Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0227 PECPLANNING VI L COMMISSION February 27, 1995 AGENDA r i�=�t i�ntati�nlLr� 10:30 a.m. Site Visits 12:00 a.m. 1. 792 Potato Patch Drive . Savoy Villas 3. Ricci 4. The Ruins 5. Golden Bear . Serrano 7m 967 Vail Valley Drive 6. Hilb 9. Tirnarfalls & 1 4 request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to the Ricci Residence located at 2576 Davos Trail/Lot 5, Block E, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing. Applicant: Nancy Ricci, represented by Galen Aasland Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5. A request for a side setback variance to allow for the construction of a new garage located at 79213, 794A and 794B Potato Patch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision, Applicants: Cogswell, Clark, Willson and Ludwig, represented by Richard Hempleman Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a setback variance to allow for the construction of a freestanding garage to be located at 4524 Meadow D rive/Timberf ails Condominiums. Applicant: Richard Vossler, Timberfalls Condominium Association Planner: Randy Stouder 7. A request for a proposed change to the Land Use Plan from Park (P) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for a parcel owned by the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, located at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, represented by Pat Dauphanais Planner, Jim Curnutte 8. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to allow for the completion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ruins) located at 1325 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, SDD #4. Applicant: Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven Condominiums Planner: Andy Knudtsen A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Simba Run) to allow for modifications to the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas Development located on an unplatted parcel at 1100 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Walid Said Planner: Jim Curnutte 10. A request for a front setback variance to allow for the redevelopment of a residence located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. 11. Appeal of a staff decision regarding the Thain residences located at 463 Gore Creek Drive, Lots 6 and 9, Vail Village 4th Filing. Appellants: Helen Chatfield and Diana Donovan, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: Jim Curnutte 12. Overview of the Eagle River Management Plan. Planner: Russ Forrest 1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at the Covered Bridge Building (Covered Bridge Coffee Shop), located at 227 Bridge Street /Lots B, C and ®, Black -B, Vail Village let Filing. Applicant: Julie Iverson and Kiendra Hoover Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO MARCH 1, 1 9 14a A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an expansion of the Aasland Residence located at 2527 Arosa Drive/Lot 3, Block ®, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing. Applicant: Galen Aasland Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED INDEFINITELY 1. Approve minutes from February 1, 1995 PBC meeting. 1. Council update: ®Heliad -Lions Square Lodge 17. Schedule date and choose location for Bill Anderson's, Allison Lassoe's and Kathy Lanenalter's going away lunch. 3 S R71 0 1 A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site- coverage, stream setback and common area variances, floodplain modification and conditional use permits to allow office on the third floor and to allow an outdoor dining deck to provide for the redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc Planner: Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langenwalter stated that today's meeting was a worksession and would not be put to a formal vote due to the amount of outstanding issues associated with the project. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes 40 February 27, 1995 1 Mark Donaldson stated that they desired to enjoy the privileges that other properties in ?f: ^© shared. Concerning hardship on the site, Mark felt that the small size of the lot presented a hardship for its redevelopment potential. © i I i » «< « »« Elm=* Greg Amsden stated that the Covered Bridge Building, at one point, had requested extensive site coverage variances and that the PEC had denied this request. ©e added that the developers for the Covered Bridge Building cam<»i«,» a project that conformed to all zoning standards. Mark Donaldson felt that this proposal should be compared to the Golden Peak House in terms of numbers. Greg Amsden asked whether there was any way to pull back the southeast corner of the building. He :?Q« reduction would save the existing trees and help reduce the mass and bulk of 2«b» «t Glen Heelen discussed the requests relative to the variance criteria. He felt that Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes 16 February 7 1995 2 Andy Knudtsen stated that some of the off-site improvements were called-out in the Urban Design Guidelines and that there would be mutual benefit from the public and the property owner for such improvements. Jim Lamont asked whether such improvements would be requested as conditions of approval. Kathy Langenwalter explained that this was an issue that needed to be addressed prior to any approvals. Paul Johnston, owner of the adjacent Christiania Lodge, stated that it has been , consistent noise problems at Serrano's. He felt that air conditioning during the summer months should be a requirement at the Serrano's site. Mark Matthews, representing the Mill Creek Court Building, stated that the Serrano's Building would have a significant affect on the homeowners at the Mill Creek Court Condominiums. He stated that the proposed improvements to the southeast portion of the Serrano's building are positive and should improve pedestrian traffic flow in this area. Mark Donaldson stated that this was not feasible and that they could not simply abandon the currently placed utilities. Andy Knudtsen stated that even if the current utilities were left as is, and new utilities were placed at a subterranean location de the building, that the proposed stream walk improvements would impact the location of the existing trees and hillside. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes 0 February 27, 1995 3 Allison Lassoe agreed with Dalton's comments. She was most concerned with the proposed site coverage variance and the mass and bulk of the structure being proposed. Bob Armour was vehemently opposed to the stream setback variance. He was concerned that the site would be overexcavated for the basement space. He did not feel that the proposed site coverage variance was acceptable and that the 700 sq. ft. office use made the variance worse. Bob was in favor of the common area variance. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1995 4 Jim Lamont requested that information relating to the amount of site coverage for the first floor be made available at the next PEC meeting. Mike Mollica assured the applicant that if they were able to make a complete application within the next two weeks, that the staff and the EEC would make a formal recommendation at the March 13th meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1996 5 Kathy Langenwalter asked whether the PEC was comfortable with the amount of transparency proposed for the second floor. Bob, Bill, Greg and Dalton were all comfortable with the proposed amount of transparency for the second floor. Concerning the proposed stream setback variance, Jeff and Bob were opposed to any encroachment into the stream setback. Dalton Williams felt that the second and third stories of the building should be stepped grade. back in order to provide some relief to the building. He was not concerned with what was proposed below Greg Amsden felt was very close and that a below encroachment would be acceptable, but that the site coverage did need e*. suggested and e . Bob Armour reiterated his original Comment concerning this project, that the proposed building was too large for the site. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1995 6 George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for a conditional use permit for a Type 11 EH with the three conditions outlined on Page 6 of the staff memo. I Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes 0 February 27, 1995 7 Bill Anderson stated that he approved of the requested addition. ne felt that a nardship did exist on the site due to the location of the existing building on the site. Bob Armour pointed out the size of vehicles, the age of children, etc. does not constitute a hardship on a property. Concerning the removal of trees, he felt that the trees should be replaced one to one. He felt that the small size of the lot constituted hardship for the site. I Greg Amsden felt that the size of the garage seemed excessive. He was in favor of the site coverage variance due to the location of the existing building. Jeff Bowen was in favor of the requested site coverage variance, if the scope of the proposal could be slightly reduced. He felt that there were definite benefits to the it from this project by improving the appearance of the structure. Allison Lassoe stated that in general she was in favor of the requested site coverage variance. 1011 Dalton Williams felt that the proposed project was beneficial to the Town. He stated that he would like to see the garage reduced in length by three or four feet. Andy Knudtsen pointed out to the PEC that the finding of hardship could be the location of the existing structure on the site, and the fact that similar site coverage variance requests for similar existing situations have been granted in the past. Some members discussed a standard of 24 x 24 suggested by Kathy Langenwalter, but the consensus was to require that the garage not exceed 525 sq ft. It should be noted that at approximately 4:50 p.m., Jeff Bowen left the PEC meeting� Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1995 8 Galen Aasland stated that he wanted this request tabled to the next meeting so he is could consult with his clients on how they wished to proceed. Dalton Williams made a motion to table this request to the March 13, 1995 PEC meeting with Bob Armour seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item to March 13, 1995. 5. A request for a side setback variance to allow for the construction of a new gara located at 792B, 794A and 794B Potato Patch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicants: Cogswell, Clark, Willson and Ludwig, represented by Richard Hempleman Planner: George Ruther George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for a side setback variance with the three conditions contained on Page 4 of the staff memo. Dalton Williams did not have a problem with the requested side setback variance. 119le stated that it was unusual for the PEC to grant a 0-foot setback variance but felt that the proposal was a good way to solve the two problems of the failed retaining wall and getting cars in a garage. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes 0 February 27, 1995 9 6. A request for a setback variance to allow for the construction of a freestanding garage to be located at 4524 Meadow Drive/Timberf ails Condominiums. Applicant: Richard Vossler, Timberfalls Condominium Association Planner, Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the requested setback variance with the condition outlined on Page 5 of the staff memo. Kyle Webb, the architect for this project, stated that at the outset of this project they had not intended to seek a side setback variance in order to construct a freestanding garage. He explained that several different scenarios had been contemplated. He stated that if additional garages were proposed in the future, that he hoped a master plan would be drawn up. I III III 1111111 l�l�'llill !IJ 111111 �illill 111 '11111 � 1111111111 111111111111 111pil liilrili�111 11111�11�11;11 I FUUMMIMIN , VIM, IKINMENRIMMI, Kathy Langenwalter stated that she could not support the request. She was not as concerned with the side setback request per se, as the amount of the side setback variance being requested. She was concerned that the side setback variance would remove all available snow storage space. Kyle Webb stated that the site was quite difficult and that the proposed location of the freestanding garage was the best use of the space. Bob Armour pointed out that if covered parking was desired on the site, that the Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1995 10 proposed garage was probably as good as anything that could be constructed. He was not convinced that a master plan would produce any different results than the current plan. He supported staff's recommendation for approval. Kyle Webb requested that this item be tabled and stated that he would discuss th6 development of a master plan with Phase 11 of the condominiums and the overall Timberfalls Management Corporation. The PEC members reached a consensus that a master plan for parking on the site was desirable. Dalton Williams encouraged the various condominium association's to work together to resolve the parking issues. Allison Lassoe made a motion to table this request to the March 13, 1995 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this request to the March 13, 1995 PEC meeting. 