feet. Upper development area description �i !M The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluating NM•1+ • W wrom- Buffer Remaining Creek Development Townhouses Potential go 0 is 2 El 0 Zoning Analvsis Zoning: Residential Cluster Lot Area: Upper 40,740 sq. ft. Lower 105,318 sq. ft. Total 146,058 sq. ft. April l2,1993 Gensler Proposal Dwelling Units 9 *GRFA 19,466 sq. ft. Site Coverage 10.9% or 15,889 sq. ft. Setbacks 10' front 20' sides Height Parking Landscaping Retaining Walls *Size of Buildable Area in Proposed Lots 27' - 30' 35 spaces 77,9% or 113,830 sq. ft 4' A-1 0 sq. ft.** A-2 8386 sq. ft. Buildable Lot Area: Upper: 8,386 sq. ft 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% or 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. ft 10 18,252 sq. ft, 25% or 36,514 sq. ft, 20' front 15' sides I =I ME 7.3% or 10,742.3 sq. ft. 14% or 20,385.6 sq. ft. 0 1101 0 IV. MODIFICATIONS MADE SINCE THE JANUARY 11, 1993 PEC WORK SESSION On January 11, 1993, the PEC 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: i I I I I iii W PERU 5 A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation to tht amount of site disturbance which will be allowed. In an effort to prohibit any scarring on the back or sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be added to the plat: Staff believes that this proposed language will ensure that the development, which is to be designed at a future date, will be well integrated in the hillside. 0 6 MMMMM2��MMMW 111i VIIII 1 2991M 0 Lower development area: Upper development area: A-1. 3252 225 3477 600 A-2. 2900 225 2084 600 total 6152 • Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 -- 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1897 225 2122 3 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 1859 225 2084 21 476 total 13314 Upper development area: A-1. 3252 225 3477 600 A-2. 2900 225 2084 600 total 6152 • V. SDD CRITERIA 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. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workabr relationship with surrounding uses and activity. I E All of the home sites in both the upper development and lower development areas comply with the Town's parking requirements. Conformity with applicable elements • the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Towr policies and Urban Design Plans. The Land Use Plan designates this parcel as Medium Density Residential (MDR). A proposed, the development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre. MDR allows a range 3-14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, staff finds that the proposal is consistent wi The Vail Land Use Plan designation. I E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property • which the special development district is proposed. 1101111 111117110 G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians .•• ress ng on and off-site traffic circulation. 40 9 A. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize arm preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. I Staff understands that the applicant has redesigned the landscaping, shifting much of it around to the areas between the proposed development and the existing development in Grouse Glen. A minor point concerning the landscaping is to have the areas proposed for sod tie in to the existing lawn area of the Valley and modify the type of sod to match the existing sod. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional an,* efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. 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." Though both of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not contain the minimum amount of buildable area. The requirement is for eight thousand square feet, and the proposal, as measured • staff, provides no buildable square footage for the western envelope. If the SDD is approved, this deviation from the standards may be allowed. 