Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0110 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 'January 10, 1994 AGENDA Proiect Orientation/Lunch 11:30 a.m. Site Visits Ogilby Gore Creek Plaza Building Slifer Designs Helipad 12:00 p.m. Drivers: Randy and Andy Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision and an amendment to a previously approved development plan and a conditional use permit for four Type III employee housing units at The Vail Swim and Tennis Club, 2893 Kinnickinnick Road/a portion of the SW 1/4, Section 14, T5S R81W of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, Colorado. Applicant: T. Charles Ogilby and Stanleigh H. Cole Planner: Shelly Mello 2. A notification of approval of a minor SDD amendment to allow for a change in building location and building height located at 1335 Westhaven Drive/Lot A, Millrace III Subdivision. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte 3. A notification of approval of a minor SDD amendment to allow for the addition of an airlock entry to the Gateway Building/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/12 Vail Road. Applicant: Leo Palmer Planner: Mike Mollica 1 4. A request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for an enclosed grease dumpster at the southwest corner of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, specifically located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist, represented by Kevin Clair and Tom Armstrong Planner: Randy Stouder 5. 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, Block 5, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz 6. A request for a worksession to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right-of-way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen 7. A request for an approval of the master plan to allow for an expansion and renovation of the Town of Vail Public Works site located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel north of the 1-70 right-of-way, located immediately north of Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 8. A request to amend Section 18.69.050 - Special restrictions for developments on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent in single family residential, two-family residential, and two- family primary/secondary residential zones to allow standards found in this section to apply to the Hillside Residential zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 9. A request for a minor subdivision located at 363 Beaver Dam Road and 383 Beaver Dam Circle/Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: John Tyler/John Tyler, Jr./Robert Tyler Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED INDEFINITELY E 2 10. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, Area D, to allow an expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road West/Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings and Loan Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED INDEFINITELY E 11. Approve minutes from December 20, 1993 PEC meeting. 12. Council update: •CCI/CCII exterior alteration deadlines -Lindholm land exchange -Lodge - International Wing -Vail Commons/Land Use Plan update -Trapper's Run 13. The PEC representative for DRB meetings for 1994 was divided as follows at the last meeting: Jan. - March, 1994 Bill Anderson Jeff Bowen (alternate) April - June, 1994 Jeff Bowen ??? (alternate) July - Sept., 1994 ??? Jeff Bowen (alternate) Oct. - Dec., 1994 Greg Amsden Jeff Bowen (alternate) 14. PEC term expirations February, 1994. -Jeff Bowen -Dalton Williams -Greg Amsden Diana Donovan 11 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 10, 1994 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Bill Anderson Jeff Bowen Diana Donovan Kathy Langenwalter Allison Lassoe Dalton Williams Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Jim Curnutte Randy Stouder A request for a minor subdivision and an amendment to a previously approved development plan and a conditional use permit for four Type III employee housing units at The Vail Swim and Tennis Club, 2693 Kinnickinnick Road/a portion of the SW 1/4, Section 14, T5S R81 W of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, Colorado. Applicant: T. Charles Ogilby and Stanleigh H. Cole Planner: Shelly Mello/Kristan Pritz It should be noted that Kathy Langenwalter stepped down from the PEC board in order to represent the applicant for this item. Kristan Pritz made a presentation per the staff memo and summarized the changes that had been made to this proposal since the December 20, 1993 PEC worksession. She stated that the building footprints had been modified and that they had been shifted on the site. She said that the additional units would have two car garages. Kristan said that staff was recommending approval of this request to amend the development plan, the minor subdivision and the conditional use permit for four Type III employee housing units with the six conditions set forth on Pages 7 and 8 of the staff memo. Kathy Langenwalter, the architect for this project, presented a colored site plan to the PEC showing the 50 foot creek setback, the proposed building locations, the eight guest parking spaces and the proposed landscaping. Chuck Ogilby inquired about the phasing the staff was recommending with regard to the employee housing units (Condition #2, Page 7). He said that he felt that this requirement would be taking away some of their flexibility. He said that they wished to build the project in the following manner: Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 Phase I: Units 11, 12, H, G Phase II: Units 13, 14, F, E Before a building permit is released for Phase III, two units would be restricted as EHU's from the existing lettered units or Units D and C. Phase III: Units 15, 16, D, C Phase IV: Units 17, 18 or Units 17, 18, A, B or Units A, B or Units 17, 18, and in the future A and B Please note the lettered units are the units to be restricted. Two to four EHU's would be developed within the project. The final two EHU's in Phase IV (A and B) are optional. Kristan Pritz inquired how many free market units would be finished when the first two employee housing units were dedicated. Chuck Ogilby responded that eight free market units (i.e. Phase I and II) would be completed and then two employee housing units would be dedicated. When the final four units are built, the other two employee housing units would most likely be dedicated. Greg Amsden asked staff what would happen to the employee housing units if the applicant sold the development prior to the completion of the employee housing units. Dalton Williams inquired what would happen to the restricted units if a building was removed from this plan. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the applicant is allowed to have fourteen free market units on this site. She said that the applicant is proposing twelve free market units and two employee housing units at a minimum. Kristan Pritz summarized that there would be four phases to this project and that at the time of building permit for Phase III that two units would be restricted for employee housing. If Phase IV is not completed then two employee housing units may not be built. Dalton Williams, Allison Lassoe and Bill Anderson had no comments concerning this proposal. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 2 Jeff Bowen said that he felt that the applicant had done a good job with this site. Diana Donovan stated that the landscaped islands should be extended if possible. Jeff Bowen made a motion per the staff memo and staff recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and with the additional condition that two employee housing units will be dedicated before a building permit is released for Phase III and that Phase IV will be either two units or four units with two being free market units and two units being restricted for employee housing Per Chuck's description of the phasing discussed earlier in the meeting. (Please see the top of Page 2). Dalton Williams seconded the motion. Kathy Langenwalter added that Condition 1 should be subject to DRB review. Jeff Bowen stated that Condition 1 should be stricken from the motion and that the landscaping should be reviewed by DRB and amended his motion accordingly. Dalton Williams amended his second to the motion. A 6-0 vote approved this request for a minor subdivision, an amendment to a previously approved development plan and a conditional use permit. Kathy Langenwalter abstained as she is the applicant's architect for the project. 2. A notification of approval of a minor SDD amendment to allow for a change in building location and building height located at 1335 Westhaven Drive/Lot A, Millrace III Subdivision. Applicant. Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He said that the applicant was proposing to move the single family unit 3 feet to the north to avoid encroachment into the pedestrian easement located on the east side of the residence and the 50 foot Core Creek stream setback and to revise the grading plan which will result in an increase building height of 3.25 feet. He said that staff was recommending approval of this request with the condition that the landscape plan be approved. Dalton Williams pointed out that staff was recommending six aspen trees and two spruce trees but that the drawing showed eight aspen trees. Jim Curnutte stated that staff would require the eight aspen trees as shown on the landscape plan. Diana Donovan made a motion to uphold the staff approval of the request for a minor amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A, Lot A, Millrace III with Allison Lassoe seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote approved this request. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 3. A notification of approval of a minor SDD amendment to allow for the addition of an airlock entry to the Gateway Building/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/12 Vail Road. Applicant: Leo Palmer Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo. Diana Donovan made a motion to uphold the staff approval of the request for a minor amendment to the Gateway Building with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote approved this request. 4. A request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for an enclosed grease dumpster at the southwest corner of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, specifically located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist, represented by Kevin Clair and Tom Armstrong Planner: Randy Stouder Kristan Pritz removed herself from the staff table as Erich Hill is the architect for the project. Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He said that staff was recommending approval of the requested site coverage variance and the minor exterior alteration with the three conditions of approval outlined on Page 3 of the staff memo. Erich Hill, the architect for this project, stated that they were attempting to take care of an existing problem in the simplest manner possible. Russ Forrest said that this is the culmination of several meetings in the last two years with adjacent property owners and that this solution seems to make the most sense and that the Town appreciates the applicant's initiative to take care of this issue. Dalton Williams voiced a concern that the doors be designed and used so that they do not create an "eyesore". He wanted to make sure that restaurant employees closed the doors when not using the facilities. He favored an automatic door design similar to that on the Sitzmark dumpster housing. Greg Amsden agreed with Dalton's comments. Diana Donovan stated that she felt part of this request was to get the grease containers emptied quicker and that she was concerned that this would not happen since the proposed containers are the same size. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 4 Tom Armstrong stated that the grease was picked up once a month and that an extra container was needed to hold the amount of grease now produced. More frequent pick-up was not an option per the grease company. Diana Donovan added she would like to see additional landscaping in the area of the stone wall to break up the asphalt in this area. She felt strongly enough about this issue that without additional landscaping being added to this request, she was prepared to vote against it. Several members of the PEC concurred with Diana and a discussion of landscaping alternatives ensued. Erich Hill stated that it was his opinion that a tree grate may not do well in this location. He said that they were attempting to stay as cost effective as possible. However, there might be problems with the below ground parking deck. Bill Anderson asked whether the DRB could address the landscaping issue. Kathy Langenwalter said that since landscaping would be removed and additional site coverage was proposed as a result of this request, that the PEC should require additional landscaping as a condition of approval. Kathy Langenwalter was concerned about what materials would be used for the grease enclosure and that whatever material was selected needed to be durable. Dalton Williams stated that he felt that additional landscaping was important and should be a part of the PEC's approval. Allison Lassoe said that she would like to see the enclosure look and function well for this site. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the landscaping and the material of the enclosure were DRS issues. Greg Amsden said that he would like to see additional landscaping be a part of the approval. Kathy Langenwalter said that she also felt the landscaping should be a part of the approval. Diana Donovan made a motion to approve this request and amend Condition 1 to read "that additional landscaping be added as a part of the construction process for the grease container enclosure." Bill Anderson seconded the motion. Russ Forrest added that the problem is shared by adjacent retail owners and condominium owners, and that staff appreciated the owners of Blu's and Sweet Basil's coming forward to address this problem. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 5 Erich Hill requested that this item be tabled so that both restaurant owners (applicants) could be consulted regarding the cost and design of the additional landscaping that the PEC was requesting. There was discussion as to what type of planting would be appropriate. T.J., owner of Blu's Restaurant, asked if a masonry planter was required. Diana said that it was not but that a large pot on tree grate should be investigated. Diana Donovan withdrew her motion and Bill Anderson withdrew his second to the motion. Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item to January 24, 1994, the next PEC meeting with Bill Anderson seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until January 24, 1994. 5. 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, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see landscaping placed on the site in order to break up the building as well as a vertical sculpture. She suggested some sort of ornamental pine boughs or shrub in the winter and potted plants or flowers during the summer. She felt the original planter was still the best solution. Kristan Pritz asked the PEC whether the proposed sculpture was acceptable. Diana Donovan stated that it was not what the PEC had originally asked for but that it was acceptable. She said that the PEC had requested a piece that fit the space and that the proposed piece did not do this. Dalton Williams stated that the proposed statue and black base were not appropriate and that he would like to see the applicant be required to do what the original approval called for. Allison Lassoe said that she would like to give the applicant one more chance to come up with an art piece appropriate for the space. She said that she was not in favor of the sculpture that was there now. She could not envision the landscaping working with the sculpture but perhaps there was a way. Jeff Bowen stated that the box under the statue was an improvement. It was his opinion that the statue was not appropriate for this site. He said that he would prefer to see a piece of art for the space that really fit the space as opposed to additional landscape. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 6 Dalton Williams stated that he was willing to give the applicant one more chance but if this did not resolve the issue that it is back to what the original approval called for. Diana Donovan and Bill Anderson agreed with Dalton's comments. Greg Amsden was concerned that the solution had not been thought out. A vertical artwork or the original planter were viable options. Kathy Langenwalter said that she would like to see an art piece with a different subject matter and a size appropriate to the space, i.e. something more vertical. She agreed with the other PEC members that this should be the applicant's last chance to resolve the situation. Bill Anderson said that by "vertical" the PEC meant an artwork that was approximately 10 feet high. The other commissioners agreed. Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item for not more than one month with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item for a time period of not longer than one month. It should be noted that at approximately 3:30 p.m., Kathy Langenwalter left the meeting and turned over the chair to Greg Amsden. 6. A request for a worksession to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right-of-way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a brief presentation per the staff memo. He explained to the PEC the applicant's reasoning for requesting the relocation of the helipad and summarized the issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed relocation of the helipad. He added that this had been a difficult project because there were many opinions as to where the best location for the helipad should be, yet none of the sites were perfect. Michael Halpert, a resident of Homestake Circle,asked whether an impact report had been done concerning the relocation of the helipad so close to a residential area and to Ford Park. He added that he was concerned with the additional noise the helicopters would bring to the area. He added that moving the helipad to the Ford Park area would move the Vail Valley Medical Center approximately ten minutes further away from an emergency care situation. He emphasized that there were more suitable areas of town to locate the helipad and that these alternatives should be pursued. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 7 Greg Amsden asked Dan Feeney, who represents the Vail Valley Medical Center, about the impacts of the increased distance between the helipad and the Vail Valley Medical Center. Dan Feeney responded that the most ideal scenario would be to have the helipad located on the roof of the Medical Center. Dick Duran, Town of Vail Fire Department, stated that they had looked at several locations from East Vail to Dowd Junction with regard to safety and distance from the Medical Center. He said that the Ford Park site is the best alternative at this time. He said that the pilots prefer this site due to the size of helicopters that they are currently flying. He added that the pilots did have a concern with the power lines at Ford Park but that the proposed location was acceptable. Michael Halpert felt that a location west of the four-way stop would be a better solution than east of the four-way (i.e. Ford Park). Dick Duran stated that they had looked at this and that this was not the case since ambulances and fire trucks had to go through the four-way with the existing as well as proposed sites. Dalton Williams said that his biggest concern was that in the summertime, when a significant number of events are scheduled that the parking lot is often full and that it would not be reasonable to take away the proposed amount of parking space from the community. Due to the size of the helicopters, he felt that closing the Frontage Road would occur if the helipad was located at Ford Park. He was concerned that cars would still be damaged. He said that the FAA would require bright colored balls on the utility lines, which would be a visual impact. Dan Feeney said that the hospital would not own the helipad and that it was a community asset which the Medical Center would not get any revenue from. Allison Lassoe inquired what the notification period was for getting the helicopter up here. Dan Feeney responded approximately forty-five minutes from Denver. Dick Duran added that during the winter months, the time period can be ten to fifteen minutes if a helicopter is available out of the Eagle County Airport. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Dalton's comments. She added that this could be a temporary solution (one year) but that the Medical Center should begin to look into locating the helipad on the roof of the Medical Center. Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Dalton's and Allison's comments and said that he did not feel that Ford Park was an appropriate location for the helipad. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 Diana Donovan stated that this was not the correct location for the helipad and that this proposal had been reviewed by the PEC within the last twelve years. She said that this location added significant traffic concerns. She said that the valley at this site location was narrow and steep and that this seems to amplify the noise of the helicopters that pass through the Valley. She is concerned that the Town Council did not previously master plan the municipal complex which would have been the best location for the helipad. Diana feels that Town Council should come up with a solution to this issue. Diana believes that the current site is workable as opposed to moving the helipad into a residential area. Sill Anderson asked what the average stop for a helicopter is and why the current helipad site is not suitable. He also inquired what the proposed path a helicopter would take out of Ford Park would be and whether this path would go directly over the tennis courts. Dick Duran stated that an average helicopter stops for approximately twenty to twenty- five minutes. He said that the current helipad is not large enough to accommodate the larger helicopters that are now being used. He added that the off-ramp for 1-70 presents problems for the current helipad site. Dick stated that the path a helicopter takes depends upon the direction of the wind. Bill Anderson stated that he was not opposed to removing parking spaces from Ford Park but was concerned that during the spring and summer months, Ford Park is heavily used and that it seems inappropriate to have a helicopter coming and going from this area. He wondered whether a helipad could be located on top of the new police addition when it is completed. He felt that further consideration should also be given to the existing site. Greg Amsden stated that the existing site should be looked at and that it could possibly be expanded and renovated. He said that the Ford Park site could be a temporary solution (up to two years). Mike Halpert asked that should the Ford Park site be selected that Town staff look into whether an impact statement is required. 7. A request for an approval of the master plan to allow for an expansion and renovation of the Town of Vail Public Works site located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel north of the 1-70 right-of-way, located immediately north of Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He said that the master plan calls for approximately 52,000 square feet of additional floor area. He also summarized the issues for the PEC to consider in reviewing this request and environmental health comments. He stated that staff is recommending approval of this Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 9 master plan if the issues that have been raised in the staff memo can be incorporated into the report and be adequately addressed. Diana Donovan inquired about the access plan via 1-70. Kristen Hedberg said that it was envisioned to be a one-way on ramp used primary for snow removal or emergency situations that may arise. Dalton Williams inquired why only three employee housing units were being proposed. Greg Hall stated that a poll of Public Works Department employees was conducted and that there was not a large desire by employees to live on-site. Dalton Williams stated that three employee housing units did not seem to be cost effective. Andy Knudtsen stated that the Housing Authority has previously looked at the site and that there are constraints that limit the amount of housing that could be built. Kristen Hedberg explained that the housing was envisioned for people who traveled long distances or who needed to work during inclement weather situations, etc. Greg Hall stated that this housing would not be used year round. Larry Grafel stated that they felt it was positive to add employee housing units to the Town and that the number of three units proposed was arbitrary. Dalton Williams said that he did not have significant problems with the proposed master plan but that the housing should be deleted from the plan. He stated that the proposed exit onto 1-70 would not be viewed favorably by the community. He stated that the proposed building was cutting back into the hillside too much and that it needed to be more heavily screened. He added that he did not feel that this was the time to be taking a large Public Works project through the Town right now due to the present political environment within the community. He said that the community would like to see an employee housing project built by the Town prior to the Town embarking on another venture to increase infrastructure. Allison Lassoe agreed with Dalton's comments concerning the proposed number of employee housing units for the Public Works site. She would like to see the master plan prioritized to address issues that need to be taken care of first and that the items which are functioning to be lower on this list. Kristen Hedberg stated that they envisioned phasing the project in just such a prioritized manner and that this is why the administrative office expansion would be in the latter phases of the master plan. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 10 Jeff Bowen suggested that the master plan should look further into the future. He said 16 that he was not in favor of an 1-70 access for just the Public Works facility. He added that the environmental concerns were important and should be addressed in Phase I. Diana Donovan said the existing ditch/road above the site should be added to the plans as a reference point. She was most concerned with the site disturbance that could result from this master plan. She said that she was in favor of employee housing on this site and that possibly it could be built into the hillside to reduce the noise impacts from the shops, snowplows, etc. She said the green house should be made with nonreflective glass. She suggested that the impound lot be stacked above the other parking lot to reduce site impacts. She added that she would like to see this project done right, even if it does mean spending a bit more money to get what needs to be done accomplished. She said that the Town should keep in mind the message that each project or addition sends to the public. She felt that ideally, a public parking structure could be located at the Public Works site with a tram connecting skiers to China Bowl. She acknowledged that this was not likely to happen, Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Diana's comments concerning employee housing units. He asked how large the proposed units would be. Kirk Aker responded that the employee housing units were proposed to be two- bedroom units. Bill Anderson stated that thought should be given to all the potential uses this site could accommodate in the future (i.e. the possibility of a helipad, additional employee housing units, etc.). He felt that an improved entry on the east end of the site made the most sense to him instead of an 1-70 access point. Susie Hervert stated that they had given considerable time and thought to brainstorming about potential uses for this site. Dalton Williams inquired what would become of the bus facilities if a light rail system was implemented at some future date. Greg Hall stated that a separate light rail facility would be required. Greg Amsden stated that the proposed employee housing is needed. He said that the expansion of the Public Works site is the beginning of an expansion in infrastructure that will be occurring the next five years throughout the valley as our community continues to grow. Jeff Bowen made a motion to recommend approval to Town Council the master plan to allow for an expansion and renovation of the Town of Vail Public Works site per the staff memo and PEC comments made at the meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 11 He clarified that he was not opposed to employee housing on this site and that he would like to see more than three employee housing units located on this site. A 6-0 vote approved this request. Diana Donovan inquired whether the proposed 1-70 access would remain in the master plan. Larry Gratel stated it was not budgeted and if it was done, it would be the last part of the plan to be completed. He emphasized that this was a concept. Diana Donovan cautioned that this item would not be well received by the public. The staff and PEC agreed that it would be shown as a conceptual idea only. 8. A request to amend Section 18.69.050 - Special restrictions for developments on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent in single family residential, two-family residential, and two- family primary/secondary residential zones to allow standards found in this section to apply to the Hillside Residential zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was recommending approval to amend Section 18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Jeff Bowen stated that he was in favor of this amendment to the zoning code but that he would like the Town to begin restricting development in areas greater than 30%. Diana Donovan inquired whether there was a reason that the Hillside Residential zone district was left out of this section. Kristan Pritz stated that this section was originally added to the Zoning Code to facilitate better design on steep slopes for single family and duplex developments. She said that the main intent was that owners of lots with steeper slopes did have options and that the Design Review Board and Town Engineer had to agree with the proposed solution. Diana Donovan made a motion to approve this request to amend Section 18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote approved this request. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 12 9. A request for a minor subdivision located at 363 Beaver Dam Road and 363 Beaver Dam Circle/Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: John Tyler/John Tyler, Jr./Robert Tyler Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED INDEFINITELY Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request indefinitely with Diana Donovan seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this request indefinitely. 10. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, Area D, to allow an expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road West/Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings and Loan Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED INDEFINITELY Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request indefinitely with Diana Donovan seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this request indefinitely. 11.. Approve minutes from December 20, 1993 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the December 20, 1993 PEC meeting minutes with Diana Donovan_ seconding this motion. A 6-0 vote approve the minutes from the December 20, 1993 PEC meeting. 12. Council update: •CCI/CCII exterior alteration deadlines -Lindholm land exchange -Lodge - International Wing -Vail Commons/Land Use Plan update -Trapper's Run 13. The PEG representative for DRB meetings for 1994 was divided as follows at the last meeting: Jan. - March; 1994 Bill Anderson Jeff Bowen (alternate) April - June, 1994 Jeff Bowen ??? (alternate) July - Sept., 1994 ??? Jeff Bowen (alternate) Oct. - Dec., 1994 Greg Amsden Jeff Bowen (alternate) Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994 1101 13 0 The PEC felt that this item could wait until after the appointment of new PEC members was made in March of 1994. 14. PEC term expirations February, 1994. -Jeff Bowen -Dalton Williams -Greg Amsden -Diana Donovan Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 10, 1994- 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, an amendment to a previously approved development plan and a conditional use permit for four Type III employee housing units at The Vail Swim and Tennis Club, 2893 Kinnickinnick Road/a portion of the SW 1/4, Section 14, T5S R81 W of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail, Colorado. Applicant: T. Charles Ogilby and Stanleigh H. Cole Planner: Shelly Mello 1. INTRODUCTION This review is a request for the approval of a minor subdivision, a modification to amend the existing development plan and a conditional use permit for four Type III Employee Housing units for the Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club project. In order to change the plan as proposed, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) must approve a major amendment to the plan approved in 1979 by Eagle County. Because this parcel was never platted, a minor subdivision is also necessary. The approval of a conditional use permit is for the Type III EHU's. The original plan was approved as a PUD by Eagle County and was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981. This annexation agreement allowed for twenty-four condominiums. When Eagle County approved the development plan for this project there was no GRFA specified. For the purposes of this review, we will use the Town of Vail's Residential Cluster standards for GRFA. When the property was annexed by the Town of Vail, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modifications to the Eagle County approved plan would require Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approval. In that same ordinance, Residential Cluster (RC) zoning was applied to the property. Under the annexation ordinance, all standards not addressed by the Eagle County approved plan must meet RC zoning. Phase I includes 10 existing multi-family units in two buildings with surface parking. Phase would build out the project by adding twelve free market units and four Type III employee housing units for a total density of fourteen in Phase II and twenty-four units in Phase I and combined. Phase II will deviate from the original plan because four three-level duplex and four smaller two-level duplex buildings each with a two-car garage will be used versus the approved multi-family buildings. On December 20, 1993, the PEC considered this application during a worksession. At that time, the PEC reiterated the staff's concerns with the proposed improvements in the floodplain. Since that time, the applicant has revised the site plan to address these comments. Also, as a result of the clarification of the floodplain by the surveyor, the architect made additional modifications to the plan. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS The analysis compares the proposal, RC zoning and the annexation approval. The RC standards apply for other development standards not outlined in the annexation agreement. 1979 ANNEXATION CURRENT APPROVAL RC ZONING PROPOSAL Site Area: 222,849 sq. ft. Buildable Area: 166,277 sq. ft. GRFA: 41,569 sq. ft. 41,569 sq. ft. + 3,150 credits 12,212 sq. ft. existing = 44,719 sq. ft. total' 25,176 sq. ft. proposed 37,388 sq. ft. Total GRFA Density: 24 units 21 units 22 + 4 Type IV units @ .5 = 24 total units Common Area: 14,549 sq. ft. 14,549 sq. ft. 767 sq. ft. (for the area between the Phase I multi-family units) Height: 33 ft. 33 ft. 33 ft. Site Coverage: 26,046 sq. ft. 55,712 sq. ft. 24,101 sq. ft. Parking: 44 surface spaces 56 spaces: 60 at grade (Phase 1 25 spaces, Phase 11 35 spaces) 1 space per unit if Phase 11 32 enclosed spaces = required by the DRB 92 total spaces 225 square feet of GRFA credit will be allowed for each unit in Phase 11; Because Phase I is a multi-family building, it is not eligible for the 225 square foot credit. 111. AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOOTPRINTS A. Site Plan/Building Footprints The proposal uses building footprints to identify the location of each duplex. These footprints do not include roof overhangs, decks or walkways. These building footprints will not be platted, however, the applicant will be limited to the locations indicated on the approved site plan. As a result of the modifications, the staff feels that the result is a better site plan. While the interior island was removed due to circulation issues, additional planting has been included in front of each unit. The result is a total decrease in the amount of asphalt contributable to circulation when compared to the plan reviewed at the last worksession. In addition, parking has been accommodated in front of each unit except for the two buildings located on the southwest portion of the property (Units E and H). 2 These units are adjacent to the eight guest parking spaces which will address the demands for these two units. Please note these two buildings have two enclosed spaces per unit. Upon review, the Town Engineer requested that the floodplain be reevaluated according to elevation points. As a result of this reevaluation, the floodplain line has moved and in some areas benefitted the applicant in terms of buildable area. The change in the floodplain has allowed for the applicant to adjust the buildings in addition to offsetting them along the south property line which is positive. In addition, the buildings along the south side of the property have been sited to allow for more variation so that a "wall" of building is avoided. The staff feels that in general the building footprints have been sited such that they are sensitive to the topography. The buildings have been pulled back to maintain a buffer between the buildings and the floodplain. The staff feels that it is important to maintain a buffer between the edge of the creek and the buildings in order to limit the impact of the buildings on the area. The new building orientations on the south side of the property are more sensitive to adjacent property owners. The applicant has added a two-car garage to each unit which the staff feels is positive because it significantly reduces the surface parking. We would ask the applicant to consider the location of the guest parking and distribute the parking in two locations instead of the one location adjacent to the entry so that more landscaping can be accommodated for screening purposes. We would suggest that a minimum of three of the eight guest spaces be located in Phase I of the project, if possible. This item has been discussed with the Phase I Condominium Association and they feel that it could be acceptable. The DRB will review this further. B. Buildina Heiaht RC zoning allows for 33 foot maximum building height for a sloping roof. The applicant has agreed to limit the maximum height per RC zoning. The staff feels that if the buildings are limited to 33 feet, they will be more compatible with the surrounding area. The building height of each unit will be verified at the time of the DRB review. C. Densitv The application includes four Type III employee housing units which for calculating density are considered to be .5 of a unit. Therefore, there is a net increase of two units over what was previously approved, but the total density will remain at twenty- four units given the employee housing unit density allowance of .5. A conditional use permit is necessary to allow for the EHU's. The staff supports the applicant's request to provide employee housing units which meet the Town of Vail Housing ordinance. In 1991, the applicant requested an increase in density in order to provide rental housing, however at this time the applicant was not willing to permanently deed restrict these units and wanted to maintain the right to eventually sell these units. At that time, the staff was willing to 3 support the request to increase the density if the applicant was willing to deed restrict the units for a period of 20 years and felt that any increase without securing the deed restriction would essentially be a "giveaway". In order to assure the development of these EHU's, the staff would require that at least two of the EHU's be built prior to the completion of the first six units and the remaining two EHU's be built prior to the completion of the remaining six units. RC zoning allows for a 225 square feet credit when single family, duplex and primary/secondary units are built in the RC zone district. Because neither the 425 credit nor the 225 credit were in existence when this property was annexed, although some credits were allowed, the staff would refer back to the current zoning which allows 225 square feet for the allowed credit in addition to the allowed GRFA of 21,840 square feet. The 225 credit is not applicable to the existing Phase I multi-family unit buildings, however, they are eligible for the common area allowance. The space between the Phase 11 duplex units will be counted towards GRFA. D. Pedestrian easement The staff would ask that a public access easement be established along the creek edge along the north side of Gore Creek. While this will allow for public access, the Town does not have any current plans to develop a formal path. The intent would be to allow the public to access the creek. This easement would need to be established prior to the release of any building permits and should be indicated on the minor 10 subdivision plat. E. Architectural auidelines The applicant does not propose any architectural guidelines for this property. The units would be reviewed by the Design Review Board as proposed. The applicant has indicated that the materials and design of the buildings will be similar to the buildings in Phase I of the project. The materials and general style of the units shall be as indicated on the conceptual elevations. However, we do believe at the time of DRB review a comprehensive look at materials, architecture, and landscaping is appropriate and that the new project should be architecturally compatible with the first phase. F. Phasina Dian The applicant does not propose to phase the project for construction. He would like the option to construct any unit provided the proper Design Review Board approval is obtained. The staff does not feel that it is appropriate to require the applicant to complete all of the construction within a specified number of phases. As discussed previously, the staff would require that at least two of the EHU's be constructed prior to the completion of the first six units and the remaining EHU be completed prior to the completion of the remaining units. 