HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0623 PECs o THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on June 23, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request to amend Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code, with the addition of a new section pertaining to the addition of new GRFA
created by the conversion of interior space in existing dwelling units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of
the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On -Site Required
Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet, located at 62 East
• Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a variance from Section 18.30.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a canopy to be located
in the front setback and a variance from Title 16, to allow the rooftop sign to exceed 20 sq. ft.
and to allow a free - standing sign to exceed 8' in height and 20 sq. ft. in size, located at 2313
North Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Dick Dilling, represented by JMP Architects
Planner: George Ruther
A request for changes to an approved development plan, to allow for the removal of a bicycle
path, located at Innsbruck Meadows on Kinnickinnick Road.
Applicant: Bob Borne, represented by RKD
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a variance from Section 18.28.070 (Setbacks) and a conditional use permit for an
outdoor dining deck, to allow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143 East Meadow
Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Top Ice Cream (Haagen Daz), represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
An appeal of a staff decision regarding a proposed batting cage on the outdoor dining deck of
Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Appellant: Dave Garton
Planner: Lauren Waterton
A request for a final review of a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor commercial ski
storage, as a conditional use and to allow for commercial ski storage (indoors) in all building
levels, located in the CCI and CCII Zone Districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in
the project planner's office 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 June 6, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
C.
LJ
Agenda last revised 6 /18/97 9 am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, June 23, 1997
AGENDA
Pr +pct Orientation /LUNCH - Communipy Development Departmen 11:00 am
View Corridor Regulation - Presentation by Tom Moorhead - 15 minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12:00 pm
1. Texaco - 2313 N. Frontage Rd. West
2. Lionshead - View Corridors (1 hour)
Driver: George
,-,o, ..
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a variance from Section 18.30.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a canopy to be
located in the front setback and a variance from Title 16, to allow the rooftop sign to
exceed 20 sq. ft. and to allow a free - standing sign to exceed 8' in height and 20 sq. ft. in
size, located at 2313 North Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Dick Dilling, represented by JMP Architects
Planner: George Ruther
2. An appeal of a staff decision regarding a proposed batting cage on the outdoor dining
deck of Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
•
Appellant: Dave Garton
Planner: Lauren Waterton
3. A request for a worksession to discuss a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor
commercial ski storage, as a conditional use and to allow for commercial ski storage
(indoors) in all building levels, located in the CCI and CCII Zone Districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
4. A request to amend Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code, with the addition of a new section pertaining to the addition of
new GRFA created by the conversion of interior space in existing dwelling units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
700OPYAIL
Agenda last revised 6/18/97 9 am
5. A request for a worksession to discuss potential public view corridors in Lionshead as
part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Consultant Team
6. A request for changes to an approved development plan, to allow for the removal of a
bicycle path, located at Innsbruck Meadows on Kinnickinnick Road.
Applicant: Bob Borne, represented by RKD
Planner: George Ruther
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
7. A request for a variance from Section 18.28.070 (Setbacks) and a conditional use permit
for an outdoor dining deck, to allow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143
East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Top Ice Cream (Haagen Daz), represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14, 1997
8. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On -Site
Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. •
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14, 1997
9. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the
construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JULY 28, 1997
10. Information Update
11. Approval of June 9, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office 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. 7 is
Community Development Department
Published June 20, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
2
rt
Agenda last revised 6/24/97 9 am
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, June 23, 1997
FINAL AGENDA
Project Orientation /LUNCH - CQmmunity Development Department 11:00 am
View Corridor Regulation - Presentation by Tom Moorhead - 15 minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Ann Bishop
Greg Amsden
Galen Aasland
Diane Golden
John Schofield
Gene Uselton
Site Visits : 12:00 pm
1. Texaco - 2313 N. Frontage Rd. West
2. Lionshead - View Corridors (1 hour)
Driver: George
aw
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a variance from Section 18.30.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a canopy to be
located in the front setback and a variance from Title 16, to allow the- reeftep sign to
exceed 20 sq. ft. and to allow a free - standing sign to exceed 8' in height and 20 sq. ft. in
size, located at 2313 North Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Dick Dilling, represented by JMP Architects
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6 -0
APPROVED WITH TWO CONDITIONS:
That the sign proposed atop the canopy is removed and replaced on the south
end of the canopy underneath the roof overhang and that the sign is 20 square
feet, or less in size.
2. That the freestanding sign is relocated to the landscaped area on the southeast
corner of the applicant's property and that the maximum height of the sign be
limited to 13' feet in height above grade and that the maximum sign area not
exceed 20 square feet.
>M017rAn
Agenda last revised 6/24/97 9 am "
2. An appeal of a staff decision regarding a proposed batting cage on the outdoor dining
deck of Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Appellant: Dave Garton
Planner: Lauren Waterton
MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 5 -1 (Greg Amsden
opposed)
OVERTURNED STAFF'S DECISION WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed use be considered an accessory use to the existing outdoor
dining deck. The batting cage must be reviewed as an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor dining deck. This use will also require
DRB review and approval.
3. A request for a worksession to discuss a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor
commercial ski storage, as a conditional use and to allow for commercial ski storage
(indoors) in all building levels, located in the CCI and CCII Zone Districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
4. A request to amend Chapter 18.71- Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code, with the addition of a new section pertaining to the addition of
new GRFA created by the conversion of interior space in existing dwelling units. 40,
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5 -1 (Galen Aasland
opposed)
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITH AMENDMENTS:
1 That grade provisions be clarified (i.e., walk -out basements).
2. That roof dormers be clarified with an illustration.
3. That the amnesty program be pursued.
4. That a recommendation be directed to Council to include multi - family structures.
5. A request for a worksession to discuss potential public view corridors in Lionshead as
part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Consultant Team
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6 -0
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL WITH THE ADDITION OF VIEW
CORRIDOR #1
U
2
•
Agenda last revised 6 /24/97 9 am
6. A request for changes to an approved development plan, to allow for the removal of a
bicycle path, located at Innsbruck Meadows on Kinnickinnick Road.
Applicant: Bob Borne, represented by RKD
Planner: George Ruther
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
7. A request for a variance from Section 18.28.070 (Setbacks) and a conditional use permit
for an outdoor dining deck, to allow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143
East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Top Ice Cream (Haagen Daz), represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14, 1997
8. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On -Site
Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14,1997
9. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the
construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JULY 28, 1997
r1
U
10. information Update
11: Approval of June 9, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office 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
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 23, 1997
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 18.30.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a gas
pump canopy to be located in the front setback and a variance from Title 16, to
allow a rooftop sign to exceed 20 sq. ft. and to allow a free - standing sign to
exceed 8' in height and 20 sq. ft. in size, located at 2313 North Frontage Road
West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Dick Dilling, represented by JMP Architects
Planner: George Ruther
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant Dick Dilling, owner of the West Vail Texaco, represented by JMP Architects, is
• proposing to reconstruct the existing gas pump canopy and to install two new signs on the
property. The applicant's property is located at 2313 North Frontage Road West and is zoned
Heavy Service District.
Gas Pump Canopy
The existing canopy has approximately 1 l' of overhead clearance. According to the applicant,
this is too low to accommodate larger vehicles ( RV's, U- Hauls, etc.), and therefore, the canopy
height needs to be increased. The existing canopy currently encroaches 20' into the required 20'
front setback and occupies approximately 595 square feet of area in the setback. Since the
applicant is proposing to remove the existing canopy and reconstruct a new canopy in
approximately the same location in the front setback, a variance from Section 18.30.060 of the
Municipal of the Town of Vail is required.
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.30.060 (Setbacks), to allow the new
canopy to encroach 16' into the required 20' front setback. The new canopy will be built two feet
taller in height and provide l3' of overhead clearance. The total square footage of the canopy in
the front setback will be reduced from 595 square feet, to 388 square feet. The new canopy will
no longer be perpendicular to the building like the existing canopy. Instead, the canopy will be
constructed at a slight angle which will improve on -site traffic circulation.
U
TOWN OF
Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail prescribes regulations for signs. The qW
applicant is proposing to install two new signs at the West Vail Texaco. The new signs are being
installed to replace two, non - conforming signs which will be removed due to the construction of
the West Vail Roundabout. One of the new signs is proposed to be a projecting sign placed atop
the new gas pump canopy on the ridge of the roof. The other sign is a freestanding sign proposed
north of the applicant's entrance off of Chamonix Road. Each sign is approximately 37 square
feet in size and 25' above grade. The freestanding sign also includes a 29 square foot gas price
sign. The total sign area requested with this application is approximately 93 square feet.
According to Section 16.20.020 of the Municipal Code, the maximum combined sign area
permitted at the West Vail Texaco (for the two types of signs proposed) is 20 square feet. The
maximum height for a freestanding sign is limited to 8' above grade. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting a variance from Section 16.20.020 to allow for an additional 73 square feet of
sign area and an additional 17' of height for the freestanding sign.
O M =0 f
The applicant is further proposing to add 531 square feet of additional retail space to the gas
station. The additional square footage will be added to the west end of the building. No
variances are necessary for this addition. The building addition will be reviewed by DRB.
A site plan and building elevations have been attached for reference.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR THE CANOPY VARIANCE REQUEST
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code,
the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested gas pump
canopy setback 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 does not believe the requested variance will result in any negative
impacts on other existing or potential uses in the area of the West Vail
Texaco. The location and configuration of the new canopy will result in a
reduction in the amount of encroachment and canopy area in the front
setback than what currently exists. Additionally, the new West Vail
Roundabout will not be negatively impacted by the new canopy. In fact,
2 is
the traffic situation will be improved, as the canopy will no longer overhang
• the property line, encroaching upon the 1 -70 right -of -way, and the on -site
traffic circulation at the gas station will improve.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege.
Staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief
necessary from the front setback regulation in order to reconstruct the gas
pump canopy. All of the gas stations currently in Vail are located in the
Heavy Service Zone District and each has a canopy over their gas pump
areas. Staff believes that to deny this front setback variance would
negatively impact the ability of the applicant to successfully compete with
the other existing gas stations. Staff feels that the location of the existing
building on the property and the required travel aisle widths dictates the
location of the gas pumps and the canopy. Staff does not feel that a grant
of special privilege will occur as result of this variance.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
• population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The proposed variance will have little, if any, effect on these factors.
B. The P l a nning, and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
•
N
b. There arc exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone. 0
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.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR SIGN VARIANCE REQUESTS
Upon review of Section 16.36.070, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code,
the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested new sign
variance with conditions. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of factors:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land,
buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on
adjacent lots or within the adjacent right -of -way, which would
substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question:
provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are
unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant
desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all business or
enterprises.
Staff believes there are special circumstances and conditions which apply to
the applicant's property which substantially restrict the effectiveness of
signs on the property. Staff feels that the location and configuration of the
West Vail Roundabout in the adjacent right -of -way results in a special
circumstance or condition impacting the applicant's property. The location
and configuration of the Roundabout limits the exposure of the applicant's
business. Prior to the construction of the Roundabout, the applicant had a
legal, non - conforming sign on the property which provided exposure to
vehicular traffic on 1 -70. The sign has been altered as part of the
Roundabout construction. According to Section 16.32.030, in part,
" the use or operation of non - conforming signs shall be terminated
by destruction, damage, or alteration. The right to continue use or
operation of any non - conforming sign shall terminated whenever
the sign is altered in any way or damaged or destroyed over 50%
of its appraised value."
4 0
• 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or
anyone in privy to the applicant.
The special circumstances described above were not created by the
applicant or anyone privy to the applicant.
3. That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the
purpose of this title, and will not be materially detrimental to the
persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to
the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.
Staff believes that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony
with the purpose of the Sign Code and that it will not be materially
detrimental to the owners of the adjacent properties, to the neighborhood,
or to the public welfare in general
4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this
title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business use.
The staff believes the requested variance is excessive and departs more
from the size and height regulations than is required to identify the
applicant's business. The code permits a total of two signs, with a
combined maximum sign area of 20 square feet. The applicant is
requesting an additional 17' of sign height and an additional 73 square feet
of sign area. Staff would recommend that a variance be granted, but we
believe the amount of deviation should be substantially less. We feel that if
the signs were placed in different locations on the property, the applicant
could gain the necessary exposure with less sign area and height. Staff
would suggest that the necessary 37 square foot sign atop the new gas
pump canopy be relocated and placed on the south end of the canopy
underneath the roof overhang, and that the sign area be reduced to 20'
square feet in size. Staff would further suggest that the freestanding sign
be lowered in height to 13' feet in height and relocated to the southeast
corner of the property, behind the Roundabout landscape berm.
Additionally, the sign area of the freestanding sign should be reduced to 20'
square feet total. This should include the gas price sign, at the discretion of
the property owner. The locations, sizes, and heights recommended by
staff are substantially consistent with signs at the other gas stations in Vail
(Amoco, Conoco, etc).
•
Staff recognizes that our recommendation for signs differs from what the,
applicant has proposed. In addition to believing that the requested amount •
of deviation is excessive, staff also believes that the applicant is attempting
to use only Texaco Corporation approved signs. While we do not disagree
with the intent of using only Texaco Corporation signs, we feel that the
applicant and Texaco Corporation must realize that Vail is a resort
community that has adopted sign and design regulations. According to the
Design Review Guidelines contained within the sign regulation chapter of
the Municipal Code,
"Sign location, configuration, design, materials, and colors shall be
harmonious with the majestic mountain setting and alpine village
scale of the Town." Additionally, "Signs shall not visually
dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to
itself."