10 Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision. We believe the applicant has demonstrated that two single family units can be built on Tract A. The original development plan located 5 units in the hazard area. We believe the new plan provid for a much safer design. In respect to Tract B, we feel it is reasonable to plat unplatt parcels that are phases within a development. The PEC is the approving authority for the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town Council is the approving authority for the SDD. • • result, staff recommends that once the plat is modified to address the Town staff concerns, that the PEC make their approval contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the followinx changes must be incorporated into the plat: 1 The information provided in the completed drainage report must be incorporated into the plat, including proposed improvements as well as easements; 2) All hazard areas, as designated • the Town of Vail hazard maps shall • graphically shown on the plat. 3) The minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the SDD receiving final approval from Town Council. Staff believes that this project meets all the SDD review criteria and is recommending approval of the proposed development plan with the following elements of an agreement w&, the developer. Assuming that the following changes can be 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) Drawings for the automobile access to the upper development area shall be provided and refined, noting all assumptions to be made regarding the building location, identifying top of wall and bottom of wall elevations, and providing sections through each building envelope showing the building, any retaining walls and driveway. 0 11 2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 and January 22, 1993, 4) The sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase 11 and that the sod type matches Phase 11. NOTITWOOT M- Upper development area: A-1. 3252 A-2. 2900 total 6152 225 3477 225 2084 N 0 of C. Prior to Town approval ♦ the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area, The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; 0 12 Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 -- 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1897 225 2122 3 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 1859 225 2084 21 476 total 13314 Upper development area: A-1. 3252 A-2. 2900 total 6152 225 3477 225 2084 N 0 of C. Prior to Town approval ♦ the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area, The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; 0 12 i Is 2mill I MI Lin W-11 OR In In offs- FWATIAM 1-2-H n 13 � ww o NJ - ` _ • Li a o a 03'J6' R = 5 +1.29 e Z6 +9" L 32 44' R 196.10' P x Si.6i' L - 10662' e� T I � bar 1297 coiorado 8043'5 r a rzlc' 303,468 "5871 ..j �date �-'yy 111 +wrorrt 1 n 07".61Sr l 7 A20 r i' Gn..Yfltt, LALT vm 1 1 M � _ it 11 _ ji u�S !'C?JL' J`�`c'���v�����i i &]�5T^14 e��t� TB �- sna/t99 cam( KG �1.ufi. cna.xr5 e, e'; L ���ps �..�+� umv��x�o n zti• . yl' a SOY.% 3% � Gd•• `'�, )'/� t v L ddL ^iii isUarJ �"R?�'fGYMJE � 6 .a-iiK =�. GkO NOCOJFi2 2. aw nuzFS,s ayruu -�v �( c�!�rc:.e.77a1 ., n ,-o tad a, 4 AtTad 3.22 N —THAC: 1, A A*s 84" .450 U tw cF --- ------- - -- gA �I5,Qf,;LEV4TION Ge 2. 04 84 %I,- Al • • pq I ,�r, Lf I TO OGRA VCAL SURVEY 3 77 Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. (01 CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 January 22, 1993 Steven Gensler Parkwood Realty 5299 DTC Blvd; #500 Englewood, CO 00111 RE: Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Dear Mr. Gensler: 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 %e low outcrop directly above the sites; better is to construct the 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 the event snow should slide up against the home. If there are further questions please contact me. S i n c E& rely, � Nicholas L" i is aop r Consulting Geologist Nicholas L,apirl, Ph. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 81 6-5400 (24 HOURS) t RE.- 1" 1'" zF c t i i, R,._ t o m' !:` F \' :t. C; Ci u °i i_F b d i V :!. °:,1. 0 m Dear C i` { V3. ''e'. W c'? d the e =' ."'t :: t :'"t C: }'. I "1 :.'t C°; :. i i : a C: a t, t ('!'t Lt; i ° ':) t: ?s Cr' .. C': "I 3". t.a G.. r•, i° c:t { �, c.t C` i t.. .: �... i :i. _, 1° .. i::. ^J . ° t�: 1 T. k.. J ,' i. ®° i" 'im 1'� . _1 %� GPI, i l:,''i' 7 1 P.:'9 "' .d' : :.1 ; F t• f�'3; •...i i9 t.. 4v (.J ..; . t., i''i ;�t \,•' .... :t C.::: ".'r't t t Cv= ,: t•:; :'"k :.: C_+ 1:3 »° C:' ' �_ iw! to U r:i' I) i'" a a ? 1 "1 i:: i i i:» 1 -1._, . In . ' J. { i °'I t'Wa di i" '1 '.` L4 1 t 4 1 i t':3 C_. i i " C .'" r.i r; iei i.i't ... 1 i_ ..i., R'4 C C" r, C° 1:: _i, c "r, .�. i. e :� 1 "' ..-, c1 :S. ?