Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0610 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on June 10, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request to amend Section 18.04.035, the definition of Brew Pub, and Section 18.28.040 (L) modifying the percentage of the product manufactured for off-site consumption and the area used for brewing. Applicant: Hubcap Brewery Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck at Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5E, Vail Village 1st, Crossroads. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther A request for a residence addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1486 Buffehr Creek Road/The Valley Condos, Unit A-43. Applicant: Ralph and Patricia Spang Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a side setback variance to allow for a garage addition within 7.5 feet of the side lot line, located at 4196 E. Columbine Drive/Lot 20-6, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Theodore Verners Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a residence addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1622 Buffehr Creek Road/The Valley Condominiums, Unit A-10. Applicant: Richard and Phillis Moore Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a loft extension utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank and Kelli Bannister Planner: Lauren Waterton Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published May 24,1996 in the Vail Trail. ?q q4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 10, 1996 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / Lunch 11:00 am Legal briefing of PEC - Tom Moorhead Site Visits 12:30 pm 1. Moore - 1622 Buffehr Creek Road 2. Spang - 1486 Buffehr Creek Road 3. Garton's Saloon -143 East Meadow Drive 4. Hilliard - 2049 Sunburst Drive 5. Venners - 4196 E. Columbine Drive Driver: George Public Hearing{ 2:00 p.m. 1. Swearing in of the new PEC member (John Schofield) by Pam Brandmeyer. 2. A request for a residence addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1486 Buffehr Creek Road/The Valley Condominiums, Unit A-43. Applicant: Ralph and Patricia Spang Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for a residence addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1622 Buffehr Creek Road/The Valley Condominiums, Unit A-10. Applicant: Richard and Phillis Moore Planner: Dominic Mauriello 4. A request to amend Section 18.04.035, the definition of Brew Pub, and Section 18.28.040 (L) modifying the percentage of the product manufactured for off-site consumption and the area used for brewing. Applicant: Hubcap Brewery Planner: Dominic Mauriello 5. A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing, Crossroads. • Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Dominic Mauriello 7. A request for a setback variance to allow for a garage addition to encroach 7.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 4196 E. Columbine Drive/Lot 20-6, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Theodore Venners, represented by Gordon Rowe Planner: Dominic Mauriello 8. A request for a loft extension utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank and Kelli Bannister Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 9. Information Update 10. Approval of May 13, 1996 and May 20, 1996 minutes Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 10, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Prolect Orientation / Lunch 11:00 am Legal briefing of PEC - Tom Moorhead Visit 12:30 pm 1. Moore - 1622 Buffehr Creek Road 2. Spang - 1486 Buffehr Creek Road 3. Garton's Saloon - 143 East Meadow Drive 4. Hilliard - 2049 Sunburst Drive 5. Venners - 4196 E. Columbine Drive Driver: George Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. Swearing in of the new PEC member (John Schofield) by Pain Brandineyer. 2. A request for a residence addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1486 Buffehr Creek Road/The Valley Condominiums, Unit A-43. • Applicant: Ralph and Patricia Spang Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0 (Galen Aasland absent) APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 3. A request for a residence addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1622 Buffehr Creek Road/The Valley Condominiums, Unit A-10. Applicant: Richard and Phillis Moore Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 4. A request to amend Section 18.04.035, the definition of Brew Pub, and Section 18.28.040 (L) modifying the percentage of the product manufactured for off-site consumption and the area used for brewing. Applicant: Hubcap Brewery Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0 RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS 0 5. A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6-0 TABLED UNTIL JUNE 24,1996 6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5E, Vail Village 1st Filing, Crossroads. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 7. A request for a setback variance to allow for a garage addition to encroach 7.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 4196 E. Columbine Drive/Lot 20-6, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Theodore Venners, represented by Gordon Rowe Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 8. A request for a loft extension utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank and Kelli Bannister Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 9. Information Update 10. Approval of May 13, 1996 and May 20, 1996 minutes Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 10, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for an expansion to an existing unit located at 1486 Buffehr Creek Road/Unit A-43, Tract C, The Valley Phase VII. Applicant: Kevin Spang Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created a new Chapter (18.71) to the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings'units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA (beyond the maximum allowance) to be added to a dwelling unit. Certain criteria must be met in order to allow the additional GRFA. • In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995, which amended Chapter 18.71 by eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is a "demo/rebuild." The 1995 Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant is requesting to add approximately 54 sq.ft. of GRFA by enclosing and expanding the existing entryway to this unit. The existing entryway is 4' wide and 9.5' long (38 sq.ft.) and the proposed addition will add an additional 4' in length. The conversion would result in an airlock and a storage area on the exterior of the project. The addition will not impact the existing windows on this side of the building. The addition will be finished in the same color and with the same materials as the existing building materials. The proposal complies with all other zoning requirements. See the attached drawings for more detail. II. ZONING ANALYSIS The Valley Phase VII was constructed under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. The property is zoned Residential Cluster by the Town. The development exceeded the GRFA allowable by the Town, however, since it was annexed to the Town, the existing conditions are considered legal and nonconforming. Each unit owner is entitled to apply for additional GRFA under the 250 ordinance. The site has paved parking and adequate landscaping. All utilities are located underground. 0 III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71'- Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department • recommends approval of this request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existino topography, vegetation. drainage and existing structures. The proposed additions will have minimal, if any, negative impact on the site, and neither drainage nor grading on the property will be affected. The addition only impacts 16 sq.ft. of the site. 2. Impact on adWent gnWrtiee. The proposed remodel will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties, as a parking area is located next to the addition. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the • standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. The site has paved parking and adequate landscaping. All utilities are located underground. B. FindinW. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards as they apply to nonconforming sites and structures. is 2 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for Additional GRFA (54 sq.ft.) subject to the following condition: That the applicant submit a geologic hazard study for the site and execute a Geologic Hazard owner affidavit, prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the project. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the memo. Regarding the findings, staff believes that: finding 131 is met, as the proposed addition will have minimal impact on the existing site; finding B2 is met, as the proposed addition will not negatively impact adjacent properties; and finding B3 is met, as the proposed addition complies with the zoning requirements and applicable development standards as they relate to nonconforming sites and structures. F.1averyone\pec\memoslspang.610 r: 0 3 j All -. -1 ! -24w R??k ROq© -1 -16w* HS O ' •B TN Stke t A0DRESS UCJ_ l 1524 A26 _.`? :.: E S.IUNJ GARAGE jr 2 A-10 C-27 M -3 PAF KING ' h. .? . ,,....., _. ; :? - 20 C-12 1520 151C-28 64 620 1-29 ENNtS LOUR 1151S 161$ 0-15 1518 8-30 C-32 ;, °`• 2 i`w .. 1618 C_-1 1 1514 0+31 1616 8-17 1514 g 33 pTPAT".: Low 1616 W2 -3 616 A-i 8 1512 B-34. 1 1614 -A-19 . • 1516 A 6 w•? j612 B'20 510 8-38 3? -4 -4 1612 81 1510 B_3 .. , -3 -4 _ 1610 ,--222 1510 C 1522 10 A-41 p-42 1522 A-24 26 510 D•-42 1522 A- 1486 A-43 1490 A 45 1500 ON MAP M5 LOC 11A pTI 1N1U CONpQ1V1 1-LAY IT 0 ? ry 1 6 F i "I T \ IA6 . I? yy?, i ? J f?l?W ?R1.l?Q,Jlr?\S?l? _h - 7Q \a ?o I 1 i 1 Ftor plan . 