HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0627 PECSite Visits 12:30 p.m.
1. Apostol
2. ' VV8GO2OD
3. Public Works Facility
4. Knudtsen
Public Hegljn
1. A request for a setback variance for an addition to an existing residence located at
2692 Cortina Lane/Lot 10, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Hans Weimann/Bob Redpatl�
Kanner: Mike Mollica
2. A request for a variance to locate GRFA below an allowed garage 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
3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit
located at 4030 North Frontage Road East, #D/Lot 2B, Pitkin Creek Meadows
Applicant: Andrew M. Knudtsen
Planner: Jim Curnutte
4. A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion to
the administration building located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted parcel located
north of the 1-70 Right-Of-Way, north of Vail Village, 8th Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
1
11
5. A request for an update for an amendment to a previously approved plan to allow f(M
four duplexes to be constructed at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridg
3rd Filing. I
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Planner: Andy Knucltsen
6. 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 Knucltsen TABLED TO JULY 11, 1994
7. 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 INDEFINITELY
8. Approve minutes from June 13, 1994 PEC meeting.
I
1117111"?, 111�3!115111�
i iii.
z1st Reading SDD Ordinance
-Alpine Design, June 28, 1994, at the Town Council Worksession.
K
Bill Anderson Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz
Jeff Bowen Bob Armour Mike Mollica
Kathy Langenwalter Andy Knudtsen
Allison Lassoe
Dalton Williams
A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion to
the administration building located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted parcel located
north • the 1-70 Right-of-Way, north • Vail Village, 8th Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg HaU
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
1111
ffl�Mffl FIRM Iff I iiiii IF '11111I S 1� 11
Greg Hall explained that this area of asphalt could be removed, but that parking would
be provided near the building. Greg also stated that the Fire Department is requiring a
new sprinkler system in the new part of the building so the Fire Department turn
around would not be necessary.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC should review this project just like any other
project that comes before the PEC. She said that there is too much asphalt with no
purpose. Deliveries are acceptable but some asphalt needs to be removed.
ROOM.
Dalton Williams was very concerned about public safety during the winter because
access to this building is very steep and icy. He suggested changing the driveway to z
cidewalk.
Planning and Environmental Commission
9 June 27, 1994
Allison Lassoe requested that a few parking spaces should be put in, that would be
reserved for visitors and that Public Works get rid of excess asphalt and use a
walkway instead of a large asphalt area.
Susie Hervert stated that a lot of bus drivers use that area to access the building and
in the winter it is easier to maintain this area using a small snow plow instead of doing
the plowing by hand.
Kathy seconded Dalton's idea, expressing that it is confusing to visitors as to where to
park when at Public Works.
FORMET-119M
Dalton asserted that the PEC should hold the Town of Vail submittals to the standards
held to all other projects presented to the PEC. Other businesses have delivery areas
requiring people to walk to the businesses, M
Kathy stated that adding more landscaping below and above the asphalt may help
break up the appearance of all the asphalt in this area.
Andy Knudtsen stated he would like to see the outdoor lighting changed to downlil
fixtures.
Kathy Langenwalter asked for a straw vote to see if the PEC wanted the asphalt to •
eliminated all together.
101,11111 NORMAN,
----------
Bill, Kathy, and Jeff were comfortable with the driveway as long as excess asphalt is
taken away on the west side and three visitor parking spaces are created at the bottom
of the driveway on the east side.
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 27, 1994 2
2. A request for a setback variance for an addition to an existing residence located at
2692 Cortina Lane/Lot 10, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Hans Weimann/Bob Redpath, represented by Jim Morter
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica presented and summarized the staff memo. For the record, a site visit
was done. Staff supports the request based on a physical hardship. Staff
recommends approval of this request with two conditions as stated in the staff memo
on page 4:
Condition #1: That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for this
project, the Town of Vail Fire and Public Works Departments
review the final details on the construction and approve the
request.
Condition #2: That all the existing T-1 11 siding on the building be replaced wi'l
"real wood" siding, subject to the Design Review Board review
and approval.
Jim Morter, project architect, explained that the retaining wall would be part of the
house and would have the least visual impact in this location. He explained that he
has met with the Fire Department and is addressing the issue of Fire Department
access to the property.
Bill Anderson stated he wanted to add one additional item to include as a condition of
approval. He asked that the PEC require an "expert" engineer to look at the retaining
walls on Lots 8, 9, and 10 along Cortina Lane to make sure the retaining walls are
adequate and that all drawings by a structural engineer be stamped.
