Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0714 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on July 14,1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 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 A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Rd. /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Russell Platt Planner: Dirk Mason A request for an amendment to a previously approved minor subdivision, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/Tract A, Vail Heights Filing #1. Applicant: Robert Hunter, represented by Greg Amsden Planner: George Ruther • A request for a wall height variance of approximately two feet, located at 4093 E. Spruce Way /Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 9, Bighorn #3. Applicant: Vail East Lodging Association, represented by Larry Summerlin Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a minor amendment to the SDD #2, to allow for residential additions to Units D8, D9 and D12 (Northwoods), located at 600 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Richard & Gail Barrett, Bert Nordin, and Jorge & Eugenia Riedel, represented by Ray Story Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor subdivision, to allow for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1 condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr. /Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates Planner: George Ruther 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 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 conditional use permit and a variance to allow for an unpaved parking area, to allow for trail head parking, located at Red Sandstone Road /Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing #1. Applicant: 10th Mountain But Association, represented by Peter Lodram Planner: Russ Forrest 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 27, 1997 in the Vail Trail. • • • • Agenda last revised 7/9/97 10 am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, July 14, 1997 AGENDA s Pro *ect Orientation /LUNCH - Community Develoament Department MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Flannery - 186 Forest Road 2. Vail East Lodging - 4093 East Spruce Way 3. 10th Mountain Hut Assoc. - Red Sandstone Rd. trailhead Driver: George 12:15 pm 1:00 pm 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 conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Rd. /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Russell Platt Planner: Dirk Mason 2. A request for a variance from Section 18.58.020 to allow for a retaining wall to exceed 6 feet in height, located at 4093 E. Spruce Way /Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 9, Bighorn #3. Applicant: Vail East Lodging Association, represented by Larry Summerlin Planner: Dirk Mason 3. A request for a final review of a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor commercial ski storage, as a conditional use in the CCI and CCII Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton /Mike Mollica 1 700OFYML Agenda last revised 7/9/97 10 am 4. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.58.080 to allow for • an unpaved trailhead parking area, located at Red Sandstone Road /Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing #1. Applicant: 10th Mountain Hut Association, represented by Peter Lodram Planner: Russ Forrest 5. A request for an amendment to a previously approved minor subdivision, located at 2339 Chamonix LanelTract A, Vail Heights Filing #1. Applicant: Robert Hunter, represented by Greg Amsden Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #2 (Northwoods), to allow for residential additions to Units D8, D9 and D12, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Richard & Gail Barrett, Bert Nordin, and Jorge & Eugenia Riedel, represented by Ray Story Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 7. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a skier bridge, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane /Lots 39 -1 and 39 -2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorward • Planner: Dominic Mauriello STAFF APPROVED 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 1st Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED TO JULY 28,1997 9. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor subdivision, to allow for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1 condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr. /Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 11, 1997 40 2 Agenda last revised 7/9/97 10 am 10. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow modifications to allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane /Lots 39- 1 & 39 -2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorward Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 25, 1997 11. 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 WITHDRAWN 12. Information Update 13. Approval of June 23, 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 Published July 11, 1997 in the Vail Trail. • 3 0 Agenda last revised 715/97 10 am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, July 14, 1997 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation /LUNCH - Communily Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Diane Golden Gene Uselton John Schofield Ann Bishop Site Visits_: 1. Flannery - 186 Forest Road 2. Vail East Lodging - 4093 East Spruce Way • 3. 10th Mountain Hut Assoc. - Red Sandstone Rd. trailhead Driver: George 12:15 pm 1:00 pm 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 conditional use permit to allow for a Type I{ EHU, located at 186 Forest Rd. /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Russell Platt Planner: Dirk Mason MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5 -1 (Ann Bishop opposed) APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS: 1. That the one -car garage be appropriately deed restricted for exclusive use by the occupant of the EHU. 2. That the applicant submit for review and approval by the DRB, a construction • staging plan, indicating the limits of disturbance and tree protection measures for the site. 1 MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Amsden TOWN O*Nt Agenda last revised 715/97 10 am 3. That a CO or TCO not be issued, until an inspection is completed to ensure . compliance with the EHU requirements and to verify that the building is constructed according to the approved set of plans. RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL: MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6 -0 "That the Planning and Environmental Commission, in the strongest possible terms, recommend to the Vail Town Council that they review the Employee Housing Ordinance in relation to enforcement and that the PEC fully recommend that the enforcement action be funded in an effort to bring the intent of the Employee Housing Unit into compliance, with the lack of reality that appears to be in the neighborhood that we're questioning." 2. A request for a variance from Section 18.58.020 to allow for a retaining wail to exceed 6 feet in height, located at 4093 E. Spruce Way /Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 9, Bighorn #3. Applicant: Vail East Lodging Association, represented by Larry Summerlin Planner: Dirk Mason MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to submittal of a Design Review Board (DRB) application, the applicant shall provide a proposed landscape plan for the area between and adjacent to the retaining walls. • 2. That the revised site plan, indicating the existing and proposed contours, be stamped by a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado. 3. That the overhead utilities serving the exterior lights be placed underground or removed, as indicated on the site plan. 3. A request for a final review of a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor commercial ski storage, as a conditional use in the CCI and CCII Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton /Mike Mollica MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 4 -2 (Ann Bishop and Galen Aasland opposed, due to overhead doors not being prohibited). RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL - With the conditional use criteria on page 4 of the staff, memo, to include a change in the language in Section 8a, to reflect that the outdoor commercial ski storage may not be freestanding, but may be attached to any landscaping or site walls when not obstructing views, from or into outdoor dining decks or transparent store fronts. Access to the storage shall be at in the applicant's discretion, per Design Guidelines, with the suggestion that access be via side - hinged doors and not via overhead doors. • 2 r Agenda last revised 715/97 10 am 4. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.58.080 to allow for an unpaved trailhead parking area, located at Red Sandstone Road /Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing #1. Applicant: 10th Mountain Hut Association, represented by Peter Lodram Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS: The parking area is required to be paved if, in the future, the area is proposed for use in the winter. 2. Signage will be limited to USFS trailhead style signs. Additional signs may be approved by the DRB. 3. That should the applicant be able to move boulders to find additional parking, at their discretion, that that be allowed. 5. A request for an amendment to a previously approved minor subdivision, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/Tract A, Vail Heights Filing #1. Applicant: Robert Hunter, represented by Greg Amsden Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6 -0 • APPROVED WITH NO CONDITIONS 6. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #2 (Northwoods), to allow for residential additions to Units D8, D9 and D12, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Richard & Gail Barrett, Bert Nordin, and Jorge & Eugenia Riedel, represented by Ray Story Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 7. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a skier bridge, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane /Lots 39 -1 and 39 -2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorward Planner: Dominic Mauriello STAFF APPROVED • 3 Agenda last revised 715/97 10 am 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 TO JULY 28,1997 9. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor subdivision, to allow for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1 condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr. /Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 11, 1997 10. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow modifications to allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane /Lots 39- 1 & 39 -2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorward Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 25, 1997 • 11. 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 WITHDRAWN 12. Information Update 13. Approval of June 23, 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 Published July 11, 1997 in the Vail Trail. C M i — • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 14, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit and additional GRFA to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Road /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery Planner: Dirk Mason 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS GRFA In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71 j of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units and also for the provision of employee housing units. According to Section 18.57.050 (B)(5) (Type II Employee Housing Unit, General Conditions), "An applicant shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town for additional GRFA, not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU." With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to use 496 sq. ft. of Additional GRFA, in the construction of a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit at 186 Forest Road, Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. In this proposal, the applicant wishes to construct a 496 sq. ft., Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, to be constructed in the basement level, in the northwest portion of the structure. The building plans, illustrating the Type II Employee Housing Unit, have been attached for reference. The lot currently has a two -story wood and brick structure on it, however, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single family structure and rebuild a new single - family residence with a one - bedroom EHU (with a 224 square foot garage) in the basement level. TYPE l! EHU Additionally, the applicant, is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a Type 11 EHU to be constructed in the basement level, in the northwest portion of the structure. In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 0 f: \everyone \pec \memos \fiannery.714 2 S TOWN OFVAa 1992, to create a new Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing, for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts within the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance states: action 18. 4.105 (in part) Employee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full -time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in Chapter 18 of this Code. Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing. For the purposes of this Section, a full -time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week." Pursuant to Section 18.57.050(B) of the Vail Municipal Code, in part, a Type II Employee Housing Unit shall be a conditional use in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District: "it shall be permitted on lots which meet the minimum lot size requirement; be attached to, or located within, a single - family dwelling or two- family dwelling; not have more than two bedrooms; shall have one parking space per bedroom, with a 300 square foot garage credit available to help meet the enclosed parking space requirement." II. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Address: 186 Forest Road /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Lot Size: 18,164.52 sq. ft. / 0.417 Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Use: Single- family residence with a Type II Employee Housing Unit Allowed Pr oposed GRFA, with an additional 4916.45 sq. ft. 4,511 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. of GRFA: Site Coverage: Setbacks: front: 20' sides: 15 15' rear: 15' 20' 15' 15', 15' 2,390 sq. ft. or 13.2% - Landscaping: 10,898.71 sq. ft. or 60% minimum 13,907.5 sq. ft. or 76% Par4 Jng: 4 required spaces (3 enclosed) 6 proposed spaces (3 enclosed) • • 2,724.60 sq. ft., or 15% z:\everyone\pec \memos \flannery.71 2 • Ili. CRrTERIA AND FINDINGS FOR ADDITIONAL GRFA Upon review of Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing), the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request for 496 additional square feet of GRFA to be utilized in the construction of the Type II Employee Housing Unit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures In the staff's opinion, the additional GRFA being incorporated into the Type II Employee Housing Unit, will have no negative effects upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage or other existing structures in the area. Changes to the existing topography, proposed by the applicant, will result in regrading that complies with the Town's 2:1 maximum slope. It is staff's opinion that the mass and bulk of the proposed new single - family residence, with a Type II Employee Housing Unit, including the additional GRFA, will conform with the other existing structures in the Forest Road neighborhood. • 2. Impact on adiacent_properties In the staff's opinion, the proposed new single - family residence with the Type II Employee Housing Unit and the additional GRFA will not have any negative impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant is proposing adequate parking, per the Municipal Code, to accommodate vehicles parking on the site. The additional GRFA will result in a minimal increase in bulk and mass of the structure. Staff believes, that this minimal increase in bulk and mass will not be readily noticeable from adjacent properties.. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning rquirements and applicable development standards Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that: "Any dwelling unit that proposes to use additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Guidelines (18.54). These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance and upkeep of the property." The site plan does show compliance with landscaping, undergrounding utilities, and driveway paving on the property. • f: \everyone \pec \memos \flannery.714 3 0 B. Findings: • The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERM Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and Impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. • When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply of housing. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year -round and seasonal residents. The proposed EHU will have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs, by providing housing for employees. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed Type II EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The site currently has a single - family, two -story structure that the applicant proposes to demolish. The proposed redevelopment is compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood, therefore, little impact will be associated with this proposal. f: \everyone \pec \memos \flannery.714 4 4 • 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is very similar to those in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood has several Type II EHUs currently constructed, therefore, the proposed use is compatible. GRFA for the project will not exceed the maximum allowed per the code. B. Findin The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for a Type II Employee Housing Unit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable • provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit and a request to utilize 496 square feet of Additional GRFA to construct a Type II EHU at 186 Forest Road/ Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request with the following conditions: • AeveryonekWkmemoslfiannery.714 I 1. That the one -car garage be appropriately deed restricted for exclusive use by the occupant of the EHU. • 2. That the applicant submit for review and approval by the DRB, a construction staging plan, indicating the limits of disturbance and tree protection measures for the site. f: \evervone \pec \memos \flannery.714 6 • jj �•� -c- ----- - ---- - - _ _ -- Lis: I / '� /- -'_ --• -� -._ - _�- eis: � -�. �._. ---*r ���' -- --• .. .ice- ` r_`� ' - - _ - -!er.: ELC7 wrais_ •� asn;y ew+x \ \` \'_` \...� /i- \� :�: .. 'T"cTlf } . 1 . 711• etcc CA �rrr.7�. i_ �� am. e _ . '•ltsoe era � \\ // �� -- � \ j•:.: C;! \ % ie�fO a — 31 rrs Lill i n \ / �...�, :� p AC•- ''`'. e_ nt. �.G' - . 61DD of a moo -r. 1 e:ti 00 tut. () ova -- eas: •GYe al Este r ..�•ti /� C:tL uUTY M1S£fENi Li — �.. e... la .�._ —• - � t _ - - - - -- - - ---- OX137 THE "FLANNERY" VAIL RESIDENCE FOREST ROAD LOT ,J,•'9. VAIL COLORADO HABITAT • MATERIALS LIST s�vc om R 1/.J.rinM lOYEF .Yi.6 vY.. PERMITTED BUILDING AREA ACTUAL BUILDING AREA .. as..sy ° a rera w..J..ro �m s. n . wsan Ana s.an s n FLANNERY RESIDENCE 185 FOREST ROAD LOT #9. VAIL COLORADO • '?ltoPow D HABITAT 7,a5 n WELL CA. TRAL IO SAN WELLS CA. 9YZa T.I.pla 618-555 -9570 ern - :72-9055 11 AS -1 • . D x11AVr CDMMON� N AME OXMIR STS ARIES KINGENS, BLUE CONCOL SILL PIQA KHGFIS RUCE 1 TAP]. POPULMTRENULOIDF3 ASPEN W, SRLTS BC/fAAYHAMF FTINIMEW NAM r SME CARAGANA AABORFSCENS SMIPISN PEA SHRUB I GALLON 23"1 DOGWOOD IGALLON COTO!FJLSTEII AC UTIFIDUA PEKING COIONFASTEX 1 GALLON HOLAOOLTA DUMOSUS MOUNTAIN SPMEA I GALLON LAWE- WAAXVUCANA MTN MOCKORA`IGE 5GMUOK LOHKTFA IVVDLUCRATA BEARDE"YHOMYSCXLE 1GALLON IDNXERA' SABELS' ZABELS BLUFIEAF f GALLON RIDES ST GOOSEBERRY 7GALLON sommA RIDEIE IIEDBERRI EIDER IGALLON SYA\GA VUL.GAR LILAC H GALLON CROnill)(70%lUt �rA1Y"�,IME R(MARr PLIATAfr MAHO!.TAREPENS ]OW SQ ET POM'M.LAFRUITCOSA IOW SQ FT SOReWA SORBEOLIA LOGDSQ FT PERIt.•IAAL FLOWERS 2000 SO FT AOUREGLA SR. COLUMILM CAMPANULA SPP FLARE BELL PRAABA SIT PRIMROSE YLQA COORATA VIOLET ALYSSUM SAMTALE ALYSSUM IL%XX ELKIA SPP TRACK EYED SUSAN C)7RECIPSIi SR COREOPSIS DEIRmAE]M SPP DELPH I)TIUM RS GERMAFOCA RIS LAVANDULA SPP LAVVNIM LIAIRS SPP LUPPE PE1SEMON SR PENSTEMON TB3 TlRBS GRAPE HYACTIT HS DAFFOM3 CROCUS ml 111m RRK+ATCH Sf A LDE LDOTIDTOTNOSE AXLAS DSTURBED DY GRADLVf RECCIIVp1O NEW PLJURiNG RRIGATR]NSYSTEM SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED. EQUIPPED WITH WII.TEX DK1l%STSTF]M. AND S HALL l BE COMPRISED OF BOTH DRIP RR1WTf W COMPOHD.TS AND IOW GALLONAGE 1OPJA SPRAY HEADS SYSTEM SHALL RE DESIGNED TO M INMIC E OVERTHROW ANDIE DUCT RUNOFF. A,LL ►.ANTBG AREAS SLOPING OVER I'1 SHALL HAVE INSTALLED RIFE MESH OR APPROVED EQUAL SLOPE NOTHING MATUTAL PR10R 70 PLAIIINC. AND SHALL BE MM,7.QGD WTIH SIRFDDm AMUC AFTER PLAITING TO NICE HEFTING m PLANTINGS ESTABLISH L 1 H:STW: [��t DTCF9i►Tlfl\ V WELL LIGHT MTVRF RAM MODEL 7166MH170/1016IX. 1-7 VOLT. 60 WATT, WTrH 100 WATT PAR It METAL HIDE LUP SO IN WILL FDMM WITH DRECTIONAL CONTROL LOUVERS 70 DRECF LIGHT AND SCREEN GLARE ]S DEGREE ROOD IFULS. PROVIDING 17.76 FOOfGV.DLS AT 2r HEIGHT OF IEEE M FIXTURES . RBJETSTYII FD nmE1 KA1 MODES. M016Y100MIMIW. TJO VOLT, 115 AMPS, WT7H 90 WATT PAR IS METAL HALIDE LAW SET IN BOLIXT STYLE FIXTURE WITH SWIVEL HEAD. DARK BROKEE CRDLL 66 DEGREE flDODIXHT WRH T w FOOTCAIDLFSAT L•. USED POR ACCENT LIGHTING OF WATERFALL AM ROCK AREA. M FIXTURES 7 TERMAC rte.tnRrc 1 TERRACING WALLS IN FRONT SETBACK AREA STALL BE STONE FACED70 MATCH ARCHTTECTULE, MID SHALL NOT EXCLTD TEE Id MAXIMUM ALLOWED IN HEIGHT TDRACINF WALLS AT VIEW DECKS AND OUTSIDE OFTff FRONT SETBACK AREA SHALL BE STONE FACED TO MATCH AWIFTECTI RE AND SHALL NOT EXC FO R HEIGHT I. LOU DRY STACK NATIVE STONE RUBBLE WALLS AT EDGE OF DIUVEW'AY TOTRATSInON GRADING. MAXIMUM OF rd HIM M '& AM STRE AM ANDCASCADE TOUTTLREmim sOL3DER5 AID SMALLER STONES AT EDGES, ADJACENT 70 ENTRY WALKWAY AND RESIDENCE SITE PLAN W -7-P LANDSCAPE PLAN i Twposom) �IiiiiiiiiiiiIIi4 R#u W ® MAN FLOOR PLAN FLANNERY RESIDENCE 74105MMKNGMDTFIAL H A B I T A T T*.ph - "XM W 6w Ss 9670 - A -� LC 9 - 186 FOREST ROAD VAIL, CO. 7dephaw 90 -568 -3670 BW- ?7�9C65 0 0 0 , , SECOND FLOOR PLAN zw ® BASEMENT PLAN yr ++ ® THM FLOOR-PLAN • 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 July 28, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 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, represented by Helen Fritch Planner: George Ruther /Mike Mollica A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 1780 Sierra Trail /Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing No. 1. Applicant: Marc Lashovitz Planner: George Ruther /Lauren Waterton A request for a minor subdivision, to amend the location of the platted building envelope, located at 1094 Riva Glen /Lot 4, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: SBC Development, represented by Resort Design and Associates (Gordon Pierce) Planner: Dirk Mason A request for an interior remodel, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 2355 Bald Mountian Road, West/ Lot 25, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Orthodonics Associates, represented by Rich Brown Planner: Tammie Williamson A request to amend the existing conditional use permit for the outdoor dining deck, to allow for the outdoor operation of a batting cage, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Dave Garton Planner: Dirk Mason request for a conditional use permit and an additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA, to allow for the onstruction of a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Rd. /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Russell Platt Planner: Dirk Mason 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 July 11, 1997 in the Vail Trail. 1nWuoRVea 00 " SAD j"tL oA) S i. LIATERMNR -US ,.m m� I FLANNERY RESIDENCE 4105 HABITAT MOCKNG TRAIL MA F WELLS CA. A. 92210 i F6 FOREST ROAD, LOT 9, VAIL COLORADO T.I ph 619- 5ee -3670 A 801- 272 -908s REAR ELEVATION (SOUTH) o —`-- . —`.--.----_.---.---.-- __• Y LEFT ELEVATION (EAST) Ii , 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 14, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit and a request for a parking variance, to allow for a trailhead parking area on Tract A Lionsridge Filing #1 Applicant: 10th Mountain Division Hut Association Planner: Russ Forrest I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS: The 10th Mt. Division Hut Association (The Association) is requesting to create a 10 space parking area to support a trailhead for the Eiseman Hut and the Vail North Trail. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an application for a conditional use permit and a paving variance for a gravel trailhead parking area on Tract A, Lionsridge Filing #1. This property is owned by the United States Forest Service (USFS) and is zoned General Use (G.U.). Permitted uses allowed in the GU District include passive outdoor recreation and pedestrian and bike paths. Public parking facilities are a conditional use in the G.U. District and require a conditional use permit. The 10th Mt. Division Hut Association does not intend to pave the parking area since it would only be used in the summer. Under Section 18.52.080 (E) of the Town Code, all parking areas are required to be paved. Therefore, a variance is being requested to permit a gravel parking area. II. BACKGROUND: The site for the proposed trailhead parking area would be directly adjacent to Red Sandstone Rd. (See attachment A). People currently park on the side of the street to access a "social trail' that currently exists beside Red Sandstone Creek. The proposed parking area can be created by simply moving three of the boulders on the side of the road to allow access into the area. Additional gravel would be brought in for the parking area. However, no other grading or site disturbance will be required. Currently there are numerous trailheads in Vail (Davos, Booth Falls, Gore Creek, Pitkin Creek, Bighorn Creek) that have no planned parking. This often results in cars parking (often times illegally) on the sides of Town roads. Designated parking areas such as the one proposed at Red Sandstone Rd. would reduce safety problems associated with parallel parking adjacent to trailheads. U 1 TOWN *YAIL The Town previously reviewed a variance request for a gravel parking area for the Spraddle Creek trailhead area. This was approved with the condition that the area would need to be paved if it were plowed in the winter. The Red Sandstone Rd. parking area has been approved by the USFS and is actually a Forest Service condition of approval for the creation of the Eiseman Hut. The Forest Service also recognizes the utility of this trailhead in supporting the North trail. III. CONDITIO USE PERMIT: REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS: A. Criteria for a Conditional Use Permit The criteria for reviewing a conditional use permit are listed below: The relgtionship and impact of the use o