The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-0523 PECMay 23, 19• 4 AGENDA wwwyj ma1 Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan to allow for a realigned driveway located at 1726 and 1730 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 6 and 7, Zneimer Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5. A request for an amendment to Section 18.69.050 to clarify how slope is to be measured and to allow for 6 foot walls to be constructed in the front setback for projects where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure anf parking area is in excess of 30% slope. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruth] i C, 6. A request for an amendment to Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Off- Street Parking and Loading, to allow for an increase to the parking pay-in-lieu fee. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Mike Ro Planner: Andy Knucltsen I 7. A request for an amendment to Section 18-57 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Employee Housing, to allow for common area to be used for employee housing. Applicant: Peter and Susanne Apostol/Michael Sanner Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO JUNE 27,19•. 9. ♦ request for a variance from Section 18.57.040 (B,6) requiring a minimum of 50% • the required parking to be enclosed and Section 18.52.080(A) requiring parking to be located on-site to allow for an existing secondary dwelling unit to be deed restricted as a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 2635 Larkspur/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Greg Amsden Planner: Mike Mollica 10. A request for a conditional use permit for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit to be located at 126 Forest Road/Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne Planner: Jim Curnutte 11. A request for a variance from Section 18.57.040 (B,6) requiring a minimum of 50% of the required parking to be enclosed and Section 18.52.080 (A) requiring parking to be located on-site to allow for an existing secondary dwelling unit to be deed restricted as a Type I Employee Housing Unit located at 1881 Alpine Drive/Lot 38, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant: Susan M. Stout Bird Planner: Randy Stouder WITHDRAWN 12. Approve minutes from May 9, 1994 PEC meeting. 14. Update on Blu's planter adjacent to dining deck. IN C A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan to allow for a realigned ,iriveway located at 1726 and 1730 Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 6 and 7, Zneimer Subdivision. Applicant: Ed Zneimer Planner: Andy KnudtsI Applicant: Bill Sargent Planner: Russ Forrest Russ Forrest made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending the removal of Units 35 through 54 at the Vail Golf Course Townhomes be removed from the hazard area. rathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC had discussed this item during project — orientation and site visits and that the PEC supported the staff recommendation tit remove Units 35 through 54 at the Vail Golf Course Townhomes. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request for an amendment to the Hazard Plan per the staff memo with the exception of Unit 55 and make a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the requested amendment. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 May 23, 1994 Dalton Williams seconded the motion. The PEC voted 7-0 to make a recommenclati to Town Council to approve the requested amendment to the Hazard Plan. I 3. A request for a worksession for a front setback and wall height variances to allow for additions to an existing Primary/Secondary residence located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11 A Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Kristan Pritz requested that Steve show the PEC the west elevation so that they could see what was proposed to happen with the garage. Bill Anderson asked what would happen if the stair tower was moved back 4 feet in order to get it out • the setback. Steve Riden responded that this would affect the interior of the house more than the exterior. He stated that the house was essentially divided into four sections for circulation reasons. Bob Armour stated that he agreed with Bill's comments. He added that he also hai problems with the carport. Greg Ams•en stated that he did not have concerns with the GRFA in the front setback or the proposed retaining walls. He did not feel that he could not find a hardship • the site • allow for the carport. Planning and Environmental Commission is May 23, 1994 2 Jeff Bowen agreed with the comments of the other PEC members regarding the carport issue and felt the tower should be out of the setback. Allison Lassoe stated that she did not have a problem with the location of the stair 0 tower, retaining walls, or GRFA in the setback. But, she could not find a hardship IN*1 allow the carport in the setback. I Dalton Williams stated that he liked the idea of the carport but could not find a hardship on this site. He stated that he did not have a problem with the location of the stair tower. Jeff Bowen stated that he would like to see the stair tower pulled back out of the frol-ONO setback. Kristan Pritz summarized that the PEC would like to see the mass of the structure pulled back off of the front of the site. Kathy Lan•enwalter stated that the PEC was open to the idea of a variance for retaining walls on the side of the garage as necessary. 4. A request for amendments to Section 18.57, Employee Housing, to set forth requirements for renting Employee Housing Units and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knucltsen Andy Knucltsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He went over the four proposed changes to Section 18.57, Employee Housing, with the PEC. With these four changes, Andy stated that staff was recommending approval of the proposed amendments. Jeff Bowen suggested the addition of the word "however" at the bottom of the beginning of the last sentence in Paragraph M. Jeff Bowen stated that the Town needed to take measures to ensure that the employee housing units were being rented to locals. Kristan Pritz stated that the purpose • the amendments to this section was to make employee housing units available to employees. She added that the Housing Authority has always had the authority to cite an owner • an EHU who was flagrantly violating the ordinance (item M, Page 3 of staff memo). She stated that Item L, Page 3 of the staff memo was written to establish a standard market rate for EHU's in Vail. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 May 23, 1994 3 Dalton TTilliams inquired whether it would help to specify a time period to which t EHU's should be rented each year and whether it would help the Town determinel compliance with the ordinance. Jay Peterson stated that this ordinance poses a lot of complications for potential buyers and that these people may determine that it is not worth the hassle. He added that he did not feel that the problem that the employee housing ordinance addressed existed in Vail. Kathy Langenwalter stated that they were trying to ensure that the employee housing units that were built for employees are being used for this purpose. Kathy Langenwalter stated that this ordinance refers to restricted units and that it would have no effect on the type of employee housing that Galen himself has and provides to the community. Galen stated that he realized this but he still felt that the proposed amendments to this ordinance were too much regulation. Jay Peterson stated that the people he had spoken to do not object to the reporting so much as that there will be a perception that the unit will have to be rented. Dalton Ifilliams stated that he had some changes to the wording including eliminating the word "location" from Paragraph L. He stated that he would like to see this item tabled since the problem that the proposed amendments address, are not visible in the Town at this time. Andy rnudtsen stated that staff wanted to be proactive and get these changes on thd books now so that they do not have problems down the road. 0 * Z Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with staff's proposed amendments to the employee housing ordinance. She stated that this ordinance was not devised to hel�, the developers here in town, but rather to help employees who work in Vail. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 May 23, 1994 4 Jeff Bowen felt that the units should be rented during a substantial portion of the year Am and that this period needed to be defined. L-W ..6 a - ... • •. R - . a . a . is . Ok , 0 4 . a . . - 0 1 r�z Ing I m;ml In'FAT"T glion 11111WILRI 11111;1111111riji�11111 11 ! III Kathy Langenwalter stated that there seemed to be a consensus of the PEC that the word "may" should be changed to "shall" in Item C and that a rental rate was positive. She suggested that paragraph M be removed from the ordinance. Kristan Pritz asked the PEC what a minimum time period for rental of the employee housing unit should be per year. The PEC agreed that six months during the ski season was acceptable. Later in the discussion, the PEC decided not to include this provision. Kristan Pritz stated that staff would work with Tom Moorhead on the wording for Item L ,.nd M. Greg Amsden asked Tom Moorhead what the market rate referred to and whether this was considered to be affordable employee housing. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 May 28, 1994 5 Tom responded that an individual will be considered out of compliance if they do not rent the EHU or rent it above market rate. Kathy Langenwalter stated that this item could be tabled while staff worked on the changes. Kristan Pritz stated that they would bring this item before the PEC again at the firi -,-neeting in June. She summarized these changes to include: M -Paragraph C: Change "may" to "shall". -Paragraph E: Add "rented throughout the year". -Paragraph L: If not renting or unit is being offered at a rate above the market rental rate, then there is non-compliance. -Paragraph M: Remove this paragraph. 5. A request for an amendment to Section 18.69.050 to clarify how slope is to be measured and to allow for 6 foot walls to be constructed in the front setback for projects where the average slope of the site beneath the proposed structure and parking area is in excess of 30% slope. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memo. ET-1 111550 1511110510115 11 Its E 11131111111 • • 11111 il. A request for an amendment to Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Off- Street Parking and Loading, to allow for an increase to the parking pay-in-lieu fee. Planning and Environmental Commission 9 May 23, 9994 6 Kathy Langenwalter stated that the smartest thing the Town could do was locate parking spaces underneath the fields at Ford Park. She added that she had concerns about the proposed increase in the fee. Greg Amsden stated that Upper Eagle Valley recently completed a master plan thal addressed projected future demand, cost for providing service, and rate increases 11 the clear cut analysis. Bill Anderson stated that sooner or later people are not going to be able to afford remodel jobs. Dalton Williams stated that there is some minimum infrastructure provided • the Town as a result • the property taxes community members pay. He felt that it was not fair • increase the parking fee and questioned whether it was really right to have a parking fee at all. He felt a solution to this issue would be to leave the parking fee where it currently is. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with Dalton's comments and that it was important to consider that remodels provide expansion which is a benefit to the Town. She added that our community was solvent and that this was another way to gouge the local. Kristan Pritz stated that this was interesting and wondered whether the PEC could recommend denial. She said that she would need to ask Tom Moorhead how to proceed with this situation. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the price of $8,594.40 seemed appropriate. Tom Moorhead had told Kristan to have the PEC make its motion whether in support • opposition, in the affirmative. Jeff Bowen made a motion to recommend to the Town Council that the parking pay-in- lieu fee remain at its current rate with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. vote approved this recommendation. -The existing price works well. -increase in price discourages upgrades. -An increase occurred recently. -PEC did not agree with Mike Rose's cost analysis. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 May 23, 1994 7 U rl stwalwLTAL0 • of of f` !WMAID01w, 1111111 Applicant: Jay Peterson Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JUNE 13,1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request to the June 13, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item to the June 13, 1994 PEC Meeting. 8. A request for variances for locating GRFA in the front setback and for a wall height variance to allow for a primary residence with a Type I EHU, to be constructed at 1828 Alpine Drive/Lot 16, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant: Peter and Susanne Apostol/Michael Sanner Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO JUNE 27,1934 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request to the June 27, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item to the June 27, 19•4 PEC Meeting. A request for a variance from Section 18.57.040 (B,6) requiring a minimum • 50% of the required parking to be enclosed and Section 18.52.080(A) requiring parking to be located on-site to allow for an existing secondary dwelling unit to be deed restricted as a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 2635 Larkspur/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Intermountzin. Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request indefinitely with Dalton seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. 10. A request for a conditional use permit for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit to be located at 126 Forest Road/Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne Planner: Jim Curnutte Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request indefinitely with Dalton 11filliams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. Planning and Environmental Commission 9 May 23, 1994 8 Aft 11. A request for a variance from Section 18.57.040 (B,6) requiring a minimum of 50% of qW the required parking to be enclosed and Section 18.52.080 (A) requiring parking to be located on -site to allow for an existing secondary dwelling unit to be deed restricted as a Type I Employee Housing Unit located at 1881 Alpine Drive/Lot 38, Vail Village Wes), 1st Filing. Applicant: Susan M. Stout Bird Planner: Randy Stouder WITHDRAWN 12. Approve minutes from May 9, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 9, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote approved the minutes from the May 9, 1994 PEC meeting. 13. Discussion of Eagle County Master Plan. The PEC agreed that the Blu's planter adjacent to their deck could be changed to a as -a plant. -Community Development Priority Projects -Adoption of Land Ownership Adjustment Plan -Vail Commons Master Planning Effort -Public Meeting on Environmental Strategic Plan, June 2, 1994, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 May z3, 1994 9 k, I'll 1I 0: l U - I M.-No olm G a a — ----- ----- • Staff believes that this is a reasonable replacement since the change in grade requires the existing tree to be replaced. R 14001111 WN � Staff believes that the proposal would be a positive change for the development. By providing direct access to Buffehr Creek Road, the interior shared driveway through the meadow will be eliminated. Staff believes that the proposed change is a positive benefit to the development a recommends approval of the request. cApec\m9mos\zneimer. 523 0 2 ' �MOVE TREES. BOULDERS, AND Tt�T INTERFERE NTH / ^ / vc, � ! / - BLDG. SITE 6, RETAiNiNG WALL � | � | 24 / CENTER OF oan 18 3.(Y HIGH WALL A-=- PR OF SPJ CE MW t7. ON AND OR EXWPLF_ FOUR JyM" / ~' TO: Planning and Environmental Commissior -':ROM: Community Development DATE: May 23, 1994 SUBJECT: Vail Golfcourse Townhome Hazard Zone Change Request Applicant: Bill Sargent representing the Vail Golfcourse Townhomes lE !� . • Table 1 Summary of Town of Vail Hazard Maps Units Snow Avalanche Debris Flow Rockfall 55-76 Possible Avalanche Debris Avalanche High Severity Influence zone High Hazard Rockfall 54-51 Possible Avalanche None Moderate Severity Influence zone 47-50 None None Moderate Severity 43-46 None None None 39-42 one None Moderate Severity 35-38 Possible Avalanche None Possible High Severity Influence zone Rockfall for unit 35 1-34 None None None * Note: The use of the word "none" in Table 1 means that the Town of Vail maps currently do not indicate a hazard based on staff review. It does not imply that a hazard may not exist. 4 I 13 Mr. Arthur Mears did prepare a site specific study for the Vail Golfcourse Townhomes that evaluated the risk of snow avalanche, rockfall, and debris avalanche hazards. This study concludes that units 1-55 are "outside the influence" of avalanche, debris flow, and rockfall hazard and require no mitigation (see pages 4-7 in the Mears report). Units 55 through 76 were found to be under the influence of a hazard. The Town engineer reviewed this report and had several questions regarding the calculationsm used in the report. Arthur Mears responded to the Town Engineers questions satisfactorily the attached letter (Attachment 5). Based on the technical analysis • the Arthur Mears stud the Vail Golfcourse Townhome are requesting that units 1-55 be excluded from debris flow, avalanche, and rockfall areas on the Town of Vail's corresponding maps. i 9 August 23, 1993 W, T, A ','I I � WIM31= PO, Box 1292, Vail, Colorado 81658 / Crossroads Shopping Center/ 143 E. Meadow Drive - Suite 391A 303 - 476 - 4300 /FAX 303-479-9534 W I Lei • 1 ill, ill : I - mm Arthur 1. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado August, 1993 E ARTHUR 1. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards CDnsultants 222 East Godic Ave. Gunnison, Ccdomdo 81230 303 — 641-3236 Man Wasting • Awlanches • AcalancheControlEngineerinff i As requested by Mr. William Sargent, this study has the following objectives: a. Analysis of snow avalanche, debris avalanche, and rockfall potential at t Golfcourse Townhomes; I b. Classification of the exposure of each of the 76 units to the above processes, aid The to also has the following limitations which must be understood by all those using the results: a. • attempt is made to evaluate the site-specific parameters required to providf; structural mitigation to each exposed unit; and -1 1- • a I ISEWINOIN rOM OI&R -10141 wqte 0 • For land-use planning and engineering purposes the "design-magnitude" or I 00-year" return period avalanche has been evaluated. The 100-year avalanche has a constant annual probability of 1 %, a probability that is assumed to not change after the avalanche occurs. However, when numerous aspen trees are removed by an avalanche (as with 0 1 the 1993 avalanche), the Brobab of fut anchors are removed. Because the design—magnitude avalanche has not been observed at this location, the dynamics and impact characteristics have been evaluated by the following indirect procedures: a. The avalanche runout distance, or potential stopping position during extreme conditions was determined through terrain analysis, experience with extreme events in the local area, and prediction using a data base of extreme avalanche runout events in Colorado; b. The avalanche flow thickness, impact pressure, and velocity were determined through application of an avalanche dynamics model, given a starting position at the 8,800 foot level and a stopping Position determined in step "a." Avalanche runout zones in the vicinity of the Golfcourse Townhomes are mapped Figure 1. This mapping subdivides the avalanche runout zones into "high hazard" (Rel and "moderate hazard" (Blue) zones which are defined below, a. HIGH HAZARD (RED). Area affected by avalanches with return-periods of 25 years or less or avalanches that can produce impact pressures of 600 lbs/ft2 or more. New construction is generally not permitted in Red zones; existing structures should be reinforced or otherwise protected. b. MODERATE HAZARD (BLUE). Area affected by avalanches with return periods of 25 — 100 years and avalanches producing impact pressures of less than •00 IbS/ft2 . New structures are permitted in Blue zones provided structural protection is incorporated in design. Debris avalanches occur on the same terrain affected by the snow avalanches discuss in Section 2.1 . Major debris avalanches, however, will