Staff would suggest that the applicant continues to work with the Texaco
Corporation to devise a sign plan which is more in keeping with the
community, environment, and the adopted Design Review Guidelines.
B. The P lanning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before ranting a variance
That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, •
topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or
within the right -of -way, which would substantially restrict the
effectiveness of the sign.
2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant.
3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of
this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of Chapter
16.20 more than is required to identify the applicant's business use.
6 0
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's gas
pump canopy setback variance request subject to the following findings:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Heavy Service Zone
District.
New Sians
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's
requested sign variance with conditions, and subject to the following findings:
I . That special circumstances and conditions apply to the use, location and
• topography of the West Vail Texaco site, which substantially restrict the
effectiveness of displaying signs.
2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant, but are unique
to the site and use.
3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of
the sign code and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. That the amended variance requested does not depart from the provisions of
Chapter 16.20 more than is required to identify the West Vail Texaco.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested
sign variance, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions:
1. That the sign atop the canopy be removed and replaced on the south end of the
canopy underneath the roof overhang and that the sign be 20 square feet, or less in
size.
2. That the freestanding sign be relocated to the landscaped area on the southeast
• comer of the applicant's property and that the maximum height of the sign be
limited to 13' feet in height above grade and that the maximum sign area not
s exceed 20 square feet.
7
i + c��?�� �k y5:?3'• 1 '4 ,.—\ .d L .a i / \. 7 Y' .� •
•• X!Y f`, - � [ 1 s./ { a t e .. uf'1. •h4 r� r a-.� x Y � S -t t t \ ` 'J I.
.t `<e --,3,. ��q.�, J A I !t. i +t a \ j1 , _ t t ) .l'
} i' 4'� \t'i, si i• { - ;L i� � #/' L �r��w� \c t , t ;,1 ' a� Ar �- r.
.r'J l'f.. � )},L f ,.P. ; �-): b °�s; t k'W 1 s .� 1..[ , �„t +""-t • t BID " f .' .I c••t' ` •��\ '` r ` J'
�� �,Y o �.. �. yt .•as , s V J 1, h 't ti t a +' , GGNTRA�.T +w; i f
-1 17 } , - 3 t �r s2" \ ' v: t , . REVISIONS L 11 ° ' rr e.'.
Y ..t � �y,�, �'f;, , _ N' y t• r L { f • t ,., . t •+" J\ ?.� ,` , / / t ' ., 4 1 J' t 1 .11
� � h '. 'rth - r id x r � ... r t , ?i rti , '. ` , t w. • 'i l , . . .. , , 0
nt > h
f x ." .
h ., °f
fi �kt�rt ,C� - t,+ /•r ' z. ' ri v ` •_ a r _ i /+ t t
1
rDARO [&b . i t , ? i v` c
SIGN :_ ` v z ? s L r ''
a t�� w �. r 6'. -1 r t c `..
r �s , J ;, it
"• ` Fd i s
i s . �. w:
Y .'d' if fi ` - �: _ " ,LL
h
i. r f �'N.
J G - - / Y t r.
r . ,
_ ��
r l
S
r',+. .. - - ..'ter
.
�• x
^{
c ti v _ f' q t y ..
;�, 4 - r O - 4� $ r
/� ,,f
>r 4t L J s '
4 L m .;� x�' y , I r ctZ> �. ,. F � i �,..� , W x IF v
r� .. 3.1.21 F"'d `.O ,, 1111
�I r " C'
` J ( f ut '
L j 4 i t V I t s & •k
pr
-I I a x Q i?' 4
.� -
,�': ...., ."* . .. - ,.., I 0
fY " Q ik
p'" Ac�r
Unleaded '� 3 9 �'
.:.
-
,°° Plus , ir % - ,- k
,. Super t °r. 1 . t ;}
97 j�
r Z� �3n
,_ { . "
a ,
'TE =A 0 TANDARD •�
PRICE IG . ^
. +. .
-
-
♦ •,
,�
.. ',7
.
r
t N' y 1. '�V ,n ff'
. -!. ,,
O> s t 1... 11
m �.
1
1 . _tn.. O - c. rte r
,�� 1 m {.{ Oi r 1 \
I+II a t. o � �- w
L, t' m. J x o n r'
L
N . i '1
j i - '-Z O( '•?
S
-�� l l..l
,Ir Iw
P
EXISTING
• SAN P Y .
•� f��fJ L1 R EIGHT{
1: r r r Y:.t tl 'T ' --t��p
� t' t ,:' •t. + Z ,Sr t - . �i — , 7'..:'�.>
- r7. Z L .�.�t�t.' .. i♦t
.'its .' ?�': ^l' .�'S 'Y"';t.%9:r�� .-e r,r•C�.,y.... .7` _ _
• f 'r
.a+ .P'r. �--
ry to:. 1 •�,, � t s . �;� .Si7''} - r- L,�,..r'S - � 1 � r ��'' `S; � i ''i: � � �''t .s � ,� ( t'.�'ttj° .'ai -i' ��t �rti ' F-'f J 1:' r �,
4 .. , � t t;.Y � ' t, 4t '� - !., ' - 6
. T f l t - 7 •.)- " J �.
� � - t �. .:� �
f .0 .•'1 :+ ♦ C �" i. } ,
Lt s j t s • , 1�> - }• � �
�.. .V. ti i�.! � {y..... + {, .t. :yam .7
r � y,.
1 _?. �, a .r'. C :. ;z .1� ' t. -
. r
:` { r :' t }.
t {'� r :f i 't r..
tr _ r r r 'f r. ? \ C.•
J
-•
t r \ +r
'' r\ 1 t .. =� )It t .J \
9
.' 7
J
�
_ ..
1. t
Y
• M v
t
{t
"TEXACO. STANDARD LOGO/
IDENTIFICATION SIGN
b .
r
j
.'t
•
1'
� w
MEMORANDUM
• TO
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
June 23, 1997
SUBJECT: An appeal of a staff decision regarding a proposed batting cage on the outdoor
dining deck of Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block
5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Appellant: Garton's Saloon, represented by Dave Garton
Planner: Lauren Waterton
I. SUBJECT PROPERTY
The batting cage is proposed to be located on the outdoor dining deck of Garton's Saloon, at 143
East Meadow Drive, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. According to the Town of Vail
Zoning Map, the property is zoned Commercial Service Center (CSC).
II. STANDING OF APPELLANT
• Staff believes the appellant has standing to file an appeal in this case as the appellant, Garton's
Saloon, is the operator of the outdoor dining deck.
III. BACKGROUND
On May 23, 1997, Dave Garton requested approval to place a batting cage on the approved
outdoor dining deck, located on the top level of the parking structure at Crossroads. The batting
cage was proposed to be 14 feet wide, 50 feet long and 12 feet high and constructed of a metal
frame with a nylon netting surrounding the frame. Staff reviewed the request and found that the
batting cage did not comply with zoning, and therefore, denied the request.
The outdoor dining deck is allowed as a conditional use within this zone district. In 1996, the
PEC granted permanent approval for a conditional use permit for the operation of an outdoor
dining deck at Garton's. Previously one -year approvals were granted in 1994 and 1995.
A batting cage is an amusement device which is defined in the Zoning Code as,
"any device which upon insertion of a coin, slug, token, plate or disc, or payment of
consideration may be used by the public for use as a game, entertainment, amusement, a
test of skill, either mental or physical, whether or not registering a score, which shall
include, but shall not be limited to: pool tables, snooker tables, foosball tables, pinball
machines, electronic games, fixed stand coin - operated kiddie rides, and mechanical bulls,
but shall not include radios, devices that provide music only, or television carrying
commercial broadcasts."
TOWN OF PAIL
ie
The Zoning Code specifies that amusement devices are allowed in minor and major arcades. A
minor arcade is defined as: •
"A place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation
maintains four (4) or fewer amusement devices."
A maor arcade is defined as:
"A place of business where an individual, association, partnership or corporation
maintains five (5) or more amusement devices."
Staff determined that Garton's is a major arcade because it maintains more than four
amusement devices. However, Garton's has proposed to reduce the number of devices to four
or less (including the batting cage) in order to be considered a minor arcade.
Major arcades are conditional uses within this zone district and a minor arcade is an accessory
use.
The conditional use section of the Commercial Service Center Zone District states,
"The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the CSC district, subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.60:
1. Any use permitted by Section 18.18.28.030 (Permitted Uses) which is not
conducted entirely within a building."
According to the above section, only permitted uses are allowed to be located outside, subject to
a conditional use permit. Staff denied the request because neither an accessory use, nor a •
conditional use is not explicitly permitted to be located outside as part of the conditional use
permit.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appellant is appealing the staff decision denying the operation of a batting cage on the
approved outdoor dining deck. The appellant has indicated that as part of the conditional use for
the dining deck, accessory uses are permitted to be located outside. Therefore, the approved
conditional use permit allows all accessory uses to a bar or restaurant. The applicant has also
stated that because two pool tables were approved to be located on the deck in 1995, a
precedence has been set to allow accessory uses on the deck.
V. REQUIRED ACTION
Uphold /Overturn /Modify the staff's denial of the request for approval of batting cage.
The Planning and Environmental Commission is required to make findings of fact in accordance
with Section 18.66.030 (5) shown below:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall on all appeals make specific findings
of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact
must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements
of Title 18 have or have not been met. ! 0
l
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission uphold the staff's denial of
the batting cage on the outdoor dining deck and recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission make the following findings:
1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18
(Zoning) have not been met.
2. That a batting cage, by definition, is an amusement device, which is considered
an accessory use within the Commercial Service Center Zone District.
3. Accessory uses are not permitted to be located outside, as part of the conditional
use process.
F: \everyone\pec\memo \gartons.623
0
•
0
E
CAARTOMs
B A R & es 1* I L L
P.O. BOX 1057 - VAIL, COLORADO 81638
970 - 479-0607 • F44X 970-476 -7435
gp-
Gre Moffat w�5 t ,y t ' ' �� 1 M 01997
w • • - _ w.ANy:Q'Z� : t'bn.Y!A .... .. .eSS+��'AK �ntY.. ....
1►. �,�,=�y.W t WMM IM •I
i y y`
l (E i� � ?
< Xci�i H 1- X fX
yMWw,wf E 1., `�"
i#on's� r Opealing the d ' ur , .� ,,, �. T
to dis t , :i . , °�.Iof a battir ' "' a on
ms the E e use shall _ fitted
:on' s ha tad a Cow .'3 -I) "A �' ating
g establi = e(`cktail lounge _ � " '%ars" secti I' . 0
by Sectiq� entirely w ` g
g
to
L
2. Lauren c... 0 W U. ;04.254.:. x
f =1 1,• i 3 �'� � t f A 3 a- 4 fIf . 1! 3
use" 08.28.05 Ar` tt 611e is
�NNfi�.,y
"a thing of secondary o` a ' �. Y , d :i .Y use is a use "
subordinate use to our main business (restau
�' . ,< € :::
18.28.030 - therefore is included in the g so to Garton's.
Other accessory uses include outdoor items' 9 courts and patios.
.d •wx''
3. There has been a precedent set when Gar' . ° Wsgranted permission to have 2
pool tables (amusement device 18.04.005) outside on the deck in 1995. The only stip-
ulation was that the covers to the tables be painted a certain color, During this sum-
. •
• 7,000 SQ. FEET OF FUN • '
2'd
AS38 - UdIN30 3Hi1IUA WUM:OI L6, 20 WE `
. I y
mer ( there were no complaints directly associated with this use.
4. This is a device that will draw people from throughout the valley to the Commercial Service
Center District of Vail. There is not a batting cage anywhere in the valley. Participants will include
Little League Baseball teams, VRD Softball teams and tourists.
This will provide revenues for Garton's and the Town businesses in general which Will provide
greater tax revenues for TOV.
5. There will not be any intrusive visual or audible effect on the surrounding community. The posi-
tioning of the amusement will provide for coverage on three sides, two sides by the building and, one
by a line of existing Aspen trees. The cage is made of dark green nylon netting with eight dark
green supporting poles and one- 1 /8th inch cable running the length of the cage.
The mechanism is run by electrical, quiet running motors which will have no audible Impact.
In conclusion, we hope that in review of this appeal the Board will agree with the reasons stated
above and will find nothing in the zoning statutes that directly says no to this use therefor permitting
this unintrusive amusement at Garton's for the enjoyment of patrons to the Town Of Vail.
. Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
David Garton Stephen Olson
General Partner General Manager
•
E'd AS38 - 1 dIN33 39i3IUA WHSE:OT l �6. 20 WE
'0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 23, 1997
RE: A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to Sections 18.24.030,
18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.24.060, 18.26.040 of the Zoning Code to add
Commercial Ski Storage as a permitted use and Outdoor Ski Storage as a
conditional use in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II zone districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUE ST
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow for commercial ski
storage. The proposed amendments include permitting commercial ski storage on all levels of
the building in Commercial Core I (CCI) and Commercial Core If (CCII) and to allow outdoor
commercial ski storage as a conditional use in CCI and CCII. Commercial ski storage is currently
permitted in the basement level of the building in CCI and CCII. Because the zoning code .
regulates permitted uses according to the level of building in CCI and CCII, the code must be
• amended to allow ski storage on other levels of the building.