n the develo:)men ob@ectives of the Town. Land Use Plan Goal # 2.4 on page 7 states that: "The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism." The purpose section of the Conditional Use Chapter of the zoning code, Section 18.60.010, states that: "Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties." The purpose section of the General Use District of the zoning code, Section 18.36.010, states that: "The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses and is intended to ensure that pubic buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi - public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air open spaces and other amenities appropriate with the permitted types of uses." Staff believes that a trailhead parking area is consistent with the permitted uses of the General Use District which include: 1) pedestrian and bicycling trails, and 2) passive outdoor recreation. A pedestrian and bicycling trail will be constructed through this parcel as part of the North Trail. A parking area is needed to support the trail and the Eiseman Hut. This land is on U.S. Forest Service lands and a trailhead is consistent with the adjacent land uses. 2 0 • 2. Effec o f the use on light and air, distribution of p4{2ulation transportation facilities utilities schools parks and recreation facilities and other public facilities. This use will help better distribute trail users and may reduce parking pressure at the Booth Falls and Gore Creek trailheads. It will also reduce parking problems along Red Sandstone Rd. This trailhead and trail will help support outdoor recreation by providing access to the Eiseman Hut and to the North Trail system. There will be no significant impact on infrastructure or public facilities through the creation of this parking area. 3. E upon traffic with particular reference to congestion automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control, access. mane uverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area. This parking area will reduce dangerous parallel parking on Red Sandstone Rd. In the summer there could be an increase in the number of vehicles traveling to the parking area to access the trail system. Staff has concluded that this should have no adverse affect on traffic circulation. Since the parking area would not be used in the winter, there would be no change to snow plowing along Red Sandstone Rd. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located. in the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Landscaping No mature trees or vegetation would be removed as the result of this parking area. Since the ground cover is already gravel, there would be little or no change in the aesthetic appearance of the site. Signs: A sign would be constructed on the north side of the parking area. This would be a standard USFS trailhead sign (wood). Development Standards: The General Use District requires a conditional use permit applicant to propose development standards which must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. These standards would apply to the area shown in Attachment A. Since there would not be any structure on the property. The only applicable standards are parking and landscaping: 1) Parking and loading: 10 parking spaces 2) Landscaping: Boulders and /or a split -rail fence will be used to delineate the parking area and to prevent damage to adjacent riparian vegetation. 0 3 B. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit • The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A PAVING VARIANCE A. Criteria for a Variance 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or poten uses and structures in the vicinity. A gravel parking area would be consistent with the approved North Trail. There is already a "social trail' that is accessed from this site. The parking areas would improve the existing parking situation and improve safety along Red Sandstone Rd. 2. The d egree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforce of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility a nd uniformitkof treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes an unpaved parking area for trailhead uses is appropriate when the use of the parking area will not necessitate snow plowing. This is consistent with a variance previously approved for the Spraddle Creek trailhead. 3. T he effect of the r variance on light and air distribution of po pulation transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and public-safety. This trailhead will improve a currently unsafe parking situation along Red Sandstone Rd. There will be no negative impact on light, air and distribution of population since the proposed variance will simply allow the use of an existing gravel area for parking. B. Findings for a Variance The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 0 4 • 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Staff feels that this proposed parking area will compliment the Town's plans to create a North Trail. It also will support the 10th Mt. Division's Eiseman Hut, which provides a valuable recreational amenity for the Vail Valley. The site for the parking area is already filled with gravel and would simply involve the movement of several boulders to allow access to this parking area. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and the variance request with the following conditions: 1. The parking area is required to be paved if, in the future, the area is proposed for use in the winter. 2. Signage will be limited to USFS trailhead style signs. Additional signs may be approved by the DRB. f:\everyone \PEC \97 \10huts.714 0 PARKING D U.S.F.S. LAND .Tyy ATTACHMENT A EuJ • • e ll 10 oe o ��� �• �I 0 I 9 00 `� o C I9 00 I - a GRADE AND I 1 / 47 a� o TOP WITH \ 4' GRAVEL o c4r LAJ O O `�tRS 0 O FOP e rkr / Z • i $�cVa^�S •rte— O _ � • • 9 .9 T m 0 1 lu VAIL TOWN BOUNDARY WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST F fo�. fs' T T T VAIL TOWN BOUNDARY 00- 005 � E.3z)53a 0 a P O 9 W� 0 7 0 r • Ad}'oin •��•• F 2101 -U T : ^ Il.ff•af f. �b • �; � +� ova` / � 1 °....... 00 - 002 BLOCK "D SANDSTONE PARK '. pq 4 ;' 0p. p 1 � f y45Aed San ds lane .1s6 A. ~' S• Ed e• . T /• N d. � • I '• � �� �// �� A^ a • ^�. ;1. / ` • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 18.58.020, to allow for a retaining wall to exceed 6' in height, located at 4093 E. Spruce Way /Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd. Applicant: Vail East Lodging Association, represented by Larry Summerlin Planner: Dirk Mason I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The site in question is located at, 4093 E. Spruce Way, the end of the street. The site is currently improved with 34 condominiums, within three structures, without garages. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing crib -type retaining wall system, which consists of four walls ranging in height from three to five feet. The retaining walls are located between two buildings, which are separated by approximately 40' horizontally and 25' vertically. The applicant, Vail East Lodging Association, is requesting a wall height variance of approximately 2' to construct a retaining wall of approximately 8' in height. Additionally, a second retaining wall will conform to the 6' wall height requirement for the proposed location, with a height of 5'. The number of walls on the site will be reduced from 4 to 2 walls and the overall height of the retaining walls will be reduced with this proposal. The applicant has proposed to bring the property into conformance by removing or placing the existing utilities underground. Additional landscaping will be proposed between the benches of the walls to further improve the aesthetics of the property. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested wall height variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. C onsideration of Factors 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed wall height variance will have minimal • impact, if any, on adjacent properties in the vicinity. The proposed TOWN of VAR, retaining wall will only be visible from within the project and is substantially screened by the existing buildings. The applicant has proposed to reduce the overall height of the retaining walls with this proposal. 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 that the layout and orientation of the existing structures and the soil stability make this site unique. These constraints are illustrated in the attached Terracon report, dated May 22, 1997. The report states: " Due to the relatively close spacing of the upper and lower condominiums, it is our opinion that the wall configuration shown on these plans, is the best design alternative. The global stability of the retaining wall system will be decreased if a three or four -tier design is used, however, a single -tier wall with an exposed height of 16' could be used as a design alternative to this design." As explained by the Terracon report, the existing structures and the soil stability constitute a physical hardship and, therefore, prevent the walls to be reconstructed as they are currently configured. The existing slope of this site requires the upper building to be supported by retaining walls. The report further concludes that two retaining walls are warranted to protect the upper building. I The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that the requested variance will not negatively affect any of these issues. T he Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas bgfore granting _a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • • • E • b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's wall height variance request subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Medium Density Residential zone. 3. 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. The recommendation for approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to submittal of a Design Review Board (DRB) application, the applicant shall provide a proposed landscape plan for the area between and adjacent to the retaining walls. 2. That the revised site plan, indicating the existing and proposed contours, be stamped by a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado. 3. That the overhead utilities serving the exterior lights be placed underground or removed, as indicated on the site plan. • f:\ everyone \pec \memos \97 \vaileast.714 3 May 22, 1997 Venture Retaining Wall Systems One Park Centre 1333 West 120th Avenue, Suite 310 Denver, Colorado 80234 Attn: Mr. Larry Sumerlin Re: Venture Block and Strata Geogrid Retaining Walls Vail East Condominiums Vail, Colorado TCW Reference No. 65975045 Irerracon CONSULTANTS WESTERN, INC. 5035 S. 33rd Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040 (602) 276 -6008 Fax: (602) 268-1314 Donald R. Clark, P.E. Richard T. Kanemasu, P.E. Lyle M. Tweet, P.E. Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. (TCW) has completed the engineering design of the Venture Block and Strata Geogrid Retaining Walls for the referenced project. This design was completed in general accordance with your authorization of May 8, 1997. The results of our engineering design, typical retaining wall cross sections, wall construction details, specifications for construction and the Technical Scope of Work are included on the attached plans. Geogrid layer elevations and minimum geogrid embedment lengths are shown on the typical retaining wall cross sections shown on sheet RW2 of the attached plans. Wall designs are based upon the wall plans and cross sections provided to us by Venture Retaining Wall Systems on May 6, 1997. Geotechnical information was provided in the report Soil Design Values for the Proposed MSE Retaining Wall, by Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers, Project No. 97 -085 dated April 24, 1997. Geotechnical information should be confirmed prior to retaining wall construction. Due to the relatively close spacing of the upper and lower condominiums, it is our opinion that the wall configuration shown on these plans is the best design alternative. The global stability of the retaining wall system will be decreased if a three or four tier design is used. However, a single tier wall with an exposed height of 16 feet could be used as a design alternative to this design. Maintaining excavation stability is considered critical during construction of the retaining walls. We recommend that the wall contractor work with the geotechnical engineering consultant to address these stability issues. :7 Offices of The Terracon Companies, Inc. Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Engineers Arizona ■ Arkansas ■ Colorado ■ Idaho ■ Illinois ■ Iowa ■ Kansas ■ Minnesota Missouri ■ Montana ■ Nebraska ■ Nevada ■ Oklahoma ■ Texas ■ Utah ■ Wyoming QUALITY ENGINEERING SINCE 1965 r • Vial East Condos Terracon Project No. 65975045 May 22, 1997 Terracon We are available to discuss the details of the wall designs with you. Please call should further consultation be required. Sincerely, 4Donal�A., TERRACON CON SULTANTS WESTERN, INC. Timothy W. nderson Reviewed b'rk, Project Engineer Principa� ?ft'' • _ : a •' �' twa \o: \reports \6 5 9 7 504 5. rp 2 Copies to: Addressee (1) Enclosures: Wall Plans (5 copies) • P 2 CD Lo LO I `n rn ... • __. .or •..r N IASi'sl4tf E < ,v. •t a.. ,. m t e2oa� w 1� u ��t, • ' 1 •� a 9 LO N C m LCI t ' 4 V N y Q C ' m \ }s \ F m `b. i CALL NArL4L T+L%A11T7WVf r - L•A FASTCfIDC,Wv,L•& "IA CW e}U9 c II- CtXouno / m m CD �. w CD LOT J LO LO LYI 1 1 arOTO' E LL) r LJ1 • t. 120.8{ GJ `` ..0 LTI +1 { M A 0 m � e � f 9 � t S /•� • i Z D. � , (3�1,a� OC3 fd S" a•y ��iA /r� 9S � = i � - ~, • ' ♦' \ ` � � a S � - FAG.t Ca. ,W VAR.ml o4lOp t / / m m CD A 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision amending the location of the previously approved building envelopes and lot lines, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/ Tract A, Vail Heights, Filing 1 and an unplatted parcel in S1/2, SE 1/4, Sec. 11, T5S, R81 W, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. A more complete legal description is available at the Office of Community Development. Applicant: Robert Hunter, represented by Rick Rosen Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Robert Hunter, represented by Rick Rosen, is requesting to amend a previously approved minor subdivision of an existing tract of land and an unplatted parcel, generally located north of Lots 4 & 5, Vail Heights, Filing No. 1. The applicant is proposing to . make minor modifications to the building envelope and the lot line locations. According to the applicant, the purpose of amending the previously approved minor subdivision (12/16/96) is to facilitate future construction on the lots. The previous approval permitted construction in the moderate debris flow hazard zone, in the building envelope of Lot 2, subject to the review and findings of a geologic engineer. Upon completing a geologic analysis of the property, the applicant is proposing to amend the location of the building envelope on Lot 2. The new location will no longer permit construction in the geologic hazard zone. A copy of the proposed subdivision and a copy of the memorandum from the staff to the PEC dated December 16, 1996, has been attached for reference. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Approval 12116/96 LOT 1 LOT 2 Total Lot Area: 26,661 sq. ft 22,144 sq. ft Building Envelope: 6,256 sq. ft. 6,209 sq. ft. Total Allowable GRFA`: 5,766 sq. ft 5,314 sq. ft Proposal 7/14/97 LOT 1 26,669 sq. ft 6,256 sq. ft. 5,767 sq. ft LOT 2 22,136 sq. ft. 5,037 sq. ft. 5,314 sq. ft. 1 � ii TOWN OF YAIL Total Allowable Site Coverage: (15,000 sq. ft. of Buildable Area): Does the lot meet the size /shape requirement of 80'x 80'? 20 % or 5,332 sq. ft. 20 % or 4,428 sq. ft. 26,661 sq. ft. 22,144.1 sq. ft. yes yes 20 % or 5,334 sq. ft. 26,669 sq. ft. yes Includes two 425 sq. ft. credits (850 sq. ft.) of GRFA for allowable dwelling units III. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA 20 % or 4,427 sq. 0 22,136 sq. ft. yes One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This project will be reviewed under the Minor Subdivision Criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision Application are as follows: A. Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a lot located within the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District, shall be 15,000 sq. ft. (0.344 acre) of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as, "any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope." As proposed, the buildable areas of Lots 1 and 2 are 26,661 sq. ft. (0.612 acre) and 22,144 sq. ft. (0.508 acre), respectively. This is well above the minimum 15,000 square feet required by the Municipal Code. B. Fr n a e - The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District have a minimum street frontage of thirty -feet (30'). On December 16, 1906, the PEC approved a variance allowing the for Lot 1 to be platted with a street frontage of less than thirty -feet (30'). The current proposal continues to indicate street frontage less than thirty -feet (30'). C. Site Dimensions - The Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The current request continues to create two lots of the size and shape necessary to enclose a square area, 80' on each side, within its new boundaries. The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the subdivision regulations: OA • The staff's response to the second set of review criteria is unchanged from the review completed on December 16, 1996, with the exception of criteria #6. In reviewing the original proposal, staff was concerned with any building encroachments into the geologic hazard zone on Lot 2. The applicant has amended the building envelope location to restrict any construction in the geologic hazard zone. Staff believes this is a positive change. Please refer to Section IV of the attached staff memorandum for more details on the staff's response to each of the review criteria. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision of Tract A and an unplatted parcel of property generally located north of Lots 4 and 5, Vail Heights, Filing No. 1. Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets the necessary findings as outlined in Section III of this memorandum and Section IV of the December 16, 1996 memorandum. • E 3 U. S. F. S. UNPLA TT£D V L 2 � 3 LOT 15 V � y y O J LOT 14 \ LOT 2 AC I' 96. J2 N ..— JJ9A � 22,us� of t I o.soa A6RCs a I fwwLDPC p ; L _ ALtF65 ANO UltllY L45fsfNr �/ Nd_ 2 U BY � I F A \ (BASIS � w n'a � a�ACpafr r.n a...c w.y r iv. wa orr •/AtW r�.�l ` >LLW�GM ;1 2 (.= N0. •.5N � LOT 4 •+f .... fw" A.wr ::,.ems ✓ q •• i t rWwar•[r rr✓Ar wr. Y i r✓A yM� ti� µ $ L07"5 SAIL DAS SCHOW f "!LING NO I A • ND UDUrrY� Q �.•V � r rw4�w r,r. rr . r '�.' r.. rf•rrw EASCNENr A Asy e A9S Or LiCARaYCS S B6'70'QO' W ALLwG DIf I +04 MCRLY COf [NTS CR' q LOIS 4 AND S Or VAN OAS SCYAONC FkLNC NO 1, BCrWZN FOUND `[ mow � ✓ ✓w 9�r�iwi[ � aMU n[l M[ 4Mwa N�w�r�.[ M M •r wr••N. Mr , UaVV ENrS AS AND'CAAEA ✓. �r ✓�.f,4i�.rr Y.4. +}� •M,,.�rw r✓n•�/4✓ .A4pN DA IE or Swwr Q[C{NBCR 1996. 1Sii^d1%C'6p� O OENUMS SCf AW AND CAI+ PC AND PLS NO 266)6. 19 11ENO/ES SNECr ADDRESS _, . 7.1:71.1✓ 31.03 rm 2U[6ND Puwa= CACN Loris zoNrD PRUAR Y-zcew9ARY. A nW DrMCPA&WIS ON IW rW LOrS SHALL Bf RESDNCIED TO ME ARCA WIHN INE PLA 170 DUEOWC CNKLO°CS ??&S RESOWC)ILW SHALL /clf+8 serif fie tw K m W4l!YOlW vA0 AC a MS I6fM RRLL41f ALL LY'CXS ROW CA WUN M CAC. MC OK 0fKZ WENf PCRARfICO W /S/LY WE PCAIIEO BLWOINC CNWt0PL7S SMALL BC LAND- CNAMONIX LANE (50) PW SCA4 A /- ORAOLf PAROS OWI£WAYS AND RCrA 10 WALL ASSOOAICD WIN DMWWAY CLNSMUCJC N ry FINAL PLAT TALL PINES SUBDIVISION TRACT A, VAIL HEIGHTS FILING NO. 1, AND A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN Sl /2 OF THE SEl /4 OF S£C770N 11, T 5 S, R 81 W., OF THE 6TH P. M. LOT 6 TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO K C'LWA'R LY MC >n/ [r - /Kmn, ✓,)n „v xOdk NalARb LOT 5 GRAPHIC SCALE LOr I - 26 669 sowR£ F££r 6,238 sovARE frrr 9L40N'c EMfCO>C LOr 2 - 22, i36 SIX/AR£ F££r ?,432 SLwARC rECr DULDwc EN[fLCWC 0 0 0 ff WWTY YAPYAP --yy � a�ACpafr r.n a...c w.y r iv. wa orr ...•.r ✓.w.. >.".. � rr�. r+ e'er "'r rw`.r �: w`.M ✓.`�' �r . r � M ✓� r rn ✓ err: a w.w f f.w •+f .... fw" A.wr ::,.ems ✓ i t rWwar•[r rr✓Ar wr. Y i r✓A yM� ti� µ r+be[r •re, w AYf� N�,w w rl,•0r� wl +•O l��loi .l��mA[.0 �.•V � r rw4�w r,r. rr . r '�.' r.. rf•rrw El MU D 4......[.. Z'1Gp� rf > tasesf { r s( 3 to M rq✓y e•eaw ✓� .r s..•r n[ � �� ,ww y4.f •w rt LmrcAOma.mmbz�s AA.wAw• ��� a � b r M 4. 40. �A 4 mow � ✓ ✓w 9�r�iwi[ � aMU n[l M[ 4Mwa N�w�r�.[ M M •r wr••N. Mr , - „ +MrYwl r Mub r/f a✓ r M Ar✓ ✓Y r �.w r.r. r. ✓. �r ✓�.f,4i�.rr Y.4. +}� •M,,.�rw r✓n•�/4✓ .A4pN —aJ ere[ Nff 1Sii^d1%C'6p� aLaJe660iRL�mYs i 0 0 0 ff WWTY YAPYAP --yy P ­ FlLE COPY • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to create two primary /secondary residential lots and a request for a variance from the 30' minimum street frontage requirement, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/ Tract A, Vail Heights, Filing 1 and an unplatted parcel in S1/2, SE 1/4, Sec. 11, TSS, R81W, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. A more complete legal description is available at the Office of Community Development. Applicant: Robert Hunter, represented by Rick Rosen Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Robert Hunter, represented by Rick Rosen, is proposing a minor subdivision of an existing tract of land and an unplatted parcel, generally located north of Lots 4 & 5, • Vail Heights, Filing No. 1. The applicant is proposing to create two new residential lots. Each of the newly created lots will be approximately 1/2 acre in size and are intended to facilitate the future development of two duplex residences on the site. The applicant has submitted a final plat and a conceptual site plan illustrating the location of the proposed residences and access thereto (see attachments 1 &2). According to the plat and site plan, a portion of each of the lots is impacted by moderate debris flow /debris avalanche and medium severity rockfall hazards. To better insure that future development is not adversely impacted by the geologic hazards, the applicant is proposing to plat building envelopes on the final plat in response to recommendations made by a Geologic Engineer (see attachment 3) and has further indicated on the plat, via a plat note, that, "construction of any improvements on Lot 2 that will impede into the debris flow zone shall require written approval by the Town of Vail of a specific engineering and mitigation analysis for such improvements." The plat indicates the dedication of an access, drainage and utility easement. The easement is located on all of existing Tract A, and with the exception of a drainage easement, along the southerly thirty -feet (30') of proposed Lot 2. The easement is intended to provide adequate access to proposed Lot 1,` located north of Lot 2, as Lot 1 has no direct street frontage on Chamonix Lane, and to provide a location for the installation of underground utlitities. In addition to the proposed minor subdivision request, the applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 18.13.050, Lot Area and Site Dimensions, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. According to Section 18.13.050, in part, each site in the Primary /Secondary • Residential Zone District shall have a minimum street frontage of thirty -feet (30'). As proposed, Lot 1 does not comply with this requirement, and therefore, a variance is required. 11. BACKGROUND In May of 1991, the then owners of the property, submitted an application to the Town of Vail requesting a rezoning of the property. The owners were requesting a change in zoning from Primary /Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi - Family. Due to numerous complications with the review of the request, the Planning and Environmental Commission finally heard the applicant's request in early 1992. During these meetings, much of the discussion centered around the geologic hazards existing on the site and the impacts to development they created. This discussion was precipitated by a severe debris flow event which occurred on the property in the early 1980's. In response to the debris flow event, the Town of Vail, acting in an emergency situation, created a drainage channel across the property to direct flows and protect the neighborhood. The property has since been regraded, and the drainage channel removed. Hazard reports have been completed by both Art Mears and Nicholas Lampiris. Each geologist had concluded, based upon site specific investigations, that development could be accommodated on the site, with proper design and mitigation. Finally, on February 22, 1993, after several years of review and a settlement of a lawsuit brought against the Town by the applicant, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval of the applicant's request for a rezoning, minor subdivision and wall height variance. The Commission's recommendation of approval was contingent upon approval of the rezoning request by the Vail Town Council. On January 18, 1994, the Vail Town Council approved a motion tabling the applicant's request to a future date. The applicant's request was tabled until the Town and applicant could resolve an issue relating to hazard mitigation clean -up should a debris flow occur. To date, a resolution to the hazard mitigation clean -up has not been reached and the property has been sold to a new owner. The hazard mitigation clean -up issue is no longer a point of contention, as the new owner is proposing a different development plan. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS LOT 1 LOT 2 Proposed Proposed Total Lot Area: 26,661 sq. ft 22,144.1 sq. ft. Building Envelope: 6,256 sq. ft. 6,209 sq. ft. Total Allowable GRFA`: 5,766.1 sq. ft 5,314.4 sq. ft. Total Allowable Site Coverage: f 20 % or 5,332 sq. ft. 20 % or 4,428.8 sq. ft. Street Frontage: 0 ft. 51 ft. Minimum Lot Size (15,000 sq. ft. of Buildable Area): 26,661 sq. ft. 22,144.1 sq. ft. is • • fAeveryone\peclmemosUwn1er.d16 2 • Does the lot meet the size /shape requirement of 80' x 80'? yes yes Includes two 425 sq. ft. credits (850 sq. ft.) of GRFA for allowable dwelling units IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This project will be reviewed under the Minor Subdivision Criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision Application are as follows: A. Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a lot located within the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District, shall be 15,000 sq. ft. (0.344 acre) of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as, "any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope." As proposed, the buildable areas of Lots 1 and 2 are 26,661 sq. ft. (0.612 acre) and 22,144 sq. ft. (0.508 acre), respectively. This is well above the minimum 15,000 square feet required by the Municipal Code. B. Frontaae - The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District have a minimum street frontage of thirty -feet (30'). Currently, Tract A has a street frontage in excess of thirty -feet (30'). The proposed plat indicates that Lot 2 will have a street frontage of fifty -one feet (51'), while Lot 1 will have no street frontage. The applicant has requested a variance from the street frontage requirement for Lot 1 in conjunction with the minor subdivision request. C. Site Dimensions - The Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The proposed minor subdivision would create two lots of the size and shape necessary to enclose a square area, 80' on each side, within its new boundaries The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the subdivision regulations, and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordinance and other . pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted fAeveryone\pec \memos\hunter.d16 3 under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its • appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. The review of this request will follow the regulations prescribed for minor subdivisions in the Municipal Code. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. Staff Response The applicant's property is bound on the north by unplatted U.S. Forest Service property and on the south, east and west by multi - family development. The existing multi - family development was approved by Eagle County prior to the area being annexed into the Town of Vail. Staff believes that the applicant's proposal to subdivide the property, with the intent of future • construction of two duplex residences, will not conflict with the existing development on adjacent properties. The property is zoned Primary /Secondary Residential and the applicant's proposal is in compliance with the existing zoning. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response Staff does not believe that the applicant's request will negatively impact the value of land in the Town of Vail generally, or in the immediate area specifically. The applicant's plans are in compliance with existing zoning and the adopted Town of Vail Land Use Plan. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response Again, the applicant's proposal is in compliance with existing zoning. The building envelopes proposed by the applicant meet, and in some areas, exceed the setbacks prescribed in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. Staff does not believe that the minor subdivision will negatively impact the desired harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. heveryoWpe6memos\hunterAl6 4 Staff Response Staff does not believe the requested minor subdivision will have any adverse impacts on the above - described criteria. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response As required, the applicant has submitted a preliminary final plat prepared by a land surveyor licensed to pratice in Colorado. The applicant has further proposed to plat building envelopes on the final plat to insure that future development does not conflict with the existing geologic hazards. A plat note has also been included on the plat to document the need for site specific analysis of the geologic hazards to protect future improvements and occupants of the residences. Staff believes the applicant has addressed the above - described criteria. However, staff is concerned with the encroachment of the building envelope on Lot 2 into the debris flow /debris avalanche zone. Staff would like to discuss this issue with the applicant and Planning and Environmental Commission. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: According to a drainage report submitted previously, • development on the site will slightly increase the amount of surface run -off. Before development, the total site run -off, excluding U.S. Forest Service land and Lot 15 run -off, for the 10 -year and 100 -year storm is 0.9 and 1.6 cubic feet /second (CFS), respectively. After development, the on -site run -off could increase to 1.2 and 2.0 CFS for the 10 -year and 100 -year storms. Based upon these conclusions, staff does not believe the proposed minor subdivision will have any negative impacts on the above - described criteria. V. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of theTown of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested minimum street frontage variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the requested minimum street frontage variance to allow for the creation of the proposed Lot 1, Tall Pines Subdivision, will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the unique configuration of the existing property boundaries results in a physical hardship being imposed on the applicant and that the strict enforcement of the minimum street frontage regulation will result in a practical difficulty for the applicant. • fAeveryone\pec\memosthunter.dl6 5 r 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief from the minimum street frontage regulation necessary to achieve the desired goal of subdividing the property. Staff believes the applicant has adequately met the intent of the mimimum thirty -foot (30') street frontage requirement through the dedication of the access easement proposed on the final plat. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff believes the above - described criteria is not relevant to this variance request. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in.the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of f other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECO The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision of Tract A and an unplatted parcel of property generally located north of Lots 4 and 5, Vail Heights, Filing No. 1, and the request for a variance from the thirty -foot (30') minimum street frontage prescribed in Section 18.13.050, of the Municipal Code. Staff believes the applicant has met the necessary findings as outlined in Sections IV & V of this memorandum. fAeveryone\pec\memos\hun1er.d16 6 • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested minor subdivision and minimum street frontage variance, staff would recommend that the Commision make the findings necessary, as stated in Sections IV & V of this memorandum, and that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the Town of Vail Public Works Department review and approve the proposed conceptual driveway and grading plan submitted by the applicant. 2. That the applicant add the following note to the final plat: "Future development on the two lots shall be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes. This restriction shall include all decks, roof eavelines, etc. The only development permitted outside the platted building envelopes shall be landscaping, at -grade patios, driveways, and retaining walls associated with driveway construction." (' 9 4 - 5 - 17 621.j 3. That the applicant make the following changes on the final plat prior to recordation: Remove the "TRACT A" label. Change GRFA numbers to 5,766.1 sq. ft. for Lot 1 and to 5,314.4 sq. ft. for Lot 2. Change BLM to U.S. Forest Service, as it relates to property ownership. 20' t- u4-4t;1� �sE_ZAICJ-., - 66ilic t 0 ME5'"O . f Aeveryone\pec\memos\hunter.d1 6 7 FINAL, PLA T Cff TALL PINES SUBDI VISION TRACT A, VAIL WEIGHTS RUM NO. 1, AND A 7RACT OF LAND LOCATED IN 5112 OF THE SEI/4 OF SECAON 11, T 5 S, R 81 W., OF THE 6TH P. At LOT 5 TOWN OF VA IL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO RR Sn/ K tCAd N ,nd a - AOnAW r.ufA.ro L*i j •._. :�. I+. My t M w wR.i , :�.::,•'... .t 0.x11y�q{ 0.1 w1`M� wr� 1.. n tr MYF % A0. �r� ; iR LOGMM O^ \ KAn RIX1f1N[ — 0. Yr, �rlMr � f�. L.'y�iy/,Irr s l/. r r ! � S � w NMTAAD l}tv,,.:, 0. ivwww ie x TCH rx liy+w�r � GRAPHIC SCALE �e.17 �; Q Z AAYR'1gIAW `t N e67o nD'r 81.71' [Q YmOgR LfB'0. ' '01 I - 76.661.0 SOUARC FfCT O - - 4X& SQUAW FOOT GAFA AUOMCD ( .w w.H '+ — euaanc . LOT T - 7Z)I4.1 SOVARC AM V 2 6100 SpIARr FOOT BIMONC ENM:LLWf ,yFp -�-- -- t..• SJIJ.SQLARf FOOT [AYA ALLOMEO "• W 1 LOT 1. . 0 8 X6 06rlACRCf� 1 � 11 V • 0.rsu . w.. r w0. 2 �Al.l LOT 1.5 E a, .Jr , CRAINAII. � ._�.— CASCYCNI „ .0.. w r r «w ,..�. «HM r: 1..• LV TRACT A LOT 2 »uA ALl$S 1NWLO0.f rte. '7 #'�. Ixo• s 8670 W 127 ' ACCESS k VIllIrY rASrmew �. ' � JQ07' IJ77J' MO. t6Z80' LOT I. p"W BEARING$) a. , (BASS Cw^ L[. S wJ CAP 1.S AW 1511 LOT 4 LOT 5 VA IL OAS SCHON£ RUNG NO. I BAPS tY BrARNC6' S 8670 f AL OV6 INC N04 NERLY LOT IAVCS CY tors , ARV s Or VAC OAS SG FAAVC nO. 1, OETNf£N FO(" . '.� cAV AIOWA:WNIS AS AUCAIM.. VAT tY StIRWY" orC£Be£R 1996, y r]';' -,: '.1 ,.� `• • O£NOT£S Zr SI8" R£BAR W^AS CAP Pr It PIS 16676 I •••:J ® PERVRf snwcr Aawss FINAL, PLA T Cff TALL PINES SUBDI VISION TRACT A, VAIL WEIGHTS RUM NO. 1, AND A 7RACT OF LAND LOCATED IN 5112 OF THE SEI/4 OF SECAON 11, T 5 S, R 81 W., OF THE 6TH P. At LOT 5 TOWN OF VA IL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO RR Sn/ K tCAd N ,nd a - AOnAW r.ufA.ro \ •. ' FOR Io1'/•'C PtwosrS IrACR Lor LS loV£O FAwARY src0A~r.. 31.05' + •' CLNSBRMOOV LY ANY IYPROWAKNTS ON LOT 1 THAT x111 B6YOC NTO IHr MAYS ROW "f SHALL AWOEW WWTT£N AP ROM BY 1M TOM or I� MASf w d M CW S� . - VAIL Or A Sir CAW f NLW,NrfRND ANO .mO1 PIN ANAL MS PoP 9•AW((1 /AO P[ ♦ As X611 j A, RIM AM9tOw r rs Itxr' a: ` CHAMONIX LANE �SOI L*i j •._. :�. I+. My t M w wR.i , :�.::,•'... .t 0.x11y�q{ 0.1 w1`M� wr� 1.. n LOTS MYF % A0. �r� iR LOGMM O^ \ KAn RIX1f1N[ — 0. Yr, �rlMr � f�. L.'y�iy/,Irr s l/. r r ! � S � w NMTAAD 0. ivwww ie liy+w�r � GRAPHIC SCALE " r•-n ' '01 I - 76.661.0 SOUARC FfCT O •� - :... �wr - 4X& SQUAW FOOT GAFA AUOMCD ( .w w.H . LOT T - 7Z)I4.1 SOVARC AM V 2 6100 SpIARr FOOT BIMONC ENM:LLWf ,yFp -�-- -- SJIJ.SQLARf FOOT [AYA ALLOMEO (4.Ila NOT N PrORS -17 OM) ti 1 11 V • 0.rsu . w.. r w0. 2 �Al.l I .r • CRAINAII. � ._�.— CASCYCNI „ .0.. w r r «w ,..�. «HM r: 1..• TRACT A \ •. ' FOR Io1'/•'C PtwosrS IrACR Lor LS loV£O FAwARY src0A~r.. 31.05' + •' CLNSBRMOOV LY ANY IYPROWAKNTS ON LOT 1 THAT x111 B6YOC NTO IHr MAYS ROW "f SHALL AWOEW WWTT£N AP ROM BY 1M TOM or I� MASf w d M CW S� . - VAIL Or A Sir CAW f NLW,NrfRND ANO .mO1 PIN ANAL MS PoP 9•AW((1 /AO P[ ♦ As X611 j A, RIM AM9tOw r rs Itxr' a: ` CHAMONIX LANE �SOI Mw TTJ+ 111+10. �.�yr �,w lw.0.yr.•ww aI.IM .- ww - ,A0.R0.1 - •M �� M �w�i•w 1 6 tiw. 1 w .w::, l4titili�".__ L*i j •._. :�. I+. My t M w wR.i , :�.::,•'... .t 0.x11y�q{ 0.1 w1`M� wr� 1.. Mw TTJ+ 111+10. �.�yr �,w lw.0.yr.•ww aI.IM .- ww - ,A0.R0.1 - •M �� M �w�i•w 1 6 tiw. 1 w .w::, l4titili�".__ 0 • �O? fi- 6620 OQW 1 - a. () z� Y I i(a.bm4:s3r _--- ce�ees �\ � I � `- I , 26,679 SQUARE FEET 6256 SF BLG ENV. FF� I 1T r 5768 SF GRFA ALLOWED I t 4� i ' � . 1 I bo i i' /' /.. NLRYA 2�TArvICIltMI.MZt� i �I lur GIIAMpNix i nrll 1 \ 22126 SQUARE FEET V 6209 SF BLG ENV. (4248 NOT IN _� = -- DEBRIS-FLOW) 1 5.313 SF GRFA ALLOWED �O? fi- 6620 OQW DRIVEWAY GRADING PLAN - (EXAMPLE ON LY) 1'-20.0' A o� d cn �a �n r E-• t �a H ova: vYi[Y YNL01[4 2.2 a. z� - _ J 51.05 I 1T r GIIAMpNix i nrll DRIVEWAY GRADING PLAN - (EXAMPLE ON LY) 1'-20.0' A o� d cn �a �n r E-• t �a H ova: vYi[Y YNL01[4 2.2 12 -03 -1996 08:56PM FROM ART MEARS TO 19704768637 P.01 ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 555 County Road 16 Gunnison, Colorado 81230 Tel/Fax: 970-641.3236 antmean ®ninii.com December 3. 19% Mr. Greg Amsden ADF Real Estate The Wren, Suite #112 500 South Frontage Road East Vail, CO 81657 Via Fax (970- 476 -8637) Dear Mr. Amsden: As requested by you and Rick Rosen, I have reviewed a site plan and a grading plan of the proposed Dual Pines Subdivision in Vail. Both site and grading plans were dated '11115/96.' Any changes to these plans could invalidate the preliminary conclusions of this letter. In reaching these conclusions I relied upon previous experience in the Vail area, including direct obseryetions of the 1984 debris flow that overran the eastern portion of the proposed subdivision. I also reviewed an April, 1882 study of the 'Schmetzko Property (completed for Rick Rosen. DEBRIS FLOWS Building envelope 'A,' as shown on your plans, lies completely west of the debris flow area, consequently should require no special debris -flow mitigation. The eastern 1/3 of Building errvelepe'B,' is located within the debris flow area and would require mitigation if built upon; the western 213 of envelope *B is outside the debris flow area and requires no mitigation. ROCKFALL According to your plans, both building envelope 'K and 'W are partially exposed to ' medium severity' rockfall areas as designated in a 1984 study commissioned by the Town of Vail. Howe according to my study of April, 1992, which modeled rock potential in greater detail than the 1984 Vail study, rockfall will not reach building envelope 'B.' it may, however, reach envelope OX during extreme conditions. Because envelope 'K is at the extreme lower limit of rockfall potential, energies of rolling rocks would be small thus mitigation to protect any building would be minor. Rockfall mitigation could probably be achieved with modification of the lower portions of building walls, small berm construction uphill of the building, or rockfall fences. As I noted above, a site inspection is required to refine these preliminary conclusions and to suggest any mitigation in greater detail. Building envelopes should be marked on the ground prior to a site inspection. The preliminary conclusions of this letter are contingent upon such a study. Please contact me if you would like to proceed with this additional work. Sincerely, Ct v'. �vm 4 - ( 1 X aw Arthur 1. Mears, P.E. Avalanche- control engineer N.cs Wastims • Avalanches • Avalanche CeWrvl &lnearina • • TOTAL P.01 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 1997 RE: A request for amendments to Chapter 18.04, Sections 18.24.060, 18.26.040 and 18.60.060 of the Zoning Code to add Outdoor Commercial 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 /Mike Mollica I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant is requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow for commercial outdoor ski storage. Since the PEC worksession on June 23, 1997, the applicant has withdrawn the request to allow commercial ski storage on all building levels in Commercial Core I (CCI) and Commercial Core 11 (CCII). The applicant is still requesting to amend the zoning code to allow outdoor commercial ski storage as a conditional use in CCI and CCII. Additionally, the applicant • is proposing to add definitions for commercial ski storage, outdoor commercial ski storage and ski racks and to add additional conditional use permit review criteria. The proposed code revisions include: amending Sections 18.24.060 (Conditional Uses Generally) and 18.26.040 (Conditional Uses Generally) of the CCI and CCII zone districts; adding definitions of "commercial ski storage ", "outdoor commercial ski storage" and "ski racks" to Chapter 18.04 (Definitions); and amending Section 18.60.060 (Criteria - Findings) of the Conditional Use Permit Chapter to add specific criteria review related to outdoor commercial ski storage. The proposed additional review criteria are based upon the elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations and the Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. II. 