Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-0922 PEC. 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 September 22, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control), 18.13.090 (Site Coverage) and a request for a residential entry addition, utilizing the remaining GRFA of a previous Additional GRFA (250) request, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertfeger Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District # 22 Grand Traverse, to allow for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the street and to allow downspouts to be unpainted copper. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther A request for a side setback variance of 7'- 6" from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for the construction of a new primary /secondary residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. • Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello 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 Haus, located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Dominic Mauriello 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 September 5, 1997 in the Vail Trail. • - TOWN *VAIt • Agenda last revised 9/16/97 8 am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, September 22, 1997 AGENDA Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT ' MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 12:15 pm 1. Vail Commons Tour (1 hour) 2. Gillberg - 1045 Homestake Circle 3. Ackerman - 967 Vail Valley Drive 4. Krediet - 226 Forest Road Driver: George 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 minor amendment to Special Development District # 22 Grand Traverse, to allow for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the street and to allow downspouts to be unpainted copper. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther 2. 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 Haus, located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for a side setback variance of 7.5' from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for the construction of a new primary /secondary residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello • TOW4YU Agenda last revised 9/16/97 8 am 4. A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control), 18.13.090 (Site Coverage) and a request for a residential entry addition, utilizing the remaining GRFA of a previous Additional GRFA (250) request, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block • 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertfeger Planner: Dominic Mauriello 5. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a new residence to encroach into the front setback, located at 226 Forest Road /Lot 11, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner: Lauren Waterton 6. A request for a final review of 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 TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 13,1997 7. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Initial presentation of Stage 3 Alternative Master Plan concepts - Susan Connelly • DRB invited to attend • 8. Approval of September 8, 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 September 19, 1997 in the Vail Trail. 2 • Agenda last revised 9/23/97 gam PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, September 22, 1997 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden (arrived 2:05 pm) Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield Ann Bishop Site Visits : 12 pm 1. Vail Commons Tour (1 hour) 2. Gillberg - 1045 Homestake Circle 3. Ackerman - 967 Vail Valley Drive • 4. Krediet - 226 Forest Road Driver: George 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 Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District# 22 Grand Traverse, to allow for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the street and to allow downspouts to be unpainted copper. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED • 1 IVW4VU Agenda last revised 9/23/97 gam 2. 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 Haus, . located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 7 -0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION: 1. That the applicant pay into the parking fund for the parking required for this use at the time of building permit or occupation of the space. 3. A request for a side setback variance of 7.5' from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for the construction of a new primary /secondary residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail Valley Drive /Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 DENIED 4. A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control), 18.13.090 (Site Coverage) and a request to utilize the remaining GRFA of a previous Additional GRFA (250) request, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertfeger • Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6 -0 (Ann Bishop abstained) DENIED 5. A request for a final review of 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 TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 13, 1997 6. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a new residence to encroach into the front setback, located at 226 Forest Road /Lot 11, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner: Lauren Waterton WITHDRAWN • 2 Agenda last revised 9/23/97 gam 0 7. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Initial presentation of Stage 3 Alternative Master Plan concepts - Susan Connelly DRB invited to attend (Ted Hingst and Bill Pierce were present) 8. Approval of September 8, 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 • 0 TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department September 22, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District #22, Grand Traverse, to allow for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the street and requiring all down spouts to be unpainted, weathered copper. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther I. BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Pat Dauphinais, is requesting a minor amendment to Special Development District #22 to allow for Lot 14 in the Grand Traverse Subdivision to have a garage door which faces the street and to require all the down spouts in the development to be unpainted, weathered copper. According to Section IV of Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, (the ordinance approving the SDD) in part, "No garage doors shall directly face the street, except on Lot 24" Section IV of Ordinance #10 further lists the building standards and materials required for all construction in the Grand Traverse development. The applicant is proposing to add to that list the additional requirement that all down spouts be unpainted, weathered copper. The list already contains the requirements that chimney caps be installed, that exterior walls be stucco or vertical siding, that all windows have a minimum recess of two inches, etc. According to Section 18.40.020 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in part, "Minor amendment means modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of the Zoning Code." A