Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1994-0228 PEC
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 28, 1994 AGENDA Proiect Orientation/Lunch 10:00 a.m. Site Visits 11:00 a.m. Krogmann Wiemann Pedotto Laughing Monkey Covered Bridge Cornice Building Kirsch Drivers: Randy and Jim Public Hearinq, 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a variance for required parking to be located off-site for a single family residence located at 2642 Cortina Lane/Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Hans Wiemann Planner: Randy Stouder 2. A request for a side and rear setback variance to allow for an expansion to the existing residence located at 2757 Davos' Trail/Lot 1, Block F, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing. Applicant: Juergen Krogmann and Monica Roth Planner: Randy Stouder 3. A request for a worksession for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica 4. A request for a worksession for a proposed minor subdivision located at 4316 Streamside Circle West/Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Walter Kirsch Planner: Randy Stouder 1 5, A request for an SDD to allow for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a conditional use for the off-site relocation of three existing employee, housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79°46'00" West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B"; thence South 10114'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B": thence North 79°46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence north 09110'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 88127'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27113'37" East of distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57124'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet. more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte 6. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the are of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen 7. A request for a major CCI exterior alteration for the Laughing Monkey to allow an addition to the south side of the Creekside Building located at 223 East Gore Creek Drive/a part of Tract A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Jose Guzman Planner: Andy Knudtsen 8. A request for a variance from Section 18.69.040 (Development Restricted) of the Vail Municipal Code to allow for the construction of buildings on slopes greater than 40% located at 4335 Bighorn Road/Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Filing. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/BAB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO MARCH 14, 1994 • 9. A request for a variance to allow for a 6 foot fence located in the front setback located at 5113 Gore Circle/Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Robert Schonkwiler Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO MARCH 14, 1994 10. A request for a wall height variance and driveway slope variance to allow for a driveway to exceed 10% located at 2445 Garmisch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block H, Vail das Schone 2nd Filing. Applicant: Steve Sheridan and Adam Szpiech Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO MARCH 14, 1994 11. Approve minutes from February 14, 1994 PEC meeting. 12. Appoint Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for PEC. 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 28, 1994 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Bill Anderson Bob Armour Jeff Bowen Kathy Langewalter Allison Lassoe Dalton Williams Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Jim Curnutte Randy Stouder Kathy Langenwalter called the meeting to order at approximately 2:00 p.m. Holly McCutcheon, the Town Clerk, swore in Bob Armour, the new planning commissioner. A request for a variance for required parking to be located off-site for a single family residence located at 2642 Cortina Lane/Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Hans Wiemann Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance. Steve Isom, the architect for this project, presented a site plan for the PEC to review and explained where the proposed parking spaces were to be located. He said that the DRB had requested that he obtain a variance for parking in the Town of Vail right- of-way. Greg Amsden asked Steve how high of a retaining wall would be necessary if the parking spaces were located west of the garage. Steve Isom responded that the retaining walls required to locate the parking on the west side of the garage would not require a wall height variance. Bill Anderson stated that he would prefer to see the parking located on-site to the west of the garage. Bill Anderson stated that a three car garage would add significant mass and bulk to the site. Planning and Environmental Commission February 28, 1994 Bob Armour stated that the third parking space should be located on the west side of the house. Greg Amsden agreed with Bob's comment and added that a variance was not warranted for this site. Neighbors spoke against the proposal Kathy Langenwalter stated that the applicant is withdrawing the variance proposal and will provide an uncovered parking space on the west side of the two-car garage. She asked Randy to inform the Design Review Board about what occurred at today's meeting concerning this item. 2. A request for a side and rear setback variance to allow for an expansion to the existing residence located at 2757 Davos Trail/Lot 1, Block F, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing. Applicant: Juergen Krogmann and Monica Roth Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance with conditions as outlined in the memo. Steve Isom, the architect for the project, stated that they were proposing to enclose the airlock on the southwestern corner. He said that there would be no change to the exterior. In addition, he stated that they were proposing to construct a second floor over the existing garage. Steve stated they would remove an interior stairway in order to enlarge the existing master bedroom and create the primary unit as upstairs. Jeff Bowen stated that he did not have a problem with this proposal. He said that he would like to see access for a fire truck created. He felt that this proposal was positive for this site. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Jeff's comments and added that she would like to see additional parking space on the site. Kathy Langenwalter added that the additional parking space should not be located next to the garage. Steve Isom stated that Condition #3 of the staff memo would be difficult to meet. The PEC decided that Condition #3 would be eliminated. Bill, Greg and Bob had no further comments concerning this proposal. Jeff Bowen stated that Condition #3 should be deleted unless it was required. Planning and Environmental Commission February 28, 1994 2 Kathy Langenwalter asked that the four evergreen trees be relocated so that the trees would be located along the back of the proposed addition. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the requested side and rear setback variances per the staff memo with Conditions 3 and 4 being deleted as conditions of approval. Greg Amsden seconded the motion and a 7-0 vote approved this item. 3. A request for a worksession for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation to the PEC and stated that the purpose of this worksession was to discuss the progress that has been made with the requested major CCI exterior alteration. He stated that the fifth floor was a significant issue on this site. Jeff Winston, the Town's design consultant, stated that he had spoken with the applicants and staff several times since the February 14, 1994 PEC worksession. He said that there were still some concerns with the proposed mansard and flat roof forms. Mike Mollica stated that fifth floor double dormers would be repeated on the back side 40 of the building as well as the front. Jeff Winston stated that the double dormers were positive. He stated that in his opinion, a view corridor encroachment still appeared to be the most favorable solution for this site. Ned Gwathmey stated that they would like to find a solution that would allow the applicants to proceed with construction activity on April 15, 1994. He stated that he felt that he had designed a solution that would work for the site without necessitating a view corridor encroachment. Bill Anderson stated that the double dormer approach was positive. He stated that the architects had done a good job modifying this request since the February 14, 1994 PEC worksession. He stated that changing the fifth floor roof line was an improvement. He said that he would support a view corridor encroachment for this site. Bob Armour stated he would be in favor of a view corridor encroachment. Kristan Pritz suggested that the PEC keep the view corridor encroachment criteria in mind, during this discussion. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 28,1994 3 Mike Mollica reviewed the five view corridor encroachment criteria and the purpose section of View Corridor #1 to the PEC. After hearing the criteria, Bill stated that he was still supportive of the view corridor encroachment. Greg Amsden stated that he would support a view corridor encroachment as long as the Covered Bridge Building's roof line did not extend past or above that of the adjacent Gasthof Gramshammer Building. Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Greg's comments. He stated that a sloped roof would be preferable to a flat roof and that the addition of the double dormers was positive. He said that he would support a view corridor encroachment. Allison Lassoe stated that she favored the peaked roof but preferred no view corridor encroachment. Dalton Williams stated that either of the two roof forms were acceptable to him. He added that a single peaked roof was preferable to a double dormer approach. He said that he could support a view corridor encroachment. Kathy Langenwalter felt that the double dormer/flat roof design would be acceptable, as the flat roof would not be visible, and further stated that she would not support a view corridor encroachment. Ned Gwathmey stated that they would pursue the double dormers. He said that he would prefer not to pursue the view corridor encroachment. Pepi Gramshammer stated that he was concerned with the ice build-up between the two buildings and that he would like to see this issue addressed along with the current request before the PEC. Ned Gwathmey stated that they would slope the roof away from Pepi's building to solve the ice build-up problem. Greg Amsden inquired what Pepi was proposing to do with the back of his building. Kathy Langenwalter asked Pepi if he would work with the applicants on the exposed front wall area (on Bridge Street). Ned Gwathmey stated that the building has a trash holding room for the entire building and they will have the ability to bring trash around the building and bring it up on the lift. He stated that trash cans would not be left on Bridge Street. Kathy Langenwalter suggested that the Covered Bridge Building could be restricted so that a restaurant could not be located on the site, due to the extensive amounts of trash generated with such use. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 28, 1994 4 Ned Gwathmey stated that he would need to discuss this issue with the applicants. Dalton Williams asked Pepi how he proposed to take care of trash for his building. Pepi stated that he did not have enough room on his site to get involved with the trash situation at the Covered Bridge Building. He stated that he did not feel restricting restaurants in the Covered Bridge Building was appropriate. Mike Mollica asked Pepi whether he would consider allowing the Covered Bridge Building owners to have access to trash trucks via his property. Pepi stated that he was completely opposed to becoming involved with the disposal of the Covered Bridge Building's trash. Jeff Bowen stated that he would like to see the trash disposal for both buildings coordinated in such a way that trash trucks would not be on Bridge Street. Dalton Williams stated that he did not want to see the PEC put a use restriction on a building that could not be removed in the future. Allison Lassoe stated that she was concerned about the trash trucks coming down Bridge Street. She stated there were also safety issues associated with a trash truck backing down a narrow road. She stated that a deed restriction (for use) did not seem necessary at this time. Jeff Bowen stated that a partnership between Pepi and East West Partners to address trash disposal, would be beneficial for all concerned parties. Greg Amsden felt that East West Partners would address trash disposal properly, as they do in Beaver Creek. He stated that a deed restriction was not necessary. Mike Mollica stated that staff was concerned that the proposed window design may not meet the Design Guidelines for the Village. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the upper floor windows possibly could be broken up but that retail windows needed to be able to be retail windows, i.e. the panes should provide for the display of merchandise. Other commissioners agreed with Kathy. Jeff Winston stated that the small window panes that are present on many of the buildings give Vail a unique feeling. He stated that small window panes should be located around doors. It was suggested that the applicant use smaller panes on the doors. Planning and Environmental Commission February 28,1994 5 4. A request for a worksession for a proposed minor subdivision located at 4316 Streamside Circle West/Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Walter Kirsch Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the applicant had worked hard to come up with an environmentally sensitive site plan. Randy noted the discussion items at the end of the staff memo. Greg Amsden stated that this request was positive. Bob Armour agreed with Greg's comment. Allison Lassoe and Jeff Bowen did not have additional comments. Dalton Williams stated that he was in favor of this request. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Dalton's comment and told the applicant that he could come back before the PEC on March 14, 1994 for approval of the requested minor subdivision. 5. A request for an SDD to allow for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a conditional use for the off-site relocation of three existing employee housing units, ID located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79146'00" West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B"; thence South 10°14'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B"; thence North 79146'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence north 09110'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 8812711" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 2711337" East of distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57"24'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the lot is zoned High Density Multi-Family and is nonconforming with regard to lot size, which is 3,659 square feet. He stated that the proposal involves the demolition of the present building and the construction of a new building. He stated that this project will utilize all available GRFA on the site, as well as a "250" allowance, which brings the total GRFA of the proposed building to 2,445 square feet. He stated that there were three deviations from the underlying zone district which the PEC should consider along with this request. These are locating a single family residence within the HDMF zone district, building encroachments in the lot setbacks, and parking in the front setback. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for the establishment of a Special Development District with the four conditions contained on Pages 13 and 14 of the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission February 28, 1994 6 Tom Braun stated that this site was challenging to redevelop but that he felt that what was now being proposed would be a positive improvement for the site. He stated that they would locate and permanently restrict three employee housing units off-site. He pointed out that all three required parking spaces are located on-site. He stated that they would prefer to keep the building height at 35 feet. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, stated that the Homeowners Association did not feel that a SDD was appropriate for this site and that the granting of a SDD on this site would essentially be a grant of special privilege. It was his opinion that revisions to the HDMF zone district to allow single family dwellings was more appropriate for this site. Kristan Pritz stated that staff looked at changing the uses in the HDMF zone district and that the Cornice Building was a unique situation and that it did not seem justifiable to change the zoning.ordinance to accommodate one site. Dalton Williams stated that he liked the building design but was concerned that this appeared to be "spot zoning" for the gain of an individual. He stated that variances seemed to be a more appropriate process for developing this property. Allison Lassoe stated that this site was ideal for the SDD concept because there did not seem to be a zone district that fits this property. She stated that she would like to see the building height reduced to 33 feet. She stated she would like to see three individual employee units as opposed to one three-bedroom unit. She stated that there is was a good possibility that the eventual owner of this property would have at least one vehicle larger than what the existing turning radius is proposed to accommodate. Jeff Bowen stated that he appreciated Tom's organized presentation of this project. He stated that this property was unique but that he had concerns about a SDD being approved for this site. He stated that he was in favor of the building height being reduced to 33 feet. He said that a hardship does exist on the lot but pointed out that it has always been present at this site. He was concerned about the employee housing being located off-site because the Cornice Building itself was an ideal location for employee housing units. He stated he would like to see employee housing units added to our existing supply, instead of merely deed restricting existing employee housing. Jeff said that parking on this site was still a concern to him and that he would feel more comfortable with limiting on-site parking to one or two parking spaces and paying into the parking fund for the third parking space. Greg Amsden stated that the square footage was okay and that the building height was okay at 35 feet. He felt a SDD was appropriate on the site and that a finding of a hardship was not necessary in order to approve a SDD. He did not foresee that parking would be a problem for this site given the ownership pattern. Bob Armour would like to see the applicant abide by the building height for single family building or stick with the High Density Multi-Family uses allowed, but not take advantage of both scenarios. Planning and Environmental Commission February 28, 1994 7 Bill Anderson stated that he felt the building height should be reduced to 33 feet. He said the proposed parking plan was positive, but he has the same concerns with people backing into traffic at this location. Kathy Langenwalter asked staff whether a 250 request would be allowed on this site in the future even though it would seem they are taking advantage of the "250" now. Jim Curnutte stated that the building is over five years old and that a 250 is available for this site now, and that no additional 250 could be applied for in the future because it is proposed to be used in conjunction with the construction of the new building. Kathy Langenwalter inquired whether future development rights would be restricted on this site. Kristan Pritz stated that per the current HDMF zoning, the site is not eligible for single family credits, nor are multifamily credits allowed. She said that the only credits this project is getting is parking. The SDD ordinance would limit the GRFA as proposed. However, the owner could request an amendment to the SDD in the future. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was originally opposed to an SDD on this site but is now comfortable with the proposal as is, but that the building height should be reduced to 33 feet. She felt allowing single family units in HDMF made no sense. The fact the existing allowable number of units is in nonconformance with the HDMF zoning makes this site unique. Allison Lassoe stated that no exterior parking on the site should be allowed. She added that some sort of block may be necessary to prevent the general public from using the driveway as a turnaround point. Greg Amsden stated that he preferred the enclosed parking scenario and that restricting external parking would be difficult to enforce. Kathy Langenwalter told the applicant that the consensus of the PEC was to reduce the building height from 35 feet to a maximum of 33 feet. Tom Braun stated that this was acceptable to the applicant. Jeff Bowen stated that the employee housing issue still needed to be addressed. He said that the new employee housing needs to be better than what presently exists and that the employee housing units need to be units that were not previously used as employee housing units. Dalton Williams emphasized that this proposal results in a loss of employee housing units. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 26, 1994 8 Greg Amsden said he disagreed vehemently with the proposed additional conditions regarding employee housing units were excessively restrictive and that even if the applicant found units that are being rented to employees now we would benefit by permanently restricting them for such use in the future. He felt the additional condition reduced housing for guests. Jeff Bowen stated that other proposals create employee housing and the Town encourages this and that the Cornice Building should be handled in the same manner. He wants to ensure that housing is created for employees. Tom Braun stated it would be difficult to create three additional employee housing units. He said that wherever the employee units are created, the Town would benefit from the permanent restriction of these units. Bob Armour stated it was important that the employee housing units be located in the Town of Vail. Kathy Langenwalter stated that a minimum of two units, providing at least three bedrooms, would be the criteria for the employee housing units. Bill Anderson made a motion to approve the establishment of a special development district for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building with the four conditions contained on Pages 13 and 14 of the staff memo and two additional conditions that the building height be limited to 33 feet and that the employee housing units must be a minimum of two units with three bedrooms and two kitchens. Allison Lassoe seconded the motion. A 5-1-1 vote approved this request with Dalton Williams opposing per the reasons stated above and Bob Armour abstaining. Jeff Bowen requested that his comments concerning employee housing be forwarded to the Town Council. 6. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the are of a curve to the left which are subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 16418 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) 0 Planning and Environmental Commission February 28, 1994 9 Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen It should be noted that Greg Amsden stepped down from the PBC because of a conflict of interest. Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family and a minor subdivision with the six conditions contained on Pages 11 through 13 of the staff memo. Rick Rosen, legal counsel to Greg Amsden, stated that he would be making the applicants presentation rather than Greg to avoid any possible conflicts of interest. He stated that the architecture within this project was consistent. He stated that this plan will improve access for adjacent property owners. He stated that the applicant will not be able to comply with Conditions 3 and 4, Pages 13 and 14, of the staff memo. Rick said they would like Condition 1 G reworded so that they do not have to come back before the PEC until the first unit has been built. He asked whether the phasing plan could be reworded so that the designations of specific building footprints are omitted in favor of number of structures. He also asked that decks be allowed to be closer than 15 feet apart. Benji Amsden stated that they were proposing to clean up the stream area and make 10 the area available for access by the residents. Kay Cheney commented that she did not see an advantage of massing two units together. Jo Brown stated that she was in favor of duplexes as opposed to a "lot of cookie cutters" type units. Greg Amsden stated that they are looking for a development with a variety of structures. Jo Brown stated she still has concerns about the road cut on Bellflower. Rick Rosen pointed out that road cut currently exists. Bill Anderson stated that he disagreed with staff's position regarding Conditions 3 and 4 concerning the clustering of units and combining driveways and said that he agreed with the other conditions of the staff memo. He stated he agreed with the staff's interpretation concerning the need for a minimum 15 foot separation between structures and decks. Benji Amsden stated that it would be difficult to incorporate this condition into the project at this stage and that they had been working with 20 feet. Planning and Environmental Commission February 2B, 1994 10 ,I Bob Armour stated that a minimum of 15 feet separation should be required between structures. He said that this proposal seemed to blend nicely with the existing neighborhood and was in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Jeff Bowen and Allison Lassoe had no further comments. Dalton Williams stated that Conditions 3 and 4 should be omitted from the PEC's approval of this project and that he did not favor curb and gutter but would defer to staff on that issue. Kay Cheney stated that the gutter that has been installed along Basingdale has been a positive improvement to this area. Dalton Williams stated that the requirement for 15 feet minimum separation was reasonable. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with the 15 foot requirement and that she would like to see the driveway for Building Envelope 1 moved closer to the intersection in order to increase green space. Greg Amsden stated that the Town Engineer would need to approve such a change. Benji Amsden asked the PEC for additional input concerning future shifts in footprint 1b location for this project. The PEC did not have a problem with staff approving changes up to 10 feet. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve this request per the staff memo and added that the PEC would like condition 3 omitted. Condition 4 should be changed to require a reduction in the amount of pavement. She said that garages would be a minimum of 480 square feet and that a minimum of 15 feet be required between buildings. She continued and said that staff could approve relocations up to 10 feet, that the phasing language be changed to reference total number of structures, and that condition 1 b be changed referencing the timing of surveying for building locations. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 6-0-1 vote approved this request with Greg Amsden abstaining from this request. 