The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-0909 PEC ( ~ THlS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PRC?PERTY ~ PUBLlC NOTlCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Pfanning and Environmental Cammission of the Town of Vail wifl hold a public hearing in aCcordance with Section 18.66.060 af the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on September 9, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vaif Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance to add a storage area in the basement, of approximately 250 square feet, located at 4494 Streamside Circle East/Lot 13, Bighorn 4th Addition Applicant: Donald Levy Planner: Lauren Waterton ~ A request for a residential addition to expand the existing kifchen, utifrzing the 250 Ordinance, loCated at 930 Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Viftage 10th Fir'tng , Applicants: Morris and Miriam Futemick Planner: Dirk Mason A request for an interior remodel, to add a storage area and a 6athroom of approximately 85 square feet, uti(izing the 250 Ordinance, located at 63 Willow Place #1/Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Vai! Village i st Filing Applicant: Oscar Schafer Planner: Lauren Waterton . ~ A request for a residential addition to expand the existing entry, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, ' located at 4410A Columbine Drive/Lot 1, Block 4, A resdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn 3rd Addiiion App(icant: Barbara Van Ness Planner: George Ruther A request for a wall height variaRCe to aAow for a six foot wall, located in the front setback I 1239 Westhaven Circle/Lot 37, Glen Lyon I Applicant: Daryl Brown j Planner: George Ruther ~ , A request for a worksession ior a rezoning from Genera! Use to Medium Density Mutti-family, and ~ a request for the establishrnent of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 18 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge I Filing # 1 ~ App(icants: Eag(e River Water and Sanitation District and the Forest Service ~ Planner: Andy Knudtsen ! A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, ' utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch ! Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome ~ ~ Ptanner: Dominic MaurieHo i ! A request for an exterior addition to expand the existing dining room, utiii2ing the 250 Ordinance, , located at 2415 Bald Mountam Road/Lot 22, S{ock 2, Vai! Viilage 13th Filing I Applicants: Paul Baker and Robert Ruder ~ ~ Planner: Dominic Mauriello ' llllllllll The applications and information about the praposa(s are available in the project planner's office during regular off+ce hours for public inspection, located at the Town of Vai! Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language inierpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please calf 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD fior information. Comrnunity Development Department Published August 23, 1996 in the Vail Traii. ~ ~ Agenda last revised 9/03/96 Ipm I. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, September 9, 1996 AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch -Communitv Develooment Deoartment 11:45 pm QUORUM -(September 23, 1996) Gene Usetton not present Site Visits 12:30 pm 1. Ruder - 2415 Baid Mountain Road 2. Futernick - 930 Fairway Drive 3. Brown - 1239 Westhaven Circle 4. Deighan - 802B Potato Patch 5. Eagle River Water District - 945 Red Sandstone Road Driver: George Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 P•m• 1. A request for a residential addition to expand the existing kitchen, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, ~ located at 930 Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing Applicants: Morris and Miriam Futernick Planner: Dirk Mason 2. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and to add a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for an exterior addition to expand the existing dining room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2415 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 22, Block 2, Vail Viltage 13th Filing Applicants: Paul Baker and Robert Ruder Flanner: Dominic Mauriello 4. A request for a wall height variance to allow for a six-foot retaining wall, located in the front setback 1239 Westhaven Circle/Lot 37, Glen Lyon Applicant: Daryl Brown Planner: George Ruther ~ ' Agenda last revised 4/03/96 lpm 5. A request for a joint worksession with the DRB and PEC for a rezoning from General Use to ~ Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Specia! Development District to ailow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1 ' Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Forest Service Planner: Andy Knudtsen 6. A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and activities. ' Appl+cant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton 7. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to add a storage area in the basement, of approximately 250 square feet, located at 4494 Streamside Circle EasULot 13, Bighorn 4th Addition Applicant: Donaid Levy Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 8. A request for an interior remodel, to add a storage area and a bathroom of approximately 85 square feet, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, tocated at 63 Willow Pface #1/Lots 1 and 2, Biock 6, Vail ViHage 1 st Filing • Applicant: Oscar Schafer ~ Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 9. A request for a residential addition to expand the existing entry, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, _ located at 4410A Columbine Drive/Lot 1, Block 4, A resdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn 3rd Addition Applicant: Barbara Van Ness Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. Information Update - Vail Tomorrow 11. Approvaf of August 12, 1996 and August 26, 1996 minutes The applications and information about the proposals are available in the project planner's office during regular office hours for public inspection, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. 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 September 6, 1996 in the Vail Trail. Agenda last revised 9/10/96 I lam PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, September 9, 1996 ~ FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch - mm ni Dev I ment Department 11:45 pm QUORUM -(September 23, 1996) Gene Uselton not present Site Visits 12:30 pm 1. Ruder - 2415 Bald Mountain Road 2. Futernick - 930 Fairway Drive 3. Brown - 1239 Westhaven Circle 4. Deighan - 8026 Potato Patch 5. Eagle River Water District - 945 Red Sandstone Road Driver: George Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 P•m• 1. A request for a residential addition to expand the existing kitchen, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 930 Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing Applicants: Morris and Miriam Futernick I Planner: Dirk Mason ~ MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITION ~ 2. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and to add a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 8026 Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello , MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-1 (Greg Moffet opposed) TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23,1996 3. A request for an exterior addition to expand the existing dining room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2415 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 22, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing Applicants: Paul Baker and Robert Ruder Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED 4. A request for a wall height variance to allow for a six-foot retaining wall, located in the front setback, located at 1239 Westhaven Circle/Lot 37, Glen Lyon • Applicant: Daryl Brown Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH TWO CONDITIONS Agenda last revised 9/10/96 t iam 5. A request for a joint worksession with the DRB and PEC for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1 App(icants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Forest Service ~ Planner: Andy Knudtsen WORKSESS(ON - NO VOTE 6. A conceptuai discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and activities. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION - NO VOTE 7. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to add a storage area in the basement, of approximately 250 square feet, located at 4494 Streamside Circle EasULot 13, Bighorn 4th Addition Applicant: Donald Levy Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 8. A request for an interior rernodel, to add a storage area and a bathroom of approximately 85 square feet, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 63 Willow Place #1/Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st Filing Applicant: Oscar Schafer ~ Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 9. A request for a residential addition to expand the existing entry, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4410A Columbine Drive/Lot 1, Block 4, A resdivision of Lot 14, Biock 4, Bighom 3rd Addition Applicant: Barbara Van Ness Planner: George Ruther 1NITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT 10. Information Update - Vail Tomorrow 11. Approval of August 12, 1996 and August 26, 1996 minutes The apptications and information abou* the proposals are available in the project planner's office during regular office hours for public inspection, located at the Town of Vail Community Developmenf Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language iMerpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for • information. Communiry Deveiopment DepartmeM Published September 6, 1996 in the Vail Trail. j ~ MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 9, 1996 ~ SUBJECT: A request for a residential addition to expand the existing kitchen, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 930 Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing Applicant: Morris Futernick, represented by William Reslock Planner: Dirk Mason 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST !n 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area:" This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. 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 to be added to a dwelling unit. . In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended I Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Pianning ~ and Environmentai Commission. The applicant, Morris Futernick, represented by William Reslock, is proposing a residential addition utilizing the Additional GRFA Ordinance (250). The applicant is proposing the addition to the east half of an existing duplex located at 930 Fairway Drive. The applicant is requesting to convert an existing deck on the third floor of the residence into kitchen and dining room space. This 125 sq. ft. addition will not impact the existing site coverage, as this deck is below the existing fourth floor. The exterior building materials of the new addition are proposed to match the existing building materials. Upon approval of this request, there will be 125 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Desc?iption: Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing Address: 930 Fain+vay Drive Lot Size: 30,100 sq. ft. / 0.691 acre Zoning: Two Family Residential ~ Use: Duplex 1 i All wed xistin Proposed I GRFA: 3,053 sq. R." 3,176 sq, ft. 3,301 sq. ft. • ~ (east unit) ~ Site Cove - rage: N/A N/A N/A I R uir d i i Proposed I" Parki 3 spaces 2 encbsed ng: spaces no ahange 2 suAace space I 'includes 425 sq. ft. credit and is currently legally non-conforming ~ lil. GRITERIA AND FINDtNGS I Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Communiry Development Department recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an app(ication for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmenta! Commission shali consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect uRon the exigtin,q tonoQranhv vgqetation drainape and existina -structuM. ~ The proposed residential addition will have minimal, if any, impacts on the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and the existing structure. ~ There will be a minor change to the existing structure, as mentioned previously, the proposed addition will enclose an existing deck and not increase the site coverage. The changes affecting the existing structure are minimal and will not have any negative impacts on the property. However, a geologic hazard investigation, written by a registered engineer with the State of Colorado, - must be submitted with regards to the potential ava{anche hazards on the property, and the relationship to the addition. 2. Imuact on adjacent ~roperties. Upon completing a site visit to the applicant's property, staff believes there will be no negative impacts to adjacent properties. Public notices have been sent to the adjacent property owners. To date, staff has not received any input from the adjacent property owners. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning rgguirements and annlic.able development standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that any single family dweNing or dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meei the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. ~ 2 i Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permifted in accordance . with Chapter 18.71, the staff shaff review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing singie family or two famiiy dwefiing and site, to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find the property is in compliance with the applicabie development standards listed above. The utilities are currently undergrounded, the driveway is paved, and the general maintenance of the property is excellent. B. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission sha{I make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Addit+onal GRFA would not negativety effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additiona! GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. • (V. $TAFF REC MMENDATION i The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application to ~ utilize 125 sq. ft. of the 250 square feet of additional GRFA available, subject to the following conditions: ~ 1. That a registered engineer with the State of Colorado must conduct a geologic hazard I investigation with regards to the potential avalanche hazard and refationship to the addition and that the owner 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 described in the memorandum above. Regarding the findings, staff believes that finding B1 is met, as the proposed addition will not negativeiy impact the existing site; Finding 62 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed addition will not negatively impact adjacent properties; and Finding B3 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed addition will comply with all zoning requirements and applicable development standards described in the Town of Vail Municipal Code. ~ f:\everyonelpecUnemos\futemick.909 3 Y i . . e , , . .,7 'YT'LL~•pfR R. H6t4 ' r AlA. " ~ 1 wn.~orwM • EEX I s 'r, AJ 1 , 1 ' 13~rO~o~~ ~d~, • ~ t O'~. ~ b?~ _ ~ . . ' ^A ~ ~ ,v / gp' ~ ~"'t^` ~\0 , d ' Y jJ~'. j}aJ~'~ i •~~_'1.. ~ 's ~ : I R ~ • ° ~ ~ ° O ~ ~ ~ ~'x, ° \ , \ )~t ~ • . , • ~ . - - '~!A,(,,~ . / ~ ~ ~ P~ryyr~flr.•' ' ``ii :6, y~~ Y'^.J n_~,` ~ '•Y~,y;~ ,l~•',.`-.3C~~ ~p, . °`~9r X ~ K nt~a `l ~ `~,~~4"ti~r .t_ ~t ~,1~5+*.~?~~' :`~F. . ,~y ~ w r ~ , nw:'.wiiT:K • ,r, " ~ ` \i~;,~ ' ~ ~'7`~ , • ~ ~ (1) ' ~ ' ~ ~ Sa. =~Y._•~'„r ~ ~ \ 1 m, y., sF. \~,V r f. ~ p*o ' '6' ~ , 4 Ln?. • ~ - • , ; . . ' ~ ,j „ ~ ~ /~,~J f ~ `r,' .~C~'~~., i ,r ~ ~ • ,k_ .';,i ' ~e~' ?s~~`:~`• ~ 1 "T;' . ' *i j ~,5, ~ r 'J~;~, r,•" . , . , j ti . ` • i~` ` ~ ' d , . . ~..~~.a,~. .~i..w~x. '..n.. ~ . . . ' . _ ' _ u. ~...~-w.~._ . _.~+.I..._,.~....v. ,..,....~w..~+...,-. , ~ os?~ , • ~ ~ ~,f~ , 'l ~ , ~ . ' , 1 i;,• : ~ , µtr t 6 "A, ~ E . F ~ ~ i~ i~ / ~ ~1,,.p•t`~ ~ ~ J~G~^ YLW % ~ ~tt o~aSE ~ ~ . , - - - , ~ ~ , ~ , ~ o G ~ Exh-fU Grn-unN - ~ ~ ; , , I - ~ - ` - ~ ~1~W w~utao~Jti rJe.w ra.?~l~M c.~~, t~EV~ I.IQVp 1er~il.v ~ ^~•x~oKs.= 3_Z.~„t_~ TD Ma-rW exoYrcq FJIoDONlS Oll ~ ~aoUT~i ~~t' El-EJA-Tlc~f~J - ~ ! ~ i • ~ A2 ! • : r. . . r , ~ ^7. R , ~ r ~^,x4•Ax~,•b7nr,.~~~.v ~ , . ~ . , , r.4 rrw. v ~:rar..~.wr.±.~,w ' ' OOtdon ~ 4UMC~ AAA „ 1 k ~ , ~ , _ ' Ah ye~I1~?\ , 14 I~7 7 ~J . - • • , ~ - - «'~UrH - ea-z .a LF-va, 114- ~ ~ ~,a « _ ~r 9~ , ~ •a~ . . i . n~.T~.. a..n?~ : ` ~W-~ , , ~ . ~ ~.e.n.+:. +l+fkt . ~ ~ ' ' . . ' ~ 4lf v, ~~4~ ~ ~~r.~ ~ jt C?~ ± ~(1 `en~.wrw.,~ O J, _ } ( _ . r. I 1 ~ '~I! , arrx,ess ~ ,_.a' ~ + .-~'^t""'.,~.'._ _M'A'?M?,IIYM1 nw,r1Y / , . _ . _ . . . ' t11~•~ ~ , Py...R.. . - , . . ~++rj'~!i.i~~','¢tA'q!~'. • •4w.~.Y, ~ . ~ ' ~ . .~'T', ' , A-aL ~ ' . . ~ ~:t ~ Gordon lt, Pk ' . - ~..~.,„R . ~ 1y~ , w'r+fy7 I + RYK11 u•~~ t~ 1 . . ~ ~ I V- wsw:., Y F 1 C ~~TH-4JEGb7 6l`cVAT10N race.LE 114• V ~ % ~ A 11evIWq: ~ 641W? M"W~? ~L3.~-'~wl~l ~471~~MIM01~ ~ ...,y 1\ I ~~~~M' . ~ ~,..o .~..r., ~ . . ~ ~,e.v.rn. rw,r - 1 ~ ~ ~~c,~` ' I~IT9~~ • r, : I I ~ ' ~ i i -r }'s -rTIt T ~,~....~..a~ I ~ e.. ...o ~ , I • ~ I , i.. i r r . : ~ ~ ~ , i - ~ ~I I I I 7 I i 1 ~I -"~'~r ..r . 46sro u.-- r . ~ ~ ~ ?~;1; ~~W~~ , ~ rrK ,.....o ~ 1g i ioe na au _ f-' - O I I . . . • ~ y , R - ~T YQ, ioN I P L , . M~ . f ~{.~~r~T( . / . : ` ' . ' . . ~~~.--•-_'~'~~--~I ~ 1~ now, ~ . MEMORANDUM i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 9, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing secondary dwelling unit, located at 802 B Potato Patch Drive/Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch 1 st Filing. Applicant: Padriac Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. 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 to be added to a dwelling unit. ~ In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." This 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. With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to add 250 sq. ft. of GRFA to an existing secondary unit in a primary/secondary structure, focated at 802 B Potato Patch Drive. The proposal utilizes the 250 GRFA allowance to enlarge an existing living room and add a pantry on the main living level, and to add a third floor level. The third floor level wili be comprised of a master bedroom suite and a study. The applicant is also proposing to add a roof-top deck which would be accessed from a patio area off the third level study, via an exterior circular stairway. The roof deck is considered a flat roof for the purposes of determining building height. The roof deck is proposed at 30' in height, which is the maximum allowed for a flat roof. The deck railings project another 4' beyond the deck surface, which is allowed by the code, as an architectural projection., The building height for this proposa{ was based on topographic information provided on a 1980 site plan. During the construction of this duplex up to 47 of fill was added to the site which raised the height of the structure. The increase in fifl added 2.5' to the building height on Unit B (Deighan unit) and 4.7' to Unit A. The existing building height for Unit B is 27.2' based on a 1996 survey and the original topographic information. • 1 r Ii. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 15,996 square feet • Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residentiai Albwed/Reauired i i Progqssd Remainino GRFA: 4,699.6 sq. ft. 3,359.9 sq.ft. 3,939.84 sq. ft. 759.76 sq. ft. (primary use only) Primary: N/A 1,975 sq. ft. N/A 759.76 sq. ft. Secondary: 1,964.84 sq. ft. 1,384.9 sq. ft. 2,147 sq. ft. None w/250: 2,214.84 sq. ft. 1,384.9 sq. ft. 2,147 sq. ft. 67.84 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 3,199 sq. ft. 3,310 sq.ft. 3,300 sq.ft. None (20%) (20.69%) (20.83%) Height: 33' 27.2'* 32' N/A Landscaping: 9,598 sq. ft. 10,715 sq.ft. No change N/A (600% min.) (67%) . Parking: 5 spaces 6 spaces 6 spaces N/A Notes: 1) The existing roof overhang is nonconforming since it extends 6' into the side setback (4' is allowed). 2) The property is currently nonconforming with regards to site coverage, and the applicant is proposing a 10 sq.ft. reduction in site coverage. 3) *Per survey dated 6/4/96. . III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the 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 uqon the existing topoaraphv, v etation. drainaqe and existing structures. The proposal will have minimal impact upon existing topography and vegetation as the bulk of the improvements are within the existing building envelope. Portions of deck protrude outside the building envelope but will have only minor impacts upon the site. Three Aspens will be relocated from the south side of the structure to the south west corner of the structure. 2. Impact on adjacent properties. ~ I The additionaf height should not adversely affect views, light or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed addition will not • 2 ~ have a significant impact on adjacent properties. • 3. ComRliance with the Town's zoning reauirements and applicable devel ment standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single famity ' or two family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine ' whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find that the property is generally in compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. However, a portion of the landscaping located on the west side of the structure is less manicured than the remainder of the site. Exterior lights are futly cut-off and conform to the current limit on the number of fixtures allowed. The driveway is paved and all utilities are below ground: B. Findings: The Ptanning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before • granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. • 3 ~ IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approvaf of this application tor 250 • square feet of additiona! GRFA subject to the foHowing findings: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with a!I Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. The recommendation of approval is subject to ihe following conditions: 1. The applicants shall 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. 2. The applicants shali provide a landscape ptan for the subject property for review by the Design Review Board. F:leveryonelpeclmemosldeighan.909 . ~ I • 4 • • • ~ I a % ~ e : ~ LOT S +u. ro~rlw unur~. ~s~.we waraw iwu 1e iu. ua~araa m wNUr. waM Ow ~ onw+to. au. rw oiau~o rr o~maw w 6: ~ ~.~Mn..11.LA._MIL - 4e om Rwwnro L-iws swaa m~ SPRIM . k W~m w~rsbatr rau ~ mm. +saw~nie mna ~er r~m n.r ra awrs F~„ HOI 1R /I~IIYf /f101R /oM aR M 71~ LAT '1 !'O~ iawmmiw :ma mnaw a an naw we Amw"IL i , , / rGT CR1YG ~ / 1`14L ~ 4-3 / • / 1-100' ~.,~•m•~ X w.eo.m• - - ~ / ~ ' ` ~ ' ~ Q o i ? / m-u a•cST401t -of ¦ , ~ W ~ RINI ~ i - ~ ~.a. ...,.e. r• ~ . ~ ~ ~ - ~ / ~ / ,'f~ 'a~•~31.r• y ~ ~ ~F ~ / 9 ~ ~ 1/14 LIIG /~L Ar / am ~ar ~4f= ~ ~ au r aw n lATD w u ~ en.~ •er..iw a L Nso M s / M177.a~ °.o / G *to ~ •s4• w SITE DEYELOPMENT PLAN ~ ~o• -w Al M ~ Q 1 ~ M e ~ wi w R~ • e C` Ji~~ O O ~ i WAIM I ~ ' ~ ~ LMIi W u"Lrrr i i ~-i----- z k i ~ ~ x< -i`- - ~ _ p ~ r klt~ 1~ M~mlmW~IC1{. ~ # I - - ± ~ ~ ~.o.... : wr w r~ ~ ~ ~ LOVER LEYEL FLOOR PLAN (EXISTING) ItAIN LEYEL FLOOR PLAN u,• . p.w A2 • • . . . + ~ ~ . ~ • ~ ~ « . ~ ~ ..._.~..s. ~ . : : : ~ . p,...«.... ~ a + r w. w~a --r + ~ p a r ~N ~ r+rrw • ~ ~ ~ • ~~It I ~M/ Vf IMf • rr lAII~~1~ ~M ~ • ~~1~ / a K MR l+~I~ • OYMI R~ M~ r ? K ~ ravy ~ evr~ r ww wr~ ~„~w Q • 11a/t M ~Y! ~t rY~'~ 1 /r" •R?{!. YIR~I' • M~ • •K am A ~ ~ s~ w~ rr~.~ ~w ? ww aAm .n • ~ r.r• r ww a r-w%m ww~iu- rr.+ ''?w 4 L A! O s'lvI~ It!! ft! ~ 'MM~' M 1 " ~ r uow?~m~ewav. wrr wm~~tft v/ e.r~r~? M d i,um..mw w, wt^IMlY~ 1~ ~ Iw ~.v u~r e+ n ¦r~ ~a ws~ y ~r ~ /.r'r~ M Y~ W A ~ , i 0 R" wjrLiw ! Lrmm Lam nom ounim s O I..,. MwLIA.. ftgg^ 46R... ..~,u I~V 6R~IIt ~ M +u rr ~ ~ ~ A i ; ~ wr ~-.r ffin? MATR N~0 ~ !11/Sf i ?~'~f F p s °"TM ~i 7 rwrr ~ f yx u iw w K s ~ o byT ~T T I'Y M ( 1 wn. aewrau~ uw wr~ ar auuM. yy, yr l.tlD MMT. ~ rY UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1tOOF PLAN 114- - r -r «r ~3 M ~ O rt'9 : a: A NNY"" • ~ ~urm~ " d LW iwt~a ~om~ 7 W - - - rwIr LsWL nM ~ ~ Zi BaILDING SECTION A BQILDINC BBQiION B . ~~.o- u4• . i•.e- W Q O I ~ . W x . H ~ onari ~ _ reie ----t - ~ ~ - -'fffi`D?a - - ` ~ ~ i r J-~ au r. iw w J_ MIY {r'tl. R= / BUILDINC SECTION C BUILDIN(3 8EC?ION D tir • I. ,a. u.• . r .o• I • ~ . . • • ~ ' r • . p ~ O ~ iuor ~•~e _ "M ~ - - rrr- ~ar mc ~ +~.=w - , 6 ~ ~ > e - - y • } ' f y • M,, I W _ ~ ~f•y' M1M171~. ' _ A ~ FW ~ _ ~ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ ~i'~C. a~ tra ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ ' w•'~' ~wa p ~j ~ 7 ?EST ELEVATION SOUTFI ELBYATION 114• . p.p• b ~ x F ~ N-Ot M11"P1 ?.e p •+~i.*~J'~ &tLvr vnw ' = ~N1sM Ya~71 ~ _ _ _ = ~ 1 ; O ! ! .ua u. ~w f sr r. iw a ~ INIM[!YO- ?IN4~1lD !2! ~ SJIIRIIq !l~ _ _ lPlwLlML ~ 00'4- LOm talL 1 IYfMO ~Ia W Wittt pINIRlD MO NORiH ELEVATION EAsr ELEVATION A5 ~ i,r , -o• ~u• • v -0• . padraiC By DcOt,in T...~.,.M_.._ /~ttiwttcv nt l.~w lZ3G NrYc }t~r.S co, t4,x 1812 C:hrrry Hi11, Nt:~v jvroey {1ROi4 (609) 354 •6115 Fax (G~ 354 •76vti Septemhsr 5, 1996 Wrn 354-0270 Mr. Domirtic Mauriello Community Development Dept. Town of Vail 75 Sauth Frontage Road Vail r CO 81658 RE: 602a Pot+ato Patah Urive Deighan/Sirgit Toome . i Dear Mr. Mauxiel.lo: Thank yvu fvr speaking with me yeaterdt?y',. in reference t~o our ~lartf remodeling applicati~an. I tnvught it necessai~y t• v y one af the remaining issuee. Dur property hes an undivided lot C. My neighbo.-r Mr. Velaequez and I have a 50/50 interest in the entire lot. we•.apent • I over $10,000 in relandscaping the Eastern portion af thaL iot. In September of 1995, we requested trie same architectto provide' ,plene for developing the western side of the lot. Fax one rea$on or anotherr, we never received any p3ans. In the spring of 1096, I aontacted anather landscape archttect in Avon• Nowever, I haVe ncrt received any plans from this individual. We aleo have a realtior who manaqes the property, and she attempted in June and July to have sarte work cotnpleted. T arrived in August only ta find no work had been compiet•ed. i made some effort to do gome wark myse].f. aur architect, Steve Riden, advised me in July that we~wauld have to submi,t landgcape arehitecture plans priar to the inBunnce af any Cextit3.cate of Occupancy. Thi.s was fitie since it has been our intentivn ail along. Mr. Riden lndicated that some 0f the Aspen trees would have to be relocated. we natureily, conCluded that the relocation of the treea would be paxt af a new lanciscape pZan. we aiso repa?ved the driveway in the fd1l of 95 and the home has bsen repainted twice sinGe 1993. Further, we have employed a maintenance man fram Avon to maintain the interior and exterior of tha property. A3.sv, I reviewed our rtew survey with Mr. Rider? arid. I was surprised tv find that the western most portion of the property is • on our lat. I previausly believed that it belongad to Mre. boyer. This is the area that is appurtenant to Mrs. Soyer's driveway end CXLCUCU !