Dalton wanted clarification of the Fire Department's requirement for stairs down from
Cortina Lane to the house for Fire Department access.
Jim Morter stated that since the house could not be accessed directly by the Fird
Department, the stairs were required by the Fire Department.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the hardship is justified because of steepness and
building location and as long as the conditions of approval including Bill Anderson's
were met she was in agreement with the approval.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the proposal per the staff memo with the
conditions set forth in the memo, plus the added condition that an engineering stuol
be done on the adjacent retaining walls on Lots 8, 9 and 10 and in the access
easement. Bill Anderson seconded the motion and a 5-0 vote approved this item.
Planning and Environmental Commission
0 June 27, 1994 3
3. A request for a variance to locate GRFA below an allowed garage 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
fflike Mollica stated for the record that a site visit was done, Mike gave a brief
summary of the PEC memo. Mike explained that the lot is very steep, 37% to 57%
slopes and the average slope exceeds 30%. Since the average slope exceeds 30%,
garages are allowed in the front setback without a variance.
ITlike explained that a setback variance is requested to accommodate the design that is
proposed which would provide a bridge over the area from the existing edge of asphalt
(Sierra Trail) to the face of the garage.
Mike stated that a wall height variance is also requested in order to construct the
parking bridge.
Staff recommends approval of the request, based on physical hardship, with the
condition stated on page 5 of the memo. The condition is that the applicant add eight
to ten evergreens to the proposed landscaping plan, with heights ranging from 6 to 12
feet. The final landscape plan shall need to be reviewed and approved by the Design
Review Bo... •-!.
Bill Anderson congratulated Mike Sanner on a design that addresses the slope
problem with the least amount of impact to the site and stated he has no problems with
this request. Bill stated that this is a good solution to a difficult site.
mom=
Kathy Langenwalter asked that the applicant add 8- 10 evergreens or equivalent, or as
the Design Review Board approves.
Jeff Bowen made motion to approve application with the condition to add 8-10
evergreens to the property or as the Design Review Board instructs. Bill Anders
seconded the motion. The proposal was approved by a 5-0 vote.
4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit
located at 4030 North Frontage Road East, #D/Lot 2B, Pitkin Creek Meadows
townhomes.
Applicant: Andrew M. Knudtsen
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 27, 1994 4
Mike Mollica stated recommendation of approval with the condition that a EHU
restriction be placed on property prior to permit.
Allison expressed she would like to see larger windows or have two windows added to
the EHU unit.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request with condition #1 stated under the
staff recommendation on page 6, and that the document creating EHU be signed a'4
recorded with Eagle County. Bill Anderson seconded the motion and a 5-0 vote
approved this item.
Peter Koliopoulos made a presentation that addressed items of concern from the first
meeting. When redesigning this project they were able to save the existing vegetation
and the rock garden, reduce pavement for the Fire Department turnaround, rotate
garage entrances, reduce asphalt and save vegetation. The applicant has met with
Public Works and has added a bus turn-around and bus shelter to the project.
Mike Mollica asked if Public Works had any concerns with landscaping in the middle of
the bus turnaround bus arez.
Peter Koliopoulos stated there was not a concern, and that adding landscaping would
beautify this area.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the EHU units and would require one parking space for
each unit and the zoning code does not allow tandem spaces that would block the
primary unit.
Planning and Environmental Commission
0 June 27, 1994 5
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the applicant still has not proven that this issue is one
of hardship.
The PEC had a discussion on what constitutes a hardship,(i.e. slope steepness,
and the criteria that the PEC reviews to base their decision.
Bruce Chapman, a representative for Capstone Condominiums, expressed a concern
that the buildings were too close to Capstone Condominiums. Some units were
designed looking down into Capstone Condominiums and privacy should be increased.
Ken Sortland, a homeowner, was concerned about the impacts to his home at Vail
Point Condominiums. He wanted to keep setbacks as is and not have any buildings ir,
the setbacks. Ken felt the building towers were too tall, were too boxy in appearance
and were a problem. Ken was not at the first meeting (he was out of town) and
mixture of different types of vegetation.
Peter Koliopoulos clarified what and why changes were made from first meeting to
today's meeting.
Ken Sortland again discussed why he didn't want buildings in setbacks. In the
landscaping plan he saw a lot of aspens but not a lot of pines and would like to see a
more natural look.