7. A request for a major CCI exterior alteration for the Laughing Monkey to allow an addition to the south side of the Creekside Building located at 223 East Gore Creek Drive/a part of Tract A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Jose Guzman Planner: Andy Knudtsen It should be noted that Kathy Langenwalter stepped down from the PEC to represent the applicant for this item. Planning and Environmental Commission February 28, 1994 11 g ? Andy Knudtsen made a brief presentation per the staff memo. He said staff was recommending approval of this request with the four conditions contained on Page 7 of the staff memo. Andy added that staff felt this proposal was positive. Kathy Langenwalter stated she had spoken to Todd Oppenheimer about the 35 foot tall spruce tree and that he believed this tree had a 50-50 chance of surviving the transplant. As a result, her clients want to simply replace the tree with a 16 to 18 foot spruce. She felt the posting of a bond to cover the cost of replacing this tree if it dies was inappropriate. One of the conditions which related to small pane windows was discussed briefly. As this issue had been thoroughly discussed during the Covered Bridge Building review. The conclusion to that discussion was applied to this project. The requirement for adding small panes was left up to the architect's discretion and DRB. Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request for a major exterior alteration to the Creekside Building per the staff memo and the four conditions with Condition 1 being modified to read that the 35 foot tree be given to anyone who wanted it and a bond not be required to be posted as long as an 18 foot spruce tree would be planted. Condition 3 was modified to leave the design of any small pane windows to the discretion of the architect and DRB. Conditions 3 and 4, relating to parking and landscaping, were included in the motion per the staff memo. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 6-0 vote approved this request. 8. A request for a variance from Section 18.69.040 (Development Restricted) of the Vail Municipal Code to allow for the construction of buildings on slopes greater than 40% located at 4335 Bighorn Road/Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Filing. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/BAB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO MARCH 14, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item to the March 14, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this request until March 14, 1994. 9. A request for a variance to allow for a 6 foot fence located in the front setback located at 5118 Gore Circle/Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Robert Schonkwiler Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO MARCH 14, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item to the March 14, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this request until March 14, 1994. Planning and Environmental Commission February 28, 1994 12 10. A request for a wall height variance and driveway slope variance to allow for a driveway to exceed 10% located at 2445 Garmisch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block H, Vail das Schone 2nd Filing. Applicant: Steve Sheridan and Adam Szpiech Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO MARCH 14, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item to the March 14, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this request until March 14, 1994. 11. Approve minutes from February 14, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 14, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote approved the minutes from the February 14, 1994 PEC meeting. 12. Appoint Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for PEC. Kristan Pritz stated that Kathy Langenwalter was appointed Chairperson on June 14, 1993 and that this appointment was good for one year. She said that the appointment of a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson would be scheduled for the June 13, 1994 agenda. Planning and Environmental Commission February 28, 1994 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 28, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a variance to allow parking in the public right-of-way located at 2642 Cortina Lane/Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Hans Wiemann Planner: Randy Stouder 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The subject property is located in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. The lot slopes steeply down and away from Cortina Lane, with slopes between 30% and 45%. The average slope is approximately 35% over the whole lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence, locating approximately one-half of the garage in the front setback. Slopes underneath the parking and building areas exceed a 30% average. According to Section 13.69.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, there is no required setback for the garage due to the 30% average slope. The proposed single family dwelling exceeds 2,000 square feet, thus three parking spaces are required. The applicant has provided for two enclosed spaces in the garage. The third required space is proposed to be located in front of the garage and would overhang onto the right-of-way of Cortina Lane by 11 feet Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance for parking in the right-of-way for 11 feet of the third required parking space. II. BACKGROUND On March 25, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed requests for a variance from the front yard setback and wall height limitations for the Neuswanger residence, which was proposed on Lot 6 (subject property). The PEC denied the wall height variance request and approved the front yard setback request, subject to the applicant providing a minimum of 20-feet of driveway from the edge of the asphalt of Cortina Lane. The PEC's basis for the motion to deny the wail height variance was, the need for the variance was a self-imposed hardship and approval would be a grant of special privilege. On April 6, 1991, Mr. Neuswanger appealed the PEC's denial of the wall height variance to the Town Council. A motion was made to grant the appeal subject to the condition that the proposed retaining walls be terraced with two equal tiers, with a 4-foot wide planting area between the tiers. The motion failed by a vote of 3-3. The Council stated that the walls could be better integrated with the development plan for the entire site which could eliminate the need for, or decrease the height of, retaining walls on the site. The applicant subsequently decided to revise the request for front setback and wall height variances. An amended plan was presented to the PEC on May 21, 1991. That plan showed lower, tiered retaining wails that were landscaped appropriately. This plan was acceptable to staff, and the PEC approved a front setback variance to allow for the construction of a residence in conjunction with an attached garage, in the front setback. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Allowed/Required Proposed Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. of buildable 12,759 sq. ft. GRFA: 3,615 sq. ft. 2,704 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 1,914 sq. ft. (16%) 1,911 sq. ft. (15%) Driveway Coverage: 1,500 sq. ft. (10%) 365 sq. ft. (3%) Landscaping: 7,655 sq. ft. (60%) 10,082 sq. ft. (79%) Parking: 3 spaces 4 spaces Setbacks: Front: 20'* Front: 20.5' Sides: 15' Sides: 175/35` Rear: 15' Rear: 61' Weight: 33 feet 32 feet `No front setback required for the garage. 0 IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, Granting the variance allows the applicant to use a portion of the Cortina Lane right-of-way for the third required parking space, to be located in the driveway in front of the garage. The impetus behind the request for the variance is Section 18.69.050 of the Hazard Regulations which waives the front setback requirement for aaraaes on lots that exceed a 30% average slope beneath the building and parking area. This section of the code encourages development as close to the road right-of- way from which they take their access as possible. This can effectively reduce site disturbance on steeply sloping lots since it consolidates structures close to the road, on the front portion of the lot. According to staff, the requested variance will not adversely effect adjacent properties. The highest portion of the proposed house is the garage roof ridge, which is 10 to 12 feet above the 10 2 elevation of the pavement of Cortina Lane. This should not effect properties on the north side of Cortina Lane since the topography slopes up steeply in that direction. First floor elevations of homes across Cortina Lane are typically at or above the elevation of the roof ridge of the garage on the subject property. The applicant's proposal, which pulls the house up closer to Cortina Lane, improves the primary views from the residence located to the west on Lot 7. Primary views from Lot 6 and Lot 7 are to the east/northeast towards the Gore Range. The house located to the east on Lot 5, is located down below the proposed house and its primary views are oriented up-valley to the east/northeast, away from the proposed house. The lot located to the south of the subject property is positively effected by this proposal since there would be greater distance between that house and the proposed house, and there would be less site disturbance on the lower portion of Lot 6. 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. Several other properties along this section of Cortina Lane have taken advantage of the Hazard Regulations section which waives the setback requirement for garages. A strict and literal interpretation of the off-site parking regulations would require the applicant to locate the house further down the hillside creating a larger disturbed area on this steeply sloping lot. Section 18.69.050 of the Hazard Regulations specifically encourages garages to be located in the front setback for the purpose of reducing or minimizing site disturbance on a steeply sloping lot. Thus, the strict imposition of the off-street parking requirements would defeat the purposes of the Hazard Regulations that pertain to this lot as far as reducing site disturbance. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant impact on any of the above considerations. If the variance is approved, the applicant will be able to provide four off-street parking spaces. In response to the Town Engineer's comments on sight distance and safety, the applicant has moved the garage 8 to 9 feet to the east. This improves sight distance for people coming out of the shared driveway that serves several residences to the west. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: 3 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to the off-street parking requirements, Chapter 18.52 of the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance would allow the applicant to provide a portion of the third required parking space in the right-of-way of Cortina Lane. Staff does not believe that the approval of the request would grant any special privilege and similar requests have been granted in the same neighborhood. Staff believes that the strict imposition of the off-street parking requirement would require the house to be located further down the slope on the lot, which would increase site disturbance on slopes that are in excess of 30%. Strict imposition of the parking requirement would thus subvert the intent of the hazard regulations to reduce site disturbance on steeply sloping lots. Staff believes that locating the garage in the front setback and utilizing portions of the right-of- way improves the overall site planning of the project and reduces site disturbance, while accommodating ample parking for a single family home. Staff does not believe that there will be any adverse effects on adjacent structures in respect to their views and the spatial orientation of the structures. cdpec4nemos\w?ems®228 4 • -ao • E 25 February 1994 1 FATES Architecture Land Planning Project Management Mr. Randy Stouder Town of Vail Community Development RE: LOT b, WIEMANN RESIDENCE Dear bandy: Per your request, we have revised the site plan by adding low growing shrubs, reducing the wall height in the front setback to 3 feet high, and by adding more fill material to the front yard. The south wall has already been changed by adding more stone to help reduce the appearance of a high wall. All of the cable utilities have been put in one trench to reduce the scaring on the lower side of the site. The grade of the driveway has been reduced by raising the garage floor and no longer needs to be heated. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Ken Long 9323TOV P.O. Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (303) 328-2388 FAX 328-6266 1 L i - N ? .? ? •r?? - ! n_ -? tom: ? ' P _ i? o p f4lop -? woo i ?- .io = vdFe z N -- GsDhL,fX?? ? MST`s ??nK?M. ?tvtE.?, ?M `{' ?T`GtxlUr?G _e N v 4 ? v- N 3 .9 .k d? 51kp" ? ? ?. _ ? e t9 Sri" - ? - lo, mg_ o t6L -r3 •r ? ° t0? cE?u f°G as, - DMCX- 6?y,? r, 34.0e., x.op' 1 1. Go' N m m CORTINA LANE ?'J, ? ?- .Is w/oFr, LOhC.. -ECGE aKR gM 6NT/ DICN - WA TD- VALVES -T,oc. 00- © 534.0-Y W 103,60x- 08 8110 . fv. ..tc Prca..-'•1`(1 0 4 ta?{I to.s. nNa.sa? ' T. tae "'?,r' v xac.o9so e. L OZ o 06 7-L 00 - - R.L. 8128.3 __--t- -?-- 1 . ?11UENTR) 98 l f 8109.92 =- I I - R.L.8123.0 - 94 Y? (?` g?uusan. asrai?c.tt ? J .? E> ? -. _!w+? l y?}T ? _ . 92 l? !L(t1.L1610Z4 v J D MILL.) B096,0 94 8090 f ? 8093.0 I / ? a1 X ?? A03Y?Atts?,92.0 ? L -? L? -1 , ur LIDS N 6s. LANDSCAPE LEGEND O ?? 5' ep'rDalX o. / W . _ _ ? LEV LL 6C?1< II .. ? t 64 1 Y, SYMBOL NAME SIZE QUANT[TY IV sztact ! 82 W LOT-6 8080 Aspen 8' to 10` tali 12 each 0.2929 AC, f.._- ??? X Evergreen 10' to 14' tall 6 each Juniper S gallon __Jq .each . LMLr7--r 8070 r- R E rS i. ? t. ---- Allllll i I-M I ll?ll((I(I(I (llllflfl((1I(II4?((I(I 1?I1G?Jl?1t?1L?11lllll#11?t1u[ll?j??? - _ , `? ? .,--? +?71??5 QkWVC'?j Wb?L ,?, , G -,&LA- L-O -! a s in 12 Jul J- n. f? -I f f i i ST.?c IrTUR4L F[ LL `L . MAT r iZ k? 11 r? r k ? ?k e'[al o ? t? i l I r WAN, TOFF ^uP {7 /?` r _ _ so I ? i /E?° ?1!-cl' go AM cop-In R& LAOS 81 Od P ol-E IA in 21LY 0 ! iNz / f 1 j snlccp Pk -,S 81QD L6P 2i?wcOa 3;DINCn CiYP.? 1 ?. PJDC Uhf f ? 1e.waG.alc. ? f _ GI12=toFi^ ? ' 1 ? _ u ? ? I I 11, 4' ^C ?Cr. 6f C:o'o' r^?ilLCzfz?acrt!nY? wstl.s 81oo'??fa _ ?, - i '"1 ?csTlN??r•a?G?,..-rv..t f ? 1? ?tr.llSH arr?o?? w.?t,L !<cr.go92? J?._' !,? 01- 114-1 ,Q Ir- O ??.-ttwert I.EICEL. a a a L` MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 28, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a side and rear setback variance to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing residence located at 7 Davos Trail/Lot 1, Block F, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing. 26-15 Applicant: Juergen Krogmann and Monica Roth Planner: Randy Stouder L DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing a second story addition over the existing garage, and two new airlocks, one at the entrance to each unit in this primary/secondary structure. The proposed expansion to the second level of the structure allows the upper level to become the primary unit. The ground floor would then become the secondary unit which the applicant is proposing to deed restrict as a Type I employee housing unit. An internal connection between the two floors (units) will be eliminated so that two separate, physically distinct units would be created in the duplex. The existing primary/secondary structure was constructed in approximately 1974 and was existing prior to being annexed into the Town of Vail. Setbacks at the time of the construction were 7.5 feet from the side and rear lot lines. The current setback requirements are 15 feet for side and rear yards. The proposed airlock for the secondary unit, the employee housing unit, involves extending two of the foundation walls and would enclose an area within the side yard setback. The addition over the garage would add enclosed floor area within the rear setback since the garage is 7.5 feet from the rear lot line. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 15 foot rear setback to allow for an encroachment of 7.5 feet into the rear setback; and a side yard setback variance to allow for an encroachment of 4 feet into the 15 foot side yard setback. E • IL ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The subject property is located in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. 11,517 sq. ft. 11,517 sq. ft. Height: 33 feet 20.2 feet 21 feet GRFA: Primary: 2,152 sq. ft. 1,228 sq. ft. 1,978 sq. ft. (+750) Secondary: 1,577 sq. ft. 1,330 sq. ft. 1,397 sq. ft. (+67) Total: 3,729 sq. ft. 2,558 sq. ft. 3,375 sq. ft. (+817) Setbacks: Front: 20' 71' 71' *Side: 15' 11'/13' 11'/16' *Rear: 15' 7.5' 7.5' Site Coverage: 2,303 sq. ft. (20%) 2,030 sq. ft. (18%) 2,164 sq. ft. (19%) Landscaping: 6,910 sq. ft. (60%) 6,085 sq. ft. (53%) 6,650 sq. ft. (59%) Parking: 5 spaces 5 spaces 5 spaces *Setback variance request III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed variances to the rear and side setbacks will have little or no impact on the adjacent residences located on the sides and to the rear of the subject property. The applicant does not propose any further encroachments into the rear and side setbacks than currently exists on the lot. Creating an airlock for the secondary unit does not change the existing side yard setback. The distance between the airlock and the side property boundary is 12 feet, which exceeds the existing minimum setback (11') which is measured from the northwest corner of the house to the western property boundary. The proposed improvements to the primary unit are located over the 2 existing garage and do not change the existing setbacks from the rear property line. This addition, however, does add mass and bulk to the portion of the building that is currently located in the rear setback. Because, the topography slopes steeply up from the subject property to the north, and because the adjacent house to the rear is at a substantially higher elevation, staff believes that the applicant's request should not impact the adjacent property due to the increased height and mass of the addition. The applicant is proposing to improve the side yard setback along the northeast property boundary by eliminating a section of garage that currently protrudes into this setback. Thus, the remodel of this portion of the garage actually removes the nonconforming portion of the structure that currently extends into this side yard; the proposal will meet the full 15-foot side yard requirement along this property boundary. Staff feels that the second story addition will not have any negative impacts on the adjacent properties to the north and west. However, staff feels that additional landscaping should be required along the rear elevation of the addition. Current landscaping in this area is nonexistent and the structure is quite close to the rear property line. The applicant proposes four evergreen trees along the back of the proposed addition. Staff recommends that a total of six evergreen trees be provided due to the length of the addition. The applicant proposes to reduce asphalt surfaces on-site by 565 square feet. This will improve landscaping coverage to 59% of the site, as opposed to the current 53% coverage. However, the applicant is proposing to push the side wall of the garage (north wall) out 3 feet further to the east. This creates new site coverage within the rear setback. The garage would cover an additional 15 square feet of area within the rear setback. Staff asked the applicant to remove the proposed encroachment. However, the applicant wishes to proceed with the current design. 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. Many of the structures in this neighborhood are nonconforming with regards to the setback requirements. Most of the lots are substandard in relation to lot size requirements as well, and the neighborhood appears quite congested. The applicant proposes the residential additions to the existing structure rather than demolishing and rebuilding major portions of the existing house. This is desirable on this lot due to the existing configuration of the driveway. The driveway is currently at a 12% grade and requires two sharp turning motions which are difficult to negotiate. If the applicant were to demolish the existing garage and move the entire structure forward out of the rear setback, this would adversely impact the current parking and it would be difficult to provide the 3 required five parking spaces. Staff does not feel that granting the requested variances provides any special privilege to the applicant. The variances are necessary due to an existing nonconforming situation and the applicant is not aggravating that situation by further encroaching into the setbacks. In fact, the applicant is proposing to remove an existing nonconformity along the northeastern property boundary, and will provide the full 15-foot side setback. 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. Due to the topography and locations of existing structures on the subject property and on adjacent properties, the proposed addition should have little or no impact on views, light, air, etc. The proposed variance will also have no impacts on transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 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. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the requests for side and rear yard setback variances. This recommendation is based on staff's opinion that the requested variances would not have 4 an adverse impact on surrounding properties and structures; that granting the variances are not an extension of a special privilege to the applicant since the variance is required due to an existing nonconforming situation; and that the requested variances should not have any impacts on public utilities and facilities. Staff finds that the variances are warranted since a strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the ordinance would create a difficult situation regarding the provision of parking on the subject property. Staff also finds that the existing nonconforming situations regarding setbacks have created a need for the variance and that the variance will actually have a positive impact as far as removing one of the nonconformities relating to the northeastern side yard setback. If it is the desire of the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to approve the requested variances, staff recommends that the following conditions be imposed: The house shall be retro-sprinklered, if deemed necessary by the Fire Marshall. If sprinkiering of the building is required by the Fire Marshall, construction plans must include the sprinkler system. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed construction, the applicant shall record the proper EHU deed restriction documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The deed restriction shall set forth that the employee housing unit is to be permanently restricted for employee housing. 3. The northeast corner of the proposed garage, and primary living room above, shall be redesigned so that no new site coverage is added within the 15 foot rear yard setback. 4. Two additional evergreen trees shall be planted along the northwest side of the proposed addition. The applicant's landscape plan currently proposes only four evergreens in this location. f Aev a ryo n e\kro g m a n n .228 5 25 February 1994 ISOM ASSOCIATES Architecture Land Planning Project Management Mr. Randy Stouder Town of Vail Community Development RE: KROGMANN RESIDENCE Dear Randy: Per your request, we have added four evergreens to buffer the proposed second floor addition from the neighbors to the northwest, and eight aspen to shield the new entry to the west and the garage to the east. We have discussed emergency vehicle access with Mike Magee and have included a topo map that shows how this lot can also be accessed through the driveway for Lot 2. Although the site plan does not clearly indicate drainage, due to the snow on the ground at the time of the survey, the area to the north drains around the structure and there are no drainage problems. We have also included reduced copies of the plans. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Long 932zioe P.O. Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (303) 328-2388 FAX 328-6266 c h S I c D T2 36.9 d f?, _Cm?D _ O71L1T Ip _l a ~ ^'?! ROOK WALL 62 V K ELEV. a 112.1 ??- or ? 26.0' -?? W w- GARAGE I ??T ro? 330? ? 111 e D' r I ?n? f m ? U ? I Fd ' NI m 1 ? R F ?`F Rt N FO O W{ O I 'P4? 1 4" O ? ? ` a? D p0 I 4 c' D ? t ? g 9 l OEOK j ? - - I fit/ PD i 2 ? \ yA ? ?, s N O fC9?r /?? \ D 4 P a .._.. .. ., BPD RETAINING WALL _- ` DRt SWAY. / D. °"...? 1-g 1142 pryA _ 90' ?,21T.86 ? 520 ?' `•.?? . m E ..-p- --1-L ROAD 50 1 r _v - f DGE?OFPLOWED ?. ?`F2AI (') DAVOS F n@ I ® ill l? .?t REAR ELEVATION/NORTH Tt- ------- ----,------- 1 IOU OFT Wall- F01 ? C ELEVATION/SOUTH - 77 i U =S,J J7 r"?7 ?? ? _------------------ .1 a o 0 0 EAST ELEVATION ` wmaoow sCkEOCtE ' I ? DOO4 sG-c-Dt-LE G 1 wEATLER5ti4ELD 44 ?? 4 wEATI-E2$HIEI,D I 2 - wEArtERS?ELD f? I B wEanERSFJ@_D vrxia o 1 3 -EAT-EP---E_0 SM o xo.3e c59-? E 6 1 wEA ti• ••f •• eaa s e+ F 7 wEar?RgaB-D 1 1 a I I 9 1 26'-0' 37'-0* 6'-2" i ADDDITJON TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON EXISTING A FOUNDATION • THIS WALL - i IF --- - 4-----_---_--- i EXISTING EXISTING i i STEM WALL Ii I i i L = ?I -- --?- - • - - - r,E GARAGE EXISTING - t - - ` - EXISTING ST? L? _ i 1 ST^ 5 S/B TYPE 'X' S?EETRQCK i tJ 8? ga I Q • J J ADDITION TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON EXISTING FOUNDATION • THIS WALL a !• ? _-c?asEr _- a? i 30•-0' EXISTING a NEW ENTRY - n> 777, FIRST FLOOR PLAN ° EXISTING PLUS ADD l \T GLASS BLOCK n '-'-` `f JACUZ o 4 , ?X?I ? J b FISTING Tem WALL BATH k I MASTER BEDROOM r F CLOSET I t. t k ? ? - - L/ IJ - - ? J. PGAS LOcE -_ - ?. Cfown f 1? ? I ly k \ ?? k a k k k • k IfT I SECOND FLOOR PLAID C w•? ? ?.' r WYE - _?, ` 1 .^ + `err' ? • ? ? _ r •+? / Mpd4h y M ' 111 l ! ?... l ???' r ?. ? r ` !. ? 1 ? _ 1 6 ?y _ r_ • - y ? r ? tip ? r?y_ ? r y.'"?? 1 - •(1 +?~n .' ,•' ..++ ?w - ? ? ? '?",! i ?. i ? ?•? ' it r`?'.`..?: ' ,yam r .'?' ; ?"i . • 1 ' - ? ? I ??? ?.?" '?`` ? ? af:?, ? _ .`•'--ale .?_ ' ? ` ? 'LF , f' ,?? ? ? . .{+ ?? `: - 1 .I ? ?" r t• _ •? , f • 4.? a r'? ? ....r, ?.,?".y .?.. it } ' rt4 _ 1 i 1 ? •? ? t .r ?'"v Ir 4'11 ?y r ? R f - ? ?•. i I { . • 1 ? 1, _ s'" -; f.'F :p ?TTyl ' ??? _. L'ia ?' - ? 1• -s MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 28, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a proposed minor subdivision located at 4316 and 4336 Streamside Circle West/Lots 2 & 3, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Filing. Applicant: Walter Kirsch Planner: Randy Stouder I] 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision in order to relocate a common property line between Lots 2 and 3, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Filing. No additional development rights (units) or density will be created by the proposed re-subdivision. If the subdivision is approved, the applicant will construct a new home for himself on lot 2. The proposed subdivision (see attached reduction of the final plat) adds approximately 3,000 square feet of area to Lot 2 and reduces Lot 3 by the same amount. The applicant has located the proposed lot line so that each new lot meets the dimensional requirements of the Two Family Residential zone district. The proposed subdivision and residential construction will not require a variance. In fact, it will clean up an existing nonconformity on Lot 3. The existing house on that lot is located 12.9 feet from the common property line between lots 2 and 3. The applicant proposes to move the property line further north, creating a full 15 foot setback for the existing home on Lot 3, thus removing a nonconforming situation. II. ZONING ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to demolish the existing home located on Lot 2 and build a larger permanent residence for himself. No physical changes are proposed on Lot 3. The applicant has stated that the re-subdivision is necessary to improve the geometry of the lot and provide the desired house site. As a result of the subdivision, lot 2 gains 2994 sq. ft. of area, 1,171 sq. ft. of which is buildable not 100-year floodplain); 319 sq. ft. of allowable GRFA; and 589 sq, ft. of allowable site coverage. The home proposed for lot 2 will utilize 81 sq. ft. of the additional GRFA and 83 sq. ft. of the additional site coverage generated as a result of the subdivision. The applicant's GRFA and site coverage are slightly above what would be allowed without the re-subdivision. The remaining GRFA is available to Lot 2 for future construction. 