4 G. Landscapinq/Cradina The staff feels that landscaping is very important for this project, especially along the perimeter of the project. The applicant has proposed to landscape these areas, however, the staff feels that an additional fifteen to twenty trees as well as a berm should be added to the project to screen the guest parking and increase the landscape buffer between the adjacent properties. The applicant has proposed to add twenty-five 5 gallon willows to be located in the floodplain adjacent to the creek. The landscaping in the floodplain will be limited to indigenous plant material. No formal landscaping will be allowed in this area. The staff is concerned with the grading adjacent to the units. This grading is being used to facilitate access to the second floor entry to the units. The staff would ask that the applicant limit the grading especially adjacent to the floodplain. At the time of the DRB review, alternatives to the grading such as additional steps should be considered. In addition, the staff would ask that the landscape islands adjacent to the units be increased while meeting the Fire Department requirements radius. (Please see the site plan that shows the extension for planters.) H. Fire Denartment/Public Works concerns Both the Fire Department and Public Works have reviewed this application. The applicant has provided the proper access to each building foundation. As a result of Public Work's concern with the location of the buildings and circulation, the center island has been removed and smaller landscaped islands have been introduced adjacent to the units. The Public Works Department has requested a drainage easement between the Phase I and Phase 11. This should also be indicated on the minor subdivision plat. The Town Engineer will review the development plan again prior to the DRB and requests that further detail be added to the plan which address drainage and snow storage. These items may necessitate the relocation of landscaping. The applicant must address the Fire Department concerns prior to the issuance of a building permit. None of the issues raised by the Fire Department have implications on the development plan. IV. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval/denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. n 5 The integration of employee housing into a development of this type is a very important objective of the town. The type of unit, as proposed, is highly desirable as it provides quality units on the bus route. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The introduction of these units to this project will not impact any of the above criteria. The Phase I property owners have voiced their concern with the additional traffic that the EHU's will contribute, however, because there is a net increase of two units, the staff feels that this increase will be limited. As proposed, additional parking spaces are being proposed which should accommodate any increase in parking demand which would result from these units. 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. There will be no impact on any of the above criteria. The staff has worked with the applicant to accomplish a workable interior circulation system which addresses the concerns we may have had with the issues listed above. The existing access and proposed private drive will remain private. 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. Because these units are being incorporated into an existing project and the design will not differ from the free market units, the staff feels that there will be no impact on the above criteria. B. Findinas The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinas before arantina a conditional use permit: 1. 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. C] 6 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. MINOR SUBDIVISION While this parcel is partially developed, it remains unplatted. At this time, it is appropriate to complete a minor subdivision for the entire parcel including Phase I and Phase II and create a single lot. The parcel meets all of the requirements listed below: Required Proposed Lot Size: 15,000 sq. ft. 222,849 sq. ft. total with a minimum 8,000 sq. ft. 166,277 buildable of buildable area Frontage: 30 feet 645 feet Size and Shape: Capable of enclosing a square meets requirement 80 feet on each side VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the request to amend the development plan, and the minor subdivision as well as the approval of the conditional use permit for four Type III employee housing units. We find that the amendment to the development plan is positive because of the introduction of enclosed garages as well as the addition of the four Type III employee housing units. We also find that the introduction of the four restricted housing units is a change to the project which supports the conditional use criteria and the Town objectives for housing. The application also meets the criteria for a minor subdivision. The following conditions apply to the staff's recommendation: That the DRB shall review and add a minimum of fifteen additional trees and berm adjacent to the guest parking to the project in order to screen at-grade parking and provide a landscape buffer between the adjacent properties particularly on the south side of the property. The landscaped medians shall be extended per the attached drawing assuming Public Works and Fire Department approvals are received. Please see the attached drawing. 2. That a minimum of two employee housing units be built prior to the completion of the first six units of the project and the remaining two units be built prior to the completion of the next six units of the project. 3. The applicant establish and record the public access easement along the north side of Gore Creek on the property and a drainage easement between Phase I and Phase II prior to the release of any building permits for the project. The easement shall be indicated on the minor subdivision. 4. The minor subdivision be submitted and recorded prior to the release of any building permits. 7 5. The materials and general architectural style of the Phase II units shall be as indicated on the conceptual elevations dated January 6, 1994 by Langenwalter Peel Architects attached to this memo. 6. The applicant will submit a drainage and snow storage plan for the Town Engineer approval prior to the project receiving DRB approval. As a recommendation, the staff would suggest that the applicant split the eight guest parking spaces between Phase I and Phase II. Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within two years. .:\peaI-.\.gilby,lln J 0 8 a? ? t•,r,.;Gd ?'---?°T"" ?*F ,r..y.--.-crti..•(+y-tt.1s-?/*-w?J?-em ?L. /??` i % e ,,,/ ??? =_,. ?-,. ? ?? r,?? tr :79 ? 1 __-..rte, . r,T•- ?. 1 r,`v J '" _ }'?-• . -. •' f' [?J tV' .,f` f / / t- / 1 ,c J r f _ ? ? . Amara a ins, t ? ,. ?,?- , -1,- ',?, = ,? < ?,? `} f ?~ ?? -,fir `? ?' .?? ^ ?" /.S' •+ t "s?,?nG '' rJ"br- ?*` - rs.F `•?• Jr- t V 1 f Ir!!?,?? ??.••I. a ?_ ?• 1 Fol. -1- stool ?.ri 70-._--. ?F ?r„Ji'r' ? ? .l r µ- ?/?? ?? ???? L- r F" ?---? ? .''. T'' z? arm 3adt•__, 6 .f?,.s? hl J. ?r ?/ lA? ???t rvr s UI;N *+^Flv+z+iv :1 bK?t•a; ctaco;••hc 3+eio3.. \? • - Y .' ? ? ..'t / ! Q r I ? Y Mass. Y 1 ion E- / 60.4 _ E AOPO ;..." 9? A.2 AO? PG ? U:\b Ja _ i l OAE CAEEK - -_ - 7&]f} t' ' J 1 [`JI Vet-..?' 7;' _ E O I L; Y YI.:.- FA E WA, I T tpe PNK J\3' ` ?' ]e g " ,"H-x ? 1 1 ?!? -%c?? 1 7t?= tAr Ll n? .?n?.-F bEIH ? ? ? 'ti ,?.ra E; , f'? urr II I.r J 7830 4, >1 J I^ a? c_?`, \ yob .•r/ \f - ?:?? - 4 K t? f EN s ., V`* d ?u e?sSENEµt _ U. ?j- um? r SWIM 8 iENNiS CLUB \l . - - .. .f?-'tai ?;.rl ° a F-` Hrs=«.W •,s ?,? .I ?qE V, ? ?? u*Ilr&, k.. I _?.- r'??i, Rs rcw FIB cEFV,ti pti R+_ `t\\ \ - •??fi'Y . ' ? - (\ ? \ u H ?? ? ?' / F,. TI..BF:n e _. In.r?[;:'Yr U- w %^a, VI -K IF' VAILr IN(ERF OUNT- OLOCK 1 R r?I NY N? r S?CE // W w P .4 q. t `i t 1 1 ? s a -Iqw w `-- > R v ' Aw 0 0 i , 41- R # uo f1 I u ?J a tt Y' e i t J s L--A 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to Cascade Village, SDD #4, Area A, Lot A, Millrace 1101335 Westhaven Drive, Cascade Village more specifically described as follows: A part of the SW 1/4, NE Yo-, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th 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 S00138'56"W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00138'56"E 122.91 feet to the southerly ROW line of 1-70; thence departing said ROW line N66°53'25"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81 °23'19"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 S15057'45"E 119.10 feet; thence S40032'10"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 S15156'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00"W 90.27 feet; thence N38142'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S78110'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte ...... .... . 0 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Michael Lauterbach, developer of the Millrace III project, located in Area A of the Cascade Village Special Development District (SDD #4), has requested a minor SDD amendment in order to modify the approved development plan. The minor modification involves changes to the approved building height, footprint: location and final grading for the single family residence located on Lot A of the Millrace III project. The applicant has stated that it was necessary to move the single family residence approximately 3 feet to the north in order to avoid encroachment into the pedestrian easement located on the east side of the residence and the 50 foot Gore Creek stream setback located on the west side of the building. The original drawings placed the building outside of this easement. However, the problem occurred when the building footprint was located by a surveyor on the property. Mr. Lauterbach is also requesting approval of grading revisions on the west side of the single family residence. As proposed, the revised grading will result in an increased building height of 3.25 feet on side of the building. Although the maximum building height allowance on the Millrace III property is 36 feet, the building permit plans approved for the project showed a maximum height of 32 feet. The proposed revised grading will result in a maximum building height of 35.25 feet, or 0.75 of a foot below the maximum height allowance on this property. The proposed grading revision is prompted by the future owner's desire to have a more useable or flatter area on the west side of the building. The application includes an amended landscape plan that shows a net increase of six aspens and two 6 foot spruce trees along this side of the property from that originally approved in conjunction with the issuance of the building permit. Please see the attached landscape plan. II. AMENDMENT PROCEDURES Section 18.40.100 (Amendment Procedures) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code stipulates the following for minor amendments to Special Development Districts: "Minor amendments: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.40.020B (attached) may be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of 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. 111E STAFF ACTION The Community Development Department staff believes that the proposed modification to the building height, location and grading for the single family residence located on Lot A, Millrace III, would be consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.40.0208 (attached), and has approved the applicant's request to modify the approved development plan as described above. The staff does not believe that the applicant's request would alter the intent of the SDD, nor would it have any negative impacts upon any of the adjacent property owners. Opec\mem os\m i l l race.110 Ir? 2 \S 1 z0NI *ING 16?, W. t92? rn4 nirncrs if authorized in conformity w" :, LLent requirements of ?' association's declara- tions and ter requirements ndominium B. d arations are met. inor amendmcnt view)" shall mean mod?- cations to build ng p7ans' fsii review)" c plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet to approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impacf pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses), of riot.. more than five percent of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and other nonresidential floor area. C: ' Major amendment (PEC andlor council review)" 'all me any proposal to change uses; incrcas gross resident:gl_floor area; change the number of clling or acco? mo on units; modify enlarge o expand any approved sp ci l development district ?Ot?er than minor amendments as de ed in Scction 18 .020B.) D. "Underlying zone di ict" shall can the zone district existing on the property, -or posed on the property at the tiat e the special develo ?rt district is approved. E. "Affected property" sha mean r operty within a special development distric at, by virtue f its proximity or relationship to proposed amendme t`request to an approved dev .opment plan, may be affe?cted by red design, d ity increase, change in uses,\oor other modific ons changing the impacts, or character-,of the appr ed special development district. (Ord. ,21(1988) § 1.) (VAU 12-29-59) 382-10 LI 0 a o ? illllll_ l t . i i TAT- L : 0 a w s i _ J ?L J w 'TJ t vs?l III 1 ? I ' I `(r ?I ?? I f YII ?I . 1 d - J aSb r -- Is ?• 15 a OT °oot0 s ! '" LuJ? o &500 f '# - ? /? r? ? ?? as < \ 717 de co) . ,n a a E a „. Aikk 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 1994 SUBJECT: A notification of approval of a minor SDD amendment to allow for the addition of an airlock entry to the Gateway Building/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing/12 Vail Road. Applicant: Leo Palmer/Paimos Development Corporation Planner: Mike Mollica 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Leo Palmer, owner and developer of the Vail Gateway project, located at the southeast corner of the main Vail four-way stop, has requested a minor SDD amendment in order to modify the building with the addition of an airlock entry. The Vail Gateway (SDD No. 21) was initially approved by the Town Council in 1988. This is the first request for an amendment to the SDD since its initial approval by the Town Council. The minor modification request involves the addition of a 60 square foot airlock to the main entry into the Gateway Building. To construct the airlock, the applicant has proposed to add glass doors, which would be identical in appearance to the existing doors on the building. The new doors would be located approximately 5 feet out from the existing doors. The new airlock doors would be flush with the existing wall line of the building and would not change the footprint of the existing structure. According to the applicant, "the basis of the airlock is to make the open atrium-like space more comfortable from a temperature standpoint." 