minor amendment is reviewed by the staff and the results are reported to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a public hearing. The Planning and Environmental Commission may uphold the staff's action or call -up the item for additional review. Staff believes the applicant's request is a minor amendment consistent with the minor amendment definition above. II. STAFF ACTION The Community Development Department staff has approved the minor amendment request to Special Development District #22 subject to the following findings: • 1 TOWN OF M That the requested amendment neither alters the basic intent, nor the character of Special Development District #22, Grand Traverse. • 2. That the requested amendment is consistent with the design criteria outlined in Section 18.58, Design Guidelines, of the Municipal Code. • Pq r, Q c 0 ACE a c, 5� OPENS CAPE • ` L ANOS EASEMENT 3 G Clp Y ` n V U m U t�fl N 5 24 �`� -- 3 n1 0 ` 0_ d i V a 23 Q3 0.210 A y (b I II 113'6 0.216 Ac' C2 �w� 2 /0 L2G LA 0.275 Ac. • '. C / / ` 14 0.2 48 Ac. 0.256 Ac- /2 Y 2� • 0.298 Ac. a ' G• /3 0.348 Ac. M ^J ` �,y SECTION IV, ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 1991, IN PART, (2) _Chimneys. The chimneys shall be stucco with chimney caps of weathered copper. (3) F111es. All flues shall be galvanized or "paint Lols" sheet metal, painted to match the roof. (4) 17ain Fascia. The main fascia shall be a solid color stain, with brown, taupe, or gray. (S) Secondary Fascia and t4etal Riilina above the First F1OOr. The secondary fascia and metal railings above the first floor shall be a muted accent trim color to be reviewed by the DRB. (G) walls. walls shall be of stucco and horizontal or vertical wood siding. Stucco colors shall be gray, beige or off — white. Wood siding colors shall be gray, brown or taupe. (7) Stone. Residences will have a minimum of a two foot high stone wainscot in rainbow mix with a sandstone cap around the perimeter of the structure except under decks where -substantially concealed by landscaping. (0) windows, windows shall be recessed a minimum Of two inches from the outside wall plane and have a sandstone sill. Trim shall be white, taupe or brown. (9) _Outdoor Liahtina Outdoor lighting shall be indirect with a concealed source except for an entry chandelier which may be exposed globes with a fixture of black or weathered cooper, look, metal. All exterior lighting shall be reviewed by the DRB. (10) Garages. No garage doors shall directly face the street, except on Lot 24. 9 • • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 1997 SUBJECT: 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 Haus, located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to convert an existing retail space to a real estate office. The property is zoned Public Accommodation (PA) which allows professional and business offices subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed office is approximately 624 sq. ft. which requires 2.496 parking spaces. The existing retail space required 2.08 parking spaces, therefore the proposed office generates an additional requirement of 0.416 parking spaces. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the on -site parking requirement for this space to allow the parking to be paid -in -lieu ($7,032.50). The proposed office will be located in the former Cosmetique retail space on the east side of the building. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 34,325.3 square feet Zoning: Public Accommodation Standard Allowed Existing' Parking: Per Code 18.64 spaces existing (1.64 spaces via pay -in -lieu) Retail: n/a 1,388.7 sq. ft. Office: n/a none Based on the February 24, 1997 approval for expansion • Proposed 19.06 spaces required (2.06 spaces via pay -in -lieu) 764.70 sq. ft. 624 sq. ft. TOWN III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal • Code. In addition to the Conditional Use criteria, staff has included purpose statements from the Public Accommodation (PA) zone district and the Conditional Use sections of the code: The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with public and semi - public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor - oriented uses as may appropriately located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional non- residential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted, are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. A professional or business office shall be permitted in the PA zone district subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the PEC's reference, the Conditional Use Permit purpose statement is as follows: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit request to allow for a real estate office based upon the following factors: A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The proposal will make available floor area for professional and business offices. It has been recognized that there is a shortage of this kind of office space within the Town of Vail and this proposal helps to alleviate the problems of businesses moving down valley. The Vail Village Master Plan also recognizes the need for • 2 street level retail spaces in order to keep the core area vital and active. 10 Therefore, the proposal may have some negative impact on the pedestrian commercial nature of the core. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues as the space already exists and no exterior improvements are proposed. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposal will have little on these issues as the space already exists and no exterior improvements are proposed. However, the proposed use as a real estate office will likely increase the vehicular traffic to the site. The site does have direct access to a public street and has parking available on -site. 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 The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues as the space already exists and no exterior improvements are proposed. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • 3 V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR VARIANCEREQUEST 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 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. The existing building is located in a pedestrian oriented area adjacent to the village core. The site does not have space to provide the required parking on -site. The applicant will satisfy the parking requirement by paying into the parking fund. The variance will have little effect on potential uses in the area or structures in the vicinity. 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. Although the PA zone district does not specifically provide a provision that allows parking to be paid -in -lieu, the location of this site is very similar to that of structures and uses located in the CC1 district which requires that parking be paid -in -lieu. The applicant had a similar variance approved in February which • allowed parking associated with an expansion to this building to be provided via pay -in -lieu. Other similar variances have been approved adjacent to the village with similar circumstances and Section 18.52.180 of the Zoning Code requires that any parking variances be "paid -in- lieu." Staff believes the granting of this variance will not be a grant of special privilege. 