11 A. Lot 2 Existing Lot Proposed Lot Proposed Home (Allowed/Reauired) (Allowed/Reouired) Net Chanqe Construction Lot Size:* 24,486 sq. ft. 27,430 sq. ft. +2,994 sq. ft. 27,430 sq. ft. Buildable Area:* 18,059 sq. ft. 19,230 sq. ft. +1,171 sq. ft. 19,230 sq. ft. GRFA:** 5,524 sq. ft. 5,843 sq. ft. + 319 sq. ft. 5,605 sq.ft.(238 under) (allowed 850 sq. ft. (allowed 850 sq, ft. credit (std) duplex lot) credit (std) duplex lot) Site Coverage: 4,896 sq. ft. 5,486 sq. ft. + 589 sq. ft. 4,980 sq. ft.(18%)(506 under) (20% maximum) Landscaping: 14,692 sq. ft. 16,458 sq. ft. +1,766 sq. ft. 20,013 sq. ft. (73%) (60% minimum) B. Lot 3 Existing Lot Proposed Lot Existing Home (Allowed/Required) (Allowed/Required) Net Change Construction Lot Size:* 20,794 sq. ft. 17,850 sq. ft. -2,944 sq. ft. 17,850 sq. ft. Buildable Area:* 16,221 sq. ft. 15,050 sq, ft. -1,171 sq. ft. 15,050 sq. ft. GRFA:** 5,179 sq. ft. 4,860 sq. ft. - 319 sq. ft. 3,880 sq, ft.(980 under) Site Coverage: 4,159 sq. ft. 3,570 sq. ft. - 589 sq. ft. 3,029 sf (16%)(541 under) (20% maximum) Landscaping: 12,476 sq. ft. 10,710 sq. ft. -1,766 sq. ft. 13,456 sq. ft. (75%) (60% minimum) Required setbacks are 20', 15', 15'; Height is limited to 33'; Parking required is 2.5 spaces. The house as proposed meets the parking, height an d setback restrictions above. *The lots meet the minimum requirement of 15,000 square feet of buildable area. **The GRFA numbers include credits except for garages. III. MINO R SUBDIVISION CRITERIA J The Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, establish minimum standards for the creation or modification of lots. The Subdivision Regulations allow for the division of existing lots or the creation of new lots from previously unpiatted property. However, the regulations require that new lots meet all the applicable standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance establishes the dimensional requirements of a lot, i.e. minimum size and configuration, minimum road frontage, yard and creek setbacks, landscaping and site coverage percentages. The Ordinance also establishes design review criteria that guide house design and site development. The table above summarizes the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and relates these requirements to the proposed lot configuration and house construction. The revised lots created by the subdivision meet or exceed all these dimensional requirements as shown above. 2 Subdivision requests are evaluated for compliance with the purpose statements of the General Provisions in the Subdivision Regulations (Section 17.04.010(A,B,C)). The purpose statements are quoted below and followed by an analysis of the applications conformance to the each statement. "17.04.010 Purpose. A. The subdivision regulations contained in this title have been prepared and enacted in accordance with Title 31, Article 23, part of C.R.S., 1973, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the Town of Vail, Colorado. B. To these ends, these regulations are intended to protect the environment to ensure efficient circulation, adequate improvements, sufficient open space and in general, to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the town. These regulations also provide for the proper arrangement of streets and ensure proper distribution of population. The regulations also coordinate the need for public services with governmental improvement programs. Standards for design and construction of improvements are hereby set forth to ensure adequate and convenient traffic circulation, utilities, emergency access, drainage, recreation, and light and air. Also intended is the improvement of land records and surveys, plans and plats and to safeguard the interests of the public and subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and to regulate other matters as the town planning and environmental commission and town council may deem necessary in order to protect the best interests of the public." The proposed subdivision will not adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the Town's residents. It simply realigns a lot line between lots 2 & 3, both owned by the applicant. The subdivision will not require the extension of roads or utilities, since the site is already served by a public street, and utilities are already available at the site. The proposed house construction on lot 2 provides ample off-street parking and driveway area, and will not effect traffic circulation patterns or emergency access on Streamside Circle West. The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed development and can provide emergency services to both lots. The subdivision and proposed house construction respects existing drainage easements, floodplains and creek setbacks. The site plan and house design are respectful of the surrounding neighborhood, the Gore Creek riparian area and the large trees that dominate the site. The subdivision does not create any additional density or additional development rights thus, its impacts on the public infrastructure will be minimal and have been accounted for. The applicant has submitted the final plat, in the appropriate form, for signatures and recordation if the subdivision request is approved. 11 3 The subdivision regulations are further intended to serve the following specific purposes (17.04.010(C)): "1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required." Staff Response: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations is to establish basic ground rules for the review of subdivision requests. These ground rules are readily available to the public, and the applicant has been made aware of them. "2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land." Staff Response: The subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance establish development standards that impose a certain order and predictability on land development. Predictable development helps avoid conflict with adjacent property owners, since they know ahead of time what level and type of development will occur around them. The proposed subdivision is a lot line adjustment that provides a more favorable geometry for the building envelope on lot 2. The improved geometry of the lot will allow the applicant to develop the size and style of house he desires. The applicant's proposed development meets or exceeds all dimensional requirements of the Two Family zone district in which it is located. The lot split and house development are in line with what one would expect to occur on the subject property. The response from the neighboring property owners (see attached letters) has focused on the issue of tree preservation. The neighbors place a high value on the heavily wooded riparian area, and would hate to see any trees removed along this stretch of Gore Creek. However, they respect the applicant's right to develop a reasonable house on lot 2. Tree preservation has also been one of staff's major issues with the application. In response to staff's and the neighbor's concerns over tree preservation on lot 2 and following DRB conceptual review, the applicant eliminated a large room off the back of the house and reduced the garage by one parking space. He also moved the entire house forward on the lot to further reduce impacts to the large spruce trees along Gore Creek. These changes will lead to the preservation of an additional eight trees, several of which are larger than one foot in diameter. The applicant has also revised grading for drainage purposes around the side of the house to reduce impacts to the root zones of several trees to be saved. The design of the rear patio area has also been altered to decrease impacts to nearby trees. Additional discussion of this issue is contained in item #7 below. 3. "To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land." 10 4 Staff Response: Subdivisions should not adversely effect property values of adjacent land. The value of a lot, and to a greater extent the value of a neighborhood, is in large part dependent on the level and type of development within it. The applicant has taken care to limit land disturbance and tree removal to the minimum necessary to construct a reasonably sized single family home on lot 2. The back of the proposed house is located 40 to 65 feet from the edge of Gore Creek. All required yard and creek setbacks have been respected, and the proposed house will be surrounded by a large number of mature spruce trees. Thus, the value of the subject property will be increased without adversely effecting adjacent lots. 4. "To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives." Staff Response: The proposed subdivision complies with the zoning ordinance as demonstrated in section II of this memorandum. The land is zoned and planned for single or two family residential development, and adjacent properties are developed with single family or duplex homes. 5. "To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision." Staff Response: Public facilities such as schools and parks should not be effected by this subdivision since it does not create additional units or density. 6. "To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures." Staff Response: The applicant has submitted accurate survey information on both lots. Existing and proposed conditions are accurately depicted and presented in the appropriate format, including a final plat containing the appropriate certifications for recordation if the subdivision is approved. The proposed construction does not involve street construction or major utility work. The proposed driveway meets the appropriate width and slope standards. .J 5 7. "To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land." Staff Response: Gore Creek flows along the southwest property line of lots 2 and 3, and Bighorn Creek flows along the northwest property line of lot 2. Bighorn Creek confluences with Gore Creek in the northwest corner of lot 2. Both lots are impacted by 100 year floodplains. The riparian areas are characterized by old growth spruce trees. The trees along this stretch of Gore Creek are generally between 1 and 3 feet in diameter. The applicant has carefully designed a house to fit his needs while preserving the character of the riparian area. The 100-year floodplain, the 50 foot setback from Gore Creek and the 30 foot setback from Bighorn Creek, the side and front setbacks define the building area for lot 2. However, grading and construction impacts intrude into the stream setbacks in two places, and may impact several large trees are located within 2-8 feet of the limits of disturbance shown on the construction management plan. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to refine ski development and construction management plan to reduce site disturbance adjacent to trees to be saved. The lot contains a total of approximately 85 trees. The landscape plan shows that the proposed construction on lot 2 will require the removal of 14 trees, 8 of which are greater than or equal to 1 foot in diameter. The most significant trees to be removed are a grove of 6 large spruces that are located directly behind the existing house. These trees range from 1-3 feet in diameter, with an average diameter of 2 feet. Staff (including Todd Oppenheimer) has explored alternative development scenarios with the applicant such as moving the entire house up to the front property line which would require a setback variance. Todd Oppenheimer also questioned whether this solution would save these trees as the root system for the largest tree would probably be effected by the alternative designs explored to date. V. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) is asked to discuss the following issues: 1. Impacts on landscaoina: Are the impacts acceptable to the PEC? 2. Site Plan and Buiidina Footprint: Are the site plan and building footprint acceptable? 3. Minor Subdivision: Any concerns related to moving the lot lines? 4. Russ's Memo: Eliminate disturbance in stream setback areas? Spring site visit to assess potential wetlands? cApeoWemosWrch.228 6 ? ? • i 1 a q 3 ' 'L ---7 1 ° 41 v Wv a Y = N C? - 9 SECOND LEVEL PLAN Scale I1WI'-W 93MM t ROOF PLAN Scale W ,n v o i 9300 lJ 0 ? fx,f,.?o{bi -d fofmf DOW \.{yya..7 Fn1? o? O,s ? tk? n? ny?u t IT ee fix ecn"ms's °O w Pent?? tMoSCAPE PLAN 9383t1m 411 I wJ C) UJ w QN I? o r U 7 Y 93839AD Q I; ??.. P LOT z LOT 3 mw. ad« nww x a ,>..a x n mee. w oww nne um x rt, uro x n avnvre.a .we x w. ,am x n ?n EXHIBIT LOTS 2 & 3 BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FOURTH ADDITION TOWN OF VAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Joe N. 16W v LOT 11 LN[?Gf ?? i/IaHI r,.?epe NVw [niwwef6 t??,v VM/Oa j FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2 & 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FOURTH ADDITION TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO ' NeLrfif? T fDJIT[FlGLE 6 ?EHIGTIW A1B WdA.IXd9 YI11E CER11fIGTE J01>!•YiL °? Itnm +It wn. V M,++ R.xvnts Ma¢ W efer Nlrcl,. Ovle p aelt amnr •I IdlTlrkvWm qe G,wpnY, bu ron1Y «•'Lrry bNt tM irely to Wan Mrs fraal 91+i Fu Yvan aawornal «.I b ? „° ? ?' ?4 •D l M v all Ynt rm?prwarty al M n Tan W WIIrcEwR cnarry• rulw'aib. W u %01103! ° L ob i q Q a °? 6 ? ? a o' G % b v«M la _ eK.pt uihfWlw?r w clur of .11 Irrnz «a _ m t) r yy e r. dn la lq z . qq Ell, 17 Claele «a Raco-ar, cmhlnrnp I.OM3 eaeu, w o- _ • • • • • y • tss wd trp""icp u ~% a ? W nw «d M v? I p 2a a .___,___ r • .. r t a Re,LLYInr Z Leffi a ] iaalp aYl<!w ' + sWrv 19ra i °%t Y ll r l ?I a m p m ?' . mri a , a . c r h. Coleraa0, «e b Paehr = x t u+ rerww,IWlltr r: a Sir canbtlw W fsWlrN irvanmm%1 w0 b Parts aYalo4 «a ate t a!I a w plalrt rmW «rl aur.r prrelc rrwwrwnb «a WM MIS „_ by a . a.a., 19n. rr.a1[ f f alrvn m Vie accaPaeYrw 91ee % Mr uv M We pJf Ic tl b Par.h Mlmb Yvem van<1«, aI vld rwl M bna TI#IV ErlaranM Cas+nY uo9arh rrm are rndlGM « ewant m Me +cco-panYlnp vent a Iv Ma W9«e JpA lrramt «d b Iu3zY pr«! Mr rlyt?ta ., la «e I.b n neE.awY arrows, % a. melg rlal r Do l e » r@ Dm 1]) Y«I. C? tILSD «rr np I.e eea er w rn . e...n.rrb w m ?r.i. FmvN Mre _.?_ aay o- A.I.. a9)3 - `--- -' %? sl er..) a a+ Ihrat nw «! trtla) xB xne! OIRI[R, pY«!? FOrfIESf r PW«116 A,N flIY1ROMmiN. CYNIRIOI CCRiiilGlE w"TE R e Mr a f rne l plaS n, appOVN pY W Tern M v+ll PI«nlnp aaa .. f#AOOWIL ?5T STATE 6 E rbl Cams«m Mln __ WY M .D.. l!1- ACINITY MAP LnMiT v _. iffi' Airem serlnn)n M Fo-Vpelnp In S w Ilwpa hates of Mea .._„_ ,IaY A.9 1993 WIM1r NIrN ? ___?? -_? r .. . _, NP Ca+laalw axphen, ,m___ YIM1 b d l •- ein Clvrp Imn W Wr1, Lelo-ab Tevn?vF Wll Plwlw «a EnvormrralrNl Cvnr3lw eu p «® aw n . Notary Ta Ic I n.Wra,• 51MEYIDI'S QA)IidGTE 1 b bMy cartlfy Ma6 } e rw,sterra L«d wvrya Ilc«xtl CtlttlfiGTE LF DElICa41®1 i°p -TG6E YP nea 6 M69 IOIAt ularnet uN coo eb u 1«a auiL, Iplaeiia.MaralHC?bi wtll.le.?r Wm al I e9 ilrnr Preeenb M.tr FrnxMN N val I «Y Lltlcmp V7 Ibrt b,n t» rolw m d wt + Mza^ eM¢ wxP plat M wb hm « a[z«a%arevey eI >s 1. ymo-ry h w+ni mart try aap,rvl«w utl cwraitlY aP0„ e)re LOT 20-1 p rs M a w 19W, n "r we+ a. M+t r..l y?h alw.M In ura rma a v+rl, apl, cover, Calo-,b, pea « /oll0aar Ixa.lw «a Wn«,rm, er M. ea, tar.rw% «d av«+s nr ,+la a Mlvbi r?« v. ,w a...taY.a yw a. yaura n e Ir 1. re?ulaee MS pevrawrnp ar ud,rrsrm v/MDIM.ce BIGHORN "WW . ' RESUBDMSION 20 / lA4 1 Leb 2 «a ]. Dryrsn 96dlublw farts ALIe m % Yre MvraoT raco-Wa tarts oiflct N tb Ew lie fawey, G?or+b, c°l.rx «a f.aarbr, cm nnp a.mn .eea, o- b,e. In «(nar IYeraW 1 Pan ,nY nY' P«a «i sa+I M ?, .__?, A.?.. 9q. " -_ Y AH« ' PY« Lo ei,fr. LOT 20-2 ' ,/.tan w Mrs final 91nt mWr Xa nw «tl style W Flnel PI t, A IRaWlvrsrm M Leta Y 4 ], DI SWalrrslm forts Txa I•e?m.°i .II ahu» r a ? i aa e ? G mlafw ns zo]fa ______ S OT4TSC E ®tOD.20 , / xmm e r • a IDr s H .<.a, rl i «a a c a.f pl i? w ? W pb m f « J,, ? ?, mm -- y_ Rn79A0 tay? la '?- r L. 'Z2 Uie aaawp.rylw 91aa % W gas prYlrc evrt a ao )arth .>.. b eb awlmu« ev uve mrtiws or gala re+l a«r"w Mewlw«ib«cuo«`In° p t KnP ty n•Pl u.'"P w • M4[i, Lr-6&66 °Y w . yy r g M r dpznM tlwMpoil#Y rx9m it vrwidie6 M* 11a°n'I ea far ' ql) Wb of Yawrlw )999 w pe LAS 20M*2S E lFn M. w.r?.ta un .nwll wa, zx r i a Ixr a.rsy ?m» oiMien i icy rw«rr1i0 W Epeeaew M1z __ Wr ar , A.?., las]. adw4rl«w rwM Arlt,m ova a,. Eul IIe.tYanae «?+. la P bt D br 5 a9•q•M' E (a i ,r ) \ / C W 1!M 4 a LOT 2 9!T xa , aLW _, ? MIGWEE• Y rnSF«N M Y« 1 IY 'al l Nmd e np n t ap • Y]) NeawuNlw u ,XOn Mres Ul Stm1 atlraaar tee 2 - aJIE Strawr W LIrcM1 War Let 3 • {33C ]trvan,rb Clrcle Wat \ ? ? ? Y.?P exu srt mL"°a Lc.w r + . m elssa la n p.aaml« ..,w.t ,w« na..w. a > a.. ma x raa.ta or ryv swr,.ulw, Far «a«a b w o.w «a .J. `\ ?? ? \ ?, °ZI h, Iirtie>.__,____e_..?_._ ne Wal(nM W tor. pram « nrM mr w #M nn+l p) V??t N flpMn SWlrlarm Farts AM1SIm. )I r M < M ? a E ? i? ? y _ ?. U j, ?t ? x re Pl,pe,v o I, al. la xP"aP yr alvldlw QamrN n bepw Lae z «. Lai ] .a slew P..,m, \ ? ' f•s M lY ?. \ N DY{Y]T E - 1Aa] ! Crircay aa.ipnae. In ads«,• ` ()5 Prabctlw Ca3e«b raavraea ,a Dew l)+ al Pape +pT «d « malrWa ,. ,naa n .««aaa rn Detl, Lrx at Paw 3t ? \ J _.°_-. _ . av. p, \` BIGHORN ESTATES `°rJ \\? ? i ?"I ' ^g` •E?/yJ neuo ?? " ' 4tI1nnGTE o-Teus wn y ?\ ? e r ? \ STATE • )tt. C?IMTY 6 . I?r#M m3r,ID#ea. b Pnr,h cYrtlly the Lrv more event of We «d peyNle « eP _._________?___..-_-?_, rVar +11 Ala a..nl aabb b,><rrlw w %1, nn.l PI+a w are In 1' ,x, LOT 3 ?tt (mF? iPj sr ?? Y / TI. fe.?nln? ,n,ir«^nt 3 «pnwl«p.a per n. Me, __ ?r are of 99] h - #af a4??alg0 vda // pb ALWO ? ' E _. `•. ______ ._? Y raelNrrp a WII. Bets M,s ee by / \•Y eRpa ms 4H 1W V1MacIM Pane mlduiw'®_'__ Tna,var M EVty WertY. Calera LOT I / LOT 2 / I ?J fa,>?r` /w L 0T 4 nElx eRO cL°uele'r rtPTInGiE _ .TY NM m « V.d / IS RnY LOT 4 pa e s t Wvul /MIZ6 w STALE R ) )u. cuxrr rc . iPrs Funl IIIN rp• 1VCVa In W oFfln 1 1ta Clert i a IlecmWr MpMI,?_ b of _ .1., i!I]Wao- ?. Rrcea,a •... Rfmpxlw w. °_ _ a a a / LOT 3 / SCALE:. 1' a as LOT 5 Tb fa..pPlw la.e.,er9ri .ea «mml or . a.H., 199] eY repv' h'f•w aP Msn ,,,,? ?v a npe ®. ?.. LOT 5 t a nelaw DryspP, Ins.. crerY w faeefarr ' LOT 7 Y1"Ye reeA1 Irn i e :e a e Ewle w.rh, ealr..ae BIGHORN ESTATES. l ,. .n n . « a M' - RESUBOM510N Of LOTS 10 R 11 I •'? X Cr L-v/L •?¢. fe?vbf w LYwW rn )a: vets aenrir,n wJ I M aatYn WN =YuNa11e MWh ,"ae °"e ""n: r:'m verb ?.?.. ova pn r..."lMr a 0 0 Ab .Ax #Ie. )eq Walter Kirch 4336 Streomside Circle Drive P.O. Box 1937 Vail, Colorodo 81658 303/476-5735 Mr. Randy Souder Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage load blest Vail, Colorado 81657 February 01, 1994 Lear Randy: I am writing because it seems to me that you and I are approaching an impass over the siting of the house I am contemplating building on Lot 2 bighorn Subdivision, Fourth Addition. Prior to starting any house plans, I had the lot surveyed in order ID to plot the existing topography and to locate all trees. The house was designed to meet the following criteria: A. To save as many of the 85 plus trees as reasonably possible. B. To disturb the natural woodsy feeling of the site as little as possible. C. To take advantage of the creek frontage on both Bighorn and Gore Creeks. D. To take advantage of the mountain views, especially from the second floor. S. To moderate the impact of the building on the street scene. F. To meet the space requirements of the owner. As a result of my first review of the plans with you, I P redesigned the house eliminating one garage and one large multipurpose room. The happy result of that redesign was to save 5 trees, 3 of which I would call capital spruce trees. Vv.e now seem to be focused on one 3 foot diameter spruce that is in the middle of the prime building area. According to my count, we will be taking 15 trees out of a total of 85 plus. Although 3 of these will be spruce with diameters of 2 to 3 feet, there will still .ue 10 trees with diameters of 2 to 3 feet on the lot. I am aware of Ann Miller's request that trees along the creek be preserved, and I agree with her. The tree in question is 95 feet from tie centerline of Gore Creek so it doesn't impact the beauty of the creek frontage. Furthermore, my plan will preserve a beautiful forest along both Core anon i3ighorn Creeks. It is my intent to transplant as many of the 15 trees that are 10 within the house footprint as is practical. It is also my intent to plant a significant spruce in the driveway planter and several 10 foot spruce along the property line between lots 2 and 3. 1 have alreaay planted 8 spruce, 10 to 12 feet in height, along the boundary line between lots 1 and 2. You may not be aware of my background as a builder and developer. I have lived in tine community since 1971 and have probably duveloped as many or more residential units in Vail than anyone. You can visit every property that I nave built and you'll find that a great deal of planning and effort went into preserving the natural vegetation as well as supplementing it where appropriate. It's ironic that I'm now being viewed as insensitive to the trees at my own residence. Your suggestion of building the house close to the street, where there are fewer trees, seems undesireable for 2 reasons: 0 A. It would place a large, prominent building in proximity to the street. B. It doesn't allow the house and myself to enjoy the creek environment that I own. I believe that I have been more than reasonable in responding to your suggestions and feel that I have no more room for compromise. Enclosed are 3 drawings that I hope will shed light on the points I am trying to make. Best regards, 6,)(2, ,?-' 9 Walter Kirclz cc: Kristen Yritz Director - Community Development Department - Town of Vail 11 3 tFt 2 190 6a'?? Mr. Randy Stouder 4 Town of Vail Community Dev. Dept. 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: A request for a miner subdivision located at 4316 Strearnside Circle West/Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Walter Kirsch Bear Mr. Stouder, It has come to our attention that a number of old growth trees will have to be removed to make room for the construction of a Large new house. This area is heavily treed with old Spruce and Lodgepole pines. one of the reasons we purchased in this area was the number of trees. We would hope the Planning and Environmental Commission would do everything possible to keep as many trees in the area as it can. Thanks for your consideration. S " ?cer ohn D. Sorenson JDs/ds 11 Department of faamyaaunity Development TO: Planning Attn: Randy Stouder From: Russ Forrest Date: February 23, 1994 Subject: 4316 Streamside West I conducted a site visit on February 23, 1994 to 4316 Streamside West and reviewed the proposed plans for the new Kirch residence. I have the following comments based on this review. 1) Given the snow on the site it is difficult to determine whether obligate species exist on the site. I would recommend another site visit in the spring. I did notice to the north of the existing residence alders and willows along the road. It appears that they run along a drainage and should not be directly impacted by the development. However, this should be verified in the spring. 2) The proposed layout does a fairly good job of respecting the riparian area along Gore Creek and Bighorn creek. Although the living room in South corner of the proposed home does encroach on the Gore Creek Riparian area. I would request that building envelop or that room be pushed in north and slightly east approximately 7-10 feet or at least enough so that the retaining wall is out of the Gore Creek setback. I also strongly recommend that native vegetation be maintained between the residence and Gore Creek. 3) The major impact is the loss of approximately 16 mature Engelman and Blue Spruce on the site. I strongly concur with Todd's comments to relocate trees were possible. We might also reauest that the owner make a donation to Trees for Vail to help compensate for the loss of tree on their site which can not be transplanted. 4) 1 would also request that no disturbance during construction occur between the proposed building envelope and the Gore and Bighorn creek. This means no dirt, debris, vehicles, or building materials in this zone. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments. If possible , I would like to visit the site again in spring to review vegetative impacts and the presence of wetland species. 0 Thank you! MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 28, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a special development district for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79046'00" West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B"; thence South 10°14'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B"; thence North 79°46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence north 09010'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 88°27'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27°13'37" East of distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57°24'00" East a distance of 55,11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte PROJECT OVERVIEW The applicants, David and Myra Smith, are requesting review of the proposed establishment of a special development district (SDD) for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive, a part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing. The Cornice Building property is located in the eastern portion of Vail Village, between the Vail Athletic Club and the Tyrolean Inn. The site is currently zoned High Density Multi-Family (HDMF) and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to lot size, which is .084 of an acre (3,659 square feet). The minimum lot size in the HDMF zone district is 10,000 square feet of buildable area. Existing development on the property includes one condominium, a small space that has periodically been used as an office space and three employee rental units that are restricted until the year 2005. The proposed redevelopment involves the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a new building. The proposed development is limited to one single family dwelling unit. This residence will utilize all of the available GRFA allocated to the property (2,195 square feet) as well as a "250" allowance, bringing the total GRFA of the proposed building to 2,445 square feet. In addition, the applicant is proposing to provide an off-site location for the three restricted employee rental units, which are currently located in the Cornice Building. The applicant is proposing to replace these units by restricting another unit (or units) within the Town of Vail in order to provide an equivalent number of bedrooms (three). The unit(s) will be permanently restricted in accordance with the Town of Vail Employee Housing Ordinance. The applicant does not wish to actually identify the employee housing unit(s) at this time, but wishes to proceed with PEC and Town Council approval of the proposed SDD with the assurance that the permanent restriction of off-site employee rental units will be in place prior to the issuance of a demolition/building permit for the Cornice Building redevelopment. Once the applicant has received SDD approval and has located the proposed off-site unit(s), they will return to the PEC, and Town Council if necessary, for their review and approval. The redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves the demolition of the existing building, which currently includes the following uses: 1 - 1,084 square foot free market dwelling unit 1 - 202 square foot office space 3- restricted employee rental units (202 square feet each for a total of 606 sq. ft.) The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves the following uses: 1 - 2,445 square foot single family residence (includes "250" allowance). 3- employee rental units (or equivalent number of bedrooms), restricted per the Town of Vail employee housing ordinance (unit(s) to be located off-site). 