-a~c f the prtvate driveway which leads Into our housse. This area will be ~ included in new landscaping plans. If you shculd heve any questi.ons, pieaae do not hesitste ta • contact me. Thank you for your time and cansiderstion in thi.s matter. Ver ruly yo e, ~ Fadr i,c S. Deighen, Eequi.re PsU/jaw I I I I ~ ~ ~ MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development ~ DATE: September 9, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for two exterior additions utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2415 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 22, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Paul Baker and Bob Ruder ~ Ptanner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Councif approved 4rdinance 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 dweHings 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 ihe 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 a(so 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 two 250 requests in order to expand the existing duplex residence. The proposal adds 160 sq. ft. of new GRFA. The site has 68 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining and the request is to add 92 sq. ft. from two 250 requests (46 sq. ft. per unit). The remaining GRFA under the 250 ordinance is 204 sq. ft. per unit. On May 2, 1996, the applicants received DRB approval for a building addition. This request will modify that approval by enclosing the existing decks on the front (south elevation) of the structure. . , ~ Il. ZONING ANALYSIS The foiiowing tabfe provides a summary of the zoning limitations for the site based on the May 2, . 1996 DRB approval. i Zoning: R(ResideMia{ - Two famify) Site Area: 15,280.8 sq. ft. AltowableiRequired Existina Proposed GRFA: 4,628 sq. ft. 4,560 sq. ft.* NIA 'Two 250's: 5,128 Sq. ft, N/A 4,720 sq. ft. ! (46 sq. ft. of a 250 request per unit) Densfty: 2 DU's 2 DU's 2 DtJ's , Neight: 33 ft. No change No Change S+te Coverage: 3,056 sq. ft. (200to) 3,034 (i9.85"/p)` No Change Parking: 5 spaces >7 spaces (4 enclosed) >7 spaces (4 enclosed) *Based on May 2, 1896 DRB approval. 111. CRITERIA AND FlNDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department ; recommends approval of the two requests for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: ; A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additionat GRFA, the Planning and Environmental •Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existina opoaranhy, vegetation, drainaae and existin.g structures. The proposed additions will have minimal, if any, negative impact on the - site. The request encloses two existing decks and will have no effect on the site. 2. Imaact on adjacent properties. The proposed remodel will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. The bulk and mass of the building is only minimally affected. 3. Compliance with the Town's z nina reguirements and ap licable sleveloqment standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vaif Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town ot 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 will have adequate landscaping based on the current DRB • approvaf. Alf utilities are located underground. The property is being 2 upgraded as part of the May 2, 1996 DR8 approval. • B. Findinas: 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 wili not negativeiy 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for Additional GRFA subject to the following findings: 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 Additionaf GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties; and 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with Town zoning j requirements and applicable development standards as they apply to nonconforming sites and structures. F:leveryonelpecM em os\rud er.909 • 3 J iSc a' 1 CA& 1 e $xl~itlG ~ ~ ~ '~r ~ E~ Ti 1 ~~.i 1~^ ` ~ F_.~..___~ _ 'u v i€~ ~ ~ ~ t`dA?i4t'slx~ SI ~ ~ ~ b~.-%m tuo ca+ 6614 • lr'N9~1!il 2a P,~+~T'ilit'i ~y ~~1 y ! ~ 9?+cx~: ~a1s t?e!». a.~e i . , ~ _ ...--i , ,;;i ~ t s_ -r Y-4- ~ ^ ~ °'•F; ~ ` !i1 _ t t 1 ~ N t ~ . ~ - - _ , • ' ~ 1, . ~ z.'•'37143 .i ~ ~ _ 'i. " - ; ~ •:r _~s. i >2,~,--' t ' P'~ t y ~ ti ~ . ~ . r~~ ~ : y•'~'. _ ~ ~y 1 y . f. . . . ' 'l - . . - ,c :t PjUtl~G. ° ~ ti~„~'•:.~~~LtiH:tCi----"+ ';et1L''u1 . ~ - ~ -'^i ' t !7 t%idf: . . . • 5: . . ' i s~j ! _ l :7 h?= ~ . ~ . F?C`T4b~bt :.UClt ~1F:+JN>1rsTiPC~1 s ~ i. ~ : . ~ _ . 4 t'R f % i " ~ 17D tii1 epodip i ~ , . ~ ~ .i ~ '~p' i , i ~ ~ ~ ` i•-__~, _ _ 1:....~_.._~ :Y~'G/CJiitdl.i ~ • ;"T)~ ~ r1LYY'.rtn ~ i . a s ° -.---}t , ~ . w - rn ruaw F~T• _ ? ~ ~ ~ ,LV VeCK S "s---- ~ Ar le /AOM i~. NWt1 -i~______._..f_.Y..--~- rx~~ ~.r~? r - ~ ~ ~ ~my?,x,..aW~, •e, ?w~ 1 ~ - - i~ x r~~ # l:d1C ~ ~ ~ ~ wO rwar.a ~ 'y? _ ` ~ - - 3.kxr ;.rt - --~+~-l------ ~ _._.__-~.i _ _ e ~ ~s l~.P~eD ~ t~ Ya? v Y'a G ! ~ :~t S rl. ~ 1?~ O~G ~ f ~a ~ ~ [ i i r il lIkYN i ~ ~1TJL~ tk1 i bICYN S,+uf~1LS1,1. i; i ~~~i,`~,~' • i r~ nais d: csa:evNSt.r~ ~ : i r.m~ ~a~ r-r~s~ 4 sra~r _ _ ~,~u?scs~ s'V' " ~.._-_,-~.Zt.._..~...~'__...-. ~~T NAAAIN FLOO~R. u~:. v~io ea?-,~i 9RMrt . 1~l Tc~ q~lrT ...n-••• 1lG11,R. Y4' ~ t.IW P. G ,wr-OuP 801 467 21495 P.02 ,I li ~ • i \ ~t ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ / } ' ~ ~ O 0 ~ f f ~ ~>EiSTiNC~ ~ ~ -r ~ ~..;~~N uW 1 0 ~ ~ ~ I ~ I LU~ ~ ~ r 1 oY : j ~ '~r.' ~.-~....-r •r:.. ,Y, ' ~ ~ - ~ r C,?: ReUi«.~ FL~'iOR ; ~ ~ ~X, l i i ~ j ~ p, ~•n ; ,S;f . 7`' w 1 ~1 f ~ ~n E •_"_;T ~C ± 'Y ~ i.a 1 ; ~ ~ i~ S ~ i ~...._-!--i - _ ~ ....'iy~ i :E~ ~ ~ ~ !'Z' _ a,•• n `'~L ..E ,T Rr-,«i' L„(rdE C?F EXIvTI1`JG 4ZOC7+ ilNE i ~ MEMORANDUM . ' TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1996 . SUBJECT: A request for a wali height variance to allow for a six-foot waU, located in the front setback 1239 Westhaven Circle/Lot 37, Glen Lyon Applicant: Daryl Brown, represented by Saliy Brainerd Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST The appiicant, Darryl Brown, represented by SaUy Brainerd of RKD, Inc., is proposing to construct a 6' tall retaining wall in the required front setback on the downhill side of Westhaven Circle. The retaining wall is intended to accommodate a proposed driveway access to a residence under construction, at 1239 Westhaven Circle. The retaining wall will be constructed of large boulders and is designed to preserve three, mature aspen trees on the property. The wall will be constructed in a manner, so that the only areas where the watl height exceeds 3', is in ~ the area immediately south of each of the three mature aspen trees (see attachment). The portions of the retaining wall Iocated between the aspen trees will be brought into compliance with the Town of Vail Municipal Code. This will be accomplished through the construction of a second, lower-tier, 3' tall retaining wall. The applicant is proposing to install additional landscaping in the areas around and between the existing aspen trees, to mitigate any visual impacts associated with the 6' tall retaining wall. A substantial redesign of the proposed driveway is not possible. The driveway now just meets the Fire Department emergency vehicle access requirement. An emergency vehicle must be - able to access the property from both the east and the west. In order to accomodate this requirement, the driveway width must be increased to accomodate the wide turning radius of an emergency vehicle. According to Section 18.58.020 C(Fences, Hedges, Walls and Landscape Screens) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, retaining walls shall not exceed 3' in height within any required front setback area and shall not exceed 6' in height in any other portion of the site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.58.020 C(Fences, Hedges, Walls and Landscape Screens) to allow for the construction of a retaining wall up to 6' in height in the required front setback. According to the plans submitted by the applicanYs representative, approximately 17 (ineal feet of retaining wall will exceed the 3' height limitation. It is important to note that it is only in a few locations along the retaining wall that the wall height reaches the proposed 6' height. • 1 ~ II. BACKGROUND • On April 12, 1995, the Town of Vail Design Review Board conditionally approved the • proposed plans for a new primary/secondary residence to be located at 1239 Westhaven Circle/Lot 37, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The Design Fteview Board's approval carried with it six conditions. Each of the six conditions of approval were met by the applicant, pursuant to a revised set of plans submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. • On May 1, 1995, the applicant's General Contractor, J.L. Viele Construction, applied for a building permit to begin construction of the proposed Brown dupiex. • On July i, 1995, the Town of Vail Building Division issued a building permit for the construction of the proposed Brown duplex. Construction of the duplex has since commenced and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the structure has been issued. It was during the inspection of the properry for the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy that staff determined that the proposed retaining walls on the south side of the property were not in compliance with the approved site plan and Town of Vail Municipal Code. ~ On August 14, 1996, staff met with the applicant and his representatives regarding the retaining wall issue. Elevations of top of the retaining wall and driveway were shot. Results indicate that ihe top of the retaining wall and the driveway were constructed as approved with deuiations of less than one foot. It is the bottom of wall elevations which do not correspond with the elevations indicated on the topographic survey and approved site plan. 111. CRITERIA q.ND FINDINGS • Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approvat of the requested wall height variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the proposed walf height variance will have minimal, if any negative impacts on existing potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The retaining wall in question is on the downhill side of upper Westhaven Circle and is generally not visible from lower Westhaven Circle. The applicant has proposed to add additional {andscaping in the area of the retaining wall to mitigate any visual impacts of the 6' tall wall. Because of the steepness of the lots in the Glen Lyon Subdivision, most of the developed lots have 6' tatl retaining walis somewhere on the lot. The wali proposed by the app{icant, wiil therefore, not be out af place or be viewed as an unusual structure in the area. . 2 t 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and . enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibilifiy and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. II Staff finds that the strict and literal interpretation enforcement of the 3' wa , height limitation could present an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. Staff recognizes that the applicant could meet the basic intent of the 3' height limitation through a major redesign and additional site disturbance. The applicant could comply with the 3' height limitation by constructing . additional retaining walls and by removing the three aspen trees. Staff ' feels, hawever, that this would result in negative impacts to the site and neighborhood. Staff further feels that the granting of an approval of the applicant's wall height variance request will not be a grant of special privilege. Staff believes the steepness of the lot constitutes a hardship. Staff believes the retaining wall height variance request is the minimum amount of re(ief from the wall height limitations ta achieve the necessary objectives. Staff is concerned however, that the proposed wall height variance, if requested with the original proposal for the construction of the duplex, would not have been approved. Staff believes then, the applicant would have been directed to redesign the driveway access point to insure compliance with the requirements prescribed by the Town of Vail Municipal Code. ' • 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. Staff does not believe the requested wall height variance would affect the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance w+ll 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 reguiation 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 3 r ~ ' 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. $TAFF RECOM ENDATION , The Planning staff is recommending approval of the applicanYs request for a watl height variance to atlow for the completion of the construction of a driveway at the Brown duplex, located at 1239 Westhaven Circie/Lot 37, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Staff believes that the strict and literai interpretation and enforcement of the specifietl regulations would cause an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. And thai, in faci, a grant of special privilege would not result if the applicanYs proposed wall height variance were granted. Furthermore, staff finds that the Criteria and Findings listed above have been met by the , applicant with this proposal. Specifically, Findings 6.1, 8.2, and 3a, b, and c, have been met by the applicant. Should the Pianning and Environmental Commission choose to grant the appiicanYs wall height variance request, staff would recommend ihat the approval carry with it the following condition: , That the applicant submit a revised landscape plan for staff's review and approval indicating the proposed landscaping to be added in the newly created lower retaining wafl bench, intended to mitigate the visuaf impact of the retaining walls. • 4 ~ ~ ~Q~~.`y . r.r: N K/ . 40 . . p M 4 1200 . . y~o~' , • . , - _ , ; . ~ . o 41 z w vc) pARKtiNG 1210 = ?ST 4FFICE GHJCAn V STRUCTURE tNOY oaysjRUaEOt / 1295 J~ MANSFIEI.D ; 1300 vI',,,. - GE CONDOMINIUMS . 1275 ,..J . . . j . . , 43 42 1225 1220 . 25 PLAZA : • ~ : . r • BLOG• ~g1~ 44 o Go 41 0 1 M t cA _ ,~'1N 12 55.' S -MtLL W E 3z ~ t32~D ..-NOTE.I. . 1335 4 1360 1300 46 2 ~ t,.1-RACE ~9 • - • s . 47 • . _ . CpLOSTREAM 7 ~ 1265 1230 53 • 48 Zs} ' 1476 . 49 295. ~ . • 1415 gp 1:325 1249 52 135 4 a ~ SEi ~ t385 3 5 30 ~ PARK . . z,3 . 