13,5' P.J 10c, ?.L ? to t t ry is 1 t1?t l _r t s 77 , 0 c5-` J` • • 4 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 10, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for an expansion to an existing unit located at 1622 Buffehr Creek Road/Unit A-10, The Valley Phase I (The Valley Condos). Applicant: Richard and Phillis Moore Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created a new Chapter (18.71) to the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA (beyond the maximum allowance) to be added to a dwelling unit. Certain criteria must be met in order to allow the additional GRFA. In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995, which amended • Chapter 18.71 by eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is a "demo/rebuild." The 1995 Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Unit A-10 is a single family structure located in the Valley Condos. With this proposal, the applicants are requesting the addition of approximately 150 square feet of GRFA by enclosing an area on the ground level under the existing deck. The applicant's are also proposing to add a new hot tub to the rear of the structure. The addition will be finished in the same color and with the same materials to match the existing building. The proposal complies with all other zoning requirements. See the attached drawings for more detail. if. ZONING ANALYSIS The Valley Phase I was constructed under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. The property is zoned Residential Cluster by the Town. The development exceeded the maximum GRFA allowable by the Town, however, since it was annexed to the Town, the existing conditions are considered legal and nonconforming. Each unit owner is entitled to apply for additional GRFA under the 250 ordinance. The site has paved parking and landscaping. All utilities are located underground. One exterior light fixture will be modified to comply with the Town's lighting code requirements. • 1 III. CRITERIA AND FINDINO Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department • recommends approval of this request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Considergtion of FactQrjBefore acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. EffecLupon the existing toRagra ft. vegetation. drainage and, existina structures. The proposed additions will have minimal, if any, negative impact on the site, and neither drainage nor grading on the property will be affected. 2. Impact on adjacent properties. The proposed remodel will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties, as the addition is within an existing covered patio area. 3. Complia ce with the Town's zQninq„=uirements and ap"able development standard. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the is standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. The site has paved parking and adequate landscaping. All utilities are located underground. B. Findin9% The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards as they apply to nonconforming sites and structures. • 2 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for Additional GRFA subject to the following condition: That the applicants submit a geologic hazard study for the site and execute a Geologic Hazard owner affidavit, prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the project. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the memo. Regarding the findings, staff believes that: finding 131 is met, as the proposed addition will have minimal impact on the existing site; finding B2 is met, as the proposed addition will not negatively impact adjacent properties; and finding B3 is met, as the proposed addition complies with the zoning requirements and applicable development standards as they relate to nonconforming sites and structures. FAeveryone\pec\memos\moore.61 D I - L I • 3 ARKING .. .:. ?l1FF•?yR _`'',?--....?, I PARKIN CR?k RO -1 -2(0) .. ::: . ?,.:. •u- -,i -1 ••? B'16'"'E - .. .. . , ; :?+• .-23 ,; • -2 ? • -'..?,-,•? • S. }?? i 7Lon?a" rti _2 30L0 .ti. ?• • : ' • ;: ?- " f' C 24} Y` ' E • UNIT AGE . RESSL---? - -26 N - KING GAR ADS 1524 A ;; . -3 pAF .t?:. 622 X-10 520 'C-27 :,::• ?'`? ` •3. 15 18 C-28 1620 r,-12 1620 A-13 1518 8-29. ENN1S GO'UR p-31 C_32 14 30 1618 C-15 . .. 15 4 D-31 -3 ;.. 161 g-1 1514 C-3 OTPA N -17 g-33 ?: -3 ;:• B 8 1612 4. • ,1618 A19 i2 "g=3 • • ?' .. : r' 1614 ' A-1 1516 A-36 -4F 1612 g-20 • 1510 8_3g `°=3 ?4 -4 's:' •,: .'- 1612 g-2 ?, -. 1510 g 1610 c22 1510 0-40 .... p-42 :... 1522 C-23 1510 A-4 A 24 510 D. 42 f r1r 1 f 1522 1522 A-25 1486 A-43 - 1490 p,-44 RAP 1500 A-45 omxs1UMs VALL'? . TNT • • . i A-10 1-622 BUFFER G REEK R OAD Sa fgor t 02 0 r ?2CK On ? r ' ? Second Ievp- I _Y C U L ?. • _ ? tt f . - . ' _ ? - .. - ? .. - .. ... ? ' ? ? ? .x,.i..a:w:a:•ca::t ?? ??. ? ? o-i".sg±?i: ,.•z - n. ? r ? ? dam .tv.4 ,; ?-:+. a:u?i..?• r? +.+ sy, n .:," '.A'•:• ? ..,v: ... ?:.?. ?....:....>.?%d?S':%'Z'„s'>iw„?...?-fix ,HS-••?gra`.?:al. c3,. .., [ 1 C ' 01 10 __ &-m i ly Room : . L 0 115" x 11 S?. 497- s S vi 1 f? 1 r_. Not T,b /? A - 10 1622 BUF FER G REEK ROA D 1/4<<= I? . ?f Kop ose?Q - -.sxzP.. . w .t ? ,ww . .m-w. u -r ? n :u. ?? i? : 3.:.. s a• :kx. r ? ?+4 ?? .....w.. .v..:?.. :.+.:.'.? ; _..<..- w-.:'.? a.. ? .+x. ' S. YY'.+ut Rh+A '"•.... . . ... R ... . ...... .. .. ?.. F x. .r..Yi?i .. ....... ... .... .. ... ro..aP .?' .. .« ? . .r <+ ......, .?.. .. 6t i A-10 1622 REAR Fist BUFFER CREEK- ROAD 114'' a I' ELEVATION _ - :zx. ?..,?rv ->hs+xix?:-„ r?. ??Y. k ,. •ro-a rc..w:+uF, x?,? FT Fi . I II 111111 A-10 1622 BU-.FFER G R EEK ROAD 1/4?- 1' S I DE ELEVATION '7wF?`-'A'm??e?' t:w si itA^Y:'?nris.•pjcp!4?. .. t. .. .r ? it'fs? .. \ 9+nJS+'•'. :. ,1 "Z. .: q.. y?I .?:^ ,.•tattc?? .??, ..a .,t4'?':.?.:XH•'4?j;>?yis!:i'., i A- 10 162 2 DUFFER GREEK R 0A'D FRONT ELEVATION • .'•+W.: uo-+VM'.::aw ',:ry+.:y kw' nVCnl"i: ;.. - ...... .':: . .. ? -c L s t ,.,??2a?'.iii-•a,.R'L`-f.7?l?.?r:F? in MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1996 RE: A request to amend Section 18.04.035, the definition of Brew Pub, and Section 18.28.040 (L) modifying the percentage of the product manufactured for off-site consumption and the area used for brewing. Applicant: Hubcap Brewery and Kitchen, represented by owner Lance Lucey Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Zoning Code amendment to modify the definition and the conditional use criteria for a brew pub. A brew pub is an eating establishment which includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The current definition limits the area in a brew pub used for brewing and bottling to 25% of the total floor area. The amount • of beer produced is limited to 1,500 barrels a year (46,500 gallons). The conditional use criteria limits sales for off-site consumption to 15% of the product manufactured. The applicant is proposing to increase these limitations. The proposed definition would limit the the area in a brew pub used for brewing and bottling to 50% of the total floor area. The amount of beer produced would be limited to 7,500 barrels a year (232,500 gallons). The conditional use criteria would limit sales for off-site consumption to 45% of the product manufactured. Attached is a copy of the proposed text changes and a copy of the applicant's request. IL BACKGROUND On August 21, 1990, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1990, allowing brew pubs as a use by right in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district and as a conditional use for those brew pubs with sales for off-site consumption. At that time, staff researched restrictions placed on brew pubs by other communities. It was found that few communities placed restrictions on the size of such operations and the brewing capacity beyond the normal zoning restrictions placed on any restaurant or commercial establishment. The issues of concern in 1990 centered around the impacts to, and compatibility with, other uses in the CSC district. Specifically, issues relating to 0 1 P odor, deliveries, and loading. Conditions were established in the code to ensure that the use would comply with regulations regarding loading, delivery, and odor. Also, as a matter of practice, conditions have been placed on the conditional use permit approvals for the Hubcap Brewery which further ensures compatibility with other uses in the district. The limits adopted in 1990 were based on several factors. The production capacity (1,500 barrels) was established based on the average 1990 production levels of brew pubs across the nation and the fact that the owner of the Hubcap Brewery at that time anticipated only producing 750 barrels a year. Brew pubs across the nation have experienced an increase in demand for "micro-beers" and hence have expanded their production levels of beer. The limits placed on the area used for producing beer (25% of total area) was established to ensure that the brewing operation remained accessory to the restaurant. It was a limitation set at the time, due to our limited experience in Vail with such a use. The staff believed a conservative approach was necessary. The limitation placed on the amount of beer sold for off-site consumption (15%) was based on the Town's desire to ensure that the use remained compatible with other uses by limiting potential deliveries to and from the site. The applicant has indicated that by increasing the brewing capacity, he can actually reduce loading and delivery demands. Since the brewing capacity is so limited now, they can only dispense a small amount of product at a time to outside venders. This requires that these venders make more trips • per week to pick up the beer. With a larger capacity brewing potential, venders can pick-up more product in one trip and therefore reduce the overall number of trips per week. These proposed limitations comply with all State limitations placed on such uses. Staff believes the proposed levels are appropriate to allow this use to be successful in Vail. The existing levels do not reflect the market trends for such uses and therefore may arbitrarily hinder the success of such an operation. Staff has done additional research and found no such limitations in other municipalities. Staff believes the proposed limits will allow the use to remain compatible with other uses in the district. There are existing regulations within the code that ensure that odor, loading and delivery, noise, and other similar, impacts are mitigated and compatible throughout the Town. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the definition and conditional use criteria for brew pubs, finding that the change in the limitations to brew pubs will continue to ensure compatibilty with other uses in the CSC district. 2 Existina regylations Definition: 18.04.035 Brew Pub. "Brew Pub" means an eating place which includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, malt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total floor area of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) barrels of beer or ale per year. A barrel is equivalent to thirty one (31) gallons. Commercial Service Center, Conditional uses: 18.28.040 Conditional uses. L. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer or ale for off- site consumption so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off-site consumption do not exceed fifteen percent of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Proposed reaulations • Definition: 18.04.035 Brew Pub. "Brew Pub" means an eating place which includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, malt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed fi:::of the total floor area of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce more than n ttausa?? #i? hun r06IX .- . barrels of beer or ale per year. A barrel is equivalent to thirty one (31) gallons. Commercial Service Center, Conditional uses: 18.28.040 Conditional uses. L. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer or ale for off- site consumption so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off-site consumption do not exceed ' the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. f:\everyone\pecc\memos\brewpub.610 c: 3 U ATTACHMENT TO THE PE i i i iON FORM FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Under the current conditioned uses of a Commercial Service Center a brewpub is allowed with the following attached conditions. 1) The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed 25% of the total floor area of the commercial space. 2) The brewery shall not produce more than one thousand five hundred barrels of beer or ale per year. 3) The total of wholesale sales and sales for off-site consumption do not exceed 15% of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Proposed Changes in the Re it ions That the above conditions be revised to allow the following: 1) The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed 50% of the total floor area of the commercial space. 2) The brewery shall not produce more than seven thousand five hundred barrels of beer or ale per year. 3) The total of wholesale sales and sales for off-site consumption do not exceed 45% of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Reasons for Request Under the current conditions the Brewing Company of Vail, Inc. is very limited in . our growth potential. As you know, space in Vail is quite expensive. In order to produce more beer we must increase our brewing area and we simply cannot afford to take on more space and keep our brewing area at 25%. This would mean we can only allocate 1 foot of every 4 feet we take on in expansion to brewing. Given the overhead costs associated with space in Vail I would quickly drive this business into the ground under the current restriction of not more than 25% of floor space being allocated to brewing. The current cap of 1500 barrels per year completely restricts our ability to grow. Our long term plan is to not only produce better beer, but more beer. The most promising growth area for the Brewing Company of Vail, Inc. is on the beer side of the business. 1500 barrels is the minimum we can produce and service all our on-site restaurant and bar business while operating an extremely modest off-site business. The 7500 barrel restriction I suggested was based on the fact that we can produce this level without changing our brewing schedule, which currently allows us to have a minimum effect on neighboring businesses. Please keep in mind that the process that produces the odor in beer making comes approximately three hours into the beer making procedure. Current Brewing Schedule During Busy Season: One Brewer 6:00 p.m. 1st Batch 10:00 P.M. 2nd Batch Proposed Brewing Schedule During Busy Season: Two Brewers 40 A • 6:00 p.m. 1st Batch 7:00 p.m. 2nd Batch 8:00 p.m. 3rd Batch 9:00 P.M. 4th Batch 10:00 P.M. 5th Batch Our on-site sales are capped by the physical boundaries of our space. It is possible for us to sell only so much beer based on the size of the Hubcap. Our future is in off-site sales. Currently we distribute on a very modest basis in Vail and neighboring areas. In my three months here I have already had to turn down several offers from various distributors, restaurants and bars to carry our beer based on the restriction of 15% off-site and wholesale sales. Please see attachment for comparison of comparable breweries. 0 f BREWPUB TOWN STEAMBOAT BREWING CO. STEAMBOAT BRECKENRIDGE BREWERY BRECKENRIDGE I TOMMYKNOCKERS I IDAHO SPRINGS I IDLESPUR I CRESTED BUTTE I I ORDINANCE RESTRICTIONS BARRELS NO I NO 1200 NO I I NO 3000 ? NO I NO I I 6000 i NO i I NO 900 1 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary M. Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther 1. BACKGROUND In June of 1994, Bill Duddy, representing Landon and Mary Hilliard, submitted a Design Review Board (DRB) application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The DRB application was a request for a proposed snowmelt boiler and boiler pad to be located in the south, sideyard setback at the Hilliard residence, 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Village 4th Filing. After reviewing the application, staff denied the proposed snowmelt boiler and boiler pad in the sideyard setback. The reason for staff's denial was pursuant to Section 18.58.020 (a), Supplemental Regulations, and Section 18.04.370, Structures, of the Town of Vail Municipal • Code. Pursuant to Section 18.58.020 (a), "all accessory uses and structures except fences, hedges, walls and landscaping, or ground level site development such as walks, driveways, and terraces shall be located within the minimum setback lines on each site." Additionally, Section 18.04.370, defines a structure as, "anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground but not including poles, lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities, or mailboxes or light fixtures." Staff's decision to deny the proposed snowmelt boiler and boiler pad in the south, sideyard setback was based upon the fact that a snowmelt boiler is not a fence, hedge, wall or landscaping, nor is it ground level site development such as a sidewalk, driveway or terrace. Staff determined a snowmelt boiler to be a "structure" as defined in Section 18.04.370 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. In determining that the snowmelt boiler was a "structure," staff concluded that a snowmelt boiler and boiler pad is constructed with a fixed location on the ground and is not a transmission or distribution facility of a public utility. While it is true that electrical transformers are permitted in required setbacks, such structures are exempted from the setback regulations according to Section 18.04.370, as well as the fact that electrical transformers and other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities are required to be placed within platted easements. Platted easements regularly exist in required setback areas. • 1 Upon hearing staff's decision to deny the proposed snowmelt boiler in the south, sideyard setback, Bill Duddy worked with staff in finding a location on the applicant's property for the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad, that would not be in any required setback area. A mutually • agreed upon area was found. In October of 1994, a Design Review Board approval for a snowmelt boiler and boiler pad to be constructed on the Hilliard's property, in conjunction with a proposed driveway replacement was granted by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. A mechanical permit for the installation of the snowmelt boiler was issued by the Town of Vail Building Department and construction of the snowmelt boiler was commenced. The snowmelt boiler construction has been completed. The boiler was constructed in the location approved by the Town of Vail. The applicants are now proposing to relocate the snowmelt boiler on the property. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are proposing to move the existing snowmelt boiler and boiler pad approximately 14' to the southwest behind an existing snow avalanche mitigation wall. The proposed location places the snowmelt boiler approximately 5.5' into the required south, sideyard setback. As indicated previously in the memorandum, pursuant to Sections 18.58.020 (a) and 18.04.370 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, snowmelt boilers are not permitted in any required setback without'a variance from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Therefore, the applicants are requesting an approval of a variance from Section 18.58.020 (a) Supplemental Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to relocate the existing snowmelt boiler approximately 5.5' into the south, sideyard setback. According to the applicants, approval of the request for the sideyard setback variance is necessitated by the need to screen the snowmelt boiler by placing it behind the existing snow avalanche mitigation wall. Additionally, according to the applicants, the placement of the • snowmelt boiler in the required south, sideyard setback will be in conformance with discussions the applicants had with the Town of Vail Public Works Department. In those discussions, it was indicated by representatives of the Town of Vail Public Works Department, that the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad could be placed in the required setback, if the applicants were agreeable to granting the Town of Vail a drainage easement. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested sideyard setback variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of FactQrfi: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed relocation of the snowmelt boiler and boiler pad will have minimal impacts on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the Hilliard's property. Placing the boiler behind the existing snow avalanche mitigation wall will screen the boiler from the Hilliard's view. It will however, minimally increase the visibility of the boiler from the Town of Vail bike path, located immediately to the south of the Hilliard's property. • 2 The bike path is located approximately 25' from the existing snowmelt boiler. Since the boiler is already partially in view from .the bike path, staff • does not feel that if the boiler were relocated to the proposed location, any measurable negative impacts would result. Philosophically however, staff is concerned with the proposal to reduce the property owner's view of the boiler from their own property, while increasing the visibility of the snowmelt boiler from public property. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff is concerned that an approval of the requested variance will result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicants have not identified a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship justifying the granting of a variance. In staff's opinion, no physical hardship or practical difficulty exists prohibiting the Hilliard's from having a snowmelt boiler within the setbacks on their property. Additionally, staff believes that the applicants have not identified exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to their property which do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. The applicants have demonstrated that a snowmelt boiler and boiler pad can be accommodated on the property through the successful construction of the existing boiler. While this may not be the most desirable location of a snowmelt boiler from the property owner's perspective, the existing • location conforms with all the applicable development standards. 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 staff believes the above-described criteria is not relevant to this variance request. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantinq a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting 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: 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. 3 0 b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply 18 generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request to relocate an existing snowmelt boiler and boiler pad approximately 5.5' into the required south, sideyard setback. In staff's opinion, an approval of the applicant's request would result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the Municipal Code. Staff further believes that there are no physical hardships associated with the Hilliard's property, nor are there any extraordinary circumstances or practical difficulties prohibiting the Hilliards from constructing a snowmelt boiler within the setbacks on their property, and therefore, a variance approval should not be granted. n LJ • 4 VARIANCE REQUEST The Applicant requests a variance to allow her to locate a boiler for her heated driveway within the front setback of her lot. In regard to the four matters which this statement must address pursuant to Section V A of the Application for a Variance, Applicant submits the following: 1. The variance will have no impact on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The granting of this variance will not be a special privilege and it is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity because numerous other setback variances have been granted to property owners within Vail Village Fourth Filing. 3. The variance, if granted, will have no affect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, or public safety. 4. The variance is not applicable to Vail's comprehensive plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. E ./.rte''' • ZTER SNACK 10 11 l2 1945 1979 9 9 1905 1925 1655 1895 13 ,T m1? 1985 1875 2{ 14 6. 1944 1999 16? . 1855 984 15 GOLF 5 20 200 16 1 ?670 OURS 835 1998 3904 CLUB 4 TRACT B, 19 OUSE 1825 008 VAIL 18 a?7a GOLFCOURSE 3 i? TXNHOMES 1778 3 178 5 2 181 I TRACT A ' 1801 816 'gyp VAIL VALLEY 3rd. FILING -?? A RESUBDIVISION OF.A PART OF SUNBURST \ UNPLATTED AFILING t • PROPOSED °UNIp 00 a o ;2; q i kr EXISTING 1 y X 44 • Q / Y G 1 't N o a ? G\ 0 (1 n ?L s f +1`1.4 - . o _ > ?? O O - • S. 1 x t??-tin t OI`i 2fll_ i MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor bar and dining deck operation (the "Corral") at Garton's Saloon, Crossroads Center, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Garton's Saloon, represented by Steve Olson Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Garton's Saloon is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approve a conditional use permit to allow for the operation on an outdoor dining deck and bar on the top level of the Crossroads parking deck at Crossroads Shopping Center. The applicant has agreed to set up the "corral" and operate the outdoor dining and bar activities the same as last year. The bar will be located on the north side of the stairs at the base of the saloon. I have attached a letter from Dave Garton, owner of Garton's saloon, describing his proposal, as well as the sketch of the corral that was submitted for PEC review. At the May 21, 1996 meeting, the PEC expressed some concerns over the furniture and fixtures used and the overall aesthetics of the • outdoor dining area, which should be addressed at this hearing. II. BACKGROUND On May 8, 1995, the PEC approved the request for an outdoor dining deck on the top level of the parking structure at Crossroads Shopping Center. The noise impacts on the surrounding residential and commercial areas were the major concern at that meeting and at previous meetings. The 1995 conditions of approval included the following conditions: • No outside cooking due to restrictions in Vail Village; • Maintenance of access to the ADA lift through the deck area; • Loading activities for Garton's must occur at approved Crossroads loading areas only; • Valet parking will be provided as necessary by Garton's; • A curfew of 10:00 PM on all activities on the outdoor dining deck; • The requirement that a sound test be conducted prior to the opening of the deck and the sound test will include the use of decibel meters to set a maximum volume level for the amplified sound; • An automatic timer would be installed to shut the music off promptly at 10:00 PM; • Prohibition on any banners or signs associated with the outdoor dining deck area and • activities. During the 1994 operation, several complaints were made about the noise levels at Garton's • Saloon. During the 1995 operation, the police have indicated that no noise complaints were made. Past approvals have only been valid from May 15 until November 15 and for one year at a time. Staff believes that due to the positive "track record" of this request, that the conditional use be valid until modified or discontinued by the applicant. A conditional use permit can be called-up for review by the PEC and revoked if the use violates the existing town ordinances. 111. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal Code. In addition to the Conditional Use criteria, staff has included criteria from the zoning code and the Vail Comprehensive Plan, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request. A. THE TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE The proposed use is located in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district. According to Section 18.28.010 of the zoning code, the purpose of the CSC district is: "to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the town, together with limited multiple-family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the district. The commercial service center district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient • shopping center environment for permitted commercial." Outdoor dining shall be permitted in the CSC zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: "in order to provide the flexibility. necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and.harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied." 2 0 t • B. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Several elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan indirectly address outdoor dining areas. The relevant elements and sections are listed below. Land Use Plan 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 and environmental quality should all be maintained or enhanced. 2. Vail Village Master Plan 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activities that are compatible with existing land uses. U 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial in-fill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides nightlife and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.2 Policy: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial in-fill or redevelopment projects." IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit request to allow for an outdoor bar and dining deck operation (the "Corral") at Garton's Saloon located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 1, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing (Crossroads Plaza), based upon the following factors: A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposal provides for the continued economic viability of a unique use within the Vail Village area. The proposed outdoor bar and dining area promotes and implements many of the policies of the Town by bringing people into the Village. • 3 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. . The proposal has no negative impacts on any of the above criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposal has no negative impacts on these items. The plans reflect consideration for pedestrian access and maneuverability and provides for the convenience of valet parking. The proposal will not change the existing loading and delivery requirements for this use. 