3- enclosed garage spaces The applicant has indicated that the purpose of requesting an SDD for this property is to allow for greater flexibility and creativity in the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, as well as to provide a mechanism for the review of certain deviations from the existing development standards of the site's underlying zoning. The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves deviations from the following HDMF development standards: Sinale familv residence within the HDMF zone district - The permitted uses in the HDMF zone district are limited to multi-family dwellings and lodges. Multi-family dwellings are defined as buildings containing three or more dwelling units, including townhouses, rowhouses, apartments and condominiums, designed for or used by three or more families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit. A Lodge is defined as a building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of individuals or families either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. Single family development is not permitted as a conditional or permitted use in the HDMF zone district. As a part of the SDD review process, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Town Council may approve uses that are more restrictive than uses permitted by the property's underlying zone district. The request includes determining that a single family use is more restrictive than a multi-family use. As such, the 2 approval of this SDD plan would allow for single family residential development as a permitted use. 2. Buildina encroachments in the lot setbacks - Portions of the existing and proposed structure encroach into the property's 20 foot front, side and rear yard setback areas. The building is proposed to be constructed within 2 feet of the north property line, 11 feet of the south property line, 2.5 feet of the east property line, and 11 feet of the west property line. Please refer to the zoning analysis chart on page 6 for a comparison of the proposed building to the existing building. 3. Parkina in the front setback - The applicant is proposing to place a portion of one of the required enclosed parking spaces within the front setback area, which is not allowed in the HDMF zone district. Approximately seven feet of the southwestern enclosed parking space encroaches into the 20 foot front yard setback area. IL BACKGROUND The Cornice Building was originally constructed in the mid 1960's and included eight small rental apartments. No on-site parking was provided for the rental apartments, apparently due to its relative proximity to the existing surface parking lot located immediately adjacent to the property (now the Village Transportation Center). With the exception of new decks and a minor building expansion in 1976, the overall form of the building has not changed since it was built. The property has been the subject of numerous redevelopment proposals over the years and due to the small size of the parcel, virtually all of the redevelopment proposals involved requests for variances from the zoning standards. In the mid 1970'x, a conditional use permit was granted which allowed for a real estate office to operate out of the western portion of the lower level of the building. The real estate office eliminated one employee rental unit, leaving seven units on the property. In 1979, the owner of the property at the time, Dr. Huttner, requested a setback variance for the purpose of enclosing an existing second story deck. This setback variance request was one element of the proposed redevelopment of the property which involved the conversion of the four apartments on the upper floor into one dwelling unit and a request to allow one parking space in the front setback area. The PEC approved the setback variance request but denied the parking space request. In conjunction with the variance request, the owner agreed to restrict the three remaining apartments on the lower level of the building to long-term employee rental units. This agreement contained provisions regarding the minimum size of the units (no less than 200 square feet per unit), restrictions on the minimum duration of the lease agreements, guidelines on who the units may be rented to (full-time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley), and provisions on the length of time within which the agreement shall be effective (twenty years from the date of the agreement, or the year 2005). For a variety of reasons, this restriction was not formally recorded until 1985 (see Attachment #1 for a copy of the agreement). Since 1985, there have been approximately three proposals to redevelop this site. 3 On June 14, 1993, a joint worksession was held with the Design Review Board (DRB) and the PEC to discuss the establishment of a SDD for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building (see Attachment #2 for a copy of the meeting minutes). The proposal included departures from the following HDMF zone district standards: A. GRFA - The proposal exceeded allowable GRFA by 1,305 square feet. B. Setbacks - Portions of the structure were proposed to encroach into the front, side and rear setbacks. In addition, the applicant proposed to locate required parking within the front setback area which is not allowed in the HDMF zone district. C. Parking - The required number of parking spaces for the proposed building was six spaces. The applicant was proposing to provide two parking spaces on-site (one enclosed and one exterior). No parking was proposed for the three Type IV employee housing units that were apart of the project at the time. The proposal also did not comply with the HDMF zone district requirement that 75% of all parking be enclosed. During this worksession, a number of issues were identified as being of concern to the PEC and DRB. These issues are summarized as follows: A. The appropriateness of proposing a SDD for the redevelopment of the property. B. The project's departures from the HDMF zone district standards. The PEC discussed the possibility that the proposed departures from the zone district standards could be handled as variance applications as opposed to being reviewed through the SDD process. C. Continuance of the three restricted employee housing units on the site. The PEC felt that the employee housing units on the property were positive and commented that it would be desirable to have them restricted beyond the twenty year time frame. However, the PEC felt that no GRFA bonus should be granted for these restricted units and that any GRFA utilized by the restricted units should come out of the total maximum allowable GRFA on the site. D. Architectural and site planning issues. The PEC felt that the proposed 48 foot building height should be reduced significantly and the mass and bulk of the building should be reevaluated. On October 11, 1993, a worksession was held with the PEC to further discuss two issues that had arisen at the June 14, 1993 PEC worksession. (See Attachment #3 for a copy of the meeting minutes.) These issues were: 1. The appropriateness of using the SDD process for the Cornice Building redevelopment. The PEC and applicant discussed the merits of handling the Cornice Building redevelopment through a SDD process, as opposed to requesting separate GRFA, setback and parking variances. The PEC felt that 4 due to the unusual lot size and configuration, setback and parking variance requests would likely receive favorable support from them. However, the PEC made it clear that a proposed variance from the maximum allowable GRFA on the property would be difficult to justify. 2. There was discussion regarding the possibility of allowing a credit for the GRFA allocated to the three restricted rental units, as opposed to deducting their total GRFA from the total allowable GRFA of the property. The PEC suggested to the applicant that if he wished to utilize all of the site's GRFA for the proposed free market dwelling unit, than he should explore the possibility of finding and permanently restricting employee rental units elsewhere in town. Since the October 11, 1993 PEC worksession, the applicant has contacted staff to discuss the parameters under which staff would be reviewing the applicants proposed off-site housing units (see attachment # 4 - letter to Tom Braun dated December 8, 1993). Staff believes that the provision of employee housing units to replace those currently existing on the Cornice Building property must take into account the quality of the living environment and access to employment areas in addition to simply providing housing for a minimum of three employees. The applicant has indicated that the parameters for providing off-site employee housing units as identified in staff's letter would be used as minimum guidelines for providing the proposed off-site employee housing unit or units. J 5 III. CORNICE BUILDING ZONING ANALYSIS The project's departures from the HDMF zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROPOSED HDMF PROJECT SDD Site Area: 0.084 acre or 3,659 sq. ft. Same Same *Dwelling Units: 25 units per acre or 4 DU's 1 DU Allowed Uses: GRFA: Office Space: Common Area: Setbacks: Site Coverage: 2 units for this site. Multi-family residential dwellings and lodges 60% or 2,195 sq. ft. Varies depending on issuance of conditional use approval 35% of allowable GRFA or 768 sq. ft. 20' on all sides, 55% or 2,012 sq. ft. 4 unit multi-family building 51% or 1,690 sq. ft. 05% or 202 sq.ft. 202 sq. ft. located in the basement of the bldg. N: 9' S: 2.5' E: 12.5' W: 7' 32% or 1,160 sq. ft. 66 % or 2,434 sq. ft. 23.5' Single family residential dwelling 67% or 2,445 sq. ft. (includes "250" allowance) 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. N. 2' S: 11' E. 2.5' VII: 11' 38% or 1,397 sq. ft. 40% or 1,455 sq. ft. 35' **Parking: Varies according to proposed 6 spaces required, of 3 enclosed spaces Landscaping: 30% required or 1,098 sq. ft. Building Height: 45' for a flat or mansard roof 48' for a sloping roof use of the property. At least 75% which 5 must be enclosed required, of req. spaces must be enclosed 0 spaces provided 3 enclosed spaces provided *Although three of the existing dwelling units on the property are permanently restricted to employee housing, they do not comply with the requirements of the Town's recently adopted employee housing ordinance and, therefore, count as full dwelling units for the purpose of calculating density. **Although the proposed redevelopment project meets the minimum number of parking spaces, a portion of one of the enclosed parking spaces is located within the 20 foot front yard setback area. 6 IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as follows: "The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to provide the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." The planning staff believes that the Cornice Building redevelopment application complies with the purpose statement of a Special Development District, as stated above. Specifically, we believe that the proposed Cornice Building SDD furthers the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e. Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan and Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan). The proposed redesign of the building proposes to improve the design character, function, and overall quality of the existing development. Permanently restricted employee housing units are proposed to be provided in place of the temporarily restricted studio units currently existing on the property. The applicant has restricted the density on this nonconforming lot below that which would be allowed by the site's underlying zone district. The applicant has agreed to provide landscaping, and other site improvements on the public land located immediately east of their property, in order to enhance its appearance as a pocket park. The applicant has agreed to provide a drainage easement across the western portion of the property as requested by the Town Engineer. SDecial Development District Criteria The following are the nine Special Development District Criteria to be used by the PEC when evaluating SDD proposals. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. In general, staff believes that the overall architectural style of the proposed Cornice Building is positive and would be compatible with the alpine character of Vail Village. The gable roof form and proposed building materials (natural stone and stucco siding, slate roof, divided light windows, etc.) will also relate well to the established architectural character of the Village. The applicant has responded to many of the PEC, DRB and staff comments regarding the architectural design. The building has been moved as far as possible to the northeast portion of the lot in order to improve site distance around the lower portion of "Blue Cow Chute", as well as to provide a greater separation from the Gore Creek streamwalk than is currently provided by the existing building. The applicant has lowered the building height from 48 feet to 35 feet, which improves the overall massing of the building. Although this height is 13 feet below the maximum building height t• allowed in the HDMF zone district, staff would recommend that the building height be further reduced to 33 feet. At 33 feet the building would be in conformance with the maximum building height allowed for single family buildings in the Town of Vail as well as being that much closer to complying with the recommendations found in the Vail Village Master Plan (two stories). Additionally, any reduction in building height would have a positive effect on the amount of shade occurring on Vail Valley Drive and the relationship between the height of the building and the small lot size would be improved. Staff believes that since the applicant is asking for special consideration to allow for a single family residence in a zone district where it is currently prohibited, the building should comply with the maximum height allowance for all other single family residences in Town. Although the curved stairway on the west side of the building is located approximately 2 feet closer to the west property line than the existing building, at that same location, the rest of the proposed building has been shifted away from Vail Valley Drive to a greater distance than the current building footprint. Eleven feet is the closest the proposed building will be from the west property line, which is an improvement over the seven foot setback of the existing building. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Although the Cornice Building property is surrounded by a variety of different land uses, including multi-unit condominiums and mixed use buildings that include both residential and commercial uses, staff believes that the proposed single family residential use of the property is appropriate, given the size and configuration of the lot. Staff believes that the small size of the lot and limited room to accommodate on-site parking make High Density Residential or commercial use of this property inappropriate. It is interesting to note that the maximum density allowed on this lot (two dwelling units) does not even comply with the definition of "multi-family dwelling'", which is what the property is zoned for. We believe that it is appropriate to consider the proposed single family use of the property as being more restrictive than the multi-family use. We also believe that the proposed single family use of the property is compatible with surrounding properties. It should also be pointed out that since the property is zoned HDMF no single family or duplex credits (neither 425 nor 225) are allowed, yet at the same time since the proposed building is not a "multi-family" structure it is not entitled to any multi-family credits (airlocks, overlapping stairs, common areas, etc.) either. Garage parking spaces are the only credits that apply to this redevelopment proposal. Staff believes that the applicant's agreement to permanently restrict employee housing units in Town to replace the temporarily restricted units at the Cornice Building site is a benefit. The applicant agrees that the parameters for providing the unit(s), outlined in a letter to Tom Braun dated December 8, 1993 (see attachment # 4), is acceptable. This is a use which the Town promotes in its master plan documents. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52 of the Vail Municipal Code. As mentioned in the Background Section of this memo, the Cornice Building was originally constructed in the mid-1960's. No on-site parking was provided. In 1979, an application was 0 8 made to the PEC to add one surface parking space to the site. The PEC denied this request citing safety and traffic concerns. In 1985 and 1986, redevelopment proposals were submitted to the Town which included up to seven on-site parking spaces. Although the PEC felt that some on-site parking may be acceptable on this site, the design of the buildings being proposed were not acceptable and the projects were denied. Some members of the PEC felt that it would be reasonable for the property owner to request a parking exemption from the Town Council to allow payment into the parking fund for some or all of the required parking. At 2,445 square feet of GRFA, the parking space requirement for the proposed building is three spaces. Section 18.20.140 (HDMF Parking and Loading) states that "at least 75% of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view..." In this instance, the Code requires that all three of the parking spaces located on the site be enclosed within the main building. The applicant is showing three enclosed parking spaces within the proposed Cornice Building. However, one of the spaces does not meet the dimensional requirements for a parking space required by the Parking and Loading Section of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Specifically, the Town of Vail parking standards require that each off-street parking space be 9 feet wide by 19 feet long. As shown on the attached garage level floor plan, one of the three enclosed parking spaces is 16 feet long. Section 18.52.070 (Parking Standards) allows the Town of Vail zoning administrator to authorize minor adjustments to the dimensional requirements prescribed in the parking and loading chapter. Staff believes that the proposed minor deviation to the parking space length requirement located in this three car garage will not negatively effect the property owner's ability to park three cars inside the building. At 9' wide and 16' long the smallest parking space in the garage still meets the dimensional requirement for a compact car space, as identified in the Town zoning code. As mentioned previously, the HDMF zone district prohibits the location of any required parking spaces within the front setback area. As shown on the attached site plan, portions of the southwesternmost enclosed parking space encroaches into the front setback area. Staff believes the applicant has attempted to locate the required enclosed parking as far away from the front property line as possible and still allow for adequate vehicle maneuverability on the site. The fact that the parking spaces are enclosed within the building help to alleviate any visual impacts associated with the placement of parking in the front setback area. Additional landscape plantings have been placed along Vail Valley Drive and the streamwalk to further buffer the parking turnaround areas visibility. The turnaround area is also constructed of pavers, as opposed to asphalt or concrete. The planning staff and the Town Engineer have reviewed the proposed Cornice Building redevelopment plan and feel that the on-site parking can work on this property. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Staff has evaluated the proposal for compliance with the applicable Town of Vail master plans including: Vail Land Use Plan - The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. The Land Use Plan Goals/Policies applicable to the Cornice Building redevelopment are as follows: 9 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 11®3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 44.33 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 5!3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.55 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 2. Vail Village Master Plan The land use element of the Vail Village Master Plan shows the Cornice Building property within the medium/high density residential category. The Building Height element of the plan suggests that the maximum building height on the Cornice Building property should be limited to two stories. The plan is intended to provide general guidelines and recommends that additional study be made during specific project review relative to a buildings height impact on the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. Approximately 25% of the proposed building complies with the two story recommendation, with the remainder of the building being at three stories. Staff believes that the departure from the two story height guideline is acceptable given the allowed height of 48 feet and the applicants use of sloped roofs on the portion of the building above two stories. As stated before, we would suggest that the applicant consider reducing the building height to 33 feet. The Cornice Building is located within the East Meadow Drive Sub-Area (#5). No specific reference is made to the building in the text of the sub-area action plan. The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building has the potential to carry out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals and objectives are 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. r -? 10 Obiective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Obiective 2.1 - Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Obiective 2.6 - Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 3. Streetscape Master Plan - The Streetscape Master Plan points out that traffic on Vail Valley Drive is very heavy throughout most of the year. It is especially heavy in the morning and late afternoons during the ski season, and evenings and weekends during the summer months. Pedestrian traffic is likely to increase because of the expansion of the Village Parking Structure and the creation of a new exit portal from the parking structure at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail Valley Drive in the area of the Cornice Building involve the addition of a 8 foot - 10 foot wide concrete unit paver walkway on the west and south sides of Vail Valley Drive and a 5 foot - 6 foot wide concrete unit paver walkway on the east and north sides of the road. No pedestrian walkway is proposed along the western portion of the Cornice Building property. Although the Streetscape Master Plan shows a 5 to 6 foot concrete unit paver walkway along the western portion of the Cornice Building property, staff and the Town Engineer agree that, at this time, it is not practical to continue a walkway along the eastern side of Vail Valley Drive beyond the Gore Creek Bridge. People walking along the eastern side of Vail Valley Drive tend to cross the road on the north side of the bridge where the streamwalk meets Vail Valley Drive. This seems to be the safest and most logical place to cross the road, rather than at the bottom of "Blue Cow Chute". Additionally, the construction of a walkway along the western portion of the Cornice Building property would appear to require the removal of the four existing large evergreen trees located in this area which staff would prefer not to see removed. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, nor does any floodplain effect this property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The HDMF zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides. After taking setbacks into consideration, the remaining buildable area on the lot is approximately 20 feet by 25 feet in size. Staff agrees with the applicant's contention that it would be extremely difficult to build on this site without some degree of setback encroachment. The applicants have indicated that they have attempted to minimize the setback encroachment by designing the building with a substantially similar footprint as the existing building. The applicant has incorporated suggestions from previous PEC meetings into the site planning by moving the building as far to the north and east 11 as possible on the lot. The siting of the building in this location will provide as much visibility as possible to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along Vail Valley Drive. Staff believes that the removal of the second story deck located on the south side of the existing building, which is within 2-1/2 feet of the stream walk, is a positive aspect of the redevelopment proposal. Although the site coverage of the proposed building is slightly greater than the existing building (1,160 sq. ft. existing and 1,397 sq. ft. proposed) it is still considerably less than the maximum allowed on this lot (2,012 sq. ft.). Staff believes that applicants desire to limit the amount of site coverage on this lot is positive. The applicant has provided a sun/shade analysis which compares the shading effect of the existing building to the proposed building. Clearly, the proposed redevelopment would increase shade and shadow on a portion of Vail Valley Drive. It would seem that additional shading on Vail Valley drive is a trade off for moving the building as far to the northeast portion of the lot as possible. The advantages of the proposed building location are improved sight distances around the lower portion of Blue Cow Chute and a greater separation between the building and the streamwalk. The applicant has oriented the roof ridge of the third story portion of the building in a north/south direction in order to reduce the shade impact on Vail Valley Drive as much as possible. The staff and Town Engineer have reviewed the sun/shade analysis and believe that since there is no major pedestrian walkway along this portion of Vail Valley Drive the shading impacts of the proposed building are not significant. However, as suggested earlier in the memo reducing the height of the proposed building by two feet will improve the shade impacts slightly. In summary, staff believes that the project's design sensitivity to the site planning and open space issues has been positive. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off- site traffic circulation. It does not appear that the proposed Cornice Building redevelopment will have a negative impact on the vehicular or pedestrian circulation surrounding this site. The Cornice Building is located at the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive. Vehicular access to the three proposed enclosed parking spaces is provided from Vail Valley Drive. The proposed driveway has been located at the southernmost end of the site, approximately 80 feet from the corner of Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive, thereby insuring adequate site lines for vehicles leaving the site. Internal circulation includes two "hammerheads" which allow vehicles to turnaround while on-site. This design allows vehicles to drive out of the site without backing onto Vail Valley Drive. The driveway and vehicle turnaround areas will be heated and utilize decorative brick paves as opposed to asphalt or concrete. The Cornice Building parcel is located directly on the Vail Village bus route, and is also located immediately adjacent to the Ford Park/Vail Village streamwalk. Existing sidewalks along the Vail Village Parking Structure, the Vail Athletic Club and along Vail Valley Drive provide additional pedestrian circulation which will not be negatively effected by the proposed redevelopment project. As mentioned previously, staff does not recommend that a pedestrian walkway be installed along the western side of the Cornice Building property, as this may encourage people to cross Vail Valley Drive at the bottom of Blue Cow Chute, which is considered to be a dangerous location. 12 0 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Given the limited site area of this parcel, there is little in the way of "functional open space". The proposed development does, however, preserve the existing mature trees located on the western portion of the property as well as include a landscape plan that represents a significant improvement over existing conditions. Landscape improvements are also proposed on the Town of Vail land to the north, east, and west of the site. These improvements include clusters of aspen and evergreen trees and a streetscape bench, located immediately adjacent to the streamwalk. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing fence which runs along the north side of the streamwalk, adjacent to Town of Vail property, in order to make the area east of the Cornice Building more inviting to the public. The fence will remain adjacent to the Cornice Building property to further shield the parking area. The applicant has agreed to be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping on Town property for a period of three years. If any vegetation dies during the three year period it will be replaced by the property owner, his at expense. As shown in the previously listed zoning analysis, 40% of the site is retained as landscaping which exceeds the minimum requirement of 30%. It appears that the proposed landscaping on the property has been planted in a manner which allows for adequate on-site snow storage and adequate site lines for ingress and egress. Staff believes that the applicant's proposal to utilize a heated brick paver driveway as opposed to asphalt or concrete is positive and should compliment the landscaping and open space plan proposed by the applicant. Staff would recommend the addition of one more spruce tree along the southern property line in order to provide a more significant visual buffer between the pedestrian walkway and the proposed vehicle turnaround area, while still allowing for an adequate snow storage area. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has not proposed a phasing plan for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, as it is their intention to complete the entire redevelopment in one phase. The applicant is currently working with the planning staff and Town Engineer to develop an acceptable construction staging plan for this redevelopment. Vh STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Cornice Building Special Development District. We find that the redevelopment proposal is in compliance with the objectives and purpose section of the SDD zone district as well as the other comprehensive plan elements described in detail above. The staff's recommendation of approval is based on our understanding that the following are included in the redevelopment: 1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a demolition/building permit for the redevelopment project, the developer will identify the location of one, two or three permanently restricted employee housing units, which provide a minimum of three bedrooms. The unit(s) shall meet the Town of Vail housing ordinance requirements. The proposal for acceptance of 13 the employee housing unit(s) shall be brought back to the PEC, and possibly Town Council (if so desired), for their review and approval at a regularly scheduled meeting. 2. The applicant agrees to provide a drainage easement to the Town in order to provide for the maintenance of the existing storm water drainage system located on the western edge of this property. The location and width of the easement will be determined by the Town Engineer. 3. The landscape plan will be amended to show the addition of one additional spruce tree along the southern property line in order to provide a more significant visual buffer between the streamwalk and the proposed vehicle turnaround area. The applicant has agreed to be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping on Town property for a period of three years. If any vegetation dies during the three year period it will be replaced by the property owner expense, at his expense. 4. A revocable right-of-way permit will obtained for all improvements on public property. cApec\memoslcornice.228 :7 7 14 ATTACHMENT #1 7 I WiM7-AS, Vail has requested that certain restrictions regarding 11 three (3) employee units be placed on the Cornice Building, hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property. NCW, TH ORE, for the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of uhich is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: t 1. That portion of the ground level on the subject property H comprised of three (3) dwelling units, each having a sleeping area and kitchen and approximately 200 square feet (referred to as Employee Units) shall be used exclusively as employee housing units. 1 ` 2. The three (3) Employee Units shall maintain a minim n IJ square footage of 200 square feet per unit, however, the configuration ;j of the units may be altered. AGREF3 SC THIS AGxr rZ dated the ?-_11d.ay of 1985, by and between THE `INN OF VAIL, COLORADO, hereinafter refeled to as "Vail" and WALTER HUrI'NFR, as the owner of the Cornice Building, hereinafter referred to as "Owner." j! 3. The three (3) Employee Units shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than thirty (30) consecutive days; and, if any such Employee Unit shall be rented, it shall be rented only to '•., tenants who are full-time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail and Avon, and the surrounding areas. A full.-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week. 4. The restrictions contained herein shall remain in effect for a period twenty (20) years from the date of this Agreement. i? } 5. This Agree=nt shall be a covenant running with the land and shall bind the Owner, its heirs, successors, and assigns, and all subsequent lessees and owners of the Subject Property. 1 :OSGRIFF. DUNN & AEpLANALP 3 kTTO RNEY5 AT LAW t ? j 11 SUITE 202 t' COMMERCIAL WING I RRONTAGE RD, W.1 . BOX Sap IL, COLORADO 616513 f (9031 436.7552 i+ ?t Walter Huttner Owner, Cornice Building ATTEST : MAN OF V L COLORADO By . Parrela A. Brandmeyer Rondall V. Phillips, Totem Clerk Town Manager . - a ATTACHMENT #2 FILE Popi:? Meeting Minutes from June 14, 1993, PEC worksession. U Jack Beals stated that Eagle County has asked him to address the building envelope size and that he plans to focus on this aspect of the project next. Mike Mollica stated that a geologist has reviewed and approved the current plan. Greg Amsden asked the applicant where the fire turnaround was located. Jack Beals stated that the "hammerhead" design allows for such a turnaround. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was concerned about the size of the building envelopes for each of the proposed lots and questioned how that relates to the County's standards for development. Jack Beals stated that Eagle County considers this a cluster resubdivision. Mike Mollica stated that the only variance the applicant is requesting from Eagle County pertains to locating the garages of two of the units in the front setback. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was also concerned about the geologic hazards and the sub-surface water on the site. She added that the driveway access to the building envelopes needs to be looked at as well as the landscape plan for the project. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Kathy's comments. Greg Amsden stated that the plan that the applicant was proposing "flows with what is already present in the neighborhood." He stated that he agrees with Kathy's comment concerning revegetation. He said that the applicant needs to be sensitive to the existing topography of the site. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Kathy's and Bill's comments. Jeff Bowen stated that the environmental concerns and soils study pertaining to this project needed to be addressed. Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with the previous comments the PEC members had made. He added that he was particularly concerned with the sub-surface water flow if the site was excavated and that changing or diverting the water flow could affect adjacent property owners. Diana Donovan agreed with all of the previous comments. Mike then stated that he would draft a letter to Eagle County outlining the Commission's comments and concerns. 5. A request for a joint worksesslion with the Design Review Board-and Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the establishment of a SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 1. G7 specifically described as follows: A part of Tract '13" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Fling, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as folbws: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Fling; thence North 79046'00" West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast comer of said Tract "B"; thence South 10°14'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B"; thence North 79°46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract 'B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence North 09°10'07" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 8802711" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27013'37" East a distance of. 77.37 feet; thence North 57024'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo. Tom Braun, the applicant's representative, stated that the Cornice Building is a difficult site to develop and that the applicant had four objectives which he wished to accomplish through the present proposal. Tom stated that it was the applicant's desire to redevelop the site, to maintain the current landscaping on the site, to offer on-site parking to the residents of the Cornice Building and to utilize the available GRFA on the lot for the free market condominium unit. He said that they would try to improve the site lines of the project. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the three employee housing units currently on the site are deed restricted for twenty years. She said that she is concerned with the proposed GRFA and the credits for density. She stated that the Employee Housing Task Force specifically contemplated a trade-off of GRFA or density and that an applicant cannot have both. Concerning the setbacks, Kathy said that she did not have a problem with the proposed setbacks. Concerning the proposed height of the Cornice Building, she stated that although it was true that the zoning allows for a 48 foot high building in this zone district, that is within the setback area and not for those portions of the building located beyond the setback lines. She added that it was her feeling that the verticality was inappropriate as well as the proposed GRFA. She stated that all of the required parking for the condo needs to be provided on-site. She also agreed with staffs suggestion that the covered walkway between the building and the garage needs to be removed. Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Kathy's comments. Dalton Williams stated that he agrees with Kathy's comments_except with regard to parking. He stated that he felt that parking in the parking structure would minimize the site impacts of this project. Bill Anderson stated that he agrees with Kathy's comments but he disagrees with staff's comment on page 7 of the staff memo concerning GRFA and that it was his P Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 2. feeling that the employee housing units should be included in the figure. Greg Amsden stated that it was his opinion that the height of the Cornice- Building is not comparable with the other buildings located in the area because the other buildings have more mass. He suggested that the owner remove the top level or two of the building and that the maximum building height should be 36 to 39 feet. With regard to parking, he said that on-site parking is necessary but should be limited to two parking spaces and that the applicant could pay into the parking fund. He agrees with staffs suggestion that the applicant consider reducing the GRFA of the condominium to 2,000 square feet or less to reduce the parking requirement by one parking space. - Allison lassoe stated that she agreed with Kathy's comments, especially concerning building height. George Lamb and Bob Borne stated that they agreed with Kathy's comments. Sally Brainerd, who spoke on behalf of the Design Review Board, stated that she does not have a problem with a building height of 48 feet. She said that she likes the verticality of the building and feels that it gives the structure character. She added that she was not in favor of a flat roof for the Cornice Building and recommended that the owner consider a simpler roof form that encompasses the whole structure. She also suggested that the covered entry be removed. Diana Donovan stated that there was no parking requirement for this site back when 10 the building was built because the lot was immediately adjacent to a huge parking lot. She said that it was important that a sun/shade analysis be conducted, and that the building was way too high. She asked how on-site construction staging was going to be accomplished on such a small lot. She stated that it was her opinion that the locations of the garage and turnaround need to be switched and that the building needs to stay within the existing footprints. She added that she felt that this project should not be an SDD and that credit should not be given for the three employee housing units since they are already in existence. She felt that the SDD was being used in this instance solely as a mechanism to break the rules and she could not support the project the way it is currently proposed. Dalton and Kathy both agreed with Diana's comments. Tom Braun stated that the SDD concept allows for creativity in development and that it was his feeling that the Cornice Building presented a unique situation with three employee housing units and one free-market condominium unit. He stated that without the GRFA allowance, the project is not economically viable and probably would not be redeveloped. Diana Donovan stated that there were originally eight employee units. Tom Braun added that these were originally eight apartments. Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1993 3. Greg Amsden agreed with Tom's comment that it was a unique site. He said that he felt a hardship did exist on the site and that it was a good location for employee housing. Bill Anderson asked the applicant whether he would be willing to extend the deed restriction past twenty years. Jeff Bowen asked whether there was a way to reorganize Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the proposal so that you would not have to walk through the kitchen to get to the bathroom. Dalton Williams stated that he does not think that this proposal should be an SOD because it is not a large enough site. He added that it was his feeling that this was an inappropriate use of the SOD concept. Tom Braun inquired about the Garden of the Gods project. Diana Donovan stated that the mass and bulk of this proposal needed to be reduced. Jeff Bowen added that he felt that the height of the proposed building was excessive. Bill Anderson stated that he was not convinced that the requested additional GRFA on the site was necessary. Dalton Williams added that he also was not in favor of the proposed GRFA exceedance. Kristan Pritz asked the PEC whether they felt the proposed site coverage, setbacks and parking were okay and whether the GRFA being proposed needed to be reduced. She also inquired whether the PEC found the SOD concept to be acceptable for the Cornice Building proposal. Diana Donovan stated that she felt that a free market condominium was not appropriate on this site. Kathy L.angenwalter stated that she felt the site was too small for the proposed building and added that an SOD for this proposal would not be beneficial to the community. Dalton Williams stated that he could see some benefit to the community for the Cornice Building to be redeveloped and having the employee units restricted forever. Allison Lassoe stated that she was concerned with the proposed location of the windows for the units on the bottom level because they would be covered in the wintertime with snow and would feel "cave-like". Diana Donovan stated that the mass and bulk of the building needed to be redesigned. Planning and Environmental Commission ( June $& *M 4. Kdstan Pritz stated that the public benefit with regard to this project needed to be defined. Jeff Bowen stated that the employee housing units were positive and that he felt parking on-site would be difficult with regard to getting in and out during the winter months. Greg Amsden suggested that the owner consider moving the employee housing to another lot in town. Dalton Williams said he would hate to see it moved out of the Village area. Diana Donovan stated that she did not want to see upper end housing that did not offer parking. She added that she did not feel that this was the best use for this property, maybe the best use is open space. 6. A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center to allow an addition on the southwest corner of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Lionshead 1st Filing/520 Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Oscar Tang Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that there were two parts to the applicant's request, parking and the design of Alfie Packer's entryway. Andy reviewed the five points about the design made in the staff memo. There is general concurrence from the PEC members and DRB members that the proposed addition met the exterior alteration criteria. A concern raised on-site about the width of the passageway from the front to the back of the site as well as a concern about the location for locating the transition of new materials to existing materials were presented by Bill Pierce. Since the site visit, he and Ray Nielson had modified the design, creating a notch in the side of the building. This revision was supported unanimously by the staff, PEC and DRB. Concerning the parking situation, Andy summarized the research the staff had done, concluding that parking could be provided on-site in CCII, as long as the provision regarding 50% of the required parking being within the main building was met. Because of this standard, staff said that they only supported an addition of two spaces, which would be located within the interior of the main building. Bill Pierce said that was acceptable to the applicant but that he would like to revisit the issue and ask for additional spaces to be located on-site. The PEC agreed that locating the two spaces within the main building was reasonable and the fees to be paid into the parking fund could be reduced by $16,000. P Planning and Environmental Commission June 14, 1 993 5. ATTACHMENT #3 Meeting Minutes from Octo r 11, 1993 PEC worksessi.on.--5. A request for a worksession to discuss the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three Type IV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79046'00" West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B"; thence South 10014'00" west along the Easterly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B"; thence North 79°46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence North 09010'47" West a distance of 41.67 feet; thence South 88°27'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27°13'37° East a distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57024'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo. Tom Braun stated that the Cornice Building proposal has been redesigned since the June 14, 1993 PEC worksession. He stated that he wanted feedback from the PEC concerning whether the variance process or SDD process was more appropriate for this proposal. Tom stated that the applicant was requesting the full 2,194 square feet for the free-market condominium unit and that it is their feeling that this will provide a 10 better quality condominium unit and rental units. Concerning the SDD process, he said that it was their feeling that the SDD process was appropriate for the Cornice Building. Jeff Bowen stated that the SDD process required hearings before the PEC and the Town Council and that perhaps the variance process would be more efficient. He stated that a hardship needed to be shown for the variance process. He stated that he was not wild about any development at this site. Jeff said that a possible way to provide a benefit to the Town would be to build a house there and purchase two or three employee housing units off-site. He said that he is against on-site parking of any sort. Tom Braun inquired whether the employee housing would have to be three studio units or whether a three bedroom home would be acceptable. Kristan Pritz stated that if the three employee housing units were located off-site, they would need to conform with the Town of Vail's Housing Ordinance. Allison Lassoe stated that the only benefit that this project could provide to the Town was employee housing. She stated that she would like to see better quality employee housing units provided off-site than have the three proposed, which appear to be in the basement of the building. Planning and Environmental Commission October 11, 1993 1. Dalton Williams asked what the buildable area of the lot would be if the building conformed to the setback requirements in the HDMF zone district. Tom Braun showed him how the lot would look on the drawing. Dalton Williams stated that he could find a hardship on the site. He said he was against the Cornice Building being a SDD. He stated that he would be willing to work with the applicant on setback and parking variances, if the employee housing units were rented to people who lived in the Town of Vail but did not own cars. He said he also liked the idea of providing the employee housing units off-site. Greg Amsden stated that he would prefer to see this project addressed through the SDD process, although he did think the size of the lot was a hardship. He also suggested providing the employee housing off-site. Diana Donovan stated that she did not feel that it was an appropriate site for more development due to the size of the lot, the parking situation and the traffic at this location. She said that she felt that the SDD process was more appropriate for this site than the variance process but with no GRFA credit. She said that no parking should be allowed on this lot irregardless of how it is redeveloped. Bill Anderson inquired which process the applicant would prefer. Tom Braun stated that they would prefer the SDD process. Bill Anderson stated that he did not have a firm commitment at this point to either process. He said that he felt that the GRFA should be limited on this site to 2,195 square feet. He added that he did not feel that credit should be given for the employee housing units. He also agreed that the applicant should explore purchasing employee housing units off-site. He stated that he did not think this was a good site for any kind of building due to its location (headlights in windows, noise, etc.). Kathy Langenwaiter stated that she was against the SDD process in conjunction with, this project. She stated that she could not see additional square footage above the 2,195 square feet allowed on such a small site. She stated that she would like to see the employee housing relocated off-site and be permanently deed restricted. She then took a straw vote of the other commission members regarding their feelings on the appropriate process. Bill Anderson and Greg Amsden stated that they felt that the SDD process was appropriate for the redevelopment of this property. The remainder of the commission members felt that variances were the way to go Kathy then asked for a straw vote regarding the GRFA bonus for the employee housing units. Planning and Environmental Commission October 11, 1993 2. Dalton Williams, Allison Lassoe, Jeff Bowen, Kathy Langenwalter, Greg Amsden, Diana Donovan and Bill Anderson all were opposed to additional GRFA for this project. Greg Amsden inquired whether the current employee housing units had kitchen facilities. Tom Braun stated that the employee housing units had kitchen facilities as well as common laundry and storage facilities. Jim Lamont stated that he was in favor of this project going through the variance process for redevelopment but that he was opposed to the Cornice Building increasing its GRFA. 6. A request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family for an unplatted parcel located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B for the purpose of allowing an employee housing development. Applicant: Vail Housing Authority Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family with the five recommendations outlined on Page 7 plus a sixth recommendation regarding the future uses of the site. Diana Donovan inquired why they had taken access through the schools instead of the four-way stop. Kirk Aker, the architect for the project, stated that if access was taken via the four-way stop, that the grades would be excessive. He then showed the PEC the modifications they had made to the project since the PEC worksession on September 27, 1993. Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned that a large amount of existing vegetation would be removed from the site as a result of the accel and decel lanes and that the Housing Authority did not have the money to replace each tree and bush. Dalton Williams inquired why such a large accel/decel lane was needed for this project. Kirk Aker responded that the Colorado Department of Transportation had a chart which they went by. Andy Knudtsen stated that he had spoken to Greg Hall concerning the accel/decel lane and that the daycare centers have already triggered the requirement for the accel/decel lanes. Planning and Environmental Commission October 11, 1993 3. ATTACHMENT #4 TOi ff" OF MIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 FILE CUP y Department of Community Development December 8, 1993 Mr. Tom Braun, AICP Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. 103 South Frontage Road, Suite 204 Vail, CO 81657 RE: Cornice Building employee housing units Dear Tom: This letter is intended to respond to your letter to me dated November 24, 1993 concerning the feasibility of providing off-site employee housing units to replace those currently existing on the Cornice Building property. Also, although we have previously discussed staff's response to the questions raised in your November 15, 1993, letter to me, I thought it would be helpful to reiterate our position in this letter. Staff response to the four questions raised in the November 15, 1993 letter: 1.1 While the three existing units located in the Cornice Building do not comply with all of the technical standards outlined in the Town of Vail Employee Housing (EHU) Ordinance, they most closely resemble Type IV units and may be used for determining off-site equivalents. The three units at the Cornice Building do provide housing for three people in a private living environment. While searching for off-site employee housing units, please keep in mind the quality of the living environment as well as the minimum number of people needing to be housed. Staff believes that, at a minimum, the three employees should be provided with their own bedroom. 2. All off-site units proposed to replace the three existing Cornice Building units must be permanently restricted in accordance with the Town of Vail EHU Ordinance. 3. Redevelopment plans for the Cornice Building could be approved conditioned upon the applicant providing the equivalent number of off-site employee housing units prior to the issuance of either a demolition permit or a building permit for the Cornice Building redevelopment. Staff's concern is that the off-site employee housing units are available at the same time, or earlier than, the three existing units are removed from the housing market. 