entrain a larger percentage of so rock, and trees but will move more slowly than snow avalanches. While snow avalanch may occur at any time during the snow season, debris avalanches are primarily a lall 2 winter and particularly a spring phenomena. They are most likely when the snowpack has become completely saturated with water, a condition most likely during the months of April and May (but possible during March or even June). Debris avalanches have not been analyzed separately from snow avalanches on the 10 slopes above the Townhomes because (a) both will possess similar destructive energy, and (b) both will require similar mitigation. a. gh" (avalanche) or "Sever6" (rockfall) b. "Moderate" (avalanche) or "Moderate" (rockfall) c. "None" (avalanche or rockfall). All units classified as "None" are considered to be outside of the influence of avalanche or rockfall hazard and require no mitigation. Units classified as "Moderate" will require mitigation, however mitigation requirements will usually be limited to a small portion of building surfaces or loads may be easily accommodated. Units classified as "High" or "Severe" may require extensive structural mitigation. Mitigation concepts are discussed in Section 4 of this report. • 3 TABLE 1. Geologic Hazard Matrix - Golfcourse Townhomes UNIT NUMBER SNOW ROCKFALL DEBRIS AVALANCHE H 1 None None None 2 None None None 3 None None None 4 None None None 5 None None None None None None 7 None None None None None None None None None 10 None None None 11 None None None 12 None None None 13 None None None 14 None None None 15 None None None 16 None None None 17 None None None 18 None None None 19 None None None 20 None one one 21 None one one 22 None None one None None None 24 None None None 2 None None None 26 None None None 4 i • `f 1 2 LL DEBRIS P727 AVALANCHE AVALANCHE on on n None n on None n 30 None None n 1 None None None None n None n None on None o on None on n None n None o on 39 None on 40 None None None 1 None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 46 None None None 7 None None None None None None None None None 50 None None None 51 None None None 2 r i =6 n UNIT C LL DEBRIS AVALANCHE H 52 None None None 53 None None None one None None 55 None No ne None 56 Moderate Moderate Moderate 57 Moderate Moderate Moderate 58 Moderate Moderate Moderate 59 High Severe High 60 High Severe High 61 None Moderate None 2 Moderate Moderate Moderate 63 Moderate Severe oderate 64 High Severe High 65 High Severe High 6 None Moderate None 7 None Moderate None 68 Moderate Moderate Moderate 69 High Severe High 70 High Severe High 71 High Severe High 72 Moderate Moderate Moderate 73 Moderate Moderate Moderate 74 High Severe High 75 High Severe High 76 High Severe High n Mitigation, or structural protection possibilities for the 21 units exposed to avalanche (snow or debris) and rockfall hazards ranges from "minor" to "extensive" as indicated in Table 2. When mitigation requirements are "minor" they may consist simply of reinforced window or door covers or possibly bracing certain exterior walls. To be effective, mitigation of certain units require may require extensive reinforcement to protect from avalanche or rockfall forces. TABLE 2. Mitigation RequirementClassifi cation UNIT NUMBER SNOW ROCKFALL = DEBRIS AVALANCHE C AVALANHE 56 min-or Minor Minor 57 Minor Minor Minor 58 Minor Minor Minor 59 Extensive Extensive Extensive 60 Extensive Extensive Extensive 1 61 on Minor on Minor Minor Minor a62= 63 Minor Extensive Minor 64 Extensive Extensive Extensive 65 Extensive Extensive Extensive 66 one Minor one 67 one Minor one 68 Minor minor Minor 69 Extensive Extensive Extensive 70 Extensive Extensive Extensive 71 Extensive Extensive Extensive 72 Minor Minor Minor 73 Minor Minor Minor 74 Extensive Extensive Extensive 75 Extensive Extensive Extensive 76 Extensive Extensive Extensive 7 Details of mitigation and mitigation design specifications are beyond the scope of thl study, as discussed with Mr. William Sargent. Such details can be provided for any the units • considering the following factors: Alternately, each unit could be protected individually. Design parameters (listed above), would have to be derived for each unit. Snow or debris avalanches will require protection at each unit. Building a wall or berm at the uphill side of the property would not be effective against avalanches because the uphill side of such structures tend to fill in with deposited snow or avalanche debris. 8 The following provides technical data derived for this study that defines avalanche and rockfall defense design parameters that were used in defining the hazard boundaries and in classifying the relative hazard potential at eac h site. Siow _A3AWq,,ac1We -- Pages 10 - 18 are detailed output on avalanche (a) flow thickness, (b) Impact pressure, and (c) velocity. Each avalanche-dynamic parameter is given at the upper, central, and lower portion of the Townhomes. They can be used in any future site specific analysis of avalanche mgation. Pages 19 - 36 are computer simulation output defining rockfall velocity and bounce heights at the upper, central, and lower portions • the townhomes. They can be used in any future site specific analysis • rockfall mitigation. mz= =�� Arthur 1. Mears, P.E. Avalanche-control engineer • 9 M� GOLFCOURSE TOWNHOMES Flow Thickness -- Upper Portion WA M 1 -Ir. 1 1 w;. I I. I b.b 19.8 Time Since Avalanche Start (Sec) 10 Ii GOLFCOURSE TOWNHOMES' Nomal Impact Pressure -- Upper Portion �# a RM 1 11). �zo 11.2 18.5 19.8 Time Since Avalanche Start (Sec) m o 12011 •0• Cn CL 8of i • 600 Oo x 10.4 1 U. 11) 11.8 .1 Time ice Avalanche Start (Sec) 11 M A Its ENQ pe M 14 LE GOLFCOURSE TOWNHOMES Velocity -- Central Portion 15.2 16.5 17.8 19.1 20.4 Time Since Avalanche Start (Sec) 9M C 7 4 3 2 0 A '` a of of 11.0 1 0. ztl ;eu.0 21.1 22.1 Time is Avalanche to (Sec) hKill ME Ame �OLFCOURSE TOWNHOMES Impact Pressure -- Lower Portion BIM N 17.8 18.9 20.0 21.1 22.1 Time Since Avalanche Start (Sec) 2C cep 15 0 a) �41 E9 rol 11.0 10.E ;-_II U. u 21.1 22.1 Time Since Avalanche Start (Sec) \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.1 -• i LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Upper Edge 2332 LB. SPHERICAL DIAMETER ROCKS NUMBER OF CELLS NUMBER OF POSITION ANALYSIS INITIAL Y • VELOCITY INITIAL X VELOCITY INITIAL Y ■ i rs a fr. 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 ROCKS 100 580 FT. 8820 FT. TO 8800 FT. 1 FT./SEC. -1 FT./SEC. Wo i 8800 250 8600 280 ii :iii 650 8320 680 780 8305 ENDING 250 8600 :i 8560 ii 8520 520 :4iil 650 8320 s:i 780 8305 880 8295 .O ROCKFALL SIMULATION LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Upper Edge ANALYSIS POINT X = 680 Y = 8315 STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) = 20.76 FPS MAXIMUM VELOCITY = 57 T. /SEC. AVERAGE OUNCE HEIGHT = 1 FEET AVERAGE VELOCITY = 32 FT. /SEC. MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT = 6 FEET MIMIMUM VELOCITY = 7 FT. /SEC. MAX KINETIC ENERGY = 118408 FT.LBS. * r . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 FREQUENCY m \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.3 ROCKFALL SIMULATION LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Tow -- Lower section 0 0 MAXIMUM AVERAGE STANDARD =LL # VELOCITY IT DEVIATION 720 (FT/ SEC) (FT/ SEC) VELOCITY 1 75 50 11.5 FT. 6 60 11.83 3 99 72 12.99 1 67 35 14.80 5 84 0 12.9 6 57 32 10.26 7 51 22 11.1 780 41 17 9.88 0 FT. TO 10 3 710 FT. TO 720 1 720 FT. TO 730 2 730 FT. TO 740 3 740 FT. TO 750 1 750 FT. TO 760 2 760 FT. TO 770 2 770 FT. TO 780 3 780 FT. TO 790 5 790 FT. TO 800 2 810 FT. TO 820 9 820 FT. TO 830 3 830 FT. TO 840 5 840 FT. TO 850 5 850 FT. TO 860 3 860 FT. TO 870 3 870 FT. TO 880 2 0 AVERAGE MAXIMUM BOUNCE NC HEIGHT (FT) HEIGHT (FT) 7 2 16 3 28 63 3 1 5 17 1 5 4 5 .O ROCKFALL SIMULATION • i N: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Upper •s .9 + #. A :M 6 4 [ [ 5 4 [ [ [ [ [ C E [[[ C 3 4 [ [[ EE [[[ [[[[ C[ [ [ C EE CE E[ [[[[[[[[[[E[ [ [C[ [[ [ [[ [ C[[[[[[[[C[[[[[E[E[[E[ E[EIEC[ [[ CE [[ 7 32 57 VELOCITY an -• ROCKFALL SIMULATION LOCATION: Vail Golf. . . - s -- Upper Edge 63 59 5 1 7 43 4 39 35 31 27 4 [ 23 19 4 t[[[tl 15 4 [[[[[[[[I 11 4 [[[[[[[[[[[1 7 4 [[[[[[[[[[[[[[! 3 [[[[[t[[[[[[[[[[1 M O 146 293 439 586 733 879 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE mi LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse To nhome -- Upper Edge 0 • •• W :! M • al 1 104 98 4 EE[[E 92 4 C[[EC[ 86 4 EC[[[[[ 80 4 [[[[EC[C [ [ 74 4 E[EC[C [C 68 4 [[ EC[[[[C[C[C[[[[[[C[[C[[C[C[[[[[ 62 4 [ [ E[EC [[[[E[t[C[[[C[[[[CC[C[[E[[[EC[[ 56 4 C[ IC[[ CC[ [E[[[[CCCC[[CC[C[[[[[[C[I[[C[[[ 50 4 EI[ EC[[[[[[[[ [[[C[[I[[[E[CECCE[EIEE[[EC[[E[[ 44 4. [[[ CEC[[ E[[[[ I[[[[[[ [[[C[[C[[[C[[[[[CC[EE[[[[[[C[C[ 38 4 [ E[ C[[[[C[[[[ EC[[[ IECCC[ [[I[[[t[C[C[I[[C[[[[[[[[[[[E[C[ 32 4[ E[[[[[ I[[ E[[EC ECC[[ C[ C[ E[[[ [[[C[E[E[[C[C[[C[[[[CEC[[E[ECE[ 0 146 293 439 586 733 879 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE m O ROCKFALL SIMULATION LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Upper Edge. t: INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPEY 0 MAXIMUM AVERAGE T N CELL # VELOCITY VEL CITY DEVIATION 390 (FT/ SEC) (FT/ SEC) VELOCITY 1 73 50 11. FT. 89 62 12.70 730 100 74 1 ®09 1 67 37 13.49 5 74 40 14. 6 57 31 10.69 7 44 22 11.02 770 32 17 9.00 t: INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPEY 0 FT. TO 10 5 380 FT. TO 390 1 700 FT. TO 710 1 710 FT. TO 720 3 730 FT. TO 740 1 740 FT. TO 750 2 750 FT. TO 760 4 760 FT. TO 770 1 770 FT. TO 780 4 780 F. TO 790 4 790 FT. TO 800 5 800 FT. TO 810 2 810 FT. TO 820 1 820 FT. TO 830 3 830 FT. TO 840 3 840 FT. TO 850 850 FT. TO 860 2 860 FT, TO 870 5 870 FT. TO 880 4 24 AVERAGE MAXIMUM BOUNCE BOUNCE HEIGHT (FT) HEIGHT (FT) 1 15 38 26 62 17 4 1 1 6 0 3 0 \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.2 # # LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Center Portion 1 3 5 6 7 SURFACE ROUGHNESS 2.50 1.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 W RUMANNINUMF # 8800 250 280 8560 ## 520 8400 650 8320 680 w 780 8305 ENDING 250 '.6## .# 8560 ## ## 650 680 8315 .# 8305 880 9 *O # SIMULATION Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Center Portion ANALYSIS of = 780 Y = 8305 STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) = 11.01 FPS MAXIMUM VELOCITY = 44 FT. /SEC. AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT = 1 FEET AVERAGE CITY = 23 .j C. MAXIMUM BOUNCE I = 3 FEET MIMIMUM VELOCITY = 3 FT./SEC. KINETIC ENERGY = 70556 FT.LBS. BOUNCE HEIGHT 3 2 m REW FREQUENCY 5 4 3 [[ [ [[ [ 1 [[[[[ 3 \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.2 ROCKFALL SIMULATION • f N: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Center Portion Sri \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.2 ROCKFALL SIMULATION t • • N: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes Portion BOUNCE HEIGHT 63 4 59 4 5 51 4 47 4 I 43 4 39 4 i 35 4 [ I 1 4 [l 7 4 [[1 23 4 [[) 19 4 [[[[[[II! 15 4 [[[[[[[! 11 4 [[[[[[[[[ 7 4 3 t. • a e3i�rilei�r3 1 146 293 439 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE a, 586 733 879 \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.2 ROCALL SIMULATION LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Center Portion VELOCITY 104 98 4 [C[[CE 92 4 [C[[CE 86 4 E[C[C[C 80 4 74 68 4 4 [ [[[[[[E[C [[[ [C[[[[ [[ [ CEC EE[[[[C[C[[[E[[[CEC[CC[C[[C[C 62 4 [ [[C[[ [[[[[[[[[[[[[CC[[[[[[[[E[[CE[CC 56 4 EEC[ CCE[ E [E[C[[C[[[[EECC[CCECCC[EEECC[E[ 50 4 44 4 E[[[ CC[[[ CC[[[ CCCC[ [[[[[C[[C[[[[C[[CE[[C[[[[E[[[[[ 38 4 32 4[ C[E[ CCCC[[C[C[[ C[[ C[[[[C[[[ [[C[[E[CC[[[[[[[[[CC[[[[[C[[[[[ 146 293 439 586 733 879 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE 91 \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.2 ROCKFALL SIMULATION LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Tow o -- Center Portion • r► s • X INTERVAL ROCKS !, 380 MAXIMUM AVERAGE T N CELL # VELOCITY VEL CITY DEVIATION 710 (FT/SEC) (FTJ C) VELOCITY 1 73 50 11.55 2 89 62 12.7 3 100 74 14.09 2 67 37 13.49 5 74 40 14.42 6 57 31 10.69 7 44 22 11.02 780 2 17 9.00 X INTERVAL ROCKS !, 380 FT. TO 390 1 700 FT. TO 710 1 710 FT. TO 720 3 730 FT. TO 740 1 740 FT. TO 750 2 750 FT. TO 760 4 760 FT. TO 770 1 770 FT. TO 780 4 780 FT. TO 790 790 FT. TO 800 5 800 FT. TO 810 2 810 FT. TO 820 1 820 FT. TO 830 3 830 FT. TO 840 3 840 FT. TO 850 850 FT. TO 860 2 860 FT. TO 870 5 870 FT. To 880 4 AVERAGE MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT {} HEIGHT () 21 15 3 6 6 17 13 1 6 0 3 \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.3 ROCKFALL SIMULATION LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Lower Section 2332 LB. SPHERICAL ROCKS . DIAMETER NUMBER OF CELLS 8 NUMBER OF ROCKS 100 ANALYSIS POSITION 880 FT. INITIAL Y ZONE ... 8820 FT. TO 8800 FT. INITIAL X VELOCITY 1 T. /SEC. INITIAL Y VELOCITY -1 FT. /SEC. 1 2 4 6 7 8 SURFACE ROUGHNESS 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 W 0 8800 250 8600 ' • 8560 300 8520 400 • • 8320 680 8315 780 8305 ENDING 250 8600 :i' 8560 8520 520 8400 650 8320 680 # 780 8305 880 # ROCKFALL SIMULATION ANALYSIS LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Lower Section = 880 Y = 8295 STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) 9.89 FPS MAXIMUM VELOCITY = 41 FT./ E. AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT = 1 FEET AVERAGE VELOCITY = 18 FT./SEC. MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT = 5 FEET MIMIMUM VELOCITY = 3 ,J_ C. MAX KINETIC ENERGY = 1 T.L S. t4 I El 1 IN ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION 10 20 30 40 50 60 FREQUENCY IN \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.3 ROCKFALL SIMULATION LOCATION: Golfcourse Townhomes a] s 11 \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.3 ROCKFALL SIMULATION BOUNCE FIOCATION: Vail Golfcourse Townhomes -- Lower Section HEIGHT 3 59 4 5 4 [ 51 4 [[ 47 4 [[ 43 4 [[[ 39 4 [[[[ 35 4 [[ [[ 31 4 [[tE[ 7 4 [[[[[ 3 4 [[[[[[ 19 4 [[[[[[ 