IL BACKGROUND
In 1989, the zoning code was amended to allow commercial ski storage as a permitted use only
in the basement and garden level of buildings in CCI and CCII. At that time, there were several
existing ski storage facilities located in basements, that had been approved by the Town of Vail
as an accessory use to an existing ski shop.
There are a number of outdoor ski storage facilities that have been erected over the years. The
existing regulations do not permit outdoor ski storage facilities to be installed. Earlier this year,
staff denied a request by Vail Associates for Design Review Board approval for ski storage in
Lionshead, next to the Gondola Building. Upon appeal of that staff decision, the PEC upheld the
staff's decision that a previous nonconforming use had been substantially changed so that the
use had lost the nonconforming status.
On June 9, 1997, the PEC held a worksession to discuss the proposed changes to the code
described above. At that meeting, all the PEC members agreed that a definitions of commercial
ski storage was necessary. It was suggested that definitions for different types of ski storage be
established. The PEC was split on allowing commercial ski storage on the first level of buildings
and about allowing outdoor commercial ski storage.
11
{{{. DISC 1551 N ISSUE
A. Issues From Previous Worksession
Definitions
The PEC agreed that definitions for commercial ski storage should be established.
See below for the proposed definitions.
Appropriate building levels for ski storage
The PEC discussed the proposed change to the zoning code that would permit
commercial ski storage in CCI and CCII on all building levels and no concensus
was reached. Some members felt that it was appropriate to allow ski storage on
all building levels and others felt that the first floor should remain as active retail
storefronts. Staff believes that commercial ski storage should only be permitted in
basements and second floors.
Outdoor ski storage
1. Conditional use
The PEC discussed the proposed change that would permit
outdoor ski storage as a conditional use in CCI and CCII. There
was no concensus that outdoor ski storage would be an
appropriate use within this zone district. Staff believes that if
outdoor ski storage is permitted, it should be a conditional use with
specific criteria that must be addressed.
•
2. Design parameters for outdoor ski storage •
The PEC agreed that if outdoor ski storage is permitted as a
conditional use, design guidelines should be established
specifically for ski storage. The staff strongly believes that
additional design parameters should be established.
3. Development standards
The PEC agreed with the staff recommendation that outdoor ski
storage should not have to comply with the standards for setbacks,
parking and exterior alterations. There was consensus that site `
coverage should be assessed only if the ski storage exceeds 120
square feet.
4. Other zone districts
Because Cascade Village also has mountain access via a ski lift, it
was suggested that these changes be made to the Cascade
Village SDD, in addition to CCI and CCII.
B. Definition of Commercial Ski Storage
While the code currently permits commercial ski storage in the basement levels of
buildings in CCI and CCII, there is no definition of this use. Since the last
worksession, the applicant and staff have developed the following definitions:
2 0
"Commercial Ski Storage" means storage for equipment (skis, snowboards,
• boots and poles) and /or clothing used in skiing - related sports, which is available
to the public or members, operated by a business, club or government
organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or
annual usage. Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee
is not charged, is not considered commercial ski storage.
,, Outdoor Commercial Ski Storage" means storage for equipment (skis,
snowboards, boots, and poles) used in skiing - related sports, which is available to
the public, operated by a business, club or government organization, and where a
fee is charged for hourly or daily usage. Outdoor ski storage may be enclosed in
an accessory building, or may be unenclosed coin- operated ski locks.
"Ski Racks" means racks available to the public for the temporary storage of
skis, poles and snowboards, in which a fee is not charged.
C. History of Ski Storage
The zoning code was amended in 1989, to permit commercial ski storage in the
basement levels of buildings in CCI and CCII. Prior to that amendment, the
zoning code did not specifically permit ski storage.
D. Sales Tax
The PEC asked if sales tax is collected on the ski storage facilities operated by
Vail Associates in Lionshead, Vail Village and Golden Peak. According the the
Town of Vail Finance Department, sales tax is remitted to the Town for all three
locations. According to the Town's annexation plats, all these locations are within
the Town's Municipal Boundary
E. Village Parking Structure Ski Lockers
The PEC asked if the ski lockers in the Village Parking Structure are a permitted
use. The parking structure is zoned Parking District. According to that zone
district, a conditional use permit is required for "...commercial uses that are
transportation, tourist or Town related and that are accessory to a parking
structure." Staff believes that ski lockers are a tourist related use, accessory to
the parking structure and is, therefore, permitted as a conditional use. The
Community Development Department records do not indicate that a conditional
use permit was ever granted for this ski storage. Staff will follow -up with the
Public Works Department on this issue.
IV. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
In considering the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code, staff relies on several relevant
planning documents before making a recommendation. Specifically, staff reviews the purpose
sections of the CC1 and CC2 zone districts and the goals and objectives stated in the Vail Land
Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. Staff has provided the relevant sections below:
• 3
Purpose Section of Commercial Core I (CCI) zone district:
The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the •
unique character of the Vail Village commercial area with its mixture of lodges and
commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The
Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space
and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The
District regulations, in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan
and District considerations, prescribes site development standards that are
intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered
arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and
to ensure continuation of building scale and architecture qualities that distinguish
the Village.
Purpose Section of the Commercial Core II (CCII) zone district:
The Commercial Core 2 Zone District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of
multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified
development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure
adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted
types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district
by establishing appropriate site development standards.
Vail Land Use Plan
Goal 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders
should work together closely to make existing facilities and the
Town function more efficiently.
Goal 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and
should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling,
mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling,
environmental quality).
Goal 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth.
Vail Village Master Plan
Objective 2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity
where compatible with existing land uses.
Objective 5.2 Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of
private automobiles throughout Vail.
4 0
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• Since this is a worksession, staff is not making a recommendation at this time. However, staff
will make a recommendation at the time of final review.
• 5
I0
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM:
Department of Community Development
DATE:
June 23, 1997
SUBJECT:
Request to amend the Zoning Code to allow interior conversions
Staff: Russell Forrest & Tom Braun (Consultant)
I. PURPOSE
The Town of Vail has been reviewing three potential alternatives to the existing Gross
Residential Floor Area policy for single family, duplex, and primary /secondary development. The
review was initiated at the request of the Town Council, primarily to examine how to create more
flexibility within the existing system.
The Vail Town Council, on April 15, 1997, directed staff to implement Alternative 1, the interior
conversion alternative. Alternative 1 involves keeping GRFA as a tool to control floor area but
would allow interior conversions for existing homes that have no remaining GRFA allowance.
Alternative 1 would only allow interior conversions for homes existing at the date of the approval
• of this policy by the Town Council. New construction would not be eligible for interior
conversions.
The purpose of this hearing is to make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on how
Alternative 1 should be implemented. Section V of this memo describes staff's recommendation
for ordinance language to implement alternative 1. In addition, staff would recommend
consolidating the numerous references to GRFA in the Zoning Code into one consolidated
section. This would help to better communicate current policy on GRFA to applicants. This
consolidation would also include the codification of several staff interpretations currently being
used to calculate GRFA.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT & GIVENS
In 1996, the Vail Town Council directed staff to evaluate the existing GRFA system and
determine whether this is an effective and appropriate tool when compared to other alternatives.
Three reoccurring issues have been raised by the Town Council which include:
A) Is GRFA an effective tool in controlling mass and bulk;
B) Is it appropriate that the Town should be reviewing interior floor space; and
C) Is it an effective use of staff time (both TOV and designers/builders)?
The givens for this process include:
A) The Vail Town Council will make the final decision with input from the community and
• recommendations from the PEC and staff.
rl
B) There will be some form of regulatory control of size and mass.
C) This process will only address residential development (single - family, duplex, and •
primary /secondary type structures).
D) "No action" (i.e. keeping the existing GRFA system) is a viable alternative.
E) Homes should not get significantly larger in size.
F) New design guidelines should not inhibit design creativity.
111. BACKGROUND
A. Initial Public Process
In October of 1996, Tom Braun, the planning consultant for this project, prepared a paper which
addressed the following :
• Reoccurring concerns /issues with the existing system,
• Objectives of having mass and bulk controls,
• Alternative mechanisms for controlling bulk and mass,
• History of GRFA in Vail,
• Analysis of how seven other resort communities control bulk and mass, and
• Analysis of five alternatives to the Town of Vail's GRFA system.
At the public meetings on October 30th and 31 st in 1996, Tom Braun presented the findings in
the background paper. A majority of the time at the meeting was spent obtaining input from the
public on the existing system, discussing pros and cons of alternatives, and identifying new
alternatives. Approximately 45 people attended these meetings.
\ • B. Review of Alternatives
The PEC reviewed the background paper and public input on November 11, 1996 and the Town
Council considered this information on November 26th. At the conclusion of these meetings the
staff was directed to further asses the following three alternatives in greater detail.
• Allow interior modifications to exceed the maximum GRFA allowance for existing
structures, provided such additions do not add to the bulk and mass of the home.
• Amend the definition of GRFA to exclude basement space from calculation as GRFA.
Eliminate the use of GRFA for controlling mass and bulk for single family, duplex,
and primary /secondary type structures.
C. Choice of Alternatives
The Vail Town Council was very clear that any alternative to the existing GRFA system should
not significantly increase bulk and mass. The Council was also very sensitive to any
recommendation that might inhibit creative design solutions. On March 10, 1997, the PEC, in a
4 -3 vote, recommended alternative one with several conditions. At the April 1st Council
worksession, staff reviewed the alternatives along with the recommendations from the PEC and
staff. At the evening meeting on April 15th, Council directed staff to work on the implementation
of alternative one.
2 •
•
LJ
IV. PROCESS OVERVIEW
The process for this project is broken into three phases 1) identification of alternatives; 2)
analysis of alternatives; and 3) legislative review of the preferred alternative. The following are
specific steps in the process.
Phase I Identification of Alternatives
1) Background analysis of existing GRFA system and alternatives. September &
October, 1996
2) Public meetings to review pros and cons of existing GRFA system
and alternatives.
3) Presentation to PEC and Town Council to review pros /cons and
(PEC) public input. The purpose of these public meetings was to
determine if any of the alternatives could be eliminated.
Phase II Analyze how to implement alternatives and identify the impacts of each altern
4) Complete analysis of alternative approaches.
October 30th &
31st, 1996
November 11 &
November 26
1996
December & January
1996/1997
5)
PEC worksession to review 3 alternatives
February 10, 1997
6)
PEC hearing to recommend an alternative
March 10, 1997
7)
Council worksession
April 1, 1997
8)
Evening Council meeting to decide on alternative
April 15, 1997
Phase III
Legislative Review of preferred alternative (assumes code modifications)
8)
Staff prepares language to modify Town Code
May /June, 1997
9)
PEC: hearing to consider code revisions
June 23, 1997
11)
Town Council: worksession to review proposed revision to
the existing GRFA regulations
July 1, 1997
12)
Town Council: first reading of an ordinance
July 15, 1997
13)
Town Council: second reading of an ordinance
August 5, 1997
* Currently on step 9
V. RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR GRFA IMPLEMENTATION
A. Proposed Ordinance - Inferior Conversions
The interior conversion amendment will be implemented by creating a section in a new
consolidated GRFA Chapter of the Zoning Code. This new consolidated GRFA Chapter
would incorporate the GRFA definition, current staff policies for calculating GRFA, a
summary of GRFA regulations for each zone district, the 250 sq. ft. additional GRFA
provision, and the proposed interior space conversion provision. The only substantive
0 3
It
change in GRFA policy through this consolidation of GRFA regulations would be the
interior conversion provision. •
The following is staff's recommended approach to implement alternative one. Following
PEC review, staff will prepare the formal ordinance language for this amendment.
1. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to provide flexibility and latitude with the use of interior
spaces within existing dwelling units that meet or exceed the allowable Gross Residential
Floor Area (GRFA). This would be achieved by allowing for the conversion of existing
interior spaces such as vaulted spaces, crawl spaces, and other interior spaces into floor
area provided certain conditions and standards are met. This provision is intended to
accommodate existing homes where residents desire to expand the amount of usable
space in the interior of a home. The Town has also recognized that property owners have
constructed interior space without building permits. This provision is also intended to
reduce the occurrence of interior building activity without building permits and thereby
further protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
2. Applicability
Single family, duplex, and primary /secondary type dwelling units that exceed the
allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversions provided the following criteria
are satisfied.
• Any existing single - family dwelling unit or any existing dwelling unit within a structure
containing no more than two dwelling units (exclusive of EHU units) shall be eligible to
add additional GRFA, via the "interior space conversion" provision in excess of •
existing or allowable GRFA, provided that such additional GRFA complies with the
standards outlined in paragraph 3 below.
• For the purpose of this section, "existing unit' shall mean any dwelling unit within a
structure containing no more than two dwelling units (exclusive of EHU units) that has
been constructed and has received a certificate of occupancy, has been issued a
building permit or has received final Design Review Board approval prior to approval
of this ordinance.
Multi- family dwelling units are not eligible for additional GRFA permitted by the
provisions of this Section.
3. Standar
• No application for additional GRFA under the provisions of this Section shall be made
until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property, or an
application is presently pending in conjunction with the application for additional floor
area that utilizes all allowable GRFA for the property.
• Additional floor area established under the provisions of this Section shall be
constructed utilizing the floor area or volume of the building that is in existence prior
to the effective date of this ordinance. New structures or exterior additions to
4 0
existing structures built after the effective date of this section will not be eligible for
• interior conversions. Examples of how additional GRFA can be established under the
provision of this Section include the conversion of existing basement or crawl spaces
to GRFA, the addition of lofts within the building volume of the existing building, and
the conversion of other existing interior spaces such as garages or storage areas to
GRFA.