1. Mr. Braun December 8, 1993 Page Two 4. As you know, staff has spent considerable time reviewing the Cornice Building redevelopment proposals which were discussed at two PEC worksessions. Staff would be agreeable to determining how much, if any, of the original SDD application fee has not been used by staff and credit the remainder towards future variance applications you may submit. This determination will be based on an hourly rate of $40.00 per hour. Staff response to the November 24, 1993 letter: The statement in your letter is correct that all newly constructed EHUs will be required to meet one of the five types outlined in the EHU Ordinance. We also agree that there may be instances in the future where restricted EHU's may be dedicated which do not meet every provision of the ordinance due to some peculiar situation. Staff feels that your proposal to permanently restrict three employee housing units to replace those currently held under a temporary restriction at the Cornice Building site is an unusual situation warranting special review. While we would encourage you to comply in every way with the Town of Vail. EHU Ordinance, we are open to reviewing specific sites that may differ slightly from the requirements in the EHU Ordinance. It should be pointed out, however, that staff would probably not look favorably upon proposed deviations from the parking or minimum square footage requirements contained in the EHU Ordinance. With regard to your specific proposal to replace the Cornice Building units with a one bedroom Type 11 EHU and a one bedroom condominium unit, staff feels that the quality of the living environment as well as the proximity to employment and activity areas are very important factors in determining an acceptable trade. Staff feels that although the three studio units are small, they do provide a quality living environment in terms of privacy, access to work, etc. In determining acceptable alternate locations staff feels that, at a minimum, the three employees that we are attempting to house should be provided with individual bedrooms. However, if a particular condominium has been located, we will be happy to review your specific request at that time. To recap, staff agrees that in light of the unusual situation we are dealing with in regard to relocating and permanently restricting the Cornice Building employee housing units, it may be possible to consider minor deviations from the standards in the EHU Ordinance. However, we feel that a determination regarding what deviations may be acceptable can only be made through a specific review of the units you are proposing to deed restrict. If the units being proposed are deemed by staff to be of equal or better quality than the existing Cornice Building units, in terms of the quality of the living environment, accessibility to employment and activity centers, etc., staff may consider supporting minor deviations from the strict standards contained in the EHU Ordinance. 2. "I Mr. Braun December 8, 1993 Page Three I hope this information is of assistance to you as you search for acceptable off-site employee housing units. However, if you should have additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Jim Curnutte Town Planner xc: File 3. i ( s ? 1 seos? env mvP!,m! wf- /--- WATEK tFNM ??? CA tee, D '1'r 1a y1 tfi i _ ? e?.?v an.? l +r , 4(/ +111.9 f ?' / f 4?fie??? 6FtiC4'. fD4v? OFUiiE- ` // . l 491, t4ANP,R1 •? / f ?; ..1rNr 01 F?/1? [r1+3!i . ??? tiasl?rrr>?ne 9-he L4wcs s?r? ru?N A LJ l' Nt 1 me Kq N(e = Low,,N 6' n?' tS 'cr ?c rrv l €xc mix ? kk J sSfl ?f i HCATEC rp4c IPNM V"VIFI _ k / /? / e / G `Not tI1 -wr c I. D1 G. F hr. - -a... - .•.ss f s A&A L A ter AQQ1144141AIPI&O t t ? IWO // FF tt R , _? .i I I A A, 11 . .?a..' .. _. eLt. A ?U. vt.t_ "h 'L j ?+ _. L , It 4 l a.. . ! a...?' - t. x_._!u .• - .. ...t ?._ a 4A k + .. L.Y.. a. t?.. i_ t K N- T a- /4a.k.._ ! L •t A. + a t. Y fr ? a r`? ._ 5 A -? 1 I 1 I in r i ?i j k c i i I ??yYf?? ?uuts; Mcz WEST ELEVATION ScAis "f1= i'-d 3 JAN 24. k944 rtAttli'% utatrark• A .a.wr w r-A; 914].iU &VA Y, 7 wi v? ? Y lF k L. • F??f `i ;1 J[ Opt e 51- k ? } _ ` ? _ .L....•.. ? ? ? ? ems-". 3' - •,r-t_ ' ,?.??i ? .. ,? , saym ELEVATION JAN 24, t944 r _ i5 DAVID WILLIAM HAASE ASSOCIATES gtttiMW?v?tworovE rEquwNE+6?1ri.fiwuf?k7isbsta p04?MiAN ?? ?C m 4 0 tA.?.?h_1__...iL L_A k.-• _... t. •La.?r_... ?._t. -.a a ?U. A s. L ILA. t A. l k t& V 1?' # i .a Li w t At.4L1 r _ LJLI--2- 1 z S 1! •a _. R $ a`J 'CL E *s x 1 . l _ j 5 s+S,cLO II A' t 1 c o ? r - a • 1 r & ( m EAST CLEVNT,ON scw V? I'd b JAS 24, t9 ?t4 6 De?R.NN6 CYt f/ALA MI +- V(6IIII, •? W777W.??? 3 CLAR GARj\rq a 546 sgr.T ? caz mart R ? ceR !a•Ca •2 w 4P.;: A 611 s@R rwon a1 1087 sarr mmmas 719 SQFr imMrt-03 'T'OTAL GM 2417 OQ Fr Ak?L A-*a Imc- Aso -I qF'r evPoW%'0" _l 1hco GARAa ,.me Sa SCALE W- i rte. JAN 24.1494 o- a 'a 9 .- 29?- oacrwaf?wr i i va.a. ??rj t 7PtN XYtG#1 i e } I ?, ?h : aro?i ??° ^h i r,RFA 1087 s4.VT The oN \ WRY! LEVEL"2' - SCALE Y4' 1'-O 6 18' ?.. _.. JAN. 24. 1994 "A lIM tAlfl r i r u LJ A A OM r aal%f'- A?rme = v a , ? al -?t - t; `? r f •I t rt KtTCHfM I YI at r Ir rr 11 Yi ap 4 ?g 1 9 Y t,' ? t Y ?- ? f f a f Y It ri rr tt f of ?F fr M+ ? I I i i Q i r f` _ - qY t Yr tr -rvn t EAv t Y r Z[Y"OVER,UWL ELIVATof, f GREAT RCOMa ?ro»G+r awl Sil]ES 1 1 py_yx 111•-41 s #ni".s_ ! f 1 a cc) re ff aY raui??.. f r , f d °' : ? t y • czar ?, 1 OPEN /.00'Vf w .ur r.,A ? f - ED17RY alE 4QW? I ? ,?-- - ? G RYA -719 - ? , -opau -?gReer Nkn'ry Q •?I r? r?r'AC& CREpT ROAM LEVEL"34 Scats Yt"•t-o` 4 JAN 24, N94 #+?i##!? #•### p 1?.?I #.?i.e Alm ?A?'Ai?M?t?]YL.? •:s..? " `'i?' , MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 28, 1994 SUBJECT: A request to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 302 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Juanita Pedotto, and her representative, Greg Amsden, would like to rezone a parcel of land in Intermountain from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi- Family. If rezoned, the applicant is planning to construct nineteen dwelling units in fourteen structures. The parcel of land is 2.49 acres, OfHthis, there are 2.36 acres that are considered buildable abr the Town of Vail standards. In addition to a rezoning, the proposal includes a minor subdivision request. In the future, the applicant intends to use the single family subdivision process to sell off the individual dwelling units. Prior to this, however, the currently unplatted parcel must be platted as a lot. This provides an opportunity to document building footprint locations, GRFA restrictions, and other development standards on the plat. These standards will be listed on the plat and will be applicable to any developer as well as future home owners. :7 Since the previous worksession, the applicant has deleted one single family dwelling unit from the site plan. Another change is that the building envelopes have been deleted and replaced with specific building footprints. Previously, a prototypical footprint was shown within an envelope. It measured 37 feet by 37 feet. The updated footprints have been increased to 40 by 54 feet for the larger type of unit and 38 by 30 feet for the smaller type. The footprints will be a minimum of 15 feet apart. The applicant is requesting the ability to shift the footprints as much as ten feet, if needed. However, staff believes a maximum of 5 feet is all that is reasonable. Changes in footprint location would have to be approved by the ORB. Fifteen feet of separation would have to be maintained for both the structures and decks. The current site, alan proposed by the applicant is made up of nineteen dwellingsunits in. fourteen structures _rvNine of these will be single family residences. Three of them will be single family residences with a deed restricted caretaker unit located above the garage. Four of the dwelling units will be located in two duplexes. The total number of structures would be fourteen. Total GRFA for these dwelling units is anticipated to be 25,900 square feet. A site plan is attached at the end of this memo which shows where these structures would be located. The chart below shows the break down of the structures and units: Number of Units 9 single family 3 single family with EHU's 2 duplexes TOTAL: 9 6 4' 19 Number of Structures 9 3 2 14 The architect has designed three styles for the fourteen structures. These are shown in the perspective attached at the end of the memo. Each type will have the same materials, which include a stucco first story and horizontal cedar siding on the second story. The roofs will be shake shingles and will have clipped gables. There will be corbels to support the second story cantilevers as well as the eaves. The windows will all have shutters to help create a bavarian appearance. Though there are three different interior plans, the exterior mass and bulk is almost identical for two of the units. Therefore, there will appear to be only two different types of exteriors. The larger home, with the caretaker unit, will have a footprint measuring 40 feet by 54 feet. The smaller home will have a footprint measuring 38 feet by 30 feet. The neighboring properties to the parcel under consideration include: North: Columbine North East: Primary/Secondary development South: Camelot Townhouses and single family development West: Primary/Secondary development 0 - 2 The property to the north and east is zoned Residential Cluster. The property to the south and west is zoned Primary/Secondary. The Land Use Plan has designated the parcel under consideration as Medium Density Residential. Per Land Use Plan, a range of seven to thirty- three units is possible based on the 2.49 acres. This translates to three to fourteen dwelling units per acre. Ila BACKGROUND/FORMER REQUESTS In October of 1990, the Professional Development Corporation proposed employee housing developments on several sites in the Town of Vail. The Pedotto site was one of them. In their request, they proposed Medium Family Multi-Family (MDMF) zoning. In the memo dated October 29, 1990, staff recommended that the applicant reduce the number of units on this site to LDMF densities and maintain the amount of GRFA on the site to RC standards. The proposal for the site is shown below: Tvoe of Unit Number of Units Souare Footaqe GRFA Efficiency Units 6 435 sq. ft. 2,610 sq. ft. One Bedroom Units 6 482 sq. ft. 2,892 sq. ft. Two Bedroom Units 27 609 sq. ft. 16,443 sq. ft. TOTAL: 39 21,945 sq. ft. IIh ZONING ANALYSIS Total Site Area: 108 682 s uare feet or 2 49 acres q , . Buildable Area: 102,788 square feet or 2.36 acres Allowed Dwelling Units Employee Housing Densitv Allowed Units Allowed GRFA Allowed- Primary/Secondary: 15,000 sq. ft. of 12 dwelling units 6 EHU's by 24,368 +5,100 = buildable required conditional review" 29,468 sq. ft. per lot (six lots) Residential Cluster: 6 dwelling units per 14 dwelling units 25,697 + 3,150 = buildable acre 28,847 sq, ft. Low Density Multiple Family: 9 dwelling units per 21 dwelling units 30,836 + 4,725 = buildable acre 35,561 sq. ft. Land Use Plan Medium Density Residential: 3 to 14 dwelling units 7 to 33 dwelling units - - per buildable acre Proposed: 8.5 dwelling units 16 dwelling units 3 EHU's 21,625 + 4,275 = per buildable acre 25,900 sq, ft. *These 6 EHU's would not count in density calculations. -Garages not included in GRFA calculations. Staff has analyzed the proposed site plan submitted by the applicant and has provided a zoning analysis below. Total Site Area: 108,682 sq. ff. or 2.49 acres Buildable Area: 102,788 sq. ft. or 2.36 acres Zoning which would be in effect: Low Density Multi-Family Allowed Per LDMF Standards Proposed Uses: Single Family, Two Family, and Multi-Family Single Family and Two Family Lot Area: Minimum size: 10,000 sq. ft. of buildable 102,788 sq. ft. of buildable Setbacks: Required: Front: 20' Front: 20' Side: 23' (west) Side: 20' Side: 20' (east) Side: 20' Rear: 20' Rear: 20" Height: 38' GRFA: 30,836 + 4,725 = 35,561 sq, ft. Density: 9 dwelling units per buildable acre or 21 dwelling units Site Coverage: 35% of total area or 38,038.7 sq. ft. Landscaping: 40% of total site area or 43,472.8 sq. ft. Parking: Per off-street parking requirements IV. REZONING CRITERIA A. Suitabilitv of the oronosed zoning. 33' 21,625 + 4,275 = 25,900 sq. ft. 8.1 dwelling units per buildable acre or 19 dwelling units 19.5% or 21,137 sq. ft. 71.8%0 or 73,761 sq. ft. Meets code Staff's analysis of the suitability of the proposed zoning focuses on density, compatibility with surrounding developments, and ways that the proposed development can be buffered from existing neighboring uses. Staff recognizes that many of the surrounding properties adjacent to this parcel are multi-family complexes. The applicant has estimated their densities to exceed Residential Cluster (RC) standards and staff has confirmed this information. The surrounding multi-family developments have densities that range from 11.3 dwelling units per acre to 22.2 dwelling units per acre. Please see the chart below. There are also surrounding single family and primary/secondary developments which have densities that are lower than the proposal. 0 4 Name Units Area Density Interlocken 39 1.80 21.6 Columbine North 16 .92 17.4 i Flussheim 4 24 13.8 Innsbrook 8 .36 22.2 Columbine West 7 _62 11.3 Camelot 8 .36 222 Though the density of the surrounding properties are higher than Residential Cluster, the type of development (single family, duplex or multi-family) effects the way the density appears on this site. For example, many of the developments are made up of townhouses. Since the units are more compact than detached single family homes, the structures do not cover as much of the site and are likely to have larger areas of useable open space. Staff believes that the proposal should be modified to improve the amount of useable open space, to reduce the amount of asphalt, and to increase architectural variety within the clusters on the site. Specifically, staff believes that Units 13 and 14, Units 7 and 3, and Units 1 and 2 should be combined. The units to be consolidated, however, should be the smaller of the two styles. At this time, the larger unit with the employee housing caretaker apartment is shown in each of the three areas. We are concerned that the structures may be too large if triplexes are created. Therefore, in addition to consolidating these footprints, staff believes that the employee housing units should be shifted to other footprints in the development. We believe that the variety of massing created by a combination of units will help the development be more compatible with the surrounding properties, as they have been developed in more of a townhouse style. In addition, staff believes that the resulting open spaces will be larger and will be able to accommodate additional landscaping, particularly on the northeast, northwest and central portions of the site. Landscaping is a key issue in staff's opinion, as the amount of density to be considered under the rezoning proposal should be evaluated based on how it is buffered from adjacent properties. Staff is primarily concerned about the perimeter of the site. At this time, the applicant has committed to the following: 1. Six clusters of aspen located around the perimeter of the project along Bellflower and Kinnickinnick. These clusters range from three to eight aspen each. 2. On the east end of the site, there will be ten to twelve aspen along Basingdale. 0 5 3. Two planting areas of aspen made up of a total of fifteen to twenty trees will be located next to the Camelot Townhouses, Staff understands that the drawings submitted to the _Design Review Board (DRB) will include additional landscaping and that the landscaping shown on these plans reflects the basic lan_dscapin needed to buffer adiacent properties. The landscaping listed above must be incorporated into the DRB drawings and must be planted prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit adjacent to the landscaping. Another key issue that relates to landsca inq is the preservation of the green space in -the center portion of the site. Since the last worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEG), the applicant has had an environmental assessment (EA) done for the wetland area. This report is attached to the back of this memo and delineates the boundary of the wetland area as well as a 10 foot buffer area along all sides of the wetlands. The map from the EA was drawn on the previous plan which showed a building footprint within the buffer area. This has been corrected. The revised location sites the building outside the buffer area. Staff believes that any rezoning approval should be conditioned with a requirement that the consultant return to the site in the spring or summer to confirm that his analysis made during winter months is accurate. Any modifications that would be generated by the consultant would have to be included into the site plan. Building footprints would have to be shifted if the update indicates that they are located in the buffer area. If the footprints need to be shifted, staff believes the project should be reconsidered by the PEC. There are some large existing aspen in this area adjacent to the wetland area to the west. They range in size from two inch caliper to eight inch caliper. Staff believes that any trees that can be transplanted should be. If they are to be cut down, they should be replaced on a 1:1 ratio based on the caliper of the tree to be removed. For example, and eight inch caliper tree would have to be replaced with two 4 inch caliper trees. Staff believes this is reasonable since larger trees do not transplant well according to the Town's Landscape Architect. Staff understands that the applicant desires to change the zoning from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi Family to allow additional units, not necessarily more GRFA or site coverage. The applicant has agreed to reduce the amount of GRFA to below Primary/Secondary standards and maintain the amount of site coverage and height to Primary/Secondary standards. These restrictions will be recorded as plat restrictions. Staff does not have a problem with the number of units if they can be sited in such a way to provide adequate open space, buffering and minimal site coverage. In order to achieve this, we believe_ a more clustered design _, concept is necessary. We feel an adequate landscape plan has been provided, the wetland area has been protected, and that unit layout is good as long as the units are combined as suggested above. 6 0 B. Is the Amendment Providina a Convenient. Workable Relationship with Land Uses Consistent With Municipal Obiectives? Under this criteria, staff has evaluated the rezoning proposal to ensure that it will provide workable relationships to those properties around the site. In addition, the rezoning proposal must be consistent with the Municipal Objectives. Ensuring that the future development will have a reasonably compatible relationship with the existing neighborhood has been the focus of much of this review. On January 17, 1994, there was a neighborhood meeting attended by approximately thirty neighbors. Attached to the memo are all of the letters that have been received by staff from the neighbors. The primary concerns of the neighbors seem to revolve around pedestrian safety and traffic safety. Staff has contacted the Police Department and the Public Works Department since the neighborhood meeting to ask them to look at increasing patrol as well as increasing the number of stop signs in the area. This appears to be a problem that needs to be solved independent of the rezoning issue. However, the proposal will have some positive impact on these issues, since there will be public improvements made by the developer. The Town is requiring the developer to provide a sidewalk that will run the length of the property. The applicant is proposing a 6 foot wide walk that will be detached from the edge of pavement on Kinnickinnick. The Town is requiring that this be a hard surface walk that can be maintained during winter months. It will be the responsibility of the homeowners association to keep the walk clear. This is a Town wide requirement that applies to all developments that have adjacent sidewalks. The applicant is proposing a cinder walk; however, staff believes it must be hard surface. Please see the plat restrictions at the end of this memo regarding the sidewalk and other public improvements. A concern related to safety involves the number of curb cuts on Basingdale, Bellflower, and Kinnickinnick. Originally, the applicant had submitted a plan with five curb cuts on Kinnickinnick and three on Bellflower and Basingdale. Since the original submittal, the architect has removed all curb cuts off of Basingdale and Bellflower. Staff believes that this is a significant improvement as the driveways were previously located relatively close to the intersections. At this time there are five curb cuts for the entire project which access from Kinnickinnick. These curb cuts access shared driveways. Staff believes that the revised plan provides a more efficient use of the site and leaves more of the land as landscaped area and open space. Though there has not been an increase in the number of curb cuts on Kinnickinnick from what was originally submitted, staff believes there is an opportunity to improve the situation. By relocating the access to Building Envelope #1 from Kinnickinnick to the shared access on the southwest corner of the site, there would be more open space around Building Envelope #1, and one less curb cut on Kinnickinnick. Staff believes that this would be an improvement. Another concern of the neighborhood involved parking, storage, and general appearance of the project. The neighbors were concerned that individuals living in this development would not have adequate parking and that additional cars would be parked in the neighboring parking lots. Staff has reviewed this concern with the 7 developer and believes that the two car garages for each unit and the driveways in front of each unit will accommodate the parking demand. An alternative would be to create a parking lot for guests, However, staff believes that the parking apron in front of each garage can accommodate guests most of the time. Regarding storage, during the neighborhood meeting it was suggested that there be an area on the side of each garage for bicycles and other miscellaneous items. The applicant has designed one of the garages to be 480 square feet. The drawings show a template of a Suburban and a Cherokee to indicate how much of the garage will be taken up by automobiles. The remaining area of the garage will be available for storage, and staff believes that this will be an adequate amount. One of the goals with the storage area was to ensure that the two parking spaces will always be available for parking. Though this cannot be guaranteed, staff believes that providing the storage that is shown on the drawings is a reasonable assurance that the spaces will be available. Staff believes it is critical that the other units (with garages approximately 387 square feet in size) be expanded to the size of the larger garage. A significant concern to the planning staff was how the developer was going to work out agreements with the neighbors adjacent to the southwest corner of the site concerning parking and access. Currently, there are parking and driveway encroachments onto the Pedotto property by the neighbors. The applicant has worked closely with the two existing homeowners in this area and has worked out agreements with them for shared access. This access also includes a fire truck turnaround. All of the driveway in this area will be paved. The adjacent owners will share the expenses with the developer. Staff believes that this is an excellent resolution to a problem that has occurred for some time. Staff wants to emphasize the positive benefits that result from the solution have been negotiated by the applicant. One of the final issues of concern by the neighbors involves the appearance of the project. The applicant has provided prototypical elevations as well as a perspective of three homes sharing one driveway. Staff believes that the design character of the homes is positive, including the materials, detailing and general massing. Staff believes that the three employee housing units proposed in this development are consistent with the Land Use Plans goals of the Town to have employee housing units added to our community. We believe that this component of the development addresses a larger community need. By dispersing the three deed restricted employee housing units among the nineteen dwelling units, staff believes that there is a good balance of free market and employee units within the development. Attached to the end of this memo are employee housing restrictions that have been tailored for this development. They are based on the Type III EHU; however, they do not include provisions that allow the sale of the employee housing unit. C. Does the Rezonino Provide for the Growth of an Orderly. Viable Communitv? In order to ensure that the future development on the rezoned parcel will be developed in an orderly manner, staff has prepared the following plat restrictions which will be located on the plat and recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder: 8 Plat Restrictions 1. All construction shall conform to the standards listed below and shall comply with the building footprints shown on the attached site plan. 2. There must be a minimum 15 foot separation between structures, including all decks and cantilevered portions, but excluding eaves. Prior to the application for any building permit, the applicant must provide survey information verifying the location of previously built structures to show that the 15 foot separation requirement will be met. 3. The height limitation for the development on this parcel shall be lowered from the 38 feet allowed by LDMF zoning to 33 feet. 4. All driveways to be constructed on this site shall not exceed 8% slope. 5. GRFA and site coverage shall be allocated for the structures as follows: Building Envelope # Dwelling Units Credit GRFA Total Allowed Site Coverage Height 1 2 450 sq. ft. 2,080 sq. ft. 2,530 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft_ 33 ft. 2 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq, ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 3 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 4 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 5 2 450 sq, ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. 6 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. + 33 M. 7 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq, ft. J 33 ft. 8 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 133 ft. 9 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 10 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq, ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 11 2 450 sq, ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq, ft. 33 ft. 12 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft, 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 13 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 14 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. 6. No fences shall be allowed on this property. 7. Phasing - The applicant shall provide the employee housing units according to the phases shown below. C 9 A. Prior to the issuance of a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit located on Building Footprints #1 through #6, the applicant shall secure a final Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the first of three deed restricted employee housing units. B. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit on Building Footprints 7, 8, 9 or 10, the applicant shall secure a final CO or TCO for the second of three deed restricted EHU for the development. C. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit located on Building Footprints 11, 12, 13, or 14, the applicant shall secure a final CO or TCO for the third of three deed restricted employee housing units. The Fire Department and Public Works Department have reviewed the proposal and support the project with the following conditions. Fire Department The fire access easement must be defined and then recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder prior to DRB approval of any dwelling unit. The easement must be posted in field with "No Parking" signs. 2. All driveway surfaces must be "all weather driving surfaces." 0 3. The fire truck turnaround must be expanded to 20 feet in width. 