Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0613 PECA summary of the exterior alteration applications received on or prior to the May 23, 1994 deadline: A request for a height variance and a major CCII exterior alteration to the L'Ostello building located at 705 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Alien, Inc./John Dunn Planner: Randy Stouder Site Visits 12:30 p.m. Gensler - 1894 Lionsridge Loop. Brown - 375 Mill Creek Circle. Smith - 1367 Vail Valley Drive. Drivers: George and Jim Public Hearing . 1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit located at 375 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 17, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Kenneth S. Brown Planner: George Ruther 2. A review of the parking calculations to be assessed for the Vail Associates' expansion at the Lionshead Center Building. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen/Kristan Pritz 3. An appeal of a staff decision regarding nonconforming structures, demo/rebuilds, setbacks, and the use of the 250 Ordinance pertaining to the Thain development proposal located at 483 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 8A, 8B, and 9, Texas Townhouses, Vail Village 4th Filing. Appellant: Jay Peterson, representing Helen Chatfield Planner: Jim Curnutte 4. A request for a worksession for an amendment to a previously approved plan to allow for four duplexes to be constructed at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge 3rd Filing. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen/Mike Mollica 1 I 5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit located at 1367 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte 6. A request for an amendment to Section 18.40, Special Development Districts, to eliminate the use of the SDD in certain zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica 7. 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 Knudtsen/Kristn Pritz 8. request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit located at 4030 North Frontage Road East, #D/Lot 2B, Pitkin Creek Mountain Townhomes. Applicant: Andrew M. Knudtsen Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO J 7, 1 4 9. 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: Jay Peterson Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED T JUNE 27,1994 010 10. A request 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 1st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED T JUNE 7, 1994 11. Selection of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the PEC. 12. Approve minutes from May 23, 1994 PEC meeting. 13. Council Update. 2 Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jim Curnutte Randy Stouder George Ruther A request for a conditional use permit to allow for Type 11 Employee Housing Unit located at 375 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 17, Block 1, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Kenneth S. Brown Planner: George uther Kathy Langenwalter stated that the Town Council was seeking to implement new reporting measures concerning EHU's and that this would probably occur prior to this project receiving a building permit. She wanted to know whether such a requirement would be acceptable to the applicant. Tom Frye explained that the EHU would be used as a caretaker's unit. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 John Dunn, representing the Clements, stated that they were concerned with the parking for the employee housing unit as it will be facing to the north towards the Clement home. They wanted to make sure that whoever resides in the EHU is employed as a caretaker for the primary unit and is not an employee for other businesses in the Town of Vail. Dalton Williams stated that there would be six covered parking spaces for this project and that all cars on the site should be contained within this covered structured. He asked if the owner would mind if the Vail Associates poma was moved to the north. Tom Frye, the applicant's representative, said he did not know the owner's opinion on this issue. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the proposal per the staff memo with the request that the applicant consider abiding by the new EHU proposal (see Item 7 on the PEC Agenda) and consider allowing the Vail Associates poma lift to be pushed down the hill to the north to allow for easier skier access. Dalton Williams seconded the motion and a 7-0 vote approved this item. 2. A review of the parking calculations to be assessed for the Vail Associates' expansion at the Lionshead Center Building. Applicant; Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen/Kristan Pritz Kristan Pritz made a presentation per the staff memo. She stated that Telluride appeared to be most similar to the Vail community, and that their requirement of one space for every 1,000 square feet of floor area for a daycare use was appropriate. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the additional 3.3 parking space requirement with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6-1 vote approved this item with Allison Lassoe abstaining from this item as she works for Vail Associates. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 2 3. An appeal of a staff decision regarding nonconforming structures, demo/rebuilds, setbacks, and the use of the 250 Ordinance pertaining to the Thain development proposal located at 483 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 8A, 8, and 9, Texas Townhouses, Vail Village 4th Filing. Appellant: Jay Peterson, representing Helen Chatfield Planner: Jim Curnutte Jay Peterson stated that he had appealed a staff decision regarding the issues contained in Jim Curnutte's letter dated May 13, 1994 on behalf of Helen Chatfield. He then stated that he was withdrawing the appeal before the PEC, as well as the appeal on behalf of Diana Donovan, appealing the DR approval of the Thain remodel. He stated that he had reached a settlement with the applicants on this issue. Kristan Pritz asked Jay to write a letter to the Community Development Department stating that he was withdrawing both appeals. Jay agreed to do so. 4. A request for a worksession for an amendment to a previously approved plan to allow for four duplexes to be constructed at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge 3rd Filing. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwoo Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen/Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the purpose of today's worksession was to review the site plan and to discuss the issues staff has identified in the memo. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the two main issues they should focus on today was the site planning and the number of units. Peter Koliopoulis, the project architect, stated that grading for the site veered off towards the southeast. He stated that they were trying to develop a concept around four duplex buildings (eight units), where each of the building forms were unique to each other. He said that the buildings would be accessed off of Lion's Ridge Loop and that there would be a maximum 8% slope for the driveway. He stated that the roof forms would all be gables, at 8:12 pitches. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC would like to see the existing stand of trees to the north of Capstone Townhomes remain on the site. She asked Peter whether it would be possible to work this project around these trees. Peter Koliopoulis stated that they would like to work with the PEC, as well as with the adjacent property owners, to come up with a solution. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 3 Dalton Williams asked whether the applicant would consider moving the project 20 feet Peter stated that he felt comfortable that the height would remain at 32 feet. He stated that 38 feet was the maximum allowable in the MDMF zone district and that they were well below this. Jeff Bowen asked Peter what the square footage of each unit would be. Peter stated that the square footage would range from 2,100 to 3,100. He said the average was approximately 2,500 square feet per unit. Allison Lassoe stated that she had no questions. Greg Amsden inquired of staff as to whether a variance would be a possibility on this site. Mike Mollica hesitated to answer this question as staff formulates their position on a project as a group, and further that the survey was incomplete on the south side of the site. Greg Amsden stated that alternatives needed to be looked at with regard to the fire truck turnaround. Bob Armour inquired whether all of the garages were attached to the units. Peter stated that all garages were attached and that the model was not complete. Bob Armour inquired whether any EHU's had been contemplated as a part of this request. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 4 Steve Gensler, developer of the project, stated that they could design one caretaker's unit into this proposal. Bill Anderson stated that there appears to be a lot of fill on the lot and inquired whether this would be going away. Peter stated that he had done a composite drawing which shows the 1989 survey and what they would like to accomplish with the fill with this request. He stated that the difference between the 1989 survey and the current grades was 4 to 6 feet. Bill Anderson stated that he would like to see a topographic survey locating the trees on the south side of the site the next time this project comes before the PEC. Dalton Williams stated that it would be helpful if the model reflected the tree locations. Bruce Chapman, owner of Unit 1 of the adjacent Capstone Townhomes, stated he was concerned about the building's distance from the Capstone Townhomes. He added that the proposed edge of the asphalt of the drive as currently proposed was too close to the Capstone Townhomes. He said that he would like to see the trees preserved as a buffer between the Capstone Townhomes and this project. Roy Sante, homeowner on Buffehr Creek Road, stated that he would like to see more than six aspen trees planted on the southwest side of the project and that he was concerned how these buildings would look from Buffehr Creek Road. Dalton Williams stated that he was concerned with snow storage. Steve Gensler inquired whose property the rock garden was located on. Bruce Chapman responded that it was on Mr. Gensler's property. Kristan Pritz stated that the fire truck turnaround was located very close to one of the Capstone units and that she felt that it was worthwhile to redesign the turnaround in order to avoid excessive walls. Peter stated that the turnaround was designed from the 1989 survey. He stated that once they had realized the true location of the property line that the turnaround could be adjusted to work with the Fire Department and PEC concerns. Steve Gensler inquired whether there was enough room to get the turnaround off of the rock garden. Peter felt that there was enough room on the site to pull the turnaround off of the rock garden. He stated that the turnaround could be located north of the rock garden. He added that the rock garden is not shown on the 1989 or 1993 survey. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 5 Bill Anderson stated that shifting the project forward would certainly help the rock garden situation and create a larger buffer area on the southern side. He said that he would like to see greater separation between the duplex buildings. Kathy Langenwalter stated that it would be difficult to determine how far forward the proposal needed to be moved without a topo survey. She stated that she would like to know where the existing vegetation is located before stating where the turnaround needed to be moved to. She stated that the issue may go beyond the turnaround and that the buildings need greater separation. Bill Anderson stated that the PEC members were given a drawing at project orientation earlier today that showed a proposed bus turnaround. He inquired whether this bus turnaround could be used as the fire truck turnaround. Jeff Bowen stated that they were not requiring employee housing, they were merely requesting it. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the fire truck turnaround redesigned. He suggested that the site be utilized to maintain as many of the existing trees as possible. He said that he was not opposed to the applicant pursuing a front setback variance. He said that he would like the applicant to consider at least one large two- bedroom EHU. Peter stated that he was not clear on the square footage required for an EHU. Mike Mollica inquired whether Steve was willing to deed restrict the proposed caretaker's unit. Steve Gensler responded that he would be willing to deed restrict the unit, if need be. Kathy Langenwalter wanted clarification concerning the total amount of units proposed on the site. Steve Gensler replied that there were eight units being proposed, with one additional caretaker's unit. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 6 Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see greater separation between the buildings. She said that she would not be opposed to a front setback variance if a hardship can be found on the site. Mike Mollica stated that since Andy Knudtsen was out this week, that he could meet with the applicant if he wished to pursue a front setback variance request. Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see an EHU located on this site, in addition to the proposed caretaker's unit. Dalton Williams stated that he would like to see as many trees as possible preserved Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to see greater separation between the buildings, existing vegetation and trees preserved, and at least one two-bedroom EU. Steve Gensler asked whether two one-bedroom units would be acceptable to the PEC. The PEC responded that this would be acceptable. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the she was concerned about the appearance of the units from Buffer Creek Road. She said that if the applicant pursued a front setback variance, it would be necessary that the applicant provide good documentation that a hardship exists on the site. She also mentioned a concern about the appearance of the garage doors and vertical appearance of the units that face Buffehr Creek Road. Three stories going straight up created a concern. She liked the variation in the roof heights. Bruce Chapman stated that he was concerned with the massing of the buildings, as viewed from his Capstone unit. He felt the elevations were severe and needed to have more differentiation and detailing. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 7 Peter explained that the lower bedrooms were actually proposed to be located below existing grade. He stated that he had consciously designed it this was in order to reduce the perceived mass of the buildings. Kathy Langenwalter stated that a site profile might be helpful to allow everyone to see the proposed building separation and building height from Capstone to the front of the site. Kristan Pritz stated that the south building elevations appear to be flat per the elevation and that the applicant is well under the maximum height of 38 feet. Jeff Bowen stated that he is currently the DRB liaison and that the DRB may be concerned with the amount of stone on the elevations. Peter stated that from what he was hearing from the PC that they needed an updated survey and to determine whether a hardship exists on the site in order to pursue a front setback variance. Jeff Bowen stated that the uncertainty concerning the property line constitutes a hardship. Kristan Fritz stated that staff would like to see where the walls and landscaping are located. She stated that there needed to be some reworking of the design. Steve Gensler stated that he did not want to ask for a variance and then fall behind schedule. Kristan Pritz stated that she could not say for sure whether the staff could support a variance until staff has looked at the new survey and design, Peter stated that he would look into locating two one-bedroom EHU's on the site. He stated that he would increase the separation between buildings to a minimum of 10 feet. 5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit located at 1367 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the applicant has recently received approval from the DRB to tear down the existing single family residence and build a duplex, including one 250 allowance. He stated that this EHU would count as one of the three required EHU's for the Cornice Building redevelopment. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the proposed Type II EHU with the two conditions outlined on Page 6 of the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 8 Bob Armour made a motion to approve this request for a conditional use permit to allow for an employee housing unit per the staff memo with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote approved this item. 6. A request for an amendment to Section 18.40, Special Development Districts, to eliminate the use of the SDD in certain zone districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica briefly reviewed the request and stated that he could answer any questions the PEC had concerning the proposed amendments. Bob Armour made a motion to approve the requested amendment to Section 18.40, Special Development Districts per the staff memo with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. Tom Braun stated that he did not understand what was being gained as a result of the proposed amendment to Section 18.40. He felt that keeping the SDD as an option in the zone districts is beneficial. Mike Mollica stated that staff would most likely perform an overhaul on the entire section of the SDD code during the next six to nine months. Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with Tom's comment but he feels that the amendment was the right thing to do. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 7-0 vote approved this item. 7. 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 Knudtsen/Kristan Pritz Kristan Pritz made a presentation per the staff memo. Concerning Item M, Kathy Langenwalter suggested that the last sentence should read "within a market rate". Jeff Bowen stated that he felt the word "minimum" should be removed from Item C in the last sentence. Tom Braun stated that he would like to see Item 8 on Page 4 either eliminated or modified so that the parking was not required to be located on-site for an existing nonconforming unit. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 9 Concerning Item E, Dalton Williams stated that he would like to see the last sentence in this item eliminated. He felt the wording was too strong. He said that he would like the last sentence of item M reworded to: "If the unit is not rented and is not available at the market rate, then it shall be determined to be in noncompliance." Jeff Bowen stated that he still had a problem with Item 7 on Page 4. He stated that the maximum age of the child should be lowered and questioned why this paragraph Kathy Langenlter referred the PEC back to the last sentence in Item E on Page 2 of the staff memo. She felt this sentence was a compromise to let people know what the requirement was. Kristan Pritz stated that the last sentence of Item would be incorporated into the preceding sentence as: "... that the employee housing unit has been rented throughout the year, the rental rate, and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee of Eagle County." Kathy Langenwalter reviewed the proposed changes with the PEC and staff. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the proposal with the recommended changes: II(C) "an average of 30 hours each week." II(E) Remove the last sentence and add, "the rental rate, and that each tenant..." II(M) "If the unit is not rented and is not available at the market rate." III(7) Remove this paragraph. Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote approved this item. 8. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit located at 4030 North Frontage Road East, #D/Lot 213, Pitkin Creek Mountain Townhomes. Applicant: Andrew M. Knudtsen Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO JUNE 27, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until June 27, 1994. Dalton Williams seconded the motion and a 7-0 vote tabled this item to the June 27, 1994 PEC meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 10 A 9. 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: Jay Peterson Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLE T JUNE 7, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until June 27, 1994. Dalton Williams seconded the motion and a 7-0 vote tabled this item to the June 27, 1994 PEC meeting. 10. A request 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 1st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED 7, 1 4 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until June 27, 1994. Dalton Williams seconded the motion and a 7-0 vote tabled this item to the June 27, 1994 PEC meeting. 11. Selection of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the PEC. 12. Approve minutes from May 23, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 23, 1994 PEC meeting with Bill Anderson seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote approved the minutes from the May 23, 1994 PEC meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission June 13, 1994 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an "employee housing unit" on Lot 17, Block Vail Village 1 st Filing/375 Mill Creek Circle. Applicant: Kenneth S. Brown Planner: George uther DESCRIPTION THE PROPOSED USE In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create a new Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing, for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts within the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance states: In this proposal, the applicant is planning to remove an existing single family residence and construct a new single family dwelling on the lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a Type II employee housing unit attached to the northwestern end of the new single family dwelling. This unit is 367 square feet in size and is located immediately above a five car garage which includes a space for the unit. Since the single family residence on Lot 17 has been in existence for more than five years, the applicant is entitled to receive one "250° allowance in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property. Additionally, the applicant intends to use a °250" in the construction of the Type II EHU. This "250'° would normally be available for the applicant five years from the date of a certificate of occupancy. However, in an effort to encourage these types of housing units, the Town has made "250's" available to developers up front as long as they are used in employee housing units. 0 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Allowe d/Reauared Proposed Height 33 feet 32 feet *GRFA 5,452 sq. ft. 5,441.5 sq. ft. Site Coverage 3,703 sq. ft. 3,445 sq. ft. Landscaping 11,110 sq. ft. 11,226 sq. ft. Parking 3 + 1 for EHU 5 enclosed Setbacks: Front 20' 4' Side 15' 20' Side 15' 30' Rear 15' 15' A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply of housing. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs. 2 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. It is likely that there would be one additional vehicle driving to the residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the orooosed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Employee Housing Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those_ zone districts as specified by Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 27. Series of 1992. Emplovee Housina and shall be subiect to the following conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Sinale-Familv Residential. Two-Family Residential and Primarv/Secondarv Residential zone districts. The subject property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. b. It shall be permitted only on lots which compiv with minimum lot size reauirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. The minimum lot size for a Type 11 EHU in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district is 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. The applicant's property has 18,517 square feet of site area. 3 The proposed Type II EHU will be attached to the southern end in the northwest corner of the unit above the garage. The proposed EHU will be a second dwelling unit on the site. It contains a full kitchen and full bathroom facilities. 0 4 It shall have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed EHU is essentially a studio unit and therefore complies with this criteria. g. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) vears of aae shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Tve li EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen (16) vears of aae shall reside in a two (2) bedroom Tvoe II EHU. Since this unit will function as a one (1) bedroom Type II EHU, the first part of the above listed regulation will be complied with. h. Each Twe II EHU shall be required to have no less than one (1) Since this proposal includes the demolition of all existing dwelling and its replacement with a new dwelling. B. Findinas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure, the applicant shall sign a deed restriction using the form provided by the Town of Vail. This document will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2) This conditional use permit shall become effective only after the Design Review Board has approved the development and approved the use of the "250" for the Type 11 EHU. 3) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure, all zoning requirements related to the proposed project shall be met. Please note that under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. Also note that the Vail Town Council is currently considering amendments to the Town of Vail Employee Housing Ordinance regarding requirements for renting employee housing units. These requirements will apply to all EHU's which have not received a building permit prior to the time the amendments are approved by the Town Council on 2nd reading. c: \pec\Memos\s m ith. 613 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 1994 SUBJECT: A review of the parking calculations to be assessed for the Vail Associates' expansion at the Lionshead Center Building. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE • II. BACKGROUND The different areas of the proposed addition can be broken down as follows: Children's Ticket Sales 392 sq. ft. Daycare Area 437 sq. ft. Group Ticket Sales 500 sq. ft. As stated above, the ticket sales area have been consistently assessed a fee of one space for every 250 square feet of floor area. 0 Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Please note that if the fee increases by the time the applicant obtains a building permit, the parking requirement will be calculated on the increased fee. Staff is viewing this used as an expansion of skier services. Staff understands from Vail Associates that it is for their ski school participants, which range from children to adults. It is not considered office space. c:\pec\memos\I hcva.613 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 1994 SUBJECT: An appeal of a staff decision regarding nonconforming structures, demo/rebuilds, setbacks, and the use of the 250 Ordinance pertaining to the Thain development proposal located at 483 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 8A, 8B, and 9, Texas Townhouses, Vail Village 4th Filing. Appellant: Jay Peterson, representing Helen Chatfield Planner: Jim Curnutte I. INTRODUCTION Since Mr. Peterson is appealing all items set forth in the staff letter dated May 13, 1994. Each of the six paragraphs therein will be further discussed as follows: Paragraph 1 from the Mav 13. 1994 letter: Staff Response Section 18.64.010 (Purpose) of the nonconforming section of the Vail Municipal code states that: Additionally, Section 18.64.040 (Uses) states that: E Can an applicant voluntarily tear down a nonconformina structure and build a new structure as Iona as the nonconformity is not increased? - Section 18.64.060 (Maintenance and Repairs) states that: 2 "Nonconforming uses, structures, and site improvements may be Section 18.64.090 (Restoration) states that: Although the above paragraph does not include reference to the voluntary removal of a nonconforming building, it does seem clear that nonconforming use or structure may be restored within one year after its demolition. C. Comolete or substantial removal. - The Town has previously determined that tear down/rebuild is the "ultimate remodel Because of this determination and the fact that two of the building's foundation walls will remain, staff believes that this application should be considered a substantial remodel of an existing building rather than a complete removal of a non-conforming structure. ar rah from the av 13. 1994 letter: 0 Staff Response Since the Thain units (Units 8A and 88) have been in existence for more than five years, they Paragraph from the av 1, 1994 letter: Staff Response Staff does not believe that the existing building will become more nonconforming as a result of the 250 additions because the existing mass and bulk of the building will be unaffected. Also, there would not be any increase in the discrepancy between the existing conditions and the development standards allowed in the HDMF zone district. With regard to the setback nonconformity, staff has made the interpretation that the existing perimeter line of the building establishes the legal extent of the setback nonconformity. Existing and new GRFA may be rearranged within the shell of the existing building, and underground, as long as the perimeter lines are not exceeded. Staff believes that any above grade or below grade expansion which would break the plane of the existing nonconformity would require variances from the Town Code. 0 building containing three or more dwelling units, including townhouses, rouss, apartments, and condominium units, designed for or used by three or more families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit." Section 1 . 4 defines townhouse s: 16 Clearly, the Texas o n es building meets the definition a townhouse building n is therefore considered to be a multi-family building, a it relates to determination of the unit type category described in the additional 250 section of the Code." Staff Response For the reasons stated in the May 13, 1994 letter, staff believes that the Texas Townhomes clearly meet the definition of a townhouse and is therefore considered to be a multi-family building, as it relates to the determination of unit type category described in the additional 250 section of the Code. araoraah 5 from the Mau 13. 1994 letter: "As you know, in order to apply for a 250, evidence must be provided that Staff Response rrh 6 from the v 1. 1994 letter: Staff Resoonse We o not believe that Jay Peterson has any objection to this paragraph. c:\pec\memos\ch atfie 1.613 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 May 13, 1994 Lynn Fritzlen Fritzlen, Pierce, river P.O. Box 57 Vail, CO 81658 Department Of Community Development E: Proposed remodel of the Thain residence, Lots 8, 8B and , Texas Townhomes, Vail Village 4th Filing. 