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. This proposal is in harmony with the character of the area. The outdoor seating and bar implements several objectives and policies of the Town by encouraging outdoor dining and bringing people to the Village. The proposal does not increase the scale or bulk of the structure. B. FINDINGS The Planning and EnvironmentaQ9mmia5ion shall make the followina findinq.$-before • grantinqLp conditional use aermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance 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. • 4 t V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION is The staff recommends approval of this request. Staff finds that the applicant's request complies with all of the above criteria and findings necessary for granting conditional use permit approval in the CSC zone district. The recommendation is subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval is granted until the use is modified or discontinued; 2. The use shall comply with Town of Vail noise standards, all other standards, and shall remain compatible with other uses in the area; 3. Landscaping and general maintenance of the area shall be maintained and remain in an orderly and aesthetic condition; 4. No outside cooking due to restrictions in Vail Village; 5. Maintenance of access to the ADA lift through the deck area; 6. Loading activities for Garton's must occur at approved Crossroads loading areas only; 7. Valet parking will be provided as necessary by Garton's; 8. A curfew of 10:00 PM on all activities on the outdoor dining deck; 9. An automatic timer shall be installed to shut the music off promptly at 10:00 PM; and • 10. Prohibition on any banners or signs associated with the outdoor dining deck area and activities and all other signage on site shall comply with the Town of Vail Sign Code. FAeveryone\pec\memo\garton.610 • 5 CmART6)NS B A R & G R 1- L L P.O. BOX 1057 • VAIL, COLORADO 81658 970-479-0607 • FAX 970-476-7455 DESCRIPTION nP_ u NATURE OF This letter is to summarize our desire to once-again have our dinner/cocktail operation during the off.-season (June 1-November 1) on our upper parking lotdeck here at Garton's. This will be basically the same operation that we applied for and had approved last May. We will continue to use our outdoor heaters and outdoor table umbrellas. We will continue to market our Corral to large groups for cook-outs and barbecues. We have an on-going program of marketing our Group Sales through the major Vail lodges and Activity companies. We do feel this benefits the T.O.V. because it keeps the tax dollars in Town rather than elsewhere down valley if these groups went down there for cook-outs and barbecues. Our Crossroads neighbors has no problems with our Corral operation last year;' and were quite happy with the increased traffic to the Crossroads Shopping Center area. We will not be doing any cooking outside due to restrictions in Vail Village. * We will continue to maintain the access to the ADA lift through the deck area. * Loading activities for Garton's will continue to occur at approved Crossroads loading areas only. * Valet parking will be provided as necessary ' by Garton's * The outdoor bar wil close at 10:00p.m. * Garton's installed automatic timer will continue to shut the music off promptly at l 0:00p.m. * Prohibition on any banners or signs associated with the outdoor dining deck area and activities as per T.O.V. regulations. t • • • 7,000 SQ. FEET OF FUN • We will cordon off this new liquor licensed area with fencing and we will police this deck with our security personnel to ensure that there are no liquor violations. • There will be no impact of this conditional use on the development objectives of the Town because there will be no devel..rLiLiLent. All of the improvements we make to this parking lot will be movable and temporary in nature. Our plans for this parking lot will have no effect on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities' needs in Vail. Our plans will have no effect upon traffic, congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, and maneuverability. The character of the area surrounding us will not be permanently changed because no permanent structures are being erected. However, there should be slightly beneficial change in the area due to our creation of a rustic, rural ranch yard-type ambiance to what otherwise would be a parking lot. r1 U 0 11 CARTONS' VAI L, GO LO RA13'O - - ?' trr 13E bL 143 E. MEADOW DRIVE ' V.O. BOX 1057 VAIL, COLORADO 81658-1057 9 1 C a A F. 6-rA1 R5 O o o o o O O O tJ? T i DRIV EWAY VALET PAPK- iNG CANOPY WALILWAY T ?1ENU MAIN aaRD srA i S "Lf r_ O p -! -70 0 COP { S- o O :? ENTRY _? o O 7NF j 4:7-b - L fnyr; AK-CA I') TNF Aiz,rA T-1- kF_ r o c l (-,c f\ r GAR-E'ON'S SALOON PARKINca LOT (+ DECK) z - J ?dv?N X ??_r"i N G RAM"? I Z ? X 1 STl t4 G--: !?;,-'->AGES N TPA7.K1NG -D C- C- K- aEN AT 4 GAR--T'ONS a 0 . S MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to allow for a garage addition within 7.5 feet of the side lot line, located at 4196 E. Columbine Drive/Lot 20-6, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Theodore Venners, represented by Gordon Rowe Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On March 2, 1989, this single family structure was given a Certificate of Occupancy. The lot currently contains two single family homes and a detached garage. The detached garage belongs to the owner of house on the east end of the property. The detached garage and the house on the east side of the property were built prior to the existence of a Zoning Code in Vail. The house in question (which contains a single car garage) was approved as a separate structure in 1987. The applicant is requesting to expand the existing single car garage to accommodate two cars. • The existing garage is approximately 273 sq. ft. (13' x 21') and the proposed addition is approximately 231 sq. ft. (11' x 21') for a total garage area of about 504 sq. ft. Staff believes that the applicant is proposing the minimum amount of area necessary to accommodate an additional car in the garage. The current request is to allow a side setback of 7.5 feet in a zoning district where 15 feet is required. The configuration of the house and the lot make this the only area on the lot to provide for a garage addition. The plans show an eleven foot wide addition onto the existing structure, into an area that is substantially flat and which would be accessed with the existing driveway. The result would be four parking spaces, two of which would be enclosed in a garage. The area of the addition is also occupied by a ten foot wide utility easement. The applicant has submitted quit claim deeds, allowing the encroachment, from all the utility companies. One small pine tree will be relocated as part of this proposal. Staff believes a hardship exists on this site due to the configuration of existing structures on the site. Not only is this the logical location for additional garage space, it is the only area that can accommodate the expanded garage without creating a practical difficulty. The encroachment will not negatively affect other structures in the area due to the limited size and scale of the request. • 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description Zoning: Use: Lot Size: Development Standard GRFA: Site Coverage: Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Parking: 4196 E. Columbine Drive Lot 20-6, Parcel B, Bighorn Subdivision Two-Family Residential Single family residence 26,201.34 sq. ft. (entire site) Allowed 5,720.134 sq. ft. 5,240.2 sq. ft. (20%) Existina No change 2,725 sq. ft. (10.4%) Prooosed No change 2,965 sq. ft. (11.3%) 20' 15' 15' 3 required III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 34' 17' 65' 3 (1 enclosed) 33' 7.5' n/c 4 (2 enclosed) Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Considqration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the requested side setback variance to allow for a garage addition will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Adjacent uses and structures are located at some distance from the proposal and the scale of the request is such that it will not cause additional impacts to neighboring properties. • LJ n LJ f:\everyone\pec\memos\venner.610 2 .t 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and • enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of encroachment into the side setback necessary to achieve their desired goal. Allowing a two-car garage will create compatibility and uniformity with other uses in the district as most structures have two-car garages. Due to the configuration of the existing structures, this area is the only area on this lot which could house a garage and due to the proximity of the existing structure to the lot line, it becomes necessary to encroach into this side setback area. 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 staff believes the above-described criteria is not relevant to this variance request. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special • privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting 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: 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. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • f:\everyone\peclrnemoslvenner.610 3 t? IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends Aproval of the applicant's is variance request to encroach 7.5' into the required 15' side setback to allow for the construction of a residential garage addition, subject to the following conditions: That the applicant receive Public Works Department approval of a grading plan which shows the impacts of this addition on the existing grade and site drainage; 2. Recordation* of all quit claim deeds or vacations by all relevant utility companies for the encroachment into the existing 10' wide utility easement; and 3. Submission and approval of a revised Hazard Study as it relates to a mapped Avalanche Hazard and execution of a Geologic Hazard owner affidavit prior to obtaining a building permit. Staff has addressed the Consideration of Factors, and has determined that the applicant has met the Findings necessary for the Planning & Environmental Commission to grant an approval of this request. Specifically, staff finds that the applicant has met Finding B.1 in that the granting of the requested variance will not result in the grant of a special privilege, since it has been demonstrated that a physical hardship exists on the lot; Finding B.2 has been met, since 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; and that Finding B.3(a) has been met due to the configuration of existing structures on this lot (a practical difficulty exists on the site due to the location of the existing structure). • • fAeveryone\pec\memos\venner.610 4 +.rl.:.<.•k,..4?w? r t w?.grte.?rw••,. v, •ei?•mw,w.inpw:?wa?.> x: YJ? ? i 4 G- h? r? r - -o'l ?*?- ?l1vt?)rtti J LLldvivC l y' SviG 5e{b? ... _. ..,,.::.,<, ? i•:^,?.t..,n.,,.w.?,••KC' r* w?aw .. z „z..r. .'.?. sx!* rE•'•.cix* .;, .ro. -uca?••• is tw.. .t,•ae ?c.a.. ?:: fx 1^•rs z-iCr ?T,G$! t' ,:K k., > `W,.. .. ... ...: -:.r` .. !?"'.•..: d'.,a:...:-... ; ,. ?^; ::.: • _.,,.•a.: ... .?<` . .'y?'"?ta, ..... .. ... . s.L ..;c v >a.+.'cs.. 4 lcsEi&?`. $. .-, .>. ........ .-....na '???':? ..Y .:u ?..,,<: s..... ? :a'R,f<?:ft....leG',..fs .tf3:?.5? Fn'L'-..? •:YE ti: ..::...: .. .... .. .. .... .. ? ...v..:• :•+..• ,?^..:.; >n:i..:r.. ... s? .S .>.k. .+snYi:I ?> rf •:"a?i?a..a'^r. <s ? ?y4%':^?Y?Y., K. .._bu?.9'"I / ? i i ,I I, 1 l , i- .T•--- i ( c.y E 1 ? i I °? fi ? 1® (off Ii t I` 1 ._.- 1 fuc, t/ I p {'fit?h h WWV :'P G?g?e5 i - -- a g e 7-p t + ' J J 'l I'. , II !r - o Kelm 1• • ty Vey) n { ?t t t ? , ;?'?"t1r { is '1 r t /Vtv _W - -- 1.9 t OWN-57 ?fi6 V/o r APPROVE W6 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • June 10, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield Galen Aasland Tom Moorhead Mike Mollica George Ruther Dominic Mauriello Judy Rodriguez Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. Swearing in of the new PEC member (John Schofield) by Pam Brandmeyer. Pam Brandmeyer swore in John Schofield. 2. A request for a residence addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1486 Buffehr Creek Road/The Valley Condominiums, Unit A-43. • Applicant: Ralph and Patricia Spang Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He stated that it is a minor request, and staff is recommending approval with one condition. Greg Moffet asked if there was any public input. There was none. (The applicants were not present). Diane Golden had no comment. Henry Pratt asked if the applicant owned the property under the improvement or was it common land? Dominic Mauriello had an approval letter from the Condo Association. Greg Amsden had no comment. Gene Uselton asked if there was any neighbor objection. Dominic Mauriello stated there was not. John Schofield had no comment. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 1 Greg Moffet had no comment. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo including the • condition. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. It passed unanimously with a vote of 6-0 (Galen Aasland was absent). 3. A request for a residence addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1622 Buffehr Creek Road/The Valley Condominiums, Unit A-10. Applicant: Richard and Phillis Moore Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. Dominic explained that this request complies with all the zoning except that a floodlight on the site needs to comply with code. Staff is recommending approval with the condition that a Geologic Hazard Study be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Phillis Moore and her son Chris, the applicants, said there were some windows that didn't comply with building code requirements and they were voluntarily changing them. She stated that she was waiting for the PEC decision on this request before she has a hazard study done. Diane Golden had no comment. • Henry Pratt said the request includes a hot tub. He asked if the applicant owned the land being built upon. Phillis Moore explained that there was an existing pad for the hot tub and the proposed addition. Phillis Moore said that the Condo Association approved the request, but she didn't have the Condo Association letter at this time. Henry Pratt asked if we were approving something on someone elses land? Henry thought this would involve replatting the area. Dominic Mauriello stated that the Town does not enforce Condo documents and that if the Condo Association approved the request, then we have no problem with it. Chris Moore explained that the hot tub would be located on their patio. The PEC Board had no additional comments. Henry Pratt made a motion to approve the request with the conditions found in the staff memo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • June 10, 1996 2 It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. • 4. A request to amend Section 18.04.035, the definition of Brew Pub, and Section 18.28.040 (L) modifying the percentage of the product manufactured for off-site consumption and the area used for brewing. Applicant: Hubcap Brewery Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the proposal according to the staff memo. Dominic explained that the numbers used in the definition were arbitrary at the time it was originally adopted. He said that the new definition is in keeping with other breweries. Lance Lucey, the owner, stated that this request would not change the impacts to the area. He stated they would be installing a new charcoal system to filter any odors. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. John Schofield asked at what stage of the brewing does the odor start. Lance Lucey said 3 hours into production. In the winter hours the odor would begin after 7 p.m. Gene Uselton asked the applicant how is it possible that loading and delivery are reduced, when the amount of beer produced is increased? Lance Lucey explained that he changed distributors. In the past his distributor could only make a • partial delivery because of the restrictions. We sell more beer over the bar than off-site. If we could fill a truck he won't have to come as much. He stated that they will still comply with the conditions on the conditional use permit. Greg Moffet asked about the grain delivery. Lance Lucey said the amount of deliveries for grain and bottles remain the same. The difference is that the deliveries will be made with full trucks, rather than half-full trucks. They only have grain delivered about twice a year. Gene Uselton asked if the charcoal filter will eliminate the odor. Lance Lucey stated that Breckinridge Brewery is having great success. We did try venting out of the roof of the building, but can't. Lance stated that 80% of the population like the smell and 20% don't. Greg Moffet asked if the smell would increase 5 times if production is increased 5 times. Lance Lucey said that the hours the smell would hit would remain the same and be overlapping. Greg Amsden had no comments. Henry Pratt asked what the difference was between a Brew Pub and a Microbrewery. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes June 10, 1996 3 Dominic Mauriello said the local definition limits a Microbrewery to 7,000 barrels of beer per year and requires a minimum of 2,000 sq. ft. of seating area in a restaurant. Henry Pratt asked if the partial deliveries were made in a pick-up size truck? Lance Lucey said yes. Henry Pratt asked staff if the PEC could call-up the conditional use if there was a change in the zoning? Dominic informed them they could call-up and amend a conditional use permit. Henry Pratt said he had no problem with the number of barrels produced, but he wonders if 45% off-site consumption is on the high side. Lance Lucey said he can't compete with the Brew Pub in Breckinridge and Steamboat Springs that have no restrictions. Henry Pratt asked if there would be fewer trips by the distributor if the off-site distribution increases to 45%? Lance Lucey said he would see less of the distributor due to being able to fill a truck. Right now we cannot produce enough beer to fill a truck. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet suggested to the applicant that it might be interesting to talk to Rock Bottom in Denver regarding the odor. Lance Lucey said that the odor comes from the brewing operation on the main level. Greg Moffet asked Dominic Mauriello if the Nuisance Ordinance will deal with the odor problem? Greg also said we are going to create problems with the odor. He would like to be able to review the conditional use permit if it becomes a problem in the future. Dominic Mauriello reminded the PEC that if there is a violation of the conditional use permit, it can be called-up. Greg Moffet stated that this request is a recommendation to Council. Dominic Mauriello stated that the applicant has sealed the room off to reduce odor. Greg Moffet asked about the effectiveness of the charcoal filter. Lance Lucey stated that the charcoal filter was a requirement of the landlord. The landlord wants it if our operation gets bigger. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. A A Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes is June 10, 1996 4 Diane Golden seconded the motion. i It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 5. A request for a setback variance to allow for a snowmelt boiler to encroach 5.