11. AMENDMENT PROCEDURES Section 18.40.100 (Amendment Procedures) of the Municipal Code stipulates the following for minor amendments to Special Development Districts: "Minor amendments: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.40.020 B (attached) may be approved by the department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the department of 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. IV A III. STAFF ACTION The Community Development Department staff believes that the applicant's proposed modification to the Vail Gateway Building, as described above, would be consistent with the Design Criteria outlined in Section 18.40.020 B (attached), and has approved the applicant's request to modify the building as described. We believe that the proposed 60 square foot airlock entry meets the 5% maximum allowance for nonresidential floor area. In fact, the airlock meets this standard when calculating just the retail and commercial spaces (exclusive of the common areas). Additionally, the staff does not believe that the applicant's request would alter the intent of SDD No. 21, nor would it have any negative impacts upon any of the adjacent property owners. CAPec\memas\gateway.110 E 0 2 ZONING WSJ unit owners if authorized in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declara- tions and all other requirements of the condominium declarations are_met_ 13. "Minor amendment (Staff review)" shall mean modifi- cations to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet to approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes` to gross floor area (excluding residential uses),' of nof'", morethan five percent of the a??roved square footage of"",- ,retail, office common areas and otter nonresidential floor area. t "Major amendment (PEC and; or council review)" shall mean any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than minor amendments as defined in Section 18.40.020H.) D. "Underlying zone district" shall mean the zone district existing on the property, or imposed on the property at the time the special development district is approved. E. "Affected property" shall mean property within a special development district that, by virtue of its proximity or relationship to a proposed amendment request to an approved development plan, may be affected by re- design, density increase, change in uses, or other modifications changing the impacts, or character of the approved special development district. (Ord. 21(1988) § 1.) 382-10 (Vail 12-29-89) 11 11 El- _Pq) PEE=r?S{. !n.F?F+' ?!j`J? ?-'. '°y ?f ro MY.?CH JOKING, gO ? N ' t ^r1ly. i I All eonstrntdon m fallow me Town of Vail Building Dtpanment and dawn of Vail Fue Dapattementrequ"vemems. All canswerion to fallow 1991 U.B.C. All oor,b aion wbe in compliance wnb smoke and bwt vent mg6mmenrs as established wirh the Town of Vail and Uniform Fbe Code, All ronstmttion to be io compliance with sprinkler requvomenas as -blished by Town of Vail and Vniform Fire Code. Noufitadon ofany cb-gcsur additional requuementa b the 4ting drawings from Lbt Tawn of Vail Building and Pine Deparuncnrs to N in writing and scnr out m the owner and archiwt prior m conswtdon. Town of Vail Building and Fine Depanm - N above in wrinen fomr approval of proposed dusts w the VaUGatcway Building at 12 South Frdntagc Road. A A`m st Arthi-o, P.C. P.O.. Bax 4392 VaIco 91659 Te1.30347"503 Fat 303 7"113 Circle Well Architects, P,C_presslydi"ims vre pondbility from any unadiori.d oso of thwc plans, drawings, and owes. Any-b - iralion must be in writin This drawing Copy may have k-prodoccd et iu different man ongiua¢y drawn. The architsct and owncxass- responsibiliryfe e of inwrrett scale. Drawings arc not m bo scaled. NocpubBsb W a11 rigbb reserved. 1 oimt, Vail Gaicway Doors dot N, Block 5D Vail Village lsc Soal6Fron7c Road at Vail Road, Veil. Cobrado $hmt Name Proposed Plan & Elevation 12a1e; 12.1693 Sheet Nnmixr Ai-1 n z''4 r x'c i ?w . x Al r J. x' x ?_7 S C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for an enclosed trash and grease dumpster at the southwest corner of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, specifically located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist, represented by Kevin Clair and Tom Armstrong Planner: Randy Stouder 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of an application for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of an enclosure to house two waste grease containers. The grease container housing would be located at the southwest corner of the Gore Creek Plaza Building in the Commercial Core I zone district. The building is already at approximately 80% site coverage. The housing would contribute 60 square feet of additional site coverage which would push the Gore Creek Plaza Building 41 square feet over the allowable site coverage. Thus, a site coverage variance is required for the additional 41 square feet. The grease containers would serve two restaurants, including Sweet Basil's and Blu's. The container's dimensions are 9'X 7'X 8' (width,depth,height), with a flat roof. The dumpster housing would be 60 square feet in size, would displace an existing bench and planter, and would have a stucco finish and a metal clad door. The dumpster housing would be constructed on the existing concrete slab (underground parking garage roof), and the colors will match the existing building colors which are white stucco and black trim. The architectural design concept is to "fit in with the Gore Creek Plaza Building and the surrounding Village area". Staff suggested that the applicant provide some form of mitigation for the displaced landscaping planter. Transplanting or replacing the one ornamental tree that is impacted, within the existing planter to the east of John Gault's entrance would be appropriate. II. BACKGROUND This application was generated in response to longstanding complaints of trash and grease overflows outside the existing dumpster housing located on the adjacent Sitzmark Lodge property. In an attempt to resolve this problem, the Town of Vail's Environmental Health Officer and Senior Environmental Planner conducted several meetings with the owners of the various restaurants, retail shops and buildings that utilize the existing dumpster housing which contains one grease container and three trash dumpsters. The consensus opinion at these meetings was that the dumpster overflow problems were related to inadequate capacity in the dumpsters relative to the t large number of users. Currently, the Sitzmark dumpsters are used by three restaurants, two retail stores, the Sitzmark Lodge and 15-20 condominium. The participants felt that additional dumpster facilities must be provided if the problems were to be resolved. Several options were discussed in the last meeting, held on December 14, 1993, between the Environmental Heath Officer, the Senior Environmental Planner, and restaurant and shop owners in the area. These options included more frequent clean out of the grease dumpster by the service company, holding trash temporarily overnight inside the restaurant instead of disposing of it late at night after closing, and hiring a private company to clean the area around and inside the dumpsters on a regular basis. The first option was deemed not feasible since trash volume (not just grease) is also an issue and additional trash pick-ups are not available due to vehicular access restrictions in the Village Core. The second option was deemed not feasible for Health related reasons. The last option has not been fully explored. The restaurant owners decided that constructing a new housing, for grease containers only, was necessary. This would allow them to remove the existing grease container from the existing dumpster housing, providing space for a new dumpster to be marked for flattened corrugated cardboard box disposal only (to be recycled). Thus, a separation of the waste stream would occur which would hopefully alleviate some of the trash volume problems related to cardboard box disposal. The restaurant, retail store and Lodge owners felt that un-crushed cardboard boxes were taking up a large share of the trash dumpster volume. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: A. Zone District: Commercial Core I B. Lot Area: 5,000 square feet required 7,553 square feet provided C. Site Coverage: 6,043 square feet (80.0%) allowed 6,024 square feet (79.8%) existing 60 square feet (0.79%) addition proposed 6,084 square feet (80.6%) new total D. Height: Not Applicable. E. Parking: Not Applicable. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE I ZONE DISTRICT 18.24.010 Puroose: "The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The 2 Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." It is the staff's opinion that the proposed change to the Gore Creek Plaza Building, would be 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 nor detract from the overall appearance of the building as viewed from the pedestrian areas adjacent to the building. V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements which establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use planning and design considerations. Finally, the architectural/landscape considerations, which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan and the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan address specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. The following sections, Sections VI-IX of this memorandum, provide relevant citations from the design and planning documents mentioned above. These citations are followed by a short discussion of the issues related to the application. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no specific sub-area concepts relevant to this proposal. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to ensure that new development is consistent with the established character. The design considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianization: The proposed grease container housing will not have any impacts on the pedestrian traffic flow along Gore Creek Drive. The housing will not effect the existing pedestrian area since it is located in an alley-like alcove off the main pedestrian corridor, and is completely enclosed. The housing has been dimensioned and positioned to maintain at least a 48 inch walkway access (per building code) to the stairs which lead down to the parking 01 garage beneath the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Staff investigated turning the enclosure 3 so that the doors would not open out toward the street. However, this would block access to the stairs leading to the parking garage when the grease containers were being utilized or serviced. B. Vehicular Penetration: The housing will not impact service vehicle access to the existing trash dumpster. C. Streetscape Framework: The housing should not effect the streetscape framework since existing buildings and existing landscaping will screen the pedestrians' view of the facility from most directions except when one is walking directly in front of the enclosure. D. Street Enclosure: The housing will be tucked into an off-street alcove and will not produce scale or enclosure problems since it is much smaller than the surrounding buildings. E. Street Edge: Staff believes that the housing will not impact the street edge along Gore Creek Drive since it is recessed from the immediate street edge. 10 F. Building Height: Building height will be unaffected as a result of this proposal. The Gore Creek Plaza Building and the Sitzmark Lodge are much higher than the container housing. The proposed height of the enclosure is 8 feet. This height was chosen to allow for ease of grease disposal into the top of the grease container and to allow headroom so service people can move around inside the enclosure. The height also matches the existing rock wall, which a portion of the enclosure will abut. G. Views and Focal Points: The proposed remodel does not affect any of the Town's adopted view corridors. The remodel will have no impact on the line-of-sight from either the top or the bottom of Gore Creek Drive. H. Service and Delivery: The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns. Sun/Shade: There will be no increase in shadow patterns as a result of this addition, as it is located within the shade patterns of the existing buildings. E 4 0 J. Architectural/Landscape and Service Considerations: This proposal is made by the owner of the Gore Creek Plaza Building in order to correct an existing trash storage problem. The trash quantities generated by the multiple users of existing trash and grease facilities are in excess of the capacity available. The new grease container housing should help to alleviate this problem. The containers will be readily accessible for collection and maintenance. Existing buildings and an 8 foot high rock wall will screen the housing to the extent possible given the constraints of the site. The applicant proposes materials, colors and architectural style that are compatible with the surrounding buildings. The proposed housing will displace a small bench and raised planter arrangement, containing one ornamental tree (2 inch caliper). Staff proposes mitigation the loss of the planter and bench by transplanting or replacing the ornamental tree in an existing planter adjacent to the entrance of John Gault. VNI. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN The general goals in the Vail Village Master Plan provide guidance which is relevant to this proposal as follows: "Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Goal #3 -To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Prior development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements along adjacent pedestrian ways." The Streetscape Master Plan provides guidance related to improving the pedestrian experience in the Village Core as follows: "There is a need for additional landscaping to help soften portions of the Village which are predominantly asphalt street, stonewalls, and building facades...." "Unsightly alleys, trash compactors, and enclosures, service/delivery entrances should be 5 screened whenever possible. The use of native landscaping for screening is strongly recommended." As stated previously, the main purpose of this application is to upgrade existing commercial development by resolving a long standing trash facility problem. Architectural compatibility, screening and landscaping, and trash facility maintenance are the main issues with the application. Staff proposes that the applicants' move the impacted landscaping. The proposed location of the enclosure utilizes existing buildings and walls to screen the housing from pedestrian ways. Staff has discussed maintenance issues with the applicant and proposes a solution in the Staff Discussion and Recommendation section of this memorandum. IX. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code requires, that prior to granting of a variance, the commission to consider the following factors. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The grease container housing will not have any adverse impact on surrounding structures, existing or potential uses in the area. The below-grade parking structure underlies the area where the housing will sit. The housing will be placed on the concrete slab that provides the roof of the parking garage. The site of the housing is recessed from the street edge in an alley-like alcove between the Gore Creek Plaza Building and the Sitzmark Lodge. The housing will be tied into the side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building which will shield it from pedestrian views from the east. The existing dumpster housing and an existing landscaping planter will shield the proposed housing from pedestrian views from the west. The dimensions and placement of the housing will not effect the pedestrian entrance to the parking garage since a minimum 48" clear width will be maintained to allow people to access the stairs to the below-grade parking structure. The housing will only be visible when directly in front of the alcove area between the two buildings. Since service access to the enclosure must be maintained, there is little that can be done to mitigate this view. 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 site coverage variance is necessary since the Gore Creek Plaza Building is so close to the maximum allowed site coverage (80%). Approval of the housing in its proposed location is necessary to alleviate existing problems related to trash and grease disposal. The existing trash and grease facilities are inadequate to accommodate the volume of waste generated by the multiple users. The proposed location of the housing is the only functional place for this use on the Gore Creek 6 Plaza Building property. It is adjacent to the existing trash dumpster housing, readily accessible by service vehicles and placed so it will have minimal impact on pedestrian walkways and adjacent structures and uses. The housing is conveniently located to its major users. The size of the enclosure is what is necessary to adequately house two grease containers. Strict literal enforcement of the site coverage maximum would prevent the applicants from addressing a sanitation issue. 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. As expressed in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the variance will have little or no effect on light, air, population, transportation or public facilities and utilities. The structure will not require the extension of any utilities, and will help protect public health and welfare by reducing health hazards related to existing trash overflows and inadequate capacity of trash and grease storage facilities. It is staff's opinion that the proposed housing will not provide the restaurants with any special privilege. Granting the variance can only improve the public health, safety and welfare by improving a long-standing health-related problem. Staff feels that this application will significantly improve a long standing public health problem related to grease overflows at the existing dumster facilities. 0 P. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 7 0 X. STAFF DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the application for a site coverage variance and approval of the application for a minor exterior alteration to allow the construction of the proposed grease container housing, subject to the conditions outlined below. This recommendation is based on the fact that the strict imposition of the site coverage provision of the Zoning Ordinance would be contrary to the general purpose of the Ordinance itself; which is designed to protect the public health and welfare of the people of the Town. Granting the requested variance will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent structures and uses, and will not provide any special privilege to the applicant. Current and historical odor and visual problems related to trash disposal are a direct consequence of: the inadequate capacity of existing facilities relative to the waste volume generated by multiple users, the lack of separation of different types of waste materials, and a general lack of maintenance in and around the dumpster housing area. After reviewing the guidance contained in the Vail Village Master Plan, the Urban Design Guide Plan and Guideline Considerations, and the Streetscape Master Plan, the current proposal will be acceptable given the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicants shall transplant (or replace) the ornamental tree to a new location in the planter adjacent to the entrance to John Gault, as a part of the construction process for the grease container enclosure. 10 2. A minimum 48" clear width shall be maintained between the existing and proposed dumpster housings to allow pedestrian access to the parking garage below. 3. A regular maintenance program shall be set-up for the new grease container housing. Areas in front of the housing shall be included in the maintenance program. The maintenance program shall be devised by the Town of Vail's Environmental Health Officer in cooperation with the applicants. The program shall include, but not be limited to, steam cleaning the housing at a minimum of once every six months. Waste and runoff generated during the cleaning process shall be collected, shall not be allowed to move off- site into the public right-of-way, and shall be handled and disposed of as sewage. The grease containers shall be removed for cleaning by the respective service companies at a frequency not less than once every six months. The Environmental Health Officer will enforce these maintenance provisions during routine inspections of the restaurant facilities involved. Although not the only users of the Sitzmark dumpster, the applicants are encouraged to facilitate waste stream separation by working together with other shop and restaurant owners to provide a new dumpster within the Sitzmark's dumpster enclosure for corrugated cardboard box disposal only. The new dumpster could be placed in the existing Sitzmark dumpster housing, and used for cardboard box disposal only. The dumpster should be clearly labeled "For flattened corrugated cardboard boxes only" to encourage employees to separate out the boxes from other trash. Also, staff feels strongly that a regular maintenance program should be set-up for the existing trash dumpster housing. Staff recommends a program similar to that mentioned in condition #3 above. 8 I / f?u?lr.sc, ??nc4ilYYYYY .QL=?,j"C?J"... V G. TKAsIr e??uI 1U f \ ?u.a?e? rrxx ??- PKDpXE-;c-r Y ~ ? RY-uAS?.a'`N rah M ??' i ? a e I1?f?l ? e . _ i 11' i ? -l it l iM l1 II I JI? F1 UT • _ sTU.c.c.c3 - ou 000 OF 0 00 ..iui•?i.?i•.a.u..i..iniii u..?u .i l.. ii-ui.i?I.riiliuJ.i.n eull.n.,u...?n.u?..u...o..?dJ?i??.?iinc.u81..li?iui?J?+l ii?ii+u?.u.l euiiiiui ?. ??d??n+.u.Y.u.,,..?.,l?uiuii„., niui.+ia??...u. i. uiu..?...i•?.iui .. ,, ... , ? ES i F_.[_-ref AT i l?rJ ?r}-l ? 1 F ?/.?-TI F. 11 ?M4 7*? L tt 1 y !1 !0 St ' TRIG N 1 \ ? ? ? ? e \ W?.M ss ?a © 1, y I r? / ? c \ T A J ' A b VI J 11fAti C V pwa a RESUB. LOT C. BLK. 5C 1 - I 2 F 3 I SUBJECT SITE I VICINITY MAP NO SCALE A PART OF LOT A, BLOCK 5-B y SEE THIS PAGEDETAIL :- 1 ® 4.7 SET PIN B CAP L.S. No. 16627 eI 1 z 0 0 ?0- OUTLINE OF UNDERGROUND PARKING ROOF 24.3 r3 ru.i p ycil I fl w )?L Ir0l 'T PIN 8 CAP S. No. 16827 K WALL AND NTER, WITHIN n FND.° X° IN CONCRETE W' MMRCIAL SPACE BELOW 0 (SWEET BASIL ACCESS) ? SPIRAL La STAIR OPENING 4.B 3 UTILITY Box 1.8 yj w Z ? lP 0D G.C.E, 4 C' BELL TO" io nurs7DE ST S • 5.0 CONDOMINR AIR FIRST FLOOR - .5 5 STORY WOOD AND CONCRETE G.C,E. p COMMERCIAL BUILDING O, AREA OF LOT = 0.1734 ACRES I A.6' SITZMARK LODGE r r 3RD 8, 5TH I? LEVEL DECKS lw 1 " I j 4.6:. OUTLINE OF UNDERGROUND \ 11111 PARKING ROOF FOR SITZMARK LODGE \ OPEN TO BELOW G.C.E. DECK B STEP FOR LOWER LEVEL ?'• ACCESS \ 7 20.9 .e-. ?--- ° m N84°2y'E 0 P G,C.E. SITZMARK BUILDING OUTLINE 0 CONCRETE I.0' WIDE - ROCK WALL SET PIN B CAP L.S. No. 16627 N05°37',W 19. 7 BLDG. OVHG. 1'! 4' 8 - i 13.2 EO. 7 .3 m v o PLANTER ` OVHG 7.7 L.G.F. UNIT B BRICK BRICK G.C_E. AREA--- PAVERS 14,3 ( PATIO) N05137W ` I ONCRETE S05 °37 E L o 5,3 BELL TOWER CONDOM BEING USED FOR ACCE N PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS WALL FLANGE I.0 a ? w. G.G.E. 4.3 . or LJLWIOf RETE cLL N84°2303°E 4' ?rs ID, ?' ro? 505°37E ? 4.9 13.6 BLDG. OVHG. L.C.E. UNIT 8 G.C.E. / PAVERS I PATIO) SOS°6}7'E NT SUPPORT SYSTEM 0 II .P N84°23'E 2.5` S05°37'E 3.9 4°2? W 2.5 r^" FND. " Bt, 18' 4.1 l ?OI DRIVE OGLASS GORE WALL Allison Lassoe said that the decks over Garfinkle's were a problem. She stated that the addition lacked coherency. Dalton Williams stated he was concerned with the overhang on the north side and that he would like to see these overhangs stepped back. He said that a one story addition on the lower level could work and would look better in terms of mass. He said that he was not in favor of the small deck. He did not want to see the wall jut out. He said that adding a deck on top of Garfinkle's does make sense. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was concerned with the north elevation. She said that the decks need to be more compatible with the existing building. She stated that the proposed additional mass and bulk at that height is not appropriate. Bill Pierce stated that he would discuss different options with the applicant and get with staff. 6. A request for a minor subdivision located at 363 Beaver Dam Road and 383 Beaver Dam Circle/Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: John Tyler/John Tyler, Jr./Robert Tyler Planner: Mike Mollica Kathy Langenwalter stepped down from the PEC due to a conflict of interest, and Greg Amsden was chairperson for this item. Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff believes this request meets the purpose section of the Subdivision Regulations. He said that staff recommended approval of this request for a minor subdivision with the two conditions outlined on Page 6 of the staff memo. Mike stated that by going through this minor subdivision process that a nonconforming situation would not be created. Don Byers, an adjacent property owner, stated that he supported this request for a minor exterior alteration. Diana Donovan made a motion to approve the minor subdivision per the staff memo with the two conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Dalton Williams seconded the motion and a 6-0-1. vote approved this item. 7. A request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for an enclosed trash and grease dumpster at the southwest corner of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, specifically located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist, Armstrong Planners: Randy Stouder represented by Kevin Clair and Tom 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 13 Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. Diana Donovan stated that the planter needs to be large enough to accommodate the tree. Dalton Williams made a motion to approved this request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote approved this request. 8. 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, Block 5, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz Kristan Pritz stated that Beth Slifer would present the PEC with a proposed sculpture. Beth Slifer stated that there is only one sculpture available from Deane Knox for this space. She showed the proposed sculpture to the PEC and explained its dimensions. She stated that this sculpture was 12 inches taller than the previous sculpture and that it would sit on an 18 inch pedestal. Dalton Williams stated that he is concerned with the appearance of the pedestal. She 10 stated at this point in time, this sculpture is the only alternative available. He stated that he would like to see something tall located in this space. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Dalton's comments. Jeff Bowen stated that he was in favor of the proposed sculpture. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see a more vertical sculpture. He added that the subject matter of this proposed sculpture is better than that previously proposed. Diana Donovan stated that she agreed with Greg's comments and added that the proposed sculpture does not fit the space. She stated she would like to see the base of this area softened. She suggested "petunias" in the summer and evergreen branches in the winter. Beth Slifer stated that they have tried to locate vegetation in this area and that they have not been able to keep anything alive there. Bill Anderson stated that he had a difficult time commenting on this item because he cannot visualize the piece. He stated that he felt that the subject matter and height was better than the current piece. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 14 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right-of-way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE The Vail Valley Medical Center is requesting to relocate the existing helipad to the eastern portion of the Ford Park parking lot. The helipad is used for emergency medical evacuations of patients whose conditions require specialized care not presently available at the hospital. It is used between twelve and twenty times a year. The existing helipad, located west of the Town of Vail Annex Building, would be removed and the area would be revegetated with natural grasses. The reason the helipad is being relocated is that the Town Council requested that the hospital move it. When construction for the Police addition began, additional parking spaces were needed on the municipal site. The Council decided that the parking area west of the Municipal Annex Building should be used. This decision resulted in an increase of sixteen spaces. Since there was potential for damaging cars, given that the helipad is approximately 12 feet from the closest parking spaces, it was decided to move the helipad. Other reasons cited for relocating the helipad were that the Frontage Road would no longer have to be shut down when helicopters are using the landing pad, and that the existing location was too congested and too small to safely accommodate the newer, larger helicopters. A majority of the land to be used for the new helipad is located in the 1-70 right-of-way. The Colorado Department of Transportation has approved the use of the right-of-way for this purpose, and their letter of approval is attached at the end of the memo. No turn lanes are being required for the new access point. They have stipulated in their letter that they see this as a temporary measure. A follow-up letter has been requested to clarify the position of the Colorado Department of Transportation, to ensure that approval is not limited. At this time, the staff believes that the Ford Park site should be viewed as a long-term solution. The proposed helipad would measure 30 feet by 60 feet. This size will accommodate the newer, larger helicopters that are beginning to service Vail. The area to the east of the helipad will be planted with natural grasses. The area to the west, will be paved and 91 separated from the rest of the Ford Park parking lot with a berm. The berm will be approximately 4 feet tall and will be planted with low shrubs such as dogwoods and mugo pines. The berm is needed to delineate the parking area from the helipad area to insure that the helipad is available for use at all times. It cannot be blocked by any parked cars. The berms will also help catch any gravel which may be sprayed by the helicopter on landings and take- offs. The closest parking space will be located 70 feet from the helipad. There will be approximately twelve to fifteen parking spaces that will be removed as a result of this use. The lot in this area is narrow, and does not allow many parking spaces. During winter months, the demand for these spaces is less than other parking facilities. Greg Hall, the Town Engineer, has said that during the 1992-1993 ski season, the Ford Park parking lot was full twice. An existing curb cut onto the Frontage Road will be closed as a result of this project, and a new curb cut will be proposed immediately adjacent to the new pad. The existing curb cut will be closed by extending the berm across it and planting it so that there is continuous landscaping parallel to the Frontage Road. The new curb cut will be gated so that access is allowed only to emergency vehicles. The flight pattern associated with the new helipad will be different from the one used with the current helipad. Presently, the Fire Department must close the Frontage Road to provide a runway. With the proposed location, the Frontage Road will not need to be closed. The area immediately east of the helipad will serve as the runway. Another site which was considered for this use is the snow dump area. Additional cutting in the hillside would have been required to create a level area large enough for the helipad. The helicopter pilot was concerned because the varying topography in the area would not provide adequate "lift" for the helicopter during takeoff. In addition, there was some concern about combining Public Works traffic with the emergency vehicles accessing the pad. As a result, staff did not recommend that the hospital pursue this option. ll. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Since this is a worksession at this time, staff is not recommending approval or denial. Staff will address the criteria shown below at a later hearing. A. Criteria: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. 2 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. 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. S. Findings: The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. 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, ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION Are impacts to parking supply, both summer and winter, acceptable? Staff believes that the approximately twelve to fifteen spaces that will be lost during the winter is an acceptable situation. Given that the lot was full only twice last winter, staff believes that it will not impact the overall parking supply in the town significantly. During summer months, staff acknowledges that the parking lot is full more frequently. However, the Village Parking Structure has unused spaces during the summer months which could accommodate overflow from this area. 2. Will use of the helipad damage cars parked nearby? Staff understands from the helicopter pilots and from Dan Feeney with the Vail Valley Medical Center, that gravel stirred up by the helicopter will not damage cars parked 70 feet away. Staff understands that most gravel projects out at a height lower than the 4 foot berm per Dan Feeney and the pilot. Typically, only the light material (leaves and trash) is blown up higher than the height of the berm. 0 3 3. Are there any other improvements that need to be made to the appearance of the site? For example, how much of the area should be paved and how much of it should be planted in natural grasses? Does the variety of shrubs adequately landscape the berm? Is the width of the berm appropriate? Staff believes that additional plantings should be included on the proposed berms. In general, staff believes that the concept for revegetating the area around the proposed heiipad is good. We would like to have the applicant show exactly what areas of the proposed paving will be used by the helicopter, the ambulance, the fire truck, and any other vehicle needing to be on-site in order to minimize the amount of asphalt. Staff understands that there needs to be enough paving to accommodate these vehicles, however, the balance of the site could be landscaped. We believe the current curb cut width (ranging from 27 to 45 feet), and the paving around the landing pad (approximately 3,400 square feet) could be reduced in size. 4. Where is the best location for snow removal? One of the reasons why asphalt was needed around the landing pad was to provide an area for snow storage. Snow cannot be plowed across native grasses without damaging the turf. If it is acceptable to the Planning and Environmental Commission, paving can be eliminated from the plan if snow is plowed to the south, over the creek bank. Staff understands that there was a priority on constructing the snow dump in order to reduce environmental impacts to Gore Greek. This situation, however, is different in that there is less snow and the quality of the snow is much cleaner. There 16 will be no oil or other environmentally damaging material typically found in parking lots plowed into the creek. Russ Forrest, the Town's Environmental Health Officer, has said that if the area is closed off from public use, if there is no parking in the area and if no cinders or salt are used, then the snow will be clean enough to not negatively impact the creek. Given the unique circumstances surrounding the heiipad, staff believes that plowing the snow over the creek bank may be reasonable. However, the plowed snow will be visible on the stream bank which is negative. It may be appropriate to truck the snow off the site as cinders may have to be used. Staff is also concerned that if snow is plowed over the stream bank, the Town is not setting a good example for the community. 5. Are noise impacts to neighbors acceptable? Staff believes that the noise generated by the helicopter, approximately sixteen times a year, is not an unreasonable impact for the neighbors to this site. Staff bases this on the infrequent use of the site as well as the distance from the heiipad to neighboring uses. The closest residence is approximately 400 feet from the helipad, across Gore Creek. There will also be some impact on park users. The Wren is 2,100 feet from the pad. The closest tennis court is 600 feet away. 4 6. What impacts will the relocation have on traffic patterns. There will be a positive impact on traffic patterns as a result of the relocation. Since the Frontage Road will no longer need to be shut down to accommodate the landings and takeoffs, staff believes that traffic safety will improve. One of the negative aspects of the change is that the helipad will be located on the opposite side of the four-way stop. This may cause delays for emergency vehicles. There is an alternative route through Meadow Drive, but this is not ideal. IV. CONCLUSION None at this time. cApec%memoslhe1ipad.110 0 5 j? DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Region 3 222 South Sixth Street, Room 317 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2769 (303)248-7208 FAX # (303)248-7254 --- 571ATE-VE COLORADO A OT . ? ?„?hii till •.n L.n.•i4' II October 27, 1993 Mr. Dan Feeney Facilities Manager Vail Valley Medical Center 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Feeney: The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has received your request to relocate the medical, evacuation helipad approximately one mile east of the Medical Center adjacent to the South Frontage Road of I-70. It is our understanding that this is a temporary measure with the helipad eventually being located on the hospital roof when the facility is enlarged in the next 5 to 8 years. Your request is approved with the following conditions The existing helipad is to be removed, the area landscaped and restored-to natural countours, and no further uses for parking, etc., will be allowed. Construction of the new helipad will be approved by a maintenance agreement which will address construction signing, control of access, provide insurance for CDOT, and require relocation should CDOT need this right of way for other transportation uses. Please contact Mr. John Smith, Maintenance Superintendent, at (303) 248-7360 regarding this agreement. Very truly yours, R. P. Moston Director, Transportation Region 3 0 cc: Smith file 0 ,)ivb p` 6+ D F. - P) 5 -604 r ?O RqVX6 A/h?t' OR 71111- R-UC c0n Co ?l.C4 A Cck5 S ! r 8248 R r? _ _ - - ~PAPW[NCi R 8Z?4? o °- r ? f , ,? _ ,; ? 2 1 r- New v' 5 720 pow ?- ? - ? ? . - -- - / -_, 70 204" '0..36' _r 8230/ TO: PROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department January 10, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for an approval of the master plan to allow for an expansion and renovation of the Town of Vail Public Works site located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel north of the 1-70 right-of-way, located immediately north of Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen C E 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Town of Vail has hired consultants to provide a master plan for the Public Works facility. The plan anticipates the needs of the public works facility for the next ten to twenty years. It is based on a thorough analysis of current personnel needs, future personnel needs, and the facilities required for day to day operations. The plan calls for approximately 4,500 square feet of additional office area and 48,000 square feet of interior shop/maintenance area. The total additional building area called for by the master plan is approximately 52,000 square feet. These expansions require a net increase in site area of 2.5 acres. All of this expansion will occur by excavating into the hillside north of the existing facilities. The north edge of the useable site area will be shifted approximately 25 to 100 feet north behind the existing maintenance/bus barn building. One of the goals of the designers of the site plan is to ensure that the additions, the parking areas, and storage areas be hidden by the existing building or the existing berms. It is noted in the executive summary that the addition to the administration building may be visible from the east, and the proposed employee housing at the east end of the site will probably be visible over the berm. Another significant component of the master plan is the creation of an on-ramp onto 1-70 westbound With the addition of the interstate access, the congestion in the current tunnel-access should be alleviated. Copies of the executive summary as well as the complete master plan are attached for the PEC's review. II. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION Below is the list of the planning concerns after review of the document. 1. We believe that a section should be added to the master plan identifying the process to be used for development of the site. This section should document the planning process used for each specific component of the master plan. It will be important to note that all improvements are allowed only as a conditional use, and will require conditional use approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). In some cases, variances may be needed, ..,,r - and those also must be approved by the PEC. During the PEG review, it will . be important to note that significant changes to the master plan may be required once detailed drawings have been completed for specific components. 2. One of the most significant concerns of the planning staff relates to water quality. Because the Public Works facility includes facilities such as gas tanks, paint booths, bus washing and parking lots, there is potential for environmental pollutants to affect this site. Planning staff recommends that a water quality analysis be done and mitigation improvements be installed to insure that ground water will not carry pollutants from this site. 3. Staff believes that at the time of specific conditional use reviews, the section drawings provided in the master plan should be expanded to indicate the interstate and residential areas. At that time, it should be verified that the proposed improvements do not create highly visible site disturbance or visual impacts. 