Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-1027 PEC ~ TNIS 17EM MAl( AFFECT YC1UR PR{?PLRTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTiCE 1S HERESY 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 Municipai Cdde of the Town of Vail on October 27, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, In consideration of: A request for approval of a majar exterior alteration, Co allow for the construction of a new entry and comrnon area in the Treetaps 1 building, located at 452 E. Lionshead Circle/Lat 6, Block 1, Vail L.ianshead 1 sC Filing. Applicant: Treetops Condo Association, represented by l.arry Barnes Planner : Dominic Mauriello To approve, deny, ar modify an environmental impact report for the proposed Baoth Falls Townhomes rock faii mitigation wall, located at 3094 Boath Falls Couri/Lot 7, Black 2, Vaii Village 12th. This wall, as proposed, wi11 be 12 #eet high and 320 feet lang. Another wall ta the west vvili be approximately 70 feet lang. For more infprmation contact Rusself Farrest at 479_ 2146. Applicant: Booth Falis Condo Associatian ~ P#anrier: Russ Forrest , A reque5t for approval of a minor exteribr aIteration and a site Goverage variance, to allow for the reriovation of the exteriar and improvernents to the property knflwn as The Golden E3ear, Iocated at 935 S. Frontage Road, #302I Lots A&B, Block 5A, Vail Vil1age Firs# Filing. ~ Applicant: G. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. Dietrich Planner; George Ruther A request for a major exterior alteration and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to a#low for constructian of a parking qarage at The Liflnshead Inn, iocated at 705 S. Frontage Rd,/ Lot 1. E31ocfi 2, Vai! Lionshead 4th Filing, App3icant; Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by Wiiliaz-n Pierce Pfanner. Lauren Waterton A request for a major amendrnent to SdD #4 {Cascade Viilage}, to allow rnodifications to alfowable GRFA and building height lirrritations, Iocated at 1150 Westhaven Lane/L.ots 35-1& 39- 2, G1en Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Timathy Penningtan, represenCed by aiane Larson Planner: DQminic Maurielkn A request for an amendment to Sectian 18,54.050 J(DesignGuidelines - outdoor lighting), to aNow for the exemption of low wattage lighting #rom #he outdaor lighting regtjlations. Applicant: Ray & Paula May, represented by Dale Smith/ Fr6tzlen,Pierce, Briner Planner: Lauren Waterton ~ A request tor aconditianal use permi#, to allow for a bed and breakiast operation, lacated at 1477 Aspen Grove/Lot 3, Block 2, Liorisridge 4th Filing. ~ Rpplicant: Wiliiarn H. Miller Planner: Lauren Watertori A request far a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to atlow #or a revision to the development plan for the Glen Lyon CJ#fice Building site, located at 1000 S. Frontage Rci. Wesdl.ot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Appiicant: Glen Lyon Office Building {'artnership, represented by Gordon Pierce, AIA Planner: Deminic Mauriello The appiications and iniormation about the praposals are available far public inspectian during regular office hours in the praject planner's o#fice iocated at Che Town of Vaii Community Deveiopment department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign ianguage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please cali 479- 211 4 voice or 479-2356 TDD for infarmation. Community Develaprnent Department Published October 10, 1997 in the Vai1 Trail. ~ ~ . , Agcnda lastreviged 10J23 lU am ~ PLAIVNING AND ENVIRONMENTRL COMMISSiON Monday, tJctober 27, 1997 AGENDA Praiect Qrien#atian lLIJNCH - Community Development Departmenfi 12:00 pm MEMBERS F'RESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1 s00 pm 9. Treetops - 452 E. Lionshead Circle 2. Penningtan - 1150 Westhaven Lane 3. Mi11er - 1477 Aspen Grove 4. GoEden Bear - 953 S. Frantage Road Driver: George ` 48~ . NOTE. 1f the PEC hearing e>ctends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. ~ F'ablic Hearinq - Town Cauncil Chambers 2.00 p.m: 1. A request for approval af a major exterior aIteration, #o allow fnr the construction af a new entry and common area in the Treetops I building, located a# 452 E. Lionshead Gircle/Lat 6, Block 'I, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing: Applicant: Treetops Condo Associafion, represented by Larry E3arnes Planner : Dominic Mauriello 2. A request for appraval of a minor exterior alteratinn in CC1 and a site coverage variance, to allow for the renQUation of the exterior and improvements to The Golden Bear, laca#ed at 935 S. Frantage Road, #302! Lots A&B, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. AppFicant: G. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. C7ietrich Pianner: George Ru#her 3. A request for aconditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operatian; Iocated at 1477 Aspen GrovelLot 3, Biock 2, Lionsridge 4#h Fifing. Applicant: Wifiliam H. Mi1(er Planner: Lauren Waterfan 4, A request for a major amendment ta SDD #4 (Gascade Village), #o allow madifications to allowable GRFA and building height limftations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39- 1 & 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. ~ Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by C7iane Larsen Planner: Dominic Maurielfo TOV9N *VAIL ~ Agenda last revised 10123 10 am ~ 5. A request for art amendment fo Section 18.54.050 J(Design Guidelines - outdoor iighting), to al#aw for the exerrrption of Ipw wattage Iighting fcom the outdaor tighting regulations. Applicant: Roy & Paula May, represented by naie Smith! Fritzlen,Pierce, Briner F'lanner: Lauren Watertort 6. A request to review a draft of the propased Vaii Stra#egic Nousing F'lan, which is interrded to set the direction raf the Town in its effort to address Iocals housing. Applicant: Tawn of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen 7. A request for a major amendment ta SDD #4 (Gascade ViAage), to allow for a revision to the developmen# plan for the Glen Lyon C7ffiCe Building site, located at 1000 S. Frontage Rd. West/Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyop Subdivisian, Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Gordon Pierce, AIA !'lanner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL NQVENIBEF2 10, 1997 & A request for a final review of a conditionai use permit, to aliow for the cnnstruction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, Iocated at 620 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vail Village 7th Filing, Applicant: Vai1 Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch ~ Planner: George Ruther TABLED 1JNTIL NQVEMBEFt 14, 1997 9. To apprave, deny, or modify an Environmenfal Impact Report for the praposed Boath Falls Townhomes rockfall mitigation wall, locafed at 3094 Booth Fa11s CourtlLtit 1, Block 2, Vail Viilage 12th. Rpplicant, Booth Falls Gondo Associa#ion Planner: Russ Forrest TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997 10. A request for a major exterior alteration and a variance fram Seetion 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to allow fnr construcfion of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inrt, located at 705 S. Frontage Rd.l Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Lionshead InnLLG, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL Nt7UEMBER '!Q, 1997 2 ~ Agenda last rcvised 10;'23 10 una ~ 11. Informatinn Update 12. Approval of 5eptember 22, 1997 and C7ctober 13, 1997 minutes. The appiications and information about the propasals are available for public 'rnspectian during regular office hours in the prflject planner's offiee Idcated at the Town of Vail Community Development Departmen#, 75 5outh Frontage Road. Sign language interpretatian available upon request with 24 hcaur notification. Please call 479-2114 vaice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Developmenf Department Published dctober 24, 1997 in the Vail Trail. ~ ~ 3 ppppppp- Aszenda last revised 10I28 9am PLANNING AND ENVtRONMENTAL CC)MM{SS10N ~ Monday, October 27, 1997 FINAL AGENDA Project Orien#ation lLUNCH - Comrnun6ty Development Departrnent 12:00 pm fVIEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Treetops - 452 E. L.lonsheadCircle 2. Pennington - 1150 Westhaven Lane 3. Milier - 1477 Aspen Grove 4. Golden Bear - 953 S. Frontage Road driver: George ; sr *.1 NOTE,: If the PEC hearing extends until 6.00 p.m,, the board wiil break for dinner frorn 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. ~ Public Hearina - Towa Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for approval of a major exterior alteration, to allow fflr the construction of a new entry and cammon area in the Treetops I building, located at 452 E. Lionshead CirclelLat 6, B4ock 1, Vai! Lianshead 1 st Fiiing. Applicant: Treetaps Cando Association, represented by Larry Barnes Planner : Dominic Mauriello MOTION: John Schofield SECONC7: Apn Bishop VC7TE: 6-0 ~~PRavED wITH ONE CONpiTrON. 1. That the exterior lighting of the entire structure be braught into compliance with #he Tawn of Vaii cade. 2, A request for approval of a minor exterior aiteration in CC1 and a site coverage variance; ta allow for the renovation ofi #he exterior and improvernents to The Galden Bear, located at 286 Gore Creek Drivel Lcrts A&B, Block 5A, Vail Vi(lage First Filing. Applicant: C. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. Dietrich Pianner: George Ruther MC7TIC7N: Ann Bishop SECflND: (Jiane Golden VOTE; 6-0 + ARPROVED (SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE) APPRUVED (EXTERI4R ALTERATION) WITH FIVE CONDI`1"IONS: 1 roWarn*VAIL , - _ ~ 14genda last revised I0!28 9 am 1. Thak a pub(ic way permit and a revocabie right-of-way permit be executed priar #o ~ issuanee of a building permit. The public way permit application shall be accompanied by a construction fencing, traffic cnntrol, and staging plan. These plans mus# be reviewed and approved by Public Works and Community Development staff. The applicant sha{I coordina#e and receive approval for aCl final grading plans for #he paver/drain pan repair wark from Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shaii alsa coordinate plans to direct rooftop run-off inta the st4rm sewer system with Public Works. 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a de#ailed ex#erior lighting plan for review and approval by the DRB prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That the applican# provide a minfmum of two streetscape benches along Gore Creek DrivelBridge Street prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant eoordinate irrigation pians and plant material selectian decisions with Todd Oppenheimer at Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. Un-going maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be required of the applicant. Fina1 Town review and approval of landscaping around the Fire Department connection shall occur priar ta issuance of a building permit. , 5. That payment of the parking pay-in-lieu fee sha11 occur prior ta issuance of a building permit. 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operation, located ~ af 1477 Aspen GroveJLat 3, Block 2, Lionsridge 4th Filing. Applicant: Wiliiam M. Miller F'lanner: Lauren Waterton M(JTION: John Schafield SEC4ND: Diane Goiden VCJTE: 4-1-1 (Gene Uselton opposed and Ann Bishap recused herselo APRROVED WITM UNE CONdITION: 1. That an approval wauld not be required by the Aspen Grove Lane (Lionsridge Filing No. 4) Homeowner's Association and that the conditional use permit will exire in ane year fram the date o# approval. 4. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allaw modificatians to al(owabie GRFA and buiiding he?ght limitations, iocated at 1150 Westhaven LanelLots 39- 1& 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. AppHcant: Timothy Penningtan, represented by Diane Larsen Planner, CJominic Mauriello MOTION: Ann Sishop SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-0 RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH C)NE Ct3NDITION; 2 ~ Agcnda Ixst rcutscd 10/28 9 am 1. That the fa{lawing Vanguage be pfaced on ths develapment pian and be included ~ in the ardinance for these lats: A!1 fu#ure development will be restricted to the area within the buiiding envelapes. The only development pe.rmitted dutside the building enveiopes sha11 be landscaping, driveways (access bridge) and retaining walis associa#ed with driveway construction. At-grade pa#ios (thnse within 5` of existing or finished grade) wili be permit#ed to projecf beyond the buiiding envelopes not more than ten feet (10') nar more than ane-half the distance between the building enve{ope and the property ?ine, ar may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than ane-fourth (1/4) the minimum requtred dimension between buildings. 