2. The proposed remodel of the Thain residence includes two additional 250 square foot applications. Section 18.71.030 H (Additional Gross Residential Floor Area) states that any dwelling unit in a multi-family dwelling shall be eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a maximum of 250 square feet in addition to the existing GRFA for the site provided that no exterior additions or alterations to multi-family dwellings, with the exception of window skylights or other similar modifications, shall be allowed. The Thains are proposing to utilize two 250 ordinances for the two dwelling units within the existing shell of the building and construct a basement when the new building is constructed. Therefore, the GRFA attributed to the two 250's shall not alter the exterior of the dwelling units. Since the 250 section of the Code does not allow for the pooling of additional GRFA, it is important that each 250 square foot addition be directly attributed to each dwelling unit. Ms. Fritzlen May 13, 1994 Page Two "A building containing three or more dwe,ljling units, including townhouses, rowhouses, apartments, and condominium units, designed for or used by three or more families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit." Section 17.98.240 defines a townhouse as: "A building that has one family dwelling units erected in a row or in a clustered fashion as a single building on adjoining lots, each being separate from the adjoining unit or units by a party wall or walls extending from the basement floor to the roof along the dividing lot line, and each such building being separate from any other building by space on all sides." Ms. Fritzlen May 13, 1994 Page Three Clearly, the Texas Townhomes building meets the definition of a townhouse building and is therefore considered to be a multi-family building, as it relates to determination of the unit type category described in the additional 250 section of the Code. 6. Also mentioned during our conversation on Wednesday, please provide a copy of Association approval to temporarily remove the existing landscape amenities (grass, rocks, etc.) currently existing on the Association property, located directly in front of Lots 8 and 9. Please address how you intend to landscape this area after the construction on your landscape plan. I believe the above information accurately describes our conversation on Wednesday May 11, 1994. However, if you are not in agreement with any of the information contain in this letter, please contact me immediately to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, /Z;;,v a"?? Jim Curnutte Town Planner xc: Tom Moorhead 0 R' LEY, HARRING PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW LINCOLN CENTER 1660 LINCOLN STREET, SUITE 3175 DENVER, COLORADO 80264 VAIL NATIONAL BANK BLDG, 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD REST, SUITE 307 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TELEPHONE (303) 837-1660 FACSIMILE (303) 837.0097 May 23, 1994 Mr. Jim Curnute Town of Vail Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 E: Lot 8, The Rowhouses Dear Jim: TELEPHONE (303) 476.0092 FACSIMILE (303) 479.0467 On instructions from Helen Chatfield, who is an adjacent property owner of Lot 8, The Rowhouses, she hereby appeals the Staff interpretation of all items set forth in your letter of May 13, 1994 regarding the expansion and alteration to Lot 8, The Rowhouses. If you have any questions please contact me at my office. Sincerely, n 0 MEMORANDUM T: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a orsion for an amendment to a previously approved plan to allow for four duplexes to be constructed at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge 3rd Filing. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knutsenl ike ollica PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. General Description Steve Gensler, who completed development of Phase 11 at Vail Point, i proposing four B. Process The annexation agreement allowed fifteen dwelling units and 19,445 square feet of GRFA plus credits for this lot. Under the proposed design, there are 1,800 square feet of credits as there are four duplexes. Each dwelling unit receives a 225 square feet credit. By adding the credits to what is allowed, the total allowable square footage is 21,262 square feet of GRFA. The applicant is proposing eight dwelling units and 20,866.9 square feet of GRFA. 11. BACKGROUND OF THE VIL POINT PROJECT The Vail Point Townhome development (formerly Talon Townhomes), Phases I, 11 and 111, was annexed into the Town of Vail on July 17, 1979. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1979 addresses the annexation, Medium Density Multiple Family zoning was applied to the development with conditions outlined in the annexation agreement. The review process was defined at the time the project was annexed into the Town of Vail as described above. The Vail Point Townhome development is comprised of three phases. Phases I and 11 are located on Lot 1, Block 3 which is on the north side of Lion's Ridge Loop, and Phase III is located on Lot 27, Block 2 which is across the street on the south side of Lion's Ridge Loop. According to the annexation agreement, Phases I and II were approved for forty-eight dwelling units. Phase III was approved for fifteen dwelling units. Phase I Phase I, as constructed, includes twenty dwelling units having a total GRFA of 27,759 square feet. It is completed and final Certificates of Occupancy have been issued. Phase II As originally approved, Phase If called for the construction of twenty dwelling units having a total GRFA of 28,045 square feet. In September of 1989, the PPC approved a modification to the plan to decrease the number of dwelling units by one and increase the GRFA by 750 square feet resulting in a total of 28,795 square feet. This 750 square feet was deducted from the total allowable GRFA for Phase 111. Phase III Originally, there was 19,445 square feet of GRFA allocated for Phase III and fifteen dwelling units. That is now increased by 17 square feet to 19,462 square feet, plus credits. There is a credit of 225 per constructed dwelling unit for duplexes in this zone district. • 2 III. ZONING ANALYSIS 'AIEW Zoning: Medium Density Multi-Family Lot Size: 2.1037 acres per Eagle Valley Surveying or 91,637.2 square feet Allowed GRFA per Talon Townhomes records: 19,462 square feet plus a credit of 225 per constructed dwelling unit, or 21,262 sq. ft. Zoninq Standard Allowed Proposed Height: 38' 32' maximum GRFA: 21,262 sq. ft. 20,866.9 sq, ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' Side/Side: 20' 20' Rear: 20' 20' Site Coverage: 45% or 41,236.7 sq. ft. 15.6% or 14,259.9 sq. ft. Landscaping: 30% or 27,491.2 sq. ft. 54.7% or 50,109 sq. ft. Wall Heights: 376' 5' Parking: 2-1 /2 per unit 3 to 4 spaces per unit rounded up to 3 spaces I. ISSUES DISCUSSION PERTAINING LAYOUT 1. Does the site plan and architectural design provide for an attractive development? 2. Is there adequate landscaping within the project and surrounding the project? 0 3 1 How will drainage be handled in the development? 4. What alternative issues are involved with providing bus service to this area? Prior to returning to the PEC for a final review of this proposal, staff believes the applicant should provide detailed drawings of the bus turnaround to the Town of Vail Public Works staff for their review and approval. In addition to the drawings, an agreement shall be provided between Pat Dauphinais, Steve Gensler and the Town of Vail stipulating who will pay for what portions of these improvements. In addition to the turnaround, the staff believes that a bus shelter should be provided at this location. Staff believes that the applicant for Phase III should pay 100% of the cost of installing the bus shelter at this location. 5. Is the reduction of density on this lot appropriate? Should EHU's be included in the project? In the past, staff has typically recommended approval when developers have requested a reduction in density. This has been seen as a reduction in impacts and a benefit to the neighborhood on sensitive sites. However, a reduction in density is not necessarily always the most efficient use of land nor does it always result in the best end for the community (i.e. decreasing units when housing is a community concern). V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, staff has no formal recommendation. Any comments raised in reference to the issues listed above, or other issues that may arise during the hearing, will be addressed by the applicant prior to returning for final review of the project. c:\pec\memos\vai11)#.613 EA.enq FUi Hy f O sow ti,. pip a c'194 tcCia Itf®. LIONS BIOGE Loo? - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - --- .L t?R,v SWO Wn«kdBC'aii vivmy xia Ta - ^ y u"?