7. A request for a proposed change to the Vail Land Use Plan from Park (P) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for a parcel owned by the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, located at 967 Vail Valley DriveiTract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1995 I atilimtwrolvm U Jim Curnutte pointed out that when this application came in to begin with, he scheduled it for DRT and asked the Public Works, Fire and Police Departments for their comments. He said he specifically asked the Public Works Department wheth they foresaw any use for Tract C. Public Works' response to this question was that the Town did not need the property for public works/transportation needs. I Greg Amsden stated that he did not foresee this lot as necessary for public access to Ford Park. Bob Armour stated that he appreciated Nancy's comments but he believed that this parcel was obviously mismarked on the Land Use Plan, since there was a building o it when it was included in the Park designation and felt that the land use designation the property should be changed. He had questions about the operational ability of th pump station equipment and water rights. Pat Dauphinais stated that the system was fully operational presently and can be used when needed by the Vail Recreation District. Pat Dauphinais stated that 1 acre foot of water is equivalent to 43,560 square feet o area, one foot deep. He stated that the Recreation District does not use all of their allotment currently so there are water rights for the Vail Recreation District to pump from this location. Rick Sackbauer stated that one capital project for the Recreation District was to implement a system of radio controlled sprinklers on the golf course. Bob Armour stated that Jeff Bowen left a note before he left which stated that the only concern he had was to cover the exposed iron intake pipes in the creek with rocks. Dalton Williams was concerned that the Recreation District may take advantage of the situation. Kathy Langenwalter pointed out that the purpose of the Land Use Plan was to designate the ideal use for a given piece of land. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1995 12 Jim Curnutte pointed out that Kathy was correct, however, that the Land Use Plan states that the various designations are drawn very general in nature and were not based on a lot by lot review of properties like zoning is. Bill Anderson stated that he was in favor of this proposal and that the Town would receive the benefit of an easement for a golf cart path, as well as a road easement which will allow the future reconfiguration of Vail Valley Drive. Bill stated that he is all for the request and pointed out all of the public benefits (easements, water district improvements, etc.) associated with the request. Kathy Langenwalter felt that the best use of this land would be park or open space as it was located in between land zoned park and land zoned residential. She was not comfortable with turning the site into a residential area. She also questioned the need for additional residential in this area. Dalton Williams disagreed with Kathy's comment that Tract C should remain open space or park. He did not feel that the site would necessarily solve the congestion problems at Gold Peak but merely move them towards East Vail. This being the case, he did not have a problem with the proposed change to the Vail Land Use Plan. recommending approval of this request for a major amendment to SDD #4 with nine conditions contained on Pages 9 and 10 of the staff memo. Robbie Robinson, of Slifer, Smith and Frampton Real Estate, stated that they would like to be able to offer the employee housing units with the option to sell them off individually. I! VIII III III I 111 11111111 1111 1 T� Mike Mollica reiterated that staff would like to see the block of units remain deed restricted as commonly owned, until such time as the Housing Authority increases its staffing and role regarding the individual sale of dwelling units. He stated that the Town Council will ultimately have to make a decision regarding staffing. Dalton Williams was concerned about people parking at the Ruins. He stated that "he nearly slipped and busted his rear" coming from the movies a couple of weeks ago. He felt that it was important to have a sidewalk in this location since there were tmployee housing units being located at the Ruins and that access to the bus service ;;hould be provided. Andy Knudtsen stated that the Town Engineer was planning to overlay Westhaven Drive upon the completion of the Ruins project. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes 0 February 27, 1995 14 3= Bill Anderson stated that he agreed that Condition #1 be struck. Condition #2 he said should be addressed by the DRB. Concerning Condition #3, he felt that it should reflect any future action regarding this issue by the Town Council. Concerning Condition #8, he felt it would be difficult to establish an "interconnect" between the Ruins and the Cascade Club but that it should be studied. Bob Armour did not have a problem with the proposed additional GRFA. He wante Condition #1 nd #2 to be stricken. Concerning Condition #3, he felt it was importa that the Town get a gurantee from the applicant that the employee housing units remain employee housing units. He thought Condition #8 should be struck. I a Greg Amsden was not in favor of the proposal. He stated that the density increase was not appropriate in this location. He did not feel that additional GRFA should be the trade off for employee housing units and was concerned this could set a dangerous precedent. Outside of this, he stated that Conditions #1 and #2 should be stricken. He also said that a 3% cap should be put on the units if sold separately. Bob Armour made a motion to approve this request for a major amendment to SIDID #4 Cascade Village to allow for the completion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ruins) per the staff memo with the following changes: Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes February 27, 1995 15 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, civil engineering plans for road improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Engineer. Road improvements shall include curb and gutter from the��ea t rn �e I : go of IK s e d eo, estern edge �of::th�e�::�cUrb:cut�:�:s:erv�ici�n�g:�':t,his���pro�oeftI V.� fGr4he- 50 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate an easement for the bike path that crosses this property. 6. Prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO), the applicant shall regrade and revegetate the berm adjacent to the site in the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way so that its northern slope does not exceed 2-1. 7. Prior to issuance of a TCO, the applicant shall remove the two utility poles adjacent to this site in the CDOT right-of-way and shall bury the utility line to the third utility pole west of this property. a • 9 this sidewalk shall extend from the western edge of the property at the bike path to the east to the entrance to the Cascade Club. Concerning Condition #8, Kathy Langenwalter felt that the issue of the sidewalk needed to be discussed further with the Town Engineer. Dalton Williams seconded the vote and a 4-1 -1 vote approved this request with Greg Amsden opposing. Kathy Langenwalter abstained. Jeff Bowen was not present. rq 111 111 111111 1 1111111111 1111111111111 limill I! I! q I I i i OHIO Ili iii! I I I I I Bob Armour, Greg Amsden and Dalton Williams were comfortable with the staff's recommendation. Kirk Aker asked whether Condition #6 could be amended to tie the drainage easement to the TCO's for Buildings 3, 4, and 5 (Phase 11) and that way the drainage system could actually be installed and the easement created at that time. Everyone agreed that this would be acceptable. A vote of 5-0-1 approved this item with Bill Anderson abstaining. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes 0 February 27, 1995 17 Mike Mollica was concerned about the applicant changing the project at this stage because the item was published for final review and not a worksession. Mike felt uncomfortable making a staff recommendation without adequate review of the proposed change. Randy Stouder explained that staff's position was that if the roof ridges were to be changed, all non-conforming aspects of the building related to height should be brought into conformance with the current 33-foot height restriction. NIN y Langenw aTe Tas IncorTIT a ne PI-0 U5al UE;%,CIU,-5U UPC structure still appears too massive. She felt it was important that the PEC see what is proposed on revised drawings. Making a major change to the application at the PEC meeting was inappropriate. Bill Anderson was unsure whether he truly understood what the applicant was proposing since the plans provided did not accurately reflect what the applicant was now proposing to do. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the drawings were extremely difficult to understand and requested revised drawings. Mike Mollica suggested that this item be tabled to the next PEC meeting in order for staff and the applicant to work out the details involved with this request. Dalton Williams was uncomfortable approving the building without seeing the revised drawings. He did not have a problem with the proposed infill of the carport area. 11. Appeal of a staff decision regarding the Thain residences located at 483 Gore Creek Drive, Lots 8 and 9, Vail Village 4th Filing. Appellants: Helen Chatfield and Diana Donovan, represented by Jay Peterson Planner- Jim Curnutte Greg Amsden stated that coming before the P was mainly a formality and that this issue could potentially go to court. Kathy Langenwalter was concerned about the proposal to remove half of the staircase. Dalton Williams felt that proposing to remove half of the staircase should be grounds to redtag the project. 12 Overview of the Eagle River Management Plan. Bob Armour agreed with Greg's comments. isCathy Langenwalter suggested that uses should also be considered when determining whit a stream setback should be. ON MMMILUMM IMEHOMMMIM Miiiiii�ll'Ill 1 1111 Jill ililiiiilili�ili !III � lipill I III 111 11 Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen XX X, .... ...... :XX El 2. A site coverage variance request of 94.6% (80% is allowed in CCI); 3. A variance for common area of 89.4% (35% is allowed by zoning); and 4. A modification to the one hundred-year floodplain. Also, two conditional use permits are required: for the outdoor dining deck on the second floor and for the office space on the third floor. I 4DZONING ANALYSIS IIa Zoning: Commercial Core I (CCI) Lot Area: 4,646 square feet The bold text indicates the standards which require variances. Allowed /Required Existing December 19, 1994 Proposed b Zonin Development Proposed Development February 27, 1995 Height: 60 %, or 33 feet or less Approximately 25 feet 60.1 % at 33 feet or less 59.6% at 33' or less 40 %, 33 feet to 43 feet 39.9 % at 43 feet or less 40.4% at 43' or less Setbacks: Per the Vail Village N: 1 N: Y N: 1' Urban Design Guide Plan S: 2.5' S: 0' S: 0' E: 0' E: 1' E: 1' W: 0' W: 0' W: 0' GRFA: 80% of site or 0 sq. ft. 3,618 sq. ft. or 77.9% 3,650 sq. ft. or 78.6% 3,716.8 sq. ft. Common Area: 35% of allowable GRFA 0 sq. ft. 2,397.0 sq. ft. common area 3,389 sq. ft. common area or 1 ,300.9 sq. ft. :.8 sq. ft. unused GRFA - 66.8 sq. ft. unused GRFA 2,298.2 sq. ft. or 61.8% 3,322.2 sq, ft. or 89.1% Dwelling Units: 25 units per acre or 0 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 2.6 for the site Site Coverage: 80% of the site or 33476.5 sq, ft. or 74.8% 90.5% or 4,206.5 sq. ft. 4,393.5 sq. ft. or 94.6% 3,716.8 sq. ft. + 168 s . ft. off -site trash chalet 3,644.5 sq. ft. or 78.4 Landscaping: Per the Vail Village hardscape - 769 sq. ft. x 20% = 154 sq. ft. hardscape - 176 sq ft x 20% = 35 sq ft landscape plays inconsistent Urban Design Guide Plan softscape - 49 sq. ft. sofiscape - 250 s ft staff unable to measure total - 203 sq. ft. total - 285 sq ft Parking:" Per the Town of Vail Restaurant /Bar - 27 spaces required 55.2 spaces required minus the existing 48.6 spaces Parking Standards parking requirement of 27 for a net -27.0 spaces requirement of 28.2 spaces. 