��i f'i ; Ct 1'" t e., i�a• 1? t e* i'" t '' :_,.1 ", .�. i 1 C? i"` 14 i::. b Lt :i I d :1 ri t l 'L, t_ ..a ::..I , +.,i t ". R'1 f:.: 10 W t. } t._t'dm Ce F- C'Q S : „.t r , b (.•; : +ct .�'yP {;71' "C- h{:9'µ1 fjir` C) I: F::'i "'1V1 ? >t' I Cl.t'(e :I. -Z : °d, w }L'-'C.,;1t_ti e. °`t-.e1e`�' z "- G':.'° '�.ci1 °;1 eaf'1i- t:. ` t tJt'l t i1LC }t; a« R'1 t.,. C. 1 "'ia -z. Z„ dC.)Lt5 t.::Ltt_. t ,.., m uc h R' i1 t;siif d.:l. d ;:.' ;•J 7 a. ff.; .. ,.... t:. U :. t 1 i , .. _ �, .. i "s: l "1 s:l. 'E..IIt "d_:i..it`::'sf °i walls ai 1. ' tr City : "t';i:,isiwC »: :::)'r i ^ „C`d( 1:SF i' ",._ i:C il.. i}(�I !,)t :;, C: ?t '1:t`a; C- C) 4. t` "Lit:. t:;, G7!"', : ^ ?:1 1..i. G;:.: ci 1 {i C"t:o::l nr` 1 °.:t :i'i t.., t. G'r C? f': W ..A .f. -i• ca .i. �.:;, f "t L . E'" a::i'_.: ; .:�> , _:> r.a A. t.. r r.. t. , ,. "r.i.' v ? r, :.1 C } a 2 v. ' '::.'! C.1 ',1« i "E:.:, t....w.'t:c..J.i.i_' �!'1 i" L.i.t.." J. L, i.:l C.:, -, C' i:: t: ? 1 %:i'. t C .. f..' 'i r tI• ,..'"[, ! " f:7 ” 't.,..7 �.:� t: A" 7. C.! i l _ :1 1 ;:' ,, "'1 Ll „ i._ t:1 %:? i ..:i:, "_. ea't„ a ^�.._ •I a:: i:ri_.B t;.i 1. 1..1 ": l'_:'d'..: r1C1 t.:.'a'�:: l.tt :aa f'ar ^r} d.. tr.� ;'_:.»'(-_:2 i'i::1,t"'� CiI ».i � '.t :) '( °. i'?li' ;�t. }cs(, -)C ''` >9:i C7° P C7 C. Steven Gensler 5299 DTC BIvd, #500 Engl Co 80111 RE: Lion'st Dear Mr. Gensler� September 18, i99� Ridge Subdivision I have rcviewed the seven sltes as shown on the accompanyin� map for purposes of Rock Fall and Debris Flow rC�view for the Town of Vail sites are out o� the deb�is fan an� channel. Al� of the north�rnmost site and parts of the next t*o �re within tbe Medi�a Rock FzAl1 1 azarcl (see acco anyinmci The rock {aIl ar�a is more severo further north than t�ese building sites on the other side of Tract A whers it has been reported in a con oraneous letter that they can be 'c: asily grouted or other:ise neutralized bocause they are thi� and discontinuous. ThL more hazardous outcrops much higher on the hi11sid I shed most Iy to the west. Although mizigation at the homesites is Possible through walls or berm�ng, 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 C1r structurcs, or to public rights-of-way, buildi�gs, roads, streets, easeaents, uti1ities or faciliti�s or othzr propzrties of any kind. The other sites are not in eith�r �� \ of the hazard aroa�. If thero are �uestions please c�ntact me. nzcn a ampzr�s Consulting gist . 0�� ` 8. 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 /Packwood Realty Planner: Andy Knucltsen 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 that the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further research before the final hearing regarding that issue. Public Input Neighborhood input was then requested and the first speaker was Brian 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. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 E Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a prepared report done • 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 The Valley and requested that some of these characteristics be included in the new I esign. 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, Gena Whitten said that she was concerned about the engineering that would be required for building on a slope like this. She said she wanted to see the details of the driveway, the turnaround areas, the slope retention, as well as hazard mitigation. RMN �WMORIII My MART14-0610r, aplan , OIL a a M m&JR1611111006 (AMORTUMMIM MUMMS Jig E E • 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 • the units, combining driveways, and shortening the length • the access road • clustering would all benefit the plan. Dalton Williams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved. He said that too much • the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be in character with the existing area. He also requested that the applicant set the buildings into the hillside to make them look smaller. Staff: Tim Devlin January 11, 1993 11 F E E TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: March 22, 1993 (Revised memo for April 26, 1993) Ali changes are in bold italic type. SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to relocate a garage in an existing residence located at Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing/716 West Forest Road. FATS 701 1 The 51,193 