Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0822 PECS' 1, F 3. • Planning and Environmental commission meeting minutes August 22, 1994 1 U3 0 • Approve minutes from August 8, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 8, 1994 PEC meeting with Bill Anderson seconding the motion. A 3-0-1 vote approved the minutes from the August 8, 1994 PEC meeting with Kathy Langenwalter abstaining as she was not present at the August 8th PEC meeting. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 employee housing unit located at 126 Forest Road/Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes August 22.1994 0� Bill Anderson stated that he had a problem with the architectural design and especially with this model. He was aware that the PEC had approved tent-type structures in the past for temporary uses but felt that more thought should be given to the architectural elements and how to blend this in with the rest of Lionshead. Greg Amsden stated that he felt the tent appeared "industrial" and did not fit with the rest of Lionshead. Jeff Bowen stated that the idea behind it was positive. He suggested that the tent should be more "circus-like" and less industrial looking. Allison Lassoe agreed with Jeff's comments. Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with Bill's and Greg's comments concerning the architecture. He believed that the proposed trees would not grow in the proposed locations. Kathy Langenwalter had mixed feelings about any temporary structure. She felt the tent should be softer and less industrial in appearance. She acknowledged the applicant's right to locate a structure at the proposed location. Jack Hunn stated that they had been researching different structures for approximately Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 1994 3 E-I Greg Amsden stated that the applicant needed to consider whether a tent was an appropriate structure for the functions which Vail Associates had in mind. He felt that the PEC supported the applicants proposed use but a more suitable structure needed to be selected. Dalton Williams supported the proposed use of the tent but stated that he could not see how the tent could be located so that it would not encroach on the Magic Carpet or snowcat operations. John Henchman, a property owner adjacent to Booth Creek, stated he was in favor of ''a text changes with regard to the Agricultural and d O i ' e zone district. He felt that the proposed Outdoor Recreation or Natural Area Me o zone districts would be more appropriate. Patricia March, a property owner on Booth Falls Road, stated that she basically concurred with John Henchman's comments. She was concerned about golf courses studies being removed from the conditional uses category and asked staff whether any environmental impact ! i . , regard golf Forrest Russ r quality studia been cond d in reference Par-3 golf course and there Stan Cope, representing the Lodge Tower, asked staff to clarify whether golf courses .d still rev conditional Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 1994 0 Jeff Bowen stated that he ««.w see a hardship to warrant the variance .w§ , he felt that trees could be removed in order to accommodate the proposed EHU. Dalton Williams stated that the applicant's v©e to add employee housing w positive but that he did not feel that »22 existed on «,« e . »« 11 I I I 1 1 1 I Jill 1111111 1111111 11 11111 1 JJ 1 1 M I The PBC members agreed that this the roof line did not need to be carried to the northeast and of the building. Galen Aasland stated that a 2 -102 inch caliper aspen tree would be located in the northeast planter. Kathy Langenwalter stated that Condition 7 of the staff memo, would be eliminated from the PEC's approval. Galen Aasland explained the proposed sign program for this project to the PBC. Galen added that should Montauk decide to change the exterior of their store front in the future, they will be required to comply with the proposed sign program. It should be noted that at approximately 4:35 p.m., Jeff Bowen left the meeting. After a lengthy discussion with Kathy on the architectural details of the projects, Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the request for setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration in Commercial Core II per the staff memorandum, including Conditions 1 through 6 of the staff memo, the deletion of Condition 7, and that Condition 8 be referred to the DRB for their review. Bill Anderson seconded the motion and a 4 -1 vote approved this item with Kathy Langenwalter opposing this item. Kathy Langenwalter voted against this item because she felt that Montauk and Bart and Yeti's should be required to participate in the improvements to this building. 11. Council U ate: - HU/Cornmon Area Ordinance - passed on first reading. Mike Mollica stated that this ordinance passed 5 -2 at Town Council on first reading. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 7994 7 G E M DATE: August 22, 199M SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 18.69.040 (Development Restricted) of the Vail Municipal Code to allow for the construction of a building on slopes greater than 40% for a site located at 4403 Bighorn Road/Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Betty Luke, represented by Mike Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte/Randy Stouder Ltjlg The purpose of the Hazard Regulations section of the Town of Vail Municipal Code Taal Buildable Area: 13,932 sq. ft. Same *Density: 6 U's per buildable acre 1.5 U's or 1.92 ®U's GRA: 3,721 sq. ft. 3,721 sq. ft. Site Overage: 25% or 7,700 sq. ft. 16% or approximately 2,250 sq. ft. Landscaping: 60% or 13,643 sq. ft. 89% or 27,700 sq. ft. Building Height: 30 feet for flat or mansard roofs 33 feet or less 33 feet for sloping roof Setbacks: Front: 20, N: 155' Sides: 15' S: 20, Rear: 15' : 5' . 35' *The applicants proposal includes one unrestricted dwelling unit and one Type III EHU, which counts as 0.5 of a dwelling unit for a total proposed density of 1 .5 DU's. 0 N r] • Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on I¢ following factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 3 Staff believes that the proposed buildings will have no impact on any of the above criteria. B. The Man ninq and Environmental Commission shall make © following±qg!Ega before granting a variance: 1 That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations no he properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance © warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. >»,« « ©» y interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. Ell] EiSSF M� C.9.49 G.Wt. .0t nont I TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY LOT 3. BLOCK 3 BIGHORN SUBDIVISION TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE El 11 • IL ZONING ANALYSIS I Setbacks: Same 33 feet 5,173 sq. ft. 2,235 sq. ft., or 14.2% 10,650 sq. ft., or 67.7% 6 proposed 2 11 0 Z. It shall be a conditional use Two-Famil one districts. The proposed Type 11 EHU will be located within the single family residence. OU The proposed E H U will be a second dwelling unit on the site. =D contains a full kitchen and full bathroom facilities. It shall have a . ««/* 2. «(. % than three hundred (300) squa M 4 Owl El w Jill V . STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the conditional use request at this location. Though it meets three of the criteria, staff believes that it does not meet the fourth criteria dealing with the effect upon the character of the surrounding area. r - + !. 