Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0624 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 24,1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2943 Bellflower/ Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the alteration of the Vail Transportation Center, located at 242 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Public Works Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request to construct a trailhead parking area, located at Red Sandstone Road/Parcel A, Lions Ridge 1st filing. Applicant: 10th Mtn. Division Planner: Russ Forrest A request for a conditional use permit, a density and front setback variance to allow for a Type 11 EHU above the existing garage, located at 227 Rockledge Road/Lot 13A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Steve Kirby Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for an interior remodel utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 427 Forest Road/Lot 4, • Block 2 Vail Village 3rd filing. Applicant: Henry Kravis Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for an interior remodel utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 548 S. Frontage Road/Westwind Condominiums, Unit #305. Applicant: Jim Beedie, represented by Mike Haselhorst Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a minor subdivision of Lots 2 and 7/Block B, Vail Das Schone #1, located at 2446 and 2450 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Karin Scheidegger Planner: George Ruther A request for a worksession to discuss a parking and retaining wall height variance to allow for the construction of a new parking area at the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Ric Fields Planner: Dominic Mauriello 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 June 7, 1996 in the Vail Trail. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • Monday, June 24, 1996 AGENDA is Proiect Orientation / Lunch - Community Development Department _y Draft Tree Ordinance - Todd Oppenheimer / Russ Forrest Site Visits 1. Scheidegger - 2446-2450 Chamonix Lane 2. Vail Transportation Center - 242 S. Frontage Road Driver: Dominic 12:00-12:30 pm 1:00 pm Public Hearina - Tswn Cauncil Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision of Lots 2 and 7/Block B, Vail Das Schone #1, located at 2446 and 2450 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Karin Scheidegger Planner: George Ruther / Mike Mollica 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the alteration and additional floor area at the Vail Transportation Center, located at 242 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2943 Bellflower/ Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 4. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 427 Forest Road/Lot 4, Block 2 Vail Village 3rd filing. Applicant: Henry Kravis Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED • R ? ?'qb 5. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 548 S. Frontage Road/Westwind Condominiums, Unit #305. Applicant: Jim Beedie, represented by Mike Haselhorst Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 6. 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 TABLED UNTIL JULY 8,1996 7. A request for a conditional use permit, a density and front setback variance to allow for a Type 11 EHU above the existing garage, located at 227 Rockledge Road/Lot 13A, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Steve Kirby Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JULY 8,1996 8. A request for a worksession to discuss a parking and retaining wall height variance to allow for the construction of a new parking area at the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Ric Fields Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JULY 8,1996 9. A request for a conditional use permit to construct a trailhead parking area, located at Red Sandstone Road/Parcel A, Lions Ridge 1 st filing. Applicant: 10th Mtn. Division/Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest WITHDRAWN 10. Information Update 11. Approval of June 10, 1996 minutes Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, June 24, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch - Community Development Department • Draft Tree Ordinance - Todd Oppenheimer / Russ Forrest -Site Visits 1. Scheidegger - 2446-2450 Chamonix Lane 2. Vail Transportation Center - 242 S. Frontage Road Driver: Dominic Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 12:00-12:30 pm 1:00 pm 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision of Lots 2 and 7/Block B, Vail Das Schone #1, located at 2446 and 2450 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Karin Scheidegger Planner: George Ruther / Mike Mollica Motion: Henry Pratt Second: Galen Aasland Vote: 2-4 (Pratt, Aasland for) FAILED WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITION - to take away additional GRFA Motion: John Schofield Second: Gene Uselton Vote: 6-1 (Aasland against) APPROVED WITH CONDITION 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the alteration and additional floor area at the Vail Transportation Center, located at 242 S. Frontage Road. (Vail Village Parking Structure). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello Motion: Henry Pratt Second: Gene Uselton Vote: 5-2 (Amsden, Golden against) APPROVED WITH AMENDED CONDITION 3. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2943 Bellflower/ Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister Planner: Lauren Waterton f is STAFF APPROVED 4. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 427 Forest Road/Lot 4, Block 2 Vail Village 3rd filing. Applicant: Henry Kravis Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 5. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 548 S. Frontage Road/Westwind Condominiums, Unit #305. Applicant: Jim Beedie, represented by Mike Haselhorst Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 6. 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 TABLED UNTIL JULY 8, 1996 7. A request for a conditional use permit, a density and front setback variance to allow for a Type II EHU above the existing garage, located at 227 Rockledge Road/Lot 13A, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Steve Kirby Planner: Dominic Mauriello sp TABLED UNTIL JULY 8, 1996 8. A request for a worksession to discuss a parking and retaining wall height variance to allow for the construction of a new parking area at the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Ric Fields Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JULY 8, 1996 9. A request for a conditional use permit to construct a trailhead parking area, located at Red Sandstone Road/Parcel A, Lions Ridge 1 st filing. Applicant: 10th Mtn. Division/Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest WITHDRAWN 10. Information Update • Development Review Improvement Process - process/standards team. • 11. Approval of June 10, 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: Community Development Department DATE: June 24, 1996 RE: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the alteration and additional floor area in the Vail Transportation Center, located at 242 S. Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello • 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is requesting a conditional use permit to allow additional floor area and to modify the exterior of the Vail Transportation Center. The scope of the project is limited to the Transportation Center Building which houses waiting areas, offices, and other transportation uses. Approximately 200 sq. ft. of floor area is being added to the upper level, to be utilized by Greyhound and approximately 510 sq. ft. of existing parking area (three parking spaces) on level 3 is proposed to be converted to food storage and a staff locker room area. Public Works has indicated that the parking spaces being removed are difficult spaces to access and that the loss of these spaces has minimal impact upon parking in the structure. The interior space of the Center will be reconfigured in order to utilize the space more efficiently. Entryways are being modified in order to improve identification and orientation for visitors. Gabled entryways are proposed on all four elevations. New windows are being proposed in order to allow more light into the Center, provide a visual connection to the mountain and village, and to improve the overall appearance of the Center. A tower vent feature is being added to the roof of the structure in order to improve the appearance of the building and improve air circulation within the structure. The base of the building and the wing walls at the corners of the building will be finished with stone to match the adjacent Information Center. The remaining area of the walls will be finished in stucco and the roof will be converted from cedar shakes to a metal roof. All lighting and signage (including tenant spaces) on the structure will meet the Town standards. Please see the attached plans for more detail. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS The property is zoned General Use (GU). This zone district allows transportation terminals and ancillary uses as a conditional use. The development standards for uses in this district are established by the PEC when approving plans for development. 0 III. 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 the purpose statement from the zoning code, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request. The Transportation Center is located in the General Use (GU) zone district. According to Section 18.36.010 of the zoning code, the purpose of the GU district is: "to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed by other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in cases of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses." A transportation center shall be permitted in the GU 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." 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 the expansion of the Vail Transportation Center, located at 242 S. Frontage Road based upon the following factors: A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposed improvements create a structure which is consistent with the development objectives of the Town as the improvements are more in harmony with the Design Guidelines and other structures in the vicinity. The proposed modifications will create a more useable facility which is intended to act as a focal point for many visitors upon their initial arrival in Vail. • 2 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed modifications improve the functioning and aesthetics of the Vail Transportation Center. The space will be utilized to its potential and allow private uses to function more effectively in the Center. The improvements have no added impact on light, air, distribution of population, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facility needs. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed improvements will have minimal impact on these criteria. The improvements will allow pedestrians more comfort during visits to the Transportation Center and improve accessibility to the busses and other facilities within the Center. 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. The proposed modifications bring the existing structure more into conformity with the Design Guidelines and other structures in the vicinity by adding desirable architectural features and materials. The proposal adds very little to the existing bulk of the structure and helps to improve the overall scale of the structure. Staff does have a concern about using a metal roof on this structure when all of the other structures associated with the parking structure have cedar shake roofs. There is also concern over the vent structure proposed on the roof of this building. The proposed location gives prominence to an otherwise unattractive and industrial looking vent feature. B. FINDINGS The Plannina and Environmental Commi0ion shall make the following findinas before arantina a conditional use permit: 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. • 3 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 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 GU zone district. The recommendation is subject to the following condition: 1. The Design Review Board shall specifically review, among other issues, the proposed roofing material and the proposed roof vent. f:\everyoneVecMemos\tovicente.624 • • 4 kirk ARCS • P.O. BOX 2224 VAIL, CO 81658 PHONE: 970.926.3240 FAX: 970.926.3240 May 28, 1996 VAIL TRANSPORTATION CEN it r.R REMODEL Application for Conditional Use Permit PROPOSED USE AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS: The nature of the proposed use of the Vail Transportation Center is essentially the same as the existing condition. However, this proposal requests the addition of approximately 200 square feet to the Upper Level (level four) and the change in use of approximately 510 square feet at the Lower Level (level three). . Upper Level; The 200 s.f. of additional space will consist of an office and customer counter located on the east side of the building and will be situated under the building's existing roof overhang. Lower Level; The 510 s.f. of space requested to be altered from the existing use consists of additional locker space for visitors (skiers and travelers) and increased storage for the existing restaurant. The space is currently used for parking. However, the location of concrete columns makes the spaces difficult to use. The columns have been hit by cars on numerous occasions. The 510 s.f. is located to the north of Level Three. OBJECTIVES Primarv Goal: • To improve the overall image and function of the facility in anticipation of the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. Methodology: • Through a series of interviews involving town staff and existing tenants of the facility, along with an in-depth physical plant review by the architect, mechanical and k i r k A R C fl I T E. C T, I N C electrical engineers and building contractor, a program of goals to achieve was scripted. &terior Goals: • Freshen the appearance of the facility which was originally completed in 1975 • The improvements should reflect the recent additions to the parking structure, in particular the Information Center. tJnner Level Goala: • Create an atmosphere more befitting of the image of Vail • Create uniformity and security of tenant spaces • Improve identification of entries and orientation for visitors • Provide uniform signage • Improve mechanical and electrical systems. J,ower_Level Goda: • Create a much "lighter" and less "basement like" feel to the entire level. • Create improved orientation for the visitors • Improve and increase locker arrangement • Improve definition of space and security for the Coffee Beanery • Consolidate existing Town of Vail Transportation offices • Upgrade restroom facilities • Improve mechanical and electrical systems • Create a readily identifiable entry from the parking structure to the north The proposal has no adverse relationships or impacts on the development objectives of the Town as the proposal does not add any use not currently permitted as a conditional use at this location. EFFE(" r OF THE ON LIGHT AND AIR, DISTRIBUTION.. The nature of the proposal has a direct positive effect on transportation facilities and public facilities needs. The improvements will facilitate the efficient operations of the existing transportation system. While the proposal reduces available parking spaces by three, the improved pubic use of the facilities far outweighs the lose. The proposal will have no effect on light and air, utilities, schools or parks and recreation facilities. EFFE('T JT N TRAFFIC... 