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 2049 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 4th filing. Applicant: Landon and Mary Hilliard, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. He stated that snowmelt boilers are not permitted in setbacks and therefore, a variance is needed. Staff feels the boiler can be inside the building envelope. Additionally, there is a negative impact with it being in public view. Staff feels the request is a grant of special privilege. It is possible to keep it as it currently exists on the applicant's property and therefore, staff is recommending denial. Larry Eskwith, representing the Hilliards, and Glen Ellison, owner of Landscape Designs were present. Glen Ellison explained that the request makes the property more aesthetically pleasing. He demonstrated with graphic renderings how the Hilliards wanted a water feature and to develop their front yard with landscaping. They intended to screen the bike path with trees, to hide the boiler in its new location. Larry Eskwith had nothing to add to Glen Ellison's presentation. He did point out on page two of the staff memo, that the applicants had been told by Terri Martinez, that it could be moved, if the • applicants granted the Town an easement. The applicants thus feel they deserve this request. The applicants said they were treated unfairly. Larry Eskwith proceeded to have copies made of a handout from the applicant. Greg Moffet stated to Larry Eskwith that his having to make copies is holding up the process and that the applicant should have had the copies made several weeks ago. He suggested going on to the next item. Larry Eskwith said he underestimated the number of copies needed and we could proceed if copies could be shared with Tom Moorhead. Larry Eskwith began to read a letter from Mrs. Hilliard. In 1994, Mrs. Hilliard stated that the location of the boiler was not ok. In 1995, Mrs. Hilliard requested another location for the boiler. In June, 1995, Terri Martinez said it was approved by the DRB (although she should have said DRT), as long as there were no objections from the neighbors. Mrs. Hilliard had an oral agreement from the neighbors. She then secured Land Designs to begin work on the water feature. Terri Martinez, the Assistant Public Works Engineer, then said the Town would not have to use the easement. Mrs. Hilliard said she would never have gone through with the landscaping, if she didn't think she could have the boiler in the setback. Terri Martinez said she would let the applicant know if an easement was needed. Mrs. Hilliard said the DRB agreed to the placement of the boiler in the setback, if the neighbors agreed. Included in the handout was a bill from Land Designs that she received after she was told verbally that she had permission to Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes June 10, 1996 5 put the boiler behind the wall. After spending several thousand dollars on Landscape Designs ' and tearing up the driveway and being told she could go ahead, she was now told, sorry, she couldn't do it. The new location is not at all destructive or detrimental to bikers on the bike path, who can see it now anyway from its present location. What the staff seems to be concerned about is if it is a granting of a special privilege. There is a very real physical difficulty and hardship with this request. The action on the part of the Town of Vail has caused Mrs. Hilliard to believe that this new location could be done. Mrs. Hilliard has expended funds on landscaping. Staff has caused this expenditure and therefore, should be sympathetic to her. Mrs. Hilliard has not been treated fairly. Mrs. Hilliard was not aware that Public Works did not have the authority to make these promises. Bill Duddy was hired as a general contractor by Mrs. Hilliard. She stopped the project in 1994, because it was not a suitable spot. Late in 1995, Mrs. Hilliard told Bill to go ahead, because she was trading the new location for an easement. In September of 1995, Terri Martinez said to go ahead and place the boiler behind the wall. At that time Bill contacted George Ruther who advised him that he couldn't do that and a building permit would not be issued. Greg Moffet asked for any further applicant comment. Larry Eskwith stated that when the Town needed the easement, it was fine for the new location. When the Town decided they didn't need the easement, the new location was not fine. This is not fair. This request is not impacting the Town of Vail in any way, form or fashion. It's a setback variance. Customarily, it is not as drastic as a density variance. There is no negative impact whatsoever. A hardship for Mrs. Hilliard has been created by the Town. Greg Moffet asked for public comment. There was none. Tom Moorhead stated that he had a meeting with Larry Eskwith and Bill Duddy. The authenticity • of the conversations did occur. Terri Martinez, acting in good faith, did represent to Mrs. Hilliard that this could be done and it was appropriate. She did however, refer to the DRB approval as a conceptual approval. Terri was referring to DIRT, not DRB. Conversations did take place between the property owner and Terri in exchange for an easement. Because of this misrepresentation, the applicant is appealing to you. Larry Eskwith said equitably the client should be given some consideration. The approval postdated the conversations with Terri Martinez. Equitable estoppel is not a good case. There is no question that Mrs. Hilliard relied on these conversations. Diane Golden asked if the Hilliards received documentation before starting the driveway or before they received permission? Tom Moorhead said the strongest fact is, yes, they got approval, but before the DRB approval. I cannot criticize them since they are doing it legally now. Since they did go through the proper authority, don't foreclose this application. Diane Golden asked why did they not place it in the setback when they first received approval? Larry Eskwith stated that the Hilliards were waiting for the neighbors approval. Terri said it was a go on September 7, 1995. They started doing the work to put it behind the wall. In the middle of it, they were told there was no permission. At that time, they continued with the work. Larry said Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 6 that he is not here to argue this case as if the PEC were a court. A promise, justifiable reliance . and action on the promise is estoppel. He's arguing fairness. The applicant.is doing it legally. In 1994, Mrs. Hilliard did not want a boiler, if it wasn't able to go in the setback. In 1995, the Town made a deal for an easement with the approval from the neighbor. Mrs. Hilliard agreed to the easement. She was doing exactly what the Town of Vail asked her to do. She spent her money doing what she was told and had the rug pulled out from under her. It was not equitable treatment. He sees no detriment to the granting of it. Henry Pratt asked George Ruther if he found the geologic hazard report. George Ruther said no. Henry Pratt noted that the boiler is being proposed to be located on the uphill side of an avalanche zone. George Ruther concurred, but with mitigation. Henry Pratt said he has concerns with both locations having the gas lines exposed to an avalanche area. The structure is in a clearly defined avalanche zone. Henry can't allow the move, unless the avalanche issue is addressed. Greg Amsden said this request is extraordinary and therefore, not a grant of special privilege. He does agree with Henry that the avalanche issue needs to be addressed. George Ruther said staff is not disputing the conversations with Public Works. He said it was made very clear to Bill Duddy that Community Development would not permit the boiler in any • setback without approval. It was made very clear after the June, 1995 correspondence with Terri. Bill and I met on-site. At no time was it represented by Community Development that a building permit would be issued without a variance. This was during late summer or early fall of 1995. There was an urgency to do the work before the ground froze. The boiler would not be permitted in the side setback. Bill Duddy thought the departments were working together on this and when Terri said ok, the applicant thought it was ok. Tom Moorhead asked what the time period was between when Terri said it was a go and the meeting with George. Bill Duddy said it was quick. Tom Moorhead asked what the action taken was between the two conversations. Bill Duddy said he ordered his materials. It was a two week period of time. Gene Uselton asked if the location was considered safe by the Town. This is a tough problem. Who's going to be harmed. Gene didn't see it as a special privilege. The findings B3 and 133b showed the applicant acted in good faith. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes June 10, 1996 7 John Schofield was sympathetic with the miscommunications, wherever it came from. He asked what landscaping and screening would be required. George Ruther said some spruce trees and alpine currants would be needed currently to screen the bike path. A new landscape plan was to be brought back in for the northeast corner of house, which was the approved location. John Schofield asked if the present location was screened according to the approval. John also said he is concerned about the avalanche area. His feeling is there are other locations other than in the setback, that could work. Diane Golden said the Hilliards received approval for two different locations. Since it was placed where it is now, the question should have been answered before. Bill Duddy suggested another concrete wall being added to address the avalanche issue. Greg Moffet asked Tom Moorhead if we can grant equitable relief. Tom Moorhead said if you put the facts as they transpired into the criteria as John Schofield stated, it can be done. There is no question that there were mixed messages. Bill Duddy relied on the message that he liked, rather than on George Ruther's message. He advised the Board not to take a final vote until the avalanche issue could be addressed. You can not complete this request until you can review the hazard report. Larry Eskwith said there was a misunderstanding with what went on between George Ruther and Bill Duddy. Bill Duddy had said that Public Works had done this in the past. Tom Moorhead had a problem with issuing a conditional variance. Greg Amsden said we need to look at alternate locations on the site. There is too much site disturbance being created with an additional wall. Henry Pratt wanted to see if it is a problem going deeper into the setback with additional walls. John Schofield agreed to look at alternate locations. Greg Moffet thought the applicant did not act unreasonably. He said he would clearly deny this request had the history not accompanied it. Equitably, he is in favor of granting the variance, but thinks we should table it. Gene Uselton agreed with Henry Pratt to get the opinion of the other commissioners. Diane Golden said what she is hearing is that George informed the applicant that they could not put the boiler in the setback. Bill Duddy said economically it made sense as being the best place for the Hilliards. Henry Pratt asked if the boiler could be canceled or is it a custom made item. n U • Planning and Envi.