1 is • t `4 Em 0 Ell M DATE: August 22, 199M SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District, of the Vail Municipal Code and the creation of Chapter ) &3 Recreation District. *n July 25, 1994, a fourth worksession was held with the PEC (see attachment #4 - PEC minutes from the July 25, 1994, meeting). At this worksession the PEC finalized the proposet text changes to the GNOS and PUD zone districts. The PEC also reviewed the proposed text of the new Outdoor Recreation zone district. Although the PEC felt that no changes to the proposed text of the OR zone district were necessary, they did recommend a few additional amendments to the GNOS and PUD zone district text. The recommended changes will be 4iscussed in more detail later in this memorandum. The proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, will be discussed first followed by the proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.36, Public Use District. As each section of the above- referenced chapters is discussed, staff will first refer to the issue associated with the proposed change (reason for proposing a change to the 2 Immediately following the discussion of © proposed text amendments to the GNOS and PU■ districts staff has provided the recommended text of ».:e« Outdoor Recreation Zone District. The proposed text of the OR zone district is also provided in attachment ¥© ■ natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building r other improvement, et er than those listed in Section 18.38.020 (Permitted Uses). The natural are preservation district is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, including reclaimed re , by protecting uc areas from evel nt and preserving open space. The natural re rep ry tin district includes lands vi valuable it life habitat, c i n l aesthetic or flood control value, el n s, riparian areas and areas with i nific nt environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality n aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, r ci view corridors, ini izin the risk from hazard areas, and r ecin the natural character of Vail which is vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall net preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements." 3. Issue n to the lit of permitted uses Although no revisions are suggested in the Development Code Revision Report, staff feels that revisions to the list of permitted uses are warranted and necessary in order to carry out the intent of the district as specified in the new purpose statement. Comments e at previous PEC although The group discussed the need to adequately define "interpretive nature walks" and "nature preserves ". The P C asked staff to be sure that the definition of "nature preserve" did not preclude public access. Also, there was discussion regarding allowed uses on bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways (i.e. roller blades, snowmobiles, etc.). It was suggested that motorized equipment be precluded in this zone district and that only unpaved paths and walkways should be allowed "°y right". At a later worksession it was decided that both unpaved paths and interpretive nature walks should be moved from the list of permitted uses to the list of conditional uses. Staff c i Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses be changed to the following; 13.38.020 - Permitted uses: A. Nature preserves. Staff also recommends that Chapter 13.04 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code (definitions) be amended to define nature preserve and interpretive nature walks as follows; 4, 4. Issue ® Amendments to the list of conditional uses The three conditional uses currently listed in this zone district are public parks and playgrounds, golf courses and equestrian trails. The Development Code Revision Report suggests that, with the exception of equestrian trails, each of these uses would require site improvements far beyond those recognized in the chapter's purpose statement. The report suggests that public parks and playgrounds and golf courses are more appropriate in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, which leaves only equestrian trails in the list of conditional uses. Comments made at previous PEC although The PEC agreed that public parks and playgrounds and golf courses should be removed from the list of conditional uses in this zone district. The PEC discussed the appropriateness of allowing for parking areas as a conditional use permit in this district, in order to provide access to the permitted and conditional uses as well as National Forest trailheads. The PEC also considered removing "equestrian trails" from the list of conditional uses. The PEC's concern was that someone may propose to develop equestrian facilities on NAP zoned property, stating that they were accessory to the equestrian trails (i.e. stables, corrals, etc.). After further discussion it was agreed that the phrase "equestrian trails, used only for the purpose of accessing National Forest system lands", was acceptable. Joe Macy, Vail Associates, Inc., suggested that the PEC consider adding "underground ski base facilities" to the list of conditional uses. D 6 Comments # previous PEC although The PEC members agreed that a parking requirement was applicable in this zone district. It was decided however, that simply referencing the parking section of the municipal code was not adequate, since there may be instances where deviations from the strict interpretion of the parking standards would be appropriate due to the sensitive nature of the land under review. The PEC suggested that since almost all of the uses in this zone district were conditional uses the parking requirement should be determined in conjunction with the review of a conditional use permit application. Staff ec i n Staff recommends that Section 16.36,060 be amended to read as follows: 16.36.060 - Parking and Loading. Parking loading requirements will be determined the ie Planning nvir I Commission during review of conditional u requests in cc r ce with the provisions Chapter 18.60. 7. Issue a Addition of new section entitled "Additional v l t standards" The report points out that the Supplemental Regulations chapter of the zoning code includes development standards and exceptions to development standards. These regulations are applicable to each zone district, but are not specifically listed in each zone district. Because these regulations are located in a separate chapter, people are often not aware of them. The report suggests, and staff agrees, that a new section should be added to the zone district stating that there are additional development standards found in the Supplementary Regulations chapter. Eventually, this section will be added to all zone districts. Comments made at previous The PEC had no comments with regard to this proposed change. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that a new section be added to the zone district which reads as follows: 18. 38.070 Additional development "Additional re I i ns pertaining to i development standards the v I land in r 1 Area Preservation i trio are found in chapter 18.58, Supplemental a ul tin ." 7 B. Public Use District 1 Issue - Change the name of the zone district The Development Code Revision Report points out that the commonly used abbreviation for the Public Use District is PUD. This has created some confusion because PUD is a widely used planning term that refers to a "planned unit development". A "planned unit development" is synonymous with hail's Special Development District. The most direct way to eliminate confusion is to rename the Public Use District to "Public Service District". This would eliminate the confusion with PUD's, and also express the underlying purpose of the district, which is to provide a zone district for public and quasi-public uses. Comments made at previous PEC although The PC agreed that the existing name could be confusing and should be changed. However, there was some concern that the proposed name of Public Service District could be confused with the utility company by the same name. It was originally recommended that the name of this district be changed to Public Activity District, however the Town already has a zone district using the acronym PA (Public Accommodation District) so this suggestion was ruled out. At the July 25, 1994 worksession the PEC recommended changing the name of the district to General Use District. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the name of the Public Use Zone District be changed to General Use District. 