0 Irm A k i r AM A R C M T. R C T, I N C • The proposal focuses on pedestrian safety and convenience by emphasizing entrances, protecting entrances from snow and ice and improving the overall accessibility to the facility. The proposal eliminates the maneuverability problems associated with three existing parking spaces. FGFFECT UPON THE CHARACTER OF i nc AREA... The proposal has only positive effects on the surrounding area. The current facility has lagged behind the development of the rest of the parking structure and information center. The proposal will bring the Transportation Center up to the standards previously set by the surrounding facilities. 0 • h ` • ?+t11 Ph?ri7rera rl+.o ' aunra __. ,,,F r ?•FNM or jw I- i - t l f_ _J?'._1 _- 6fs7 MmAAov? OI4v? Zra .F-L . {.,tea __. - .:_ .._.. r -, laMi? •C6Va?. TNFGC'M1N+ MT -udve?::n+i?ee-nxt r l t 6?pn6+E - ? q / T ooD `SERVrE ? I GOi-D S ORA6E MEGNAKGA4 R0?'' i ,. I i .y W ' A O V-- UA iEyyAT17 SPAGE V ©? O I ' > ;P 'Ofa PLO", ;PA7W , E? PLAn , P • 0 I %k 0 0 ((S I "[. - 1 I I I i I L ? I / I { I AIRPORT SWTTLE --------- -? -*------- L-------- -I - ?"0.. ?r aYlr["f V fMR1Mf?? 1 I I ? 61ETNOl11'D 1 I !? 1 I j _1Ya!., Ili ? I an i '? i 1 0 ? a 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 G { o ? I I { I 1 J 0 - I "c.. .? rrnre"s t I li i it 1,\ - Ii L"e.lfw nr II i ¢ L =__ 1 I F _? ico 1 '- !bn 1 , ?_ry 1 f n f GNARTER 5NORT5 j RESIOMAL ` TRAMPORTATION X ------------ ------- I "oI 1 1 1 1 1 I I O 1 n1 "tgCe N? "NKI '? (JI u IHI T ° PROP05ED LEVEL FOUR PLAN 1/4" - P-0" "Ej SOUTH ?LEVATIOI'i / I ali i Wt?5T ELEVA-nori i-b0 . a0 I i ?t VgHbM- NORTH vaa . Q-ov y?T? MtT .- M/IM.s' ? - % iu ? ?i Mt ¦ M ? y II I I?IIf? 'i I f i ?v.eµt?NTTn OYAI ATION - i ? -I -- I I F-A5T F-LF-VATION ve, - p-o1 a W ? F- o L J W ? v L O? ~W Qo ?o oW IL c z nL J Q ? SLEET NO i 3 0 0 1 /.b rsvsd Nnd ? I I A(.{rr? .d Louv6rs ? / ' rf I/In? M $ww?wsr 1 er' I I 1 , ? 11 I 11 5EGTIOn A I I ?r? M•??•%n i w .? aAo? B?Na? i 47 i I I I MI ? N - I I SECTION 13 -1 0 0 0 (e) ?I (-lo)- - - ____T -------------- - ??? --?- ------ - --------- C` ? ?. I nv , tss 5 =I I 1 I 1 FOOD SERVILE ? ?-- T FOOD SERV f -- I I .- ?.? i - - ??- - i---------_ \? - C I J ® - vestoI_c E 'PTT I LOGKEP 1 1 ? I - r Ai it v J ;I -- -- 1; 11 ___T r-- VEsi111.JE i BDS S.IPERVISORS OFFGE TEMM SP4CE W inPA6E I II I___I I O u I I °- n aPS 'L t STONn6E TNnngr I: ?. ? ' s J I i 1 OFFDE IIyTR7 1 KG1m VAL POO. (\ I I - STORe6E \\ l I 1 SWEET ITC # IHJ U U u Iul ??? EXI5TIN6 LEVEL. THREE PLAN ?O Y Va" . p-p• 1,, mv•. l I I I I I I I 1 ---------------------------'-------- _FYl, - I r I f I I ---------------- ----------- I- U I FIE OFFGE + 4 I I 1 I I I + I I I I i I ? I JJ ?I 9TA I + - I -1 I I I I - =-I I I S I I I I L 1 1 i + _ 11 I ? I 1 r I I ! C / ; I 1 , ?{? ]iDPA6E OFFGE OFME +I + I ? 1 I I - ---------------------- I --- -- -- - f------- --------=--i--------------------------- I I U IuI I EXISTIN& LEVEL FOUR;PLAN 1/4" - 1'-O" 0 0 • 1 l9 T j I fr. .. ne _- 1\-? _ - . - ?. --. -_ f {Y ?jy _ I - A.M.n I 1 O - , O O I O 0 1 I ? 0 0 i I - ---- ---? I ._- - - < .e I AIRPORT VWUTTLE iVIE 1 I -' ? ? ? ie neviwe i nl d .........L.- ? ........... .......... 6 tE7L10U1'ID ' I I ? I d I ? d I I + Ki ------ - d i I t l- d v I I d! I --- - d ° - - 6 rPARTEH 5111IRT5 RE&IOMAL O I TiArySPORTATIOIYI'? - ---°----r---------°---'----°---- , ------------'°--`---r°-------, I°J d O °O r I ----------------- .; I PROPOSED EXTEF WFZ LrWTING f-LAN „4" - T-O" 0 5WFET NO 4 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 24, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 7, Block B, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone Filing #1; and Lot 2, a resubdivision of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block B, Vail Das Schone, Filing #1, located at 2446 and 2450 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Karin Scheidegger Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Karin Scheidegger, is proposing a minor subdivision of Lot 7, Block B, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone Filing #1; and Lot 2, a resubdivision of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block B, Vail Das Schone, Filing #1. The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing common lot line between Lots 2 and 7 (see attachment). The vacant lots are generally located south of-the intersection of Arosa Drive and Chamonix Lane in West Vail. According to the applicant, the proposed minor subdivision is intended to facilitate future residences on Lots 2 and 7. The applicant has stated, that the reason for the proposed minor i subdivision is to generate two new building envelopes that will provide better quality building placements than those available on the existing lots. The new lots should allow improved solar orientation, privacy, views from each site and compatibility with the existing topography of the land. Additionally, relocating the common lot line will bring each of the lots into compliance with the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. Currently, Lot 7 is a non-conforming lot, as it relates to the minimum lot size and size/shape requirements for the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District (see attachment). II. BACKGROUM • On October 25, 1965, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone, Filing #1, creating Lot 7, Block B, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone Filing #1. • On October 26, 1977, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved a resubdivision of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block B, Vail Das Schone, Filing #1. The resubdivision of Lots 8, 9 and 10 resulted in the creation of Lot 2, Block B, Vail Das Schone, Filing #1. • On December 24, 1980, the Vail Das Schone Subdivision, Filing #1 was annexed into the Town of Vail. • On September 11, 1985, the area was deannexed from the Town of Vail and reverted back to Eagle County jurisdiction. 0 Ll? • On January 29, 1986, the Vail Das Schone Subdivision, Filing #1 was reannexed into the Town of Vail. III. ZONING ANALYSIS. • The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) with an understanding of the impacts on the applicable development standards, resulting from the minor subdivision being proposed of Lots 2 & 7. Development Standard Lot 2 Lot 7 existing proposed existinq oronosed Total Lot Area: 20,125 sq. ft. 15,499 sq. ft. 14,026 sq. ft. 18,678 sq. ft. (0.4260 acre) (0.3558 acre) (0.3220 acre) (0.4288 acre) Total allowable GRFA: Total Allowable Site Coverage: Minimum Lot Size: (15, 000 sq. ft. of buildable area) Does the lot most the size/ shape requirement of 80' X 80'? Allowable Density: 5,112 sq. ft. 4,650 sq. ft. 4,356 sq. ft. 4,025 sq. ft. 3,100 sq. ft. 2,805 sq. ft. Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 4,968 sq. ft. 3,736 sq. ft. Yes Yes 2 free market 2 free market 1 free market dwelling units w/ dwelling units w/ dwelling unit w/ one Type II EHU one Type II EHU one Type I EHU 2 free market dwelling units w/a plat restriction against a Type II EH6 The proposed minor subdivision will result in impacts on the development potential of Lots 2 & 7. As illustrated above, through the reconfiguration of the common lot line, development potential from Lot 2 will be "transferred" to Lot 7. Currently, 9,468 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is permitted on the combined area of the two lots. The applicant's minor subdivision proposal would increase the amount of allowable GRFA to 9,618 sq. ft. The increase of 150 sq. ft of GRFA is a result of increasing the total lot area of Lot 7 to greater than 15,000 sq. ft., and the way in which GRFA is calculated. According to Section 18.13.080, Primary/Secondary Density Control, the following GRFA shall be permitted on each site in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District: Twenty-five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area plus; plus 2. Ten square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area; plus 3. Five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. In addition to the above, a credit of four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of GRFA shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. f:leveryone\pec\memoslsheidigger.624 2 0 4 The 150 square feet of additional GRFA results when the 4,652 square feet of lot area is "transferred" to Lot 7 from Lot 2, 974 square feet is apportioned GRFA at twenty five square feet • of GRFA for each one hundred square feet (25%) rather than ten square feet (10%) as it had been calculated on Lot 2. IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this proposal is not truly creating two new lots, but instead, simply reconfiguring two existing lots, the minimum standards still must be met. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the minor subdivision criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a minor subdivision application are as follows: A. Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a "Lot", in part, as a parcel of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a use, building, or structure under the provisions of the Municipal Code and meeting the minimum requirements of the Code. The minimum lot requirements for the applicant's property are defined in Section 18.13.050, Lot Area and Site Dimensions, (Primary/ Secondary Residential). Section 18.13.050, defines the minimum lot area as 15,000 square feet of buildable area. As Lots 2 & 7 are currently platted. Lot 2 meets the minimum lot area requirement of 15,000 square feet of buildable area. Lot 7, however, does not meet the minimum requirement. As illustrated in Section 111, Zoning Analysis, of this memorandum, the buildable area of Lot 2 is greater than • 15,000 square feet and Lot 7 is less than 15,000 sq. ft. The minor subdivision, as proposed, would bring Lot 7 into compliance with the minimum lot size requirement, thus removing the non-conforming status. B. FrontQL- The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District have a minimum street frontage of 30'. Currently, both Lots 2 & 7 have street frontages greater than 30'. After the minor subdivision, each of the lots will continue to have frontages greater than 30', and therefore, will not have a negative impact on the frontage requirement. C. Site Dimensions - The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80'x 80'. As platted, Lot 2 meets the minimum site dimension requirement. Lot 7, however, is unable to enclose a square area 80' x 80'. The proposed minor subdivision would recreate Lot 7 so that it will be of a size and shape necessary to enclose the 80' x 80' square area within its boundaries. The second set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the subdivision regulations, and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to 0 f:\everyone\peclmemos\sheidigger.624 3 f the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities • proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." In accordance with Section 18.66.080 of the Town of Vail, notification of the public hearing on the proposed minor subdivision was published in the local newspaper of record and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners. Staff has discussed the proposed minor subdivision request with Mr. Tom Armstrong, President of the Chamonix Chalet Condominimum Association and Mr. Jay Peterson, the attorney representing the Chamonix Chalet Condominium Association. In addition, the applicant has letters from each of the affected public utilities expressing their approval of the proposal (see attachments). The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Refiponsg: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules to which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, it is the appropriate process to amend existing platted lots. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. Staff Re5ponsg: The applicant's lots are bounded on the east by Interstate Highway 70, on the west and north by existing duplexes and primary/secondary structures, and by the Chamonix Chalet condominiums to the south. Most of the structures on the adjoining lots were constructed in the late 1970's and early 1980's when the area was under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. Staff believes the applicant's request will not conflict with the development potential of adjacent properties. The applicant has not requested to deviate from the development standards prescribed by the Town of Vail Municipal Code for the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Therefore, while there will be impacts on the adjacent, developed properties, the impacts will not be any greater than those generally associated with development impacts from primary/secondary construction. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Regponsg: The minor subdivision proposed by the applicant will not have any negative impacts on the value of land throughout the Town of Vail. The applicant's property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. The zoning designation will not change with the minor subdivision. While the lots are currently vacant, they are not designated open space and should not be treated • as such. f:leveryone\pecVnemos\sheidigger.624 4 The net allowable density on the applicant's lots will be reduced with this minor • subdivision. The applicant has proposed to place a plat restriction on the minor subdivision plat limiting two dwelling units on Lot 7. A third dwelling unit would only have been permitted on Lot 7 subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit for a Type II employee housing unit. The plat restriction was a concession made by the applicant to the property owners to the south as they feared the i development of three dwelling units on Lot 7 would negatively impact the area. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed minor subdivision of Lots 2 and 7 will not preclude a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. The minor subdivision will bring Lot 7 into compliance with the minimum lot requirements prescribed in the municipal code. Staff believes this is a positive change. While it is true the community loses the opportunity of having a Type I EHU built on Lot 7, the incentive allowing a second dwelling to be constructed on non-conforming lots in Town was not intended to preclude property owners from acquiring the development rights associated with conforming lots. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. • 9.Wff Response: The purpose of subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this proposal to amend an existing platted building envelope. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative effects on any of the above listed public facilities. The applicant has received the necessary approvals from the affected utility companies to vacant the utility easement along the common boundary line to Lots 2 and 7. The easement will be vacated on the proposed minor subdivision plat. A new utility easement will be dedicated along the new common boundary line. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. _$I@ff ResDonse: The proposed minor subdivision is in conformance with the minor subdivision platting requirements of the municipal code. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. f:\everyone\pec\memoslsheidigger.624 5 Staff Re.5ponse: Staff believes the proposed minor subdivision will not have any negative impacts on the above listed criteria. Staff further believes that the proposed minor subdivision will not effect the integrity, stability and beauty of the • community and the value of land. V. RTAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to allow for the minor subdivision of Lot 2, a resubdivision of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block B, Vail Das Schone, Filing #1; and Lot 7, Block B, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone, Filing #1. Staff believes the applicant has met the first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a minor subdivision application request as the reconfigured lots will conform with the minimum lot area, street frontage and site dimension requirements. In addition, staff believes the minor subdivision request is also in conformance with the second set of review criteria. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of this request, the Community Development Department would recommend that the approval carry with it the following condition: 1. That within one year from the date of the minor subdivision approval, or before the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any dwelling unit on the properties, the applicant shall remove the existing storage shed on Lot 2. A 0 f:\everyone\pec\memos\sheidigger.624 6 AMENDED FINAL PLAT KARIN'S RIDGE LOT 7, BLOCK B, A RESUBDIVISION OF VAIL DAS SCHONE, FILING No. 1; AND LOT 2, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 8, 9, & 10, BLOCK B, VAIL DAS SCHONE, FILING 1 TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO I. v12.' h u.r .,. LOT 1 scorzr `2." W ' 170.15 I 'All R-44.61 O 6 L=16.63 1 ;.n / "? ` 1.25.67 h 1C=11 55 . . .v . C6=N 33.50'39' E \ LOT 2 W •? .,..m .. eFu7:+ ?, a / w / T . t ? +? • e. ye ._ - _. - I - 01 T 'S / LOT 7 .. M: ?.Y;S: •• z o g ,. _ 1 / z6ie N J1 J ?_ .g .175.69 ,?\ N 7p31'21" LOT 6 SCALE: 1" 20 • a& X09 No. 2260 KARIN SCHEIDEGGER 2702 W. CORTINA LANE • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 970 476-8254 MAY 28, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION 'OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 RE: PROPOaEn RF-RI IRDIVIRION INCLUDING THE TWO SITEa KNOWN AS I OT 7 AND I OT 7LJaLOCK B Fit Mr. ND_l VAIL DAS RCHONE SUBDIVISION Dear Planning Commission: Please accept my application for the proposrd Minor Subdivision to be known as Karin's Ridge. The basic intent is to develop two quality building sites out of two typical subdivision lots that were originally platted with little regard for existing physical conditions of the property. We understand that this would allow us to have two free market units. The proposed resubdivision would generate two new building envelopes that would provide better quality placements than those available on the existing lots. The new lots should allow improved solar orientation, privacy, views from each site and compatibility with the existing topography of the land. As you will note on the plat, I am agreeing not to allow for the possibility of a Type II Employee Housing Unit to be ever constructed on this property. However, I hope it is taken into consideration that I have rented out the lower Unit on Lot 1, where 1 am living now, to Eagle Valley employees since it was built in 1977. It has been rented to the same person for the last ten years. It is my plan to move into the upstairs unit of the newly proposed Primary Unit on Lot 7. Therefore, the upstairs unit on Lot 1, where I am now residing, will become available for the rental market as well. We are in the process of obtaining Sign-Off letters from the Utility Companies. There are no utilities in the existing lot lines. With the proposed resubdivision, we will be bringing Lot 7 into compliance with the Primary/Secondary Minor Lot Size Requirements. I believe the proposed resubdivision will provide two new sites that will be of benefit to the existing properties that have already been developed. The enclosed exhibit helps to graphically illustrate the improvements. I am the original owner of these lots. I have lived in West Vail full time since 1969. 1 do not want to move down valley, but intend to continue to make West Vail my home. Thanking you in advance for your consideration in this matter, I am Sincerely yours, KARIN SCHEIDEGGER ks Enc. (MSWK( TCWI,w" 0 '.<.4 ?'.-rri lr? ... .?. ? n-. .. .,'. ?.. „--'.. .... .. - .. .. .r .... >':?( T. .... n._...?...a .... ..t.?r. r... ...ct, ., .r... ..r >a.... li.. a.. 4. ?r ..-?'.???? .00,000000000,0000000 6 00000 ..Oo? / I- ?, 4 t" 1-1 "-% -.0ox 4 . LET 15(ti) -=w 1 X .. r *R,,,cr,. - Wor ?o su?,?O- Gary F. Hall Planner Mountain/Front Range Public Service® Public Service Company of Colorado • 40819 Hwy 6, P.O. Box 430 Minturn, CO 81645 (303) 262-4057 Fax (303) 949.3289 Recycled Paper May 10, 1996 TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We have reviewed a copy of Karin's Ridge Minor Subdivision Plat, which indicates the vacating of the typical utility easement located 5 feet on either side of the common lot line separating Lots 2 and & 7, and establishes a new easement on either side of the new lot line. Since we currently have no utilities in the existing easement, we have no objection to the • proposed easement relocation as indicated on the plat. Sincerely-Yours, Y F`J? Y 'd ? JF 3 ? INx ;, REX BER . 