4. Hydrants must be installed according to Town of Vail standards. Public Works 1. Detailed regrading and landscape plans for the sidewalk and right-of-way area must be provided prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling units. The Town Engineer is requiring sidewalks, curb, gutter, storm sewer, inlets, engineering drawings and/or grading plans to be provided by the developer. The Town Engineer may allow a ditch with a detached sidewalk, but needs additional information to verify that this design will function. 2. Easements must be dedicated for the sidewalks, drainage, utilities, road side ditches, streetlights, etc. prior to a DRB hearing for anv dwelling unit, D. Does the rezonina comaly with the Vail Land Use Plan? Staff has listed the relevant goals and objectives from the Land Use Plan below: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. v 10 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5_1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5__,5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The Land Use Plan designates this site as Medium Density Residential. Under this designation, the dwelling units allowed on this site range from 7 to 33. Based on the MDR designation, staff believes some increase in units by rezoning is reasonable. The goals and objectives in the Land Use Plan describe development generally like the one being proposed. Goals 1.12 and 5.1 call for infill development that is not located in hazards. This plan complies with these goals. Also, the Land Use Plan calls for additional employee housing, which will be included in this proposal. Staff believes the three employee housing units proposed are positive. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning and minor subdivision. We believe the proposed LDMF zoning is consistent with the rezoning criteria and will be compatible with the surrounding properties. Specifically, staff believes that the requested zoning is suitable for the site given that it will be integrated into the neighborhood per the design of the site plan. We belive that the request provides for workable relationships with surrounding land uses and is consistent with municipal objectives. Specifically, it is consistent with five different goals as well as the MDR land use designation of the Town's Land Use Plan. Finally, staff believes that the plat restrictions will insure that the development will contribute the viability of the community. The proposed subdivision meets all of the platting requirements of the code. Therefore staff recommends approval with the conditions that 1. The developer shall submit the subdivision plat, site plan, and recording fees to the Town prior to issuance of any building permit for a structure on this property. The plat and site plan shall include the plat restrictions listed below and all future development shall conform to these. a. All construction shall conform to the standards listed below and shall comply with the building footprints shown on the attached site plan. b. There must be a minimum 15 foot separation between structures, including all decks and cantilevered portions, but excluding eaves. Prior to the application for any building permit, the applicant must provide survey information verifying the location of previously built structures to show that the 15 foot separation requirement will be met. 11 C. The height limitation for the development on this parcel shall be lowered from the 38 feet allowed by LDMF zoning to 33 feet, d. All driveways to be constructed on this site shall not exceed 8% slope. e. GRFA and site coverage shall be allocated for the structures as follows: Building Envelope # Dwelling Units Credit GRFA Total Allowed Site Coverage Height 1 2 450 sq. ft. 2,080 sq. ft. 2,530 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 33 ft. 2 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 3 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. fl. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 4 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 5 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. 6 1 225 sq. it. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 7 1 225 sq, ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 8 2 450 sq. ft. 1-,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. 9 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 10 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq, ft. 1,650 sq, ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 11 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. 12 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 13 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 14 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 ft. f. No fences shall be allowed on this property. g. Phasing - The applicant shall provide the employee housing units according to the phases shown below. i. Prior to the issuance of a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit located on Building Footprints #1 through #6, the applicant shall secure a final Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the first of three deed restricted employee housing units. ii. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit on Building Footprints 7, 8, 9 or 10, the applicant shall secure a final CO or TCO for the second of three deed restricted EHU for the development. iii. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit located on Building Footprints 11, 12, 13, or 14, the applicant shall secure a final CO or TCO for the third of three deed restricted employee housing units. 2. The developer shall have the Environmental Assessment updated and shall have any required amendment to the site plan presented to the PEC for their review and approval prior to the issuance of building permit on this property. 3. Building Footprints 1 and 2, 7 and 8, and 13 and 14 shall be combined into duplexes and the employee housing units shall be relocated to other building footprints on this site. The revised site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the PEC prior to any DRB hearing for any dwelling unit on this property. 12 4. The driveways serving Building Footprint #1 shall be relocated from Kinnickinnick to the shared common access on the southwest corner of the property. This modification shall be made to prior to any DRB hearing for any dwelling unit on this property. 5. Existing landscaping located west of the green space area in the center of the site shall be transplanted or replaced on a 1:1 ratio based on the caliper of the existing trees. 6. The applicant shall amend the site plan and subdivision plat according to the Public Works and Fire Department comments listed below. These changes shall be done prior to any DRB hearing for any dwelling unit on this site. Fire Department A. The fire access easement must be defined and then recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder prior to DRB approval of any dwelling unit. The easement must be posted in field with "No Parking" signs. B. All driveway surfaces must be "all weather driving surfaces." C. The fire truck turnaround must be expanded to 20 feet in width. D. Hydrants must be installed according to Town of Vail standards. Public Works A. Detailed regrading and landscape plans for the sidewalk and right-of- way area must be provided prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling units. The Town Engineer is requiring sidewalks, curb, gutter, storm sewer, inlets, engineering drawings and/or grading plans to be provided by the developer. The Town Engineer may allow a ditch with a detached sidewalk, but needs additional information to verify that this design will function. B. Easements must be dedicated for the sidewalks, drainage, utilities, road side ditches, streetlights, etc. prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling unit. cApec\mem os\pedoto 12.13 E 13 C? V:7 N-P } iitr I PLAT OF SURVEY OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIANS EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO rrrar>rr . a `? rrr ,r -_ 1' ? ? qr ul NYytl I• iY• rwtYw•t r•tzt•, lwMCtf? if r•w'rrii i• wrY• lIM a ewUN¢N 1•tl wavtlYt i• M rt•N ti[ GI•eYM S } rays N M f[Y •I iwi r flw. Y? I.-awNt lift !1•c r Ir•MrN !s•r U• 1 t f w ?. r NrtYavtY}r NwrfMr 1•llwa a •es••} t/i1? i«r4 +W[ ?r f?rwt aw rU}Ywr wear W t•tYa» N•i•r.,1is •.• v i to tM f fp¢. ? r" ? t !•r•t a•far • r • L !ae Wta•K «r••r II•t N 1a•ri Yr UU tyf tY •Mw a•KtIY•f . -` °' = ` _ - ?• rapt- ?? at fw?'.a "o.ar t« • • N sl i.a. }n..at t•.i a. a? w..t . ,t} ?a,r ..,. n.wra .Id 9r. n? rwa iwt a i« J• t•N a•. asti n . • ..ew. :a Iwrn «. ,aa.a •iw. '?'r° v _ IS Iww• r2 r•c•Nr W fli. ii 1.1s tNi } Ta••p rtY •"?'7 °?? ?a.::asrr . rrrw.r 4,rwr ty wN• tf ••a•tl• . li.T1?«al i•••c• I•S.a} '/ ' x? '• a,,,, ___ ___ S«es ti? • Y it M Y ri••«• 21 wa•W Wt {2. ii 1«,: i w fa •1. "t ?«:r r i`.i.u ?«1 :is.r e • t . wra. Fa. Lu ar'm' ?re?.? w,.:`a.^. I _ I_ ?? t Y Ne ttlt•Nt • wN M•tIN rws1Yrit N• i.ie«• SS al«tN }i .w4 • fli.at U•t! 1 N.«« SyWr[• fr ••?cM1 Y•a ttf.if /«el iwteUr ia• Ir•t 1•N •[e ' -•« rvr _-v'°rr .` _• . ?y_ ?? ? •r« • N?Yy/1w Nitlay(• `SY•[Ni1?iP [??Cit?iYV?t Swtr 11 ' ?•tr«a N r r°- ? ?: ?'_ ; •r•« 21 alwtU fl •«•v4 W[, tif.fl f••tl r. ? r ? ?-?. .... .._: fia?Y.ra• r«tY O 4tr••r 1Y rlwua .} «UW w• . 51l,N e«p S °r?•rrr. ..?.. r• .raiM t, i•tiwx t .il`l`s •? „sifli rii' lal?ir ir•t`Y i __ ? .. .. _ !t] ? ? 'r.« t`. t ii a• "w ¢e ?f: i:: it • • w i iii?irti:a, ? a ?+. ??•v r °- ?J-• 1 tM.w INrr¢Y llale.r?« S} f«[ae lJ •k??•M• W`. l}r.N 1 ---- 1 v.` 1 x ': iy St .fant« }} w. . t}S.,S t..1 r Y. «[N tai.. , YtirK , .?- ?_ ??rr_ !? M•rlw tt•• r.c.r. t•aaar Ur I«[Y Lit •! r•eatN il•• M • \ _? S ' Wiz'; ?vl Ott 1? a S 47 k ? i -wr"°?:io.`?? ',.r" ?rnxr. r•rtlln ` IlwIl r'0 t a awr•.+rcn ere tart ? tCP a•ru wftitss tner2or ,ue ntrrir _rF, att RUSH COWMINIUMS `yam q taw wr - ,gym ca,nT?., r fv.uo rt r.2 YlE3r ki7GE COFIDMiiN:JM r .',u t . nanri•} urns. a• ? 4K••af,fMDar•rv,rr •t[,a'r YK ?au`•cua+ruiuiar '}}ir Aa ? tart u ¢ca fz»ernr,aa rn, • rtr wr. - 4L iti TER!AL"t4*{FAtf7 ' p ti••,r,,.? . GEU?v aM£!J M" V w. url.r ' ,.rw cwrre inle.clcs ut rr...fs a. r WWrt •'O'na M+[' r[[tl Hass Y•c rr parr w Hatt snwrrrrtwacrrr:wa mlr uuw.r,¢cw.w 4 arrrisa ' ' ' I ' ` r rr iuaa! SM •f .x. r o ry it irUrl r srr--wa•r star` rant •t.r• s•.w •at0 r• 4n lr r IM [fra,r[•¢wi? D ?. ` ¦,roYaiY faao' sr'ri YY rK ??tiir?,r r,rrp ar.•,nso il•!w Rw rsiw} ra.wrfw a al«Wlw rw r.r ••rww .•r 1•r•/ ..afw Yrtl w.. w asps a}. a•rrsr Wwf• svw swr - rr TKr •tta f?Nllr•a ?fN•wr •wr wiwa. r. r ... [ ••F ? rtlw •t•• •Yr Rapt 1• tau ••rv,1 Y •a•arr•aN rr• tW tw r••tt t[r i•• ra• tf tr •.ratflwef•• •r+ re•w. Y}[ • - ` ? iOF C 1? . ! - "Mm Kr F{[U I=, S N ra r SING 4SS OCI 4F S' t1 I 75a r21tl[ I LCCTf 0 ' ? I . f~ at?I2r . ?? ?. ?,Er . , VI. CO. 805 ? s T } ? ? iK- GRAPHIC SCALE v [wrtv5 FINAL PLAT OF INNSBRUCK MEADOWS LOCH TED IN THE SW 114, SECTION 14, T. 5 S, R. 81 W, 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN A SUBDI VISION IN TOWN OF VA IL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO xASS eL• _ wa ?zw ?. VV.) cys d poRD ?5d R, / ?,s tf i O _LfBRUCK MEADOWS pfd g 1PQ FEET Q 4,9 CRZS w n gyrl ? .xnar Nic w i nrv anaa+nvr LYIIfF AAp/S lLMCAf TAUOt1T1 CM'!V K.aw.E LI[i Tit H Jnst' ffus:' Ai T' HLJIt' •[rrJ9ni JttlTO' v asp' -.I r.N' -ff lta TT wars' .CPIIZ 4950'YwbtC wT?I!!'AYfICMG Sw/MT.QTR4l fat O' .. ..A O LCMLN aiYM wJ`4.uCMlS AS .9f0YK aaO<9/ttTt: /FUwiNRI 1JM O -CHAS /Olio A[(- GY LS pY aar R5 /CCW /S.LS1K' CM/ LS astsS i f1OKLwS TT /LLf]1C dI Il MO IJ.S JIiTf afl'M1Mtl R??MfAtl SaS ? JI •R ? i Ian t «r `...."?'°...rww '•"... ?_ d InWfiswiaL d F r - H f tYL ws bs NNM rYar : M ? f um?t N?'?( . t? ?'Lp: low -? CJ fe•r ?a?. ? Nr O' h sw r?e?we h e Qe f r r.r.y frn.... rww« r a.r.N ._ `++r rw«M?4r j , ?uw4 it uwi? fru ?r?r« r.r?__wr w??/??bM?•6 wr +?. w r?tir r+...s fr_Nr Yr?1 wr «x4•_??p ?t 1r N N? b wry Mr.r•y rriw•?. +?r_.!Tb s r ? a ?.r+r rrr??ww?i.? w? rrw r r?w.r? r «ra w rw?r ?rir r Yi• ? /_+I • w bl r?rarfrraG ?ar? Y ?t=•w !r_?? r??- Mr u..y M ?6 ar DAMEs & MooRE 1125 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 1200, DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2027 (303) 294-9100 FAX: (303) 299-7901 January 21, 1994 Community Development Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Mr. Andrew Knutdsen File: 02442-050 Re: Wetland Analysis - Pedotto Property West Vaal Dear Mr. Knudtsen: The above-referenced property was inspected on January 19, 1994, to determine whether wetlands occur on the site. This inspection was conducted with Greg Amsden of Christopher Denton Real Estate and Russell Forest, Town of Vail staff. This analysis must be considered preliminary because of snow, which covered most understory vegetation. Therefore, shrubs and trees were used to indicate potential wetland areas, along with site hydrology along a stream. The results of the field inspection are provided in the attached letter report. Please contact me at 1-299-7836 if you have questions on the information provided herein. 0i DAM .M04RE OFFICES WORLDWIDE _ DAMES & MOOR.E PRELIMINARY WETLAND ASSESSMENT PEDOTTO PROPERTY The Pedotto property that is adjacent to Kinnikinick Road in West Vail, Colorado, was inspected on January 19, 1494, to determine if wetlands occur on the site, and to indicate the approximate extent of wetlands. Because of extensive snow cover, exact locations of wetland boundaries could not be determined. However, the presence of wetlands were indicated by plant species that were evident, and usually occur in wet areas. A small drainage angles across the property from south (southeast) to north (northwest), and is marked by a riparian willow community (Plate 1). Based on the presence of willows (Salix spp.) and redosier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), this wetland area varies from 10 to 30 feet wide along the drainage (see attached map). A second small wetland may occur southwest of the stream as a small seep. This area was marked by a small stand (10 to 15' in diameter) of cow parsnip (Heracleum sphondylium) and cow bain (Oxypolis fendleri), which are associated with wet soils (Plate 2). Other plant species in this area include honeysuckle (Lonicera dioica) and grounded (Senecio serra). Honeysuckle is considered to be facultative to both upland and wetland areas, and groundsel is an upland species. Thus, this area may not meet wetland criteria. Other parts of the site support an aspen (Populus tremuloides) woodland of trees ranging in DBH 10 (diameter at breast height) from 2 to 8 inches on the west side of the stream; and an open or non-forested (grassland) area occurs on the east side of the drainage (Plate 3). Recommendations It is my recommendation that construction not occur in the area containing cow parsnip that likely contains a seep in the aspen woodland and in areas adjacent to the stream. Thus, no "dredge and fill" activity would occur and a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers would not be required. Moreover, the property should be developed in a way that existing wetlands be protected from degradation during and after property development. A buffer area of vegetation should be developed between building envelopes and the wetlands to reduce the amount of influence that development has on wetlands and on water quality. The buffer should be at least 10 feet wide. Underground utilities (e.g., sewer line) cross the drainage near the road, which would allow for a crossing beneath the hydrologic floor of the stream without disturbing the wetland. Tunneling beneath the stream will need to be done in a manner that maintains stream hydrology and does not place soil or other material in wetland areas. 11 lei tix 2t =1" ?.? .C Fd f? tlbCt w?olvtn tap 30 ;eei is- ?ca?l ? fem. f 1' v, C ABLE ,fit g ? s. .. r It h ` 3 ®s 47.4 B 268.65 ?v ! }Qf w ......' - 4 ., . 59 ?a 9 w1 ® n ?• N 78, 50 fi Go .s .... ... ..... •~ ' ? ? _?p ?+, ? ? '""? ? ?w ? .® ?.. ..r..®.. rte.. e.--° •?' lFly. 4A,T0'N a 46.6®°??•?, _ ; Plate 3, Stream system near property boundary at Kinnikinick Road. n Ll 166191 63? U.038 L 4; LRSER GRRPHIC MRNUFRCTURING Feb 15, 1994 Andy Knudtsen 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado. 81657 Dear Andy, Thank you for your letter abod't the rescheduling of the planning meeting regarding the Pedotto parcel. I appreciate that you have been keeping us informed as these dates change. I hope that we will see a presentation on the 28th that includes some of the input from the January "Town Meeting" including the reduction in the number of total units by at least one if not two. As the developer confided to me his margin was "very comfortable". with the existing density, we should be able to get some sort of concession on the density issue. n addition I hope that we can reduce the total number of access cuts onto Kinniokinnick road. I'm sure that the other roads on the east and west ends of the lot have their difficulties but by putting all of the driveways off Kinnickinnick it would appear that we are making this road at least as dangerous as the others if not more so. I look forward to the meeting on the 28th, and thank you again for your help. Sincerely, Charles' Overy `P tl ~ 23698 U.S. Hwy 24, P.O. Box 10, Minturn, Colorado, 81645 voice(303) P27-5274 fax/data(303)827-5760 toil free(800) 448-8808 emai173311.1130@compuserve.com CHENEY Mon Jan 94 Td: Greg Amsden Andy Knudtsen FROM: Kay Chaney 2754 Basingdale Blvd. 476-4935 I may not be able to attend the neighborhood meeting this evening, so I wanted to convey my feelings on the proposed development on the Pedotto property. I have to say that I don't understand the opposition which is being mounted to the development, since it seems to me to convey a very residential feeling, which is what I think most people in Intermountain are hoping to have, insofar as it is possible with the condominium projects already in the neighborhood. I think it is a good idea to build single family homes, since that is what families in Vail want now that we are coming of age. The families that have lived here long enough have grown from renting apartments, to owning condominiums, then duplexes and ultimately single family homes. Regardless of whether or not that is the best use of our limited space, that is what people want. Building the homes for sale, rather than rental, also adds to the residential quality of the ::roject. I think the revised site plan appears to be an improvement aesthetically on the original site plan. As I mentioned at the work session in December, my only concern would be that a rezoning to low density multi-family, so that the nature of the development could not be changed once the increased density was approved. I'm sorry that I might not be able to attend the meeting, since so often only negative voices are heard at these meetings. If I can get away from my other appointment early enough, I will be there. 10:45 PAGE 2/2 JHN-14-1?.y4 Wb:4? 1 KUi.•<WLLL Digital Commun:tationa Divi3ion Rockwell International Corporation $e00 Biech Street Suilia 400 4G0 Newport Beach, California 92660 T'LL : (714) 833-4655 FAX: (714) 833-6898 r ?P P. 001 DATE: TO: C or, Pm, V1 =-Y. ?1 All IF IN, Rockwell RECD ,??itd 1 4 1994 international PAGE / OF f THIS IS A FAX TRANSMISSION, I, 0, PLEASE DELIVER IiMMEDIAl'ELY, eve r rSA 41e Ry axle k rGary B.,Rodrigue ?SU.3 -- ?a7 -, -?'/ U b ,c) ?._... . ?? C.1i ._..t ..-d n i r jny... _.. l f) ..?.C..(1 rtrl___G.? ?-.L..?........ 4t`.'?__l? G1?_C _ a . ? ? wGa t3?-iy C?C? f_. cr?vrv?,?c;r.? C V^'? r.? Q. l1 G rt,+? „ ?` ?'m Win.. ?? ?w t5 ?.L ? -V I TOTAL P.001 -L 14U. Jan 2U,J4 .1b:0h 1.01 * &Oka, ?c 'CPR LeRI ?i ?. II. w li A \ 1 ?T?i EXI;?tANG? . ?ck)4 'VIC) r?)? o4 c.\ N. 2?5 Wall Street Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-1477 001side Colorado 1-800.327-1 0 Bear Intermountain Homeowners and Residents; I am writing to ask everyone to attend a neighborhood meeting at 7:00 PM, Monday, January 17th in the Town of Vail Chambers. Once again, the Pedotto property is scheduled to be railroaded through in an attempt to re-zone from the Primary/Secondary to Low Density Multi-Family. If we allow this to happen, we will have 14 buildings with a total of 19 units and pobably 40-45 more cars speeding up Kinnikinnick Road. There are six driveways proposed for these 14 buildings, all but one exiting on Kinnikinnick Road. A little ludicrous, wouldn't you say! The total GRFA proposed is 25,900 sq.' ft., similiar to the last proposal just a few years ago that we all were most upset about. This re-zoning request is being made by Tom Campbell, whom I believe is the same developer as the last time this attempt was made--but this time, as a representative for Mrs. Pedotto, we have a member of the Planning and Environmental Commni.ssion--a bit of a conflict of interest--wouldn't you say? This same PEC that is in favor of 25,900 sq. ft. on 2.36 acres, aside from up zoning, is the same Commission that recently denied the development of a 2+acre parcel to the East of Meadow Creek Condominiums. That request was for a duplex of approximately 6500 sq. ft.(buildable GRFA is over 9,000 sq. ft.). They actually said they would like to see less GRFA so it would encroach less on the hillside. oh, and yes, they voted against a retaining wall for the driveway. Are they aware that we live in the mountains and that all of the desirable flat lots are gone. They are going to have to contend with retaining walls--like the ones just built in West Vail to support...those gigantic new duplexes. In conclusion I would like Mrs. Pedotto to know that if she divided her land into lots and built under the current zoning, no one in Intermountain would object--V/e simply object to this many structures, this many driveways and the amount of speeding cars that this many occupants would invariably drive. So don't forget Monday night at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, Town of Vail offices. See you there. Si Ze Bobi Salzman J MAF Y,/C)KLILLC-.4 AS.&CLATES CONSTRUG 7'IUF: CONSL LTAIt Tt?.i o A_4CHITECIAZE December 20, 1993 ` Ile Cit' of Vail Planning t?ep?xtzr9ent ; c Vail, Colorado i t , , , ATIN Andy Knudtsen ; X2 }': X8.50 Kinhickinriick R: zd z0o.ing pear Pytr. Knudtsen; Pursltant to oudr recent discussi.ons,'X wish'to formally outline A-ly objections regarding the pedotto Parcel develol pmenf plans, 'as currently presented, T6 inckease is density on the prop&ty, coupled N?-ith thc, significant amount of hard surface areas, will result in ah increased run-off. A preliminary investigation reveals a great deal of this run-off'has po4entiZto cllar:nel itself into the adjacent parcel at the existing Vail Swim and T6ris Club entrance. This increased nrn-off will not only cause problems associated with the entrance; but it will have a negative impact,on the site drainage on the structure sAmmediatety adjal ent to Xbiniclcirnick R=f, Trie second concern which ,?re have,regarding the increased density av,d the proposed plan, zelates to the architectural d.esign which is being proposed. We highly recommend that the developer soften the `ery hard lines of his prpjecfthroug. r the utilization of perinicter earth be.;mlvr , ind'a gene;ous in tallatian of conifers and deciduous trees to soften the visual impact. + e I wish to advise you that I am not in objection to the developer's proposed project. However, in the best; interest of the image of deyeloprrient in `the lawn of Vail, the above items need to;be ndcressed?by the;developer. T? i J Ja es * ar , A.I.A. ' NORTHWEST Of-R8 CALrFOM41A UTICE SOUTO ;CUT OFFICE CORPORATE OFFICF W _ +X'AA7 S`j REET, SUTE 707 150 MUI &MNO KvS. StATL 15: 8I O TR VIS 5T, i hat rx1W 't3r q it. r ,SbATJL WASI? NUDTON' y,W) CLV'Ir,k.I IE+A. CAIJFC.JL' .1A:41c25 HOUSTON, 7tKA3 77002 C ENVER, (XV)P IM D2:8 7l3•L59.tt72 3C3.3?t•4:IM 2( -621•^IZZ 714-!442'20 ?CKb;i•??a! i>A?) 7:4.5,45•2-146 (Prx) ?ts.751•C:ftrJ (F ) :sL3.F?1-?i565 (FAX) l\'v 71 .7 This petition is directed to the Town of Vail in reference to the request to rezone the parcel of land located at 2850 Kinnickinnick. The reason is the time and date at which the meeting is scheduled. This could not be at a worse time for anyone involved in the tourism business, which encompasses the whole-of Vail. These property owners are unable to attend the meeting 'aa scheduled and are opposed to the rezoninq at 2850 Kinnickinnick. NAME ADDRESS ------?-3_ J_1-StS f<<k-,•'c /c - -------------- F ------- r-------------- Z--Z-/?I:k174???-????- ?4 r? '-?- -rt??------_????_!?? Len ti,.,, - ---- --__ ?? ?? a n Lt??i?1?t,r?, Cis-?/1(1?-_ --__ ?rLL(_ N b u ?r -l --__ L ---__--_C2 ----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Charles Overy 2833 Kinnickinnick #3 Vail, Colorado 81657 L L (303) 479-9133 P -Zk Sun, Dec 19, 1993 \?A To The Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail, I must lodge, in the strongest possible terms, my protest to your convening a planning and zoning worksession regarding the rezoning of the "Pedotto parcel" in Intermountain during what is certainly one of the Valley's most busy periods. received your notice for an initial meeting on the 13th of December and was able to take time to attend. I spent one and one half hours waiting for the "request for worksession" on the 2850 Kinnickinnick parcel to come on to the agenda. After the first item of the agenda had not been finished, it was evident that the meeting was going to progress slowly. I had not planned to spending the entire afternoon at the meeting and had to leave. In addition, I was frustrated by the fact that I could not find anyone in the front office of the building who knew what a "request for worksession" was. If the request was a minor procedural matter, might it not, more democratically, have been disposed off at the beginning of the meeting? If "a request for worksession is a scheduling matter should it not be stated as such. In addition, I have not received a mailed notice of the meeting on 20th December although I..was on your list to receive a notice about the initial meeting. I am unable to attend the.meeting on Monday the 20th as I have had prior work commitments for over 4 months: I am very interested in the proposal as I live at 2833 Kinnickinnick #3 and my residence looks out across Kinnickinnick road at the property in question. I am not unfavorably disposed to the development of the Pedotto parcel as I believe that suitable development of a significant portion of this land will improve the Intermountaan neighborhood. Furthermore, I am very encouraged by the open discourse that your department nurtures regarding all of Vail's planning questions. do not feel that I have adequate information regarding this development and, at this time, I am opposed to the plan as outlined in your memorandum of Dec. 13. 1 feel that the timing of your worksession on this property is most inappropriate. The neighborhood in question is certainly a "working" neighborhood and most residents will be very inconvenienced by this meeting if, indeed, they are able to attend at all. Should there be any question that the submittal or scheduling of this worksession has, in any way been affected by the above concerns I will fully pursue my legal alternatives. In addition, I will become vociferous and obstreperous in my opposition to the applicants proposal. E E I feel that my rights as a taxpayer and my duties as a citizen have been violated by your lack of concern over the Intermountian residents' commitment to the fundamental business base of this community. At this time of year, our service to our guests and the tourism base must be paramount. I suggest that this is an excellent week to consider Planning and Zoning matters that affect our non resident citizens. I hope that you can appreciate my concerns. A prompt reply is requested. Since y, Charle very C INNSBROOK MEADOWS EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEREAS, is the owner of certain property ("the Owner") described as: ("the Property"); and WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to place certain restrictions on the use of a unit or apartment located on the Property for the benefit of the Owner and the Town of Vail, Colorado ("the Town"). NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby impose, establish, acknowledge, declare for the benefit of all persons who may hereinafter purchase, or lease, or hold the subject land the following restrictions, covenants, and conditions, all of which shall be deemed to run with the land and inure to the benefit and be bonding upon the Owner, its respective grantees, successors, and assigns. 