°a a? i 1 e?-c ?n Env 6x'n a, +remo+o,.v .4 trRny ? y Tr..ir.n Y Ee.a , M1[?N N L9 ? rN E?i ? ,I, rrmr i..mm s }? TeRtp Y E,. na P A. TrRro. r e.mo ?:i'oir?j d T 1,1- 1. Try. \ E+sV R>s} \X r r \ ice e E:dc ? -r \ ,? ?TrRy C !r! E+. F?.PryryYY 77 }, trev,. ,!, rrnm. A. 1,[D'>a? ',' E 7 E'.. BfCPP ' R E+m?C CV.aj E+o ?? ro iriyy aeinryl .I. irAV»sn®wi Cl? f mn»:9.p1 GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS (G.R.F.A.)-ACTUAL (G.R.F.A.)- ALLOWABLE u 6q FL , ay a _M FYI (Omlt®®22S (!n) A 2306 21.3664 80. FT. s n F 5 ZJ? ?, l+ c 2.607 - ?. 21,2112 t8?s 0 2612 21.252®QR.FA ALEDYMBI.= E 2106 F 2+66 0 %1W X 2 `-xp Tart 20.4W 50. FT. ACTUAL 47 Trn? Eneno ? }, tiRg • O 9 - ---- - -- - --- - ---- 0 ? 41 Roy y s.stm-a,r H e nDI 90 t< _ `i, rraw - _ ?y?u G y a.nw. <,e ?r « ttLL + G' . . o? ti. -------__--°_-- 77 Ell ?? I I Ii I I) .t?. ` ? 1J I It ? i ? ? i ' i %\'1 `' '_•? ----------------------------- -------------- ------------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------°' --•--- ---------------- - ' -------- - --------------- -1 ----------------------------- ------------------- .. --- ?r M hS.M C-Vft W-4.5" Mbv Wale 0 kB EAST ELEVATION A24 IM. 9'4ff REP: 91A1-1 t hdko" 1 AS EAST ELEVATION A24 19.1'-7 REF: 1/A1-1 i ----- _ t LLYV'_k'4. I ( 9 ti: j .. cl I = i 1 t 1 1 I I-- -- -- -- --?-- -- -- -- -- -- --t-- -- -- -- - -----T- ----`i -- - ------------- ?------------ 1--------- I I 1 i 2 AS SOUTH ELEV I 1 I I + ATION r ------ 7----1_r y-_ Lke hood" L F - --------------- ?y wdeft Pads - ------- -- --- ---------------------- ---------- ----------------------- --- ------- o»e raid ----------------- ------ ----- waft, AB WEST E L E V A T I A2-b 1w. T-W F x < ?. i --------- ----- ----- ------------------------------------ 2A.'B NORTH ELEVAT A£-b 1 9° ® 9'-T 771 EEEE -1 L -------------------------- ---------- ------ ----- ------ --.. - -._... ; ?s r ----------------- ----------------- --------------- A$ WEST E L E V A T I O N Alb 1w. V-T FE: VAi-t 0 is -------------- Cl ? LC LE-11 h_1I1--l s 6' 7 r - n •t _ ftm { I ? !' ?v ? ! ? ? ? ?' ? I ? ?'_-_' If? ? ? " /'?// '?I I !ri''''? ? 1' 1 P "i - L?< • <a< ^/ c ------------------------------------------ ---------- - -------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------ --------- ------------------------------ 2C.D EAST ELEVATION A" 1k.1'-P REP. 11A1-1 L F `c g 1 o p,r, PrM ?" .i ji i ; I Wdov WSW ---------------------- ------------------------- ------------- ------ ----------------------------------------- ------ ----------------- ------------------ --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ = SOUTH E L E V A T I O N A95 tM=9`C f SlA9-9 Mo. Br Qf?-9° 'W Tl ? Eta j Tl? w? i Tl? ? Hr NTFfi• I^?/ '? wan -? "fix QL?q` - - c ?• LEI? ,t r ?.. _ - -- -------- y-------- ---- , r ------------- ------------- -------------------- ------------------------ CD NORTH E L E V A T I O N A" tw - Vo REF. 9/A9.9 A, ^?R Y e.r a El EE EB P, ED. ILL -- s ------------------------- ................._......-.........._- ...._..._.._--.°.------'.-...--..t....... . ....--_.-.. - - --------- - -- muss ek •: , ? - - i +mmnc J? :.... ..............................................................:.......................................................°...... 1 CD SOUTH ELEVATION hS¢ VC.9.a R? VAt•9 Y p•nvr s .?? 1 v Ras ?6 • • t N.M 6` t V I' S a J ` `1 „? `? J ? v ac ( L?``r f i i i ! 1 I 1 1 1 t i ?-- U I / I 1 I 1 ! 1 I 1 L®®_____________L______ _--_-__1__-®___-.__-_________9 I ! i I ! Dow 1 1 f I 1 ! i0 I ! i E:F WEST E L E V A T I O N r _____?T____ _ M$t lm. 9'-7 REF. tAt-9 • • s .t. T; SMOd .d ?q r 9DWd W.4 P.kftd V"L y? `-?_•% ).. 11 -\~*n{ \? 3-? d/, '? 1 7 sc - v s Lai- .^ q,QmxY y? I Jam.. r^^'l? v- ?.m Y. ? _sJ e ' - ?. 11 .l,My I, - S? ' ? .............. .. ....... .... _...._•----•---•- ----„-._., _s. _..__•__..__... ___•____-_. _. _. _....._.__. _- . . - EF SOUTH ELEVATION -_- - 1466 1µ•: 117 REF; 1A1.1 T-P Trrr 5' n.em_s?c' 1 41hp -® -- Y n.na?.u d ac4 W •- ___ ___- err ?amx Sbkd 4rmrp ML ? r r- v 1 _ at= DID! 11 LLJI -011-01, e J ?4 11 , . F- • F (J e e n ---------- ----- --- ------------ ------------ -------- ------- --------------- -------- Du°W abr pad. j E:F SOUTH ELEVATION - ° °, °- ---- --° ° j 7 ((( (( cr 5 ? CD Q-? ,. tt ?- _________--------------------- ------------------------------ -_-_____ ------------ - °- - -' '------------°-°--°-°------- ----- - - ------- EF NORTH E L E V A T I O N "a 9K. 91-7 PzP. jkl-l 1 E:F NORTH E L E V M-8 W.9`4r M A, . l ® a] U l?? ----.? -------------------------------------------------------- Ef EAST E L E W A" IN-To is io - , T/illo aetl9f-C T! aaH9P 9atP } T/ ®--- a. f+af-wer + 71- y a. e, -'a w y i -?ty?J`y Iii ?`--- - ----- Lim hdb" ------------------------ - ------------ T----------------------------- ---- ------ ----------- ------------ -----------------___------- 1G:H SOUTH ELEVATION A54 lM ® TO REF. t/A9-9 41 llp- E- `f Bet f T) - - 8.f • i • G:H SOUTH E L E V A T I O N Abi W.9'$ R¢: 11A9-1 ® T FEE] 7-1 r OR z-? a 4 I w 011 is } el ?fV l 4--J?M Y ; vtr?.? Cno ---- ---------------- ------------------ ----------- ----------------- -, 20 = c? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbw kdcsbo -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - GH EAST E L E V A T I O Dow bw hs=* 2. A5-4 SM'. r-0' F1E tok-.,......-bebw a --_ ' r------------------ + --------------------------- ------------------------- -------- ------------------------- e - ------------ ------- ---------------------------- r. , ------------ --------------- ---------------------------- 1 G:H WEST E L E V A T I O N REF: I/Al-I , -421 ------ ------- - - - ------ ---------------- - ------ ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------ ------- a4? r- -7 yt ? 1 t `LL t may. t V - Ct t t e` t.-.; ttcp, t tc- mow a? L uw blam-M -?-`l 1I ? t mow" waft uv mow@ WW- pad& TI- ----------------- ------ -------------- ---------- --------------- -------------------- --- ---- -- --- --- -- -------------- -------- - GH SOUTH E L E V A T I O N AF-6 IW 411- REF' IIAt-1 . y MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an "employee housing unit" on Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing/1367 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte DESCRIPTION In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create a new Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing, for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts within the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance states: Since the single family residence on Lot 5 has been in existence for more than five years, the applicant is entitled to receive one "250" allowance in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property. Additionally, the applicant intends to use a "250" in the construction of the Type II EHU. This "250" would normally be available for the applicant five years from the date of a certificate of occupancy for one of the duplex dwelling units. However, in an effort to encourage these types of housing units, the Town has made "250's" available to developers up front as long as they are used in employee housing units. ? X T Site Coverage 4,638 sq. ft. 4,331 sq. ft. Landscaping 13,915 sq. ft. 15,016 sq. ft. Parking 7 10 Setbacks: Front 20' 35' Side 15' 17' Side 15' 17' Rear 15' 30' *This figure includes two 425 square foot credits for the two halves of the duplex and two 250 allowances. Please note that this zoning analysis may be slightly modified prior to final DRB approval. However, staff will insure that all zoning standards will be met. 40 Ill. CRITERIA AFINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply of housing. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs. 9 2 + S S F 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type 11 EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. It is likely that there would be one additional vehicle driving to the residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, includina the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surroundina uses. 5. Emolovee Housina Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 27. Series of 1992. Emolovee Housina and shall be subiect to the following conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Sinale-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential and Primarv/Secondarv Residential zone districts. The subject property is zoned Two-Family Residential. b. It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with minimum lot size reauirements of the zone district in which the lot is located., The minimum lot size for a Type 11 EHU in the Two-Family Residential zone district is 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. The applicant's property has 23,191 square feet of buildable site area. 3 The proposed Type 11 EHU will be attached to the southern end of the southeastern-most duplex unit on the site. The proposed EHU will be a third dwelling unit on the site. It contains a full kitchen and full bathroom facilities. I h f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed EHU is essentially a studio unit and therefore complies with this criteria. g. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) years of aae shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Tvoe 11 EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen (16) vears of aoe shall reside in a two (2) bedroom Tvr)e II EHU. Since this unit will function as a one (1) bedroom Type 11 EHU, the first part of the above listed regulation will be complied with. h. Each Tvpe 11 EHU shall be required to have no less than one (1) Since this site is currently vacant and this is new construction, the requirement for a one space garage for the EHU is required and will be fulfilled. B. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: Is 5 i . That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Please note that under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. Also note that the Vail Town Council is currently considering amendments to the Town of Vail Employee Housing Ordinance regarding requirements for renting employee housing units. These requirements will apply to all EHU's which have not received a building permit prior to the time the amendments are approved by the Town Council on 2nd reading. cApec\m emos\s m it h.613 0 6 • s Lo 4 PAIL YILw6E r?WKV NO, e - - Twci k Nt$"x*'11'C? 114. aJ', _ /.r -.. ?-kJ3s nN.Ei lK.y Y R' un..mt W?' / , ?.C.JAWS- ?u4nt>-!e µy CO) s - ml l..m?rlWt.t' , 2? ? . J/I ( ?, ? ?? , i0 ® !L9/.x(. . \ ? M'1. roFyciMt f s j zl L / b LOT Nrw°a?syw_ta9.m? _ ?' I . s° . ?+uc max' u.a& 5'FaNO. ' ro VAIL o 1 w?- s ' RE6E ;'C ;IIp 1994. s WIT 'A "BVT: %31 6103 9F ?T>r ?Year?? cu . .O?KYi 37Jy. ?" 9n74° .3 d4rhi . X98.2 `.,f °C,F? N Pmt'fKNal"{fFOf9 9M+, Q? = Ibi?.S hP 6Lx 6 F?'ff?iNT lr?on °.?i f. c} > Zd74.A '„? d y-..p r fuP. ASej '-id7+'q"' 1EYrVny7fR •.io rgHl• Y79 ?` 9?' K aM??IP Ki- Ndi4a B - f 5o BP f1E1+bLitloM lT S5o q` IkJIT % = M5$5F 5G03 JF SLY. N`-G tit ? hKrCC< ttEi<'t? GANC'- p., yr ldivU('l rtgr"pygp [Ot?,._._.,g- ----- ,NdY 151914 4a ?' 'BZS.+ EVIL. ' Av? r?. ;L tYISTt4t . ? Ak2J ASLkN &° mlY C4uv '??? q(?,.° " ' ? WT??- UBJ 9WLMT G MiU kY' V f a , l M(XJfO C1 ".,E SG4A. ?? ps? , ??y { l Y RaJ'lvw. uetee ?j v, y ,.,?'e IX9ENYtiAA $SA6. ??? F40t.?.t (; ' " ? yy ta YZ ' RJ A9Aent 6" tnranoro 9 x RCVP91fi1J9 t. way .r , 0 f • 7 ZZ, jN$Y I i14- _g ?swr 3 tlrt _ ^` x? u D I" (Dt?, .vb5 ? ? ? YxT.s ?r ? ?r. I ? f fi F' 'l Hl 1111 it. . _. K 10, &- cau,r Asr t??'s: taur ulrp4 ?'*SE- ?r.s,i ru..?t-. v,;R?t>e._ SY?..?._ ten:-r.?€., ea=' n ?,[[ Jsrvur rnx h .n 7711 4 "111' ,.,.r„ --• rrr t¢ iC) ?1- ? . Ley Cj, 77 7 44, FEV?aAUrIS i. 4247'Y A ? I aif+:+p s, I axr: ? •, o OR.aWt? }gi: Y ? 8e? ,Ox6 Y +a rVBfl LLt HAA A M, I.A 8 f _ 3 Llu "ter ?? 1 G ` i-J' a u rr aw p _ ^?axs (7 C1 1 ? e-3•t5?a4 i- vu, Nli - c __ ---- "A T, - y _- _> anl?CU,S h'bi"p8x A?;P:, 5A4% 1J ^d1TN tiis?#tt'- j'- . t' 61d44.. CVE`-Wf?, hYlr A w e 0 77 I f ? 1 Naa9,% r ? 1 Jtli !> _I Y 29°.;.? I , j L. I - 9 ! 9S'AiN L{J /F-F, L.C'?E-i- zlr9.9 :r W UNIT A t°vvr r'-Ar 6dMLE. 2Y+I? %i . w ., 2 SPx %! ' VNIf a OfjiK- -. _ _ 0 ,flats < n e s? 77-1 ep,;?` y IGa3 ryl 1 9a ? sY ? f 1m ? vl9R .axle wr:?iwa .? I 16x11 ?$---}--_ Z _ - i __ y 1EM('IIOfE.E F#i I-1, 12 ' My ?' -MA M W. VML 1,OWCU46 ti _ ?al C= cl T , A ? \ s I "X `' T _ aa,+u r L ? ? Fht ?? { ft_?zy 1 16E0 ww??mr l cCO I 2 ? ? 'r-^ ? ? 111 -fe,,., ?(- ? •? ,??? ? - d ?, ' ! ? . ? '? ? ; ? 1 ' jl; ! ` f SPI 21 110- ?. ••? ? ? ? Stt4kf . i{ --?? FOWEft -FYEL GPfA lEt5.1<.f i? ')n 6P_lF..+i LK"r io,, i,. - ? dl Pd=N:?oN2 VA. $ YA K Gr.KF Uh117 F) { tJ ' = •?° rvva:. ?r?n ens=rs ?s Mt, rte ? ? rnw ttx 6 .s-- sY.eexz seas me 1,10 a AT$ 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 1994 The Special Development District (SDD) section of the Town of Vail Municipal Code currently allows for the establishment of an SDD in any of the Town's zone districts. The Town Council has directed the planning staff to proceed with an amendment to the SDD section of the zoning code which would eliminate the possible establishment of an SDD in the following zone districts: -Single Family Residential -Two Family Residential -Primary/Secondary Residential -Hillside Residential In addition to the above low density residential zone districts, staff would recommend that the establishment of an SDD also be prohibited in the following zone districts: Agricultural and Open Space -Green Belt and Natural Open Space District -Parking District -Public Use District If. BACKGROUND HISTORY Staff believes that the SDD ordinance was originally intended to provide for flexibility in the development of land and to facilitate design, which is sensitive to the site, and to provide for the site specific review of mixed-use and large-scale development projects. The purpose of this proposed amendment to the SDD chapter is to clarify this initial intent. For background information, the following are the four SDD's which would not have been allowed had this proposed language been initially incorporated into the SDD ordinance: SDD #13 - Wirth/Wheeler (Lots 7. 8, 9, Block H, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing).. The staff recommendation on this SDD establishment was for denial, due to the applicant's proposal to reduce the project's density by eliminating two employee housing units. The PC unanimously (4-0-1) recommended approval of the request and the Town Council also unanimously (6-0) approved the establishment of the SDD. 2. SDD 22 - Dauhinais oselev Subdivision (Grand Traverse). The staff recommendation on this SDD establishment was for approval. The PEC unanimously (7-0) recommended approval of the request and the Town Council also unanimously approved the establishment of the SDD (by a vote of 5-0-1). 