2. Issue - Purpose statement The Development Code Revision Report does not suggest any changes to the purpose statement of the General Use District nor does staff feel that the minor amendments we are proposing to make to this zone district call for any revisions to the purpose statement as currently written, with the exception of the previously mentioned district name change. Comments made at previous PEC although The P agreed that the purpose statement, as currently written, adequately expressed the intent of this zone district and no revisions to the existing text were necessary. The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot appropriately be regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 16.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The general use district is intended to insure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi- public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. . I ssue - Amendments to the list of permitted uses The Development Code Revision Report points out that "seasonal structures" is currently listed as a permitted use in the General Use District. However, the definition of seasonal structure, found in Chapter 16.04 of the Vail Municipal code (Definitions), states that a seasonal structure shall require a conditional use permit. The report suggests that the most direct way to resolve this conflict is to move "seasonal structure" to the list of conditional uses. Comments made at previous It The P C agreed that the phrase "seasonal structure" should be moved to the list of conditional uses. Additionally the PPC felt that possible impacts associated with the creation of new public parks should be reviewed at a public hearing, including notification to all adjacent or interested parties. The PC members suggested that "public parks" be moved to the list of conditional uses and be replaced with "passive outdoor recreation areas ", which is defined below. Staff Recommendation Since playgrounds are included in the proposed definition of "active outdoor recreation" below, which is listed as a conditional use in this zone district, staff would suggest that playgrounds also be removed from the list of permitted uses. Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses in the General Use istrict be changed to the following: 1636.020 - Permitted uses; & Passive outdoor recreation r and open space; B. Pedestrian and bike paths. Staff also recommends that the definitions section of the Zoning Code be amended to define active and passive recreation as follows: Active r recreation - Ac iv r recreation includes outdoor recreational activities which involve r iz or • Passive outdoor recreation - Passive outdoor recreation includes outdoor recreational activities which involve unstructured recreation which does not require facilities or special grounds. Passive outdoor recreation would include: picnicking, fishing, walking, hiking, cross country skiing, informal playing fields, etc. 4, Issue - Amendments to the list of conditional uses The Development Code Revision Report suggests that some of the uses currently listed in the conditional use section of the General Use District be changed. Although Paragraph B allows for public parking facilities and structures, there is a need for limited accessory commercial uses related to parking structures. The report suggests the addition of a limited number of uses deemed to be accessory to a parking structure. The report suggests that Paragraph M (Hospitals) should be expanded to include a more comprehensive list of medical related facilities that are appropriate in the district and suggests the wording "medical and dental facilities, clinics, and rehabilitation centers". The report points out that Paragraph 0 (Office and tourist related uses) is not clearly defined. The report goes on to state that "office" and "tourists" are two different uses and should probably be listed separately. Secondly, examples of tourist related uses should be provided in order to better understand what these uses really are. As currently written, it is unclear whether this means a visitor information booth or a ski shop. Comments made at previous PEC although At the February 14, 1994, PEC worksession the PEC members suggested a number of additions and deletions to the existing list of conditional uses. In addition to the revisions suggested in the Development Code Revision Report these changes included the deletion of "hand gun ranges" and the addition of "public and private parks and active recreation areas, facilities and uses". The previously mentioned change was intended to combine public parks with the uses already listed in paragraph I in the code, while also allowing for private ownership. M District be changed to the following: 18.33.030 - Conditional uses. A. Public theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities; & Public parking facilities and structures; C. Public transportation terminals; D. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment; E. Water and sewage treatment plants; F. Public service facilities; G. Public buildings and grounds; H. Public and private schools and educational institutions; 1. Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities and uses; J. Golf courses; K. Ski lifts, tows and runs; L. Churches, rectories, convents and related structures; M. Hospitals, medical and dental facilities, clinics, and rehabilitation centers; N. Equestrian trails; G. Public tourist/guest service related facilities; P. Visitor/information centers; Q. Major Arcade; R. Helipad for emergency and/or community use; S. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060; T. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.070; U. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities; V. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in accordance with the issuance of a conditional use permit, provided such use is accessory to a parking structure: -off ices; • 11 91 C. is owned or operated by a person or entity other than V governmental »» , « « and d. functions or is available for use by all persons without charge. Quasi-public - Quasi-public shall mean a us dv« is characterized by its availability to the public, with or without cost, but which is conducted by an entity, organization, or person whi&, is not a governmental entity. Comments made at previous PEC although The PEC members agreed with staff's recommendation to add the above referenced phrase to the list of accessory uses. E � Staff Recommendation Staff recommends 2^ the development standards section be 2>y4fd to read as follows: Section 18.36.050 »t»2 »wi« Standards. ..� . General . . . �.. „ In r a «±??t« Use development standards ±v?§ oftht following ?w±++ §f? »§ /l** as + <*?«§ *f¥ by the Planning 7»¥ Environmental Com m wd>> M 11 E. Site coverage; F. Landscaping and site development; G. Parking and Loading. 7. Issue - Deletion of the Parking and Loading Section Since Parking and loading has been included in Section 18.36.050 - (Development Standards), Section 18.36,060 (Parking and Loading) may be deleted from this zone district. Comments made at previous PEC although The PEC members agreed that Section 18.36.060 (Parking and Loading) should be deleted from the General Use District. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Section 18.36.060 (Parking and Loading) b,- LO[eted from the General Use District. 9. Issue - Addition of new section entitled "Additional development standards" The report suggests, and staff agrees, that a new section should be added to the zone district stating that there are additional development standards found in the Supplementary Regulations chapter. Comments made at previous PEC although The PEC members agreed that a new section be added to the zone district which refers the reader to the additional development standards found in the Supplementary Regulations chapter of the Vail Municipal code. 18.36.060 - Additional development standards. W11 B. Nature preserves, C. Bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways; D. Interpretive nature walks. 