15 4 [[[[[[[[t[t[[E tt[ [ [[[ [[I[ 11 4 tt[[[[[[[ t[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[t[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ 7 4 t[[[ [[[[t[[[[[[[t[[[[[[[[[[[[[tt[[E [[[[[[[[[ t[[[[[[[ [[t[t[[[[[[[[[[[t[I[[[[[tt[[[[t 146 293 439 586 733 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE a mm \ROCFALL2\TOWNHOME.3 ROCKFALL SIMULATION LOCATION: Vail Golfcourse To homes -- Lower Section VELOCITY 107 101 4 EEC[ 95 4 [[[[ 9 4 [[[[[E 3 4 [[[[[[C[ [[ [ 77 4 [[[[[[[[[ [ [[[E[ 71 4 [[C[EECC[[[[ E[[E[ [ [[[[CE[ 65 4 [[[E[[[[C[CCEEE[C [[[[[[C[E[E[[[[EC 59 4 EE[E[[ E[ [[[C[[[[CCCf[CC[[E[CE[E[C[CE[CC 53 4 CC[ CE EE[[[[ EC[[[E[[[C[[[C[[[[C[[E[[[[[C[[E [ 47 4 [[[[[ C[C[ CC[[ E[[ E[E C[C[[CE[E[[[[[E[[[[[[E[[[CE[[C[ [C 41 4 [ C[ EC[C[C E[ EC[ CCC[[[[[[[ [[C[[[[C[[C[[[[[[[[[[[[[C[[E[C[ 35 4 [[[[C[ CC[C[[EC CC[C[[[[ CI [[[I[I[[[[E[[C[I[[[I[[[[[[[[[[[ 0 146 293 439 586 733 879 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE 0 D r rt --. _ - ' Owego - ii�' VIII e 8th Filing a9 r { 1 ay st e 8tti F�hng 4 AC f r 7 2 f 3 �Y JJ�.."� ,� : 2 ''`C. -r- 2 21 OY , t - _ 1 lz f - * EIGHTEEINTH ":.I 4,-- GREEN 12 `:'C� 0 sl GOLF LANE y PICNIC AREA l,' GS' EAU. AIDMauummd !klj OICNIC AREA M us Revised site plan — Sept 1 ember, 1983 N EffilMorer-CME M, w a AI- N EffilMorer-CME M, w a ref t-2,4 7�c ATTACH MENT THREE: DEBRIS FLOW w , - Rev m mv_ 13E51 XqAILABLE ..... ...... . Y p ! ATTACHMENT FOUR: ROCKFALL �, +. A ta` " dr .7f ?,h; r"' ''•♦ 'aG i"' t f . 1' �* r,.�s', r 'Y" y' G �*.; �; ' t�'.1S�G. ' ffis' r y`�` ci 3yx ,,tom pP� . �x.�s �7. ` � a.� �`�✓yF' ,x.. * � "'{..� ..�+ r.: �. 3� ,S,v :.� a ,.'� ��, ..f }' , �. t �S. w: na J � � %�Y �• E � s�.w k'�s €�44 t�. ^.w''As`fi Y' �` Y :z c �y'�+ =f. ed�,� y�ri'. ,44 r "Yi +�gy 'htY '�3.�p,:pp.,,r'?,. _�„ .,.:"^y��4rf �,,,.r �1^:{y,,". °. s.i. ,• ? ,�,�. q''�,''k ^`�g�!'+��"..a �t +"6,' °'` i a,. "'� %�.� �!^"� •A�} y.++i�a .��.^ „^7.i #'� �.T2 :� �5.��,� �,t ;., �.�. °S.�9T ! .�" ♦;a�`i' -i �ft, ,,ais .!Yi�t ., s s ", „ 9 #y(, \j w a.L1 - ""`f. 11L,+t i. -�'^, °= .,.t.` i S �'t'if t'_'t Y7�' ^�''`� " rte. t � p� �':� x • �. ' �+.' °h�� ` "k '�' � ',�.R _ �� .".- � 'st 2�z v �'� .� a r, ,k.# � -rig ,� �.'�,2 �; ' �4•^r e+". �"l I °. ^^R i~ d.., '� +.f"a' t ^cY`�., �^'` l.L�` u✓ � � ..� a� �. as s r$' �'� � .<e.£n' i� ° ". �r�', ;'.: '.��r_...� � +'' �� z�.��+ =t ^� � �• �,y`.w pay �' s� c. 0 2_ AVAILABLE ?� April 15,1994 1-1 L Mr. Greg Hall, P.E. Town Engineer Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 ATTACHMENT FIVE 5 W -for In this letter I am trying to answer the three questions you had about avalanche mapping at the Golfcourse Townhomes. 1) Dynamic pressure is averaged over the three periods of maximum flow thickness. This averages variations ("noise") inherent in the use of the stochastic avalanche dynamics model I used and provides a larger pressure than that computed with the standard Swiss avalanche dynamics model. 2) Total pressure is computed by adding dynamic + static pressure in the flowing snow. In the "Lower portion" for example, the total pressure P is computed approximately the Red/Blue boundary. Note that the second term, which assumes "hydrostatic" pressure is a conservative overestimation because snow shear strength is Dot included. 3) Red/Blue boundaries were determined from a combination of calculations similar to those above and on the basis of observations I made while on the ground and through interpretation of aerial photographs. I also used my own judgment and experience to consider the effect of terrain in modifying the hazard lines. Flatter terrain will shorten the runout distance. The avalanche mapping should be considerably more accurate than the original map in which the buildings were not in place. In particular, the new mapping shows bow buildings shield other building surfaces from impact. You should be aware, however, that design pressures used in mitigation will always differ from those used to define Red /Blue boundaries. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, C�V�,J- VReaO Arthur 1. Mears, P.E. Avalanche — control CDgillccr 19� = Mass Wasting • Avalanches * Avalanche Control Engineering 0 MEMORANDUM KORSTIMIM DATE: May 23,1990 The applicant also proposes to locate a stair tower partially within the front setback. The stair tower encroaches 4 feet into the setback, and therefore results in a variance request to allow the stair tower to be located within 16 feet of the property line. The applicant is also requesting a front setback variance to allow for the location of a buried carport in the front setback. Due to the fact that the carport is built into the hillside, the applicant needs to place retaining walls along the side of driveway as it approaches the carport entrance. These retaining walls would exceed the 3 foot maximum height limitation in the front setback. The proposed walls are 6 to 7 feet high and are located in the front setback as well as on Town right-of-way. The carport encroaches to within 1.5 feet of the property line. Thus, the applicant is requesting a front setback variance of 18.5 feet for the carport, which results in a 1.5 foot setback. 11 The applicant is also proposing to place boulders along the hillside adjacent to Forest Road in order to prevent further erosion in this area. These boulders would be located in the public right-of-way and would require a revocable right-of-way permit to be issued by the Department of Public Works. III. BACKGROUND The applicant is currently proposing to infill the carport as in the previous request and is also proposing to add a stair tower to the west end of the house, half of which would also be located in the front setback and is also considered GRFA. Thus, the staff felt that this application, involving additional GRFA in the front setback not previously approved, requires reconsideration of the front setback variance by the PEC. Concerns raised at the review of the previous variance request involved impacts to existing vegetation. A large aspen and two large spruce trees were of particular concern. Relocation of vegetation as feasible was required in the previous variance along with mitigation for the loss of the large trees. Aft Ill, ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The property is zoned Primary/Secondary and the site area contains 22,261 square feet. Allowed/Reouired Existing Proposed GRFA: Primary: 3,111 sq. ft. 2,196 sq. ft. 3,684 sq. ft. Secondary: 2.215 sq. 1.875 sq ft. 1,875 sq. ft. Total Allowable: 5,326 sq. ft. 4,071 sq. ft, 5,559 sq. ft. (233 sq. ft. over)* Site Coverage: 4,453 sq. ft.(20%) 2,014 sq. ft. (9.1 %) 4,087 sq. ft. (18.4%) Landscaping: 13,357 sq. ft. (60%) - 17,743 sq. ft. (79.7%) Height: 33 feet 33 feet no change Setbacks: Front: 20' 7' T (carport infill) 16' (stair tower) and 1.5' (new carport)** Sides: 151/15, 151115, 15715' Rear: 15, 15' 15' Parking: 4 spaces 4 spaces 6 spaces *A 250 application has been submitted by the applicant to cover the overage. **The applicant is requesting a variance of 13 feet in the front setback in relation to the house and 18.5 feet in relation to the carport. 