Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1108 PECI Site Visits 11:30 a.m. Trapper's Run - Please r hiking boots Drivers: Jim and Kristan Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. 1. request to amend an existing conditional use to allow for the expansion of the liquor store located in the Cascade Crossing Retail Center/1031 S. Frontage Road/an un latte parcel locate west of the Vail Professional Building and south of 1-70. Applicant: William Schneidaw/Cuitre International Manner: Mike Mollica 2. A request fora r si n for a variance for road grade and a major subdivision (Trapper's Run) to create thirty Hillside Residential lots to be located on Lot 6, lock , Vail Ridge and Lots 16, 1 and 1, Section 14, Township South, Range 81 West, generally located north of 1-7 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Manner: Jim Curnutte 3. A request for approval of the Cemetery Management and aster Plan Report, for the Town of Vail Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench of Donovan Park located generally southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood and west of the Glen Lyon neighborhood. Applicant: Town of Vail Manner: Andy nudten 4. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow a bay window expansion of Cottelf's/196 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, , C, Block -C, Vail Village 1 st Piling. Applicant: Paul Cottelf Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED V-" I 22, 1993 1 7. Approve minutes from October 25, 1993 C meeting. Discussion of proposed bay window policy. Planner: Jim Curnutte 2 request to amend an existing conditional use to allow for the expansion of the liquor store located in the Cascade Crossing Retail Center/1031 S. Frontage Road/an unlatted parcel located west of the Vail Professional Building and south of 1-70. Applicants William Schneidaw/Cuitre International Planner: Mike ollica Mike ollica made a brief presentation per the staff memorandum. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request to amend the existing conditional use permit per the staff memo with Diana Donovan seconding the motion. A 6- vote approved this request. A request fora worksession to discuss a variance for road grade and a major subdivision (Trappers Run) to create thirty Hillside Residential lots to be located on Lot 3, lock C, Vail Ridge and Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township South, Range 1 West, generally located north of 1-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte stated that the staff did not have a formal memorandum concerning this item and that this meeting was for the purpose of informing the PFC about the project and to receive public input. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 1993 Bob Armour, a resident of Vail representing group of concerned citizens, stated that they have reviewed the submittal. He said that they plan to have a written response concerning the current proposal in to the staff by next week. He state that the plans appear to be incomplete and that there are many design flaws that must be addressed. He said that they would like to see this area maintained as open space. Bruce Orrin, a citizen, stated that he was concerned about the additional traffic that this proposal would create at the North Frontage Road and Chamonix Lane intersection and that this problem needs to be addressed. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 1993 Kathy Langenwalter stated that the Cortina Lane access alternative would be better than access via Arosa Drive and that she was against using the streambe for road purposes. She said that with the Cortina access, she weld like to know how the existing road system would be upgraded in order to handle the additional traffic. She said that she would like to have a greater understanding of how the cuts and fills would work for the road, and that they should be kept to an absolute minimum. She said that the traffic impacts to the area, and at the four-way stop, need to be more thoroughly addressed in the traffic study, and that the assumption of mostly second homeowners as occupants of the proposed units may not be accurate. Kathy stated that she felt that the density needed to be reduced drastically. Larry skwith, an attorney representing Gateway Development, inquired what the C had in mind concerning density. Tana Donovan stated that she felt the only developable lots in the Trappers Run area were Lots 1 through 7. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 1993 4 Jim Curnutte referred to the staff memo prepared for the rezoning of the property in 1988, which stated that no specific density had been attached to the Trappers Run property and that the previous staff recognized that the site would need to be carefully reviewed in respect to access and environmental concerns. He stated: "This recommendation in no way approves or supports any specific density or level of development on this property at this time, nor guarantees the proposed access to the property will remain unchanged. A thorough review of any development proposal through the subdivision process will be necessary." (Memo dated December 12, 1938, PEC) Ricca au, a citizen, stated that the view analysis was not accurate and that all utilities should be kept within existing road disturbance areas. She realized that it would be more expensive to place the utilities along the road right-of-way but that it would eliminate unnecessary cuts and fills. Jiro Curnutte told the public that it was u to Gateway Development to complete their application and once this had occurred the proposal would be scheduled for another public worksession and adjacent property owners would be notified of this meeting. 