square foot property is zoned Primary/Secondary residential, and the applicant's residence has been designated the primary unit. The applicant has applied for • 250 squart foot GRFA addition and is proposing to add approximately 121 square feet of the "250". It should be noted that the proposed two-car garage is approximately 526 square feet. The interior width of the proposed garage is 21.5 feet On September 28, 1992, the PEC granted a side setback variance for the west half (secondary unit) of this property to enclose existing decks and encroach approximately 7.5 feet into the west side setback. FARRILOPOW0761 - 1111114041 The PEC encouraged the applicant to explore options that would eliminate or reduce the variance request. Please see attached minutes from the March 22 meeting for specific comments. m-Frx-mr. �.&f NumusWil Allowed Existin Proposed GRFA: Primary Unit: 4,211 sq. ft. 2,305 sq. ft. 4,332 sq. ft.* Setbacks: Primary Unit: Front: 20' required 19, 19, Side: 15' required 15'+ 11' ** Rear: 15' required 250'+ 250'+ Site Coverage: 20% 8.8% 10% Parking: Primary Unit: 2.5 required 4 spaces 4 spaces Height: Primary Unit: 33' < 33' < 33' Landscaping: 60% required 85%+ 85%+ Includes "250" addition: 4,211 + 121 ® 4,332 square feet Applicant's variance request for 4 foot encroachment into setback Upon review of the Criteria and Findings in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development recommends approval of the requested side setback variance. The staff's recommendation for approval of the side setback variance request is based on the following factors: • 2 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant is now proposing to build the garage as previously described, and to plant 12 aspen (2" to 2 112" caliper), three potentilla (5 gal.), and two dogwood (5 gal.) 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 The staff feels that the applicant has responded positively to the comments given by both the PEC and the staff, and that the granting of a 4 foot side setback variance would not be a grant of special privilege. The staff also feels that the request is warranted because of the narrow north-south configuration of the lot. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 0 3 B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings 0 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 ir 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. a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty • unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions • extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff is recommending approval of the request for a 4 foot side setback variance, and believes that the variance findings discussed in Section IV B 1, 2, and all been met. The staff recommends that the applicant utilize a mix of evergreen and aspen (8-9) to aid in screening the garage instead of just the proposed 12 aspen trees. Please note that under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval oY a variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two years from when the approval becomes final. 0 4 �I �I�ILI� MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department #ATE: April 26, 1993 SUBJECT: 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 variances from the subdivision road standards, wall height standards and to allow parking in the front setback at Lots A-1 and A-2, Block A, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 4/1139 and 1 V84j Sandstone Drive. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Shelly Mello The applicant has also requested that the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review a staff interpretation for the allowance of the construction of a cantilevered area over a portion of a lot which exceeds 40%. This issue is addressed separately in an attached memo. Zoning: Residential Cluster Lot Size: Lot A-1 Lot A-2 Total: IH�M E Buildable Area: Buildable Lot A-1 Buildable Lot A-2 Total: *GRFA: Lot A-1: UM Density: Lot A-1: Lot A-2: Total: Site Coverage Allowed: Lot A-1: Lot A-2: Total: W. - 0 «« , IRA EMI 7,454 sq. ft. + 225 sq. fI tj,909 sq. ft. + 225 s♦. f 111101WEVANIM credit/unit + 225 sq. ft. credit/unit "Parking: Lot A-1: 10 spaces/4 enclosed Lot A-2: 13 spaces /5 enolosed Total: 23 spaces/9 enclosed 17,363 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. credit/unit W-01 I R I « WTO��� *Because GRFA is not on • graduated scale for Residential Cluster R GRFA does not change with the vacation of the lot line between Lot A-1 and A-2. "Based on units which exceed 2,000 sq. ft. and require 2.5 spaces per unit. At least one parking space must be enclosed per Residential Cluster zone district parking requirements. Parking is not allowed in the 20-foot front setback in this zone district. 