'ENGINEERING DE HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC' P.O. DRAWER 2150 3799 HWY. 82 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 May 10, 1996 0> f JOHN BOYD fMENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT' ?OCIATION, INC. HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. PHONE (303) 945-5491 41226 HWY. 6 & 24 P.O. BOX 972 AVON # (303) 949-5893 EAGLE-VAIL, CO AVON, CO 81620 FAX # (303) 945-4081 FAX (970) 949.4566 PHONE (970) 949-5892 TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We have reviewed a copy of Karin's Ridge Minor Subdivision Plat, which indicates the vacating of the typical utility easement located 5 feet on either side of the common lot line separating Lots 2 and & 7, and establishes a new easement on either side of the new lot line. • Since we currently have no utilities in the existing easement, we have no objection to the proposed easement relocation as indicated on the plat. Sincerely yours, ,.. ? O , - 76 cak,. D G-f 0 846 FOREST ROAD VAIL. COLORADO 81657 (970)476.7460 FAX (970) 476-4089 May 10, 1996 TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We have reviewed a copy of Karin's Ridge Minor Subdivision Plat, which indicates the vacating of the typical utility easement located 5 feet on either side of the common lot line separating Lots 2 and &: 7, and establishes a new easement on either side of the new lot line. Since we currently have no utilities in the e.Xisting easement, we have no objection to the proposed easement relocation as indicated on the plat. Sincerely yours, • 0 I _W4j TO Cablevision of the Rockies, Inc. W'e're taking teletision into tomorrow: P.O Box 439 0140 Metcalf Road Avon, Coiotado 61820 (303) 949-5530 FAX (303) 949-9138 May 10, 1996 TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We have reviewed a copy of Karin's Ridge Minor Subdivision Plat, which indicates the vacating of the typical utility easement located 5 feet on either side of the common lot line separating Lots 2 and & 7, and establishes a new easement on either side of the new lot line. • Since we currently have no utilities in the existing easement, we have no objection to the proposed easement relocation as indicated on the plat. Sincerely yours, i 77 i 0 r2 CCU t 529 251/2 Road Suite 204-B Grand Junction, CO 61505 970 256.0166 Fax 970 256.0185 eLecommunICBM3171s, inc. N. Donald Gress Outside Plant Engineer 9y9 -i8D9 Home 970 328.6921 May 10, 1996 TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We have reviewed a copy of Karin's Ridge Minor Subdivision Plat, which indicates the vacating of the typical utility easement located 5 feet on either side of the common lot line separating Lots 2 and & 7, and establishes a new easement on either side of the new lot line. I f? J Since we currently have no utilities in the existing easement, we have no objection to the • proposed easement relocation as indicated on the plat. Sincerely yours, • AP 1 *oy1 b jUL 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • June 24, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield Public Hearinq The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. Susan Connelly Mike Mollica Dominic Mauriello Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision of Lots 2 and 7/Block B, Vail Das Schone #1, located at 2446 and 2450 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Karin Scheidegger Planner: George Ruther / Mike Mollica Mike Mollica reminded the PEC that the request had been discussed at the pre-meeting followed • by a site visit and that they were all familiar with what this request involved. Lot 7 currently does not meet the Town's standards and the proposal would bring it into compliance. This minor subdivision does cause additional GRFA to be added. This would be allowable, however the issue to be considered is density. The applicant is placing a plat restriction, so that a TYPE II EHU could not be built. Staff is recommending approval with 1 condition, that the applicant remove the existing storage shed on Lot 2, as it is in the CDOT right-of-way. Steve Isom, from Isom and Associates, displayed renderings. He explained that Karin Scheidegger had been diligent in getting the adjacent property owners approval. This request allows a better configuration of the buildings on the two lots. Previously, they would have had to have one long building because of the lot layout. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Jay Peterson, representing the Chamonix Condominium Association, looked back in history for minor subdivisions and whether they always met the criteria. Jay recommended to the PEC that they should restrict density and the additional GRFA. He gave examples of subdividing in the past that created additional free market units and additional GRFA. The Town has denied requests such as this in the past. When you look at the Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Ordinance, the Town recognizes its role in regard to EHU's. The Zoning Ordinance contains an EHU clause. If this request passes, we are allowing requests of this kind to not be required to have an EHU and that is contrary to the Zoning Ordinance. In this request we are creating an Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes is June 24, 1996 1 r„ t a' " additional free market unit, without requiring an EHU. I think staff should take a hard look at this. To add a free market unit at the expense of an EHU is the issue here. Maria Erb, an adjacent owner, spoke on behalf of Karin Scheidegger's character. She stated that Karin has done a lot of building in her 28 years in West Vail. For her not to build a nice home for herself would not be fair. She has been a big force in keeping Vail Das Schone beautiful. Ross Davis Jr. agrees with Jay Peterson's technical objections. He is more concerned with losing an EHU and the Town showing the world that you are losing an EHU for a free market unit. If a larger mass is being built, the Board should impose a larger setback in order to give some breathing room. A single family home with an EHU should be continued. Tom Armstrong, president of the Chamonix Condominium Association, said out of the 43 units in the condo complex, a majority of the people are opposed to this situation. Steve Isom mentioned that he had discussed with. Karin a caretaker unit and that it shouldn't be built because of the parking congestion. Karin Scheidegger stated that she has owned the property since 1965. She explained that she owns two lots, one of which is a very long narrow lot. The history shows originally there were three lots that were made into two lots many years ago. When she started thinking of building, the lot configuration would dictate a long house which would also block views from the Chamonix units. At the annual Chamonix Condo Association meeting, Mr Armstrong was under the assumption that she was going to build 12 units. She had informed the neighbors that she was only building a primary/secondary. She took out the EHU because of density. Karin explained that she now lives next door and has rented to an employee for 10 years. She also stated that she owns a rental unit at the Seasons, which she rents to an Eagle County resident. She feels she has more than satisfied the employee housing unit requirement. She doesn't want to give in to the setback. She stated that she desires a nice view without seeing the highway. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had no comments. Greg Amsden spoke in response to Jay's comments. He said that the PEC had approved previous requests where site restrictions were apparent. Jay Peterson reminded Greg that the Town Council overturned the PEC's approval. Greg Amsden said that was true, but the PEC approved it. He sees no difference in a free market unit or an_ EHU, if a deed restriction is placed on the unit. Jay Peterson said Karin has two free market units. She is going from 1 free market and 1 EHU to 2 free market units. Greg Amsden said Karin is doing that to satisfy the neighborhood. Jay Peterson stated that there no deed restriction in place on any of the units. 