5. A request for an amendment to Section 18.54.050 J(Llesign Guidelines -ou#door lighting), to allow for the exemption of low wa#tage lighting firom the outdoor lighting regulatians. App{icant: Roy & Pau1a May, represented by daIe Smith/ Fritzlen,Pierce, BCiner Planner: Lauren Waterkan MUTION: John Schofield SECCIND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6-0 RECt3MMEND APPROVAL WITH A CHANGE iN THE PROPOSED TEXT Lights sources, which are placed no more than 18" above finished grade, and are either fut(y cutoff, as defined by Section 98.(14.137, or have a maximum rnitial lumen oufput of 259 400(equvilent to a2-5 417 watt bulb), may be allowed in addifinn to the tota/ nurnber of ~ permitted oufdoor light sources. Number, locatiora and style of such light sources is subject to Design Review. 6. A request to review a draft o# the proposed Vei! S#rategic Hausing P4an, which isintended to set the directian of the Town in its effort to address locals hausing. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen DISCUSSION - NO t/OTE 7. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Viflage), to ai1ow for a revision to the deve4opment pfan for the Glen Lyon Uffice Building site, Iocated at 1000 S. Frontage Rd, WestlLot 54, Block K, GlenLyon Subdivisior?. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Gordan Pierce, AIA Planner: Dominic Mauriella TABLED UNT1L NOVEMBER 24, 1997 ~ . 3 Agenda last teviscd lOt'?fi 9 am 8. A request for a final review af a canditionai use permi#, to allow for the construction of the ~ Alpine Garden Educatian Center, located at 620 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Rpplieant: Vail Rlpine Garden Foundation, represented by Nelen Fritch t'Ianner: George Rufher TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1'997 9. To apprave, deny, or modify an Enviranmental Impact Report for the proposed Boofih Fal1s Townhames rockfali mitigation waA, located at 3094 Boath Falls GourtlLot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 12th. Applicanf: Boath Falls Condo Asscrciation Planner: Russ Forrest 7ABLED UNT1L NOVEMBER 10, 1937 10. A request for a major ex#eriar aIteration and a variance fram Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Liortshead lnn, located a# 705 S. Frontage Rd.i Lo# 1, Biock 2, Vail Lionshead 4#h Filing. . Appiican#: L.ionshead Inn LLC, represented by William F'ierce f'Ianner: Dominic Mauriella TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997 ~ 11. Informa#ion Update 12. Approval of September 22, 1997 and Octaber 13, 1997 minutes. The applicatians and informa#ion about the praposals are available for public inspection during, regular office haurs in the project planner's office Ioeated at the Town nf Vail CQmmunity Deveiopment Department, 75 Scruth Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. f'lease caH 479-2114 voice ar 479-2356 TDD for infarmation. Community Development Department 4 ~ -MEM(yRA'NDUM ~ 70: . Planning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Gammuni#y Development Department DATE: Qctober 27, 1997 SUBJECT: A request #or approval of a major exterior afteration, to allow #or the construction of a new entry and common area in the Treetops i buildang, iocated at 452 E. Lianshead CirclelLot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st FiGng. Applicant. Treetops Condo Association, represented by Larry Barnes Planrter : pominic Mauriello 1. DESCRiPT10N QF TWE RE~~t~UEST The applicant is requesting a major exteriar aiteration in order to construct a new entryway to the Treetops I Condominium. According to..Section 18.24.065(3)(a), of the Zoning Code, appiications for building altera#ions , which add more than 100 sq. ft. of #loor area are considered major exterior alterations and must be reviewed by the PEC to ensure compliance with relevant planning documents. ~ The proposal adds approximately 476 sq. ft, of common area to the building. The building addition is Iocated on north side o# the building and is one story in height. The addition has sloped roof sections similar #o those onChe roof of the existing building. i`here is a#lat roaf section which provides protection for the proposed pedestrian doorway to the building. The proposal aiso provides fnr revised landscape areas and a widened driveway approach ta the building. 