0 2 I M�TWI • i "LiMINZIENTLUMARIM V. VARIANCE - SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RADIUS OF A CURVE ON A MINOR PRIVATE ROAD In addition, there is a Fire Department turnaround located at the east end of the property. This is not to be used for parking and is a dedicated fire lane. Therefore, a variance is not required for this section of roadway located within the front setback. Again, the staff would like • see an extensive landscape plan to screen this area. The staff has discussed the possibility of requiring building envelopes with the replat of this parcel. The staff does not feel that it is necessary to plat the building envelopes. We feel that 0 3 the hazards, in conjunction with the regulation which disallows construction in areas with slopes in excess of 40%, already significantly restrict the area of possible development. Vill. DRB COMMENTS AT CONCEPTUAL REVIEW In addition, the DRB has reviewed a proposed duplex development for the lot to the east of the project, Lot A-3. In reviewing the proposal for Lot A-3, the DRB directed the applicant to change the proposed building from a duplex to two single family units because they felt that it was more desirable to have two separate units on this site versus a very linear duplex. Like Lots A-1 and A-2, Lot A-3's developable area is very limited due to the slope of the lot. 3. The use of single family units • this site is driving the need for an extensive access plan. The staff would like to see the applicant study the possibility of connecting some • the units as well as using an additional access point to minimize the lineal footage • the access road and walls; 4. The landscape screening of the surface parking and fire turnaround in the front setback; 0 4 E E k i 1 • : A § j 111111111 11111 00�� SUBJECT: Appeal of the staff interpretation of Section 18.69.040(A) - Hazards - Development Restrictions. Applicant/Appellant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Shelly Mello i M 4 "Structure" shall mean anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, but not to include poles, lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities or mailboxes or light fixtures. At the discretion of the Design Review Board, swimming pools and tennis courts may be exempted from this definition." MMAN TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: April 28'1S93 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to review an amendment to a previous PEC recommendation for approval of a major amendment to Cascade Village, SIDD #4, Area A, Millrace 111, 1335 Westhaven Drive, Cascade Village, more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW 1/4, NE 14, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning m^ point mthe North-South comerl/nemsaid Section 12 whence an iron pin with o plastic cap marking the center of said Section 1, bears mm'38smw455oo feet; thence along said centerline wm'38s6"r122.n1 feet mthe southerly ROW line of 1-w; thence departing said ROW line wv6'on'us"Eoy.1e feet; thence departing said ROW line S81 '23'1 9"e1e/xo feet mn point m curve; thence ,azxo feet along the arc mn`'m.m foot radius curve m the left, having a central angle ur4o"0nnr and n chord that bears o1 5'5/*5"e1mm feet; thence emnc'1 0"sn.onfeet; thence anzm feet along the arc ofurzn1 foot radius curve m the right, having a central angle v/wp1z'10" and uchord that bears s1nnnno"Eu+.cn feet; thence w~won`vao.xr feet: thence won°x'z^`wuy.00 feet; thence S78`1 0'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. a I ^ *n February 8, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a major ,9mendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A, Millrace III, in order to construct one duple.1 ;?nd one single family residence on the .819 acre (35,676 square feet) Millrace III site. The PEC recommended approval of Mr. Lauterbach's major amendment request with several conditions. These conditions are outlined below. 