2 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 1. it M 0- - st 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested infill of the carport area will not result in further setback encroachment. Infilling the carport area is preferred to additional site disturbance elsewhere on the property. The degree of relief from the strict literal interpretation of the code sought by the applicant, has been granted to other property owners with similar circumstances in the neighborhood. Because of this fact, staff does not feel that approving the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance will not have an impact on light, air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and public safety. Due to the house's current location in the front setback, and the location of the additional GRFA being requested, staff believes the variance requests will have little to no impact on surrounding properties. The location of the carport in the front setback will actually improve safety and access to the site. The location of retaining walls partially in the front setback and 3 partially in the right-of-way, are necessary to access the buried garaae. These walls will not provide any problem with site distances according to the Town Engineer. 0 B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1116141MRIM11 IMMI 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. - of- 2. 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. 0 A. Approximately half of the proposed stair tower is located in the front setback. This additional GRFA was not a part of the previous variance request granted by the PEC. Should this stair tower be contained within the footprint of the existing building? Is there a hardship related to this proposed GRFA in the front setback? B. Does the proposed improvement to the parking and driveway situation warrant the encroachment of the carport into the front setback? Could the improvements be accomplished and adequate off-street parking be provided without the carport? cApec\memos\krediet.523 51 E [a > eel* W. wri rr,.;F 40, tl 4Z, it Lti-I rr ew- SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN [a > eel* W. wri rr,.;F 40, tl 4Z, it Lti-I rr ew- � • � ., L ,. -- `, 4 } � i ..� � .� _ � •.• � ?- .. _� vaHfD ' "� v .. � �, � � 3 � ��.t y. � a ,, .. t ' ' �' '; L. '' i� �� _ df 48ACY'. � 6+-- � t t t� + "' r' t s + � a J` �r�.1t i r r r t r_- T - 6A a El yy 1` i { I O i , I MASTER SUITE E • a i 7 . i 1 { ft,9T ILCiVA! ON 7-7 IT' n m EAsj, ELEVATION 0 • WtS'r * ttEVATION 1 1 ¢ t f 1NOttTn ELEVATION, v . 1 t EA F,'T ELEVATION v MEM09ANDUM 1 .ig and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance for property located within the, Primary/Secondary zone district, the ediet Residence, 224 Forest Road/Lot 11 -, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: John Kxediet Planner: Jill Kammerer 111, 111 11111, 1�� M� � I I, 11� I I "I 111111� �� a I 0u# NNN The site slopes up to the south from the low point on the north side of the lot. The carport is currently accessed by a steep driveway off • Forest Road. v 0 F) II. ZONING CUNSIDERATIGNS A Zoning: Primary/Secondary B. Site Area: 22,263 sq. ft. C. GRFA - Primary and Secondary Residences Combined Allowed: 5,326 sq. ft. Existing: 4,091 sq. ft. Proposed Increase: 1,066 sq. ft. Remaining: 169 sq. ft. D. GRFA - Primary Unit Existing: 2,196 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,262 s. ft. Increase: 1,466 sq. ft. E. GRFA - Secondary Unit Existing (o change proposed) 1,895 sq. ft. F. Site Coverage (20% of Site Area) Allowed: 4,453 sq. ft. (20 %) Existing: 2,014 sq. ft. (9.1 %) Proposed: 2,734 sq. ft. (12.3 %) Increase: 720 sq. ft. (3.2 %) Remaining: 1,719 sq. ft. G. Height Allowed: 33 feet Proposed: No change to existing maximum height H. Setbacks Front* Required: 24 feet Existing: 7 feet -4 inches Proposed: 7 feet -4 inches Note: Area of addition would be set back 7' -4" from property line * Area of requested setback variance. All other setbacks are unaffected. I. Parking: The required 5 spaces are accommodated on site. No additional parking is required with this proposal. J. Proposed Primary Unit Garage: 518 sq. ft. F) ~\ / , 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: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation ied regulation is necessary to achieve and enforcement of a specifi compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. owners with similar circumstances. Because of these factors, the request is not a grant of special privilege. 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. With the exception of the addition requiring the transplanting of an existing, approximately 18-20 foot evergreen, the proposed addition will have no impact on any of these considerations. The applicant has agreed to transplant this tree • the southwest comer of the site. FIV. The Planning and- Environmental Commission shall make the followin findings before zrantinz-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 • the variance will not be detrimental to the publii health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. F-1h L�I 3. That the variance is warranted for one • more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifieiL 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. Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to conditions, due to the fact the existing house is currently located in the front setback and less site disturbance results from this location for the proposed addition. The fact there is GRFA remaining on the El 9 13 0 0 0 ffil u 4z.,5 lotJim 42- 1 - 40 I j. n • I T- 11 1141:11-t- 7- 11 david mark peel, a.i.a.' kathy langenwa ter, a. La. 2588 arosa drive 303.A76-4506 post office box 1202 vail,co 81658 — _ J MAY 18 194 17'22 FROM BERENBAUM—WEINSHIENm TO 7553813034792157 PAGE,003/003 / i / �m TOTAL PA6E.003 *,'fc MAY le 194 17:22 FROM BPRENDAUM-WEINSHIENK TO 7553913034792157 PAGE.002/003 r. WExNsiaiFNx, I C. AT70ANEYS AT LAW '26TH FLOOR. REFUOLIC PLAZA 370 SEVENTEENTH STREET DE VER, COLORADO 80202-5626 1 PHONE (303) 826-0600 TELECOPIEFt (303) 629-76tO H. MICHAEL MILLER assum Via Fa&aik • (30) 479-2157 Mr. Randy Stouder Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE- Dr. and Mm "Bemard Samue&121rqpeq Located at 226 Fore4t Roa4, VW4 Colorado I represent Dr. and Mrs. Bernard Samuels. the owners of Unit B, 226 Forest Roa, Vail, Colorado. I am writing with: regard to the proposed addition by their neighbor, Krediet, the owner of Unit A, 226 Forest Road. Ckd firm is also working together wit Kevin Lindahl, who has also visited with you regarding this matter. Dr. and Mrs. Samuels were recently furnished with the proposed plans for th- I Krediet addition. They imitially bad conc, erns regarding the aesthetics and clianges to views. However, t ' he Samuels are confident that these concerns