• Proposals for additional GRFA under the provisions of this Section may involve
exterior modifications to existing buildings, however such modifications shall not
increase the building bulk and mass of the existing building. Examples of exterior
modifications which are considered to increase building bulk and mass include, but
are not limited to, the expansion of any existing exterior walls of the building,
re- grading around a building in a manner which exposes more than two (2) vertical
feet of existing exterior walls and the expansion of existing roofs. Examples of
exterior modifications which are not considered to increase building bulk and mass
include, but are not limited to, the addition of windows, doors, skylights, dormers and
window- wells. For the purpose of this Section, dormers are defined as a vertical
window projecting from a sloping roof of a building, having vertical sides and a gable
or shed roof, in which the total cumulative length of the dormer does not exceed 50%
of the length of the sloping roof, per roof plane, from which the dormer projects.
• Any existing dwelling unit which is to be demo /rebuilt shall not be eligible for additional
GRFA under this provisions of this Section.
• Proposals for the utilization of interior conversion GRFA under this provision shall
comply with all Town of Vail zoning standards and applicable development standards.
• • Proposals which involve the conversion of a garage shall not utilize any garage space
obtained through a garage space credit.
4. Process
Applications shall be made to the Community Development Department staff on forms
provided by the Department. The planning staff will review the application to ensure the
building has utilized all available GRFA and that the proposed interior conversion would
occur in a structure that was built or approved by the DRB before the effective date of this
ordinance. Submittals shall include:
• Application fees pursuant to the current fee schedule.
• Information and plans as set forth and required by Section 18.54.040, subsection C of
this Title or as determined by the Community Development Department staff.
Applicants would need to submit "as- built' floor plans of the structure so that staff can
identify the existing building from any new additions that have occurred after the
approval of this ordinance.
• Proposals deemed by the Community Department staff to be in compliance with this
Section and all applicable zoning and development regulations shall be approved by
the Department of Community Development or shall be forwarded to the Design
Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Code. Proposals
•
deemed to not comply with this Section or applicable zoning and development
regulations shall be denied. •
• Upon receiving approvals pursuant to this Section, applicants shall proceed with
securing a building permit prior to initiating construction of the project.
• Any decisions of the Community Development Department pursuant to this Section
may be appealed by any applicant in accordance with the provisions of Section
18.66.030 of the Vail Municipal Code.
B. issues Relative to the Proposed Amendment
The provisions for implementing this alternative are a result of input from the public, the
Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Council and staff over the past six
months. The purpose of this section is tp explain the rationale for some of the major
elements of the proposed ordinance.
1. W are interior conversions limited to existing units only?
The potential concern with allowing interior conversions for future construction is that new
homes will comply with GRFA but may be designed to allow for the conversion of space in
the future. For example, it would be relatively easy to design over -sized void spaces in
basement levels or to design additional or larger vaulted spaces on upper levels, both of
which could then be converted to floor area in the future if this alternative is available to new
construction. The end result of this scenario could be new homes that are larger than they
would otherwise have been (if interior conversions were not permitted).
Three alternatives have been discussed for mitigating the potential impacts of new homes •
being "over- designed" to allow for future interior conversions:
• Regulate vaulted spaces
A multiplier to calculate floor area of vaulted space (over a certain height) at a higher
rate than spaces with normal floor to ceiling heights could be implemented. A
multiplier could discourage the over - design of vaulted space. A multiplier system is
currently used in Aspen. However, calculating the volume of vaulted space would
add to the complexity of the existing GRFA system.
• Require waiting period similar to 250 Ordinance
It has been suggested that establishing a waiting period before new homes could do
interior conversions could discourage owners who may otherwise over - design their
homes in anticipation of adding interior conversions in the future. However, this type
of provision would not be a guaranteed deterrent to the over - design of homes. This
provision also raises the question: if an interior conversion would be acceptable after
a five -year wait, why is not acceptable after a three -year wait or a three -month wait.
Without alternative means for controlling the size of buildings, allowing future homes
to utilize this ordinance would undermine the GRFA system and raises the question of
whether GRFA is even necessary.
6 0
• Design Guidelines
• A third alternative for addressing the potential impact of new homes being
over - designed for future interior conversions is to regulate the bulk and mass of new
homes with design guidelines. Conceptual design guidelines to control bulk and
mass were prepared for the "No GRFA alternative" and these types of guidelines
could be utilized to regulate the bulk and mass of new construction. While not a
formal element of this proposal, the staff is interested in pursuing revisions to the
Town's design guidelines. If bulk and mass guidelines were to be adopted they could
provide a viable alternative to prevent the over - design of new homes, in which case
the applicability of the interior conversions could be extended to future construction.
2. W hy does all allowable GRFA have to be utilized prior to utilizing the inter
conversion ordinance?
This provision is suggested primarily as a "bookkeeping" measure intended to ease
the administration of this ordinance. The Town essentially has two types of GRFA -
1) allowable GRFA based on the size of a lot, and 2) GRFA permitted by the 250
Ordinance. GRFA permitted by this proposed ordinance would create a third type of
GRFA. Requiring all allowable GRFA to be used prior to utilizing "interior conversion"
GRFA will greatly simplify the administration of the GRFA system. The primary goal
of this ordinance is to allow for interior conversions to homes that have constructed all
allowable GRFA and this provision is consistent with this goal. GRFA permitted by
the 250 ordinance would not be affected by this ordinance. Any new addition that
utilizes the 250 addition (that occurs after the effective date of this ordinance) would
not be eligible for an interior conversion.
• 3. Why not include provisions for EHU's?
Establishing a "linkage" between GRFA and EHU's was originally discussed in the
context of abolishing GRFA. The scope (i.e. how much GRFA a person could
construct) of the interior conversion alternative is quite limited as compared to the "no
GRFA alternative" and as such linking interior conversions to GRFA is not considered
appropriate. In essence, the interior conversion ordinance is seen as a means for
addressing issues with the GRFA system, not issues with employee housing.
This in not to say, however, that the Town should not pursue linkages between GRFA
and EHU's. GRFA could be used as an incentive, by allowing additional GRFA if
used to construct an employee unit. Staff is currently analyzing how to improve the
EHU section of the Zoning Code.
4. Why the "date certain" proposed to define when a unit is "existing'?
As proposed, only existing homes would be eligible for interior conversions and the
"date certain" is proposed to define when a home is existing. While the proposed
date could be considered liberal in the sense that homes which have received design
review approval or are under construction would still be considered existing, the date
does establish a cut -off point in order to prevent the over - design of homes as
discussed in item #1 above. The proposed cut -off date is the date of the approval of
this GRFA amendment.
5. Why limit the size of dormers?
•
7
04
The underlying premise of this ordinance is to allow additional floor area to existing
homes provided the size of the home is not increased It is recognized that interior •
conversions may require slight modifications to the exterior of a building to provide
light and air to new spaces and to also provide adequate egress. Dormers are
specifically defined to not exceed a percentage of a roof plane in order to prevent
proposals that would raise an entire roof plane under the guise of a dormer. The
concern is that if the size of dormers are not limited, proposals to raise large portions
of a roof will be made that will increase the size of existing buildings. This scenario
would be contrary to the underlying goal of this ordinance.
6. What can p eople do who have already completed interior conversions without zoning
or building permit approvals ?
It is recognized that many interior conversions have been completed over the years
without approvals from the Town. At the direction of the Town Council, the
Community Development Staff could investigate the feasibility of an amnesty program
which would allow homeowners the opportunity to have such improvements reviewed
and approved by the Town. Such approval would be subject to compliance with
applicable zoning and building code requirements. This type of amnesty program
could be implemented independent of this ordinance and as such, specific elements
of the amnesty program are not proposed at this time.
7. Why not limit interior conversions to just permanent residents?
During the course of this process it has been suggested that any amendments which
increases allowable GRFA be limited to permanent residents only, in order to provide
an incentive for keeping local's in Vail. From a legal standpoint this could be done.
However, from a practical standpoint this would be difficult to administer. As with the •
issue of EHU's, this ordinance is seen as a means for addressing issues with the
GRFA system, not issues with permanent residents and second -home owners. No
limitations are proposed with this amendment.
8. Why not allow interior conversions as part of demo/rebuild-projects?
The underlying goal of this amendment is to allow for flexibility in the use of existin
interior spaces in a way that does not increase the size of homes. Allowing
demo /rebuilds to utilize this ordinance would be inconsistent with these goals.
9. Why not allow multi-family-units to convert existing interior spaces?
At the direction of the Town Council, this amendment process is limited to existing
single - family, two- family and primary /secondary units only.
10. What about homes that are located in a Special Development District that may have
specific GRFA limitations?
This ordinance has been structured such that GRFA which is created by interior
conversions shall be permitted in addition to allowable GRFA - regardless of whether
the allowable GRFA is determined by a ratio of the lot size (as is the case with typical
zone districts) or by specific limitations established by an SDD. GRFA created in
accordance with this Section would essentially supersede GRFA limitations
established by underlying zoning or by an SDD. The exception to this is if GRFA limits •
are identified in the covenants or with the plat restrictions for an SDD. If this is the
8
•
case, then the plat and /or covenants would have to be changed to allow an interior
conversion to occur.
11. Is pr operty eligible for an interior conversion if plat restrictions or covenants limit the
amount of GRFA within a structure?
If the plat or covenants for a property limit GRFA, an interior conversion may only be
possible if there is a plat amendment or a change in the applicable covenants.
U
12. How w ill staff determine whether conversion are located within space that w as
existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance?
This will create an administrative challenge for the staff. Following approval of this
amendment, staff will begin requiring "as- built" plans (prior to the effective date of the
amendment) for all new construction projects. Applicants will provide 8.5" x 11"
drawings of floor plans, which will be kept on file in order to document what space
was existing prior to the effect date of this amendment.
C. Exa mples of how the Amendment will be Implemented
The following hypothetical scenarios have been prepared in order to provide an indication
of how this amendment can be used and to also understand some of the limitations of
this ordinance.
1. The Ruther's have constructed all allowable GRFA, including square footage allowed
by the 250 Ordinance. They would like to add a loft of 190 square feet to an existing
vaulted space. Two skylights would be added to the roof to bring light into the loft.
Process - The interior conversion ordinance would allow for this addition. Depending
upon the design of the skylights and subject to compliance with other zoning
regulations, this application would probably be reviewed at the staff level.
2. The Waterton's have constructed all allowable GRFA, but have not utilized the 250
Ordinance. They would like to add a 225 square foot dining room by expanding an
existing exterior wall and to convert 1,000 square feet of crawl space to storage and a
recreation /family room. They would like to complete the project utilizing the provislons
of the interior conversion ordinance.
Process -The crawl space conversion could be accomplished utilizing the interior
conversion ordinance, however, the dining room could only be added by using the 250
Ordinance (because the expansion of exterior walls would increase the size of the
home). Due to the use of the 250 Ordinance, this application would require review
and approval by the PEC. The 225 square foot addition would not be eligible for an
interior conversion.
8. The Williamson's have an oversized garage of 600 square feet which currently
accommodates two cars, storage and a workshop. They would like to convert 200
square feet of the garage to GRFA by modifying interior walls, leaving approximately
400 square feet in the garage. The Williamson's have used all allowable GRFA.
•
Process -This proposal would not be allowed because the garage was constructed
using the 600 sq. ft. garage GRFA credit.
E
4. The Mason's would like to add a 200 square foot loft as an element of a major
remodel of their home. The loft would be located in a new vaulted space to be
constructed as a part of the remodel. The remodel plans would utilize all allowable
GRFA, with the exception of the loft space, which the Mason's proposed to be
created utilizing the interior conversion ordinance. •
Pr ce s - The square footage associated with the loft could not be constructed
utilizing the interior conversion ordinance because the loft is located in space that was
not in existence before this ordinance was adopted. The ordinance requires that
additional GRFA shall be constructed utilizing the floor area or volume of the building
that is in existence at the time such application is made ".
5. The Rodriguez's have an additional 800 square feet of GRFA available. They receive
DRB approval and build an 800 square foot addition. Two years later they submit
plans to convert a crawl space under the original part of the house into a basement
and to add a lofted area in the new 800 square foot addition.
Process The Rodriguez's would be allowed to convert the crawl space into a
basement since it was part of their original house that existed prior to the interior
conversion amendment to the GRFA policy. However, they would not be allowed to
utilize the lofted space in the 800 sq. ft. addition since it was built after the approval of
the interior conversion policy.
VI. CONS OLIDATION OF GRFA REGULATIONS IN THE ZONING CO
A. Purpose for Consolidation:
There are numerous references to Gross Residential Floor Area within Title 18 of the Zoning
Code. To better communicate to the public how GRFA is calculated in different zone districts, •
staff is proposing to consolidated references to GRFA into one section of the Zoning Code.
B. Proposed Changes
Currently GRFA is referred to in the following sections:
18.04.130 - Definitions
18.09.080 -HSR
18.10.090 SFR
18.11.080 P/S
18.12.090 TFR
18.13.080 P/S
18.14.090 RC
18.16.090 LDMF
18.18.090 MDMF
18.20.090 HDMF
18.22.090 PA
18.24.130 CC1
18.26.100 CC2
18.27.080 CC3
18.28.100 CSC
18.29. 080 AB
18.32.090 AOS
18.57 EHU
18.71 Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250)
11111
•
Staff would like to consolidate the above mentioned references and the interior conversion
provision into one section in the Zoning Code. The following summarizes this consolidation:
1) The reference to GRFA in the Definition section would be moved to the consolidated
GRFA section. In its place would be a simple definition of GRFA which could be simply:
,, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a
bulding as measured using standards in Section 18.(Consolidated GRFA Section)"
2) The GRFA section in each zone district would remain the same. A summary for each zone
district would be included in a table in the consolidated GRFA section. (See Attachment B for
an example of what this table would look like)
3) Section 18.71 (Additional GRFA) would be included in the consolidated GRFA Section.