3. A request for approval of the Cemetery Management and aster Plan Report, for the Town of Mail Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench of Donovan Park located generally southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood and west of the Glen Lyon neighborhood. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 1993 5 Dalton Williams stated that the intent of the Cemetery District was for a natural, but not overgrown, appearance. Kathy Langenwalter stated that if you looked at the proposed nine hundred burial space capacity of this cemetery plan over a one hundred year period, that this would average out to only nine burials a year. She said that she wondered whether this would be adequate to meet the community's demand for burial spaces. She suggested that the number of niches be increased. Andy said this could easily be done in future phases if the demand was clearly headed in that direction. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request to approve the Cemetery Management and aster Flan Report with a borrdtion to Page 13 of the Report changing the phrase "entry monuments" to "entry featureBe. Allison Lassoe seconded this motion and a 4-2 vote approved this request with Diana Donovan and Jeff Bowen opposing this item. 4. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow a bay window expansion of Gotthelf's/196 Core Creek Drive/Lots A, B, C, lock 5-C, Mail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Paul otthelf Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO 22, 1993 Dalton Williams made a motion to tabled this item until November 22, 1993. Jeff Owen seconded this motion and a -0 vote tabled this item until November 2, 1993. . A request to relocate the helipa to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot locate at 530 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatte parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village t Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right-of-way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen ®_ _ _ -I TO NOVEMBER , 22,1993 Dalton Williams made a motion to tabled this item until November 2, 1993. Jeff Bowen seconded this motion and a 6-0 vote tabled this item until November 22, 1993. 6. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, lock 5, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: ristan Pritz TABLED 22,1993 Manning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 1993 Jim Curnutte reviewed the staff memo concerning the proposed policy on GRFA relating to greenhouse windows in all residential zone districts. He emphasized that staff currently counted these windows as GRFA but they would like to not be counting certain types of self-supporting windows as FA or site coverage. He stated that the proposed policy would allow a maximum size of 44 square feet for these types of windows and would only apply to residentially zoned property, not commercial. The PC members felt that brackets under the window may be acceptable if not used for the purpose of supporting the window. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes November 8, 1993 It was decided by the PEC that greenhouse windows may not have a roof or brackets of any kind. The windows should be limited to inserts only, and not constructed on- site. The maximum amount of greenhouse window are allowed per unit is 44 square feet, 9. Council Update: -Golden Peak House -Vail Athletic Club -Mountain Bell Housing rezoning -Open Lands Meeting - November 9, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. (Town Council Chambers) -Lindholm Land Exchange Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes November 3, 1993 INNFR b HOTEL SERVICE P.4 1 t { ___'._'_____ _.._....,_.._.........._.._..........._....: ...,,.....:..n....m, ,:,,..,...,.° :....::.:.:..:..:...:, ,._, r.._..__... °._.. . _........_....__ ..._.._ ...._.............. .d.._......_.a...__.. ....__... ,....._...._........_.._.._...._...._... . ... ....... ..... .. ..................................._ .....,_........„__......_..... ....,..... ...... ,....... .. ..... • r }P ) i i ' ...r............®.........-»....__®....»m........»....__....®m.._.._..«.._.._ .......... .... ........ e..vo...,®.....-.....,............_......_..:_.._........ ..------- .._..-.._..-_--..d_...... 1 Iwo &I- 4 ions 4 G f3 ..,,8 .ddl'i a.`' g L,+3,V1 ,?„ja,??`? 3'a G -i Lac . lllthm?cos Xlil`id F4,Wx, ci5 7?W 6?, zm ! dDy 09 ' l THE ??J±B ?cNr N4?; E ?: Cn? ? a ?A ?fis ?k a OPtFANs ? M FRANCISCO. S?N JOSE For rvteP ,,vov,ys w wy fair,:lCn, 1lOt o an Rx xTo $C3t 2 o 472 a t t at it r-+re r av r +_c,„ ,ate, ?, r ? +..s.. 4S i5//F cov IFi r MA ak?l #0 -, moao,,?u tit 1 C`r MEMORANDUM T : Planning and Environmental Commission FROW. Community Development Department 1® . DESCRIPTION USE. IL CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 16,60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors; A. Consideration of Factorso Relationship rt impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. effect of th h ise on light and air, distribution of population, t_ _.r. --t3 ien °4° , utilities, schools, parks and recreation f Dili®m??, and C W facilities needs. Staff believes there will not be an impact on any of the above-referenced criteria. The liquor store is not in the immediate vicinity of any schools, parks or recreation facilities. 