will be adequately addressel and satisfied. Ile Samuels also had a concern that a portion of the remaining GRFA allocable t their property would be utilized for the Krediet addition. However, X am now advised th revisions are being made to the Krediet plans which will reduce the required G I RFA to - level which willj leave the GRFA available to the Samuels7 property Cte of the remaining available GRFA allocable to the Samuels' property is utilized for additiom As your file will also reflect, I have mpresented the Samuels + dth res♦.d to property since the' ir acquisition in 1979, at which time the property was divided. From day forward, as confirmed in the letter from the Town Planner, Mr. Sayre, to me and 1 �Irown and Mr. Railton, �dated March 7, 1993, it has alwa�s been a8mowledged by the forty 4017o) percent of the total available GRFA would b-- �llocated to the secofidary 11, I'Samuels' IF and sbcty to the p -Unit B) , *ary unit (Krediet prope Unit A). This all6cation was utilized as recently as 1991 reg�rding a request by N& Kred�i A MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 23, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for amendments to Section 18.57, Employee Housing, to set forth requirements for renting Employee Housing Units and setting forth details in regard thereto. Npplicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 11 .- . t " • k a MGM] In conversations with Town Council and Housing Authority recently, Town staff determined that there were a few minor changes that could be made to the employee housing ordinance to make it more effective. These include requiring that all employee housing units shall be rented and requiring that the rental rate be comparable to the market rate. I — . '•' No employee housing unit which is constructed in accordance with this chapter shall be subdivided or divided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee. C. All types of EHU's ffRy $hall, be leased-,4N4444y to tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty consecutive days. For the purposes of this section, a full-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty hours each week. A Type I EHU may be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from any single-family or two-family dwelling it may be a part of so long as it meets the conditions set forth in Section 18.57.040 B, 5 • this chapter. 0 2. A Type 11 EHU shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the 4. A Type IV EHU shall not be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from other dwelling units or employee housing units that may be located on the same lot or within the same building in which the Type IV EHU is located. 5. A Type V EHU shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from tha single-family dwelling it may be located within or attached to. F. No property containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum GRFA permitted in Title 18 except as provided in Sections 18.57.040 B4, 18.57.050 65 or 18.57.080 B3 of this chapter. G. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. H. All surface parking Shall be screened by landscaping or berms as per Design Review Guidelines, Section 18.54.050 D3. I. Any applicant who applies for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing employee housing, shall not be required to pay a conditional use permit application fee. J. The provisions set forth in Section 18.57.020, subsections B, C, D, and E shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the town attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. Said agreement shall be recorded at the county clerk and recorder office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU. K. Each EHU shall have its own entrance. There shall be no interior access from any EHU to any dwelling unit it may be attached to. HE Am MI 0 k i I 11 :41 Z 1 11101 Staff believes the proposed changes will make the Employee Housing Ordinance more effective. Because an effective ordinance will help the Town meet its Municipal Objectives, staff recommends approval. cApec\memos\ehu.523 0 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department 11ATE: May 23,19W SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Section 18.52 • the Town • Tail Municipal Code, Off-Street Parking and Loading, to allow for an increase • the parking pay-in-lieu fee. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Mike Ros"- Planner: Andy Knudtsen I The Town Council has requested that staff draft an ordinance increasing the parking pay-in- lieu fee. Currently, the fee is $8,594.40. It is raised on January 1st every other year according to the City of Denver Consumer Price Index. The next increase will be January 1, 1995. Section 18.52.160 (B): B. In commercial core I and commercial core 11 property owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to the town parking fund, hereby established, for the purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for vehicle parking. At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel of property within an exempt area which would require parking and/or loading areas, the owner or applicant shall pay to the town the parking fee hereinafter required. 1. The parking fund established in this section shall receive and disburse funds f the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. I 1 11 M 11 Ml M ME M _M nw-Wrnarm-W M-MMEff ME It 4. If any parking funds have been paid in accordance with this section and if subsequent thereto a special or general improvement district is formed and assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payor shall be credited against the assessment with the amount previously paid. LEE. FREE lil. For additions or enlargements of Q:<-« «,b »dng or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change an not 4 \ «e entire building or use. No refunds will be paid by the town to the applicant or owner. 8. When a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule (Section 18.52.100), t® parking fee will be calculated using that fraction. This applies only to the calculation of the parking fee and not for on-site requirements. (Ord. 6 (1991) § 1: Ord. 30 (1982) § 1:Ord. 47 (1979) § 1: Ord. 8 (1973) § 14.800.) 4 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff discussed parking pay-in-lieu with Council and provided the following points for their consideration: Once parking spaces are constructed, they are not reserved for those that have paid for them. Furthermore, business owners continue to pay to use the spaces through parking passes or hourly rates. space to build a parking garage in Vail today. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the direction from Council, staff believ( direction is to raise the fee to $15,000-00 per s a "grace period" until July 1, 1994. Any applicat, July 1, 1994 shall be assessed the current parkii cApec\m9mos\parking.523 3 M 9 M 0 R A N D U A hope this inforrition helps you n: your decisi, i. 1�1