4) The interior conversion standards, if approved, would be incorporated into the
consolidated GRFA section.
5) Staff interpretations currently used to calculate GRFA would be incorparated into the
consolidated GRFA section. See attachment A to review existing staff interpretations.
It is important to note that this consolidation would not change the Town's current policy for
regulating GRFA. It would simply help make the GRFA process easier to understand for
development review applicants. This consolidation would also codify existing staff interpretations
for calculating GRFA. Again, this would not result in a change in how GRFA is regulated.
Specific sections of this new consolidated GRFA Chapter would include:
Se ct ion Ti IP �.
18.80.010 Purpose and need for GRFA
18.80.020 Summary of GRFA for Zone Districts (This would be in a tabular format -See
Attachment B for example)
18.80.030 Calculation of GRFA (will incorporate definition section and staff
interpretations)
18.80.040 Interior Conversions
18.80.050 Additional GRFA
* Note: Section numbers are intended to be an example. Actual section references will be
assigned when and if the ordinance is approved.
•
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Town Council has directed staff to implement Alternative 1. This alternative keeps GRFA as
a tool to control bulk and mass of structures but allows interior conversions to existing homes.
Staff recommends that the approach outlined in Section V of this memo is the most effective way
of implementing Alternative 1. With this approach, only existing homes on the effective date of
this ordinance that are existing or which plans have been approved by the DRB could take
advantage of doing interior conversions. This alternative will address the most pressing issue
that initiated this process, which was to create greater flexibility for homeowners to make interior
conversions to their existing homes even if they do not have any remaining GRFA allowance.
Staff would recommend that the policy of allowing interior conversions be reexamined after the
design guidelines have been modified, since staff anticipates that property owners of homes that
will be constructed in the future will want to convert crawl spaces into basements or turn lofted
areas into floor area.
11
Staff also recommends consolidating the GRFA regulations in the existing Zoning Code to help
clarify current policy on Gross Residential Floor Area. Staff received numerous public comments
during the review of this policy on how difficult the GRFA policy is to understand. This •
consolidation would not change how GRFA is regulated but would help clarify how GRFA is
currently calculated.
The following is a summary of the staff recomendations:
* Only apply interior conversion to structures that are in existence as of the effective date of
the approval of this ordinance.
* Additions to structures after the date of this amendment would not be eligible for interior
conversions.
* Structures must not have any remaining GRFA allowance (excluding the 250 GRFA credit)
before applying for interior conversion GRFA.
• Implement Alternative 1 as per the other standards outlined in this memo.
• Consolidate all GRFA references in the Zoning Code into one section.
• Reevaluate the GRFA policy after new design guidelines have been adopted.
•
12
Attachment A
Current Staff Policy for Calculating GRFA
I•
Calculation:
Interior walls are included in GRFA calculations. For duplex and primary /secondary structures,
common party walls shall be considered exterior walls.
Bay windows, fireplaces, and mantels shall be included in GRFA calculations.
" Greenhouse windows (self - supporting windows) shall not be counted as GRFA. Greenhouse
windows are defined according to the following criteria (see graphic):
Distance Above Inside Floor Level - In order for a window to be considered a greenhouse
window, a minimum distance of 36" must be provided between the bottom of the window and
the floor surface, as measured on the inside face of the building wall. (Floor surface shall not
include steps necessary to meet Building Code egress requirements). The 36" minimum was
chosen because it locates the window too high to be comfortably used as a window seat and
because it allows for a typical 4' high greenhouse window to be used in a room with an 8'
ceiling height.
2. Projection -No greenhouse window may protrude more than 18" from the exterior surface of
the building. This distance allows for adequate relief for appearance purposes, without
substantially adding to the mass and bulk of the building.
3. Construction Characteristics - All greenhouse windows shall be self - supporting and shall not
require special framing or construction methods for support, with the exception that brackets
below the window may be allowed provided they die into the wall of the building at a 45 degree
angle. A small roof over the window may also be allowed provided the overhang is limited to 4"
• beyond the window plane.
4. Dimensional Requirement - No greenhouse window shall have a total window surface area
greater than 44 s.f. This figure was derived on the assumption that the maximum height of a
window, in an average sized room, is 4' and the maximum width for a 4' high self- supporting
window is between 6' and 8' (approximately 32 s.f.). Since the window would protrude no more
than 18 ", the addition of side windows would bring the overall window area to approximately 44
s.f.
5. Quantity - Up to two (2) greenhouse windows will be allowed per dwelling unit, however, the 44
s.f. size limitation will apply to the combined area of the two windows.
6. Greenhouse windows do not count as site coverage.
Vaulted spaces and areas "open to below" are not included in GRFA calculations.
" Storage areas, mechanical areas, stairs, landings, void spaces, and the like are included in GRFA
calculations.
The conversion of all areas counted as "credit area" prior to January 1, 1991 shall be allowed.
Rock storage areas may be converted to GRFA.
Garage credit:
Allowable garage area is awarded on a "per space basis," with a maximum of two spaces per
allowable unit. Each garage space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular
access. All floor area included in the garage credit shall be contiguous to a vehicular space.
• Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in the garage and which are 25%
or more open to the garage area shall be included as garage credit.
13
* Garage space in excess of the allowable garage credit shall be counted as GRFA.
Crawl and attic space:
* Crawl spaces created by a "stepped foundation," hazard mitigation, or other similar engineering
requirement that has a total height in excess of five feet may be excluded from GRFA calculations
at the discretion of the Director of Community Development.
* Pre - existing crawl space or attic areas, no matter what the head height, can be converted to .
habitable area only if the project or development has available GRFA or approval for additional
GRFA under the 250 ordinance when analyzed using current GRFA regulations.
* Pre - existing crawl space areas, unfinished with an earthen floor and limited access, no matter what
the head height will not be counted as GRFA until such time as conversion to habitable area is
proposed and approved through the normal design review process. Again, conversions can only
be approved if the project has available GRFA when analyzed using current GRFA regulations.
* All crawl spaces constructed must meet the following definition:
Crawl spaces shall include any below grade or substantially buried area enclosed within the
foundation walls, with a ceiling height less than or equal to 5 feet as measured from the
surface of the earth to the underside of the structural members of the floor /ceiling assembly
above. Crawl spaces must be accessed with an opening not greater than 12 square feet in
area.
Enclosed spaces not meeting this definition will be considered to be GRFA. Enclosed spaces
counted as GRFA will be clearly noted by the planner on the red -lined floor plans. True crawl
spaces shall be shown on floor plans and labeled with a note indicating: 1) that the height of
the space will be 5 feet or less, and 2) that access will be provided via a hatch or door not to
exceed 12 square feet in area. All crawl spaces shown on any approved floor plans shall have
such a note, or the planner will count the space as GRFA.
* If a roof structure is designed utilizing a non -truss system, and spaces greater than five feet in
height result, these areas shall not be counted as GRFA if ALL of the following criteria are met
1. The area cannot be accessed directly from a habitable area within the same building level; •
2. The area shall have the minimum access required by the Building Code from the level
below (6 s.f. opening maximum);
3. The attic space shall not have a structural floor capable of supporting a "live load" greater
than 40 pounds per square foot, and the "floor" of the attic space cannot not be improved
with decking;
4. It must be demonstrated by the architect (to the staff) that a "truss -type" or similar structural
system cannot be utilized as defined in the definition of GRFA; and
5. It will be necessary that a structural element (i.e., collar -tie) be utilized when rafters are
used for the roof system. In an unusual situation, such as when a bearing ridge system is
used, the staff will review the space for compliance with this policy.
25% contiguous opening:
* In order for a covered (roofed) area NOT to count as GRFA, there must be a continuous and
contiguous opening in the exterior walls of not less than 25% of the total lineal perimeter of the area
in question. An exception shall be made for railings up to 3' in height and support posts with a
diameter of 18" or less which are spaced no closer than 10' apart. The space between the posts
shall be measured from the outer surface of the post (see graphic).
Primary/Secondary units:
* The 425 s.f. credit per unit shall be applied to each unit AFTER the 60/40 split has been calculated
(i.e., the secondary unit shall be allowed 40% of the total GRFA + 425 s.f.). •
* On Primary /Secondary and Duplex lots, GRFA is calculated based on the entire lot.
14
A
Attachment B
Example of Consolidated Table for GRFA
CHAPTER 1 S
• GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA)
•
•
TOWN OF
15
lip I
Zone Districts
GRFA
GRFA
Credits
Ratio /Percentage
(added to results of application of percentage)
HR
20% of lot area of first 21,780 sq. ft. +
None
Hillside
5% of lot area over 21,780 sq. ft.
Residential
SFR
25% of lot area of first 12,500 sq. ft. +
425 sq, ft per allowable dwelling unit
Single Family
10 of lot area over 12,500 sq. ft.
Residential
R
25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. +
per allowable dwelling unit
Two - Family
10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. ft, and up to 30,000 sq. ft. +
Residential
5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft.
F425sq.
P/S
25% of lot area of first 15,000 sq. ft. +
per allowab le dwelling unit
Primary/
10% of lot area over 12,500 sq. ft. and up to 30,000 sq. ft. +
Secondary
5% of lot area over 30,000 sq. ft.
Residential
(the secondary unit shall not exceed 40% of GRFA on -site prior
to application of credit)
RC
25% of buildable lot area
225 sq. ft. for single - family and two- family structures only
Residential
Cluster
LDMF
30 of buildable lot area
225 sq. ft. for single- family and two- family structures only
Low Density
Multiple
Family
MDMF
35% of buildable lot area
225 sq. 11. for single- family and two-family structures only
Medium
Density
Multiple
Family
MDMF
60%. of buildable lot area
None
High Density
Multiple
Family
PA
80% of buildable lot area
None
Public Accom-
modation
CCl
80% of buildable lot area
None
Commercial
Core 1
CC2
80% of buildable lot area
None
Commercial
Core 2
CC3
30% of buildable lot area
None
Commercial
Core 3
CSC
40'/ of buildable lot area
None
Commercial
GRFA shall not exceed 50 0 /. of total building floor area on any
Service Center
site
A BD
60"/ of buildable lot area
None
Arterial
Business
HS
None permitted
None
Heavy Service
TOWN OF
15
.. \.:. \c mow,••:: o- + ...............
vv
�•` +':' +� w. \..vv \� `i:..;1�::. uv,r�.`y���;;��!!
\ \:FMM•:�` �; :..�,•
��\\t iY: ?3: v'`:]:t \� \' +� \ \ \� \ti; \ \ \ \ti+\;}i; };+, .v +:+;...• „• \•. v \•nvY: Y::Yi
^ ' ti, \::•�'r': •ti•:L•:iv� ++•�� \ \: \ \ \. \\
i•i \•:v'•:v'•;
Zone Districts GRFA
GRFA
Credits
Rado /Percentage
(added to results of application of percentage)
A
Up to 2,000 sq. $. total
None
Agricultural
and Open
Space
0
None permitted
None
outdoor
Recreation
P
None permitted
None
Parking
CU
Per PEC approval
None
General Use
NAP
None permitted
None
Natural Area
Preservation
SBR
Unlimited, per Counci I approval
None
Ski Base
Recreation
SDD
Per underlying zoning or per development plan approval by
None
Special
Council
Development
L District
f:everyone \russ \memos \grfa.62
•
•
•
IV
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Lionshead Master Plan Team
Date: June 23, 1997
RE: Lionshead Master Plan Proposed Public View Corridor Designation
This memo is an overview of the Lionshead Master Plan public view corridor selection process, and
makes recommendations for public view corridors within the Lionshead Master Plan study area. The
information in this memo is outlined as follows:
I. Lionshead view corridor designation criteria
II. View corridor public input sessions
III. Summary of public input
IV. Master plan team recommendation for Lionshead public view corridors
V. Action Requested of the Planning and Environmental Commission
Attachment "A'- Master plan team evaluation of 14 initial view corridor candidates
Attachment "B "- Map and photos of 14 initial view corridor candidates
Attachment "C "- Photographs of view corridors proposed for designation
Attachment "D "- Overview of Lionshead Design Charette
I. Lionshead View Corridor Designation Criteria
At thjeY May 20' meeting, the Vail Town Council approved the use of the existing Town of`+Vail view
corridor ordinance as the criteria to be used during the Lionshead master plan process for the selection
and designation of public view corridors. In essence, the criteria define what a view must meet in order
to qualify for protection under the town's ordinance:
I . Is the view critical to the identity, civic pride, and sense of place of Lionshead? In other words,
being a nice view is not enough- the view must be such that without it the identity and civic
pride of Lionshead would be damaged or lost.
2. Is the view seen from a commonly recognized and accessed, public view point? Again, views
from private property cannot be recognized or protected by this ordinance.
3. Is the view threatened? Is there development potential on the properties or real estate in front of
the view that has the potential for blocking it?