3® Effect upon traffic it particular reference t congestion, automotive pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street o parking r s® The Town's parking requirement for this tenant space would not change as a result of this expansion to the liquor store. 2 4. Effect t chc .-® og_,r of the r i which the - r,- - - _ _ ® -Ii to be located, i cf a, - the scale n bulk of t pr%? ' u i relation t urr i , uses. There are no exterior changes proposed with the liquor store addition. B. Fininas The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina fininas before arantina a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. III. STAFF C . : , -) 1 Ope ne..Ak.hdw11.08 MEMORANDUM anaement Proposal Based on the demographics of Vail and the needs of our community, the cemetery management report indicates that there is space for approximately 450 burial sites in Phase 1. Of these, 300 are niches, 0 are graves, and 0 are crypts. Phase I is projected to provide burial site for approximately fifty years. Phase 11 has the same number of burials and is projected to meet the demand for another fifty years. II8 REVIEW PROCESS The Cemetery Task Force is made up of residents of Vail who have an interest in the cemetery as well as Matterhorn neighbors who have an interest in the development of Donovan Parka The following individuals have been involved in the Cemetery Task Force: 2 Town Staff Todd Oppenheimer Russ Forrest Greg Nall Mike Brake The following meetings were held by the task force, the neighborhood, and various other interested parties. They are as follows: February 11, 1992: Vail Town Council decided that land purchased with RTT funds could be used for a cemetery. October , 1992: Vail Town Council worksession reaffirmed site selection and discussed management options. October 27-28, 1992: public workshop discussed site constraints, neighborhood concerns, and conceptual design alternatives. November 5, 1992: Cemetery Task Force reviewed and endorsed the preferred conceptual site plan. November 10, 1992: Vail Religious Foundation endorsed the site plan and noted that, even as the preference for cremation is growing, in-ground burial must remain an option given certain religious groups' beliefs and burial practices. November 0, 1992: The Cemetery Task Force met with Larry Sloane to discuss i detail the various alternatives for managing the new cemetery. It was generally agreed that management by the existing Cemetery District was the most attractive option. December 3, 1992: A site walk was conducted with neighbors in the vicinity of the cemetery site to illustrate in the field where the primary elements will be located. Neighbors expressed general relief that the siting and conceptual layout would have less visual impact on their properties that they anticipated. 3 December 14-15, 1992° joint worksession of the Deign Review Board ( ) and the arch 10, 1993: The Cemetery Task Force met to discuss refinements in the management plan and development of a policy on residency requirements. Comments on the physical design continued to be very positive. May 10, 1993: At a second P EC worksession, there was general consensus to approve requests for a conditional use permit and a paving variance to allow a gravel access road. The master plan an management report were also informally endorsed. August , 19934 Meeting with the Cemetery District Commissioners to discuss funding options. August 31, 1993: Presentation to Vail Town Council by staff, consultants and Cemetery District Commissioners regarding the fall ballot issue. Vail Town Council unanimously supported the project and the proposal to put the issue on the fall ballot using the cost estimates presented. September 7, 1993: Eagle County Commissioners pass a resolution putting the proposal on the ballot. September 7, 1993: PC approved conditional use and paving variance. 111® CONCLUSION 4 S concerns were raised by citizens. The cemetery deign process is an example of the way citizen involvement influenced and improved the design. c:\pec\mem®s\cem 11.08 5 MEMORANDUM T: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November , 1993 SUBJECT: Proposed Community Development policy on CRFA relating to greenhouse windows in all residential zone districts It is necessary to establish some criteria for evaluating when a window will be considers to be a greenhouse window and when it will be considered to be a bay window. Therefore, the following dimensions shall establish the criteria to be used in defining a greenhouse window. All windows which fall into the following dimensional requirements shall be considered to be greenhouse windows and shall not count as FA. . Projection - No greenhouse window may protrude more than 16 inches from the exterior surface of the building. This distance allows for adequate relief for appearance purposes, without substantially adding to the mass and bulk of the building. The 18- inch allowance would also allow for a usable window sill almost 2 feet wide, considering the width of typical exterior wall (" - 3"). . Construction Characteristics - All greenhouse windows shall be self-supporting an shall not require special framing or construction methods to support the window. This policy shall not apply to wind additions to buildings on commercially zoned property. U n Ji rc -? A A iii ?? Tie U)