21.6 spaces Loading: Per the Town of Vail One required, none provided One required, none provided. No One required, none provided. No Loading Standards (1 berth) changes to loading and delivery status. changes to loading and delivery status. Mill Creek Setback: 30 feet 30 feet 24 feet 19 feet Total commercial area: n/a 5,082 sq. ft. 10,945 sq. ft. 10,065 sq, ft. Total floor area: n/a 5,082 sq. ft. 16,960 sq. ft. 17,104 sq. ft. `As this property is located in CCI, all parking that is required for the project must be provided by paying into the parking fund. At this time, spaces are $15,000.00 each. This price will increase annually. The applicant shall be required to pay the parking fee that is in effect at the time the building permit is issued. a FAII The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan specifically addresses the Mill Creek stream tract east of the Serrano's Building as follows: Concept 8 - "Mill Creek walking path, West Side Mill Creek Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." Staff believes that this walk should be an extension of the recent improvements made to the Mill Creek Court Building and adjacent stream tract. Staff recognizes that it is a mutual goal among the developers, Vail Associates, and the Town of Vail to create a new pedestrian link from Hanson Ranch Road to the Vista Bahn ski base. The staff has many concerns regarding the design of the pathway connecting Hansonu Ranch Road to the base area. Staff believes that the pedestrian walk design could b improved by ensuring that the materials match the improvements the Town used in t Mill Creek corridor by the Mill Creek Court Building, and by preserving the existing trees. A more detailed analysis is provided below. B. Vail 1. Pedestrianization: The Vail Village Urban Design Criteria state that, "a major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways." At this tinie, the landscape plan calls for the transformer to be relocated closer 3 the proposed development is too large for the site, Because of the effect that the building has on the relatively congested area, staff believes that the proposal does.. meet this criteria and that the building should be pulled back from the property line to accommodate a portion of the path on-site and reduce the amount of disturbance described above. Staff believes that the proposal is consistent in the goal of eliminating vehicles from the Vail Village Core. The building will present a three-st•ry facade along Hanson Ranch Road. It wifi, include an outdoor dining deck on «._..m floor, an easily recognizable main I ■ MIM WV� vv l" R 11 The sun/shade impacts to the surrounding properties will increase. For the Spring and Fall equinox, half of Hanson Ranch Road will be in shade at 10:00 a.m. By 2:00 p.m., the street will not be shaded, but the walking path will be. Shading at the Winter solstice will be much more significant. coverage. The roof is proposed to be tar and gravel which is consistent with criteria stated in the Guidelines. The proposed roof pitch is a 3:129 which is consistent with the Guidelines, which calls for roofs ranging from 3:12 to 6:12. 110071-INNTI I 0 Most of the windows are made up of the small panes which staff believes is consistent with the Guidelines and makes for a more attractive building. The trim around the windows will be a significant feature on the building, which is also consistent with the Guidelines. A dining deck will be located on the second floor. The Guidelines call for dining decks to be elevated a few feet above the pedestrian walk to allow diners to view the street activity. The Guidelines do not speak to second floor decks; however, staff believes that the proposed second floor deck is a reasonable proposal. Staff believes that the balconies will be an effective accent element of the building. The railing design is consistent with an "alpine character", and the number of balconies have been reduced to limit the amount of architectural "busyness". 10111�1 I ��� EM There are three components of the landscape plan associated with this projeca MUMM Staff believes that the landscape design for the Mill Creek stream tract should reflect the work the Town did adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building in the summer of 1994. The concept used by the Town was to integrate the sidewalk, steps, softscape and creek together. The paver walkway is edged in some 7 places with boulders and in other places is open to grasses, The curvilinear style reflects the natural character of the space. The staircases are finished in sandstone (not concrete), and all walls are finished with moss rock. The north side of the bridge for Hanson Ranch Road, adjacent to these improvements, has been faced with moss rock. Staff believes that this style, and all of these materials, should be used for the improvements adjacent to the Serrano's property, including the completion of the south side of the bridge on Hanson Ranch Road, as a part of the Serrano's redevelopment. C. Vail Vill — L-- aqp--Mastqr 8 1. 21 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. C2 Objective: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the I U] E-1- III FRINIF11111ell! 11111111m, ;11111;11111111 1! 1 1 1 10 landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian only walkways, and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.1 Policy: Physical improvements to property adjacent to the stream tract shall not further restrict public access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4: To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Objective: To improve existing open space areas and create 10 ir 1! 1!1111 11 I'll ill liPil 11�111 :111 iiiii I till Im Of believes that the discussion of materials for the improvements in the Mill Creek earn tract should be reiterated; we are looking for the Vail blend of pavers to be u tor the walkway, moss rock stone to be used on all planter walls and retaining walls, (without a cap), and that any stairs be finished with sandstone and not be concrete. Staff also believes that Village light fixtures should be installed along the path at appropriate locations. At the request of the PEC, staff researched the histories of several buildings surrounding the Serrano's site: A. A & D B2MM October 8, 1984 - The PEC approved a CCI exterior alteration. No variances were requested. Site coverage was proposed at 79.0%. The exterior alteration was approved with the condition that a floodplain modification request be approved by the Town prior to construction. May 8, 1985 - The PEC approved a floodplain modification for the A & D development. No stream setback variance was required. 40 February, 1995 - Applicant proposes expansion to Golden Bear. Proposed site coverage is 79.95%. • IN November 2, 1993 - Town Council approved a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. This included, among other things, a site coverage request which exceeded the 80% allowed in CCL At the time of the proposal, the existing Golden Peak House on the existing lot had a site coverage of 91.6%. Under the approved plans with the expanded lot, the site coverage will be 94%. D. Curtin Hill Buildina March 8, 1993 - The PC approved a CCI exterior alteration for this building. Site coverage at the time of this proposal was 71%. The approved site coverage is 71.6%. E. Christiania Lodge Under the Public Accommodation zone district, allowed site coverage is 55%. On March 23, 1992, Town Council approved a Special Development District allowing the Christiania to expand from 32% to 39% site coverage. W, August 12, 1991 - The PEC denied a request for a site coverage variance at the Superstars Studio within the Clock Tower Building. The PEC found that the property was not encumbered with a physical hardship. The existing site coverage was 87%. The request for an additional 28 square feet would have put site coverage at 87.2%. The staff recommended denial and the PEC concurred. MM The Covered Bridge building was approved for redevelopment in 1993. The applican originally requested five variances and a floodplain modification, but ultimately designed a building which conformed with all zoning standards. The project was approved and recently received its' TCO. I At this time, the applicant is requesting variances for site coverage, stream setback, and common area. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Site Coveraae 14 Common Area 2 The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement fa specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. W t i M E". 6, Stream Setback Staff believes there will be little impact from this variance request on the criteria listed above. Common Area Staff believes that there will be little impact from the common area variance on these issues. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: M 0 Outdoor Diajqq Deck Staff believes that providing additional office space in the Village broadens the number of users within the Village and helps fulfill the goals of the development objectives. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. 0 No impacts. ME• I Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow a control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. MWOI� "' Now that the dining deck has been reduced in scale and does not encroach into the right-of-way further than the existing improvements, staff believes that the impacts on congestion, pedestrian safety, and traffic flow are reasonable. The Fire Department has approved the proposed deck and finds the encroachment into the Hanson Ranch Road right-of-way acceptable. *ffice Use on Third Floor iu** 0 4. Effect upon the character of 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. Staff believes that the outdoor dining deck will improve the character of the area and will be a positive addition to the Village. Staff acknowledges that the office use, as well as the other proposed uses, all contribute to the mass and bulk of the Serrano's redevelopment. As expressed elsewhere in the memo, staff is concerned about this issue. However, staff believes that if the building can be reduced in site coverage, that the office use itself is acceptable. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followi gg fgqtga_�,e 1 a That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of 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 it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. - ~ ~ Though there are significant aspects of the proposal which need to submitted and reviewed by staff, we believe that it is beneficial for the parties involved to bring this item to the PEC for discussion. The outstanding items can be submitted and the project can be returned to the PEC for a formal vote at a later date. , Rather then table the item for another two weeks, staff believes that getting input from the PEC at this time is appropriate. ,I Another major aspect of the proposal includes the floodplain modification. Staff also canno) in Staff believes that the project is generally consistent with most of the exterior alteration criteria, but has several issues which must be addressed prior to a final hearing. These include ensuring: 1. That landscaping on-site be increased. 2. That the eaves be increased in depth. 3. That the walkway be revised to show that all trees on the southern side of the site are preserved and that the utility boxes are not moved, but screened. 4. A detailed review of all materials to be used in the stream tract corridor to ensure that they match what the Town used. 5. A detailed review of the design for the southern bridge abutment to ensure that it matches the finished work the Town did on the northern side. 6. That Village lights are added to the walkway. 7. That a stone cap on the rock walls be eliminated. S. That the walkway on the north side of the building is heated. 9. That the transparency of the second floor be reduced. 10. That a portion of the east wall, on the third floor adjacent to the dormer, is recessed. 11. That all planter boxes are irrigated. 12. A review of the proposed public art adjacent to the main entrance of the building. 13. A detailed review of all mechanical equipment to ensure that it does not encroach into the view corridor and to ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing. 14. That the Town receive a final copy of the executed agreement between Vail Associates and the owner to allow the improvements on the stream tract. 15, That all the floodplain engineering be submitted. 16. That the height of the structure be revised (by 26 square feet) so that it conforms to the 60/40 requirement. 17. That an agreement between the Golden Peak House and the Serrano's Building be executed allowing common usage of the utility corridor. 18. That Jeff Winston be paid all of his consulting fees prior to final design review. c:\pec\memos\serano.227 21 0 Chart 1 -- Floor Area GRFA Commercial Common Area Basement --- 3,183 sq. ft. 951 sq. ft. 1st - -- 1;705.5 + 1,026.5 + 207 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft. 2nd - -- 114+554 3rd 2,292 sq. ft. - -- 580+ 144 41h 1,358 sq. ft. - -- 46 3,650 sq. ft. 6,122 sq. ft. 3,389 sq. ft. b -kFs GENERAL NOTE PLANT LEGEND _!,I- -- -1 ,i. G 0 5F-RIPANO'S CANTINA, 60LDEN PEAK HOUSE m i i t ` UPPER PLAPE HP. r � r =� ~� GOWf,F. FL.l.0 NG � / HEAVY TIMpF.P, �? I �E(� C a \ r i \� If IIII I I' !Ilk Li 3 i IF h� 9AlCOW RAILING — �/ �—� ( �. � Cj �j T III' ll�1 s .eco �a1ES JI� IIII ' VT f i f r r �jf !I {i i7! f covPSR nrunNG a" l � I liv r _Ii 11 Il�j',l f ��l I, 1 { i ? }} j f j r( r I7 r l�tl;sr; (i ,> i 9ECLND LEVEL I I .._._, �-_ _� , �i' I 1 1' ins. -P ���I �� I/ l J r �' �I� �� �l, ��J�'' j�� R U C('/�1 �l A # N #g Y K n z vI ( t J F 1! {{ O ofi< I i SCALE IM" • • .... RipGE uE,GHr If tHPFFRO L J!, I I'L _ �ICil�l_IL; E_ r-- 6 �3'U.I�.PYIfo TUL�I ��� --'� rf�i h� _ -�,', -�� � . � � =_� �� (� �I � � _ . - i� I l � �imc' -o• —. Lj 4. F U w h- 0 z 0 U) 0 Z 0 CC Q Y 4 r< Via' i f, „�£v5 i0 HE C rv'ira,tV FIEEK EP00'JCc, � i cAL �� Ir, I PI45T L ✓.-L E� ✓ GN HouL erz, RcTnnnw; � � � . � -i— � � <.: F ra {f 11Z AIIR _x sr. cure of a, L„i —G, IPa . T F 5 i G W� ILI- ” O Ek1.OGAlFO I ` 4 ; / TO GO _.J VET r7L�i D 1 -I —0 F s - / P X A • L• F S 5- R F 10 GC "ry LiYf Cr °AI.L.��riG 51F � rn TO U 55 O< RU — — I o.. E« 4 s V 13F r aE t Y E LN O E c ✓ NO DES '_.V .7 ON HI O A f TYF'IGAL I'r'ROLC H__T JOG..MrNT" I }® s � I t Ocri_. tt AL Ill ® (r r p` '°-u r v � U F ��♦�` _'� A�� A � � \ ' A �`Pr LSO T� EA q jam` b dill` `EOCL °A .