If a view meets these tests, then it can be considered for designation under the language of the existing
ordinance. The master plan team applied these criteria to the full range of views in Lionshead, and
narrowed the initial field of 45 views down to 14 potential public view corridors. As outlined in the
following section, these 14 public views were then presented to the community for input.
H. View Corridors Public Input Sessions
A. View corridor walking tours. ours. Two public walking tours were given, on Tuesday June 3` (9
attendees) and Sunday June 8 (7 attendees). Attendees were provided with a packet containing
' photographs of the 14 views, plus a locational map of Liopshead (attached). They were asked to
• rank each view as "critical", "consider ", or "do not consider". During each walking tour, an
y explanation of the criteria for each potential view was given by the consultant, and attendees were
- -r` encouraged to submit any additional view opportunity they thought had been left off the list.
B. Self Guided Walking Tours. ours. In addition to the guided walking tours, the tour packets were placed
• in public input boxes so that members of the public could complete the walking tour on their own.
Three responses were received through this opportunity.
C. Public Input Forum. On June 16` from 4 to 7 p.m., a forum was held in the library community
room where members of the public were able to respond to the view corridor candidates in the same
format as the walking tours. Approximately 20 people took advantage of this input opportunity.
D. Internet Web Page. The final ongoing public input opportunity regarding the view corridors was the
Lionshead web site, where visitors were able to view the individual view corridor candidates, and
respond with e-mail in the same format as the walking tours. 2 responses were received from the
p g
p
Lionshead web site.
E. Total Public Response. The complete public involvement included approximately 42 people, from
which was received 26 written responses.
M. Summary of Public Input
IV. Master Plan Team Recommendation for Lionshead View Corridors
The recommendations for designation of public view corridors is broken down into two sections:
A. Public view corridors with specific view points, recommended to be protected under the existing
Town of Vail view corridor ordinance in Stage V of the master plan process.
View number three. This view corridor is seen from the west end of the Lionshead
parking structure, standing at street level at the main pedestrian exit from the parking
structure, looking southwest towards the gondola lift line. Options for this view also
included view points from the first stair landing and the top of the structure, but this "at
grade" designation will by default protect the views from the higher vantage points.
Second to view number seven, the views from the west end of the parking structure
received the greatest amount of "critical" responses from the public input process.
s
This view fulfills the criteria outlined in section I of this memo:
• a. It fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead
b. It is taken from a commonly recognized, publicly accessible vantage point. This
area is not only the primary point of entry for pedestrian traffic (from the parking
structure), it is also the primary drop -off and pick -up point in Lionshead for the
Vail bus system and private shuttles.
c. It is potentially threatened by redevelopment in the foreground of the view (from
a building height standpoint).
2. View number seven. This view corridor is seen from the pedestrian plaza area in front of
the Lifthouse Lodge, adjacent to the current location of the popcorn wagon, looking
south directly up the gondola lift line. View six, taken just east of this view point, will by
default be protected by view seven. This view received the greatest amount of "critical'
responses from the public input process.
This view fulfills the criteria outlined in section I of this memo:
a. It fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead.
b. It is taken from a commonly recognized, publicly accessible vantage point. This
view represents the first full view of the ski mountain from the Lionshead core,
for pedestrians walking from the west end of the Lionshead mall.
c. It is potentially threatened by redevelopment in the foreground of the view,
particularly concerning the redevelopment of the Vail Associates core site.
Note: it is uncertain how the Vail Associates core site (gondola building, Sunbird Lodge) on the west
side of the proposed view corridor will be redeveloped, and it is recommended that the definition of this
view be made with consideration of this potential redevelopment.
B. Public view corridors where the view point or foreground of view is likely to be redeveloped. As
outlined in the May 19 consultant memorandum to the Town Council, these views will be described
as a design parameter within the master plan. Upon adoption of the Lionshead Master Plan by the
Town Council, and upon application for redevelopment by a property owner affected by the
designated future view corridor, the extent to which the applicant creates the future public view
corridor described in the master plan will be a consideration for approval or disapproval by the
Town. In addition, if the redevelopment application is approved by Council, and upon completion
of the redevelopment project, the new view corridor would then be surveyed and formally adopted
in accordance with existing Town code.
1. View number two. This view is seen from the east end of the Lionshead parking structure,
and looks south across the Lodge at Lionshead buildings towards the ski mountain. It is
possible that this eastern site will be developed as some form of public facility in the future,
and this view may become more commonly accessed and important at that time.
2. View numbers eight and nine These two views, both looking south through the center of
the Vail Associates core site, have the potential of creating a north -south penetration, both
` visual and pedestrian, upon the redevelopment of phis site. This view would not only be
accessible from the Lionshead mall area, but from the frontage road and north day lot area as
<sf '` well. Given the possible redevelopment scenarios for this part of Lionshead, this potential
corridor could be of great significance, both from an aesthetic and pedestrian circulation
standpoint.
V. Requested Action of the Planning and Environmental Commission
It is important to note that the designation of these proposed view corridors at this time is not a formal,
legal adoption as described in the view corridor ordinance. Rather, these designated view corridors, if
any, will be considered as critical design constraints for the duration of the Lionshead Master Plan
process, and will not be formally surveyed and adopted until Stage V of the master plan process. The
available actions for the Planning and Environmental Commission on this recommendation are as
follows:
1. Approve the Master Plan team's recommendation for view corridor designation as described
in section IV of this memo, or
2. Add or delete view corridors to be designated according to the criteria described in section I
of this memo, or
3. Do not approve any view corridors for designation at this time.
•
i
� 2
Attachment A
Master Plan Team Evaluation of 14 initial View Corridor Candidates
View 1
• Not recommended for designation
• Does not fulfill test of "civic pride ", is not noticed by many people
View 2
• Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as formal view
corridor
• Meets "civic" pride test
• Currently, view point is not greatly accessed, but this could change given the potential
development scenarios on the east end of the parking structure
View 3
• Recommended for designation as protected view corridor.
• Clearly meets "civic pride" and "identity" test.
• Is perhaps most commonly recognized and accessed view in Lionshead.
• Is potentially threatened by increased height or expansion of buildings in foreground
View 4
• Will be protected by designation of view 3.
View 5
• Will be protected by designation of view 3.
View 6
• Will be protected by designation of view 7.
View 7
• Recommended for designation as protected view corridor.
• Clearly meets "civic pride" and "identity" test.
• Is commonly recognized and accessed view.
• Is potentially threatened by redevelopment of VA core site.
View 8
• Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as formal view
corridor.
• Has opportunity of creating important visual and pedestrian link through the VA core site,
on a north -south axis.
View 9
• Recommended for designation as "design parameter" in master plan, but not as formal view
corridor.
• Has opportunity of creating important visual and pedestrian link through the VA core site,
on a north -south axis.
View 10
• Not recommended for designation.
• Very nice view, but does not meet "identity" test, relates more to Vail Village than
Lionshead.
i
I
View 11
• Not recommended for designation.
• View is primarily accessed by vehicles, not pedestrians.
• Buildings in foreground could experience significant height increases without threatening
view.
View 12
• Not recommended for designation.
• Open passage between Antlers and Lionsquare Lodge is owned by Town of Vail, view is not
threatened.
View 13
• Not recommended for designation.
• Open passage between Antlers and Lionsquare Lodge is owned by Town of Vail, view is not
threatened.
View 14
• Not recommended for designation.
• While this view is extremely important, it is highly unlikely that it will ever be developed due
to its function as the ski yard and skier queing/ staging area in Lionshead.
• Land use designation/ zoning is the more appropriate method of ensuring the preservation of
this view across the ski yard.
i
Attachment B
Map and Photos of 14 Initial View Corridor Candidates
The following pages contain the original 14 view corridor candidates that were presented to the public
in the walking tours and the view corridor preferences forum.
I ME
LIN
� fir►
e.
4 M.
ir
Jf%
•
VIEW CORRIDOR CANDIDATE 0 3
VIEW CORRIDOR CANDIDATE 04
ov:
vf W`
..........
K'
ty
Vw
JF
117 li
vii f
rA
ty
Vw
JF
rA
yti \.tte:.�i
it r A
yf. J r J ` , F 1 a - ti y � •y t� i t .�+t 7 ( t r � . ` � ✓
.J
� �15
-
n6 ��t ' .k� °' '' 4 �',t il� 41 � %Lf� •�+ t�� a r�' ! t+.��e c
►' t+ �!� �St .d { � ( " tSii ° � 3 t tr l Y:` �'� r ' . j
• ! h,J S c':.St -�! !^�'t° � L �.f�'Fr�ry k + �? = ,.,��r?= �ti�aru��4,.;= � � � 'tt y �h1
! p�=�} t � yy . r � r L. 1 .x' 1 .tN ibl ,rte �t yk ..•: '�.
S � , ��yy ' '
if
.� htifr Tl .a'. , t ww : y+ ..ttA } ✓ ! a wy $ tr' � y .✓ 1t'dl F .
fii �� { "� r r r *g•L ''' nth
��.Z N5 � '1 ✓• 1r ' � � i
k '� d {�� yid a,� � �. i ,�i'F�•vrt � �M ,. �i
Ly f,a� l r j +�j�i f T ; �' r lift M j jf� '� f ' ;.
t r ..i s � � � r`•1h 1r �M 1, lr'.d ,y�� 7 � + r
fF rn� f
"del r
e
3 t 1!
i{�� # 4�,
loft
soft—
OW
:i.......+ ` X .L .�
.av
"o," t 4
VA. I
-, . I.." K I I I -"
Attachment C
Photographs of View Corridors Proposed for Designation
The following pages contain images of the view corridors proposed for designation, as outlined in
section IV of this memo.
J y /
� AP
7 NMI*
Tot
•
PfzOPOSED VIEW COf�i�IDOiz # 3
,t r rT�,rk"a y
tr t� dt o
na n
f
r Fs 1 l
c ; ' jrt'%y...l tl ors 4 4
N %t � '��.� r } ��a �r j •Y;'.V i Y �,1�4"?r �r i ✓i
r r {, s .tNi f r tjr yjt,.`2 _i r
'{Iy�jy yrt P1 } 4 1N
^a yy ((� ftL �
k+U{tc.f �lY iffF t•JI .�+ } {�. h 4P6 lrL/I
t 1M
L�
c
r
L , r 1 ry •:
� k
G
,t r rT�,rk"a y
tr t� dt o
na n
f
r Fs 1 l
c ; ' jrt'%y...l tl ors 4 4
N %t � '��.� r } ��a �r j •Y;'.V i Y �,1�4"?r �r i ✓i
r r {, s .tNi f r tjr yjt,.`2 _i r
'{Iy�jy yrt P1 } 4 1N
^a yy ((� ftL �
k+U{tc.f �lY iffF t•JI .�+ } {�. h 4P6 lrL/I
t 1M
� _r rt � •• arS,T P ' <yp ° .r
�; V '� ��iRf �..� gy �•.
ti y:f ¢r� { • .. r .:
L •, yy ..� i r r
T t 7�� 1 r t X � yy �*s� 7j jj � � s ! * � ��T • �1� lt T � .
, {yv M�,• {1 it y Y� s ti ` tl�,. i � � � �.1� ` • �• J h'
��y 4�G! ^y ES .�4,' A -• y c4� •T; r ti l ( � f � it � r .s
"Ll
r'i Vr .i^Tti Z ��� tY�' � „� � �� 1 ? , y .:• • r !.k^ ;l �. ^r
i
.' •x� ^ 1>il� ,{ ' ty {. , j , r
It
. '�1 � � M � t ^ 5� 1 t , f y l fM'1 �l f ( ?� a� . D �.4 •� .I f � +Y ' 4, r' � � y �
c� , • ��r��i�l ��Etat�Fl�tF�����xr, L. �� r t : {..�' 3 �
r4 � iir� � + f:'J • �f 1 +0 7 t' it
.;cis '7s!{�'''t q i 2 � ' . D� f�r u�. �i •�u �. "itr � � A ;j ` f. �t a .
+� l .jt'r "�Jir'�< +la+'11t, >+25 S' +� d • �r ..
r
a
ra
r:
t
Srr} r�aC� d rt �
+ ^r
VyJ 1 '2r i
•,�, rt� ° � f �rJ''� r ;` r j i�,;r R7'"`t c,� i�j�t `i� iit'� 1
c W 1dFlr .:n'31•' ��i. 4. r 1 t' 1 �, l
Nf r ff �
u 7
t �tte
y � Y • r, + r� }�'y��> � a' t , � �r'�"f�� ��`` � v � r f c ° y - I
�yy r Ufst' rS ` tt '1�''� y r 45• , p t '.��,` '� `y� i �'*s� 1 ..