-ental Commission Minutes • June 10, 1996 8 n t? Bill Duddy said it was not custom; it was a standard size from Sibley Plumbing. Henry Pratt asked the board to table this. The avalanche report might offer a solution. Is the additional wall a solution or more of a problem? Gene Uselton agreed that it would solve the problem for the applicant, so he is in favor of waiting for the report. George Ruther stated the second wall was not agreeable to Ms Hilliard. Greg Moffet said mitigation would require another wall and that she had no choice. Larry Eskwith said if it takes a wall for mitigation to be able to move the boiler, she would do that. Greg Moffet said he is in a favor of another wall if it is done well. George Ruther asked Glen to explain what the billable hours were on the July 14,1995 statement. Glen Ellison explained that this was for transplanting plants. Gene Uselton stated that one of the Town Council goals is to provide a more user friendly place and so he is in favor of approving this request. Tom Moorhead suggested not moving forward on this request until a hazard report is reviewed. Henry Pratt made a motion to table this request until an avalanche report is available or until this request can be mitigated or until a new location can be found. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Tom Moorhead stated that the avalanche report might say it's detrimental for public health, safety or welfare. 6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing, Crossroads. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He reminded the PEC that this item was at the last meeting and that the Board did express concerns at that meeting. These concerns were laid out in the conditions. Dominic asked the Board if a final date for the cleanup should be required. He also asked the Board if an inspection by staff should be required every year. He stated that some trees appear to be dead. Do we need mitigation? Dominic stated that there were 10 conditions in the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 9 Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Steve Olsen said a clean-up by the first of November should be no problem. • Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. John Schofield asked Dominic if a date limitation was in the recommendation. Dominic said no, but we could add it as a condition. Gene Uselton said while on the site visit along the Frontage Rd. side, there was a lot of unattractive junk, such as an awning. Steve Olsen said the awning will be out of there in a couple of days. Gene Uselton asked about the trees. Steve Olsen said all the trees along that side and farther down the road are all dead. Maybe there is a problem and the landscaper should be consulted. He said he would talk to Crossroads Management. Gene Uselton said it would be worthwhile for the applicant to make it more attractive. Greg Amsden had no comment. Henry Pratt said he is not in favor of restricting the dates of operation, as the applicant has a • right to determine that, but that it needs to be cleaned up after the operation is over. Henry is not in favor of a permanent conditional use permit. He wants to change Condition No. 1 to read that staff do an annual inspection and that if there are violations of the conditional use permit, then the request would have to be reviewed by the PEC. Henry Pratt said the bar needs to be upgraded, since we hold all furniture in the Village to very high standards. Diane Golden agrees with Henry Pratt's comments. Greg Moffet agrees with Henry as to the clean-up and wants to see nicer stuff out there. The area will show better if furniture is upgraded. We have been very strict with the Village Core area. He followed up on Gene's comments about the trash and stated there was trash by the transformer vaults. He then asked Dominic what the standard was for storing junk. Dominic Mauriello said it was not allowed. Greg Moffet told the applicant that if it can be cleaned up real fast, he is inclined to vote in favor of the request with the additional conditions that trees get replaced, staff review it annually and that it can be called-up on staff's recommendation. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 10 • • Dominic Mauriello reminded the PEC that the DRB could look at this if the PEC wanted them to. Henry Pratt said because it is rustic theme, he's not concerned with new tables, but with upgrading the bar. Dave Garton said Steve had planned on replacing the bar next season. Steve Olsen stated that they are building a new bar. Dominic Mauriello said just to make the applicant aware that there were tarps and trays laying around and they are put on notice to clean the place up. This is a problem that we will not allow. Henry Pratt made a motion to approve the request in accordance with the staff memo with the following alterations: *That Condition No. 1 be changed so approval is granted annually upon staff's inspection. *Condition No. 11 be added that the dead trees be replaced with live trees and maintained as such. Diane Golden seconded the motion. Greg Amsden asked about all the dead trees along the road. Henry Pratt clarified that only the trees included in this approval. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 7. A request for a setback variance to allow for a garage addition to encroach 7.5 feet into a sideyard setback, located at 4196 E. Columbine Drive/Lot 20-6, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Theodore Venners, represented by Gordon Rowe Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Dave Peel, the Architect for the structure, stated the original building was built in 1962. In 1984 it was made into a single-family home and brought up to code. In 1987 the existing garage was built. A one-car garage was all that was required. They now want to solve a problem and get the car off the street. One small pine would need to be replaced with this request. Dominic Mauriello said a large tree would be 2' from the building overhang. Diane Golden said losing the large tree was her only concern. Henry Pratt had no problems with this request. Given the existing building, special site circumstances are reasons to grant the variance. Greg Amsden had no comments. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes June 10, 1996 11 Gene Uselton asked if sawing off limbs was required. What if the disturbance with the foundation causes the tree to be killed? Dominic Mauriello said the PEC could make a recommendation that if this large tree dies, a quantity of trees would need to replace it based on the height of the tree. Mike Mollica said according to the "Pine Rule;" 4 ten-footers replace a 40' tall tree. John Schofield encourages protection of the existing tree. Greg Moffet is in favor of granting this, given the constraints on the block. Because it is a physical hardship, it is not a grant of special privilege. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memorandum including the conditions. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. Henry Pratt stated we need a condition that codifies the "Pine Rule." Gene Uselton amended the motion to include the "Pine Rule." The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 8. A request for a loft extension utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2943 Bellflower Drive/Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank and Kelli Bannister Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 9. Information Update Mike Mollica gave "Vail Tomorrow" handouts to the Board showing what the goals were and what this group is trying to achieve. Mike Mollica also advised the Board that two appeals had been heard by Council. The Bingham appeal was a split vote. Since staff is working on revising the GRFA requirements, Council made a motion to table this and work out a formal document between the Town and the Binghams that would include a fine. Mike Mollica informed the PEC that we would assess a double fee which is standard procedure for working without a permit. Henry Pratt brought up the "Pine Rule." He asked if it made sense for the staff to make a formal policy regarding replacement of trees. Mike Mollica said Todd Oppenheimer and Russ Forrest have been working on a Tree Ordinance for the last six months. Mike will follow-up with their progress. A • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • June 10, 1996 12 Henry Pratt said it not fair to treat applicants differently regarding replacement of trees. • Dominic Mauriello offered to do a staff interpretation for the Board. Henry Pratt asked if VA needed to mitigate 400 trees or was it treated like a variance? Mike Mollica said each site is looked at on a site-by-site basis. It is not that cut and dry. 10. Approval of May 13, 1996 and May 20, 1996 minutes Greg Amsden made a motion to approve minutes as amended. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Gene Uselton made a motion to unanimously congratulate Mike Mollica on his birthday for being the ripe old age of 38. Gene Uselton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ?' June 10, 1996 13