3. SDD #26 - Shapiro Special Development District. Although this SDD request was denied by the Town Council in 1991, the request involved the establishment of an SDD on an unplatted parcel of ground consisting of approximately 6.8 acres. The property is located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. The underlying zone district on this unplatted parcel was Agricultural and Open Space. This SDD's deviations from the underlying zone district included GRFA (an additional 2,625 square feet), density (one additional dwelling unit), wall height (wall heights up to 9.5 feet), and slopes (1.25:1 slopes). The staff recommendation on this SDD establishment was for denial, and the PEC also unanimously recommended denial. Ultimately, the Town Council also voted for denial of the SDD. 2 4. SDD #26B - Warner SDD (Sunburst Drive). With regard to low density residential development, staff believes that the variance process is the appropriate vehicle to utilize for requests involving modifications to the Town's adopted development standards. We believe that the SDD approach should not be used as a means to circumvent the variance process, or to achieve density increases for these types of dwelling units (i.e single-family, primary/secondary or duplex). Due to the limited development allowed in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district (a maximum of one dwelling unit with up to 2,000 square feet of GRFA), the staff believes that the above philosophy applies to this zone district as well. Additionally, because there is essentially no development allowed in the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zone district, the staff believes it is also not appropriate to allow for the special development district overlay in this zone district. With regard to the Parking zone district and the Public Use zone district, essentially all of the development standards are set by the PEC during their review of a conditional use permit. It is because of this fact that the planning staff believes there is no benefit in allowing a special development district overlay in these zone districts. The flexibility afforded through the conditional use permit review by the PEC already provides for this. 3 The staff also believes that any existing Special Development District, regardless of its underlying zone district, should be "grandfathered" and that the property owner of said Special Development District should be allowed to proceed through the minor or major SDD review process. Ill. PROPOSED CODE CHANGES The following is the proposed language that the staff would recommend be added to the Zoning Code. The specific text amendments are indicated by the shading. Chapter 18.40.010 - Purpose 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 "Underlying zone district" shall mean the zone district existing on the property, or imposed on the property at the time the special development district is approved. The following zone districts are prohibited from special development dig tricts being used: Hillside Residential, Ingle Family, Duplex, Primary/Secondary Residential, Agdclult'ural and Open Space, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space, Parking I-Districl and Public Use District. Chapter 18.40.140 - Existinq special development districts 1. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit, replace or diminish the requirements, responsibilities, and specifications of special development districts No.'s 2 through 21. The Town Council specifically finds that said special development districts No.'s 2 through 21 shall remain in full force and effect, and the terms, conditions, and agreements contained therein shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Town of Vail. These districts, if not commenced at the present time, shall comply with Section 18.40.120, time requirements. (Ord. 21(1988) § 1.) 0 4 2. Nothing in this chapter shall be COFIi Strued to Limit, replace or diminish tale requiremments, resporisibiiities and specification , of special deven-PMG-Ilt cli stricts No. 1 through :32, regardless of the properties' underlying zone district. Said special developmerit districts shall be allowed to proceed through ei'iF3or the minor or major special do velopirnent distr i t review pioce;ss. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the proposed modifications to the existing SDD ordinance. By eliminating the possibility of SDD's being requested in certain zone districts, the staff believes that the SDD chapter would be more in keeping with the original intent of the SDD ordinance. The specific wording for the ordinance will be refined by the Town Attorney. A comprehensive overhaul of the SDD Chapter will be initiated by the staff in the next -1 months. At that time, the staff will explore the possibility of regulating D's according to a minimum lot size. Because this proposed change involves a code amendment, a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission will be forwarded to the Town Council during their review of the final ordinance. c:\pec\mem cs\sd d.613 is s 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 13, 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. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen DESCRIPTION 11. CHANGES PROPOSED CODE B. 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 ff?ay shall' be lease 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. 0 1. 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 of this chapter. 2. A Type 11 EHU shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the single-family or two-family dwelling is located within or attached to. 3. A Type III EHU may 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 III EHU is located so long as it meets the condition set forth in Section 18.57.060 , 11 of this chapter. . 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 1V EHU is located. 5. Type V EHU shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the single-family dwelling it may be located within or attached to. D. Reserved. E. 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 chapter shall submit two copies of a report on 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 the r npk__)yee housing lunit has been rented throughout the year and that each tenant who resides within #:P-,4f- the employees hou,, ing unit is -a full-time employee of Eagle County. The C3i.,v :'r of he unlit hall also provide rentall rate )3l;ory'i" Jon t? confirm that the rate has been consistent with the market rate as dele3-r3"7ined lr' 'section 18,57.020((). F. No property containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum RFA permitted in Title 18 except as provided in Sections 18.57.040 B4, 18.57.050 B5 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. 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. 2 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. L. The ownor of each EHU ;shall rent ttie unit at a monthly rental rate (-onsisten: with those market r,+tes prevalem for similar pm.perties in the Town of Vaili 3 of othe'r un;s of ..^-399?..1te., I .' 3r. f 1/+i 1 .d .. `?m1?r`?I t. t?r? rn_?"?=,- ?+ 3?s.-s ?i .. i2- ,l t?'fiP G." _.V y.. .:: at (Ord. 27 (1992) § 1-3: Ord. 8 (1992) 4(part).) III. CLARIFICATION II EHUS Section 18.57.050 Type 11 - Employee housing unit. A. Purpose. To allow for the construction of an EHU on lots in the single-family, two- family, and primary/secondary zone districts which meet the minimum lot size requirements for said zone districts. B. General conditions: 1. It shall be a conditional use in the single-family residential, two-family residential and primary/secondary residential zone districts. 2. It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with the minimum lot size requirements for total lot area of the zone district in which the lot is located. 3. It shall be located within, or attached to, a single-family dwelling or be located within, or attached to, a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section 18.54.0401 - design guidelines duplex and primary/secondary development. It may also be located in, or attached to, an existing garage provided the garage is not located within any setback, and further provided that no existing parking required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. 4. It shall not be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating density exist on the lot. Only one Type II EHU shall be allowed per lot. . It shall have not more than two bedrooms, 7, No more than two adults and one child not older than sixteen years of age shall reside in a one bedroom Type II EHU. No more than two adults and two children not older than sixteen years of age shall reside in a two bedroom Type II EHU, IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 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. a\pec\memos\ehu.613 4