1. Unit or Apartment , containing square feet, is hereby restricted as an Employee Housing Unit (EHU) which must comply with all the provisions of Sections 18.57.020, 18.57.030, and 18.57060 of the Vail Municipal Code as amended and as per Section 18.46.220 of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1993. 2. The Type III Employee Housing Unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than thirty (30) consecutive days; and, if it shall be rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees who work in Eagle County. For the purposes of this paragraph, a full time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty (30) hours each week. 3. The Type III EHU shall not be divided into any form of timeshares, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership as those terms are defined in the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. 4. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee housing unit within the Town which is constructed following the effective date of this ordinance shall submit two (2) copies of a report of a form to be obtained from the community Development department, to the Community development Department of the Town of Vail and Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority setting forth evidence establishing that each tenant whom resides within their employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County. 5. The provisions of these restrictive covenants may be enforced by the Owner and the Town. 6. The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, and agreements contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by the written consent of both the Town of Vailtand the Owner of the property. TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation By: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 0 Notary Public My commission expires: By: Property Owners The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of Notary Public My commission expires: v o1hous1nq\adm1n\EHU I I I 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 28, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a variance to allow parking in the public right-of-way located at 2642 Cortina Lane/Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Mans Wiemann Planner: Randy Stouder C 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The subject property is located in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. The lot slopes steeply down and away from Cortina Lane, with slopes between 30% and 45%. The average slope is approximately 35% over the whole lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence, locating approximately one-half of the garage in the front setback. Slopes underneath the parking and building areas exceed a 30% average. According to Section 18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, there is no required setback for the garage due to the 30% average slope. The proposed single family dwelling exceeds 2,000 square feet, thus three parking spaces are required. The applicant has provided for two enclosed spaces in the garage. The third required space is proposed to be located in front of the garage and would overhang onto the right-of-way of Cortina Lane by 11 feet. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance for parking in the right-of-way for 11 feet of the third required parking space. 11. BACKGROUND On March 25, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed requests for a variance from the front yard setback and wall height limitations for the Neuswanger residence, which was proposed on Lot 6 (subject property). The PEC denied the wall height variance request and approved the front yard setback request, subject to the applicant providing a minimum of 20-feet of driveway from the edge of the asphalt of Cortina Lane. The PEC's basis for the motion to deny the wall height variance was, the need for the variance was a self-imposed hardship and approval would be a grant of special privilege. On April 6, 1991, Mr. Neuswanger appealed the PEC's denial of the wall height variance to the Town Council. A motion was made to grant the appeal subject to the condition that the proposed retaining walls be terraced with two equal tiers, with a 4-foot wide planting area between the tiers. The motion failed by a vote of 3-3. The Council stated that the walls could be better integrated with the development plan for the entire site which could eliminate the need for, or decrease the height of, retaining walls on the site. The applicant subsequently decided to revise the request for front setback and wall height variances. An amended plan was presented to the PEC on May 21, 1991. That plan showed lower, tiered retaining walls that were landscaped appropriately. This plan was acceptable to staff, and the PEC approved a front setback variance to allow for the construction of a residence in conjunction with an attached garage, in the front setback. Ill. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Allowed/ Required Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. of buildable GRFA: 3,615 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 1,914 sq. ft. (15%) Driveway Coverage: 1,500 sq. ft, (10%) Landscaping: 7,655 sq. ft. (60%) Parking: 3 spaces Setbacks: Front: 20'° Sides: 15' Rear: 15' Height: 33 feet "No front setback required for the garage. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Proposed 12,759 sq. ft. 2,704 sq, ft. 1,911 sq. ft. (15%) 365 sq, ft. (3%) 10,082 sq. ft. (79%) 4 spaces Front: 20.5' Sides: 17.5/35' Rear: 61' 32 feet Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the fallowing factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Granting the variance allows the applicant to use a portion of the Cortina Lane right-of-way for the third required parking space, to be located in the driveway in front of the garage. The impetus behind the request for the variance is Section 18.69.050 of the Hazard Regulations which waives the front setback requirement for oaraQes on lots that exceed a 30% average slope beneath the building and parking area. This section of the code encourages development as close to the road right-of- way from which they take their access as possible. This can effectively reduce site disturbance on steeply sloping lots since it consolidates structures close to the road, on the front portion of the lot. According to staff, the requested variance will not adversely effect adjacent properties. The highest portion of the proposed house is the garage roof ridge, which is 10 to 12 feet above the E r: 2 elevation of the pavement of Cortina Lane. This should not effect properties on the north side of Cortina Lane since the topography slopes up steeply in that direction. First floor elevations of homes across Cortina Lane are typically at or above the elevation of the roof ridge of the garage on the subject property. The applicant's proposal, which pulls the house up closer to Cortina Lane, improves the primary views from the residence located to the west on Lot 7. Primary views from Lot 6 and Lot 7 are to the east/northeast towards the Gore Range. The house located to the east on Lot 5, is located down below the proposed house and its primary views are oriented up-valley to the east/northeast, away from the proposed house. The lot located to the south of the subject property is positively effected by this proposal since there would be greater distance between that house and the proposed house, and there would be less site disturbance on the lower portion of Lot 6. 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. Several other properties along this section of Cortina Lane have taken advantage of the Hazard Regulations section which waives the setback requirement for garages. A strict and literal interpretation of the off-site parking regulations would require the applicant to locate the house further down the hillside creating a larger disturbed area on this steeply sloping lot. Section 18.69.050 of the Hazard Regulations specifically encourages garages to be located in the front setback for the purpose of reducing or minimizing site disturbance on a steeply sloping lot. Thus, the strict imposition of the off-street parking requirements would defeat the purposes of the Hazard Regulations that pertain to this lot as far as reducing site disturbance. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff finds that the requested variance will have no significant impact on any of the above considerations. If the variance is approved, the applicant will be able to provide four off-street parking spaces. In response to the Town Engineer's comments on sight distance and safety, the applicant has moved the garage 8 to 9 feet to the east. This improves sight distance for people coming out of the shared driveway that serves several residences to the west. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before orantino a variance: 3 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. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0 Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to the off-street parking requirements, Chapter 18.52 of the Zoning Ordinance. The requested variance would allow the applicant to provide a portion of the third required parking space in the right-of-way of Cortina Lane. Staff does not believe that the approval of the request would grant any special privilege and similar requests have been granted in the same neighborhood. Staff believes that the strict imposition of the off-street parking requirement would require the house to be located further down the slope on the lot, which would increase site disturbance on slopes that are in excess of 30%. Strict imposition of the parking requirement would thus subvert the intent of the hazard regulations to reduce site disturbance on steeply sloping lots. Staff believes that locating the garage in the front setback and utilizing portions of the right-of- way improves the overall site planning of the project and reduces site disturbance, while accommodating ample parking for a single family home. Staff does not believe that there will be any adverse effects on adjacent structures in respect to their views and the spatial orientation of the structures. ..If-l.m ,h6maem.228 11 4 • -ao 25 February 1994 ISOM ASSOCIATES Architecture Land Planning Project Management Mr. Randy Stouder Town of Vail Community Development RE: LOT 6, WIEMANN RESIDENCE Dear Randy: E Per your request, we have revised the site plan by adding low growing shrubs, reducing the wall height in the front setback to 3 feet high, and by adding more fill material to the front yard. The south wall has already been changed by adding more stone to help reduce the appearance of a high wall. All of the cable utilities have been put in one trench to reduce the scaring on the lower side of the site. The grade of the driveway has been reduced by raising the garage floor and no longer needs to be heated. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, / ,? Ken Long 9323TOY P.O. Box 9 Eagle, Colorado 81631 (303) 328-2388 FAX 328-6266 22`-cc?'' -51-4`"-'-li`?z" J? ty-. - ? N iC1?NHt?! z t? ?a?Ifl"It 11 29 WL. ?? t D d- TOWEL t 0 •?`- ? - u?. r --°fSGffl.141Gj - N -? a r.r• ii! ? 3'-d 2 3F 3r f (? ?" 2-? t4t o`' ? .x. c? e Il. GAi 1 . N 10 r 0 Q 14.8 r 8t10 / ov ,w.. . larz 14A f - 08 06 1 J I (C. 4x, 98I k ? 19eLLl..o ?fC R$rMNI1L'1 (,? j C.? ? wA?-1-,RP n?cT m.ds146 `.? l? 1 J, 0 45 ScTaGC I W - ------------- 8080° t k 0 V -° CORTINA LANE T- fj/// / ?- !B v°O LAG. / E04C oK 7+?art6N(77 - WATEX VA-%6 _?- 8110 ' .T.04. 00- r _ 574 0 W r 105.60 OB -? _Y- ,T.O. s. el°a,]e? S6G O8s0 -- C, 'U Y, 02 eA - h o ' T.O.W. 20C. 09]T. m N • 4 r A. / 00 H.L. 8128.7 ! `/ P10 I \I?{ENTRTI 981 010!.82 ? I ? l - et2T-? 1 1 FU.8127. 4l/41 "L'._0.. 1 - _ _?,. 1 fff? I o ' FL to-L_I eta?-(01 k k _ ?' I 7 R (LL.} 8096.0 ?? f - Qtyy e.L.8119.0 f E r _ _ ` !?/ t W Ur r tAvp- _N S°oEfAAGC ? N 84 I_ O 82 , Y T- V 8080 0.2929 AC. -y ?unLrTY ED?erte7 T-? l ----cTV H73`24`E 00R0 v 8070 LANDSCAPE LEGEND SYMBOL NAME SIZE QUAK-nT' Aspen V to 10' tall 12 each Evergreen 1'to 14'tall 6 each 0 0 Juniper 5 gallon __.-14 each 32, ?e ?k 1 lie - I? ",?t?7 Ufa-- l L? - C - w v szc_ - - ?' - _ Qa. t teilNn ' C ?? s . ? 7 - ? cv CS)sHawgr, C P 71 ,n O t c,tc o. L(I N i-w?{Pdz F. P• ??-? x F• ? P?r?a Ccao r^f {? `?• ? Fb M t LY ZOO1-'k_ '?' -q?GLtl 111Gt tO?C-o"W, F salLT- Q caa. I ? SF+Ewtts ? 37 d" 140,, N? I? ? n nt iJ F r.-Ij - "W">L-- ex-I 'T, tjGf Ot a?WO-u 'li-To P-j a 0 0 C5--)ti2 ?HAv-ns I? fn ? , 12 r n ( IIII t \ To.W. @ Ghr- 3 I ?h ' <? ?3TIt{ +? ?8k1o4 ?- FKIrdtNC, GONG, W4LL Slo`t'- III Caton,' / i • ? ? - ,?' ° ? be iS7J NGa ?rt!J?O'?. @ 'r:t`d..L a t LTRUCTURAL FILL -NIATL. ? aka3' I aOZT }- fL-OPPFK LF-Vt L ({ 6101 -0" F -Lov/o- (cj z a: ix. aISTIU-TC?pj 0S. e \,J&Lt- 17 - ?I Es16N G MADEG wdLL. 8090 l r ?r E ? r 2a-? ¢3 ?E Lt X12 a-Gr Z 1 V? W J t 11 a ?, a f? M\ i t 2' ?? v 1 ftx. ? ? z C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 23, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a major CCI exterior alteration for the Laughing Monkey to allow an addition to the south side of the Creekside Building located at 223 East Gore Creek Drive/a part of Tract A, Block 5-13, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Jose Guzman Planner: Andy Knudtsen DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Commercial Core I Zone District requires PEC approval of an exterior alteration request prior to the addition of any enclosed floor area to structures located within the district. This proposal includes a 292.5 square foot addition to the Laughing Monkey retail space located on the south side of the Creekside Building. Site coverage will increase by 333 square feet. The addition will be one story and involves changes to the pedestrian access to this store and the May Palace. There will be 16.5 square feet of on-site landscaping removed by this project. This landscaping will be replaced with 58.5 square feet of new landscaping on-site for a net increase of 42 square feet. Immediately adjacent to the site, there will be an additional 105 square feet of landscaping created. This will be in addition to the 148 square feet of existing landscaping on a lower tier of the existing planter. There is an existing spruce tree on the east side of the planter in front of the Laughing Monkey which is approximately 30 feet tall. The applicant proposes to replace this tree with a 16 to 18 foot spruce approximately 5 feet to the south. A 16 to 18 foot spruce is the largest spruce which is available for purchase according to the Town Landscape Architect. The staff believes the best solution would be to transplant the tree. To guarantee that there will be funds to cover the cost of the tree if the existing tree dies, staff believes the applicant should provide a letter of credit or performance bond to the Town for three years to be used in the event that the relocated tree dies. There is an existing aspen, approximately 7-inch caliper, on the western end of the planter which will be removed by this project. The applicant is proposing to replace this aspen with three smaller aspens. The new aspens will be 3-inch caliper, 2-1/2 caliper and 2-inch caliper. The applicant will be providing funds to the Town for perennial flowers to be put in the planter beds immediately south of the addition. The applicant will also be providing a water stub out and electrical service for an automatic irrigation system. The Town will provide maintenance for these planters as they are located on Town of Vail property. The two aspen in the far east end of the planter will remain. The materials of this addition will include shake shingles for the roof. These will match the existing shingles on the rest of the Creekside Building. The walls of the addition will either be stucco or a stone veneer. A majority of the wall area will be covered with the stone veneer. This stone veneer will also be used on the planter walls. 11. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following information summarizes the zoning statistics for this request: Zone District: Commercial Core One Lot Area: .2340 acres 10,193.0 sq. ft. Required Proposed Height: Per Vail Village 22 feet Design Considerations 33' - 43' maximum heights Site Coverage: 8,154 sq. ft. or 80% 7,425 sq. ft. or 72.8 % Landscaping: No reduction allowed additional 42 sq. ft. on-site 0 additional 105 sq. ft. adjacent to site Parking: 1 space for every .98 spaces* 300 feet of floor area *In order to fulfill the .98 parking space requirement, the applicant must pay into the parking fund. Currently, parking spaces are $8594.40 per space. If this is changed prior to issuance of a building permit, the new fee will be assessed for this space. If no changes to the ordinance are made, there will be a parking fee of $8422.52 if the applicant builds before the next fee increase in January 1, 1995. Ili. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Purpose: " The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and district 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 2 greenways, and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village." It is the staff's opinion that the proposed changes to the Creekside Building and Laughing Monkey retail space are in compliance with the Purpose Section as stated above. We also believe that the addition will improve the overall quality of the Children's Fountain area with the additional planters, landscaping and increased visibility of the retail storefronts. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes two elements which establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guideplan, which includes a number of subarea concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future developments and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations set forth criteria for design considerations and landscape considerations. In addition to these documents, staff will use the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Streetscape Plan to address specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the Village. V. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no sub area concepts within the Vail Village Master Plan that pertain to this area. VI. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are critical elements of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key characteristics of the Village and provide the criteria to evaluate new proposals. A. Pedestrian ization Staff believes that the proposal improves the pedestrian character of the Children's Fountain Plaza. The additional landscaping adjacent to the planter as well as the revised entry to the Laughing Monkey and to the May Palace all enhance the pedestrian experience. The increased visibility of the retail windows will also add to the pedestrian experience. B. Vehicle Penetration This proposal will not effect vehicular traffic. C. Streetscape Framework Two general types of improvements adjacent to walkways are encouraged by the guidelines. The first deals with increasing the open space, landscaping, grass, flowers, and tree plantings as a soft, colorful framework along pedestrian routes. The second deals with infili of commercial store fronts to create new commercial activity generators and to give visual interest along pedestrian routes. Staff believes that both of these goals are fulfilled with this proposal. There will be additional plantings and trees, as 3 well as a new commercial infill. Both additions will add to the vitality of the Children's Fountain Plaza. D. Street enclosure The guidelines state that "Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms whose walls are formed by the buildings." Staff believes that the Children's Fountain area is a successful "outdoor room" at this time. The staff believes that the addition will not detract from this success and will enhance the existing space. The remodel not only adds landscaping, but brings the shop out to the plaza in a way that provides a better sense of enclosure. E. Street edae The design guidelines state that "with only a few exceptions in the village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscape areas, give life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel." Staff believes that the new plan, with its different levels of planters, new entry, and separate staircases, add to the variety of elements defining the pedestrian street edge. F. Buildina heiaht The proposed addition is 22 feet. The design complies with this standard, which allows only certain portions of the building to exceed 33 feet. G. Views and focal points The proposed addition will not affect any adopted view corridor or any other prominent views as it is located on the north side of the fountain and is approximately half of the height of the rest of the Creekside Building. H. Service and deliverv Service and delivery will not change as a result of this addition. The Zoning Code does not require loading berths for shops under 2,000 square feet and the total area of the Laughing Monkey after the addition will not exceed 2,000 square feet. The Code does require one loading berth for retail stores and eating establishments exceeding 10,000 square feet. Though the tenants within the Creekside Building may collectively exceed 10,000 square feet, staff does not believe it is reasonable to require a berth for this 300 square foot addition. Staff recommends that the applicant work with Pepi Gramshammer to coordinate loading and delivery with the potential addition to the Gasthof Gramshammer. Sun/shade As this addition is located on the south side of the building, it will not generate any sun/shade impacts. C 4 J. Architectural/landscape considerations There are a number of architectural and landscape features associated with this project. The roof form is consistent with the existing roof form on the Creekside Building. Staff believes the addition is integrated well with the existing building because of the compatible roof forms. The architect has used a variety of materials, including stone veneer and stucco in a way that is compatible with other buildings in the immediate vicinity as well as the existing building. Staff believes that the proposed landscaping will be a significant benefit to the Children's Fountain Plaza. There will be approximately 250 square feet of planter bed which will be planted with perennials. The applicant will provide the funds for the Town to purchase the perennials. In addition, staff believes the applicant is providing a good alternative for the aspen tree that will be cut down as a result of the expansion. Concerning the 30 foot tall evergreen tree, staff believes the best solution is to try to transplant the tree. Todd Oppenheimer, the Town Landscape Architect, believes there is a 50-50 chance of survival for this tree. Therefore, staff believes it is important to have the performance bond. Todd has told the staff and the applicant that 16 to 18 foot spruce are the tallest trees available on the market. The applicant desires to simply replace the tree now with the smaller spruce. In general, there are several positive landscaping changes, in addition to the issue regarding the 30 foot spruce. If the tree can be transplanted, staff believes that the proposed landscaping is a significant improvement to the existing situation. Staff believes that the organization of the windows could be designed to be more consistent with the guidelines. The guidelines state that: "Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements - and are further subdivided by millions of small panes - which is responsible for much of the old world charm of the village." Staff believes that the window design could be modified to include small panes in the upper parts of the window or other design alternatives to break up the windows could be used. We believe that if this standard is consistently applied throughout the Village, and that this architectural detail will enhance the character of the Village. VII. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The following are the goals and objectives of Vail Village Master Plan which are relevant to this proposal: Goal #1: Encourage a high quality while preserving the unique architectural scale of the village in order to sustain it's sense of community and identity. E 5 1.1 Obiective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and 0 commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policv: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan and is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year around economic health and viability for the village and for the community as a whole. 2.4. Obiective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policv: Commercial and field development consistent with the established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and Streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the village. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the policies and objectives listed above and is a good example of commercial infill that meets these policies. An additional component of the Vail Village Master Plan is the building height plan. The Creekside Building is shown in an area designated with a 3 to 4 height building range. This addition at 22 feet, does not exceed the heights identified on this plan. One of the sub area concepts identified in the Vail Village Master Plan that relates to this area is number 3-6. This calls for a commercial expansion to the west side of the Gasthof Gramshammer Building. Though not directly related to this proposal, it does call for the design of the addition to improve the enclosure proportions of the Children's Fountain area and enhance the existing plaza with green space. Staff believes it is important to point this out as the standards which will apply to that addition have been fulfilled by the Laughing Monkey proposal. VIII. STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN In the Streetscape Master Plan, figures 14 and 15, show improvements to be made in the vicinity of the Children's Fountain, and to the Children's Fountain itself. None of the proposed improvements pertain directly to this area of the Creekside Building. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposal. We believe that the design meets the standards of the CCI Purpose Section, Urban Design Considerations, the Vail Village Master Plan goals and policies, and the Town of Vail Streetscape Plan. Staff believes that it is a good example of commercial infill that has an appropriate mass and bulk. The additional landscape area and landscape material are also positive elements of the proposal. Staff recommends 6 approval with the conditions that: 1. The 35-foot tall spruce on the east end of the planter will be transplanted, and that a performance bond be provided to the Town for three years to cover costs of replacement if the tree dies. The bond will be provided at the time a building permit is issued; and, 2. The funds for the perennial flowers be paid to the Town prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Staff recommends that the architect modify the window design to include smaller panes reflective of the character of the Village and other buildings in the vicinity of the Children's Fountain. Specific design details are to be worked out with the Design Review Board; and, 4. Finally, a condition of the approval of this addition is that the applicant, at time of building permit issuance, pay into the parking fund the appropriate amount of money for .98 parking spaces. cApec\memos\Iaug h ing.228 C 0 7 AUDITION r 4 3 Ie ? ` t n{ E[ r k Cf i ?. !: r E 1 li ' f Till _J4 4 4 . t , -s y? -L^±i:`7 y.Xl?j i?ir-+ ??`'?''f<ra ;?I?k? f?'-??'f-f i?tz l?4'?L ?f ?-??7?-ice '??;`.?s, ? ;YE WEST ELEVATION I? 7 2 ? SOUTH ELEVATION -r ! - e w s f a? ADDITION r t ? I T F 7 f E 5F f EAST ELEVATiC}N 'E lw mw 0 EXISTING SHOP up I' Ta / PATIO t f i up ??. PLANTER -EXISTING PLAN k mw r;X f Si I ?%t UP IY EXISTING SHOP ADDITION 300 S.F. 7.=f e . PIN T R. PLANTER UP, i / t PLANTER?, - ? Y I I PROPOSED PLAN E.