M1 � y 3C " i e n 5 y y� 5 .t s p ..• t
v1 1 1 / T
�z.,,: l;rX•. �: : ,r. ` � , , 'fit”
f�
1,
f F {
}y ,,n , d i•i � S` s,. fL ti f1 '3�j'Ti� '!%
�,r �, it� x,� t �' 1; � !� � r�` t o Fu ° r �4 �!} � • � Cid 1 r �
�
1 r i S r�� ry p: y { rMt 1 r y y
t t
K i,
i bra � l�� /4!� �F,,'7� + t t rr +. G �' � t r 7 t _. l �,�ri r � r t t � y� ,
' . , Y yy P, ri y � � +++ +J y
i/ rr� `• 1�, ! iJTyv�
t r =r 0 a H t
;, + .+
l q,tKiF �r a'r('c W r "rl c rTt t ,
HMV xvr i `} � irr� tJ} y $ Y•Y �:1 t � (j r+' y �r i f i Fj f +� r t 3' i y r
t �
7�
q,r ��h ii LCt.. ►r � 'i � f 7 , r
,�! �, {r t T '� •54�G �,?'. ,r d5 .rt:R �•: ,{ r r � >,t }.r t
;1 ? � I,� ����= t j* t lt�j � L r�IcS , f y rd c.� i .4* dJ .: r•�� � /. ■ t � / .
r /a:�i: �l \f ,��r�ryrtW 1. � � >> -;�+': tX '' r . V; v ., J� r }. � t _
1
$�, / ! ii if Y , r ` � •`� .�i �ii
1: i ri1
�� at
�a t+,�L'r��i:l to jrh•� t, � '��` ta
M tJ r ti{ /,q 7• y w ♦ . , r 'M1111M� ,
?�{ �.1��'t'r � C; r +� i r.+t . � r �jli {1Z'.• rik7 r {� �Z r �•; r � , � t` r
'�, .i�J Ir �,�il t � r y�`•+- ) ` 1 � ' °' t+' r � � Y �4� � t � i
S y , i e+t� �[.( rldr 1 � � r 1 • + " r r�} r r\ � � ` [
t' r 1�/ }i, t �, lfS � 1. + L- '"�•.'le�t , f � f h r{ r •V'ai4 �S•�J t13 � � � f 1 !
I K k �.} �. t r � / h •+� .. �v r � r 't t .
:: w 4�rt 'a''ilwv$"'�� •ti ". p X, 7' : � ,' rt "•� �+� "„ �� r r•
I �i�'SAw�+t�/f��"al'tJ'�L.7lts
�r�lb�)
'L i j..e .' • y.r wr .� c ". �+�,'lr��; 1� l• y .l +t •
r
af��•t F y� la 'St C,�r �. r�,i � i y ti Y n''S, ;y�� ''� 'i r r
� h r
Vii,
Attachment D
Overview of Lionshead Master Plan Design Charette
On Saturday, June 14` approximately 30 architects, landscape architects, and planners met from 8:00
a.m. until 7 p.m., at the Antlers conference facility, and brainstormed about the future of Lionshead.
This event, organized by the master plan team, brought together some of the most talented and
experienced minds in our valley, and produced a wide range of intriguing thoughts and potential
solutions to the issues present in Lionshead. Attendees were randomly divided into different teams for a
morning and afternoon session, with each team tackling one of ten pre - defined problem statements. The
problem statements studied were as follows, and addressed the most prominent public "wishlist" items:
1. Treatment of the Gore Creek Corridor
2. Lionshead Architectural and Streetscape Guidelines
3. Treatment of Vail Associates Core Site
4. Development Potential for East end of Parking Structure
5. Treatment of South Side of Parking Structure
6. Central Services and Delivery Complex
7. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation
8. Locals/ Seasonal / Affordable Housing
9. Concert Hall Plaza/ Lionshead West Gateway
10. West Lionshead
Firms represented at the Charette included:
• 1.
Colorado Alpines, Landscape
Architects
2.
Cottle, Graybeal & Yaw Architects
3.
Design Workshop, Planning,
Landscape Architecture
4.
Fritzlen Pierce Briner, Architects
5.
Land Art, Landscape Architects
6.
Land Designs by Ellison, Landscape
Architects
7. Michael Hazard Associates,
Architects
8. Morter Architects
9. Pierce Segerberg Architects .
10. Robertson Miller Terrell, Architects
11. Vail Associates
12. Zehren & Associates, Architects
13. James Lamont, Planner
14. Saby Ben - David, Architect
Design Workshop and the Lionshead master plan team would like to thank all of the architects,
landscape architects, and planners who made this event a success. Results of the charette are on display
in Dobson Arena.
APPRovZD JUL 14 3997
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 23, 1997
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Moffet Ann Bishop
Greg Amsden
Galen Aasland
John Schofield
Diane Golden
Gene Uselton
Public Hearing
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Mike Mollica
George Ruther
Lauren Waterton
Russ Forrest
Judy Rodriguez
2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a variance from Section 18.30.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a canopy to be
located in the front setback and a variance from Title 16, to allow the rooftop sign to
exceed 20 sq. ft. and to allow a free - standing sign to exceed 8' in height and 20 sq. ft. in
size, located at 2313 North Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing.
Applicant: Dick Dilling, represented by JMP Architects
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the memo.
Greg Moffet asked the applicant if he had anything to add.
Roger Landing with JMP Architects, representing the applicant, said the owner had to make
changes due to the Roundabout construction. He said the height under the canopy requires 13'
clearance and the application was accurate regarding that variance.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none.
Galen Aasland agreed with staff, with regard to the square footage restriction on the signs.
Diane Golden agreed with Galen.
John Schofield advised the applicant to have the free standing sign work with the surrounding
area.
Gene Uselton agreed with Galen.
Greg Amsden agreed with staff.
Planning and Envirmunental Commission
Minutes
June 23, 1997
1
n
Greg Moffet said he agreed with staff regarding this area. He said there were so many variances
in this area, that Council should look at the code and make changes to encourage compliance.
Galen Aasland made a motion for approval for the canopy, in accordance with the 3 findings on •
page 7 and approval for the sign with four conditions.
John Schofield seconded the motion with an amendment to strike "rooftop sign."
The motion passed as amended by a vote of 6 -0.
2. An appeal of a staff decision regarding a proposed batting cage on the outdoor dining
deck of Garton's Saloon, located at 143 East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Appellant: Dave Garton
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Greg Moffet disclosed for the record that Garton's Saloon was a customer of his, but he didn't
see it as a conflict with this application.
Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Dave Garton introduced Steve Olson, the GM of Garton's. Steve Olson handed out diagrams to
the PEC, as Dave Garton explained that a bar like his always had games such as, Lasso Calf,
pool tables, etc. He said the size had been cut down to decrease danger. He went on to explain
the diagram of the deck and handed out a sample of the netting for the batting cage. He said he
received a letter from Brian Canapa, a coach for 10 -11 yr. olds in the valley, who would make this •
batting cage available for our kids to use. The batting cage would be open from 4:30 p.m. until
10:00 p.m. He said the batting machine would throw both hard balls and softballs. He explained
that he had space outside Garton's for the batting cage and that Vail stood for recreation and this
would fit. Dave said that this was an accessory to a bar and not visibly, or audibly obtrusive and
no neighbors would be bothered by it, so it was a win -win situation for the Town. He closed by
saying he would like this to be an accessory use to Garton's conditional use.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none.
John Schofield asked staff if this would be allowed inside.
Lauren Waterton said yes, as a conditional use, as Garton's would be considered a major
arcade, since Garton's already had 4 other games.
John Schofield said he would support this idea, however, code is clear that it is not permitted.
He suggested the code be changed to permit it and that would have to go to Council, as the
PEC's hands were tied. '
Steve Olson said it was a matter of interpretation.
Gene Uselton asked Lauren to read the code section regarding conditional uses and then asked
if the PEC would be prohibited from approving the request.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 2 •
June 23, 1997
Mike Mollica stated that was the question to be answered today.
• Greg Moffet said there was nothing in the code that says a use was prohibited.
Mike Mollica read from the code, stating that any use listed as a permitted use may be located
outside, subject to a conditional use permit. However, he said we were discussing an accessory
use.
Greg Moffet asked if it was permitted by exclusion?
Mike Mollica said, no, only those uses specifically listed were permitted.
Steve Olson added "which is not entirely conducted inside." He said they would be conducting
business outside and that games were a part of our business.
Gene Uselton asked about the interpretation.
Greg Moffet said we had to apply the code.
Mike Mollica said letter I of the code stated that permitted uses not located entirely within a
building may be located outside, subject to a conditional use permit.
Steve Olson said it would fall under "other uses customary to do business."
Gene Uselton asked if it went to Council, could Council approve it without changing the code?
Mike Mollica stated that staff, PEC and Council all must use the same criteria and code citations
in reviewing this.
Gene Uselton asked when children would be using the batting cage.
Steve Olson explained that Garton's was trying to attract families into the bar.
Greg Amsden stated a batting gage was not necessary for the bar's operation.
Steve Olson said the cage would be taken down on Friday, as Garton's didn't want to have to
police it. He explained that the cage was totally portable.
Greg Amsden asked if it was that portable, why weren't there more batting cages in Vail. He said
this was an inappropriate use for that location in Town and although the Town needed batting
cages, he was shocked to see it at Garton's.
Dave Garton agreed, but said the Town of Vail didn't have any in Town.
Steve Olson reminded the PEC that visually, you wouldn't see it.
Greg Amsden asked staff if this would go before the DRS and said that it didn't fit the Design
Guidelines.
Galen Aasland didn't understand why permitted uses were allowed outside.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
June 23, 1997 3
Mike Mollica said any permitted use was a conditional use outside. But he said that this was not
a permitted use, but an accessory use. He said the code was silent, as it related to accessory
uses to be permitted outside. Mike said that if a use was not listed, it was therefore, not allowed •
and that's how the Zoning Code worked.
Galen Aasland stated he would like to find a way to see this happen.
Diane Golden said we needed batting cages in this valley. She asked if it would require
supervision.
Steve Olson said it was coin operated and the power would be shut off, so children wouldn't be
able to just come up and use it.
Greg Moffet said he was having trouble with the memo prohibiting this use. He said the code
only allowed permitted, enumerated uses outside. He said if we could not permit accessory
uses, then this was removing discretion, rather than adding discretion. He said that the code
should permit more latitude and that he was having a hard time adopting staff's interpretation of
the ordinance.
John Schofield agreed that, after looking at the code, it was less than clear and open to
interpretation.
Steve Olson said staff said that accessory uses couldn't be used outdoors.
Greg Moffet said the Town Council should address this as a code change to make accessory
uses permitted outside. He said as a Planning Commission, our purview was limited and the
elected folks make the interpretation.
Dave Garton said that would be too late.
Gene Uselton made a motion to overturn the staff decision.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
Mike Mollica asked if the PEC was saying that accessory uses were permitted uses and should
be one and the same.
Gene Uselton said no, that the definitions were difficult and these should be reviewed on a case -
by -case basis.
Mike Mollica cautioned this would have implications on other projects.
Galen Aasland suggested Gene amend the motion with a finding.
Greg Moffet said he had trouble with the Zoning Code not permitting accessory uses to be part of
a conditional use. He particularly had difficulty with the finding no.3 of the staff memo.
Gene Uselton said we didn't have the right to make that judgment and applications should be
reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 4 •
June 23, 1997
Greg Amsden asked staff if we had a history of accessory uses being denied for outdoor use.
• Mike Mollica said there was a gyrospere application from the Hubcap that was not allowed.
Greg Amsden asked the applicant why they couldn't put the cage inside.
Steve Olson explained that there would be more use outside and the patrons would prefer it
outside.
Greg Moffet said that because this was an accessory use, there needed to be an amendment to
the motion that stated that this was an accessory use, for which they would have to modify their
conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck.
Greg Amsden asked for future ramifications.
Mike Mollica said as long as it was incidental to the primary use, it would be an accessory use.
Gene Uselton said we were interpreting the code, but amended the motion that the proposed use
be considered an accessory use to the existing outdoor dining deck and the batting cage must be
reviewed as an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor dining deck, requiring
DRB review and approval.
Galen Aasland seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed to overturn the staff's decision by a vote of 5 -1. (Greg Amsden opposed)
3. A request for a worksession to discuss a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor
• commercial ski storage, as a conditional use and to allow for commercial ski storage
(indoors) in all building levels, located in the CCI and CC2 Zone Districts.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Greg Moffet disclosed for the record, that his company did business with the applicant, but since
this was a quasi- legislative matter, he saw no conflict.
Lauren Waterton stated that this was the second worksession for this request and went on to
give an overview of the staff memo.
Joe Macy said the PEC was going to decide if the largest ski area in North America would be
allowed ski storage. He said that the reason this was being addressed was for a zoning
language change in CC1 and CC2, but VA was more concerned with Lionshead. Joe stated that
there were others in violation within the Town of Vail, but that was not our concern. He stated
that it was not VA's intent that ski racks be regulated. He said that as far as CC1 and CC2, ski
storage was only allowed in the basement and VA wanted it allowed on any floor. He said that
the feeling, when the zoning was changed in 1989, was not to have these uses visible from the
street. He noted that it could be behind a wall and it was a guest service to store skis in a
convenient way close to the lifts. He mentioned that VA's service was different from Mill Creek
Sports. He said that the wife of VA's General Council uses Mill Creek Sports and would not
change due to the service provided. He said that VA was interested in the outdoor ski storage
racks being an all- inclusive definition.
• Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
June 23, 1997 5
Bill Arnsten, GM of the Lionsquare Lodge, agreed with Joe Macy, as it created good guest
service.
Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner's Association (EVHA), had a limited
concern with anything above the first floor, because of the conflict with any residential use. He
said there was no problem with storage being on the first floor, as long as it was not in the public
view. He said that this was a service, rather than a use. He said he was not sure why they were
moving to regulate this, as outdoor racks were a necessary service and controlled by the DRB.
He said there was some controversary, as to the status of the USFS being zoned Agricultural
Open Space and also Tract E. He said that the covenants on Tract E prohibit any structures
above ground. He said he was not adverse to carefully, controlled outdoor racks in that area.