13.31030 - Conditional uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13.60: A. Public parks and active public outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings; B. Equestrian trails, used only to access National Forest system lands; C. Plant and tree nurseries, and associated structures, excluding the sale of trees or other nursery products grown, produced or made on the premises; D. Ski lifts, tows and runs; E. Cemeteries, P. Well water treatment facilities, G. Accessory buildings (permanent and temporary) and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses. 1333.040 - Accessory uses; The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the OR district: A. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13°53. is 16 if approved, the above described text amendments will effect those properties currently zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space and Public Use District. Although not immediately effected by the creation of the new Outdoor Recreation zone district staff will be proposing that a number of properties currently zoned AOS be rezoned to OR. There are 19 parcels of land within the Town of Vail that are currently zoned GNOS, 79 parcels zoned AOS and 24 parcels zoned PUD. Attachments #8 and #9 are graphic representations of property ownership in each of the three zone districts (GNOS, PUD & AOS). The majority of GNOS property in the town is publicly owned, and much of it is unbuildable or located in hazard areas. The amount of AOS zoned property in town is much more considerable, with public ownership comprising a significantly lower percentage • the total than GNOS zoned lands. Currently, all but nine of the properties in Town zoned Public Use District are owned by the Town of Vail. Some properties currently zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space may be more appropriately rezoned to the new Outdoor Recreational District or the General Use District and vice versa. Additionally, there are a number of properties throughout the Town that should be rezoned to the GNOS zone district or the General Use District. Immediately following the approval of the above described zoning code amendments staff will finalize a list of suggested property rezonings for presentation to the PEC. In addition to the standard notification used for all PEC meetings, staff has noted each owner of GNOS, AOS and PUD zoned property, as well as all property owners adjacent to those three zone districts, of the proposed code amendments and has invited them to the July 25, 1••4 PEC worksession. ATTACHMENT #1 MaY 24, 1993 �� MeetinMinutes Greg Amsden made a motion to table this item until June 14, 1993 with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A 6 -0 unanimous vote tabled this item until June 14, 1993. 10. A request for a Work session on proposed text amendments to Chapter 13036, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 13.32 Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planners: Jim Curnutte and Buss Forrest Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that the purpose of the work session was to receive input from the public and the PC on the proposed text amendments. Jim pointed out that most of the changes being proposed were already recommended in the 1991 Development Code Revision Report, Jinn stated that his presentation would focus on Attachments No. 3 and Nom 4 to the staff memo. Larry Eskwith and Art Abplanalp discussed the merits of the proposed text amendments. Below are the proposed changes: GREENBELT AND NATURA�..OP N SPACE (GNOS) DISTRICT _.. NATURAL AREA PRSRVA°Tl (NAP) Pg ose -Change "should" to "shall" in the first sentence: -Change "structure" to "building" in the first sentences -Diana Donovan wanted a qualifier added to the purpose statement addressing previously disturbed land. (She suggested possibly deleting the word "undisturbed"). -Add "noxious" between "of" and "weeds" in the last sentence. -In the last sentence, "deadfall ", possibly remove this word from the last sentence. Permitted Use -Concerning roller blades, are they allowed? -The words "interpretive nature walk" and "nature preserve" need to be defined. Planning and Environmental commission May 24, 1993 1 z Conditional Uses ®Concerning "equestrian trails ", should this use be deleted? - Concerning parking, access to the Permitted uses and National Forest trail heads may need to be addressed. -Joe lacy stated that he would like to see wording added to the Conditional Use section to allow for "underground ski base facilities ". Accessory Uses -Concerning item P, either remove the word "customarily" or rewrite it to preclude buildings. AGRICULTURAL RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE (A) ( ) DISTRICT Pi1r os -A better definition or different wording for "active and passive recreation ". -Delete everything that is stricken beyond "recreation ", i.e. parks, schools, etc. Permitted Use - Concerning single family residences, move to bottom of Permitted Use list. -Concerning plant and tree nurseries, the PEC does not want to move this item down to Conditional Uses, they would Just like this item removed entirely. -The PEC inquired about possibly having ski runs added to the list. -Art Abplanalp commented that we should add "non - commercial" in front of the words recreation areas - what about Town owned recreation areas that charge a fee? -Concerning "public parks" and "outdoor recreation areas ", the PEC would like to see recreation areas moved under the category of Conditional Uses but that open space could remain under Permitted Uses. Conditional Uses -The PEC felt that "buildings and structures" should be a Conditional Use. -The PEC felt that "public and private schools and college" should be deleted. -The PEC felt that "churches" should be deleted - Larry Eskwith will need to be asked about this item. that "hunting -The PEC felt and fishing lodges" should be deleted. z -The PEC felt that it would be okay to leave "public and private golf, tennis, etc." as a Conditional Use. -The PEC felt that "enclosed recreation0e should be deleted. -The PEC felt that "plant and tree nurseries" should either be deleted or reworded to remove the word "retail". -With regard to "ski lifts and tows.,. ", the PEC felt that the wording "and related underground ski base facilities and "ski runs" could be added here. -Joe Stacy stated that he would like to see wording added to the Conditional Use section to allow for "underground ski base facilities`. Accessory Uses -Concerning Item A, Jeff Bowen mentioned that we should consider rernoving the word "customarily" or leave it in because that is a standard statement but it should be moved to the bottom of this section. -Concerning Item C, the PEC would like to see the word "conditional" added or this item deleted entirely because Item E says the same thing, -Concerning Item D, the PEC wondered if "horse grazing" was really needed because it is addressed in supplemental regulations, Lot Area .Jeff Bowen wanted Town staff to review the list of Permitted and Conditional Uses to determine if it is realistic to have these uses on lots that are 5,000 square feet in size. -The PEC felt that this section did not address the concept of "lot size creation8'. Jiro Curnutte stated that prior to the next work session with the PEC, staff would complete a map showing what the effected properties are currently zoned, including those that are currently zoned Public Use. He said that this reap would include numbers that correspond to the property owner list, which will include the size of each Iota 3 ATTACHMENT # August 2 1993 PEC Meeting Minutes Kristan Pritz stated that the criteria guide to the PEC's decision - making and that the PEC must use the criteria when deciding whether to approve or deny the view corridor encroachment. Greg Amsden asked for clarification on each PEC member's opinion on the view corridor encroachment. He stated that he can accept an encroachment into the view corridor but that he would like to see it minimized as much as possible. He stated that he feels that the view encroachment on the west side needs to be reduced and that the east side is acceptable as proposed. Diana Donovan stated that the eastern end meets the criteria. She stated that the middle portion of the building needs to be completely out of the view corridor and that the west end of the building needs to be minimized and that some compromise may be possible in this area. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Diana's comments and that he was - mainly concerned with the view corridor encroachment in the west end of the building and the middle of the building. Dalton Williams stated that he was not in favor of putting an extra floor on the buildings. He said that he would like to see gable roofs. He said that he would like to see this proposal get out of the view corridor. He feels that the proposal as it currently stands, is increasing a nonconforming situation. He advocated no encroachments in the notch and would consider the east side view. However, as proposed, the west half of the building is unacceptable. Allison Lessee stated that she would like to see the west portion of the building lowered. She agreed with Dalton's comments concerning the roof and the extra floor. Jeff felt that there was no hardship and the view corridor request did not meet the criteria. Diana Donovan stated that she would have a hard time approving any view corridor encroachment on the west side of the building. She stated that she understood that it would be difficult to reduce the west end to the degree necessary for her to support the project given the developer's goals. She stated that she appreciated the applicant's efforts and hard work on this project. The PEG concurred that Craig and Clark had worked hard to address all off the planning issues. They thanked the applicants for their efforts. Planning and Environmental Com* mission August 23, 1993 l 4. A request for a worksessidn for proposed text amendments to Chapter 13033, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 13.32 Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planners: Jim Curnutte and Fuss Forrest Jim Curnutte gave a presentation of the staff memo for this worksession and explained wh, -it the five attachments to the staff memorandum were. He explained to the PEE members what the general purpose of the two proposed zone districts would be. GREENBELT AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE ZONE DISTRICT Evie Knott, a citizen of Vail, stated that she wanted the PEC to be cautious about the uses that were allowed in the Natural Area Preservation District, due to the sensitivity of the land. Jim Lamont, representing the East Vail Homeowners Association, inquired what the main purpose of the Natural Area Preservation District was to be. He inquired whether special events utilizing hot and cold air balloons would be allowed in this zone district. He stated that he has received numerous calls from community members who are concerned what the specific uses of this zone district would be. Jim asked if utilities would be allowed and what the minimum lot size in the district was. Russ Forrest stated that special events may not be appropriate in the Natural Area Preservation District. Jima Curnutte stated that there is no minimum lot size for properties currently zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District. He added that currently, there were not any properties zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space that were privately owned. Jima Lamont inquired what the criteria would be used to change the zoning of land to open space. Jinn Curnutte stated that the zone change process would address a change in the zoning designation of land. It should be noted that Allison Lassoe left the meeting at approximately 5 :05 p.m. Joe Macy, Vail Associates, Inc., stated that he was concerned with how this would effect the land that is currently zoned Greenbelt and Natural -Open Space District that is located by Chair 1 on flail Mountain® Jeff Bowen stated that, because this request is a change in the existing use to this zone districts, he stated that he felt that staff should add wording to grandfather the existing uses. Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 2 Jim Curnutte stated that the text changes that staff was proposing did net effect what Joe Macy was talking about and that any ski base operations or ski runs in this area were probably preexisting, nonconforming conditions. Joe Macy stated that he did not know if Vail Associates would agree to rezone their land that was currently Greenbelt and Natural Open Space to something that did not provide for ski base operations. Jinn Curnutte stated that staff had decided that, rather than proposing ski base operations as a conditional use in an open space zone district, it would be better to rezone the property to Ski Base Recreation Zone District but that the Town would not be proposing the rezoning. Kristen Pritz explained that the current zoning (GNOS) does not allow lifts so there really was no impact on Vail Associates from the proposed changes. Art Abplanalp stated that he was concerned that the text amendments would occur too soon. He suggested that the changes be made one step at a time. He felt that two new zone districts should be created first and that the `sown then rezone properties to the new zone districts. Jim Curnutte stated that staff had addressed Art's comment from the May 24, 1993 PFC worksession concerning public notification and that staff had notified all adjacent property owners of today's worksession. Joe Macy stated that V.A. was concerned about the future development rights of Vail Ski Resort because he could not foresee what the next ski innovation would be nor how any potential rezoning would effect the potential future land uses. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that creating two separate and distinct open space zone districts was positive. He also felt that people who own land in these districts be allowed to retain the rights that were there when they bought their property. It should be noted that Dalton Williams left the meeting at approximately 5:20 p.m. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see equestrian uses removed from this zone district. She stated that she. did not feel that horses were compatible with pedestrians/hikers and cyclists. She also suggested that the purpose statement be changed to include "reclaimed areas. Jim Curnutte stated that equestrian uses are allowed on National Forest land and that access to these National Forest trails are often taken via trails that are zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space or Agricultural /Open Space. He stated that staff had listed equestrian uses as a conditional use so that there would be way of regulating equestrian activities, Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 3 Jim Curnutte stated that they had taken this suggestion to the Town Council but they wanted to see two distinctly separate open space districts. M Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that "single family residential dwellings" was an inappropriate use for the proposed Recreation and Open Space Zone District® Planning and Environmental Commission August 239 1993 4 Kristen Pritz stated that stab was currently looking into how to clarify the wording concerning density. Diana Donovan mentioned that in some instances flat roofs have less visual impact than sloped roofs. It should be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at aroproximately :SQ p.m. Concerning conditional uses, Russ Forrest stated that "churches, rectories, and related structures" would remain as a conditional use until such time as the Vail Interfaith Chapel and Vail Mountain School can be rezoned to Public Use Zone District. Jinn Lamont inquired whether tho SDD process could be used for these properties. Jim also recommended that the difference between conditional uses and accessory uses should be based on the permanency of the use. Evie Knott stated that she would like to see the conditional uses in the Recreation and Open Space zone district be limited to noncommercial issues. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the conditional uses in the list are all commercial in nature and the permitted uses in the list are all noncommercial. Jim Lamont suggested that "enclosed public recreation uses" should be listed under the Public Use Zone District instead of this zone district. Art Abplanalp stated that items C (public and private golf, tennis, swimming and equestrian facilities) and D (enclosed public recreation uses) should be removed from the list of conditional uses. Kathy Langenwalter asked the P C members hove they felt about the list of conditional uses for the Recreation and Open Space zone district. Greg Amsden stated that he felt that some of the items in the list should be in the Public Use zone district. Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned about Conditional Ilse, Item E, "and associated structures" because the size of plant nurseries can be large. She stated that most of the items in the list of conditional uses were rather intensive uses. She suggested creating three districts. Bill Andersen stated that he agreed with Diana and her reasoning concerning how to divide the land into the three proposed zone districts. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the two zone districts need to be looked at closely and that the staff remain open to the possibility of creating a third zone district, Planning and Environmental Commission August 23, 1993 5 Russ Forrest stated that the feeling that he was getting from the PEC was that they were fairly comfortable with the permitted uses but that there were some concerns about the conditional uses. Kathy stated that this was an accurate perception of where the PFC stud. Diana Donovan stated that an active recreation zone district, a passive recreation district and a "walk -on -only" zone district were necessary. Art Abplanalp stated that with regard to the list of conditional uses, it did not sound like there were issues concerning Item F (ski lifts, tows and runs) and G (cemeteries). He said that he did not want to see the logical conditional uses for the Recreation and Open is Space Zone District removed. Kathy stated that it sounded like the three categories needed to address 1) preservation, ) passive recreation and 3) active recreation. Kristan Pritz inquired whether the PEC wanted the Recreation and Open Space zone district to be mainly oriented toward passive recreational activities. Kathy stated that this was correct. Russ Forrest suggested that staff would focus on moving active recreational uses to the Public Use District. Further discussions were necessary with staff and Tom Moorhead to investigate this alternative. Planning and Environmental Corr misslon August 23, 1993 6 Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. Jim gave an overview of what the proposed changes to the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space, Agricultural and Open Space and Public Use zone districts were, Jinn also explained that the text changes were the first part of a two step process for cleaning up our open space zone districts. After the proposed text changes are approved, staff will then evaluate properties throughout town to determine the appropriateness; of their current zoning, and if necessary, recommend their rezoning to an appropriate zone district. Kristan Fritz stated that several letters have been received from the public. She stated that there seems to be some confusion concerning what the permitted conditional and accessory uses for the Agricultural and Open Space district currently are and what we are proposing to change there to. She reviewed what the proposed changes were for the AOS zone district. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the idea was to come up with zone districts that would actually fit what the uses of the land are. Dill Anderson stated that he had no comment at this time. Greg Amsden asked staff what would happen to properties once the proposed text_ amendment changes were approved. Jim Curnutte stated that their intention was to not take away existing property rights from landowners. Jeff Bowen stated that he had no comment at this times Allison Lassoe stated that she did not feel that handgun ranges were an appropriate use in the Public Use zone district. Dalton Williams agreed with Allison's comment and said that he had no further comment at this tune. Kathy asked if any members of the public wished to comment. Marlene Jump, representing the Mail Religious Foundation, road a letter to the FAG stating their concerns about the proposed zoning changes. Tom Moorhead stated that the use of. the flail Interfaith Chapel would be grandfathered and that it was staff's intention to propose to rezone the property to Public Use District which allowed churches, Kathy Langenwalter stated that the ordinance should be worded in d way that would ensure that current property owners retain their rights. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 2 • Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 staff why golf courses would be a conditional use permit and tennis courts were a permitted use. He asked how events such as Ride the Rockies or the World Cup would be handled. Kristan Prig stated that these would be handled through the special event license, which is how we would deal with them now. Herman Staufer asked where, when and how certain parcels fit into the rezoning. He asked the PEG and the Town to keep in mind that the Town of Mail stands for recreation and that he did not want to see Town of bail land "shackled" to a particular zoning designation. Dalton Williams stated he had no additional comments. He asked if it is considered to be a taking if someone's right to build a single family residence was removed at the time the property was sold, Tom Moorhead stated that the grandfather language would be very specific and that staff was also concerned that property rights not be taken away from property owners as a result of the proposed text amendments. Torn said that he believes that there is case law indicating that it is possible to do what is proposed. Dalton Williams stated that the proposed text amendments were a first step and that future steps could be taken in the future so that effected properties are placed into the most appropriate zoning. Allison Lassoe suggested that staff explore the idea of creating the new districts first and then see how and where the effected properties will fall. Jeff Bowen suggested that the Natural Area Preservation District "constraints" in the Purpose be further defined. He felt that equestrian trails should not be a conditional use. He stated that "equestrian access" should replace the wording "equestrian trails ". He said that "athletic fields" should replace the wording "soccer and rugby fields ". He said that the name of the Public Service District should be changed to the Public Activity District or something similar. He said that churches as a conditional use in the Public Service District was okay, but rectories, convents, religious retreats and related structures should be deleted. He said that a separate zone district for hospitals should be created. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of the proposed text amendments and the rezone occurring at the same time in order to save time. He said that this process will bring the parcels more in line with the intent of the zone district. Diana Donovan stated that the issue concerning single family dwellings should be handled in whatever legal manner is necessary and that if it is a grandfathered use, there should be a time limit placed on the grandfather clause. She said that plant and tree nurseries should be removed from the list of conditional uses in the proposed Recreational Open Space district. She stated that public parks and playgrounds should Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 4 be a conditional use instead of a permitted use in the proposed Public Service District in order to set standards. She agreed that handgun ranges should be removed from the list of conditional uses. Bill Anderson stated that he generally agreed with the other PEO member's comments. He said that the process needed to be looked at. He stated that he was in favor of removing handgun ranges from the list of uses in the Public Service District. Kathy Langenwalter said she feels comfortable with the definition of active recreation as it is. She agreed with Diana that plant nurseries should be removed from the proposed Recreational Open Space zone district. She stated that she felt that hospitals should remain as a conditional use for Public Service District. Diana Donovan stated that her thinking on the passive versus active recreation issue is that there are no standards for the active recreational uses and that concerned her. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt active recreation should remain as written. Dalton Williams stated that he felt that active recreation should require a conditional use permit. He said that staff should develop wording to address how current properties would go through the rezoning process. Allison Lassoe agreed with Diana concerning active recreations Jeff Bowen stated that he was concerned that there were no development standards for the proposed Public Service District. He said that he felt that public parks should remain a permitted use in the Public Service District. Diana and Bill did not have any further comments, Herman Staufer stated that he was concerned about public parks and playgrounds being a conditional use in the Public Service District and that he would like the PEC to leave these as a permitted use, Kathy Langenwalter stated that Diana's concern with regard to development standards for public parks was valid. Dalton Williams inquired whether there was a way to bring public parks through the process if it was a permitted use in the Public Service District. The PEO felt that Public Activity District was a preferable name, instead of Public Service District. Planning and Environmental Commission February 14, 1994 ATTACHMENT #4 (Minutes from July 25, 1994 PEC worksession) Greg Amsden Allison Lassoe Kristan Pritz Bill Anderson Mike Mollica Bob Armour Jim Curnutte Jeff Bowen Randy Stouder Kathy Langenwalter Dalton Williams Jeff Bowen stated that he did not want so see paved paths as either a permitted or conditional use in the proposed Natural Area Preservation District. urnut I rernintel i I I tr- "' 111 Ta S decided to leave them in to facilitate wheel chair users use and enjoyment of natural areas. Dalton Williams stated that amount of destruction associated with an unpaved path is often greater than the disturbance associated with a paved path. He stated that he would like to see some sort of method devised to encourage people to utilize the patt, that are made. Jim Curnutte asked the FCC whether they would like to see "unpaved paths" as a conditional or permitted use. The PEC members all agreed that the "unpaved paths" should be a conditional usla Jim pointed out that "interpretive nature walks" would most likely include a path and asked the P if they want that use moved to the conditional use list as well. They said yes. Dalton Williams was concerned about "interpretive nature walks" becoming a conditional use. He felt that placing "interpretive nature walks" into the conditional u category could be interpreted to mean that you cannot even walk in this zone district unless it was specifically listed as a use by right. In other words, there is nothing th says you can walk through a "nature preserve". I in order to address Dalton's concern, Jim Curnutte stated that staff could amend the definition of "nature preserve" to include language regarding public access. Kathy Langenwalter explained to the PEC members about "parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use" being in the conditional use categorl Regarding the Public Use District, Dalton Williams had no comments. Jeff Bowen suggested that the name of this district should be changed to the General Use District or General Activity District. He suggested that the uses in the Public Us5 District and the proposed Outdoor Recreation District could be designated to one district or the other, thereby eliminating overlap. Planning and Environmental Commission July 25, 9994 2 The PEG members agreed that General Use District seemed to be the most appropriate name to replace the Public Use District. Bill Anderson, Bob Armour, Greg Amsden, Jeff Bowen and Dalton Williams had no comments concerning the Outdoor Recreation District. El 0 Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the Ski Base Recreation zoning issue addressed. Bill Anderson stated that he did not have an opinion either way. MIT61=1111111111111111 I 1111111rIll lic-11111111pirIlIppilill M�� Kathy Langenwalter agreed that the Ski Base Recreation zoning issues should be addressed via the creation of a new zone district. it. A request to amend a previously approved conditional use to allow for restaurant — service to extend past 10:00 p.m. on the dining deck located at Garton's Saloon, 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village ist Filing. Planning and Environmental Commission July 25, 1994 K 0 ATTACHMENT DISTRICT NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION (NAP) • • v:we D. Picnic tables and informal seating areas; E. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use; IM El U, r] rl 18.36.020 Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the R-U& GU district: Passive A. outdoor recreation area play-re-44-1 and open space, B . Pedestrian and bike paths. 1 Q. Major Arcade; R. Helipad for emergency and/or community use; S. Type III EHU as defined in Section 16.57.060; 4=17T. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 16.57.070; U. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or V. cultural activities following conditional us shall a permitted i cc r nc it t issuance of a conditional use permit, provided such use is accessory to parking structure: -offices; -trans i t/sh uttle services; -sundries shops; -restaurants; -ski and bike storage facilities; -public tourist/guest service related facilities. (r. $(1992) §§ 27, 26: Ord. 6(1984) § 1: Card. 27(1962) § 1: Ord. 6(1962) § 7a: Ord. 33(1961) § 2: Card. 19(1976) § 16 (part): Ord. 6(1973) § 25.300.) n El 3 U3 n ATTACHMENT #7 13.31030 - Height. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed twenty- one feet. For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed twenty -four feet. 13.31090 - Density. Net applicable in the ROS district. 13.33.110 - Site coverage. Site coverage shall not exceed five percent of the total site area. 13.33.130 - Landscaping and site development Landscape requirements shall be determined by the Design Review Board in accordance with chapter 13.54. 13.33.140 - Larking. Off- street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 13.52. 13.33.150 - Additional development standards. Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the outdoor recreation district are found in Chapter 13.53, Supplemental Regulations. 2 m ATTACHMENT # Ownership and acreage of GNOS and AOS Zoned lands in Vail Greenbelt # Parcels Acres Ag & Open Space 4 Parcels Acres TOV S 210 TOV 36 502 VA 0 0 VA 17 57 USPS 5 72 USES 0 0 CORP 6 41 CORP 16 39 LNTDMDUALS 0 0 INDIVIDUALS 10 53 CDOT 2 4 CDOT 0 0 Y4 III TOTAL 79 651 m ATTACHMENT # 9 Ownership and Acreage of Public Use District Zoned Lands in Vail Lublicilse #Parcels Acres TOV 15 105 VA 1 20 SCHOOL DIST 1 5 L'SFS 2 30 CORP 9 INDIVIDUALS 0 6 Total 24 169 E" M I am writing to you about concerns Vail Associates, Inc. (V AI) has regarding proposed 60 text changes to the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District (GNOS) and the Agricultural and Open Space District (AOS). Our concerns are specific to properties in the One Vail Place area either owned by VAI or permitted to VAL In this area Tract E, Vail Village, First Filing owned by VAI is zoned AOS and the area where Chair 1 is located is zoned GNOS. I have expressed these concerns to staff and to planning commission verbally on many previous occasions. Agricultural Open Space Post Office Box 7 0 Vail, Colorado 81658 * USA — (303) 476-5601 U M WAR MM�== fflurlyIM SUBJECT: A request for setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration in Commercial Core 11 (CCII) for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier Planner: Jim Curnutte � ���Z B. Site Coveraae Variance H C. Major Exterior Alteration This project is located in the Commercial Core 11 (CCII) zone