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 and June 23, 1997, the PEC held worksessions to discuss the proposed changes to the code, as described above. The PEC discussed the appropriateness of indoor and outdoor commercial ski storage and the proposed definitions. The PEC and members of the public expressed concern regarding the aesthetics of outdoor ski storage. In an attempt to address these concerns, the applicant and the staff have developed specific review criteria for a conditional use • permit for outdoor commercial ski storage. These criteria are in i i n to the existing conditional use permit criteria. The proposed review criteria relate to location, design and development standards and are based upon specific design considerations of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. III. C ONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCU MENTS In considering the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, staff has relied on several relevant planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the purpose sections of the CCI and CC2 zone districts and the goals and objectives stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. Zoning Code According to the purpose statements of the CCI and CCII zone districts, these zone districts are intended to provide sites for commercial establishments which are compatible with other uses in the district. Staff believes that ski storage can a compatible use with permitted and conditional uses within these zone districts. Staff further believes that ski storage is a needed service and guest amenity and will complement the existing uses within the CCI and CCII zone districts. Vail Land Use Plan The following goals found in the Vail Land Use Plan support this proposal: 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 The following objectives found in the Vail Village Master Plan support this request: Objective 2.1 Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 subareas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to allow outdoor commercial ski storage as a conditional use in the CCI and CCII zone districts, add definitions for commercial ski storage, outdoor commerical ski storage and ski racks, and add specific review criteria for a conditional use permit for outdoor commercial ski storage. 2 ,dr - Proposed text changes: Definitions Amend Section 18.04 - Definitions to add the following: "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 must be either enclosed in an accessory building or be in the form of vertically installed coin - operated ski locks, subject to design review approval. "Ski Racks" means racks available to the public for the temporary storage of skis, poles and snowboards, in which a fee is not charged. Commercial Core I zone district Amend Section 18 24060 Conditional Uses - Generally to add the following: • F. Outdoor commercial ski storage Commercial Core 11 zone district Amend Section - 18.26.040 Conditional Uses - Generally to add the following: Outdoor commercial ski storage Existing Conditional Use Permit criteria The following are the existing conditional use permit review criteria that will be used to evaluate any outdoor commercial ski storage proposal ( Section 18 60 060 Criteria - Findings 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town; 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs; 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safetv and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas; 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses; 0 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use; (D Additional Conditional Use permit criteria: The following are proposed to be added to Section 18.60-060 Criteria - Findings 8. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for outdoor commercial ski storage, the following shall be considered: a. Any outdoor commercial ski storage, that is considered a coin - operated ski lock, and that is not enclosed in an accessory building, must be affixed to an exterior wall of a building or structure. It may not be free - standing, attached to any landscaping, or site walls. b. The architectural character of the building of which the outdoor commercial ski storage is attached shall not be comprised or negatively impacted. C. Outdoor commercial ski storage may only be permitted seasonally. Any outdoor commercial ski storage facility must be removed no later than June 1 st of every year and cannot be installed, or re- installed, prior to October 15th. d. Outdoor commercial ski storage shall not block any display window on the first floor of any building, nor shall it block the view from or into any outdoor dining deck. e. No landscaping shall be permanently displaced. f. Any outdoor commercial ski storage which is enclosed and is less than 120 square feet in area, shall not be considered floor area, for the purposes of calculating site coverage. Any outdoor commercial ski storage whereby the combined area is greater than 120 square feet, shall be included in the calculation of site coverage. g. Parking shall not be assessed for any outdoor commercial ski storage. • C7 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 1997 SUBJECT: Staff approval of a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District #2 (Northwoods), to allow for residential additions to Units D8, D9 and D12, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive /Northwoods Condominiums Applicants: Richard & Gail Barrett, Bert Nordin and Jorge & Eugenia Riedel Planner: Lauren Waterton 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are requesting to add 614 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to three units at the Northwoods Condominiums. The three units (138, D9 and D12) are located in the "D Building" and the proposed additions are located on the north side of the building. According to Section 18.40.020 (Definitions), minor amendments to SDD's are required for "variations of not more than five feet to approved setbacks and /or building footprints." The applicants are proposing to enclose two existing decks and expand the living areas of the three units to project five feet from the existing building footprint. The Northwoods Condominiums has GRFA available, so the • total allowable GRFA for this property will not change as a result of this application. The proposed changes to Unit D8 include enclosing an existing deck to enlarge the kitchen, and expanding the existing living room by five feet to project beyond the existing footprint. The total new GRFA for this unit is 154 square feet (see attached drawings). Unit D12, located directly above Unit D8, will have the same additions as the lower unit plus an enlargement to the existing loft. As with Unit D8, this unit will enclose an existing deck and expand the living room by five feet. Additionally, a dormer will be added in order to increase the height of the loft area. The total new GRFA for this unit is 193 square feet. Unit D9, located directly to the east of Units D8 and D12, will have similar improvements. A balcony on the lowest level (adjacent to Unit 138) will be enclosed. Additionally, the living room is proposed to be expanded by five feet, and a dormer will be added to the loft area. The total new GRFA for this unit is 267 square feet. Overall, this minor amendment will add 300 square feet of site coverage to the property. III. STAFF ACTION Staff has approved the request for a minor amendment to SDD #2 (Northwoods) to allow for residential additions to Units D8, D9 and D12 subject to the following finding: That the proposed minor SDD amendment does not alter the basic intent and character of the SDD and is consistent with the design criteria established in Chapter 18.40 (Special Development Districts). F:\ everyone \pec\memos\97\northwoo.714 a --.* M wd �t raw � fbooboglito elites milli —.M. — am 11 0 111 M 016, • • • ;­,�.. 1. . '.. - * ""' '' � t . 1 „, , - - - - ., . , , , ., . . � . � . , . . , . . . , .-I - r . __ _ . / //y - , . - '' �. ., __ .. -, . 7 .,t•. .� Y 11 t .V"d { f ` r ' .,? ;N ,. 'r :�,- '” e;.- ^ }. , s. / , _ a :r..: V. - �, . i °" i ; "� YY } .i . .t 1 f. _ y , 4Y .. /;. - 4 _ �••�- •2 ..w . : • - Y .: i� ' *' n T .' ' " S :� ` r -. - ., J. ' j Y Y R' - t t. 4r,-. Y t A K F7R a l f t 1 h - 1 t { L f - �. ,:, r S. A 1 - S { t ai J "1 .,7. [ R U {" tY \ +l•. T t a. Y b M <, f k. r i r - K t ti .1 I •c ; ; h ,r :! t .t �n y t. �: d t� , ar r -r ,r .0 r . Z ' ^''_. � ' . � tY. t .t..' �� + \, r LV C 1. r 43 � 4 ad t S , l ' t r Y . t ! ,.rc 1 N f Irf f _ t 4 t r - , t' r % 1 . L 7s 11 r t ,.{ f l a r a - f s ` k { , -, �, J .: . 'Va .r.F -C: :j63Pfb1 .ate *-ks1/.�(ah t ' 4 n { t.. , s { ^y r - f J: r t k . 5 2 i i �c.x' A ' +. L t •Y I. d' f t R j KCl ! i _ 2 a { Y L' f 1- J G1 � -Y b ! }` r . fir..; , rf . x r I ; a k Y.. �. , e �, - : � . ". _.� , � , y - .� , . . " '. ., - . . t , , .( .� . . I I !� N , . , . — .. . , , , ." , * = 1 1. ! P. ^. •� f,r .fin. ;i i :i t ; { S T, t. .!. }' t Jr 4 , T J, L F ��' t 'k . r J n }'��yr,.�.aw M J j j ' t { 3TISN lt��y' f. 1t r. f S S r ,�. _ r ,f ` t �r< : ' a { '+ , i `t`' .�� - 4' I t - t r.. .. _ a �i . ..� a : J 'rt - y, tai t. t f .. p n r. I. .`P. Y- t - t = ^,r.. ►�Vv �- +•� e.. ,* �-4T s �a , _ I .:y. , , - - •:.=' Yf +- ;', r - : :, f t L'= 1t ►J�'�}l''Grl>►U�1�+�C51�K1�L4S r'�` f; �. �f 7 } .0 t"' � r.'A+ _ f ti ; t .. - - }^�7Y�p 4 i'.� . lr 4 f . ). t ;r'f� 1. 1� y t } Rg4rtog3 (Ip�rd tfj�fc!>t C.. i t {�rrirbNs i` - p J y— ti a , f iy r xr r _ ° f �. xt 11 . 1. ` t 1 :, , r 1 '- �t'��-- i - I 7 � 1 N' 4 t K ,; ! .� ; c t: - ,: Q i•i CJt•Y�•.� „YiF; _ > a � i ,-:.' +•`e a �Y t "V �: N r `� y i q: . a , _Y:K13V1c.�4f_TtC . rt -;� ♦ .� -! i {. - t r .. `• ' 1 _ 4 IQ. • i :t d S { :; r, r „:+ 4. a ' � ;t `` r c + ;Y - t '� , f.o r .a -.S k._a'' .i: - . •.r :� .i r 11 §. •`F+;. � r r Y !� F ! „ f..: rr �- 'x~�',r t• -'' ��,` -;'4 f }a•.�t r "x':i t.s.' i,C .. � ...' 7• } r ':;e i,( 5r K' YYai• ..,'... r'� s. i t• k: � -f ' .(;J/4ZJ,,.. i— v'1 }C'- it t „„ ,.*” , ,� -• . t .• i'C rr Fr f , .i r , t - ` :r, �. .1' -r s '« 1 f l ! � l - i•fr *� S t M,c �-1,.t:4 r, i ••C r.ir.`'� t 'L "t' 11 I 1 �- to • i." 'r_ *' {. ^, _ ` t ,: t . p t , ! y i �J ;Z} .' Y tl�fY r{` ii i t 1 t :3 ,T. t ; •t ^•! \\ J 1r b l.'L V. ' .. f �s t c * .fit ( t Y L' s *2 d. �:f ". { � ' • f i.• ! 'S , � [ °. , -. ] •:' 1 ..• .z ti - t l 1 r � ! �. '1l. . � 1`�j ' t , . . L ---- --�_,C �OeT�4 -C ' r ��LJILP q6l ID RNIr D - - r r i c.'.' �, ;� r -, `'� f .�, � � R.,T '•, --+. �•.. 1. t ±`� --�_ _ - ;'7. .,s STS c roc - "e' ' Y'•� :el'� t� .?_3 f 'eE.:..r ,:� c l'C' � rI y . .} •f • i '•� � 2 ✓ � .R+� i i rIur ton _M I t`J t� I L ---- --�_,C �OeT�4 -C ' r ��LJILP q6l ID RNIr D - - r r i c.'.' �, ;� r -, `'� f .�, � � R.,T '•, --+. �•.. 1. t ±`� --�_ _ - ;'7. .,s STS c roc - "e' ' Y'•� :el'� t� .?_3 f 'eE.:..r ,:� c l'C' � rI y . .} •f • i '•� � 2 ✓ � .R+� /� jw � /� // \\ ` % \ � / \�� `'\ � . /� �� i J, .\ .� k i � � i i .: r . }I m m IkM IT Dq r i Xw Pvqs ar— 1 putt" � r I !Ma Awl 1 M- two �cz.nt� n -a UK Ir 1> _. -ZL�' - Ky m 0 Ir f. r oll VL 'r 7 7 777 .1 w. Lila '7191 IT r `fjl 40 '.T lid ffA § - RIM, Ky m 0 Ir f. r oll VL 'r 7 7 777 .1 w. Lila '7191 IT r `fjl 40 '.T lid ffA 1: X'. r—LrT F v c;l ;t7y MW" 5 ON , SW • s�'. x .t / � r t 1 7 t r . . . . . . . 