'8Tr7A71M=Fl1 ex�Ffessea I I I I I see cnarlig-UVIT7 r Te-TWuaff M11
of a few buildings.
Mike Mollica expressed that the only change he saw was that the northeast building
has been shifted.
Kathy Lan•enwalter stated that the issue and concern is the fact that the PEC does
not see the criteria for hardship. She continued that the reality was that the design of
the buildings was making the hardship and not the external landscaping.
M
WO In
Planning and Environmental Commission
0 June 27, 1994 6
Peter Koliopoulos responded the he was addressing the issue of creating a larger
buffer from other developments in area.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the infringement on the north front setback is an issue.
1111 Ml I i fI
Jeff Bowen said that a smaller, less vertical, less massive project needs to be on this
site. This project is too big, has too much mass, does not fit the architecture in Vail
and where the buildings are located, does not work. Jeff felt a lot of work needs to be
R! ne to have this project fit the site.
Allison Lassoe said that the project needs to work more with site, that buildings were
too vertical, and needed to step back from neighbors • the south side.
Dalton expressed that he was in 100% agreement with Jeff Bowen's statement. He
explained that he felt the project is too big, too vertical, doesn't fit on site, and that the
applicant is trying to fit too much on the site. He stated that the buildings need to stay
out of the 20 foot setback. The applicant needs to rework the project and cut down on
the mass and have a better solution to the vertical problem.
Andy Knucltsen explained that the reason the applicant came back before the PEC was
so that the amendment to this project is appropriate and for approval.
#
M1
1111DAYWHIMM-1 #
4�L Egg $I
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 27, 1994 7
Peter Koliopoulos was directed by the PEC to come back to another meeting with a
better solution to the site issues other than to have buildings in the setbacks.
6. 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 Knucltsen TABLED TO JULY 11, 1994
Dalton made a motion to table this request until July 11, 1994. Jeff Bowen seconded
the motion and a 5-0 vote tabled this item to the July 11, 1994 PEC meeting.
7. A request for a front setback and wall height variances to allow for additions to an
existing Prim ary/Seconclary residence located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11 -A, Block
7,Vail Village ist Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED INDEFINITELI
Dalton made a motion to table this request indefinitely. Jeff Bowen seconded t
motion and a 5-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. I
8. Approve minutes from June 13, 1994 PEC meeting.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 13, 1994 PEC
meeting with Bill Anderson seconding the motion. A 5-0 vote approved the minutes
from the June 13, 1994 PEC meeting.
9. Jeff Bowen gave a presentation on a wetlands conference he recently attended. Jeff
stated that both the science and law of wetlands are extremely broad. There are three
key words relating to wetlands; hydrophilic vegetation, hydrant soils, and hydrology.
Riparian areas are not specifically covered as wetlands, nor are banks of a stream
necessarily covered as wetlands.
Laws relating to wetlands are considerable. The Clean Water Act (404 permit) is
implemented by the Corp of Engineers and can be overridden by EPA. The Coloral
Health Department is interested in the type of pollution a development might create
with wetlands.
Crested Butte and Telluride have implemented a process regarding wetlands. If one
half of a property is in a wetlands you can transfer development rights from this
property to another property through a conservation easement.
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 27, 1994 8
Jeff it said if any of the agencies say it is a wetlands, it's a wetland. The Army
Corp of Engineers is too lenient in regards to wetlands. Jeff stated that wetlands are
an important part of conservation. He strongly urges Vail to mitigate wetlands.
Dalton asked about the other communities solutions , especially the solution of
transferring development rights from one site to another. What happens if someone
buys land that could never be built on but buys it anyway and tries to transfer the
development rights to another site?
Kristan Pritz said that another issue is the creek setback which should probably be
increased to better protect the Town's riparian areas.
10. Kristan gave a brief presentation on Town Council update.
��O�M-ITWMMM13=1,
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 27, 1994 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
of 1 -0. -
SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances for an addition to ano
existing residence located at 2692 Cortina Lane/Lot 10, Block B,
Ridge Subdivision. I
Applicant: Hans Weimann/Bob Redpath
Planner: Mike Mollica
I I
As previously stated, there is a significant difference in elevation between the location of the
existing residence and Cortina Lane above. Historically, the Town of Vail Public Works
Department has expressed safety concerns regarding the hillside beneath Cortina Lane. In
September of 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved a
wall height variance for this property in order for the applicant to construct two 6-foot tall
retaining walls located in the front setback, to assist in the stabilization of this slope and
Cortina Lane. The Public Works Department has stated "that stabilization • the slope is
critical to ensure that the roadway is not undermined, which would cause it to collapse." The
Town • Vail was a co -applicant in the 1992 variance application, and additionally, the Town
• Vail shared approximately • 0% • the cost to install the walls. The walls have been
constructed and are currently in place.