district, which requires that any exterior expansion of 100 square feet or greater be reviewed by the PEC using the major exterior alteration criteria. The total net floor area of the proposed firsi floor commercial expansion is 325 square feet. El Compliance with the Urban D,ti sigp Quide Considerations for Llonshead and Exterior Alteration Criteria The following design considerations are crcal elements of the Urban Design Guide Plan and provide the criteria to evaluate new proposals: 1. Height and Massing: At one story, the height and massing of the proposed addition is consistent with the architectural guidelines for Lionshead. The addition is also good, in staff's opinion, in that it helps to add visual interest on the first floor and breaks up the massing of the existing building. RNNN" �.: , Ml The Lionshead Design Considerations set forth metal as an acceptable roofing material provided that it is ribbed or standing seam and a dark color. The applicant wishes to have a metal roof on the FirstBank, Bart and Yeti's and #T the eastern side of the building. This roof will be a standing seamed metal roof and will be a dark bronze color. The roof on the Montauk portion of the expansion is proposed to remain cedar shakes. A copper gutter and flashing is proposed to be added to Montauk's fascia in an attempt to architecturally tie together the metal fascia of Banner Sports and Pizza Bakery, which are located on either side of Montauk. Staff believes that the roof on the proposed addition is generally consistent with the architectural guidelines for Lionshead. However, staff would recommend that the east side roof addition be extended all the way to the northern end of the building, rather than terminating above the east side access door. Staff has included this in the conons of approval at the end of the memo. i q OW A �,�T T 5 11 also be used to divide the window areas at First Bank and Pizza Bakery. The All of the colors and materials to be used in the addition are generally encouraged under the Lionshead Design Guidelines, and will relate well to the existing structure, Through the use of these materials and colors, the addition will avoid having a "tacked on" appearance. C Facades - Transparenc)st Approximately 310 square feet of the existing patio area in front of Pizza Bakery and FirstBank will be removed by this addition. Although a portion of the Pizza Bakery patio area is currently used for outdoor dining, none of the patio area in front of FirstBank is used for dining purposes. Bart and Yeti's has blocked off the FirstBank portion of the patio from their dining is order to comply with liquor licensing requirements. Staff believes that the loss of this patio area is not significant and is an acceptable trade-off for the benefits associated with the proposed expansion. 6. Accent Elements: 6 M 7. Landscape Elements: -Aw rl I, 2. The proposed addition would appear to have a positive impact on surrounding properties and pedestrian areas while insuring that maintenance and safety functions (i.e. fire access) can still occur. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Setback and Site Coveraae Variance Reauests The Pla the following JingipM before a. 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. 6067 NI I I I I I I I I I III I 1 11 � MW i 1 1 TWIN #7111-.T#Vi�li����l�l:,ivnm'izr�'ist��ilil'TTm�� i. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. iL 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. iii. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Staff's recommendation for approval includes the following conditions: 0 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed addition, the applicant will contact the Vail Building and Fire Departments to determinle, whether or not the proposed addition will require the retro-sprinkler of the Lifthouse building. M nll n n SITE PLAN 77� F-7 nli iti92tl (a)�ST ELEIIATI. ON SO�THEASi ELEVATION �O.UT�HELEVVATION______ 4 7 � Iii Q 7Z au 7. x ",T4"A, F.." X11 ",r n �*T Trn, NMI 0,4 SITE PLAN v4g� 'IT �mp rl X� I -4 a 0 ol �I �*T Trn, NMI 0,4 SITE PLAN v4g� 'IT �mp rl X� I -4 a 0 ol El, )_AA , �110N n L,,� - — cnRv- rAr SECTION Ll c� z <1 x w m LANDSCAPE PLAN II —t�,,,V, PL—i fl brow & jA Attachment #1 7 (minutes from March 14, 1994 PEC W(, sessi E' A Kristen Pritz stated that it was not the deliveries that were a concern but that removal of trash was an issue. The applicant would need to utilize the Town of Vail loading areas. She stated that a'trash removal plan for a future restaurant, could be brought before the PP. Planning and Environmental Commission March 14.19M 5 F. Bob Armour stated that part of the problem with the existing building were the inconsistencies and that he wondered whether the proposed 8 foot rekord doors would add to this concern. He said he would like to see the roof materials tie together over the whole building. He said he did not have a problem with the requested setback and site coverage variances. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the overall continuity of the storefront improved. He said that he was not in favor of the additional door heights and felt that the proposed roof materials were inconsistent. He liked the east side of the building and agrees with the mural idea or large trees in the expanded planter. Planning and Environmental Commission March 14;199 6 Planning and Environmental Commission March 14® 1994 7 Bob Armour stated that adding mass to the existing nonconforming structure would be a grant of special privilege. Greg Amsden stated that height variances are seldom granted in the Town of Vail an* suggested that the applicant consider the SIDID process. He suggested that the applicant consider shorter individual deck configurations, He said that the dormers themselves were quite massive and should be reduced in order to eliminate a "top heavy" appearance. Jay Peterson, stated that there were financial considerations attached to their decision not to change the roof on Montauk. He stated that rents in Lionshead were approximately one-third of the rents in the Village and that construction costs for Lionshead were every bit as expensive as those in the Village and that changing the roof on Montauk could make the entire project unfeasible. Galen Aasland stated that they could have proposed to reroof the Pizza Bakery, Bart and Yeti's and 2 «# « » t« store at a time, but they decided to bring them in all at once. Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see the 1-1/2 foot eastern expansion on First Bank pushed back out of the Lionshead Mail. She said that she liked the appearance of Montauk but suggested that some sort of copper (i.e. copper gutter) be used on Montauk in order to tie it into the other three shops. k! Allison, Jeff, Bill, Bob and Greg all felt that the east side roof extension was okay the way that was currently proposed and that it did not have to go all the way to the end of the building. Dalton Williams felt that the roof extension should be redesigned to go all the way to the corner of the building. Dalton also stated that he did not have a problem should the applicant wish to go forward with the loading variance, should one be required as a result of the addition. [8��Iilliiflfflli I ill i i iffil ill R 11 1 i. Mike Mollica asked the applicant whether they would be opposed to a pedestri easement through the Lifthouse site. I Bob Lazier felt that the pedestrian easement would not change the existing situation, so he did not have a problem with it. Mike Mollica stated that it was important for the Fire Department review this proposal prior to a final hearing before the IBC. Jeff Bowen suggested that a comprehensive sign program be implemented for the building and that new tenants be made aware of the program. A request for a setback variances to allow for an addition to the residence located al 4237 Columbine Drive/Lot 22, Bighorn Terrace. 2. The variance approval shall be contingent upon the DRB approving the "250' request. entrance area so that it is located 10 feet from the property line, and nonforms to the setback. Planning and Fnvironmental Commission Meeting Minutes August 8, 1994 6