250 , q~~~ -p01NTE MpVy TRACT ~ E / , j ~ , k F 0 ~ • IiACH AND KAZ[I5E-N 1DESYGN, HNC. AitCHITECTURC• ANU DGVELOPMENT toov Lioneridgc I.oop #gd, Vail, Colorado, 81657 phonc:(97o) 416-9228 fax: (97o) 476-qo23 REQUEST FOR A WALL HEIGHT VARIANCE IN THE FRONT 5ETBACK LOT 37, GLEN I.YON SUBDIVISION This variance request has been made necessary by a 5-to-6-foot boulder wall being built on the downhill side of the upper driveway. The wall was constructed according to approved plans, except that it was not possible in the field for the excavator to achieve the bench between two 3-foot walls. Several trees have been saved, which would have been destroyed, and the owner intends to fully landscape the wall with groundcover and shrubs to further conceai it. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in thc vicinily: ' The wall which involves the requested variance is facing downhill, and due to the trees which were saved by constructing the wall this way, the wall is virtually not visible from any other property or pubiic way. The degree to whicU relief from the strict or literal interpre.tation and enfoi'CCI11CIlt of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatmeiit among sites in the vicinity or to attaiii the objectives of this title without grant or spccial privilcgc: ln the vicinity of the requested variance, many propertics havc G-foot and over boulder walls in the front setback. Boulder walls are easy to landscape, and the result will blend nicely with the surrouiiding properlics. Strict enforcement of the regulation would resutt in the reilioval of the mature aspens which will blend the landscaping of Lot 37 with its surroundings. The effcct of thc variancc on light aud air, distributian of population, trarlsportation, traffic facilitics, utilitics, and public safety: None. I-low thc r•equcst cornplics with Vail's Coinprcliciisivc I'lan: It would be impossible to visually perceive, without a site plan, that a non-conforming situation exists. • E ~ ? MQ ~ ti ~ . , , ' . ~ 13 ~ f 4 l~f ~o~~.•P~`-~- .o f! j~1"1'~?~ ~ ~,i't 43o~~.-A Pt p- ' F ~ ~ _ y~~l,,.LS 6 ~f?c~G. i CM WO v ti D GOV r-42- r - ~ ~/~N a ~ ~ fr' jl l • i i f . j/ j ~ / , ? 1• ou I?-~r~.-~- ~ MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission/Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksession with the Planning and Environmental . Commission and the Design Review Board to review a request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1. Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the United States Forest Service and the Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST • The property, located at 845 Red Sandstone Road, is under consideration for a rezoning and a Special Development District. The current zoning is General Use District. The proposed zoning is Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF). The applicants include the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District), the United States Forest Service and the Town of Vail. The District owns approximately three-quarters of the land area under consideration. The Forest Service currently owns one-quarter of the land area. The Town and Forest Service are currently . in negotiations to transfer the ownership of the smaller portion to the Town, as part of the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA). The site is currently vacant, except for a water treatment and storage plan, which is now defunct. The plant is not presently used for any purpose. If the request is approved, the applicant will construct seventeen condominiums. The dwelling units will be located in four buildings, located along the Red Sandstone Creek. There will be six one-bedroom, six two-bedroom, and five three- bedroom dwelling units. Each dwelling unit will have its own garage. The primary reason the applicant is proposing an SDD at this time is to provide a detailed record of the future development now, at the time of rezoning, to eliminate yuestions about future development potential. The SDD is a helpful tool as it requires answers to questions about the potcntial development impacts from the rezoning. ln addition to that primary purpose, there are two deviations from the Zoning Code, which would either require variances or be allowed via the • 1 F:\everyone\pec\memossandstone.909 SDD approval. These include setbacks within the project and wall heights. The applicant is proposing a retaining wall between the edge of Red Sandstone Road and thc . interior driveway. Due to the fact that this area is located in the front setback, the Town Zoning Code limits the height to three feet The applicant is proposing a 4' high wall, wluch is a deviation from the code. Secondly, the layout of the existing parcels is such that deviations from the setback standards are triggered. The overall developrnent application is broken down into 3 parcels; two held by the District, one by the Forest Service. The lot lines separating these parcels require setbacks. However, due to the fact that the entire parcel will ultimately be resubdivided and a condominium map will be created, these lines will be eliminated in the future. This is more of a technicality and could be eliminated at this time if a resubdivision were proposed. In any event, it is not a substantial issue. It is one, for tracking purposes, that is listed later in the memo as a condition of approval. Upon completion of the LOAA, the Town will have title to the northern-most portion of the development site. The Town and the District will hold the land until a Homeowner's Association (HOA) can be created. Upon establishment of an HOA, the Town and the District will transfer ownership of all the land to the Association. There is no developer profit anticipated for the project. The sales price of the condominiums will be based on the cost of construction. In the development agreement between the District and the Town, there is an allowance for up to 25% of the units to be sold as free-market dwelling units (i.e. no deed restrictions). The purpose for this is to defray the costs and lower the pwchase price for the future homeowners. At this tirne, it • I is anticipated that 100% of the units will be deed restricted and not sold on the open market. The deed restriction will be similar to that used for Vail Commons. Aftcr construction, it is anticipated that most of the homes will be owner occupied. The Town and the District will make the homes available to their employees. While the Town anticipates selling the dwelling units to its employees, the District will both sell and retain ownership of some _ of its units to rent to its employees. 2 F:\everyone\pec\memas\van8stone.909 • • II. ZONING ANALYSIS Staff has provided a Zoning Anaiysis of the proposed project, as it compares to the MDMF standards. Lot Size: 1.6044 acres Buildable lot area: 54, 140 sq. ft. Ilowed osed DensiTy 22 d.u.s 17 d.u.s I Ieight: 35' 35' GRFA: 18, 949 sq. ft. 16, 275 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' Side/Side 20' 20' Rear: 20' 20' Site Coverage: 31, 450.5 sq. ft. 12,029 sq. ft. or 45 % or 17% Reauired Proposed ~ Landscaping: 20, 967 sq. ft. 37, 599 sq. ft. or 30% or 54% Parking: 34 spaces 44 spaces Required proposed Percent enclosed: 50% of 53% enclosed required parking III. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST The criteria the Town has used in the past to evaluate rezoning requests are listed below. A. Is the request in conformity with the Land Use Plan? The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates these parcels as Medium Density Residential (MDR), which translates to a density of 3- 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Page 32 of the Land Use Plan calls for the foilowing type of developments in areas with this designation: • 3 i "The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with commons walls. Densities in , this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre." ~ The builda.ble area of the combined sites is 1.24 acres. As the proposed development will be 17 dwelling units, the resulting density will be 13.71 d.u./ae. which is less than what the Land Use Plan prescribes. Please note that this calculation is based on buildable site area, not total site axea. Additionally, the requested zoning of Medium Density Multifamily Residential allows for up to 18 , dwelling units per buildable acre. In addition to the designation by the Land Use Plan, another important document regulating the development of this type of land is the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA). In general, the document provides for a comprehensive transfer of land between the Town of Vail and the Forest Service. Land on the perimeter of the Town of Vail holds different values to both the Forest Service and the Town. The LOAA is an effort to exchange different properties between the two entities to create a win-win situation. As part of this effort, several parameters were laid out for the use of the lands under consideration. Some of these include: "1. That there will be no National Forest Service lands within the municipal limits of the Town of Vail, 2. That the Forest Service survey, identify, and maintain a common boundary • of the Town of Vail and the Forest Service and that both agencies share in the enforcement of regulations pertaining to the boundaries. The boundary has been simplified where possible, irregularities have been reduced or eliminated. 3. That all lands acquired by the Town of Vail are used for public purposes, - such as open space, employee housing (for the Town of Vail employee housing ordinance), recreation or for the resolution of unauthorized uses." The LOAA was approved by the Town Council on May 17, 1994. Staff rclies on it as the most authoritative document concerning the transfer of tand from the Forest Service to the Town of Vail and staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the objectives laid out in the LOAA. B. Have circumstances changed since the originai zoning was placed on the property? The District has used the facility in the past for water treatment and storage. It is no longer needed by the Dish-ict. The site is surrounded by rights-of-way and roads, utilities, infrastructure, and other condominium and townhouse 4 • I developments. Staff believes that because the area has developed over time as a • residential neighborhood, that it is reasonable to rezone this site to allow residential development. C. Does the proposed zoning provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? Staff believes that the developrnent of this site as affordable housing will increase the viability of our community. Affordable housing has been listed in the Town's annual cornmunity survey as a top priority, for reasons of economic stability as well as the desire to increase the sense of community. Though interest runs high, locating sites which can accommodate affordable housing is difficult. Housing at this location addresses the priorities of the community and enhances the viability of the Town. D. Does the proposed zoning present a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The land uses on the surrounding properties are similar to the uses of the proposed development. The applicant has prepared an analysis of the densities of the surrounding properties, which is shown below: • Proiect Zone DistricU Parcel Units Gross Densi ~ Permitted Densitv Size (du/ac) Potato Patch Club RC, 6/ac ± 10 acres 44 4,0 Sandstone Park LDMF, 9/ac 1.54 16 10.3 Brooktree MDMF, 18/ac 1.23 acres 48 22.0 Cotton wood Park LDMF, 9/ac .69 acres 7 10,1 Aspen tree MDMF, 18/ac .49 acres 15 30.6 I Sandstone Creek Club LDMF, 9/ac 5.9 acres 84 14.2 Sun Vail MDMF, 18/ac 4.91 acres 60 12.2 Breakaway West MDMF, 18/ac 1.87 acres 54 28,8 SnowLionlSnowFox MDMF, 18/ac 1.36 acres 42 30.8 Telemark MDMF, 18/ac .96 acres 18 18.7 Homestake MDMF, 18/ac 136 acres 66 48.5 Lionsmane MDMF, 18/ac 1.04 acres 37 35.5 Vail Village 9th 2-Family 3.39 acres 24 (potential) 7.0 Parcel A General Use 5.7 acres 0 0 The gross density of the proposed development is 10.6 dwelling units per acre. (17 units/ 1.6044 gross acres = 10.6 du/ac) As such, it is well within the range of the densities in the area. • 5 E. Suitability of the proposed zoning. Staff believes that the proposed zoning is suitable for this site. The development • allowed by the rezoning will allow the community to move towards its goals regarding the supply of afforda.bly priced homes. The development will be in line with surrounding projects, concerning uses and density. V. EVALUATION OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REOUEST A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties, relative to the architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes that the architectural scale, bulk and building height are all successful. Staff is concerned about the identity and the character of the project. Specifically, staff is concemed about the flat roofs. The surrounding developments in the Sandstone area range in age and quality, and none have flat roofs. Many have a combination of flat and pitched roofs. For example, Sandstone Park has steeply pitched sheds and gables in conjunction with flat roofs. Brooktree has a combination of a mansard-type roof with a flat roof. Aspentree and Potato Patch Club both have built-up gravel roofs, which are pitched at relatively shallow slopes. Staff believes that one of the significant elements in each of the • surrounding properties is the roof eave overhang. We believe that this gives architectural character to the development, as it creates a shadow line, breaks up the mass and bulk, and creates a character that is appreciated by the general public. Staff does not want to discount the overall quality of the design. However, we believe that the character should be modified by adding pitched roofs to the flat roofs in a way similar to Sandstone Park, immediately adjacent to the project to the west. Of particular concern to staff is the height of the flat roofs relative to the road elevation surrounding the project. We believe that the roof areas will be highly visible from the surrounding area. The elevation at the comer of Red Sandstone Road and Potato Patch Drive is approximately 2- 3 feet higher than the elevation of the second story roofs. Since pedestrians and drivers on the road will be higher than the roof elevation, the flat roofs will have greater exposure. Although a detail, staff believes the roof penetrations and utility vents should be consolidated and screened, as they will also be highly visible. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. • 6 Staff believes that the uses, activity and density will be compatible with the • surrounding development. As discussed above, under the evaluation of the rezoning request, the proposed density is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and will be lower than the surrounding development in the area. ` C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements, as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The proposed development exceeds the Zoning Code requirement regarding the . total supply of parking spaces, as well as the supply of enclosed parking spaces. Each of the condominiums will have its own oversized garage. The applicant must ensure that each of the exterior spaces conforms with the minimum dimensions of the Town Code (9'x19'). The applicant will revise the site plan between the worksession and the final review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. D. Confarmity with the apglicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. The Vail Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) calls for a density on this site ranging from 3-14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development, at 13.1 , dwelling units per buildable acre, is consistent with the Land Use Plan. A thorough analysis of the consistency with the Land Use Plan is provided above, ~ under the rezoning discussion. E. Identification and mitigarion of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which this Special Development District is proposed. _ The only hazard affecting this site is the 100-year floodplain. All improvements . will be located outside of the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development, responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of community. The site plan and building design have been developed to take full advantage of the open space area along Red Sandstone Creek. Each of the dwelling units will abut this corridor, which will increase the quality of life of the residents of this development. In the site planning development, the 30' stream setback standard of the Town has been respected, providing a buffer between the riparian corridor and the development. There is one location where some of the existing vegetation will be removed. Tom Braun, the representative for the development, has said that the • District will transplant vegetation during the construction process. 7 • • G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressin$ on and ~ off-site traffic circulation. • ' Vehicular circulation has been a challenge to accommodate on the site, as the entrance to the proposal is adjacent to the existing entrance to Brooktree and Sandstone Park. Staff and the applicant have evaluated the merits of consolidating curbcuts in this area or creating a separate curbcut. The proposal to be reviewed on September 9th shows two separate curbcuts. However, recent discussions with the Town Engineer indicate that a consolidated curbcut, on the southern end of the site, may be the safest for all parties involved. The applicant will be researching this altemative prior to the final hearing in front of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Concerning pedestrian circulation, staff has requested that the existing sidewalk along Red Sandstone Road be continued up to the entrance to this development. Additionally, staff believes that a pedestrian connection should be provided between the development and the bus stop, located on Red Sandstone Road, just north of this project. Two important details which relate to circulation are areas for snow storage and location of trash receptacles. Snow will be stored along the driveway, on the east side as well as at the northern end of the drive. There will be a screened trash dumpster located at the southern end of the site, near the entrance to the development. • H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space, in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. The landscaping plan shows that 23 spruce, 54 aspen and 8 cottonwood trees will be planted across the site. Staff reyuests that the applicant study ways to buffer _ the project more from adjacent properties, particularly from Red Sandstone Road. Staff understands that there is a very steep slope in this area, plus reta,ining walls, which limits the plantable area. However the need to buffer with landscaping must be addressed further. . Staff also request that the existing vegetation be shown on the grading plan/site plan. Though most of the site is covered with native grasses, there are a few trees which should be preserved. The large spruce (24 inch caliper) on the north west comer of the site is proposed to be preserved. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of this Special Development District. At this time, it is anticipated that the development would be completed in a single • 8 phase. If for any reason, the Forest Service and the Town cannot complete the transfer of ownership of the northernrnost part of the state, the District will proceed ahead with construction of the first three buildings. A condition of approval will be to have the District resubdivide all the parcels into one lot, thus eliminating the need for setbacks on the interior of the site. As part of the initial phase, staff understands that the existing overhead utility lines will be buried. This change must be added to the plans, documenting the existing and proposed conditions. VI. CONCLUSION As this is a worksession, staff does not have a formal recommendation. • • 9 i . x Plant Key +~y C,,,nynum___ iy_arlvic ~k,lenhfic ivauc x rr` ~ c < ( ~~Cofor+do Spsua P~<ei pwiqem B' ht ave. 23 O~, o < ~ QwYm;ASpen C~,~,ulus Uemnlnetr' 1-2111' J~ u b ~larcekJConmwaod Populusacummnu 11l1'cd. 8 - BaiIWSOoqwood (amwxncea Hnd-i YS 19 m~ ~Hopa Cnb.pple Ualm Hopi 3"al. 6 'o a~ 0 qandde PWmells fotrmdlj, hwua",+ klondike' AS !9 " ~ %'ACve/ WJdflower SeeA Mix .W DlMVbed Artas ~ Plueerass Sod 5800 f.f. ~ wuanawer seea r,oas.i. V I' Note: L Fin arcttihctunl and Site PlJn infumuHun refer m MoNer Archiltcb dcawings. ~ I 2. For g I g mMmutian, rekr ro Emlimeelig peOnwmin, ine N 3. Flans tesations ue preGminac), and will h staked by Ovner s reqmmlanve I Edgeuftitream -i- pnorrohnalwtallatian. Ez4tlnSTnerote~euln . ' • ~O ` _ ~ \`~~l / ~ ^ • ~ ~ -^-----4.-~~- ~ . ~ D 1. n4 ~ P1ti0 ~ \ ' saw ~ . ,O~ tfNio . ' . ,^F: .j , •~L.' . ~ 0 , , 't..• . v P~tlo 'V •,i.' ~i Building 11D11 - • Patio o • _ ; O r r~no u ~ : ..r, ~ ~ ~ Building "A" , P'°° Building "C' i Building "B" • • , / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ , a 40 ~ o . ,t I. ln > Oa~i ~ n P . , --rr--~c~~i._ Y „ ~ ~ 0 ~ V R ~ a , • , • w , x y ~ ~ aWa 1 ~e4l ,•-201-0" ~ Nmth 8 snea L-1 of ()I* . i • ~ axreKxa~naw 'aBtnw~wrtp\ .~C~~\ I Ktx rrt \ . ma a apu~ ' ~1 !^ItMI`It4~_.~ ' ~ _Y2~.,_ ~ . IM .y'~ 1 VkNt __1 ~ln~ . J~'/~'~~;~//, . ' ~ ~ ~ • 1,/~J ~~.p N Mtl1 ~MR10~ vWT IKWIM 200 a»e a» nu~rM."ti , .,1~° eqtAtr US ~LDG. ? ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ DLDG. 1 war ~iAn ~ /N ~ aore DLDG - i ,so ~ 1 1 m uu ~ 7u~ttM ~ tac rw e.h ~ p I ~ i J~ ~ ~ uv~ 2 0 nav I ~ p Q 0 0 F- x OV i.' z Ln > rAMIO .p ;~oN, uw Q r i'~"~ WQ ~ ~ U J~. 6Q 3~, w W ~ c. ~J . ~ Q ? a `4S'~fr ~v~~ Pn ` • p~ _ l ~S . SO ~ w LEGeND ~ /60, se I y 4 au~ av OK.~ \ • ~ ~ 00 G41ilIN 1. WMTWA ri - ~ - - t111iINi q' GONTOUA ua~ .~J 1 'n~f [XqrIfN frof W/DC n~oroseo r coxraW MMMtD q' CONiWII nanniMe _~ce. NOTES iS.re, n~aeee n we rAun wncnIw art a iuna: Wnµ ~ur or arru06 ~ ~ w W. W&i 1 /AAMtt MtNX1f • M SITE PLAN PRELiMiNARY u" P • 2o1.a1 ~ ET Whftp A0,1 , i ,«n c ftmxK _ Lwo+. ,==lu. ~ ~50 n. ubz.rc , • ' ~ ~ I I UNGCp% w5aieed f Mu1%Y ~ 1 ce~py I ~ ~ ~ • r_ _ ' ` . . 1 I ~ _ .a...r^• " I I ~ r7~ ~ vr ~;o vmmul , - ? I bfl %cGrV LE~.r~~.~ Z 4 ~FtA'J va^•~',~° , ~T\ < -177 , v~•~~~a~ Z 7d ~ ue~ ae srox LWn «CVM - r,19C.n~ TH76K , ~ cz • ~ " z~~w 31 uW c" n 9C ~ unCCCx ree~ ~ at ~ I vt °w'?rm I I l aor _ . a I =aa~~ . I A-la~ ~ I mtt - ~ ~ _ -•ti G~,~: .11,WY~75 I ` k M :J cAva Wct mnuTa ' , - ~ _ I - ra!u?a n - t ~ I ~ - - - AI ,2 ~ frw wa F1lra R.M ~ V 8" • I' 4" I/8" • I'-0". . i ' - ~ , : , i - _ . . ~ , . ~ +u~ ro~sac nru Heesa wa roieea i4 16K i1N#K CA11.K rea I cez u+aux ,I I ( ! ».a~ ~ ~ W,Kleba I , , ! u4G[W . ! I i 1:::.~ .i t~nxw r,th ,em: I - - - ~ OEiCLYI ~ I I I ~ Ir- rA} • r . FDOF WN ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~EV~a ~.a?t ~.av v~ Q q us~•r4~ ` iie~~•r~„ ~ ~ 77 ~ ~~~em rrare~. C,3 ~ • rr~arc. ae~.rc ~ ~ ~ u+cm I I I ~ wapr ~ I w~a~ 1 I r' 115 I aox ~ i i ~ ~ W+ _.w._ R.,° lW1!'! -_~•;:_~.,:.~c... ~•,;,j I .i ' v I~~ ~ ~9f.:• ni O ~ ~ ~ e~ Q e 4,1ViDYf ft11Ji.RFN raa4itv " .I p~ OV470m _ u . _ ~ Cf q ~ 502 . ; _ . ~ ~ - : - ! ~ ~ • • ~ - ~ _ ~ I ~ . GA?: JJ4 16.F-q6 , , . ~ - Ir-F w~z lMI. 'rL00R F.AV _ n FkSf lEVxl, fLGL'kPIAU A ~ I/8'•I'9" ' I/9"•I'-C' ! 1j i~ .f . ~ ~ I ~ - = _ = - - - - - _ - _ 77 ~ ~ . - _ - - - - ' - . : --4 - - - - - _ ~ NG~f'r1 rJ,~VA110N V~Si qlA1W . ~ !/9''•I'U" ~ I/&'•I'U' i ~ ~ . ~ . ~ - r ` - ^ - - ~ - - - . - - ~ - , _ _ ' r - ~ . : u : 50,lrH ELE,r,arjoN Fa ~ ~ 5~ '•i ~ IJ a Q„ ~ I/8" • I'ti"' • . . _E~ . . • ' 1 ~ , . . - ~ . , ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ - - _ - - - r = = - - - - . ~ - - ' • ~ ~ rw~C•ra Z Xuua•ra b~ ~ E ~ v VN S E I w- ~ ~ ~ ~ W - - - . vm":.Wr . - - - - - ~ _ _ _ ' _ - _ - _ - _ - - ' ccktzor er r+r ~ - - - - _ I nti~ JA L6.iQs6 I I Mr~ F~;! GFIIfL*J ' s I xu v~.ra fu vt•rv n~ ~ i ~ exmv ~ A2,2' , . , . . . _ . t MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission ~ FRpM; Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1996 SUBJECT: A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and activities. 1. BACKGROUND Within the Town of Vail, banners may be displayed to announce or promote community events or activities. The Vail Municipal Code does not define a"community event." Staff has interpreted community events to mean activities open to the general public, such as Vail America Days. Before a banner can be displayed, staff must review and approve the banner design and location. Attached is the specific text of the Sign Code that controls the display of banners. Recently, the Town has received several requests for banners for events that are not • specifically community related. Most commonly, requests are from conference organizers who wish to display a"welcome banner" at the host hotel. Typically, the banner would indicate the conference name, place and date. Staff has historically denied these requests because they are not community events, as interpreted by staff. However, staff believes that banners for these types of events should be allowed in order to welcome people to our community and pramote conferences and conventions within Vail. II. DISCUSSION In order to aid the PEC is this discussion, staff has identified the pros and cons associated with allowing conferences (and potentially other activities) to display banners outside. Pros: ? Allows groups to display banners to welcome people to conferences. ? Promotes conference activities within Vail. Cons: ? There may be an increase in the number of banners displayed in town. ? May encourage other groups to display banners that may not be a community event or a conference. ? Because there are so many conferences that occur in Vail, it may be difficult to determine what are welcoming banners for events and what is advertising. • , . III. OPTIONS Staff has identified three options that could be pursued should the PEC decide that the use . of banners for conferences should be allowed. If the desired option rcquires a change to the Sign Code, staff would bring the change to the PEC for their recommendation to Town Council. 1. Staff reinterprets, with PEC support, "community events and activities" to include such events as conferences. The use of banners at conferences could be restricted to a location at the conference hotel for a period of 24 hours. 2. Change the Sign Code to allow banners to be used for community events and for conferences. Specific regulations for banners at conference hotels could be established, including length of time that banner may be displayed, location of banner and number of banners allowed at one time. A definition of "community events and activities" would be added to the definitions section of the Zoning Code. 3. Continue to restrict the use of banners to strictly community events. • I ~ , g. 16.04.030 Banners, pennants or buntin • "Banners, pennants or bunting" means any announcement device affixed to poles, wires or ropes for the purpose of announcing or promoting community events or activities or decorating the ~ town for special holidays. 16.20.010 Signs Permitted in Zoning Districts - Flags, pennants, banners and bunting. Flags, pennants, banners and bunting shall be regulated as follows: ~ A. Purpose, to control the proper display and maintenance of national, state, or official flags and the erection and maintenance of pennants, banners and bunting; B. Size sha11 be as follows: 1. Flags, subject to design review, except national and state flags, which shall have proportions as prescribed by presidential declaration, 2. Pennants and banners, subject to approval by the administrator, subject to design review; C. Height, 3. Banners shall have a minimum clearance of eight feet over pedestrian ways aad fifteen feet over vehicular ways; , D. Number, subject to the approval of the administrator, subject to design review; E. Location, subject to the approval of the administrator, subject to design review; F. Design, excepting official flags, shall be at the approval of the administrator, subject to ! design review; • G. Lighting, indirect; H. Landscaping, subject to design review; 1. Special provisions shall be as follows: 1. Flags, et al, shall be maintained in a clean and undamaged condition. 