5everal trees are being relncated by this request and there is a net loss of landscape area. The landscape area is being losi where the addition is lticated and due to the impraved driveway access to the front of the building. Aithough there is a net loss of landscape area, the site remains in compliance with 20% minimum area requirement. The proposai FnriN aiso irnprove the handicap accessibility to the buifding by providing a sioped approach to the building rather than the existing steps. 11. Zt}NING ANALYSI~ Zoning: CC2 Lo# Sias: 38;640 sq. ft. (include5 residential, parking; andcommerciai sites) Stanclard AlluwedlR+eauired Existin Pr~ed Common Area: 6,619.2 sq. #t. (35%) 5,339 sq. ft. (28°la) 5,815 sq. ft. (30.7%) Slte Ct7VeCr1g@: 27,083 Sq. ft. (70°l0) 215970 Sq. ft. (56.9°10) 22,446 Sq. ft. (58.1 Landscaping: 7,73$ (2Q°la) 13,353 sq. ft. (34.6°fa) 13,763 sq. ft; (35.6°la) ~ 1 - - 111. REVIEW CRITERIA ~ A. Compliance with the Urban Desiq.n Guide Plan far Lionshead This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts specified in the Urban Design Guide F'lan for Lionshead. However, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the design guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture ofi the buiiding. The proposai eomplies wrth the develapment standards of the Zoning Cade. B. Gompliahce with the Urban Design Considera#ions for L'tonshead and CCI1 Exterior Aiteration Criteria This location is not idontified in any of the sub-area concep#s specified in the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead. Again, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the design guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture of the building. The proposai complaes with the developmen# standards of the Zoning Code. C. Cornpliance with the Vai1 Land Use Plan , The follawing goals of the Vail Land Use Plan are appiicabie to this proposed alteration: ~ 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possib[e. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing cornmercial areas to accommodate both locai and visitor needs. 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to oceur primarily in existing commerciaJ areas. Future commercial develapment in the Core areas needs ta be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. Staff believes that this proposai is consistent with the Vail Land Use PCan. D. Compiiance with the purpose statement for the GC2 zone distriCt Aecording to Section 18.26.010 of the Zoning Gode, the purpnse of the CG2 district states: The Commercial Core 2 zone district is intended to provide sites far a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commerciai Core 2 aistricC in accordance with the Vaii Lionshead Urban C7esign Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities apprapriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable quaiities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. ~ 2 _ p Staff believes the proposed improvements to this building, by creating comman area and ~ by making #he building more accessible to visitors, provides a valuabie amenity fio the property and the Lianshead area. The proposed addition will imprave the overall quality of the building. IV. STAFF REC4MMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed major exteriar alteration subject to the #ollowing finding: 1. That the proposal is consis#ent with purpose of the CC2 zone dis#rict, the Vail Land Use Pfan, and the develapment standards in the Town's Zoning Code. F:\EYERYbN E\PEC1M EM05t97\TRE ETOP5.027 ~ ~ 3 t , q x I f I ¦I ~1 5epte~ber .