2. A 10 ft. pedestrian/fishermen's access easement shall be provided along the shore of Gore Creek. This easement should extend approximately 10 ft. from the high water mark of the creek to allow fishermen access up and down Gore Creek. This easement will be dedicated at the time the minor subdivision is approved. 4. Since this property is currently unplatted, a minor subdivision plat must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. 6. Certain minor modifications shall be made to the site plan, landscape plan and floor plans so that features shown on any one of the three are accurately reflected on all plans per the staff memo on page 6. These changes shall be made before the project proceeds to first reading by the Town Council. 7. The southern half of the single family residence shall be shifted 3 -5 ft. away from the road and that the entire building be shifted approximately 5 ft. further to the north. • 2 effect the footprint of the buildings, their location on the site, setbacks or parking. It is possible that the proposed changes may have a minimal effect on the overall site coverage and GRFA on the lot, however, Mr. Lauterbach has stated that no changes exceed the previously approved maximum allowances. Specifically, Mr. Lauterbach would like to discusE proposed roof form, fenestration, exterior building material and building color changes. Thesi changes are summarized as follows: Roof for changes - The proposed roof alignment of these buildings is being changed to shed predominantly in an east-west direction as opposed to a north-south direction. The addition of dormers to each of the units is also being proposed. Fenestration changes - As a result • the realignment • the buildings' roof form, window locations and shapes are being changed. These window changes are displayed on the attached elevation drawings which show the previous approval and the proposed elevations. Building material changes - Mr. Lauterbach is proposing to replace much of the vertical wood siding previously shown on the buildings with stucco. Also, the two story expanse of stone work previously shown on the east elevation of the single family residence is being removed. Building color changes - The February • , 1993, PEC recommendation for approval included suggestions • the PEC members to use varying shades • gray • the predominant color scheme for this project. Mr. Lauterbach would like the PEC to consider more natural colors (browns, redwood, dark green, etc.) in response to DRsi comments made at the April 7, 1993 conceptual review meeting. 1191 3 :' k'4'""sitx rY4�^ pip s':` "gj M kaT, ..�,... t ,,,s...v *�sy y.,,.r;„.,x•.:v�^e e aw ., sm'a -u. ,. ,. , ,.x '3b,e „�.e. t"; �," - ^Vt.r� . Architect, Address and Phone: 54-e a A,' o4 Pi ti Legal Description: Ca Zone Comments: r r I I r Design vie o r r 17 Date .e , t t `a�'. ?r` ♦� �+. r• ,� �`. ri 1 �+n as M •,,,. � O r.� i,, iI .may 0 North �= . -East _ .__-yp; r_® 3 0 6 , i F 6 , i m North =j I 0 )'d D 14 0 0 0 1-4 ,:rm IE ort* West. t f Y m a� F] E C out I-MiIS- Las INMENW-M! st 9 11.1 A Now" Ae hot ��ab.h uuhav ®/ .\ -•- Gar .. / \ �, \: /' v / ; �� ! ' •-j L� .� �g .✓'•ci "k -. - °/� 3 �; \ � /°°lr I�,��t r a'b f -. .l y4P t�y �� \% s.t'j ®sue.! �,''• EPA i ; 1 � �',` \ , 1 •. / ''2 �i,J,ae esrt' �°sc•.a1 / e F.r.?a e�?,F�. ., � - - h .. ' t , t t. Bogy \•: ` ,, / , b� Y � °l*�br+-`,T 7 °:'. �.. /+ . � v .. � a' t! s �'� 1 %� • rim✓ ( � , � - •� tip: - , ' �- c°.IyeA .,� - � / A! `1 l t t.' m � - � �i,arz•s.e..e'+�a.,}L�e .. g � \ \ ,_ ✓` °rn� r'* � /� t t I � s»v ....�.�. >.s.m -.� mow«• �o r ; w�c v+av� : +ti`IOC \ J ti � \�� ® =4 ti i ,�i�`' ,' c $ il�ner� .l° r,�u� nor- P�rra.1 •sHRU� (-y'a a.at): �, • � \ �,• - -. \ \ `' s \, ''1.' I. 1 i': � � � °s. a n r n�z, - �.p.1awtiaa! �'r�� B nM ErksKC 5 r �, \ l \ , \ { ! S 1 } : SI' t '"" vim•, I" i .> t "-4. sky e • 1.0 EM 7 V _ t • * _n —" —ems .�_mm ._ TT'' t .�t - f- �. Ni ttiSti at d t•r + ; 3 E 0 - _ r tit; .d S. ��• ,( @ S +... s .,t z -.rte ate "' "�.. -, �. -use t „ ° t-L'>. - :.�qi_ a L 7$� . _ i -;� .. _ � -e'er- - s -.yF AG.,. •ifs E � ,� a�,�,' �e--?r ,w4 Y: _ "''- m ; � -gy, �,,,. r,j?. °,a:. �,�,�., �.. �v. r:.�. �4 - ��.�''"'� — . "..' %: - <$. '„mot ,..- y`, "!.�' 3� _•a �� r�`F a h FP„ Y saw Vr $ - �' _ ..ems ro T z �,? ♦ � R�b Ti .. ;e.•b � {�.,g �{ .y .� � �, - - -aw