He said, regarding recreational open space, that he would prefer to have the mountain for skiing
and the Village to provide services and to encourage structures on the mountain was not
appropriate.
Tom Neyens agreed with the guest service of ski storage. He said he was not sure if sales tax
was collected on services and to put something on a first floor level will cause the Town to lose
sales tax. He said by keeping services underground, it would allow businesses to remain on the
first level and thus increase the sales tax. He said the second level didn't bother him.
Jack Curtin, a partner in Curtin Hill Sports on 250 Bridge Street, thanked Joe for allowing another
worksession to take place. He questioned the commercial ski storage definition. He asked if it
was a service given free to our guests, or paid for by the commercial. He asked if equipment is
rented with the free overnight ski storage option, is it then free. He said ski storage should be
looked at as a service to our guests and that VA should have to comply with all the same
regulations that the small business has to. He was concerned that VA, with on mountain service,
would take away the service area from Vail Village and Lionshead. He thought there might be
safety issues. He suggested coming up with a simple definition of ski storage as a service.
Joe Macy agreed with Jack pointing out that this was an essential service to our guests. He
reminded the PEC that the TOV had no land use authority over federal land, as the Town
Attorney stated at the last worksession and this was not the issue today. He said regarding the
covenants on Tract E, that there were no ski racks on Tract E. He said with the proliferation of
special use buildings, that we would do better with the types of buildings that we have had in the
past.
Tom Friesen of Mill Creek Sports, was concerned with changing the rules to allow storage to go
from the basement to the ground floor and who would decide if the facade looks good with the
ski storage behind a wall.
Jim Lamont said, regarding the USFS, TOV and VA issue, that design standards would be
recognized, and therefore, everything in the TOV should have a design standard.
Kaye Ferry's main concern was that someone had to pay for outside ski storage and it would be
a travesty if allowed to take place up and down Bridge Street. She stated that with the rents the
way they were in the Village, the Village would be filled with T -shirt shops and ski storage. She
said we needed to create a broad experience for the guest.
Jane Gros said ski storage on the ground floor would be a big mistake.
•
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 6 .
June 23, 1997
Jack Curtin suggested that Tom Moorhead's comments from the last meeting needed more
• definition. He suggested that Tom revisit this, since a class action suit could happen with the
way the land is annexed into the Town.
Lauren Waterton clarified that ski storage was a service, as a use in the code.
Tom Neyens said with the major redevelopment in Lionshead, something could be figured out
within the Code, to keep storage in the basement. He said the needs of the customer are met
now, so it was not necessary to change it.
Galen Aasland said outdoor racks were appropriate for a ski town. He said he was bothered with
using first level space. He said storage didn't serve the guests for the rest of the day, only for a
few minutes. He said the goal for all of us was to serve the guests, with ski storage for a couple
of minutes and other functions for the rest of the day. He said there was a better way to do it
than with the barns. He suggested a ski storage front desk on the first level, with storage down
stairs.
Diane Golden agreed that the rules were being changed in the middle of the game. She said we
needed to keep in mind horizontal zoning. She felt to keep people in Town, commercial ski
storage should be underground. She said she agreed with staff on the outdoor ski storage.
John Schofield said he was wrestling with ground level storage and the market should prevail.
He agreed with Galen, that ski barns were not in keeping with a ski resort.
Gene Uselton said he was too bothered by changing the rules in the middle of the game. He
asked Jack if Curtin -Hill stored the skis of their rental customers downstairs. He asked Jack if
• there were no rule requiring that skis be stored downstairs, would Curtin -Hill store skis on the
ground floor. He added that if overnight storage were included in the rental price, the it could
conceivably be considered commercial.
Jack said, yes, because retail pays the rent being on the first floor and people wouldn't carry skis
up to the 2nd floor.
Gene Uselton agreed with John that the market should determine where skis were stored.
Joe Macy suggested that the TOV not regulate any of the lodge's ski storage.
Gene Uselton suggested not proposing more regulations, as there was not that much
competition.
Tom Friesen said we needed businesses to keep people here.
Gene Uselton said the guests need to be able to store skis on the mountain; that is one way we
can keep the Town competitive. He said there was a symbiotic relationship between the Town,
VA and smaller businesses. If VA were not providing a safe and superior vacation experience,
skiers would go elsewhere, and the shops and restaurants of the Town would suffer. Similarly, if
the shops and restaurants in Vail failed to exceed the expectations of our guests, skiers would
look for another venue and VA would suffer. He said he had no problem with the staff's report.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
June 23, 1997
7
Greg Amsden said to restrict the first floor to have no ski storage located within 25' of a
storefront, as it was not appropriate for store front use. He agreed with Gene, that it was a totally
economic matter. He said that retail was 12 months a year and ski storage was 5 months a year. •
He said it was not competitive and that VA should stay competitive. He was ok with the staff
memo, except that the outdoor locks would have to go through a conditional use permit.
Greg Moffet asked if Jack's locks would be grandfathered. He said the definitions were good
from staff. He said he liked the free market and as a Planning Commission we can't decide that.
He said that people were going to figure out how to make money from their stores and that ski
storage didn't need to be restricted to the basement. He said he was in favor of a conditional
use for outdoor ski storage.
Kaye Ferry said aesthetics play a large part. She said that when Lauren gave a presentation at
the Merchants Association, none of them wanted storage on the first floor, nor outside. She said
she did not understand this change of direction.
Greg Moffet said we are heading for that with a conditional use.
Kaye Ferry said if this is passed, then all shops will put racks outside their shops.
Greg Amsden said a conditional use permit would be the process to not allow it on Bridge Street.
Lauren Waterton said that special criteria could be added in addition to the conditional use
criteria.
Greg Moffet said we would swap the order of items 4 and 5.
4. A request to amend Chapter 18.71- Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of the Town •
of Vail Municipal Code, with the addition of a new section pertaining to the addition of
new GRFA created by the conversion of interior space in existing dwelling units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russ Forrest
Russ Forrest gave an overview of the staff memo and said the next step would be to draft an
ordinance to take to Council
Tom Braun gave an introduction and explained the key elements in the memo. He then gave an
overview of the draft ordinance language.
Russ Forrest gave an overview of the consolidation on page 10 of the memo and how it would be
able to better clarify to the public the new GRFA chapter. He then went over the staff
recommendation.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
Jim Lamont, EVHA, advised the Council to expand the application. He asked if the old buildings
would be allowed to do what the new buildings could do. He said a uniform treatment was
needed and that interior construction should apply to multi - family units. He said he was in
support of the GRFA reform, but wanted to allow older structures to have modest changes to
make it better for the people that are in the older buildings.
Planning and Environmental Commission .
Minutes 8
June 23, 1997
Russ Forrest said this change would only benefit older structures prior to August 5th.
• Mike Mollica advised tweaking the dormer issue.
Tom Braun said that a dormer was measured at its base.
John Schofield encouraged language that encouraged renovation and provided for maximum
flexibility. He said he saw it lost in the process. He advised if upgrades were not encouraged, it
would make it easier to do it illegally. He said he had a problem with the grading language. He
said the intent was good and the option of a walk -out basement should be encouraged. He
would like to see better numbers regarding basement spaces with not opening it all up. He
advised cleaning up the demo /rebuild definition. He said the amnesty program should be
pursued. He advised not making it so people were afraid to come in.
Gene Uselton liked the language of the proposed ordinance. He agreed with John regarding the
amnesty program. He asked how many new staff will be needed to make it work.
Tom Braun said it would be manageable.
Greg Amsden advised making the language on the dormers simpler to understand. He agreed
with John to consider a more liberal number in the basement crawl space.
John Schofield suggested a percentage of the wall, or something like that.
Greg Amsden asked if cantilevers were existing GRFA?
Tom Braun said, yes.
• Galen Aasland said that crawlspaces could potentially be labeled as family rooms, which could
be made into bedrooms. He said the intent was to make it safe. He said it didn't regulate new
spaces. He said no. 6 was a gigantic loophole. Galen said that page 2 stated that mass and
bulk should not get bigger, but it was setting people up with this glaring hole.
Tom Braun reminded the PEC that site coverage and DRB, etc., still controlled mass and bulk.
Galen Aasland said this didn't address the person building a more expensive house and it didn't
address keeping the houses the same size.
Diane Golden said she wished this had language pertaining to permanent residents.
Greg Moffet agreed with John and Greg and would like see something more creative on below
grade areas. He did like the idea of applying this to existing dwellings.
Diane Golden asked for a time- frame.
Russ Forrest said it would go to the July 1 st Council worksession with a 1st reading on 7/15 and
a 2nd reading on 8/5.
Galen Aasland asked if this included multi - family.
Russ Forrest said, no.
. Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 9
June 23, 1997
John Schofield made a motion for a recommendation to Council with the following additional
amendments:
1. That grade provisions be clarified (i.e., walk -out basements).
2. That roof dormers be clarified with an illustration.
3. That the amnesty program be pursued.
4. That a recommendation be directed to Council to consider in the future multi - family
structures.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
Galen Aasland asked to amend the motion to include sprinklering in the crawlspace.
Russ Forrest said that that was a building code issue.
John Schofield said that amnesty would have to be extremely liberal.
Jim Lamont suggested recommending to Council that other zone districts be entertained.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0.
5. A request for a worksession to discuss potential public view corridors in Lionshead as
part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Consultant Team
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the designated view corridors. He then said that in stage •
5 of the master planning process, the corridors would be finalized.
Ethan Moore, from Design Workshop, gave a list of the views that were proposed by the people
on the walking tours, per the consultant memo. He said that 4 views were recommended at this
point. He explained the impact the view corridors would have on the redevelopment of
Lionshead. He noted that the east end of the parking structure was a potential development site,
and therefore, View #2 could become an important view.
Greg Moffet asked if the PEC needed to make a formal recommendation.
Dominic Mauriello said, yes.
Ethan Moore then explained the viewpoints and said that views could shift to the left or the right,
depending on the redevelopment.
Greg Moffet asked for any public input.
Dave Corbin said he was speaking on behalf of VA, a property owner. He agreed with the
approach that Dominic and Ethan had taken and thought that broad areas should be identified,
so the view corridors could remain flexible at this point in the process. He felt that two corridors
had merit for protection; the west end of the structure and the ticket area. He thought the visual
connection from a point of arrival to a point on the mountain was correct. He asked the PEC not
to mentally survey, from the pictures, to the degree that it was possible for the reason that it
Planning and Environmental Commission •
Minutes 10
June 23, 1997
would affect development opportunities. He advised the PEC to be very cautious about
identifying a specific viewpoint at this point in the process. He said he would recommend view
• no. 6, if there was a choice between 6 and 7, as view no. 7 would be detrimental in developing
the core site.
Greg Amsden asked if there was potential for View corridor no. 8 to be opened up.
Dave Corbin said a view should be in the 8 or 9 region. He said a north /south connection was
our intent for a visual connection.
Dominic Mauriello said that it was not intended to definitively mark the viewpoint at this time. He
stated that the viewpoints could shift 10' -15'. He said it was not the intent to say that the spots
where these pictures were taken are the final locations.
Jim Lamont said these views should remain as study items, until we come up with a design for
Lionshead. He said that one of the criteria for view corridors, was that we were in the mountains
and should always relate to the mountains. He thought the designer should be able to make
modifications.
John Schofield agreed that we not conflict with any building envelopes. He said not to lock in to
be short - sighted.
Gene Uselton would like to see lines on the photographs showing any properties that would be
affected by the designation of view corridors. He said he would like to see the Town work with
the property owners who would lose potential development rights.
Mike Mollica stated a vote was needed today and that stage 5 would take the form of a specific
• ordinance.
Greg Amsden said we needed to have allowances for height and how they extend vertically on a
dotted basis and what would be affected. He stated that his choice would be views 3 -4, 6 and B.
Galen Aasland disclosed that one of his clients had commercial space here, but he saw no
conflict because this was so general. He stated that his choice was no. 3.
Diane Golden thought there was no need to be so strict. She said we were discounting view no.
1 that is from the ice arena and she would like to keep it.
Greg Moffet said the PEC was voting using a general approach.
Jim Lamont said the whole Dobson Ice Arena roof was designed to protect the view from Vail
International.
John Schofield made a motion for a recommendation to Council, per the consultant memo, with
the addition of View Corridor #1.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
June 23, 1997
11
6. A request for changes to an approved development plan, to allow for the removal of a
bicycle path, located at Innsbruck Meadows on Kinnickinnick Road.
Applicant: Bob Borne, represented by RKD •
Planner: George Ruther
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
7. A request for a variance from Section 18.28.070 (Setbacks) and a conditional use permit
for an outdoor dining deck, to allow for a deck expansion at Crossroads, located at 143
East Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Top Ice Cream (Haagen Daz), represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14,1997
g. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.22.140 (On -Site
Required Parking), to allow for the operation of a real estate office in the Swiss Chalet,
located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL JULY 14,1997
9. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the
construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 71h Filing. •
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL JULY 28,1997
Greg Amsden made a motion to table items 7 and 8 until July 14, 1997 and item 9 until July 28,
1997.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0.
10. Information Update
Greg Moffet asked staff for any information update. There was none.
11. Approval of June 9, 1997 minutes.
Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the June 9, 1997 minutes as changed.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0 -1. (Gene Uselton abstained, as he was not present for that
meeting). •
Planning and Environmental commission
Minutes 12
June 23, 1997
John Schofield made a motion to adjourn.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion p assed by a vote of 6 -0.
The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
F�
L-J
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes 13
June 23, 1997