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 proposal will have little or no effect on these issues as the space already exists and no exterior improvements are proposed. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • 4 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit to allow a professional office at the Swiss Haus, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the PA zone district. 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. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the parking variance allowing the parking to be paid -in -lieu of providing it on -site, subject to the following findings: 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 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 of approval is also subject to the following condition: 1. That the applicant pay into the parking fund for the parking required for this use at the time of building permit or occupation of the space. • F:\ EVERYONE \PEC\MEMOS \97\SWISSCHA.922 5 0 fm UNIf 1 1 O 41 I O to I1 UNIT 110 uNit'1 y w, 3 Cc+ t �•� r I i ►t {.AtIN I'KV Ir Co Ve. 9 NIAI N LEVEL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance of 7'- 6" from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for the construction of a new primary /secondary residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance of 7.5' (15' required) to allow a 7.5' side setback (from the north lot line) for a new primary /secondary residence to be constructed on a vacant lot. The property is zoned Primary /Secondary Residential and has a lot size of 19,602 sq. ft. (15,000 sq. ft. minimum required). The site previously contained a water treatment facility. On March 5, 1995, the Town Council approved Resolution No. 5, Series of 1995, which allowed the land use designation on this property to be changed from Parks to Low Density Residential. Subsequently, on June 6, 1995, Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995, which rezoned the property from General Use to Primary /Secondary Residential. During the review of both of these requests, the PEC found that the property met the minimum dimensional requirements to allow development of a primary /secondary residence. Specifically, the PEC found that it met the minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 sq. ft., that the site met the minimum frontage requirement of 30', and that the site was capable of containing an 80' x 80' square on the site. The applicant received DRB approval of a primary /secondary residence on this site meeting all setbacks on December 18, 1996. On August 25, 1997, the applicant made application for a similar residence as is being proposed for a setback variance which meets all of the setback requirements. This application will be reviewed by the DRB on October 1, 1997. The applicant's statement is attached. • MWNOFVA[L II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Use: Two- family residence Lot Size: 19,602 sq. ft. Sta ndard Allowed Proposed Site Coverage: 3,920 sq. ft. (20 %) 2,448.7 sq. ft. (12.5 %) GRFA: 5,060 sq. ft. 5,060 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' Sides: 15' 15' (east)/7.5' (west) Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested setback variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 0 Variances on other properties in this same zone district have only been granted when a unique physical hardship impairs a reasonable level of development on property. On this lot, there are no extraordinary circumstances or any physical hardships which effect the owners ability to construct a reasonable duplex. The lot does have a unique shape for this area, however, the lot was determined to be large enough to meet all of development criteria in the code to be platted as a residential lot. There are many lots in Vail with unique shapes and slopes that do not present a physical hardship for development. Staff believes the grant of this variance would be a grant of special privilege. 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 applicant has demonstrated with two DRB submittals that the site can be adequately developed within the setback requirements. The applicant has been able to utilize all of the available GRFA for the site. Staff believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other lot owners in the area or in this zone district. r� U 2 ,a 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will have little, if any, impact on these issues. B. The Planning and Environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's variance request subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That there are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential zone. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulations do not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential district. F:\ EVERYONE \PEC \MEMOS\97\ACKERMAN.922 • 3 / nanvEercaxd WILPFLOWM, ` SugILOEFLANTE� _ fOK 11 - 1 1URBEP AKeAS Ap rK,9 EK;TY Llry 6 tI ETTUG K � r 1 \j \ i 4f� c -O . t OTF - GARr - �/ PATH 1 r I I � � u2w• v � ' / PROPERTY WIF ✓�, `� •\. / \ ' ,� \� 1 Inc �vELI azst \\ .•\ � \ � \ `` — `` Ju ^yF b2✓l l -` `oee ow ` / TunCV Levi]._: 8251' 62y1 L Ke QoFtT FOR VAUAW-E lrfg M62 -MO) Or hETErIGK • l711A1 ARTY !AM J ExI �nn r,TKEf gv rvc.9lre VKCPrCRTy W ILLPKOV roe IB• GUIVEK EtTITK LAMMIC.A7 AHP 61RCATLR- OTAMC,O TWtEri t1lN ASTCH tR[.. — -- — — — ExIJr lrA JI(A/•I' fm O^lv) FT1 ANp RE7It7EIT( L neLI gtAAtS . � /WT F -KHATE `Al PLAN Pierce, Segerberg k Associates, Architects P.C.-A.I.A. AMCMITACTURI ►LAMMING IV il�l0 \1 N•.. IMfv V - V A , M•u al, GaW III D1i 114M)I u•wrr d! 1 !.N• [•u•r -Sri• 111 IDOIM 31 Il..r•, CWM. MID} W Z W 00 W w Q O LU U Q Ilevlllonl "41 O JT - VAKIAROC of tnreAr,K , Air", whim NOE Or of 1 N. K 0 MEMORANDUM i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control), 18.13.090 (Site Coverage) and a request to utilize the remaining GRFA of a previous Additional GRFA (250) request, to allow for the construction of an entry addition, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertleger Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 25.7 sq. ft., a density (GRFA) variance of 6.7 sq. ft., and is requesting to utilize the balance of a previous 250 request (of 19 sq. ft.) in order to construct a 25.7 sq. ft. entry to this existing single- family home. The house is currently nonconforming with respect to GRFA, site coverage, and setbacks. On February 2, 1994, the owners of this property received approval for 231 sq. ft. of a 250 request. . The house at that time contained 4,433 sq. ft. of GRFA or 1,124 sq. ft. over what is allowed (3,309 sq. ft.). This GRFA is considered "grandfathered" for the purposes of the 250 Ordinance. The existing site coverage on this house is 2,423 sq. ft. (21 %) or 116 sq. ft. over what is allowed (2,307 sq. ft.). The existing house encroaches approximately V into the side setback and 5' into the rear setback. II. DISCUSSION Site Coverage and GRFA: The applicant states that as it relates to this building and the impact on those in the surrounding area, the existing roof form and stone walls on the approach to the entry define the bulk and mass of the area in question. The proposed walls which define the added site coverage will have no impact on the perceived bulk and mass of the building. Staff Response: While the proposed addition is small, this site already exceeds the site coverage allowance for this zone district. The addition will add bulk and mass to the building. While other site coverage variances have been granted on lots less than 15,000 sq. ft. in size, they were all for garage additions. Again, while the proposed addition is small, this site already exceeds the GRFA allowance for this zone district by 34 %. The addition will add bulk and mass to the building. No other similar GRFA variances have ever been granted by the Town. • _'" _ r T III. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential • Use: Single - family residence Lot Size: 11,535 sq. ft. Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Site Coverage: 2,307 sq. ft. (20 %) 2,423 sq. ft. (21 %) 2,448.7 sq: ft. (21.2 %) GRFA: 3,309 sq. ft. 4,433 sq. ft. w/ 250: n /a. 4,664 sq. ft. (231 sq. ft. of 250) 4,689.7 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 28' n/c Sides: 15' 14'& 15' n/c Rear: 15' 10' n/c IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage variance and GRFA variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • The proposal will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that enjoyed by other properties in the same zone district. Staff believes that there is no physical hardship or extraordinary circumstances on this property which would justify approving the requested variances. Other structures in the area and in other areas zoned for two- family residences are able to comply with the site coverage and GRFA requirements. The house on .this lot already exceeds GRFA and site coverage limitations and the proposal will exacerbate this existing nonconformity. Staff believes the grant of this variance would be a grant of special privilege. 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 granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in the area or in this zone district. Other sites in the area were constructed within the site coverage and GRFA requirements. • 2 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 proposal has little, if any, impact on these criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before 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. 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. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 250 REQUEST Upon- review of Chapter' 18.71 - Additional' GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends denial of this request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existing topoograp_hy, vegetation drainage and existing structures The proposed additions will have minimal, if any, negative impact on the site, and neither drainage nor grading on the property will be affected. • 3 r 2. Impact on adjacent proorties The proposed remodel may have negative impacts on adjacent properties. • The proposal will exacerbate the nonconforming nature of this structure by increasing GRFA and site coverage. 3.. Compliance with the Town's zoning mquirements and applicable development standards Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. The site has paved parking and adequate landscaping. All utilities are located underground. B. Findin The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 0 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's variance requests subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variances will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That there are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential zone. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulations do not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district. The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's 250 request subject to the following finding: E'A 4 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not comply with . Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards, specifically, the Town's GRFA and site coverage restrictions. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\97\GILLBERG.922 0 5 O h l v )k r• , +_± rl Ak * • �j� 1 y �, a � l � w a' If f c Fir C ,yY �t'• F - r 5• +y 1St a• �" i v 41 . ro Ns, A 1 1� • r ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES P.O. BOX 2374 • VAIL, COLORADO 81658 (970) 926 -7253 August 25, 1997 Town of Vail Community Development Department Vail, CO 81657 Re: Lot -3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling - Site Coverage Variance To Whom it may Concern: My office represents the Owner of the above referenced lot, who is requesting a variance per Section 18.04.360 of the Town of Vail Code (Site Coverage). The amount of additional site coverage being requested is 25.7 S.F. He is requesting the additional site coverage to increase the size of the entry to his residence, in an effort to eliminate a somewhat hazardous condition. The entry occurs at the mid - landing of the main stair serving both the living and sleeping areas of the house. This landing is presently only +/ -3' -9" long in the direction of travel and is a problem when guests are arriving and leaving. As indicated on the attached drawings, the added floor area occurs totally within the limits of the existing entry roof. This existing roof projects 4' -8" off the face of the building and is +/- 13' -0" wide. Based on my understanding of the site coverage rules, the last 8" of the 4' -8" roof projection is counted as site coverage. I have consider this area in my calculation of the additional Site Coverage required, and have reduced the total amount of area- being added (34.4 S.F.) by the amount of roof overhang that is site coverage (8.7 S.F.) to arrive at the 25.7 S.F. of coverage being requested. At present, all of the lots in clear view of the area in question appear to be completely developed. It is my opinion that the granting of this variance will have no impact on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Based on the literal interpretation of the Site Coverage regulation it would appear that the approval of the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege. It is my understanding that this regulation, in conjunction with others in the Vail Code, is intended to control density and, specifically, the bulk and mass of a building. As it relates to this building and the impact on those in the surrounding area, I feel that the existing roof form and stone walls on the approach to the entry define the bulk and mass of the area in question. The proposed walls which define the added Site Coverage will have no impact on the perceived bulk and mass of this building. I believe this will be apparent, after you have had the opportunity to review the attached photographs and drawings. r„ Town of Vail Community Development • Lot -3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling Site Coverage Variance August 25,1997 Rage 2 In my opinion, and due to the insignificance of the proposed addition, the granting of the requested variance would have no impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. From my understanding of Vail's Land 'Use Guidelines, which define Vail vomprchensive Plan, my client's request would not be in conflict with the criteria outlined in these gukiefines and would, therefore, be in compliance with them. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely ARCHITECTURAL SPVICES Danny ert€ er Al Y e9 copy to: Mr. Gunner Gillberg • lu ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES P.O. BOX 2374 • VAIL, COLORADO 81658 (970) 926 -7253 August 25, 1997 Town of Vail Community Development Department Vail, CO 81657 Re: Lot -3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling - GRFA Variance To Whom it may Concern: My office represents the Owner of the above referenced lot, who is requesting a variance to Section 18.04.130 of the Town of Vail code (GRFA). Should he be allowed to use the 19.0 S.F. remaining from the 250 S.F. granted to the previous Owner of his residence, he would need a variance of 6.7 S.F. He is requesting the additional floor area to increase the size of the entry to his residence, in an effort to improve a somewhat hazardous condition. The entry occurs at the . mid - landing of the main stair serving both the living and sleeping areas of the house. This landing is presently only +/ -3' -9" long in the direction of travel and is a problem when guests are arriving and leaving. As indicated on the attached drawings, the added floor area occurs totally within the limits of the existing entry roof. At present, all of the lots in dear view of the area in question appear to be completely developed. It is my opinion that the granting of this variance will have no impact on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: Based on the literal interpretation of the GRFA regulation, it would appear that the approval of the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege. It is my understanding that this regulation, in conjunction with others in the Vail Code, is intended to control density and, specifically, the bulk and mass of a building. As it relates to this building and the impact on those in the surrounding area, I feel that the existing roof form and stone walls on the approach to the entry define the bulk and mass of the area in question. The proposed walls which define the added GRFA will have no impact on the perceived bulk and mass of this building. I believe this will be apparent, after you have had the opportunity to review the attached photographs and drawings. In my opinion, and due to the insignificance Vt1he*oposed addition, the granting of the requested variance would have no impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. Town of Vail Community Development . Lot-3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling GRFA Variance August 25, 1997 Page 2 From my understanding of Vail's Land Use Guidelines, which define Vail's Comprehensive Plan, my client's request would not be in conflict with the criteria outlined in these guidelines and would, therefore, be in compliance with them. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely ARCHITECTURA SERVICE Danny ertf er copy to: Mr. Gunner Gillberg ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES P.O. BOX 2374 VAIL, COLORADO 81658 (970) 926 -7253 August 25, 1997 Town of Vail Community Development Department Vail, CO 81657 Re: Lot -3 Block -1 Vail Village Eight Filling - Additional GRFA (250) Application To Whom it may Concern: Attached please find my client's Application and all the additional materials required for his request for Additional GRFA (250). It should be understood that he is only requesting the 19 S.F. of GRFA remaining from the 250 granted to the previous owner of this residence on 2 -2 -94. If granted the use of the remaining GRFA, my client will use it increase the size of the entry to his residence. As indicated on the attached drawings, the added floor area occurs totally within the limits of the existing entry roof. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely ARCHITECTURAL RVICES ARCHITECTURAL e AI copy to: Mr. Gunner Gillberg • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: Susan Connelly, Director of Community Development <� DATE: September 22, 1997 RE: WORKSESSION RE: LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN -- Initial presentation of Stage Three Alternative Master Plan Concepts At the meeting on September 22, 1997, Design Workshop, Inc. will present the Stage Three "Alternative Master Plan Concepts ". This worksession with PEC is the third of eight public meetings on this part of Stage Three of the master planning process. There will be a worksession with Council on September 23, followed by formal consideration by the PEC on October 13, worksessions with Council on October 14 and 21, and Council selection or creation of a preferred master plan alternative at the evening meeting on October 21. Detailed review of the September 1997 Project Update newsletter is the best preparation for this worksession because it will remind you of the context of this master planning effort, what has occurred to date, what is involved in this particular stage of the process, and what comes next. To give you a bit of an additional roadmap, the following page lists the "ingredients" that have been combined creatively in the alternative master plan concepts to achieve the desired results (that is, the community policy objectives adopted by Council on November 4, 1996). From these alternative concepts, the Town Council -- with community input and a recommendation from AEC -- will select or create a Preferred Master Plan Alternative. In Stage Four, the master plan team will draft the actual master plan, which will contain policy, design and regulatory recommendations to implement the Preferred Master Plan Alternative. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable at this time. • THE "INGREDIENTS" IN THE ALTERNATIVE MASTER PLAN CONCEPTS THE PROBLEM STATEMENT 2. THE SIX COMMUNITY POLICY OBJECTIVES 3. THE URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES 4. PROBLEM AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS (INCLUDING "WISH LIST ") 5. CIRCULATION ISSUES (PEDESTRIAN, AUTO, TRANSIT, SKIER DROP -OFF, AND LOADING AND DELIVERY) 6. NATURAL ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES -- CREEK AND MOUNTAIN: PUBLIC VIEW CORRIDORS (VISUAL) AND GREENWAY CONNECTIONS (PHYSICAL) 7. PUBLIC SPACES WITHIN LIONSHEAD VILLAGE 8. UTILITIES AVAILABILITY (LOCATION AND CAPACITY), GRADE CHANGES AND OTHER PHYSICAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS 9. GIVENS (E.G., NO NET LOSS OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING OR PARKING) 10. RETAIL -- NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES 11. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS: WILL THE DESIRED REDEVELOPMENT OCCUR UNDER EXISTING REGULATORY AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONS? (THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE) 12. IF EXISTING CONDITIONS WILL NOT LEAD TO THE DESIRED RESULTS (SEE POLICY OBJECTIVES), THEN WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO INCENTIVIZE • REDEVELOPMENT? (PREVIEW OF STAGE 4 -- HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN) LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER • ALTERNATIVE MASTER PLAN CONCEPT PRESENTATION Prepared and Presented By: Town of Vail Community Development Department DESIGNWORKSHOP NOTE • This outline is taken from the slide presentation used by the master plan team during its presentation. This document does not include any detailed information about the alternative master plan concept, although it does contain the framework of the proposals. This presentation and document is intended to communicate the big idea, the vision of what Lionshead can become, and is a work in progress, representing only the beginnings of what will grow into a physical master plan at the end of the master plan process. You are strongly encouraged to continue to participate as the master plan team works with the public to refine, change, and further develop the ideas contained here. 0 FRAMEWORK FOR MASTER PLANNING EFFORT 0 6 Policy Objectives Adopted by Council OBJECTIVE 1. Renewal and Redevelopment OBJECTIVE 2. Vitality and Amenities OBJECTIVE 3. Stronger Economic Base Through Increased "Live Beds" OBJECTIVE 4. Improved Access and Circulation OBJECTIVE 5. Improved Infrastructure OBJECTIVE 6. Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues • Urban Design Principles: 1. Connect Lionshead physically and visually to the mountain landscape 2. Provide physical and emotional comfort for the users of Lionshead 3. Provide a sense of arrival to Lionshead 4. Create landmarks and turning points in Lionshead 5. Provide gates and portals to define sequential spaces and places 6. Define appropriate land uses adjacent to outdoor spaces WHAT IS A MASTERPLAN? • A Guide • A Flexible Framework for Future Action • Articulates Policies and Goals • Includes Narrative and Maps • Implemented through Zoning Code or Other Regulations/ Policies • NOT an Approval of Specific Development Proposals 0 What is the role of Lionshead in the future of the Town of Vail, The Vail Valley, and the Entire I - -70 Corridor? WHY WE ARE HERE • There are significant problems and issues confronting Lionshead today • There is significant redevelopment potential in Lionshead today • There is an urgent need to create a "redevelopment framework" - this framework is the Lionshead master plan • Lionshead is a vital component in the continuing status of Vail as a world class resort Lionshead Existing Problems and Issues • Public input- the best and worst of Lionshead, Lionshead walking tours and surveys • Stage I research and mapping • Existing transportation data gathering and analysis Primary Identified Problems • Circulation conflicts and confusing circulation patterns • Lack of vitality in public spaces and corridors • Aesthetic issues, both architectural and softscape • Lack of connection to the mountain and Gore creek LIONSHEAD HAS SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT NEEDS! Stage II- the Wishlist- Developed by the Public in Stage II • Ideas that can be implemented today- no significant overall change to Lionshead required • Ideas that impact specific sites and their surrounding context • Ideas that impact the entire Lionshead study area • In Order to Meet the Policy Objectives and Address the Public's Wishlist...... What redevelopment can occur now, without any major changes to Lionshead? The "existing conditions" alternative Regulatory Constraints • GRFA- gross residential floor area • Site coverage • Building height What We Found.. • 71 % of the existing development in the Lionshead core exceeds the GRFA allocated by zoning • 84% of the existing development in the Lionshead core exceeds height allocated by zoning • Current Lionshead zoning was established after much of the area was developed 1 0 Existing Conditions Alternative- What Can Occur? • Even assuming rezoning of parking lot parcels to Commercial Core II, very little additional development can occur • Available development rights are insufficient to fund realistic redevelopment and property enhancement • Stage I problem issues and the wishlist are not addressed by this alternative • POLICY OBJECTIVES ARE NOT MET! How Can Redevelopment Occur? • Provide incentives for redevelopment • Provide guidelines- a framework- for redevelopment • Insure that redevelopment accomplishes the adopted Lionshead policy objectives 0 I LIONSHEAD POLICY OBJECTIVES ADOPTED BY VAIL TOWN COUNCIL' ,I FINANCIAL MECHANISM PROVIDED THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES 4 4 *& *& Recap- Why Is an Alternative Master plan Concept Needed? • Vail needs Lionshead to redevelop! • Existing conditions alternative fails to meet policy objectives • For redevelopment to occur, incentives must be provided to stakeholders Existing Real Estate Opportunity Areas • New development opportunities • Known redevelopment interest Existing Public Lands Opportunity Areas • Natural environment connections • Public gathering spaces • Pedestrian corridor enhancements View Corridors and Connections to Gore Creek and the Mountain • 5 public view corridors approved by Vail Town Council • Enhanced skier bridge • "Natural environment" connects to village core • Enhancement of creek corridors HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AREAS Site Specific • South and west faces of Lionshead parking structure • Red Sandstone school parking lot General Area Opportunity Area • Housing included as component of west Lionshead mixed use residential/ commercial hub Dispersed Housing Opportunities • Lionshead core and existing lodging facilities- housing to be added through redevelopment process (policy based) LAND USE FRAMEWORK • Civic hub • Resort retail and commercial hub • Resort lodging hub • Mixed use residential and commercial community hub STAGE III TRANSPORTATION CHARETTE Public works staff, Town of Vail Community Development staff and the master plan consultants brainstormed solutions to the circulation issues of the Lionshead study area CIRCULATION • Vehicular • Public transportation (transit) • Pedestrian/ bicycle The configuration of the circulation and transit systems are the most important planning components in creating the physical master plan framework VEHICULAR CIRCULATION • Service and lodging access • Vehicular drop -off point • Skier drop -off • Regional transit hub • Local and regional shuttles • Signage- wayfinding program PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (TRANSIT) • Transit Option "A" • Existing condition- frontage road bypass • Transit Option "B" • Modified existing condition- removal of bypass • Transit Option "C" • Central spine Provides continuous transit/ pedestrian corridor from Blue Cow Chute (east end of Vail Village parking structure) to west end of Lionshead OVERALL VEHICULAR CIRCULATION FRAMEWORK • Service and lodging access • Transit corridor • Centralized vehicular drop -off point • VEHICULAR GATEWAYS 40 • Hierarchy of entry points along the south frontage road • Sense of arrival/ identity established at each portal into Lionshead • Consistent edge treatment along south frontage road PARKING