2. Pennants, banners and bunting referring to community events or activities will be allowed to be displayed far a period of no more than fourteen days. Christmas decorations are exempt the time period, but must be removed when their condition has deteriorated so that they are not aesthetically pieasing. Application must state who will be responsible for removal. In the event the pennants, banners or bunting are not removed on the specified date, written notice by certified mail will be given to the responsible person and the items will be removed by the town at the owner's expense. 4. Banners, pennants, bunting or decorations of a temporary nature used for the purpose of promoting community activities sha11 be exempted from the application procedure described in this title; however, the written permission of the administrator must be obtained subject to design review. ~ APPROY ~ ~ CL rn t996 ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION , September 9, 1996 • Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: DRB MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Brent Aim Susan Connelly , Greg Amsden Ted Hingst Mike Mollica Henry Pratt Clark Brittain Dirk Mason Galen Aasland Dominic Mauriello John Schofield George Ruther Gene Uselton Lauren Waterton Diane Golden Andy Knudtsen Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing 2:00 P•m• The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:10 p.m. 1. A request for a residential addition to expand the existing kitchen, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 930 Fairway Drive/Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing Applicants: Morris and Miriam Futernick Planner: Dirk Mason . Dirk Mason gave an overview of the applicant's request to expand an existing deck. After the site visit, Dirk explained it was located on the rear of the property. The applicant is entitled to this 250 and siaff is recommending approval. Greg Moffet asked for comments from the applicant, or any public comment. There was none. Dirk Mason stated that he received a letter from the owner of the west half of the duplex and the owner was in favor of the request. John Schofield had no problem with the request, but did suggest that staff work with the Council to change the requirement for a Geological Study, since he did not feel it necessary. Gene Uselton agreed with John's comments regarding the study, as it was a cost that could be avoided. Greg Amsden agreed with the staff recommendation. Galen Aasland agreed with the staff recommendation. Diane Golden had no comments. Henry Pratt agreed with the staff recommendation. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • September 9, 1996 1 Greg Moffet agreed with John's comments. • Greg Amsden made a motion for approval per the staff recommendation, as stated in the staff memo. ~ The motion was seconded by Henry Pratt. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. I 2. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and to add a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the request. He stated that the applicant wished to bring portions of the roof up to 30' and the sloping portions up to 32'. A concern with the neighbors regarding this application was the general maintenance of the property and the architectural compatibility with the neighborhood. Staff was recommending approval with one additional condition. The applicant did not have the consent from the other owner for improvements on the common parcel. The applicant had requested that the PEC not consider the deck over the common parcel and approve the request without that portion of the deck. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant's representative, Steve Riden, had nothing to add. Greg then asked for any public comments. • Luc Meyer had lived across from the applicanYs property since 1977. He was the first permanent resident of Potato Patch and he had never met the owner, Mr. Deighan. He received a notice from the Town of Vail. Luc was concerned about the height of the house and the proposed roof deck. When it was originally built, it was built on fill and was higher than approved. Luc was also concerned about the exterior look and the deck. Dominic Mauriello said the deck on the common parcel was located on the back side of the house. Luc Meyer said his house was looking right onto the applicant's roof deck. Luc Meyer had a letter from Mr. Velasquez and Mr. Davidson. All were opposed to the deck. The other concern was that the applicant had never done anything about his landscaping. Luc wanted to make sure that a provision (upon approval) would require that the landscaping be done. The house was for sale, and Luc felt that this request was to gain more of a profit. Greg Moffet asked for any additional public comment. Mrs. Boyer of 804 Potato Patch, stated that the applicant's property was Iocated to the east of her property. She realized that the request was within ihe regulations to add another floor, but she felt it would look topsy turvy; tall on one side of the house and flat on the other side. She was also concerned about the landscaping. The property is left in a mess all the time. Mr. Velasquez had done so much landscaping on his side of the duplex lot. She just wanted the Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • September 9, 1996 2 PEC to take this lack of maintenance and incompatible architecture into consideration. She was not in favor of another floor going up. She ob1'ected to a roof deck, which was unsuitable for • other neighbors to look down onto it. The applicant could have dogs locked out on the deck. There are a lot of local full time residents that live in Potato Patch. Steve Riden, representing Mr. Deighan, submitted a letter concerning the landscaping proposal, detailing similar features to the other building on the site. He will be proposing landscape improvements and expected to see this review at the DRB level. He explained that technically he was only adding 5' to an eave of the house. Steve stated that he was lowering ceilings inside the ' structure and just wanted to reassure the neighbors with this information. The roof deck will be cut into the roof, so we will not be adding it onto the top of the house. Greg Moffet asked what direction the roof will face? Steve Riden said it will follow the ridge line and face west. Dominic Mauriello said it was on the west side of the structure. Greg Amsden questioned whether it was a solid wall or railing on the deck. The treatment was mixed up on the site plan. Steve Riden expiained that it was not a solid wall, but rather a roof that rose from the deck on the site plan. Luc Meyer asked how the applicant planned on getting to the deck? Steve Riden said from the interior of the house, as there was no more site coverage available to ~ have stairs to the deck. Galen Aasland asked Dominic about the zoning in relation to it being enclosed on 4 sides and why was it not considered GRFA? Dominic Mauriello explained that there was no roof on it. Galen Aasland said it looks like it was all enclosed. Mike Mollica reiterated that if it does not have a roof, it was not considered GRFA. Galen Aasland stated he felt that the landscaping was deficient. Diane Golden asked what was under the stairweli and questioned where the snow will go? Steve Riden said living space was under the deck. Greg Moffet asked Steve if drains and gutters were set up? StQVe Riden said, yes. Diane Golden asked if this application needed to be agreed on by the co-owner? Planning and Environmental Commission Mimrtes • September 9, 1996 3 Dominic Mauriello said there were two owners of record and it was a courtesy to inform them so , that there is not a problem down the road. The other owner must consent if the improvements ~ are on the common parcel. Greg Moffet stated that we are not a party to the private covenants. Diane Golden had no further comments. ~ Henry Pratt said he had no problem with the GRFA, but he did have a problem with the landscaping. Henry didn't know if a Geologic Hazard Study was necessary. Henry had a ' problem with the roof deck . With railings and it being popped on top of the roof, he felt it was not appropriate for the neighborhood and as it was now, he cou(dn't approve it. John Schofield echoed Henry's comments regarding the landscaping. John questioned the distance from the floor of the deck to the pitch of the roof? Steve Riden said about half. John Schofield said the deck looked like it was set on top of the house. John stated that if it was totally enclosed, he would be more in favor of it. Gene Uselton said roof decks were allowed according to tne code. However, Gene felt that it was undesirable in this neighborhood. The larrdseaping should be left up to the DRB. Greg Amsden agreed with Gene's comments. The sides of the deck need to be enclosed. He foresees some abuses with what can happen on a deck; such as storing things (i.e., patio furniture) on top of the deck. The applicant must bring the landscaping up to DRB standards. • Luc Meyer said he can't understand how, in such a small neighborhood, the applicant submitted ~ this plan without contacting the neighbors. Mr. Deighan did not have the courtesy to call Mr. I Vaiasquez. I Greg Amsden stated that that was a civil matter. Greg Moffet asked Dominic if this would receive ful( treatment by the DRB. , Dominic Mauriello stated that this proposal would be reviewed by the DRB. Mrs. Boyer said that a few times the property was red tagged. Matthews and Associates submitted a beautiful landscape plan and she would like to know what happened to that plan. Everything there has died without the maintenance and irrigation. Greg Moffet said we can recommend to DRB to require the applicant to bond for landscaping. I would vote in favor of the DRB looking strongly at the landscaping. The roof deck does not violate any of the standards. The application meets a(I three of the findings. Greg was not in favor of telling the applicant that he can't do this. Diane Golden questioned the criteria regarding the negative impact on adjacent properties. Planuing and Environmental Cominission Minutes ~ September 9,1996 4 I Henry Pratt questioned mass and bulk. ~ Greg Moffet read through the criteria in the staff memo. • Dominic Mauriello said the flat roof deck was 30' high and was allowed. Greg Moffet asked for any more public or applicant comments. There was none. Henry Pratt made a motion to table this request to give the applicant time to rework the roof i deck, so that it was more compatible with the neighborhood. The alternative to giving the applicant more time to redesign it, was to turn down the reques#. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Dominic Mauriello stated that it should be tabled to a definite time. Mrs. Boyer asked if a roof deck was allowed, would we then be setting a precedent in the neighborhood? Henry Pratt responded to Mrs. Boyer's question by saying that a roof deck was allowed, but this roof deck was not consistent with this neighborhood. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Greg Moffet opposed. 3. A request for an exterior addition to expand the existing dining room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2415 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 22, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing ~ Applicants: Paul Baker and Robert Ruder ~ Planner: Dorninic Mauriello Dominic MaurieHo gave an overview of the request per the staff memo. John Schofieid stated that he had a business relationship with this applicant and he wanted it on the record that he doesn't feel it presents a conflict of interest. Greg Moffet asked for any applicant or public comments. There was none. i The Board had no comments. I Henry Pratt made a motion for approval with no conditions, referencing the findings in the staff , memo. i Greg Amsden seconded the motion. i It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 4. A request far a wall height variance to allow for a six-foot retaining wall, located in the ' front setback, located at 1239 Westhaven Circle/Lot 37, Glen Lyon Applicant: Daryl Brown ' Planner: George Ruther ~ Planning and Environmental Cnmmissian Minutes September 9, 1996 5 ~ George Ruther gave an overview of the request and stated that staff was recommending , approval. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. ~ Saily Brainard said no. John Schofield said there needed to be a provision for trees to be replaced if they die. Gene Uselton echoed John's comments. ' Greg Amsden said the slape will not allow trees to live and therefore, a bond needs to be in place for similar trees. Galen Aasland said trees would not survive and the walls are considerably higher than 6'. Diane Golden asked if tiering the retaining wall would help the trees? Greg Moffet said tiering the retaining wall was what was being proposed. Henry Pratt said we are stuck between a rock and the DRB. We are instructed to save trees. When trees die, they need to be replaced. Greg Moffet said he liked the trees the way they were, but we needed assurance that they would be replaced, should they not live. He stated that the wall was nicely done. Henry Pratt stated that when the trees die, there would not be a need for a variance. . Greg Moffet asked if we can sunset a variance? I George Ruther said if the trees d+e, the tree well wouid be fiNed in and there would no longer be a need for a variance. I I Henry Pratt asked how we could require this? ! George Ruther explained that landscaping coufd be bonded for two growing seasons for I replacement based on caliper per caliper inch of aspen trees. ' Henry Pratt asked Sally if her client would have a problem with bonding? Sally Brainard said she was not sure, but for today's purposes she will say there would not be a problem. Instead of bonding, could we put a tree in the tiered area? Since this was a spec house, the applicant would not like to transfer the bonding to any new owner. Henry Pratt said he was at a loss of how to do this. George Ruther stated that a bond was certainly not the desired vehicle, but it would get us to where we want to be. The trees have already been through stress this growing season. Henry Pratt asked if we have required other property owners to be bonded? ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 6 i Galen Aasland did not want to see Nike or Budweiser out there every week. Signage needed to be very low key. • Diane Golden agreed with Ga(en and Greg Amsden regarding displaying banrters at conference facilities. Henry Pratt agreed with John to make the process simpler. The Westin had medical conferences on an on-going basis. This needed to be controlled. Henry had no problem with , hotels putting up banners that had positive community impacts. Lauren Waterton asked how do we differentiate? Henry Pratt stated that the Jerry Ford banners were up a month after the event. We run the risk of having banners up permanently, Mike MoAica suggested allowing banners based on the size of the conference or number of attendees. Henry Pratt said quantifying makes the process worse. Maybe banners should only be allowed at the front door. Henry didn't know how this could be regulated. Greg Moffet said he was hearing the 7 st amendment. Tom Moorhead said content neutral recognizes constitutional issues. Greg Moffet said we needed a distinction of welcoming dea(ers without an advertising logo. • Tom Moorhead said clear(y the more banners we allowed, the more likely we would be to get into that arena. It then becomes a concern. ~ Gre Moffet said ermittin banners at hotels when hastin I 9 p g g groups, is a good thing. It would ~ also be good business for small attendees. Greg didn't have a problem with Iogos advertising their product. If we are going to change the sign code, we need to leave a little room to make decisions. Greg was comfortable letting staff rnake these decisions and not changing the code. Diane Golden asked if we thought using a banner was going to sway customers from one resort to another. Greg Mofiet said it was just a warm, fuzzy thing. ' John Schofield said banners were good for directional, not advertising. ' Tom Moorhead said if we allow banners for directional purposes, we could prohibit the use of corporate logos. John Schofield asked about the Rolex Juniar Olympics? Tom Moorhead said that was allowed, since it was a sponsor unrelated to the event. Dominic Mauriello explained that content neutral means having "Coors, " without the logo. Tom Moorhead stated that having a logo on the sign was off-site advertising. • Planning and Environmenta] Couuuission Minutes September 9, 1996 14 I , . Mike Mollica said staff would look at modifying the code and develop standards to bring back to the PEC. ~ 7. A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to add a storage area in the basement, of approximately 250 square feet, located at 4494 Streamside Circle East/Lot 13, Bighorn 4Th Addition Applicant: Donald Levy ~ Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPR4VED 8. A request for an interior remodel, to add a storage area and a bathroom of approximately 85 square feet, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 63 Willow Place #1/Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Vail ViNage 1 st Filing Applicant: Oscar Schafer Planner: Zauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 9. A request for a residential addition to expand the existing entry, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4410A Columbine Drive/Lot 1, Black 4, A resdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn 3rd Addition Applicant: Barbara Van Ness Planner: George Ruther • WlTHDRAWN 10. Information Update - Vail Tomorrow 11. Approval of August 12, 1996 and August 26, 1996 minutes I Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the revised August 12th minutes, which included the ~ the change on page 7, and the August 26th minutes with Galen Aasland's change on page 3. ~ The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Henry Pratt abstaining, since he was not at the , meeting. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. i Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 15 George Ruther stated that the Johnson's residence on Mill Creek Circle required bonding when they were transplanting trees. Greg Amsden said he was not excited about this proposal, since it was a very noticeable house. Henry Pratt made a motion ior approval for Lot 36, which included a second condition requiring a , bond, so that if trees die within two growing seasons, the tree well would be filled in and new trees would be planted. John Schofield seconded the motion. Gene Uselton asked for an amendmsnt to Henry's motion, changing it to Lot 37. Henry Pratt amended the motion. , The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request for a joint worksession with the DRB and PEC for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to a((ow for the deveiopment of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Fiting # 1 Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Forest Service Planner: Andy Knudtsen Greg Moffet welcomed Brent Alm, Clark Brittain and Ted Hingst, the DRB members present for this worksession. • Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the request and explained that the three parties involved I have all signed the applications necessary to get the plan going, The primary purpose of the SDD was to answer neighbor's questions regarding future development. 100% of the units will be deed restricted. The District and Town ot Vail employees are the target market. Densiry is much less than what the Zone District allows, as shown on the Zoning Analysis in the memo. Another important component is the LOAA, which Andy explained. He explained that this was an effort to get a clean boundary and to create sites for employee housing. Andy stated that this I was a high priority for economic stability and also that the provision of affordable housing would help the viability of the community. Andy said that the proposed density fs betow other sttes and i that suitability is consistent with the context. Staff expressed concem about the architectural , design and wanted to hear from both Boards and the neighborhood, regarding architectural compatibility. A roof overhang and a pitched roof would break up the mass. He said that since the corner of the road is higher, the flat roofs would be very visible where the road divides. Andy proceeded to go over the discussion issues. He stated that there are arguments both pro and con for two curbcuts, but staff would look at the safest and what would meet the most needs. ' Andy went over the landscaping and stated that there may be an opportunity to get more landscaping in the area, while still preserving the existing tandscaping. Greg Moffet said two areas to focus on were the landscaping and the architecture. He stated the need for the public to comment on these issues. ~ Planning apd Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 7 Tom Braun explained that the district had this tand available and had taken a leadership rofe in proposing the project. Tom stated that they were trying to create an opportunity for families, by ~ rezoning from General Use to Special Development District. He then showed renderings of the project. He explained that the range of densities was staggering in this neighborhood. He explained the densities of surrounding properties and that they were proposing 10.6 on a gross basis, so this project was at the low end. If they didn't do the SDD rezoning, they could come ~ back and do a full site coverage, maximum height etc. Tom stated that the SDD process ~ provided a safeguard. Flat roofs were an issue but Tom deferred to Jim Morter. He did mention that there were a number of flat roofs in the neighborhood. The precedent has been established, such as Simba Run, etc. He mentioned that the road is still under further study to see how to slow the speed of traffic before the blind spot. He said that they were extending the retaining wall to get trees between the road and the buildings. It is tough to find trees that will do well on this site. He stated that the development standards were within the standards of the Town. Garages were oversized in order to provide storage, as well as cars. To bring ail this in at an affordable level was a challenge. Tom introduced Jim Morter, Pat Dauphinais and Gerry Roberts. Jim Morter said the first thing to be considered was scale. The kindest scale for the site was to have 4 smailer buildings. For the footprint and the bulk, Jim felt the smaller size worked. Jim stated he was proposing seven i-bedrooms, five 2-bedrooms and five 3- bedrooms. This project would be state of the art for accessibility and usability. Jim asked for questions. He wanted to take this out of the typicai genre of affordable housing. The shadow pattern gave animation to the buildings, as opposed to blocks of buildings. There wrere one, two and three stories all mixed in. The neighbors in Potato Patch, when looking down, would see a wedding cake effect. Jim stated there would be 24 flat roofs with a lot of stair stepping. The functional reason for flat roofs was to eliminate snow dumping. It would be easier to shed snow where people are not. Flat roofs made it easier to contain winter problems. The second reason for flat roofs was that the ~ mass would appear smaller with flat roofs. The third reason was to provide visual interest with a stair-step design. Roof penetrations, such as vents (since there wifl be no fireplaces), would have all the items clustered together. This has given Jim the opportunity to form a sculpture within the project. Jim stated that he would like to ask both Boards to have an open mind, when ~ it comes to the flat roof issue. i Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. ; Jim Lamont, speaking on behalf of Ralph Davis of Action Vail, stated that the focus should be on the principles. The manner that it was brought forward last spring caused anguish. It was brought to the attention of Action Vail. The homeowners made every effort to calm everyone. Action Vail has always said that public open space, if transferred, should be retained as open space. Jim had questions for Tom Braun regarding the status of the driveway options and designating it as a permanent eassment. Jim also wanted to know what other avenue Brooktree had for access. Tom Braun said that it is not yet a permanent easement, but that it was a possibiiity. Jim Lamont asked if the access coufd be shared. Tom Braun said that a new access, to the south of the proposed driveway, was being considered. Jim Lamont asked Tom Braun if the right-of-way on Red Sandstone was dedicated. • Planning and Environmenta] Commission Minutes Septeznber 9, 1996 8 i I Tom Braun said it couId be dedicated. ~ Jim Lamont asked about the 100-year floodplain. Jim stated that this was public property and the current problems needed to be reso(ved. Jim stated that when the Lionsridge area was annexed, the land use pattern was predetermined. Jim stated that there was a need to take a hard look at the stream right-of-way. He asked, " Are we taking a public piece of property and turning it into a private piece of property?° The public deserves a sidewalk and access to the ~ stream. He mentioned that when he was on the Board, he found that there is never a benefit, ~ when the public has been denied. If the units go up for a lottery, that would be fine, but all the citizens of the Town should have a chance. It is wrong to have the people benefiting from it that were judging and reviewing it. However, Jim could see the first preference being given to emergency personnel. Bob McLaurin disagreed with a couple of issues. The first was the land exchange. Bob had been criticized for using this parcel. There was a net gain of money to the Forest Service, which exceeded the value, resulting in no net loss to the Forest Service. The land was to be used for housing for Town of Vail employees. When people caii 911, for example, one wouldn't get an answer if employees are not able to live nearby. Bob said there was not one single fireman who lives in the Town of Vail and only two police officers that live in the Town of Vail. it was clearly irresponsible for the Town of Vail to not move in this direction. This housing development would be filled with critical employees, with the remainder go+ng to lottery for the leftover units. This project would provide an opportunity for police officer's families to be here. The Town of Vail would like to exercise a right of first refusa(. Bob said that the Town had an obligation to provide the services and was having a harder time competing with areas that have a less expensive cost of living. With all due respect to Jim, the Town should have done this 10 to 15 years ago. As the Town's long term employees start to retire, the Town needs to start to take pro-active measures now. . Jim Lamont said in response to his good friend Bob, that the minute these public units were sold i to the private sector, there would be a probfem when the employees leave the job. The public interest needed to be protected. Priorities should be given to emergency personnel first. After i requesting that the density be lowered, Jim stated that this should be rented to emergency personal and include public access to the creek. Bob McLaurin said rentals would not work for the majority of the work force. In order for ~ occupants to receive tax deductible benefits, the project had to be owner occupied. Ralph Davis said that Bob hit the naii on the head. He also would hate to ca11911 and find no one there. Ralph stated that the units should not be sold and that rental rates should be below market rental rates. He said the rent should be Isss than what it would cost to own. This project might just fit the need for emergency persona(. Pat Dauphinais, representing the Water and Sanitation District, stated that this would have a public benefit. Employees living on the other side of Dowd Junction can't respond to emergencies like a local resident could . There would be a first right of first refusal. The Water District wouid maintain first right of refusal on all the units. Though the Water District can't commit to housing only emergency personnel, this housing would be available to Water District personnel, police, fire and hospital personnel. The pubiic interest would be well served. Even though land is being transferred from the public to the private sector, it would still serve the community. Even though they would be sold, the Water District would have the right of first refusal. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 9 Henry Pratt asked if it would be possible for the Town to have 2nd right of refusai on the Water District units? I, Pat Dauphinais said that was a great idea and wou(d dovetaii that in. i Henry Pratt stated that conceivabiy, there couid eventually be no Town of Vail employees living in these units. Bob McLaurin said a sale could be forced, via the deed restrictions, for violations to the policy. Pat Dauphinais said deed restrictions would be conditions of the SDD. Bob McLaurin stated that he didn't want all the Town of Vail workers living together. Jim Lamont stated that we need the Town Manager to explain how this will work. Bob McLaurin stated that the Town is pursuing rentals on the Public Works site and on other properties. He stated that it was essential to maintain the communiry's economic viability and that it would be problematic in the future, if this problem is not dealt with now. Pat Dauphinais said the Water Board felt a responsibility to the public. Pat said that the current proposal was the most positive thing to be done with that ground. The benefits would far exceed the short term public loss, by shutting down the neighborhood dog toilet. The Water District no longer needs the plant on-site. The public good will be served better by far with this project. Jim Lamont stated that there would be a need for a sidewalk; that the creek be recognized as a , recreational amenity, and dedicated as a public access easement; that the Town should require the dedication of some open space, to be consistent with other projects. He summarized by ~ saying that the public should get something back. Greg Moffet asked for other public comments. There was none. Starting with the DRB: Clark Brittain said he responded favorably to the design. The presentation reinforced his feeling about the design. Each building, as a modular sculpture, was very appealing. When looking down on the buildings from the road, a better vantage point is possible and the differences would be accentuated. Clark said that the project is going in the right direction. Ted Hingst thought the design was a good way to avoid cubes. Ted still had a problem with the flat roofs. He suggested perhaps false fronting was a solution. He was, however, looking forward to seeing the project develop. Brent Alm thanked Jim Morter and the PEC for letting the DRB have a chance to make comments at this schematic level. He stated that there needs to be more landscaping on the east side. Also, Brent said that to break the 17 units into four buildings was a good idea. The architecture was simple and straightforward. Brent was not opposed to flat roofs, but would like to see shed roofs added to soften the design. The stacked design was helpful. It was important to see the renderings. The use of materials with two different types of sidings and slight coior variations was best. Jim Morter stated that the intent was to use subtie variations. . Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 10 Brent Alm suggested using some stucco within some of the siding masses. He said that he II ~ was looking forward to seeing more on the project. Galen Aasland said that there was a hardship concerning the retaining wall on Red Sandstone ~ Road and that the height of it was acceptabfe. He believed the SDD took away the trust from the public. Gafen thought it shocrld be zoned MDMF without the SDD. Galen liked the flat roofs and ' thought the mass+r+g had integrity. He thought it was too homogenous and boring with one color. ' He felt adding significant mass in stucco to the siding was a good idea, and that it needed more detail. Galen felt that a one-car garage would not serve the needs for the 3-bedroom units and that the 3-bedroom units needed more than a one-car garage. Jim Morter stated that some of the 3-bedroom units had two-car garages. Gafen Aasland said he would like to see the project embrace the creek better and that the property across the road should be addressed. Galen felt that this project had significant public benefit. He felt also that people that were able to buy were better off than paying rent and the right of first refusal with the second right of refusal was a good idea. Diane Golden thanked the Water District. Responding to Galen's comments about the SDD, she said that the public interest was better protected with the SDD. Diane felt that the breakup of the buifdings was very good. Henry Pratt said Jim Lamont had brought up some macro issues, compared to the flat roofs. Henry telt that it was important for the units to be owner-occupied. There was a need to insure that emergency personnel be housed at this site. He felt that it would be counter-productive for employees to have to sell. Henry said that we need to find a position somewhere between Jim ~ Lamont and the Town Manager. I Henry Pratt believed that the architecture was far superior to the Commons. But, he also stated I that Lionshead was going away from flat roofs, towards a more European style . This project I needed shed roofs, and overhangs with more detail. Henry stated that flat roofs were clearly I more efficient in this town, and that it was a good choice from his perspective; however, subject I to criticism. Henry said that to satisfy the public perception, the designed needed to break up the boxes. In layman's terms, he expressed concsrn that the public would equate stacked boxes with public housing. Henry Pratt said to deed back open space was a good idea; however, the space uvas not an adequate s+ze. A public path along the creek could be done within the 30' setback. It might be a ' compromise to Qpen it to the public, but it would get used and appreciated. Henry questianed the amount of space allocated for snow storage. From his years at Pitkin, he stated that snow ~ piles can get to be 25' high. He didn't have a feel for curbcuts and felt that could be left up to the Town to handle. Henry agreed with Jim Lamont about the sidewalks. Sidewalks encouraged people to walk to the bus stop. The path along the creek would enable Brooktree residents to cut across and use the bus stop. Trees were needed to provide privacy. Trees wauld put the project into its own enclave. Henry disagreed with Galen regarding the SDD. An SDD would provide the vehicle necessary for a minor degree of down zoning. John Schofield said that as this project progresses, he would like to have more information on #he floodplain and also a public path along the stream. A common access with the adjacent property owners would be preferable. John said that he was not a big fan of flat roofs and would like to see sorne sloped roofs and a mix of siding materials. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 11 Gene Useiton agreed with Henry regarding the appropriateness of the SDD. Admitting that he is a sucker for a good sales pitch, he complimented Jim Morter on his four point argument in favor • of the f(at roofs and indicated that he was convinced. He expressed the opinion that, given the quafity of the proposed project, the economic values of surrounding properties would be maintained or enhanced. Greg Amsden reminded everyone that this was highly visible as one drove past it to Piney Lake. i Greg said he would like to see stoped roofs. Greg didn't want local people ta have to deal with , the maintenance that cedar siding would require. To be able to live affordably, the project , needed to be built using another material. Greg also felt it needed to be oriented with north/south views. The easUwest views looked out onto traffic and also Potato Patch. Greg felt it must have two-car garages for the 3-bedroom units. He asked if utilities and gas fireplaces would be provided. He said that there was not a necessity for an SDD. He said that, since there was no cap on an SDD project, he would like to see the GRFA limit set in stone. He would also like to see a greater setback to protect the willows, etc. To dedicate open space on a site this tight would be hard, but perhaps the south end of the site would be possible. The color elevations looked great on the renderings, but he expressed concern that renderings were not accurate. The trees in particular, were an inaccurate depiction. He said to picture it without the trees. This architecture had to stand alone for the next 15 years until the trees grew to a height represented in the renderings. Greg Moffet wanted to compliment the development team on the professional presentation. Jim Lamont had raised some va(id concerns. This worksession was the context for these concerns to be raised. Greg was delighted that this was aimed in the direction of family housing. Greg felt that owned was better than rented. Greg was in agreement that the SDD was the appropriate mechanism for this. In response to the Town Manager's concerns, Greg said that when the PEC reviewed the Public Works site, it required housing. This was a step in the right direction in ~ addressing that issue. Greg agreed with Greg Amsden regarding the materials used and the cost ' of future maintenance. Greg agreed with Henry on the landseap+ng issue. Greg liked the design and had no problem with it. Jim Lamont said the East Village Homeowner's Association favored this zone district. The time that has elapsed for the public right-of-way was well beyond the prescriptive rights. That portion not owned by the Town should be dedicated to the Town of Vail. I Greg Moffet asked if the proposed MDMF zone districi was an upzoning. I Andy Knudtsen said, yes. He further stated that this project was treated no differently than others. He felt the GRFA was low enough so that the right of way concerns would be a moot issue. ~ , Tom Braun summarized all the comments. He stated that everyone was comfortable with the ~ SDD, with the exception of Greg Amsden and Galen Aasland. The vehicular circulation to be worked out by the Town Engineer. He said that they wou(d took at the stream access corridor ~ and study the building orientation with more landscaping between the road and the project. The , Army Corp had no interest in the small area of wetlands. Tom said that Russ Forest wiH walk it ; with him. ~ Andy Knudtsen stated that an Environmental Impact analysis had been done. , Tom Braun thought that dedicating open space was fairly unique for this type of project, but that he would look into it, as well as the flat roofs. ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 12 Greg Moffet said the SDD stated a complete review was to go to the DRB and he thanked the ~ presenters. Jim Morter asked if there was one priority given the constraiants of the right-of-way. , The PEC said landscaping. Jim Morter said that pubiic safety would dictate the road right-of-way issues. Pat Dauphinais said the original concept was to get the best possible product for the least money. Greg Moffet suggested that the applicants talk to Jeff Bowen regarding having trees donated for this project from Trees for Vail. 6. A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and activities. Applicant: Town of Vaif Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton said staff has had more and more requests from hotel operators who wanted banners to welcome conferences, etc. Staff has had to deny these requests, because they don't meet the sign code, but perhaps to promote conferences coming to Vail, we should take another look at the request. This would require a policy change and a change to the sign code. Staff was looking to receive some direction from the PEC. i Greg Moffet stated, for the record, that he might have a potential conflict of interest, since he ~ was in the business. If anyone had a problem with him participating in this discussion, please I say so. I I John Schofield said, in his dealing with Ski Club activities, any over the counter situations to ~ speed up the process was good. ' Mike Mollica said specia( event banners were already atlowed. ' John Schofield suggested incorporating all banners into one policy. Gene Uselton said he enjoyed seeing banners on Bridge Street. The down side was that there would be banners everywhere. Lauren Waterton stated that special events were those that benefitted the community and banners are allowed for those events. Mike Mollica suggested pursuing Option No. 2 in the memo. Our current policy is subject to staff interpretation and staff would recommend codification. Greg Moffet asked if Garton's had special events? Lauren Waterton yes, but this discussion was in reference to hotels at this point. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Septamber 9, 1996 13