� LINE LINE FLOOIf -s - OF CgOPLAiN ✓� ur>E of GREEK eo- IN ���, - TRACT E -IT ITV n- IX P 5JILDING G' CA_ "iATiCNS YGRIANCE —A CCNeI-_E--A7CNS — �, 1� — I SITE ap. '21 6F. 3. A�A ti 0 Vl VONTY —,AF INDEX 07 �:)R40NGS A7 5 T PLAN FIRST LE 1-tL FI DOR ELM AT A, EAST ELE­1-1CN 51; WLDItYu sECTiGNS U­_ M6 !.a-PLIA 1 ­Tl NOD PUBS 51-E PL:1N GIOL✓ EN 11E0.< 1IOU-1 E SF. DATA FLOCIR AREA CA-GULA-ioNa L___ tLCUB AE:w RL --NEA Lta Stns e=_RRANO'5 CANTINA _4� Tll�l ALP D:bE—F T 4$. 9P 3- 3F. — 6F. 4N 5P. ap I 5p _lNr_ TO ZE Ra TT 0 11 1. 5p. RE AL 19315 F - - - - - - - COMMON' Al-EA CAL �jL4;7, R.^ -NCH RHM50N OAD �,RFA IX P 5JILDING G' CA_ "iATiCNS YGRIANCE —A CCNeI-_E--A7CNS — �, 1� — I SITE ap. '21 6F. 3. A�A ti 0 Vl • MILL CZEK U.EST MILL = CHR15T!ANIA _?;E -r — CANMIA -NOTRYPS =N-VVA',70H GOLDW PEAKEOUS .3 - NORTE K, ZVATTON SER-100'0 CAH=A - EAST M7.7k7ON RM IRON WN - EAUT MXIA170H m I &KADIS M\'? YOU vaws SLN /SHADE ANALYSIS Op THE �--CO1,GTRXTION DOES NOT BJtLOlI?16 =OP, THE -"-. --4,LL EQJNOX EXCEED THE MAXIt-UM, HEIGHT LrMl7AT:Ct6 (MARCH 21, 5EFTEMBER 23) AND WINTER SET FCRTH IN 'DESIGN CO"SIDE.RAT101Z% (DECEK55ER V) AT 10:00 AM. NOR CCE5 17 -ROTPJIOr INTO 'VIEW CORRIDOR'. AND 2t= FM UW, . THE PCLLC SW ANGLES - THE R-CO*TRUCTION WILL BLOCK VEle 0, tLERE USE=, NOXTAN FFRCM SEIBERT CIRCLE AND FROM r e-RIN EM' NOX V-14 ANGLE THE RED LIGN INN RETAIL FRONTAGE, BUT THIS 10:Zc AM. 40' EAST CF SC IS A RESULT CP L07 CONFIGA-AT tOi AND 2;00 A.M.. 42' WE5T OF 50t;TH CANNOT BE REMEDIED. 50 DECL!NA-.CN UPINTER -0,CL5TIC=- SLN AWLE 10:00 Alt 30' EAST CF SCUTP 2:00 PM. 30' WE5T OF ZCUTH 20' DECLINATION 0 5 10 25 FEET UR31H DEORIGH (C(DMRDLR lid &CAL3 - M • OFEN er AND LAN DRAP �K, ; \ \ / / THERE El -,MP GP's 'Tl-N7T` FOR \ 67P-'Kr- BU, RPFC-JLAR TO 57FEET 4CCC"--181�4En eT EX,7ENP N<', ��O-CEN PE4, x j " ,0�;SE -16 FT UUMq A 14R!E- OF 104L jr ROCK, ALL DMREN-L- T��AN ANT O-�ER -FZE KILDING. CIWIW, DECK, 410 TEXI`JRE:) ,'�R..^.WD -CONTMUA'(0N Ch- RETA:1 = RONIT4YsE 4\c \ 4pCHIT CTURAL 'STYLES"�GF GOLDEN '° EAK Gol-c-=q I -A< Ha�, A SYSTEM ALIREACT ,OUSc C-3 LLDEH OFEN er AND LAN DRAP �K, ; \ \ / / THERE El -,MP GP's 'Tl-N7T` FOR \ RLNcTicms cF 5ER/IcE 417,c DE -1 -R- C1,165T- P ERMb, OJ, R BEDS, TREE DMREN-L- T��AN ANT O-�ER -FZE KILDING. - T�� ! ,V'C-- WILL eE &kAFZEO WITP \'EjU Gol-c-=q I -A< Ha�, A SYSTEM ALIREACT C-3 LLDEH 4e,,Ro,/EC PAT 41qn JJE�,T MILL CrEF< .EDE5T� 'JAN F.Al`:{ -OFSEN NCrE WtTW SENGPr,5 ALOW, FED5�,_R,N RO---. -tNFLL C-'rmlc!AL 5 rOR-EIRON-1 7 - ACTIVITY FR 9TIREET - - ALL THE WAT' AND VjeI; 4'L rNTERES AROUND PEDESTRAN LR,<ACz. M—MAR D MIGH GMIR HAM - MILL CREEK Is AN lmroR-A N- GATEWAY TO THE v;LL4,,E CCRE, THE '---IDFVELOf-P4T !LL NHL.VCE THIS N -E UTW PROPER ARCHITECTURE AND . MILL CREEK FAr,4 TO COMPLETE L N�-F e E 1W.- -.N PIRATE S*4 P 4YGF ,L�4C I MOUNTAIN PATH AND GORE CREEK CIZI1✓E. CHESTANKPI LODGE, • M V / OEULDE P-NA=s:z SUN 54 ACE ANAL 15I- OF -C-CeED BUI: r 14, F T.. FP NC ECU NOX (MARC-4 21, f,=FT,-FER 2 4Nrl WINTER rl s�. 20 .1-1 Ioico X-t 2 114C�F =0LJ OwNr -UN OF SE 6Fr;NC.i. 4LL E�,UINOY. &UN A`,3L-- 0.00 AN 4c . EA-17 OF ---,UT.4 2700 Am 4 , IE57 O= &-'.TP ,0- of WANT -_R SCL5TIC-E EI y AWLE 10 -w AM- E1*7 OF SOUTH 7-CIO PM, 30' (LEST OF SOUTH M' DECLINATION TY: P A ? U: I Z ai G 1,110H HHH 7,0, 1 MILL C22, (M] 17 rm IT - H4P4--1:7N R-IIICH ROAD CN NCIFIH SIDE � RE�' DEvELOFf-ENT 15 A LIM17ED - L AR ACCESS ROAD FOR ERVCE AND UTILITY YEILfCLH5 ONLY. PEDESTRIAN O"LY F25 %"MO� IREDEYELOPrIENT CN EA67, AND 6CUTH afC;--5. W-90C UR-U T-03=10H TO LIE OR-'ClTS, 8ERVICE AND UTILITY VEHICLES TO 5F USED IN 5AME 'LINT 7 EV EASIS AC ALL OTI4E;RSOQE Vl RLNcTicms cF 5ER/IcE 417,c DE -1 -R- DMREN-L- T��AN ANT O-�ER -FZE KILDING. - T�� ! ,V'C-- WILL eE &kAFZEO WITP \'EjU Gol-c-=q I -A< Ha�, A SYSTEM ALIREACT 4e,,Ro,/EC MILL C22, (M] 17 rm IT - H4P4--1:7N R-IIICH ROAD CN NCIFIH SIDE � RE�' DEvELOFf-ENT 15 A LIM17ED - L AR ACCESS ROAD FOR ERVCE AND UTILITY YEILfCLH5 ONLY. PEDESTRIAN O"LY F25 %"MO� IREDEYELOPrIENT CN EA67, AND 6CUTH afC;--5. W-90C UR-U T-03=10H TO LIE OR-'ClTS, 8ERVICE AND UTILITY VEHICLES TO 5F USED IN 5AME 'LINT 7 EV EASIS AC ALL OTI4E;RSOQE Vl TO: Planning and Environmental Commission M DATE: February 27, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a CCI minor exterior alteration to allow for an addition to the Golden Bear retail shop within the A & D Building, located at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A and B and part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing. 0 MIMMi. v .W, S: 1/2' E: 10, W: 1/2' Goal 1 ®3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Goal 4.3 The ambience of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality)," All of these goals note the importance of evaluating commercial expansions so that the ambience of the Village and the identity of Vail are preserved. The quality features of the redevelopment will be discussed, especially in regard to their compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, in the following sections of this memorandum. MNEMONIC W= E Vail Villqge iyla�tar flan� 3 "Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." "Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities." Mill Creek. The applicant proposes to add 33 square feet of green space on-site and 84 square feet of green space off-site, moo " "Goal 5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the . transportation and circulation system throughout the Village." The proposed remodel should have no effect • transportation and circulation in the Village. The implementation of the streetscape trees and benches provides a distinctly more pedestrian atmosphere along Gore Creek Drive. "Goal 6 To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village." 4 • IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF COMMERCIAL YO-NE DISTRICT V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN V1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE P DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE .._.A ... Design Guide Plan Vail Village Design Censiddratir�ns The following is a discussion with the application's compliance with the Urban Design Considerations and the architectural /landscape considerations expressed in the Vail Village Design Considerations planning document. 93 Gore Creek Drive is a 25 to 35-foot wide section of asphalt, with an additional 6 to 8 feet of concrete pavers on each side. This width is more than adequate to accommodate the current mix of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. B. Vehicular Penetration: "In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused on reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village... Road constrictions, traffic circles, signs and other measures are indicated in the guide plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration." Adding streetscape trees along Gore Creek Drive will visually constrict the roadway. Planters are strategically located along the building wall with streetscape benches located between tree grates. ELI MMMMF--7�, E. Street Edge: "Buildings in the Village Core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street." N The proposed streetscape improvements and addition of the awning will add irregularity to the Gore Creek Drive frontage. Existing jogs in the building will be maintained, although altered slightly at the northwest corner of the building. The proposal includes planters that are strategically located along the north elevation with benches interspersed between landscaped areas. This, along with the gabled effect of the awning, significantly improve the irregularity of the streetscape along Gore Creek Drive, which will help the pedestrian quality of the space.- F. Building Height: The application does not impact this consideration. G. Views and Focal Points: The application does not impact this consideration. K Service and Delivery: A loading zone exists along Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building. The proposal will have no impact on existing loading and delivery services. 1. Sun/Shade: Due to the existing height and orientation of the building, the addition of the proposed awnings and building area will not extend shadows or interfere with adjacent property's light. Arch itectu re/Landsqgpg Considerations A. Roofs A minor roof extension is proposed. The new roof area will not be seen from the street level and does not alter the existing roof forms at the A & D Building. N B. Facades "Materials Stucco, brick (or stone), wood and glass are the primary building materials found in the Village. Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material." • As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground floor facades range from 55% to 75% of the total length of the commercial facade." The proposed windows are at a pedestrian scale. The planters are 1.5 to 2 feet high and windows are 6 feet high, for a total height to the top of the windows at 8 feet above walkway level. The proposed windows have a pleasing rhythm and symmetry in both location and size, Mullions are used to divide the large glass panes into small panes. Bay windows and projecting display cases are designed to accent the entryway. The en'tryway consists of double glass doors in the same style as the windows with mullions dividing up the large glass plates. The doorway is recessed and M 10 u 13 �l LU ,,4AA 0r I�q ud AJ C, EZ go r� SEMM rI El � I El I e PLAN • h, d WWACf CMim i9d P L A N D • EXISTING T Y AND AWNINGS VIEW DOWN GORE CREEK • 0 0 « 4 v . � %�w= « a TREE GRATE AND STONE WORK AT GORSUCH 1) 9 A • • µ RON- GORE CREEK I ELEVATION W771 I • • VIEW INTO DECK AT CREEK FMOP66k.- • a rik"I'AIMINM Applicant: David Hilb Planner: George Ruther in September and December 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create a new Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing, for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts within the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance states: i i i 11111111 n I Allowgg /�red Ercpcsed Height: 33 feet 29 feet * RFA: 4,775 sq. ft. 3,530 sq. ft. * *Site Coverage: 3,733 sq. ft. 3,084 sq. ft. Landscaping: 15,154 sq. ft. 19,551 sq. it. Parking: 6 spaces 6 spaces (5 enclosed) Setbacks: Front: 20 feet 20 feet Side: 15 feet 15 feet Side: 15 feet -- feet Rear: 15 feet 57 feet I 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Wir M WAT21 'I 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow a control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. I 11 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 subject to the following conditions: a. It shall be a conditional Use in the Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential and Primary/Secondary Residential zone districts. The subject property is zoned Two-Family Residential. 3 RM R It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with the minimum lot size requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. The minimum lot size for a Type 11 EHU in the Two-Family Residential zone district is 15,000 square feet of buildable si area. The applicant's property has 25,257 square feet of buildable site area. I The proposed Type 11 EHU will be located between the duplex units above the garage. The proposed EHU will be a third dwelling unit on the site. It coritains .9. full kitchen 2nd % §#w? « fizcilities. ■ The applicant has not applied for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA to be used for the construction of the EHU. The proposed EHU is a 900 square foot, two-bedroom unit and therefore complies with this criteria. 9- No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (116) 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. Since this unit will function as a two (2) bedroom Type 11 EHU, the second part of the above listed regulation will be complied with. IMMEMI"'an, -w-'r-mgm." wgin - uup B. Eni�as The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: That the proposed location of the use in accordance with the purposes Y f this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. AIJ�311 MUIA-SOX144- 1 That the applicant receive all necessary easements (i,e. access, drainage, etc.) to construct the project, prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit. 2 That the applicant execute and return a Type 11 EHU deed restriction, prior 4 the Town's issuance of a building permit. 3. That the project comply with all of the relevant Zoning Code requirements prior to application for building permit. ■ minrl FROM: Community Development Department DATE- February 27, 1995 Ill. BACKGROUND The staff has researched projects in which similar requests were made, and has summarized them below: At the Mumma residence, the applicant requested and was granted a 1 % site coverage variance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot that exceeds 30% slope. The 1% overage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 400 square feet. The garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage. mail At the Small residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage and GRFA addition. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 22 feet 8-inches by 22 feet 3-inches (504 square feet). Please note that a site coverage variance was not necessary as a part of this request. Testwuide Residence, 898 Red Sandstone Circle LAugust 1992L At the Testwuide residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved garage had interior dimensions of 21.5 feet by 24 feet, with a total interior area of 516 square feet. Please note that a site coverage variance was not necessary as part of this Ricci Residence For comparison purposes, the proposed variance is for 4.7% (526.5 square feet), The garage contributes 623 square feet towards site coverage. The interior dimensions are 23.25 by 26 feet (with a small angle cut out of one side). K Ill. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 11,242 square feet Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Allowed Proposed Height: 33 feet 33 feet GRFA: 2,8105 + 425 + 250 = 3,485.5 sq. ft. 3,3299.8 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' Front: 21' Sides: 15/15' Sides: N/A Rear: 15' Rear: 235 Site Coverage: 20% or 2,248.4 sq. ft. 24.7% or 2,774.9 sq. ft. Landscaping: 60% or 6,745.2 sq. ft. 6,598 sq. ft. - soft (58.7 %) 191 2 ft - hard 6,789 sq. ft. - Total(60.4 %) Retaining Wall Heights: 6 feet 6 feet Parking: 3 spaces required 4 spaces proposed El N 10 Staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requests and setback variance requests when it involves constructing garages, Staff believes that it is beneficial to the community to allow individuals to construct garages, as it typically improves the appearance of a site. In this case, the applicant will be demolishing a one-car garage and replacing it with a two-car garage. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make before grantin a variance: 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. T �WNBTAUMMU[Iff 91 E I 9 Ll �'� ft-. - -,� .- -�-- a z 7Z - 11 < I v � � � � n NDRTHEAST-ELE VAT IM ��� f �` i t � � � i l-,j TI a: TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 27, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to allow for the construction of a new garage located at 79213, 794A and 7945 Potato Patch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. U3 U 0 Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Zone District: Primary/Secondary Residential Em LA E B29uirecl Lot 10 - 6 spaces Lot 10 - 3 enclosed; 3 exterior Lot 11 - 6 spaces Lot 11 - 3 enclosed; 3 exterior Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Proposed Total Lot 10 - 4,309 sq. ft. Lot 11 - 3,894 sq. ft. 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. N 3. The effect of th?re + ??2ek variance on light and air, distribution ot population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that the requested variance would have any effect on any of the above criteria. W111 MIRM Ifff, a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 0 I 7 � _ ,.. : °�.... � ° ° °.nom•. __..__° I� E°a i ----- _ --- —_________- ------------ ............. e.. ' i es��o °_. 6 —° e d ° b �_ a�._. °___.__ - P a� ° _ `a ° . °___ °_____ a ".•$ ° ° -. _ ®__� a °° .� a 9.a.a•0Q1).B � ________ '�� i ax t � ° 0 e e ° ik ; 792 $ ............. ° I .,_._._e__a a ® 794 1... ° 792 A Drive /P reing - -- — �� 794 A Ne,e, 3 -..8610.00° e .. ° _ - ___________/ __ / -. - - °,R3now °Storage &r® - -------- _ . °..® ®_.m_ T pogpoph is and Site Plan scone: MW = i°- ®" ❑ Cogswell Residence r REMODEL El 0mn�• R 7 �. / Mw 908 � m RSV: GLi� /45 WN / i| �- �----- -- ------ -- ------ -- ------ | �_______________________________________________\_________~_~__~~__~________~__� | | 1- �-'L E J - VATION ' H rM-] L k --1 -117 i I January 30, 1995 a HAMPLEMAN ARCHITECTS 170 1 Wynkoop Street, suite 304 Denver, CaioradG 80202 (303) `534- 45:33, SAX 130 3 ) 534 -5227 Variance Submittal A. The garage addition variance does not impact other existing or potential uses, and structures in the vicinity. The addition is located within thie space between the two duplex buildings, The proposed structure will tie located in the adjacent steep hill on the Eastern side of the site, The garage will supplagnt portions of -,e -xi-s-,111, 'hi -1- -u--- - Id k 1 1.11 V LMV iz;Ld Mile fdr96 W HCH aftt (; fft�lftly in a siate of disrepair, and requiUe - - "I I ilt" qdidgu WiN, thdvtj du qz�dfdltjil (uuf Uldi vViii be teveyeidtu(L As ((A dLe(l, URI SUMAUlU kM91 TIOL Ue VK:RUttm UUM r-tildLu f-dtG(( Lilmj, (if adjautmt lots. 4. We believe our proposed garage addition complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The Project falls totally within the site envelope, and does not negatively effect the Comprehensive Plan, E M l �Kw DATE: February 27, 1995 SUBJECT- A request for a side yard setback variance to allow for the construction of a five-car, detached garage to be located at 4524 Meadow Drive/Timberfalls Condominiums, Phase III, Building 9. 11. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Area: N/A I= 273,755 sq. ft. (35%) 40% minimum *1 0-foot side yard setback variance requested. Existin EMPOsed 782,157 sq. ft. N/A N/A 12 feet 20' 20' 20' 101* 20' 20' 55,502 sq. ft. (7A0%) 55,502 sq. ft. ±i2320 s�. ft. 56,782 sq. ft. (72.6%) Total 41.9% 41.0% 14 spaces 14 spaces (5 enclosed) 0 Ili, CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18,62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors- The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. U3 14 The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. R adequately preserve light, air and views from the adjacent Courtside Townhomes. The association at Courtside Townhomes was notified of the proposed variance. Staff has not received any response from the owners at Courtside. The proposed rearrangement of the parking area will improve circulation, but will reduce landscaping on the project by 828 square feet. Staff has analyzed the landscaping associated with Building 9 (Phase 111) and feels that the proposed landscaping is adequate. The applicant should ensure that the parking lot is properly paved and drains appropriately. B. The Planninci and Environmental Commission shall make the followiEg_!!fl� That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified 10 regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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 regulatior would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 0 existing location of building and parking areas provides a physical hardship for the variance. M El ul- 0 0 0 , I v ®_�w �.4h '50UTH ELEVATION NOV-TH ELEVATION FLOOD PLAN n. -ROOF PLAN I Z,1„n� i n m SCALE: I' - 20- DATE OF SURVEY: 8/30/94 Wir TIMBER FALLS CONDOMINIUMS 4, PHASE 3 TIMBER FALLS CONDOMINIUMS PHASE 2 9r, COURTSIDE TOWNHOMES 04 • TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY EMEMORNMEWANNOMM PART OP PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3 TIMBER FALLS CONDIMINjums TOWN OF VAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO 1 i r I y Lij 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 27, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a change to the Vail Land Use Plan from Park (P) to Low Density Residential (LDR) for a parcel owned by the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, located at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing, Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, represented by Pat Dauphanais Planner: Jim Curnutte � 1 � I'll 110 _ - 0� Parks - Town owned parcels intended for both active recreation activities, such as athletic fields, golf courses, and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities. -1 1 00, i III. BACKGROUND INIMMM 2. The appropriateness of the proposed residential use of the property. In addition to the above - described Environmental Audit, the applicant has provided the following information related to the use of chemicals used in the treatment of water during the time of operation: -Chlorine: Daily average use of chlorine was approximately 20 pounds per day. The District would normally store four 150 pound gas cylinders on -site. -Alum: Use was approximately 120 pounds per day. The amount of chemical stored on -site was approximately ten 100 pound bags of dry alum. -Polymer: The amount used on-site was approximately 700 milligrams per day. Polymer was shipped in 55 gallon drums. Usually, one drum was stored at the Plant while in use. -Sodium Fluoride; Consumption of fluoride was approximately 5 pounds per day. Fluoride was shipped in 500 pound cardboard containers, about the size of a 55 gallon drum. W v+? ffi Documentation and removal of all abandoned water related equipment on and off of the subject property and the undergrouning of the nearby overhead powerline. Pat Dauphinais, representing the Water District, has agreed to remove all on-site, above and below ground equipment and structures associated with the water plant with the following exceptions: The District would like to retain the sewer manhole located along Vail Valley Drive in order to provide a convenient tap for the future residences. With regard to the request for undergrounding the nearby above ground power lines, r, Dauhinais has indicated that when the future residences are proposed to be constructed on the property, the Design Review Board (RB) will require that the power service lines roust be undergrouned leading from the existing overhead utility lines to the buildings. He also pointed out that the existing overhead power lines are 4 A 4, t not actually located on the property and the district has no control over their removal. Mr. Dauphinais has contacted Holy Cross Electric to inquire about the undergrounding of the line and Holy Cross has indicated that they have no immediate plans, nor do they desire to have the line undergrounded at this time. The line is strung over Gore Creek and would be very difficult, expensive and environmentally disruptive to bury. 4. The dedication of easements to accommodate possible revisions to traffic flow on Vail Valley Drive and the existing golf cart path which runs along the eastern side of the subject lot. The Water District Board of Directors has also voted to dedicate an easement along the western 60 feet of the lot, to accommodate the possibility of a realignment of Vail Valley Drive in the future. 5. Where would the proceeds from the sale of Tract C be invested? A 111111. ZONING_" Although the purpose of this PEC hearing is to discuss the issues related to the proposed Land Use Plan change and not a future rezoning request, staff felt that it would be helpful to show the relationship between the development standards of the existing General Use zoning, on the property and the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district, which may ultimately be proposed should this Land Use Plan designation change request be approved. Development Existing General Proposed Primary/Secondary Standards Use Zone District Zone District M Site Coverage: Building Height: Lot Area and Site Dimensions Examples include: public and private schools, public theaters, churches, hospitals, public recreation facilities, etc. To be determined by PEC. To be determined by PEC. To be determined by PEC. To be determined by PEC. To be determined by PEC. and a Type 11 EHU. Single Family or Primary/Secondary; and a Type 11 EHU. 5,060 sq. ft., (includes two 425 sq. ft. credits) 20 feet front, 15 feet side and rear 3,920 sq. ft., or 20% 33 feet for a sloping roof. 0 6 Staff believes that the applicant has shown compliance with the Land Use Plan amendment procedures in the following ways: How have conditions chancles since the plan was gdopted? At the time the Land Use Plan designated this property as Park, there was an operating water treatment plant on the property. Shortly after adoption of the Plan, the use as a water treatment plant was discontinued and the building has stood vacant since. M • 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 112 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (in-fill areas). 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing future growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Staff recommends approval of the requested change to the Vail Land Use Plan designation of Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing from Park to Low Density Residential. Staff believes that the applicant has shown that conditions have changed since the Plan was adopted, how the Plan is in error, and how the change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general. Staff's recommendation for approval is based on an understanding that the Water District's application for a change to the Land Use Plan includes commitments to complete the following items: 1 Prior to the transfer of ownership of the property, the Water District will dedicate an approximate 10 -foot wide public easement across the eastern side of Tract C to the Town of Vail, to allow for the continued use of a portion of Tract C for a golf cart path. 6 L-1 0 '* FILE COPY Greg Amsden Bill Anderson $2> ««2» Jeff Bowen 'RHOLN Mg C STAFF PRESENT Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Randy Stouder Jim Curnutte Lauren Waterton A request fora worksession to discuss a proposed change to the Land Use Plan from Q-V Park (P) to Low Density Residential (LDR) fora parcel owned by the V&;"lle"y"W Consolidated Water District, located at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, represented by Pat Dauphanais Planner- Jim Curnutte Bill Anderson asked whether the overhead power lines and transformers would be removed from the site. I Jim Curnutte responded that the requested change to the Low Density Residential I designation would limit future construction to either one duplex, one primary/secondaMS or one single family structure. talton Williams felt that there was no need for additional park space in this area. He- Q.aid that residential use for this site seemed to make the most sense. He stated that he would like to see all equipment from the former water treatment plant identified and removed from the property. Pat Dauphinais stated that with regard to the removal of whatever infrastructure was in place, that it may be easier to leave certain elements in place as opposed to tearing up the entire site. Jim Curnutte suggested that a sub-surface inventory be conducted and then they could determine what would need to be removed. Jeff Bowen stated that because the site was triangular, he felt that a single fami 0 residence would be the most appropriate option for this site. I Bob Armour felt that a sub-surface inventory would be a good idea. He did not feel, that there was a need for another park on this site. He felt that this site would be a good buffer between the residential area and the park that surrounds agreed with Jeff's comment regarding the future zoning and said that we may want to consider restricting the GRFA on the property. Bill Anderson and Greg Amsden agreed with the other P members comments. Greg also said that the surrounding topography creates a natural separation from Ford Park. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes October 24, 1994 2 Sul OV-10 Tract C, Vail Village Filing No. 7 Gore Creek Water Treatment Plant Vail, Colorado 1.0 PROPERTY USE INVESTIGATION ........................... ..............................2 1.1 Property Description ......... ........................................................................... 2 1.2 Ownership and Land Use ............................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Review of Title Information .......................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Review of Building Records .......................................................................... 3 1.2.3 Review of Aerial Photography ...................................................................... 3 1.2.4 Review of Street Directories and Historical Records ... ..............................3 1.2.5 Interview. ................................. ..................................................................... 3 1.2.6 Review of Planning and Zoning Information ................................................ 3 1.3 Summary of Property Use Investigation ...................................................... 3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW ............................................... 4 2.1 Pollution Sources at the Subject Property ..................... ..............................4 2.1.1 Inspection, Compliance, and Monitoring History .......... ..............................4 2.1.2 Potentially Responsible Parties at Superfund Sites ..... ..............................5 2.2 Potential Environmental Hazards at the Subject Property .........................5 2.2.1 Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Assessment of Environmental Risk from On-Site Sources /Hazards ........5 2.4 Pollution Sources in the Surrounding Area .................... ..............................7 2.4.1 Stationary Air Pollution Sources ......................... ........................................ 7 2.4.2 Stream Pollution Sources .............................................................................. 7 2.4.3 Hazardous Waste Facilities ........................................................................ 7 2.4.4 Underground Storage Tank Sites ................................................................. 8 2.4.5 Landfills ......................................................................................................... 9 2.4.6 Polychlorinated Biphcnyls (PCBs)-Sources .................. ..............................9 2.4.7 Chemical Radiation Sources ......................................................................... 9 2.4.8 Spills and Complaints ................................................................................... 9 2.5 Environmental Hazards in the Surrounding Area .......... .............................10 2.5.1 Flood lain Locations ..................................................................................... 10 2.5.2 Wetlands ....................................... .............................................................. 10 2.5.3 Registered Mining Sites ............................................................................... 10 2.6 Potential Pathways for Contaminant Migration to the Subject Property... 10 2.6.1 Utility Corridors ............................................................................................. 10 2.6.2 Groundwater ....................................... .......................................................... 10 2.7 Assessment of Environmental Risk from Off-Site Pollution Sources/Hazards ........................................................................................... I I 4.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................ 12 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 13 6.0 LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................. 13 The historical uses of the subject property were established by review of assessment and title records from the Eagle County assessor's and clerk and recorder's offices, review of the Town of Vail's building and inspection records, an interview with a foreman/water treatment. plant operator of the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District, and review of the Town of Vail's planning and zoning records. 1.2.1 Review of Title Ihformation The subject property is currently owned by Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, which acquired the property in May 1989. The previous owners were traced back through 1938. The current and previous owners and the approximate dates of ownership are listed in Table 1® Owners Dates of 031ntrshig Vail Valley Consolidated Water District May 1989-Present Vail Water and Sanitation District June 1969- May 1989 Vail Associates, Inc.Nail Associates, Ltd. September 19 June 1969 Peter W. Seibert June 1963-September 1964 Henry W. & Leona E. Antholz August 1958-June 1963 Henry W. Antholz August 1938-August 1958 Iowa Investment Company prior to August 1938 The review of past and present owners does not reveal any obvious or known environmentally significant land use at the subject property. Peter Seibert was a principal founder of Vail. ENPRO Consulting Group, Inc. Page 2 1.2.2 Review of Building Records No building records for the subject property address are on file at either the Town of Vail or Eagle County Bove meat offices. First building records for the Vail Valley and Eagle County date from the early 1970's. 1.2.3 Review of Aerial Photography 1.2.5 Interview ENPRO Consulting Group, Inc. Page 3 2.0 ENVIRO ] NMENTAL RECORDS REVIE 2.1 Pollution Sources at the Subject Propert TABLE 2A Environmental Licenses, Permits, and Notifications at the Subject Property Key for Table 2A I CDPHE=Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 2 OIS=Colorado's Office of Oil Inspection 3 WRE= Colorado Division of Water Resources 4 EPA=US Environmental Protection Agency 5 Vail=Vail Environmental Health Officer 2.1.2 Inspection, Compliance, and Monitoring History There are no other records of inspections by the above listed agencies for environmentally related matters at the subject property, and no other regulatory agency environmental compliance or monitoring reports were available for the subject property. ENPRO Consulting Group, Inc. Page 4 , Permi APEN/Air Pollutant Emission Permit CDPHEI none NPDES Permit (stream discharge) CDPHE none Hazardous waste notification/permit CDPHE" none Tank registration CDPHE/OIS2 none Radiation Source License CDPHE none Water Well WRE3 none Drinking Water System Permit CDPHE YES Spills and Complaints EPA4/CDPHE[Vail5 none Key for Table 2A I CDPHE=Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment 2 OIS=Colorado's Office of Oil Inspection 3 WRE= Colorado Division of Water Resources 4 EPA=US Environmental Protection Agency 5 Vail=Vail Environmental Health Officer 2.1.2 Inspection, Compliance, and Monitoring History There are no other records of inspections by the above listed agencies for environmentally related matters at the subject property, and no other regulatory agency environmental compliance or monitoring reports were available for the subject property. ENPRO Consulting Group, Inc. Page 4 , E I 2.2.1 Wetlands The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not mapped the Vail Valley for potential wetlands. The Grand Junction office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has indicated that numerous potential wetlands existed in the Vail Valley prior to its development; this is the subject of a cecommendation in §5.0. ° EP RO Consulting Group, Inc. Page 5 0 0 0 .. 2.4 Pollution Sources in the Surrounding Area 2.4.1 Stationary Air Pollution Sources There are no registered air pollutant emission sources located within 1/2 mile of the subject property. 2.4.3 Hazardous to Facilities RCRA refers to the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the law that provides CERCLA refers to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the primary law that provides for government response to major chemical spills and cleanup of abandoned hazardous chemical dump sites. Under this law "Superfund" was created, a multibillion dollar federal fund used to finance site studies and clean-ups until costs can be recovered from Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). ENPRO Consulting Group, Inc. Page 7 Although EPA is usually the lead agency for managing Superfund clean-ups, state agencies can also be assicned lead status for clean-up management and oversight. Selected EPA and CDPHE records are reviewed based upon address information provided in database records maintained by EPA. RCRA Hazardous IVaste Handlers There are no registered hazardous waste handlers located within 1/2 mile of the subject property, and there are no hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities located within one mile of the subject property. CERCLA HazaLdlous IyVaste Disposal Sites EPA records of inactive or abandoned hazardous waste sites or facilities (CERCLAJSuperfund) were reviewed for the Town of Vail and Eagle County. There are no CERCLA study sites located within 1/2 mile of the subject property, and there are no National Priorities List sites located within one mile of the subject property. 2.4.4 Underground Storage Tank Sites Underground petroleum or hazardous material storage tanks must be registered with the TABLE 3A Underground Storage Tank Sites Located Within 1/2 Mile of the Subject Property AUGUST 1990 Tis t a _nc e (miles) =0.29 =0.30 ENPRO Consulting Group, Inc. Page 8 CDPHE database records are reviewed and the Eagle County sanitarian and the Town of Vail's Envirorunental Health representative are interviewed for information on landfills and dump sites believed to be located within 1/2 mile of the subject property. Selected files are reviewed for sources considered to be potentially significant to the subject property. Address information for landfills is imperfect. There are no records in Eagle County, the Town of Vail, and CDPHE files of open or closed landfills or dump sites located within 1/2 mile of the subject property. There are no facilities located within 1/4 mile of the subject property which have been inspected or found out of compliance with applicable TSCA regulations. 2.4.7 Chemical Radiation Sources CDPHE Radiation Control Division database records of facilities located within 1/4 mile of the subject property are reviewed, and file records are reviewed for selected facilities, as discussed below. There are no nearby facilities licensed by the CDPHE Radiation Control Division for chemical radiation sources® • 1 ENPRO Consulting Group, Inc. Page 9 EPA database records, CDPHE database records and CDPHE file records are reviewed and representatives of the Vail Fire Department are interviewed for complaints and spills in the vicinity of the subject property. The nearest reported spill incident occurred north of the subject property along 1-70 when approximately 50 gallons of diesel fuel was spilled after a truck's fuel tank ruptured in March 1991. This incident is not believed to be environmentally significant to the subject property. There are no additional reported spills or incidents within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. 2.5 Environmental Hazards in the Surrounding Area 2.5.1 Floodplain Locations Surrounding properties to the north are located within the mapped 100-year floodplain of Gore Creek, according to the 1983 Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance rate maps. Residences to the east of the subject property are not mapped within the floodplain. 2.7 Assessment of Environmental Risk from Off-Site Pollution Sources/ Hazards There are no government records which indicate that subsurface contamination in the immediate vicinity of the subject property has occurred. It is our assessment that there is minimal risk of subsurface contamination from the nearest potential pollution sources, under-round petroleum storage tank installations located more than 1/4 mile from the property. 