0 • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 24, 1996 2 • Greg Amsden asked staff if eliminating all the EHU's was allowed? • Mike Mollica said Lot 2 doesn't change and Lot 7 does not require Karin to build an EHU. Greg Amsden said a long narrow building would sit right against the setback and also the Chamonix Chalets. Galen Aasland stated that approval of this would be a significant financial benefit for the applicant. The neighbors have legitimate concerns. He felt we should increase the open space between Chamonix and the applicant. He feels one problem with the application is the additional GRFA and if this is approved, the additional GRFA shouldn't be granted. Galen asked if a shared driveway could be located at the east side of the lot to give more relief to the Chamonix owners. Diane Golden's only concern was that she hates to get rid of an employee housing unit. Where Karin is living now will be opened up to be an EHU, although not deed restricted. Mike Mollica stated that the applicant is allowed to do this under the zoning. Diane Golden said the applicant has a good history of renting to Eagle County residents. Henry Pratt said the way Lot 7 is reconfigured is a better solution. He feels however, that the additional GRFA that is being granted because of a resubdivision is not fair. Greg Moffet said the elimination of an EHU is the landowner's prerogative. He doesn't see a need to put any restrictions on this lot. This request is for the benefit of the neighborhood. He feels the additional GRFA is not a problem. He differs with Galen in that a joint driveway should • not be required. Greg Amsden reminded Galen that because of the Fire Code, you would need a larger width for the joint driveway. Jay Peterson said there is no guarantee of this being coherent planning. It could be finished in a much worse configuration. A building envelope would solve all those problems. Greg Moffet reminded Jay that adjacents are not entitled to anything, except setbacks. Jay Peterson said we are trying to help neighbors with the best possible solution. Greg Amsden stated that Chamonix Chalets have a well developed foliage line. Practicality will determine that the house be built in the right place because of the natural foliage that is there already: John Schofield said the new configuration will increase the distance between Chamonix and the new structure. Maria Erb supports the applicant and stated that she is one of the owners in the Chamonix Chalets. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes June 24, 1996 3 Ross Davis Jr. would like a building envelope. Henry Pratt made a motion in accordance with the staff memo, with one additional condition that the applicant not be allowed to have the additional GRFA that comes with the new lot configuration. The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland. Greg Amsden asked if the EHU was required in the staff memo. Mike Mollica said there was no EHU requirement in the staff memo. Greg Amsden asked if there is no objection to an EHU, then why are we removing it as a condition of approval. Henry Pratt said it would allow for a 6th dwelling unit and we want to limit the density. Steve Isom said by restricting the GRFA, we are limiting density. Greg Amsden reminded the Board that with an EHU, you get an additional 500 sq. ft. of GRFA. Jay Peterson stated that he objected to 6 units on that site because setbacks would be worse and the buildings taller. Henry Pratt said the intent is to restrict the site to 6 units only. Greg Amsden asked Mike Mollica for the history with resubs, and if we can restrict GRFA? Mike Mollica said the applicant is not asking for any variances. Staff feels that the applicant should have every right that goes along with this request. This request will, now enable the lots to meet code and staff believes that the applicant should have no additional restrictions. Diane Golden said its not fair to take away the GRFA. The motion was voted upon and failed by a vote of 2-4, with Galen Aasland and Henry Pratt voting for the motion. John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Henry Pratt asked if the motion allowed the additional GRFA? It did. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Galen Aasland opposed. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the alteration and additional floor area at the Vail Transportation Center, located at 242 S. Frontage Road (Vail Village Parking Structure). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 24, 1996 4 • Cl E Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He explained the Public Works Department is proposing to bring the lighting up to code with this request, as well as making substantial . improvements to the building. Staff is recommending approval of the request with the condition that the DRB take a close look at the roof material and the roof vent. Kirk Aker stated that after the walk-around, he came up with 3 issues; parking, roof material, and the roof feature. They are losing three parking spaces, but adding the much needed element of lockers. There are now 16 to 20 lockers in the building and they are now proposing to add 70 lockers. The roof element appropriately identifies the structure as to being a bus terminal and parking structure. However, he feels the DRB is the appropriate venue to discuss these features at length. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. For the record, Greg Moffet explained that he's a client of the applicant, but not related to this issue and will happily step down if anyone sees a conflict. Galen Aasland is opposed to the metal roof. The proposal is in need of landscaping. A small planter on the west side and in front of the Greyhound area is needed. Diane Golden is uncomfortable eliminating the 3 parking spaces. She feels another location can be found for the lockers. Henry Pratt asked the staff if the Town of Vail is subject to a pay-in-lieu fee for the loss of the • parking spaces? Mike Mollica said no, as the fee would only go back into Public Works parking fund. Henry Pratt said there is a tremendous need for lockers. He asked if new interior finishes are being proposed. He doesn't have a problem losing 3 parking spaces. He is very concerned with the metal roof, as it is a liability issue for the Town. He fears snow sliding off the roof in such a busy area could injure someone. He reminded everyone of the woman that was killed this winter when she was trying to move snow off of a metal roof. He would strongly recommend that the DRB consider a wood roof. The air vent on top is not appropriate and he feels a higher level of detail is needed. He does however, feel this proposal is a major improvement for the Town of Vail. John Schofield asked if this was a private venture, with the applicant removing the 3 parking spaces, what would be the outcome? Mike Mollica stated that the parking issue would be different, since they would most likely not be zoned GU and would have to meet the minimum number of spaces. This project is much different. John Schofield said he has a problem with eliminating the 3 parking spaces. It seems the Town of Vail is in competition with private industry for lockers. He agrees with Henry Pratt regarding the metal roof. He is also against plexiglass as a place to lean your skis and feels ski racks are necessary. . Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 24, 1996 5 Gene Uselton stated that the metal roof is inconsistent with other buildings in the Transportation Center. The air vent could be shielded to make it more attractive. Greg Amsden said there are alternate locations for lockers, such as under the stairwell. The food court area could house lockers. He agrees with Henry regarding the roof. The vent needs to be addressed. Greg Moffet likes metal roofs, however, he does recognize the liability issue. He doesn't have a problem with losing the 3 parking spaces. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo and changing Condition No. 1 to read that the PEC will not accept the metal roof in the proposal and to encourage the DRB to look at alternate designs and to look at the roof vent, the ski rack issue, and the planter issue. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Galen Aasland asked if the condition attached to the motion was to put a planter in? Henry Pratt said no, that he wants the DRB to look at that. The motion passed by a vote of 5-2 with Greg Amsden and Diane Golden opposed due to the loss of parking spaces. 3. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2943 Bellflower/ Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Frank Bannister Planner: Lauren Waterton 4 5 STAFF APPROVED A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 427 Forest Road/Lot 4, Block 2 Vail Village 3rd filing. Applicant: Henry Kravis Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 548 S. Frontage Road/Westwind Condominiums, Unit #305. Applicant: Jim Beedie, represented by Mike Haselhorst Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED Planning and EnvL -.....ental Commission Minutes June 24, 1996 6 • r? U 6. 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. Mary Hilliard represented by Larry Eskwith Applicant: Landon and Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JULY 8, 1996 7. A request for a conditional use permit, a density and front setback variance to allow for a Type II EHU above the existing garage, located at 227 Rockledge Road/Lot 13A, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Steve Kirby Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JULY 8,1996 8. A request for a worksession to discuss a parking and retaining wall height variance to allow for the construction of a new parking area at the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Ric Fields Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JULY 8,1996 • 9. A request for a conditional use permit to construct a trailhead parking area, located at Red Sandstone Road/Parcel A, Lions Ridge 1 st filing. Applicant: 10th Mtn. Division/Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest WITHDRAWN Greg Moffet asked staff for a synopsis of the staff approved items. Mike Mollica said they were all interior remodels. Greg Moffet suggested that for all staff approved items he would like to see one sentence under each item explaining the request. Gene Uselton agreed with Greg Moffet, since the PEC is the last chance before approval. Diane Golden made a motion to table items 6, 7 and 8. The motion was seconded by Greg Amsden. The motion was passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Henry Pratt abstaining. • Planning and Enviromnental Commission Minutes June 24, 1996 7 10. Information Update • Development Review Improvement Process (DRIP) - Process and Standards teams. • Susan Connelly gave a DRIP update. She said the purpose of DRIP was twofold: (1) to improve the development review process for applicants and (2) to free up staff time to work on long-range planning projects. Some improvements already have been instituted, such as the new service counter and sign code changes that allow for staff approval. There are two different DRIP action teams: one (Standards Team) improves the standards and the other (Process Team) takes apart everything staff does and puts it back together in a more efficient way. We will bring drafts to the PEC and also get input from the general public. We will also be meeting with Avon to see how they have combined the PEC and DRB and how it is working. Henry Pratt said Breckenridge does the same thing and perhaps the process team should take a look at how they do it. Henry also said the new service counter is a huge success. John Schofield agreed that the service counter is a success. Greg Moffet asked Dominic what happened to the Sign Code changes after it left the PEC? Dominic Mauriello said the Council approved it on the first reading and it was coming up for the second reading. Mike Mollica explained that Dominic had reorganized the Sign Code to be readable at the encouragement and request of Council. Susan Connelly said there were 3 phases in the overall design guidelines modifications. Henry Pratt brought up bus advertising. He thought we should make the PEC collective feelings • known, since its part of our environment. Greg Moffet excused himself and left the room, so as to abstain from the discussion. Dominic Mauriello explained that one of the ideas was to have buses done up professionally to look like a Kodak picture. In Denver you see the Patagonia buses as a revenue generators. The advertising will generate approximately $20,000 per bus. Gene Uselton said he is against it, unless the Town gets enough money to make it worth while. Mike Mollica asked how to segregate advertisers was an issue. Susan Connelly said we all have concerns. This will set a precedent for the Sign Code. A sample bus will be brought in to see firsthand. However, there is no process in place at this time. John Schofield asked if the Sign Code discourages mobile signs? Dominic Mauriello explained that it is very difficult, with the current code, to enforce mobile signs. For example people who have signage on their vans, etc. Mike Mollica said the Town Attorney is looking into it. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 24, 1996 8 • Larry Grafel, Director of Public Works, said advertising would generate $20,000 per bus, per year or every time the advertisement changes. They would only use high quality advertisers. Technology uses soft or subliminal advertising. The advertisements would involve a picture, rather than a product. The advertisements would reflect the Town of Vail image, with high quality and not necessarily seeing the advertiser in the advertisement. We would be very selective, since we-are an international community. Galen Aasland asked how the Town could limit the advertisers, being a public entity. Larry Grafel said we could use the right of refusal. Henry Pratt said we should wait until the issue comes before the PEC. Larry Grafel said discussions regarding this have happened. People have been very negative, but he feels they should look first at the product. He feels advertising will add sparkle and sizzle to the Town. It is a very benign way to increase revenue. Mike Mollica updated the PEC with a discussion that is going on with the Town Council regarding the parking pay-in-lieu program. He has prepared a memo for Council and offered the PEC copies. He doesn't know if Council is interested in modifying the pay-in-lieu fee at this time. The Council is looking at Lionshead. Revenues generated since 1978 come to $46,000 per year. This is just an FYI -AAike reminded the PEC that if there is a change in the pay-in-lieu, it will come before the PEC. Gene Uselton said the problem with elimination of the pay-in-lieu will be that past payees will be mad. • Mike Mollica gave an example of why the pay-in-lieu is being reviewed. He brought up the Serrano's situation in which they are unable to decide whether to build a condo, that will sit empty and not be useful to the Town, or build the club and pay the pay-in-lieu fee. The pay-in- lieu fee is deciding what direction they will take. Gene Uselton asked Mike Mollica for a copy of the pay-in-lieu memo. 11. Approval of June 10, 1996 minutes Greg Amsden made a motion for approval of the June 10, 1996 PEC minutes. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1. Galen Aasland abstained, since he was not present at the June-10, 1996 meeting. Gene Uselton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 24, 1996 9