To provide further stability to the steep slope and to Cortina Lane, the applicant's north
concrete wall for the garage (approximately 8 to 12 feet in height) will also function as a
retaining wall for Cortina Lane.
A.
Zone District:
Primary/Secondary Residential
B.
Lot Area:
15,178 square feet
C.
Density:
one single family dwelling
D.
GRFA:
Allowable:
4,617.8 square feet
Existing:
2,340.0 square feet
Proposed:
3,235.0 square feet
Remaining:
1,382.8 square feet
E.
Site Coverage:
Allowable:
3,035.6 square feet
Existing:
1,280.0 square feet
Proposed:
1,891.0 square feet
Remaining:
1,144.6 square feet
F.
Parking:
one additional garage space will be provided,
however, the parking requirement is not increased as a
result of this addition.
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.
The staff believes that the applicant's proposed front and side setback variance
requests will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity. We find that the proposed location for the
addition is one which will have the least impacts on any adjacent properties.
The slopes to the north and to the south of the existing structure are very
steep, however, there is a small bench located immediately north of the existing
garage. This is the area where the applicant is proposing to construct the new
9 2
addition. The applicant is proposing to match the existing architectural detailin*,
of the existing building and the staff believes that this addition would not be
very visible from the public right-of-way or from any adjacent properties.
The staff does believe that this property is encumbered with a physical
hardship, due to the steep slopes on this site and the fact that access to the
property cannot be taken directly from Cortina Lane.
Three existing aspen trees will need to be removed as a result of this
construction. Staff has reviewed the site and because the property is heavily
vegetated, the staff does not believe that additional landscaping is necessary.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
9. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followinci finclincls
before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
0 3
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one • more of the following reasons:
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 • privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
2. That all the existing T-1 11 siding on the building be replaced with "real wood"
siding, subject to Design Review Board review and approval.
9 4
n
�N4�OO
f
40:52 00 "kl
_EXISTING
LOT 10
COP T11VA
LANE
(50
137.04'
5z 00,
® N
115.40
N40 52'00'E 9906-0
24.5'
__%
Nl
S40:52 00 "W
,20.70'
46.7'
N
OLD EASE, LOT 9
Li
C)
5,188. SQUARE FEET
EASEMENT 0,119 ACRES
NEW EASE, LOT 9
Li
e CL _ v
<
1114
4,069, SQUARE FEET
7 :<:,
C2,
F-
n
1
0,093 ACRES
WALL
OLD LOT 10
TWO STORY
0
0
77mBER RE7-AINING
NS
WOOL) FRAME
rl� C65
15,178. SQUARE FEET
(0
EDGE OF DRAE
0.348 ACRES
NJ654'20'E
zt
25.0'
NEW LOT 10
5157923 `E
4.64'-, -5—
ti
N24.4?
6o.50
.4 772
LOT 9
EASEMENT
15,178. SQUARE FEET
14.5'
14.5'
i
Overhang
5z 00,
® N
24.5'
__%
Nl
Rock //
46.7'
C)
Cc,
tile ver
OLD LOT 10
N3
TWO
S TOR Y
15,178. SQUARE FEET
STUCCO
0.348 ACRES
29.4'
25.0'
NEW LOT 10
0
15,178. SQUARE FEET
14.5'
14.5'
0,349 ACRES
8.2'
2'r" ':7"Ccjl
LOT +9, -10
1,207, SQUARE FEET
N3
P)
Wood Deck
vloe; d
L'__ -
w i
0,027 ACRES I
7' U 77L
FY EASEMENT
JVJ6'54'20"E- 12J.;rl
25.7'
N_36'54'20"E
18. 09 71.4
76.1
_T
'54'20 "E
T
NJ6 '54'20 * E
17J. 12'
NJ6 68.68'
OLD
LOT 9
LOT 19
14,879. SQUARE FEET
0.341
ACRES
LOT 17
LOT 18
NEW
LOT 9
•
14,879, SQUARE FEET
0.341
ACRES
EXISTING \\10 PROPOSED
LOW£R Lcvct-
G6 V (,'0 R T / A/,9
rATATIFAIFFAV.0
MEMORANDUM
is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 27, 1994
SUBJECT: A request for a variance to locate GRFA below an allowed garage 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
Although the property address is taken from Alpine Drive, the lot does have frontage on both
Alpine Drive and Sierra Trail. The applicant is proposing to take access from the downhill
side of Sierra Trail. This property contains quite a few mature aspen trees as well as
approximately three to four evergreens.