77" 775 A 11 44 It& ow @M F K to 5 F 7— 41 7 T�77 T�e 4i �. e. • Mir D • ♦' 0 FILE J1 COPY TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development Vail, Colorado 81657 970 - 479 - 21381479 -2139 FAX 970- 479 -2452 July 3, 1997 Diane R. Larsen Larsen & Kovacevich, P.C. 953 S. Frontage Road West, Suite 105 Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Proposed minor amendment (skier bridge) to SDD 94, Glen Lyon, for applicant Mr. Pennington Dear Ms. Larsen: The Community Development Department has approved your application for a minor amendment to SDD 114 (Cascade Village) for a bridge to obtain vehicular access to Lots 39 -1 0 and 39 -2 over the Westin Hi -Ho ski trail (approved plans attached). The proposal allows the owners of Lot 39 -1 and 39 -2, Glen Lyon to gain access to their property and at the same time allows skiers access under the bridge. The bridge is proposed entirely on Lot 39 -1 with access gained via a 20' wide access easement granted to this property over Lots 40, 41, and 42, Glen Lyon. Staff believes this minor amendment is consistent with the design criteria as outlined in Section 18.40.020B, of the Zoning Code. The approved plans are those plans prepared by Design Workshop (3 sheets: L -1, dated 7 -1 -97; L -2, dated 7 -1 -97; and Bridge and Wall Elevations, dated 6 -9 -97) and Alpine Engineering, Inc. (4 sheets: Sheet 2, dated 7 -1 -97; Sheet 3, dated 6 -8 -97; Sheet 4, dated 6 -8 -97; and Sheet 5, dated 7- 1 -97). Staff believes that the approved plans are reasonable and address the specific concerns expressed by neighboring property owners (Julie Dews and Fred Blume, as represented by Arthur Gould). Staff also believes the applicant has gone to great lengths to replan this bridge at the request of the Town of Vail and the adjacent property owners. The approved plans provide for regrading on a portion of Lot 40 and it is the Town's understanding that the owners of this lot are in full agreement to that regrading. However, prior to work being commenced on Lot 40 (outside of the easement), you must provide a written authorization from the owners of Lot 40 to allow such grading, However, as an alternative, staff has also approved a boulder retaining wall within the access easement which allows the Pagel of 2 N � RECYCLED PAPER /� r fah y � , �� construction b' tnis b� 14i3f out grading on Lot 40. The Community Development Department has also "staff approved" your Design Review Board application for proposed access and bridge. This approval, however, does not include approval of the proposed gate at the south end of the bridge. As a condition of staff approval, the applicant must obtain approval of the gate and its location from the Design Review Board prior to installation of the gate. Please note that this approval is separate and distinct from the minor subdivision approval. Installation of a gate does not require an amendment to the SDD. This letter shall also serve as notice to the adjacent property owners as required by Section 18.40.100, of the Zoning Code. The staff approval of the minor amendment will be reported to the Planning and Environmental Commission at its July 14, 1997 meeting, which will be held in Council Chambers, located at 75 S. Frontage Road in. Vail, CO, at 2:00 pm. If you have any questions, please call me at 479 -2148. Si cer ly, 1 o inic . auriell ICP Town Planner xc: Sherry Dotwood, Design Workshop Adjacent Property Owners Frank B. Freyer, 11I, Cascade Village Metropolitan District • • F9 L---A Page 2 of 2 ti • 0 0 SNOW;SrORA�GE AREA Co., F11 Iedifn,— 11 — MPI A.—.. M.. .nd CM—d" so-0 ISPRI pld.. OunQ— RX) W)tIES I All liflEtS ft) f i innIGATED .. I f AT MM i Nrwi r l , — nnA-NOS L0n rmimr. c.nAMN' 11 I t Atlt) CAT Ancfiiirci TO APPnOVF ALL PLAN? LIAIEW• :tlo I A401 f. OF fill I C(.ATIONS Pnion 10 INSTALLATIOPI PLANT LIST 011AMIll♦ r.()MM(IIJ BOTANICAL NAME t lid 'W Pl— C W.I. pku, .10,. Pt........ A­n P.eel.. r. R.".. P......'........... Ch-1— Prows Alf,— R11- *lp— [Ij NORTH 11 In') Mnn 20.00 161 Hill- 9l bkk p1'1t00.10- —oily— S.DW.iTC)AAOE AREA RELOCATED SmowuAxm VALVE HOUSE/ Tr) cl S P.Dm. 191 A C-- r I (s) SKIER UNDERPASS 4 Rib— OIPIMn{ VAL SPA it for 39 — vS F COLORADO s E L —x : 'T TR R 3ATE sp RELOCATED TA±SC WER ON 10•.10 CONCRETE SP 1101 spa 181 PAW NOTE :d�o .d U lot t0 .... — 20 t. It. d.. ..l. ..lo"b— .. r %CCE!,�, ' �SEM GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION LOT 39 f :'yam ,- LANDSCAPE PLAN cl —T IDes"KWORLSHC w�- / 11�.Ir lr• M LOT 39 say° i OT 40 I i teec:�t f i / fNEE I T fi� . nEUO {E f . t r I i I i! I i! I i! r ;! l C( lIUER , UNDERPA>iB VAR. COLORADO GLEN LYON BUBDril m LOT 39 OVERALL sire PLAN L -2 I IDes"KWORLSHC w�- / 11�.Ir lr• M LOT 39 say° i OT 40 I i teec:�t f i / fNEE I T fi� . nEUO {E f . t r I i I i! I i! I i! r ;! l C( lIUER , UNDERPA>iB VAR. COLORADO GLEN LYON BUBDril m LOT 39 OVERALL sire PLAN L -2 JY .. 0 . 0 111CQT VT X17A?'tn'KT Glen Lyon Subdivision • Lot 39 Vail, Colorado Bridge and Wall Elevations Pennington Residence D E S I O N W O R K S H O P >- NO4rM • r r f EAST ELEVATION (VIEW TOWARDS-GORE CREEK) _ -------------------------- - - - - -- -- _ , 4 UNPLATTED . o GOWN OF VAIL STREAM TWT) �'--- s LOT 39 -1 (I.1 LN LYON SUBDMSION) c� A LOT 40 / ,��I •':`: r1 /2 p / / 1 - . +/ S + 7� A LOT 39 -2 (C.Lr,14 LYON SUBDMS r 1 .10 8090 X, _ Li t •_ i / / U.S. FOREST SERVICE l I CRAPHIC SCAM ii l . A ■ Z J t e •i� "g M > i ��4 4 d r i t X E P R r I l jYl1j\1,\ R Y I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION a r. • • • P R E L] M 1 INA R Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LL ?�6 �It d 21111 WftnCAL -10' LL ?�6 �It d Z Y { L• 3, Y . -e w P16ti r. fAf M ttul9 ml) wu, rvADO1 ,� „ SCALE- 1HPIMMUL AND YERMAL ,1l.1 b,4 A4tM Og1M , d+M •4L S,JS.Q MC. Mrfi{R(xD(1MNNK1) W aeFAe r � ro,r eemt o.oro EASnYL MR , Mll1) wu l AREAn 4 Q P R r L 1\/1 J 1\V\ R Y NOT FOR CONSTR r � tit• = := tiwr dr't —, 1 .t .r ,.•1 .r t � • Iw LS..S u,.— t . (..TO[ ba.l I' tw f DIVM J t ,1l.1 b,4 A4tM Og1M , d+M •4L S,JS.Q MC. Mrfi{R(xD(1MNNK1) W aeFAe r � ro,r eemt o.oro EASnYL MR , Mll1) wu l AREAn 4 Q P R r L 1\/1 J 1\V\ R Y NOT FOR CONSTR Pgpp()5[L - SrMN.kDIG .� __– – �(� _ fnISTNG fA.R – – ..___ —_ - Z Inf +in ux(NI.C.) ... ___ �– Lill UNPLATTED \ L eo (TOWN OF VAIL STREAM TRACT) W! W1 1 ' \ i • ® ®� ® m ©� '� is a; u s: - V Z m m �` m solo i7 Q j t.. ,..r �i Z LOT 39 -13 — ' •Vic' -. ;1.; 1 N I YON SUMMSION) .+�'o. �• a K two �, J �• y` ttaURD t • . ,. I ti •• Mps tt[C v Q .,�..: �% • �a:�� ` •\, ep10 .LL u DR,as LOT 39 -2 > Y (GLEN LYON SUBDIVISI { M W .0 KPCS 3 eoeo M ` 0 LOT 40 90 z ,.... e / J� U.S. FOREST SERVICE � � _ ••, e + to 1 GRAPHIC SCAM P - I.nrtr NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION e _.. _ .s X997 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 14, 1997 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Galen Aasland John Schofield Diane Golden Gene Uselton Ann Bishop Public Hearing Greg Amsden The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Dirk Mason Russ Forrest George Ruther Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II EHU, located at 186 Forest Rd. /Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Mike Flannery, represented by Russell Platt Planner: Dirk Mason • • Dirk Mason gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. Greg Moffet asked for any public input. Cindy McAdam, a resident on Forest Rd., asked how there would be enforcement of the employee housing unit. She stated that Ron Byrne's project had no one living in it, since it wasn't enforceable. She stated that she had no neighbors and would love a fireman, policeman or anyone as a neighbor. Cindy wanted to know who should be held accountable, regarding the enforcement. She said that he didn't have a real CO, only a temporary CO and how could you rent a house without a CO. She stated that she would love everyone of them to have employee housing. She said it's a mockery and what's the point, if it's not enforceable. Andy Knudtsen said the Town received actual verification of the separating wall in the EHU, but only after construction was complete. He said there were other deed restrictions in the area, but that the restriction was so loose, there could be no enforcement. He said that more recent restrictions were tighter. He said it generally would depend on how hard the Council wanted the Town to pursue enforcement. John Schofield said this Commission did not have the power to enforce, but that Council had the authority. Cindy McAdam asked, "don't you work together ?" Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 14, 1997 1 Ann Bishop said the issue needed to be addressed and the PEC would refer this to the Town Council, if need be. Ann asked if Mr. Flannery had more property and if employees lived there. Cindy McAdam said, yes, but no employees lived there. • Galen Aasland said Andy had an enforcement provision and that it would be treated the same as other properties. Ann Bishop said she would vote for denial stated that f Mr. Flannery had another should look into the Cappy issue. She property without an employee living in the EHU, this request should be denied. Russell Platt, the architect for the project, said the bottom of the house was designated as employee housing and it was separate from the house. Diane Golden said the PEC had to go forward in good faith, however enforcement needed to be better. She said the PEC had to assume that people were telling the truth. John Schofield said it appeared from Cindy's testimony, that enforcement was an issue and he urged staff to pass onto Council the need to allocate the necessary resources to enforce this, if approved. He stated that the PEC had to approve this request on its own merits and this proposal appeared to have met all the criteria for approval. Gene Uselton asked if the client had any objection to the conditions. Russell Platt said, no. Gene Uselton said it would be a mistake to deny an EHU and he agreed to pass the concern on • to Council. Greg Moffet said this request met all the findings for additional GRFA and a conditional use permit. He said yes, we did work together and that the PEC was an appointed volunteer body to judge issues and he saw no basis to deny this application. Dirk Mason suggested the PEC make a motion that the Council evaluate the enforcement issue. Greg Moffet said it would not be appropriate to saddle this applicant with that requirement, rather it should be a separate recommendation. Tim McAdam said he and Cindy were not opposed to employee housing, but that he and Cindy wanted some kind of sanctioning body, if the EHU was being abused. Greg Moffet said as a volunteer body, the PEC had no ability for enforcement. Ann Bishop stated that that was not a correct statement, regarding the PEC's responsibilities. Greg Moffet said his understanding of the PEC duties, was to interpret and determine an outcome, by applying facts. He apologized to the McAdams, if it was implied that the McAdams didn't want employee housing. Planning and Enviromnental Coimnussion Minutes 2 July 14, 1997 • Tim McAdam said there were no lights on in any EHU's on Forest Rd. • Andy Knudtsen said the other Flannery residence was built in 1990 and there was no way to enforce this requirement, as it was considered an "early" deed restriction. Greg Moffet said there was no gun to hold to an owner's head to require compliance. Tim McAdam said the process was just not working. Andy Knudtsen said the ordinances have been tightened since 1995 and regarding the Cappy residence, the Town was in the process of working it out with the attorneys. Tim McAdam said it's a huge gray area and a waste of money to get to the point of attorneys. Diane Golden asked, if before 1995, an applicant could use the EHU for anything. Galen Aasland said it wasn't called an employee housing unit before 1995. Greg Moffet agreed that the ordinance didn't have enough teeth and needed more potent enforcement. John Schofield made a motion "that the Planning and Environmental Commission, in the strongest possible terms, recommend to the Vail Town Council that they review the Employee Housing Ordinance in relation to enforcement and that the PEC fully recommend that the enforcement action be funded in an effort to bring the intent of the Employee Housing Unit into compliance, with the lack of reality that appears to be in the neighborhood that we're questioning." • Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. John Schofield made a motion for approval of the request in accordance with the staff memo with two conditions and an additional condition that a CO or TCO not be issued, until an inspection was completed to ensure compliance with the EHU requirements and to verify that the building was constructed according to the approved set of plans. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -1, with Ann .Bishop opposed. 2. A request for a variance from Section 18.58.020 to allow for a retaining wall to exceed 6 feet in height, located at 4093 E. Spruce Way /Lots 4, 5, & 6, Block 9, Bighorn #3. Applicant: Vail East Lodging Association, represented by Larry Summerlin Planner: Dirk Mason Dirk Mason gave an overview of the memo. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • July 14, 1997 3 Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. They did not. He then asked for any public comments. There were none. John Schofield said the record should reflect that this particular site had a physical hardship. • Gene Uselton asked Dirk about the wall. Dirk Mason said that this was a two -tier proposal . Galen Aasland agreed with John's comments. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet said, given the existence of the retaining walls on this site, he did not see this as granting a special privilege. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 3. A request for a final review of a zoning code amendment, to allow for outdoor commercial ski storage, as a conditional use in the CC1 and CC2 Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy • Planner: Lauren Waterton /Mike Mollica Mike Mollica said the applicant withdrew their request for ski storage on the first floor and all upper building levels in the CC1 and CC2 Zone Districts. He then gave an overview of the memo and stated there was a typo on page 4, b that should read compromised," instead of "comprised." Greg Moffet explained that a code change would go to Council, with at least two readings. Joe Macy stated he was in agreement with the staff memo, but the definition of outdoor ski storage did not permit wire racks, which might cause a problem with other people. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Tom Neyens said it came down to whether or not we wanted storage units above ground in Lionshead and the barns in the past didn't belong there. He said they weren't in the right place and should be underground. He said it was 'an easy out to put storage outside and no one else had complained about putting storage underground, therefore there was no need to change. He' said it could be seen from Garfinkle's deck, Trail's End and from the ticket office. He felt leaning racks with locks were great, or a security presence was appropriate, but putting up storage barns outside would not benefit anyone else but VA and he asked the PEC to deny this application. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes 4 July 14, 1997 Kay Ferry said the Village Merchants unanimously agreed that they did not want to have outdoor storage and she said we didn't have to acquiesce the needs of VA when something didn't suit • their needs. Kay said that VA was making demands and that Goal 4.3 was about the ambiance in the Village and outdoor village storage violates this goal. Greg Moffet asked if the Village Merchants had any objection to outdoor ski locks. Kay Ferry said no matter what it is, Jack Curtin's always seems to be grandfathered. She questioned this. She said we don't want to set a precedence, which was what we would be doing and we did not want any outdoor ski storage. She said in the spirit of the community, everyone was working together to provide the best environment for our guest and VA pushed the limit. She said when VA can't push anymore, they change the rules. Diane Golden said what you want then, would be no ski racks in the Town. Kay Ferry said ski racks should not be for commercial use. Diane Golden said people have a need to lock up their skis when they go in for dinner. Kay Ferry said we had a problem with aesthetics in this Town. She said there was a problem with plastic chairs and we should stand on consistent aesthetics, fairly administered. She said what gets passed and what doesn't, was the fairness issue. Jane Gros, with Vista Bahn Ski Rentals, said she would hate to see barns and ski racks up and down Bridge Street. Tom Friesen, with Mill Creek Sports, reminded the PEC that Goal 6 was to insure the continued • improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. He asked where the barns came from. Joe Macy said the barns were built for Vail Associates. Tom Friesen said the barns came from Beaver Creek, because the homeowners of Beaver Creek didn't want them, as they were not attractive. He said the rental fleet gets free storage. Galen Aasland said it was good of VA to take storage off the first level. He said the access for guests should be convenient and VA will always have the most convenient location, being at the base of the mountains. He said the ski barns were ugly and page 4 of the staff memo should be tightened. He said that the recently approved Gold Peak storage was excellent and there needed to be an incentive provided to make storage more attractive. Ann Bishop stated the responsibilities of the PEC were to act as an advisory to the Town Council. She wanted the Town Council to reflect on this issue in great depth. Diane Golden asked if this proposal was asking to allow vertical ski storage to be attached to a wall and horizontal ski storage to be covered. Mike Mollica said horizontal storage would need to be enclosed and the enclosure needed to be approved by the DRB. He said horizontal racks were generally operated by staff, versus vertical racks which were coin - operated. • Planning and Enviromnental Commission Minutes July 14, 1997 5 Diane Golden said horizontal storage was cumbersome. John Schofield said the issue today would not affect the storage under Chair 1, as it was another zone district. He reminded everyone that this was a conditional use and would be reviewed on a case -by -case basis and didn't give blanket approval. He said the way this was written, it would allow very few places where outdoor ski storage would be possible. He said they wanted to control the quality and this leveled the playing field, by having everybody come in and go through the same process. He said it would benefit the guest. He thought there should be a change to 8a in the staff memo on page 4, to allow storage to be attached to landscaping, or site walls. Gene Uselton said for a world class resort, the current storage was not very attractive. He said to have a $6 -$7 staff person guarding skis would not work and yet, we didn't want to encourage the skis to go on buses with the guests. Joe Macy said if this was not permitted in the Town, VA would have to figure out how to do this, as it was a service for the guest. He said he had come before the PEC just like anybody else, to request this. Gene Uselton asked what outdoor locations would be used. Mike Mollica said horizontal ski storage would be difficult to put up, due to the nature of the large horizontal racks and he had no idea of the specific locations, but if an applicant could meet the criteria, then staff would recommend approval. Gene Uselton said site coverage would be the issue. Mike Mollica said site coverage would generally not be a restricting factor. Kay Ferry suggested if a business rented skis, perhaps the business should provide rental • storage, have an attendant take the skis from the guests and return them to the rental space. Tom Neyens said he had 450 sq. ft. of unrentable space that was 300' -400' from the gondola. He said that only one shop in Lionshead didn't have space and that VA had outdoor storage barns, instead of space in their shops. Greg Moffet said the merchants have spoken. He said making it easier for the guests will bring them back. He said the factors on page 4 of the memo would regulate this and there were very few places in CC1 or CC2 where this could occur. He suggested adding a letter "H" to get overnight storage from rentals. Ann Bishop thought it would become too rigid and complicated. Mike Mollica stated it would be almost impossible to enforce and recommended against it. Tom Friesen was curious about the aesthetics under Chair 1. Greg Moffet said if VA managed to put lockers on USFS land, the only recourse would be to take the issue up with the Forest Service, as there would be nothing the Town could do. He said if the location was not within the Town boundaries, VA could do it. Planning and Lnvironmental Coirunission Minutes 6 July 14, 1997 • • • • John Schofield said the PEC had asked the Town Attorney if the Town had any jurisdiction over USFS land. Greg Moffet said USFS permits outdoor ski storage above ground. Tom Friesen said VA was not allowed to have done what they did; they just did it. Tom Neyens asked if in the future, VA was allowed to put in barns, could they be put in for a new building, as he didn't want to see the barns there forever. He said the original idea was to get this out of the public eye and it could be underground. He asked if this ordinance was going to sit on the books for another 30 years. He suggested that once the building went up, storage should go underground or when the building came down. Mike Mollica again clarified that vertical coin- operated storage needed to be attached to a structure and horizontal storage could be freestanding. John Schofield said the possibility of freestanding storage was very narrow. He then made a motion for a recommendation to Council with the conditional use criteria on page 4 of the staff memo, to include a change in the language in Section 8a, to reflect that the outdoor commercial ski storage may not be freestanding, but may be attached to any landscaping or site walls when not obstructing views, from or into outdoor dining decks or transparent store fronts. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Galen Aasland wanted the motion amended to require side - hinged doors and not overhead doors, as he would like to eliminate overhead doors. John Schofield said he would not prohibit overhead doors in his motion, but would suggest them. Galen Aasland wanted it to be required. John Schofield amended his motion saying access to the storage shall be at the applicant's discretion, per the Design Guidelines, with the suggestion that access be via side- hinged doors and not via overhead doors. Gene Uselton seconded the amended motion. The vote passed by a vote of 4 -2, with Ann Bishop and Galen Aasland opposed, as they wanted a requirement to have overhead doors prohibited. 4. A request for a conditional use permit and a variance from Section 18.58.080 to allow for an unpaved trailhead parking area, located at Red Sandstone Road /Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing #1. Applicant: 10th Mountain Hut Association, represented by Peter Lodram Planner: Russ Forrest Russ Forrest gave an overview of the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 14, 1997 7 Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. He then asked for any public comments. There was none. Galen Aasland suggested moving the boulders on the left side higher and on the right side • lower, to get two more parking spaces. Ann Bishop agreed with Galen's suggestion to move the boulders. Diane Golden had no comments. John Schofield agreed with Galen's suggestion to make it larger. Gene Uselton wondered if there could be mitigation for the dangerous curve and suggested a mirror. Greg Moffet asked if it was permissible for a fisheye mirror. Russ Forrest said it was possible, however, Greg Hall and Terri Partch said the space was adequate enough to turn around and go out front first, rather than backing out. Russ said a mirror could make it safer, but Greg Hall didn't have any conditions attached to this. Greg Moffet asked, in terms of the variance for parking, if the GU Zone District required paved parking and if you could grant a special privilege in a GU district. Other wise, he agreed with Galen's suggestion. Galen Aasland made a motion, in accordance with the staff memo, stating that the request met the criteria and findings, with the additional condition that should the applicant be able to move boulders to find additional parking, at their discretion, that that be allowed. • Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 5. A request for an amendment to a previously approved minor subdivision, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/Tract A, Vail Heights Filing #1. Applicant: Robert Hunter, represented by Greg Amsden Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. He then asked for any public comments. There was none. The Commission had no comments. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. Planning and Enviromnental Commission Minutes 8 July 14, 1997 • The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. is 6. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #2 (Northwoods), to allow for residential additions to Units D8, D9 and D12, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Richard & Gail Barrett, Bert Nordin, and Jorge & Eugenia Riedel, represented by Ray Story Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 7. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a skier bridge, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane /Lots 39 -1 and 39 -2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorward Planner: Dominic Mauriello STAFF APPROVED 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 TO JULY 28, 1997 9. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC1 and a minor subdivision, to allow for the construction of a parking garage, 9 accommodation units, 1 condominium and new retail office space at the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr. /Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 11, 1997 10. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow modifications to allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane /Lots 39- 1 & 39 -2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Sherry Dorward Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 25,1997 • Ann Bishop made a motion to table items 8,9, and 10 to the dates on the agenda. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 14, 1997 9 Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 11. 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 WITHDRAWN 12. Information Update Mike Mollica explained staff approvals item #6 on the agenda, that Northwoods had sufficient GRFA available and that item #7's minor amendment to allow a skier bridge, should have no significant impacts, and was conceptually reviewed by the DRB. Mike Mollica said that at the next meeting, the PEC would spend one hour looking at the Lionshead design charette results with Ethan Moore from Design Workshop, who would give an overview. Diane Golden asked about the ice rink view. Mike Mollica said it was not considered a threatened view and therefore, was removed from the view corridor list by the Town Council. Ann Bishop asked about the Kredeit residence. • Mike Mollica said the Town issued a red tag and subsequently withdrew the building permit. Ann Bishop said the house on stilts may be a danger to the community. Mike Mollica said an independent engineer was hired regarding this, who said it would be safe short -term. Ann Bishop asked what was considered short -term. George Ruther said "before the snow flies." Ann Bishop said the building was precarious and she was fearful that someone would get hurt. Mike Mollica said the Town shared the same concerns.. Greg Moffet said the PEC was a quasi - judicial board and conversations between us about this should be discouraged. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 10 July 14, 1997 • Ann Bishop said the building looked dangerous and suggested asking someone to act in a rapid manner. 40 13. Approval of June 23, 1997 minutes. Gene Uselton and Greg Moffet had changes. Galen Aasland made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0 -1 (Ann Bishop was not present at the 6/23/97 meeting). Gene Uselton made a motion to adjourn. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. r� Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 11 July 14, 1997