4. The parking area by the Administration Building is shown to ascend the slope and may create scarring. Staff believes that parking in this area may need to be relocated, if the cut and fill required and visual impacts to neighbors to the south are too great. 5. Hazard evaluation must be done for each component and it is strongly recommended that internal mitigation be provided. Alternatives to internal mitigation may be considered if site and visual impacts are minimal 6. Staff understands that the employee housing was to be done as Phase VI, which would be the last phase. Staff recommends that this be shifted up into one of the first two phases. Phase I as housing is a critical need of the, community. The number of employee units may also be increased upon further design work. 7. Staff believes all site lighting should be fully cut-off. In the case any light fixtures are selected which are not fully cut-off, they shall conform to the recently adopted lighting ordinance (Section 16.54.050 (J)). 1111!. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMENTS Environmental Health asks that the following design issues be addressed in the Public Works Master Plan. We would strongly recommend that secondary containment be provided for both hazardous materials storage and hazardous or special wastes. Secondary containment is intended to catch spills that might occur. Containment must be large enough to hold the total volume of hazardous waste stored. 2. All above ground tanks for hazardous waste or materials (e.g., oil, gas, solvent) should have automatic shut off valves which would prevent overflows of 2 0 ..A*1 containers. Also, all above ground tanks should have adequate guarding to prevent rupture in the event a vehicle would hit the tanks. 3. Public Works may be a small quantity generator of hazardous waste (40 C.F.R 261.5) producing less than 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) a month. If Public Works produces between 100 and 1000 kilograms of waste per month than they may store 1,000 kilograms (13,200 pounds) for up to 180 days with out a permit. If the waste is to be shipped over 200 miles the waste may be stored for up to 270 days. If public works produces less than 100 kilograms/month they are exempt from RCRA but can not accumulate over 1,000 kilograms at any time. Public Works needs to quantify the type and amount of hazardous waste generated to determine the necessary facilities and disposal requirements for their facility. 4. Drainage from the site should be mitigated through a detention pond or facility where sediment could settle out before being flushed into the Gore Creek. Run off from roads, residential, and commercial areas does negatively affect water quality in the Gore. Providing a grassy detention area or an engineered catch basin or a sediment retention system is necessary to reduce nonpoint source impact from the Public Works facility. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC approve this master plan, with the understandings outlined above. If these concerns are incorporated into the master plan, staff believes that it should be approved. cAp ec\me m os\p u bwks.110 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for an approval of the master plan to allow for an expansion and renovation of the Town of Vail Public Works site located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel north of the 1-70 right-of-way, located immediately north of Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Town of Vail has hired consultants to provide a master plan for the Public Works facility. The plan anticipates the needs of the public works facility for the next ten to twenty years. It is based on a thorough analysis of current personnel needs, future personnel needs, and the facilities required for day to day operations. The plan calls for approximately 4,500 square feet of additional office area and 48,000 square feet of interior shop/maintenance area. The total additional building area called for by the master plan is approximately 52,000 square feet. These expansions require a net increase in site area of 2.5 acres. All of this expansion will occur by excavating into the hillside north of the existing facilities. The north edge of the useable site area will be shifted approximately 25 to 100 feet north behind the existing maintenance/bus barn building. One of the goals of the designers of the site plan is to ensure that the additions, the parking areas, and storage areas be hidden by the existing building or the existing berms. It is noted in the executive summary that the addition to the administration building may be visible from the east, and the proposed employee housing at the east end of the site will probably be visible over the berm. Another significant component of the master plan is the creation of an on-ramp onto 1-70 westbound. With the addition of the interstate access, the congestion in the current tunnel-access should be alleviated. Copies of the executive summary as well as the complete master plan are attached for the PEC's review. II. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION Below is the list of the planning concerns after review of the document. 1. We believe that a section should be added to the master plan identifying the process to be used for development of the site. This section should document the planning process used for each specific component of the master plan. It will be important to note that all improvements are allowed only as a conditional use, and will require conditional use approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). In some cases, variances may be needed, and those also must be approved by the PEC. During the PEC review, it will be important to note that significant changes to the master plan may be required once detailed drawings have been completed for specific components. 2. One of the most significant concerns of the planning staff relates to water quality. Because the Public Works facility includes facilities such as gas tanks, paint booths, bus washing and parking lots, there is potential for environmental pollutants to affect this site. Planning staff recommends that a water quality analysis be done and mitigation improvements be installed to insure that ground water will not carry pollutants from this site. 3. Staff believes that at the time of specific conditional use reviews, the section drawings provided in the master plan should be expanded to indicate the interstate and residential areas. At that time, it should be verified that the proposed improvements do not create highly visible site disturbance or visual impacts. 4. The parking area by the Administration Building is shown to ascend the slope and may create scarring. Staff believes that parking in this area may need to be relocated, if the cut and fill required and visual impacts to neighbors to the south are too great. 5. Hazard evaluation must be done for each component and it is strongly recommended that internal mitigation be provided. Alternatives to internal mitigation may be considered if site and visual impacts are minimal. 6. Staff understands that the employee housing was to be done as Phase VI, which would be the last phase. Staff recommends that this be shifted up into one of the first two phases. Phase I as housing is a critical need of the community. The number of employee units may also be increased upon further design work. 7. Staff believes all site lighting should be fully cut-off. In the case any light fixtures are selected which are not fully cut-off, they shall conform to the recently adopted lighting ordinance (Section 18.54.050 (J)). III. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMENTS Environmental Health asks that the following design issues be addressed in the Public Works Master Plan. We would strongly recommend that secondary containment be provided for both hazardous materials storage and hazardous or special wastes. Secondary containment is intended to catch spills that might occur. Containment must be large enough to hold the total volume of hazardous waste stored. 2. All above ground tanks for hazardous waste or materials (e.g., oil, gas, solvent) should have automatic shut off valves which would prevent overflows of 2 containers. Also, all above ground tanks should have adequate guarding to prevent rupture in the event a vehicle would hit the tanks. 3. Public Works may be a small quantity generator of hazardous waste (40 C.F.R 261.5) producing less than 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) a month. If Public Works produces between 100 and 1000 kilograms of waste per month than they may store 1,000 kilograms (13,200 pounds) for up to 180 days with out a permit. If the waste is to be shipped over 200 miles the waste may be stored for up to 270 days. If public works produces less than 100 kilograms/month they are exempt from RCRA but can not accumulate over 1,000 kilograms at any time. Public Works needs to quantify the type and amount of hazardous waste generated to determine the necessary facilities and disposal requirements for their facility. 4. Drainage from the site should be mitigated through a detention pond or facility where sediment could settle out before being flushed into the Gore Creek. Run off from roads, residential, and commercial areas does negatively affect water quality in the Gore. Providing a grassy detention area or an engineered catch basin or a sediment retention system is necessary to reduce nonpoint source impact from the Public Works facility. Ili. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC approve this master plan, with the understandings outlined above. If these concerns are incorporated into the master plan, staff believes that it should be approved. c:\pec\m em os\p ubwks.110 3 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 1994 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.69.050 - Special restrictions for developments on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent in single family residential, two-family residential, and two-family primary/secondary residential zones to allow standards found in this section to apply to the Hillside Residential zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. INTRODUCTION Section 18.69.050 allows garages to be located in the front setback, when the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area exceeds 30%. This flexibility is limited to three zone districts. single family, two-family, and two-family primary/secondary. The staff is proposing to add Hillside Residential to this category. Staff understands that the purpose of this section of the code is to minimize site disturbance. By allowing garages in the front setback, driveways that wind up steep hillsides can be avoided. This section of the code was created in 1978 and has been amended in 1980, 1981 and 1982. Hillside Residential zoning was created in 1987. Staff believes that this section pertaining to slope should be updated to include the Hillside Residential zone district. II. PROPOSED CHANCES The proposed additions are shown below in the shaded text. The proposed deletions are shown in overstrike. 18.69.050 Special restrictions for developments on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent in hillside residential, single-family residential, two-family residential, and two-family primary/secondary residential zones. The following additional special restrictions or requirements shall apply to development on any lot in a !hillside residenti 1. single-family residential, two-family residential or two-family primary/secondary residential zone district where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent: Ir U A. A soil and foundation investigation, prepared by and bearing the seal of a registered professional engineer shall be required. B. Foundations must be designated and bear the seal of a registered, professional engineer. C. A topographic survey prepared by a registered surveyor, with contour intervals of not more than two feet, shall be required. D. Structures must be designed by a licensed architect. E. Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by Sections 18.09.090, 18.10.110, 18.12.110 and 18.13.090, is amended as follows: Not more than fifteen percent of the site area may be covered by buildings; and not more than ten percent of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. F. A site grading and drainage plan shall be required. G. A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts and fills in excess of five feet shall be required. H. A detailed revegetation plan must be submitted. 1. The zoning administrator may require an environmental impact report as provided in Section 18.56.020. c4- DeREA ' 3a pcr:T.i4ed-4 CgtiGR 18.12. it amer4ded ac it pertains to this char`.er a3 fellews. Nct TmaFs thm !we dwe#f+r nits in a sing4s strust-rs shalt be peFmitted 9R each site :n se ferrraneewU+.,? tha der 4 t#is ssqfieR. ere tl^,an to css raeidert;d1--! t4eer arsa• { F,^.) shsfl t„ quarq-fset `ewe-first t: + r +"?Rd sgL--a,rg feet ef c are -a, p6s-eat -.3r3 than tee-gquarfl Fesident,-s+-# 3r area sha%-la c m? sr sash square feet '2\ :ite 4erc fret; RGt-ts p>,?seed t,`a;rt ? sa. feet ef site aFea, p69-w-:1 mare than five -squ rg fe94 9f gF cc r9sidc0al fs? area f9F each "c huad s` quarg feetsite arsa in 9*sess of th?r-"eurand aq:?Grs feet. 44-.J. A minimum of one covered parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. -L-.- K: Setbacks, as they apply to this chapter, as required by Sections 18.09.060 18.10.060, 18.12.060, and 18.13.060, are amended as follows: There shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be required by the design review board. III. RECOMMENDATION The Hillside Residential zone district is one which staff believes should be included in this section of the Zoning Code. Hillside Residential zoning has been applied to the Spraddle Creek development, as well as the proposed Trapper's Run development. These areas have steep hillsides, and development in these areas should to be designed in ways to minimize scarring and site disturbance. Since the goal of the section pertaining to sites exceeding 30% is to provide architects with more options to minimize impacts, staff believes that it should also include the Hillside Residential zone district. cApec\memoslh IIside.110 2