3.1 Building Inspection 3.3 Surrounding Properties Gore Creek is located to the north and Gerald R. Ford Park is located to the west of the subject property. Duplex and single family homes are located to the east and south and the Vail Golf Course is located to the northeast of the subject property. LW 4.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The subject property, an inactive water treatment plant, was evaluated for potentially significant on-site environmental contamination through a review of historical property uses, a review of environmental records available from government agencies, and a property inspection. The subject property contains an inactive water treatment plant that operated from the early 1970's to the mid 1980's. The property is believed to have been in ranching use prior to the development of the Vail Valley. Nearby properties include the Vail Golf Course and the Gerald R. Ford Park, as well as several single family residences and duplexes. No environmentally significant land uses were uncovered in the vicinity of the subject property. ENPRO Consulting Group, Inc. Page 12 v El • ENP O Consulting Group, Inc. Page 13 U N P LATTE,D (FORD PARK) TRACT C 41 DRIVE � 235 00 21'27'29' E 2.00 �-25110 ($0. 39 C3=S 803613' E --------------------- -4- LOT I TOPOGRAPHIC SURV-_-Y TRACT C VAIL VLLAG. SErE.NTH FILING TO'NN 0' 7 VAIL EAG'-E COUNTY, COLORADO NIDN !31'f-�KWASH WAIER GE BASIN - as- 6 U C- C3,<) L z-0,rUU,-RtMCqf, ANO REFJA. ,E vil ------ n ',UM- �5VE, AND mklmtiCR OF PuAriji -i q- 'Irl 0KHAINAL UyAnOr14,-e[L NEW b® Z 27. WATER U111, - 35' 5, 7- RFE, 6ULVE AND WX LAR >f:,'IUNt( UNIT F� TREZoe7 -&Z-m0VE AN- rtV-.V,E WITR EQJAL InZZ RA41INLI IM AFFFDX 1 , K 1' I _- • � �.s s?l_ S' f dT'�4 (%. l° e. °r7. Ia"8 Cc° x'91 a iv ti �f.l� 2 caJ . r .5d teq r I 9 ? NZ w MEMORANDUM DATE: February 27, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to allow for the completion of the Westhaven Condominiums (The Ruins) located at 1325 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, SIDD #4. Applicant. Gerald Wuhrman, General Manager of the Westhaven Condominiums Planner: Andy Knucltsen The applicant is requesting a major SDD amendment for the Westhaven Condominiums site. This is one of the parcels located within Area A, Cascade Village, SIDD #4. In 1982, the Town issued a building permit for this site and construction started. After a foundation and first floor parking structure had been completed, construction stopped. The current proposal is to complete the work, taking the existing improvements and using them as the first floor. IN Free Market: 22,500 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 26,284 sq. ft. Use 6,400 sq- ft. 26,680 sg. ft. 7,704 s q. ft. Total: 28,900 sq. ft., or 78% 26,680 sq. ft., or 72% 33,988 sq. ft., or 92% Common Area: 10,115 sq. ft. or 35% 4,261 sq, ft. or 14.7% 3,417 sq. ft. or 11.8% Density: Free Market: 20 duelling units 0 dwelling units 14 dwelling units EHUs: 10 EHUs 20 EHUs 16 EHUs 30 total units 20 total units 30 total units Setbacks:* 20' on periphery 39' 24' of the property Site Coverage. 35% or 12,959.1 sq. ft. 34.3% or 12,686 sq. ft. 36.7% or 13,598 sq. ft. Landscaping: 50% min. or 18,513 sq. ft. 41.2% or 15,243 sq. ft. 47.9% or 17,767.4 sq. ft. Retaining Walls: 3'16' none proposed none proposed Parking: 75% shall be enclosed 37 enclosed (78 %) 36 enclosed (80 %) 44 spaces required 10 exterior 9 exterior 47 total spaces 45 total spaces Employee Housing: minimum of 8 units; 20 units; however deed 16 EHUs, similar to minimum of 648 sq. ft. each; restrictions are not clear Type III restrictions should not count towards density or GRFA. *SDD requires a setback measurement on the periphery of the SDD. Staff has measured one setback, which is the distance between the building and the north property line. The northern property line is the only one which also is the periphery of the Area A of the SDD. • L9 design include recesses of a similar shape to match the other openings, We also recommend that the louvers be fhed in a way that is aesthetically pleasing. As ar, example, for the police addition, the Town finished exhaust louvers from the parking structure with cedar boards which match the -- ®© finishes. Staff believes that with, these changes, the visual quality of the first floor of the building will improve. B. Uses, fficient and IAt A relatiorli��i with surro2nqtg-,2��� The proposed use, thirty condominiums, is an appropriate proposal for this location, in staff's opinion. We y » ®© tat density, in the form of restricted employee housing, to the Cascade Village area is appropriate. Staff will discuss the details of the employee housing under criteria D below. One of the most significant issues involved with this proposal is the request for additional density. ■ Given all the various requirements and limitations, staff believes that the density increase is acceptable as the overall mass and bulk are compatible with the surrounding uses and buildings. C. Compliance oarki 18.52. -�i� nQ and loading requirements as outlined in Chapt D. Conformitv with applicable elements of the Vail CoMpE2��.�, policies and Urban DesigE Plans. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing platted areas as appropriate and new areas where high hazards do not exist. 53 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts assisted by limited incentives provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 6-4 t It m I mam #11 ung-10 There are no hazards which effect this proposal. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions cleajgpg� produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to naturaLfeatures, vegetation and overall aesthetic 7 The site plan includes a surface parking area for nine spaces. It is located between the building and the Frontage Road. Due to changes in elevation and due to its location, north of the building it will not be highly visible. It is important to note that the SDD requires 50% of the site to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing 47.9% of the site to be landscaped. Staff believes this difference may be justified if the improvements discussed above regarding the grading and landscaping in the right-of-way are accomplished. Staff believes that the slight reduction in the minimum landscaped area should be supported. The regrading of the berm, the burying of the utility lines, and the landscaping plan are all high quality improvements that come as a result of this project. G. A circulation s on 0 and off-site traffic circulation. K Originally, staff had thought that the applicant should provide a landscaping buffer along the Frontage Road. This is not feasible as the slope south of the Frontage Road is very steep. The applicant has provided some planting between the building and the Frontage Road in areas closer to the building and surface parking lot, where the lot begins to flatten out. efficient relationship throughout t�he �develoment of the district. There is no phasing plan for this project. 2. Easement may be needed for 24-inch corrugated metal pipe crossing the site. 3. Provide curb and gutter net to sidewalk for the entire length of the property. 4. Prior to issuance of building permit, civil engineering plans for road improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail is Engineer. 5. An easement for the bike path should be dedicated to the public. M v L A 10 0 NOW LAND DESICN nj, E LIASON. IN t. �r ra�std ��maa� �I i s` +� I I z 0 u z maw 3. c SOUTHWEST ElEVATIQP4 -�-.. Y ®•]`a � �3 m FCmJRPH F109R Plfl.Pd� ^I,� 0 0 m m m O PE III EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEREAS, is the owner of certain property ( "the Owner ") described as: ("the Property "); and WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to place certain restrictions on the use of a unit or apartment located on the Property for the benefit of the Owner and the 'town of flail, Colorado ( "the Town'). NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby impose, establish, acknowledge, declare for the benefit of all persons who may hereinafter purchase, or lease, or hold the subject land the following restrictions, covenants, and conditions, all of which shall be deemed to run with the land and inure to the benefit and be bonding upon the Owner, its respective grantees, successors, and assigns. 1. Unit or Apartment , containing square feet, is hereby restricted as Type III Employee Housing Unit a (EHU) which must comply with all the provisions of Sections 18.57.020, 18.57.030, and 18.57.060 of the Vail Municipal Code as ame_-ded. 2. The Type III Employee Housing Unit shall be leased to tenants who are full -time employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty consecutive days. For the purposes of this section, a full -time employee is one who works an average of thirty hours each week. 3. A `type III EHU may be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from other dwelling units or Employee Housing Units that may be located on the same lot or within the same building so long as it meets the following conditions: a a) It must bd used by the owner of the EHU as a permanent residence. For the purpose of this paragraph, a permanent residence shall mean the home or place in which one's habitation is fixed and to which one, whenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of returning after a departure or absence therefrom, regardless of the duration of absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the Town staff shall take the following circumstances 9 4. The Type III Ei-HU shall not be divided into any form of timeshares, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership as those terms are defined in the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. 5. No later than February 1 of each year, the yawner of each employee housing unit within the town which is constructed following the effective date of this chapter shall submit w two copies of a report of a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department, to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full - time employee in Eagle County. S. The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or lower than those market rates prevalent for similar properties in the Town of Vail. 7. The Town of Vail Housing Authority will determine the market rate based on the study of other units of comparable size, location, quality and amenities throughout the Town. The market rate shall be based on an average of a minimum of five rental rates of comparable units. If the unit is not rented and is not available at the market rate it shall be determined to be in noncompliance. In addition to any other penalties and restrictions provided herein, a unit found to be in noncompliance shall be subject to publication as determined by the Housing Authority. 9 8. Thirty days prior to the transfer of a deed for a Type III EHU, the prospective purchaser shall submit an application to the Community Development Department documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth above and shall include an affidavit affirming that he or she meets these criteria. 9. The provisions of these restrictive covenants may be enforced by the Owner and the Town. 10. The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, and agreements contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by the written consent of both the Town of Vail and the Owner of the property. TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation By: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Notary Public My commission expires: By: Property Owners The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Notary Public My commission expires: 1 c'.ftusing�admin',EHUNI 3 P ° I"fT. ; El C n I �� �� m� �, s •� �� r� �� w 13 1 151. .11111 FROM: Community Development DATE: February 27, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (Simba Run) to allow for modifications to the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas development located at 1100 North Frontage Road and described as follows: That part of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Applicant: Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said Planner: Jim Curnutte S 9 The 1993 development plan did not conform to the approved development standards for SDO #5 in the following areas: _©w < ?==] The proposed major SDD amendment to be reviewed by the PEC today includes the following modifications from the 1993 approved development plan for the Phase 11 portion of Development Area B. (Please refer to the attachments for a comparison of the 1993 S»© development plan and the modifications being proposed today). 3 -Chanaes to the Architectural CharacteL_gf uildins 5 and 6� - As a result of the proposed relocation of GRFA and dwelling units on the site, and the location of the buildings themselves, the applicant is proposing changes to the architectural character of Buildings 5 and 6. EA-1 Height: Units: Employee Dwelling Units: Site Coverage: Landscaping. Parking: OR Commercial Area: -0- 20- 60' 2b - 4�' 25 - 49' N/A 91,870 sq. ft. - DU's 95,467 sq. ft. 96 33,884 sq. ft. - DU's 2,536 sq. ft. - EHU's 36,420 sq. ft. 20 35,966 sq. ft. 20 7— 18,318 sq. ft. (26%)*** 37,002 sq, ft, (53%) 24 enclosed (54%) 22 surface 4-6(-44spaces are reqi -0- 126,309 sq. ft. - DU's 5,124 s . ft. - EH U's 131;433 sq. ft. 116 7 83,407 sq. ft. (30%)**' 153,304 sq. ft, (56%) 152 enclosed (84%) 28 surface Mired) 180 are proposed -0- Four units on the Phase 11 site and three units on the Phase I site. Two units on the Phase 11 site and five units on the Phase I site. Includes 1,292 square feet of Timber Ridge's easternmost building. Bold = The proposed project departs from these approved development standards. Note: The GRFA, units and employee dwelling unit numbers shown in the "Phase I Development Area 13" column above have already been modified to reflect the changes which would result should the 1995 SDD amendment, being reviewed by the PEC today, be approved, 9 V. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural desig scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. I 6. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient anci workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. I is one hundred and eighteen dwelling units (there is an error in Ordinance #16, Series of 1993 because ?v2 deed restricted units in Simba Run, which were authorized to become free market units by the Town Council, were not added to the total dwelling unit figure of one hundred and fifteen units). C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan identes this area as High Density Residential (HDR). High Density Residential is defined in the Land Use Plan as follows: The » <? w� for this final phase of the Simba Run development wou set the overall density for Development Area B at one hundred sixteen » delling units and seven deed-restricted employee housing units, which equates to a density of 19.5 units per buildable acre. ■ a 2. The following are the applicable Land Use Plan goals and policies which 0 relate to this proposal: Goal 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and permanent resident. Goal 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the addition" growth in existing developed areas (infill 11 Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. M A circulation system designed for both vehicles an pe estr arr:---:. addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Future Simba Ung2M2iiL 0 ?Iedestrian Acces!�7 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. IN <<Q? reasons and per the 1993 approval, the existing recreation/bike path has been realigned so that it crosses the vehicular access to the lower development area at the driveway's intersection with the property line. Phasing plan #r?? bdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional atnd ficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major modification to Special Development District No. 5. We believe that the proposed modifications to the previously approved plan comply with the nine Special Development District review criteria listed in this memorandum. Although the applicant has not met the required 85% enclosed parking percentage for We In summary, the staff believes that the project substantially complies with the nine SDID review Criteria, as indicated in this memorandum, and is recommending approval with the understanding that «,a d&n agrees with ».2<«« < :<»42t» : 0 im • El 19 • m l Ali i19 0 1 5 X C: LL C: U) 0 0 0 0 El SITE PLAN El c 0- 0 ~ ` a1 L-n rmoo Cr-iI� �T - - - - - -f -war r �w�� \✓ \ �uw� ^g/es alma. 'HOB I o/ ,l ouw�L 4.i 71,E i �'`�- ,,, °- i--� -- %� �!� _/� �� � = ,� � - �- -- �,� - � -- _._ �- �� -- - -- — � � �� �.� �s'a �� � � -- - o� j �� � �� �� � � � �3 �� �� _�. _--� o �) _ _ -- a� t.... .. � Aq�. _.-- i =— � _ _ , 4fI �v � ! -- - E �e 4 � �S. � �� �"— (} h� � �`� . N a�'� /�/t // 4 �. o+w f+�'L $�� r4aun+-0 �war� �3. °z , ` - | - ' °—� - - AA IL \ \ . ------- c= � ^ ' ilm� �� wr K-D -0 2 f7r 0 - (1) 2" 0 (t) I- mllMR, mulz* —Illp **— - -,- ---, . -- (9) ('- 6' & PLANTING LIST 0 C, 5 UIL Dpj� . none �D 0' Mt`�Wp� I*- —Nt T. —11 am I All 0 E 0 >40 0 > 7r, L-1 W. I t U H Q > w 6 O W •a• Q ? d U C rr rn t� o-am 01/15/95 02/24/95 'Z, tl ,-4 z > 0 Q > l6 d oero 03/78/95 ILS, Z,'2- L.- gin A% _� , (�)�Ov BULDING FIVE SOUTH BULDING FIVE NORTH BULDING FIVE EAST a 00 14 cn PLAN' o PLAN BULDING SIX EAST _B_ULDING SIX{ WEST ua�e 02/3/85 E El TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: February 27, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance to allow for a major remodel and addition to the existing Primary residence located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner: Randy Stouder The applicant is proposing a major remodel of the existing primary residence. The proposal involves filling in the existing carport with new GRFA, and constructing a burie garage wit a two-story addition on top. The garage addition would be connected to the main house by a two-story enclosed walkway. The garage would be accessed with a new, relatively flat driveway (see attached site plan). Portions of the existing structure are located within the 20-foot front setback. Although the applicant is not proposing to add GRFA closer to the front property line than the existing un the applicant is proposing GRFA additions to portions of the existing structure that are currently located within the front setback, The proposal adds mass and bulk in the front setback. The existing carport is located within 7 feet of the front property line, in the front setback. Thus, the request to infill the carport with new GRFA would require approval of a front setback variance of 13 feet. [7 I 0 111. BACKGROUND The property is zoned Primary/ Secondary Residential, with a site area of 229263 square feet. M2wedlRe aired EnLtinq E220sed GRFA: Primary: 3,111 sq. ft. 2,196 sq. ft. 3,361 s% ft.* Secondary: 2.215 Sft 1.875 sq. 1l8 sq. I Total Allowable: 5,326 sq. ft. 4,071 sq. ft. 5,236 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 4,453 sq, ft.(20%) Primary: 918 sq. ft. Primary: 1,994 sq. ft. (+ 1,076 sq. ft.) secoDdarys 1096 sg. ft. Secondary: 1096 sq ft jne_chan change) Total: 2,014 sq. ft. (9.05%) Total: 3,090 sq. ft. (13.88%) Landscaping: 13,357 sq. ft. (60%) 19,444 sq. ft. (87.3%) 18,368 sq. ft. (82,5%) Height- 33' 34.7— 32.7'*** Setbacks: Front: 20' 7 7' (carport infill) 5' (chimney) 9' (she dormers)**** Sides: 15715' 151/15, 151/15, Rear: 15, 15' 15, Parking: 4 spaces required 4 spaces provided 6 spaces provided The applicant has applied for a 250 additional GRFA allotment in order to preserve the secondary units remaining GRFA (up to 40% of Iota[ allowed GRFA). Existing ridge on primary unit exceeds current height limit and is thus legal nonconforming by 1.7'. Applicant is proposing to reduce the ridge height on the primary unit by 2' so the structure will be conforming in regards to height. The applicant is requesting variances of 13, 15 and 11 feel into the front setback for the carport infill, the chimney additions, and the dormers respectively- 2 ' ' ^~ 0 IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed dormers will produce additional shadows on paved areas of Forest Road. This may create additional icing problems which would present a significant hazard to the public. Staff feels that «, »»«: of the structure »r. setback should be reduced the extent feasible as recommended in Item © above. B. The W2nnina and Environmental Commission shall make the followinci findincis ■ regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulatior would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. �Q 2. That final review and approval of the site plan by the Public Ifforks Departmem shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. I That an exterior lighting plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. cApec\memos\krediet.227 5 Flans List J+ x�- M[-lrA�v � *�- i.a� --"`_ s� c poinnicai nnanc Quv �tiiX Siu _ (trmi on Nnm' LodbcFU1 tic i nvloi�1cs 2,i 2' 1. ���in. � 1. A.e �� _ df nii ] SSi,. - _ r a 1 % I 11.1 1, Merl r. a seal. Ai c rn A t I PT 111 u d tl p, I kCtt 1 T a i e. I n nl d t u u I y.. V I al R s AU.t. vpercl o I 1 )f ball I�co d P ,I 11 Mcsud - . AII. 11. d 1 bcd n c d r neon 1 t10c -II d 11 b Gcd Pn � d tw i }.1- II Af. 1 bctl AII O @er dvs� n4 Z / K Pk 411FR),; D I'm i J g nss � r —. 1. r�x t. a Ib, to EO I p Ls ( 21b / I. O IP IX 1 IIM 111 d I' 12J f df 1 0 I I d I . II k All r 1 I12 Ibl c P5 Ic l I j f r r 9 toy✓ �P� -- �1a� n �ir�' 77 V yF �, \- aG,ary�,A E ' r � t JAI i 4h +a.�r JV 41mJ—NEhhiE -G rG4 i.. ..Y,�.T'6e GY'I P. , .__ �_; :i �. •ice " E � 35 _ T r I r " I ;j On- I Y E I I -_ i tt Ti t' /IN K re > I r . ;,� _LL 1 H I Ti t' /IN K re > I r . ;,� _LL 1 H i I - k - / 1 Ao II eel r_ C i l E II F f- � i t _. 4 rill MW TO: Planning and Environmental Commissior. DATE: February 27, 1995 2 MMM)2±f# #??w #2 2»<f ©® on behalf of Helen Chatfield and Diana Donovan, owners of :Lots and . < 13 Texas Townhomes, is appealing staff's interpretation of the Design Review Board (DRB) application procedures as « 6 \ v» Temporary Certificate of Occupancy collateral izati on requirements pertaining to the Thain development proposal 2© at 483 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 8A, 8 B, and 9, Texas Townhomes, Vail Village 4th Filing. NUNN 1111111 1!11 I'll III ill, 1111:: 15111111 ill 11111,11f2 l il 2 w- On January 28, 1995, Jim Curnutte received a letter from Rick Rosen indicating his desire t* c:\pec\memos\thain.227 I '%A' FILE COPY TOWN OF VAIL RE: Thain Residences, Lots 8 and 9, Vail Village 4th Filing wm-m� 12 I hope the information in this letter clarifies our previous conversations, however, if you should require additional information regarding the above issues, please feel free to con - tact me at your convenience. Sincerely, it Jim Curnutte xc: Tom Moorhead Jay Peterson Mark Churchhill File ' , l s r A letter of credit or escrow account rest be established for 925% of the amount shown in the bid. 4. Finally, a Development Improvement Agreement must be signed by the developer and the project planner. The purpose of the Developer Improvement Agreement is to specify the amount of money in the financial guarantee, to list the specific items that are covered by the account, and to set the date that all outstanding work must be completed. Any projects issued o. November, March or April must have the g improvements compleied by July 1st. Any projects issued a TCO in May, June, July, August 'f improvements completed November 1 st of that year. Standard a Ij Agreement are o the Department of Community Development, Please keep copies of the forms on hand so that you can provide .« planner e verify then .. work shown on the p +� approved accounted Developer Agreement. Please rk us if you Ik like to discuss any of the above. section is found in the Design Section Review Guidelines, under have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact any of the staff in the Community Development Department at 479-2138. Thanks for your cooperation. 0 TOWN 0-F-V-A -IL VC 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: February 27, 1995 iiiiiji ",I III ! III I I! III =M�- MV�ffifflffl Staff: Russell Forrest Department of Community Development I 1 Issue- Currently, area governments base development decisions on water rights and the ability of the water districts to provide water which does not always take into account the impacts to stream flow. Action- Create an Eagle River Management Committee that could assist in ti evaluating the water quantity impacts of development projects. In addition, area governments will be able to use the Colorado River Decision Support System by 1997 to help make informed water quantity decisions. 40 2) Issue: Minimum instream flow standards have been set for the Gore Creek and Eagle River. These are bare minimum flows to maintain aquatic life. This is an inadequate standard to evaluate the environmental and recreational impacts of development projects. Action: Develop a strategy for maintaining optimal flows using the following hierarchy: a) water conservation b) managed growth c) engineering solutions (i.e. interconnects between Vail and Avon) c) creation of storage 1 Issue. Decision makers and the general public need to be better informed on water quality issues. Action. Through the Eagle River Management Committee, develop an annual 11 state of the river" report that reviews water quality. Also, close coordination is needed with the Eagle River Environmental Business Alliance to convey issues about the Eagle mine to the public. 2) Issue: Although quality is still good, historical water quality data shows an overa degrading condition in water quality in the Gore and Eagle River. Action: Implement actions in the Vail on pint Source Water Quality Management Plan. K Issue: There is inadequate biological information to determine the health of aquatic life. 11M., 2) Issue: Riparian areas along waterways provide critical habitat for both land and aquatic organisms. 3) Issue: Water quantity and quality is often not adequate to provide optimal conditions for aquatic organisms. Action: Implement actions in quality and quantity sections. 1) Issue: Increased number of people fishing are degrading the recreational experience in some locations. M Action: As part of the Dowd Junction bike path plans, access will be significantly improved in Dowd Junction for rafting, fishing, and kayaking. 3 10 4) Issue: Utilities or bridges obstruct boating on Gore Creek and the Eagle River. Action: Attempt to underground utilities or create enough overhead clearance to allow boaters to pass during high water. Issue: Water quality, wildlife, and recreation are being negatively impacted by development directly adjacent to Gore Creek F:\EVERYONE\RUSS\MEMOS\ERMP El 51