OPPORTUNITIES • Development to provide own lodging parking • Add additional deck to existing Lionshead parking structure • New centralized parking facilities • Relocate charter bus lot outside of Lionshead study area SERVICE AND DELIVERY FACILITIES • Service and delivery operations shall be removed from public spaces and pedestrian circulation corridors • Many structures currently provide own service and delivery facilities • Opportunity areas exist for centralized service and delivery facilities PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION • Pedestrian Framework System • Create strong east -west corridor to deliver guests through entire Lionshead core • Create multiple north -south corridors to provide diverse village experiences as guests filter through the retail core • Create coherent, easy to navigate circulation patterns • Pedestrian Gateways • Create strong sense of entry and identity at primary portals to Lionshead study area and the commercial/ retail core area • Corridors and Public Gathering Spaces • Create hierarchy of pedestrian corridors and gathering spaces • Create a strong series of north -south corridors -- • North- south corridors focus views toward the mountain and increase sun exposure onto the streets • Create expanded and enhanced street level retail environment • Critical retail use assignments adjacent to public gathering spaces • VAIL RETAIL MARKET STUDY • • People have less time to shop and are increasingly looking to vacations to catch up on their shopping needs • Even in resort communities, local patronage is important to financial stability and long term success • The most successful retail businesses benefit from a community with charm, appeal, history, culture and identity • The architectural style, design of public spaces, tenant mix, visual access, and building scale all contribute to a pleasant sense of place and, therefore, retail success • A village center is important in increasing the sense of community and a place which meets visitor's expectations • A clear pedestrian connection that is easy, interesting and well - signed should be created between Lionshead and the Vail Village • The connection of Lionshead to Vail Village would create the critical mass which leads to success for all. The more square feet of appealing retail, the better! Lionshead is not an island unto itself, nor is the Vail Village. As Lionshead Village grows, so grows Vail... • Lionshead Village + the Vail Village= the Vail Resort The benchmark for destination resorts in the 21st century! • i e OCT September 22, 1997 Minutes • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Connelly Mike Mollica Dominic Mauriello George Ruther Judy Rodriguez Greg Moffet Greg Amsden (arrived at 2:05 pm) Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden John Schofield Ann Bishop STAFF PRESENT: Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. He informed the PEC that Greg Amsden would be late. 1. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District # 22 Grand Traverse, to allow for Lot 14 to have a garage door which faces the street and to allow downspouts to be unpainted copper. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther Mike Mollica gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. He then asked if there were any public comments. There were none. There were no comments from the Commission. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0 (Greg Amsden was not present). 2. 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 Haus, located at 62 East Meadow Drive /Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: Dominic Mauriello Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 22, 1997 1 Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Johannes Faessler said he didn't understand why real estate office parking requirements were different than those required by a retail use. Ann Bishop asked for clarification of the parking fee structure and asked if Mr. Faessler could use parking spaces from other locations to satisfy this parking requirement. Dominic Mauriello explained the parking fee requirement and stated that the code would not allow an exchange of parking spaces. There were no other comments from the Commission. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 3. A request for a side setback variance of 7.5' from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for the construction of a new primary/secondary residence, to be constructed at 967 Vail Valley Drive /Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Don Ackerman, represented by Kurt Segerberg • Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant had no comments. Greg then asked if there were any public comments. Ann Repetti, an 11 year neighbor, was in support of the request, as it was an improvement to the neighborhood. There were no comments from the Commission. Greg Amsden made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion for denial passed by a vote of 7 -0. 4. A request for a variance from Sections 18.13.080 (Density Control), 18.13.090 (Site Coverage) and a request to utilize the remaining GRFA of a previous Additional GRFA (250) request, located at 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Gunnar K. Gillberg, represented by Danny Swertfeger Planner: Dominic Mauriello Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 22, 1997 2 Ann Bishop recused herself from this item, as she was representing Mrs. Gillberg in a personal matter and had a conflict of interest. Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Danny Swertfeger, the architect representing the applicant, stated that this was an improvement to the neighborhood and that it was the best plan for the lot. He stated that he recognized that it would be a grant of special privilege, but would have little impact on anyone. Greg Moffet asked if there were any public comments. There were no comments. The comments from the Commission stated that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. Gene Uselton made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion for denial passed by a vote of 6 -0 -1 (Ann Bishop recused herself). 5. A request for a final review of 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 TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 13, 1997 Ann Bishop made a motion to table item #5 until October 13, 1997. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 6. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a new residence to encroach into the front setback, located at 226 Forest Road /Lot 11, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner: Lauren Waterton WITHDRAWN 7. Approval of September 8, 1997 minutes. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes September 22, 1997 3 Galen Aasland had changes. Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0 8. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Initial presentation of Stage 3 Alternative Master Plan concepts - Susan Connelly • DRB invited to attend - Ted Hingst and Bill Pierce attended. Ethan Moore from Design Workshop gave a slide presentation. Susan Connelly explained that they would like any comments from the Commission. She said that there were about 50 people at the first public forum and that they would be making the same presentation to Council tomorrow. Greg Moffet asked if any motions were needed at this time. Susan Connelly said, no. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. • Ann Esson from the Affordable Housing Team, stated that Lionshea.d was the best opportunity to make a significant impact for housing for locals, as well as seasonal housing. She said that • second homeownership has risen from 58% to 72% in the last 5 years. She said that we would lose Vail as a real community, unless we use this Lionshead opportunity to get real live beds in Vail. She stated that the Affordable Housing Team would like to see a project similar to Vail Commons and not ghettoized as Timber Ridge was. She stated that 150 beds would be lost at Sunbird and the Design Charette informed them of the possibility for 600 beds in Lionshead. Greg Moffet asked what the Affordable Housing Team targets were. Ann Esson said that 38% of people who work in Vail live in Vail and we want that percentage to rise to 62 %. She said that Aspen had a goal of 60% and Whistler was higher than that. Ann Bishop said that affordable housing was a huge component of the Lionshead redevelopment as stated from the Design Charette. Diane Golden asked if Ann Ellison knew how many people in Edwards worked in Vail. Ann Esson said she didn't have that information. Gene Uselton said that Ethan did an outstanding job and Gene was impressed with providing incentives to accomplish goals. John Schofield asked how it would be paid for and that the private sector was a significant part of the plan that was not mentioned. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 22, 1997 4 Ethan Moore said ideas would happen, as the pieces came together. He said that the financing • would be part of stage 4 and what mechanisms would be used would be known as the plan was developed. Susan Connelly said this was getting clear on the vision or destination and stage 4 would be how to get there. John Schofield stated that the streamwalk needed to be put in place between Lionshead and the Village, as 80% of the people in the Town Survey wanted a streamwalk. He mentioned that a vast portion of Lionshead didn't comply with the current zoning. He said that they were right on target with the skier bridge as being a great focal point and that perhaps an alpine slide from a retail space to the top of the bridge. Greg Amsden asked if we were looking at a rezoning of the zone districts or piecing different zone districts together. David Kenyon said they were looking at a Lionshead District, encompassing the entire study area. He said there would be overall criteria and it would be performance based to meet the design criteria. Ted Hingst reinforced the north lot drop -off and convention center with some refinement. He also agreed that the skier bridge concept could be significant and could become the next Covered Bridge. Bill Pierce said that a lot of the concepts were good and he was anxious to hear the cost in terms of the incentives. • Galen Aasland said the presentation was very complete and he felt that the natural environment was the most important. He said to add a slope to the circulation routes. He said he was interested in the landscaping and questioned the east -west circulation addressing the wind. He asked when the VA yard was gone, where would the VA snow cats go. David Kenyon said that some of functions could be dispersed on the mountain, but the fueling of the cats would be a problem and how to get the fuel trucks to the fuel tanks would need to be addressed. Ann Bishop said she had always been concerned with the fast track this was on and notice being given to the 2nd homeowners. She said she was impressed with Charette process and the fact that local architects were involved. She said it would be interesting to have an architectural skier bridge and the standards appeared to be high. Dominic Mauriello said the 2nd homeowner mailing list was over 800 people and information was also on the Internet. Ann Bishop said she had talked to a number of people and they did not know what was going on. Susan Connelly asked Ann to supply the names and they would be added to the mailing list. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes September 22, 1997 5 Diane Golden asked about the impact on Red Sandstone Elementary School with the parking lot being redeveloped. • David Kenyon said the existing playground area would be modified with people living there and children able to walk 100' to school. He said that conceptually the idea was that it be a community hub and could complement the school. Diane Golden said it was important for a community to have a school and that she loved the Main Street idea. Greg Moffet asked about the western shift of the access. Ethan Moore said the west end could be multi -use to bring people back into this end of the valley. Greg Moffet asked about the Civic Center on the east end. He said we should bring the code into compliance with what's there and not the other way around. He asked who would decide the mix of retail and restaurant uses. David Kenyon said there are regulatory ways to guide the decisions of the mix. Greg Moffet said that discussion would fall into the "how" stage. Tom Ehrenberg said that he had been a resident of Lionshead Center since it started and he was worried about noise pollution. He felt rules should be placed on outside loudspeaker units, since every restaurant had loudspeakers announcing football games. Susan Connelly said there was a noise ordinance that measured decibels. Ann Bishop said she understood the problem was enforcement. Tom Ehrenberg said at 10:30 pm one night, a loudspeaker was blasting into the street. He asked if anything was decided on night skiing. Susan Connelly said that VA had not moved ahead with the idea of night skiing. Rob Levine said the zoning would have to go well beyond what's there now. He said the economic reality was, if they were only allowed to redo what was there now, it wouldn't happen. He stated going through this was a valuable process, but if the elected officials don't want more density, accomplishing the policy objectives is a waste of time. He asked how much was too much. He said that a lot of people said Beaver Creek was too much ratio per acre and he said that Lionshead would be a lot more dense than it was now and asked about the economic realities. Bill Pierce said this was a key element. He said it was our job to come up with a vision and that most of the public have endorsed additional density. He said as a group, we needed to endorse that and define it. He said that we all wanted to see more life in Lionshead, with more beds. Ann Bishop stated that people were surprised with Beaver Creek. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • September 22, 1997 6 Greg Moffet said incentives for redeveloping property shouldn't be oatmeal cookies and free • passes. Galen Aasland thought storefronts should be significantly smaller. Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. U Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 22, 1997 7