-1751 MX%111111ij
The applicant is requesting a front setback variance in order to locate approximately 67
square feet of GRFA beneath a portion of the garage which encroaches into the front setback.
The GRFA would be located on both the lower and main levels of the structure. This portion
of the building would encroach approximately 4 feet into the required 20-foot front setback,
therefore a 4-foot front setback variance is requested.
• • 0
1311 ii R I I I i i I i I i I ii ;Ili i I I l!i I ii i I I! i I I ii I!! I I I! i I I LA"MMEM
�r M
ME
-M =-- I
Itne free market dwelling unit and one Type I EH
(re• uires DRB approval) i
SHMMMELWMW�
A , A M$W�T M rrZMM- JJJJ EA
• ' 99 -'!
*The staff has calculated the average slope beneath the building and the parking areas to b
' 1.6%. Because this average slope is greater than 30%, the property is restricted to a
maximum site coverage • 15%. If the average slope had been less than 30%, the maximu
site coverage would be 20%. 1
The staff has researched the Town files with regard to previous reviews • projects • a similar
nature. The following is intended to give the PEC an understanding of the review of previous
actions:
0 2
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.
The staff believes that this property is encumbered with a physical hardship,
due to the steep slopes of this site. We believe that the applicant's desire to
not cut a driveway onto this site is very positive and we find the parking deck
and bridge solution to be acceptable.
The staff believes that the front setback variance request, as well as the wall
height variance request, will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on existin
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. However, staff does believe th
additional landscaping should be required on both the east and west sides of
the bridge deck to screen the retaining wall from the adjacent lots. I
0 3
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
0 4
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do n
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement • the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant • privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
1: 0 11 k-#M! Ig
The planning staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a front setback
variance and for a wall height variance. We find that the property is encumbered with a
physical hardship and that Criteria IV, B, 1, 2, 3(a and c) have been met. The staff
recommendation for approval of the variances carries with it the following condition:
That the applicant add eight to ten evergreens to the proposed landscapinig
plan, with heights ranging from 6 to 12 feet. The final landscape plan shall
need to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
,AP-1--,1.P.AA62 7
• 5
t?p �? \
r
u
"0
4
NO
A-r'iK'PF w TIN &E -ra4
qo
L-1'141 , Y-1141 4� 1
•
44o, "A o
LANDSCAPE NOTES:
L During construction minimize disturbance to existing vegetation.
2. Reels all disturbed areas with a native grass and wildflower mix. Use a jute erosion
control mat over revelled areas that have a steep slope,
I Provide positive drainage away from building. At raw of building provide a swale so
asto divert surface water around but dig At sides .f building provide . slight side
slope away from budding Building to be situated so that there is a minimal amount of
4 Build exterior decks so that some trees are left penetrating the deck Co-ordinate with
owner and Architect.
5. Remove large
conifer tree in middle of sits and all aspens within the building footprint.
Save as many healthy aspen and conifers as possible and protect those close to the
construction mne during construction,
6. Use timber ties to create an on-grade stair and pathway from the puking deck to the
'50
apartment miry deck. Use crusher does between timber ties for steps that are
'z r':!�
broader than the width of the timber tie
Plant 12 aspens of:JV2' to 2 1/2' caliper as shown on plan.
t?p �? \
r
u
"0
4
NO
A-r'iK'PF w TIN &E -ra4
qo
L-1'141 , Y-1141 4� 1
•
44o, "A o
40
11 &
b'Z
ZZ
irl, IN
S
eff
- L
r
•
W. �v
n
11
wr
0 t-
IF
•
•
AdmlhL Aft i
•
0 0
E
E
n
n
A
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
DATE: June 27, 1994
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an "employee housing unit"
located at 4030 North Frontage Road, Unit D/Lot 2B, Pitkin Creek Meadows
Townhomes.
Applicant: Andy M. Knudtsli
Planner: Jim Curnutte 0
In September and December • 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Seri
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 thil
Town • Vail. The definition in that ordinance states:
The employee unit will be 321 square feet in size and will satisfy one of the three off-site
employee housing units required to be provided in conjunction with the Cornice Building SDD
redevelopment.
E
Site Coverage 4,330 sq. ft. 1,659 sq. ft./no change
Landscaping 12,990 sq. ft. 17,650 sq. ft./no change
Parking 3 3/no change
MMMIM
Front
20'
33'/no change
Side
15'
30'/no change
Side
15'
80'/no change
Rear
15'
50'/no change
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 objectives of the
• 2
2. The effect of the use on li_qht 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 th%-,
2.bove-referenced criteria.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses. ii
The scale and bulk of the existing structure is very similar to those in
existence in the surrounding neighborhood. Since the proposed
employee housing unit will be located within the building, in an area that
already counts as GRFA, it will not have an effect on the scale and bulk
of the building.
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, Employee Housing and shall be
subiect to the following conditions:
a. It shall be a conditional use in the SinQle-Family Residential,
Two-Family Residential and Primary/Secondary Residential zone
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 21,649 square foot lot has 15,000 square
feet of buildable site area.
01 Ism "M
9 3
attached to, an existing garage provided the garage is not
located within any setback, and further provided that no exis�ng
parking required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced
or eliminated.
The proposed Type 11 EHU will be located within the southern-
most duplex unit on the site.
The EHU is 321 square feet in size. Since the EHU will be
located in an area of the building that already counts as GRFA
the applicant will not be utilizing the provision which allows for
the use of 250's "up front" when creating a new Type 11 EHU.
The proposed EHU is essentially a studio unit and therefore
complies with this criteria.
0 4
• A• more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than
sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Type
11 EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not
older than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a two (2)
bedroom Type 11 EHU.
1111MIMEMIN • SIONW1• -
LOW.11161010 I
_01#111101114
im
MR 0=0
. . •
101-71 L01 Ulge I v 11111 lit or, U9101WHINIG I -k - •-
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes •
this Ordinance and the purposes • the district in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which--Fi
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the publi#
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.
0 5
1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed remodel, 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.
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 VaF
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.
0 6
LDT GNP
uld
7-1
24"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit to allow for an
expansion to the administration building located at 1309 Vail Valley
Drive/Unplatted parcel located north of the 1-70 Right-Of-Way, north of Vail
Village 8th Filing.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hali.
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
The majority of the area where the modular building will be located is currently used for
parking. The employees who use this area for parking at this time will be required to park
down below along the berm in the future. Though a majority of the area for the modular
building is flat, the northern portion is sloped and will require site work and excavation. The
applicant is planning to construct a retaining wall which the modular building would be set
0 1
against. When completed, the modular building will appear to be benched into the hillside,
is similar to the existing administration building.
- 0: 1 - MDR
The conditional use criteria have been listed below for the PEC's information. Staff will
provide an analysis of them at the final hearing.
F-M •
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town.
2. The effect of the use • light and air, distribution • population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character • the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
Findings
gra ting a conditional use permit:
That the proposed location • the use in accord with the purposes • the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of
the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which ill
would be operated • maintained would not be detrimental to the publi*
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
Staff thought it would be helpful to identify specific issues for consideration regarding the
proposed expansion.
� i IIOFIMM�
2. What landscaping needs to be provided and where should it be located?
3. As this is located in a debris flow hazard area, what kind of mitigation will be
required by a geologist? Where will revised site grading occur?
5. Currently, there is an access-way that is located immediately adjacent to the
building. Should this access-way be preserved? What kind of turning radiuses
should be required to provide adequate maneuvering space?
6. What kind of lighting fixtures are proposed? Where will they be located and will
they be visible from the golf course neighborhood?
7. The Fire Department has said that the addition must be sprinklered. The
applicant should confirm this with the Fire Department.
IV. CONCLUSION
As this is a worksession, staff does not have a formal recommendation. When the issues
above are resolved, we will schedule this item for a final hearing.
c:\pec\memos\pubwks.627
• 3
PARKING ANALYSIS
— PW ADMINISTRATION
BLDG. EXPANSION
Office
Current Parking
After Addition
Greg Hall PW
Admin Lot East
along hill
Terri Martinez
Berm across from
Same
Bus Barn
Charlie Davis
Berm across from
Same
Bus Barn
Todd Oppenheimer
Berm Across from
Same
Bus Barn
Greg Barrie
Berm Across from
Same
Bus Barn
Future Eng. Tech
N/A
East along hill
Net increase in employees
— (1) .
•