+G.G, ici91 Lauren V,,Iatterton ~ r r Pianning Liaison Totun of wai 1 Re: Treetvps i Gandominium New Entry Lot 6, Block 1, Lionshead 15t VaiP, Gd AR C H 1 T E C T S' Lauren, Today iarn 5ubmitting to the PEG an application for apprnval regarding a new entry on Treetvps I building located in the GGII district of .Lion5head_ The current de5ign is in conformance w+th 5ection 18.26.010. The driginai building design did not in,,iude an enclosed entry area. in recent years, and with respect to the Ar,>A, there has been a need f'vr secured entry, skier storage, and improved access to the building, all of tuhich are perrnitted uses. The design that I am propo5ing not only defines an entry element, but aisa pravides the unit owners with an area to wait for buses or other rides. The vaulted roof form can the new entry is consfistent with the existing vauited rvaf ~ forms. Flat roof fvrms are also consistent. The clerestory windows on the west, and the Iarge openings toward the narth will provide indirec.t 5uniight to flood the space withaut massive heat buiidup. The height of the add itivn is wel) under the aIlawed. Exterior finishes will match exi5ting finishes. This new addition will be contigunus with the existing structure. We are a1so planning on replacing t'he existing driveway and walkways with hsated pauers. ifeel that the impact bf thi5 design on the surrounding areas wiif be minimal. An existing aspen grove will ~hield the propased lacativn of the addition frnrn the view frQm Lionghead circle even thaugh thie, wa5 nat our intention. The role d€ this addition is to give Treetops a "front door" with sdme reiaticanship to the street and d riveway. 1t will aIso provide Treetops the amenitiee, that other condominiums enjoy. I lovk farward to pre5enting thir, design to ydu and the Planning and Environmental Gommission. Attached to thi5 letter are elevation renderings, phdtos, and aspreadsheet compiling my calculationg for aIlawable 5auare feet and Iandscaping req,uirements. Plea5e call Me if there is additianal informatian that yau req,uire. om l~leber ~ K:\9'i1q Treetdp5 Gonda\FEGnarrative.tupd Plannirtg • Architecture a? IiiLeriors 1650 East Vail Valley I7rive Fallridge C-'! * Vail, CC7 81657 o fpb@colorada.+tet ? fex (970) 476-4901 ?(470) 476-6342 I_ RQAQ ~ 2~~ /~.~3EJ {~~~:5 •.t{~ .~7L- LV~ L4.fVk~ 2 OAIL~. b'~~V iriTVI~M~[~6t i ~ ~ h x.772 774 776 r ,,~~~DR.__,_ 7F2ACT* C. ° '~th(~d 3 .4. • ' ...74 T ; . ~a VA(L. P(~T`kTC~ ~TC~ ~ W ~ ° SECOC~ID F`ILING ~g 736 ,748 3. ~740 7422 ( SANDY LANE 794 746 BLK. 1 ; {~~iry ~ - . . ,t Vf?F'.4ASTTEL RED SAQIDSTONE, SOLkR MOUNTAtN 3c"LL ELEMENTARY VAIL 160 TED s 53G`, +~p~ ~ • P htfyUNZAfN 9EL.C RD. PHASE , • ~~5~ lNTERSTA7E ?Q ~ (tN T.a:v. ) 25 PEf}ESTRIAN ACt ~ suK va}L oveRPass CK 1, VAIL LfUNS ' fN . f . ~ VAN GE Pa? T 2 PARKtNG WEST- 5d8 (/Ai ~ J~C~~ S7RUCTURE ~ VAIL , c NORTH daY I ~ ~1tNDS t '~t-;! 355 fN7ERNATtOt~t " PARKfhfG tC7T ~ 548 t ( • ` t.10 S~ i i~17 , 4 300 250 r+ELEPaJ 1 I 1EJNSHEAD boo vaI~.. . YA~LREE . izs 4th. F IN~r aru ARr~ ~.tFTr~ousE 21 5 610 L_EC}N5HE P°~ c EAST Li E E ~ TQ[AN PL - « ,b68 3 SZt 450 ( 0N3HEAD Cf CE.E iCE ARENA f~~± (tt TRAG7 F 616 iOMSHEkD 2nd FIL1t~ft7 ~ ~(cam rciQl} ~ I~7I 321 SG".VBIRU 531 LODGE k2 T t N HEAb * c s VAIL SPA f MO4fTANEf205 675 .Gt}s00 LA REETOP 452 6 LtBRAR ?RACT A 710 6~ . T H 4 LfONSHEAb 5 292 ~ 281 . F- E NAT'L 8 K ~ LkON'S SQUARE VAIL VA L l. E Y z BLDG. ~p M RRl07T q Nf7R-TH MEl71CA CENTER aC38 SCO MARK0 635 I D 42 714 9 t f SKAAL ~ TftAGF 0 ~ UML.ATTED • 272 FfOt15E AtFN c~ ACT g g ~s7 a~ 141 121 ~ ANTLERS ~~E~ LOt~GE AR 252 ? ~ DR 8 680 TRIC't"' B 232 ~I V tL AV 2n 3 ' 6 5 4 3142 622 TRACT A ~ 2~2 t82 162 :D . 3$P py,µ GtRCL~ ~ 52*a FaREST RoAa 92 362 ~/t LIOr~SHEaD 4 5 VAIL j~1G Y~tL LI~t vN ~ T4T E.OT 2 Y~ ~~L G 352, 30 ~ . . - w 4013 F3'G 2 83 ~ TR?~1' B ~ $RI(1GE 41 +40 TRACT B. 225 39 38 37 ~ 36 ~ „ " . . 383 343 ' 333 ~s 223 _ ' 193 tFq ~ ~ ~ ~ z tJ F G'1 EC D ~ ~ Zil 0 ~ Z, ~ U ~ ~ ~ U) s . , ~ a 0 z w ~ w ~ FRITzLEN PIERcE BiitNER ` nacr+ITI cTs .+to.s: r.V.~...+. w.Tl.TE PLAN w:•ra +..wc. ~ `.wrw~r ,w ww I t0 x_ O`-Q° A 10 1 .~..m. f' z ~ 0 e~asnru.cFC.ra e~m*iwwm naewem o-r. . u wHtr+csc~naF- ~ cna-.r~te w~.c ~c easr, iwm m Re+wK m. 2s M ~ Z 28 a : l .wen acouceem V mxrawm ~ .~rn ~ o ~ I CC F- LEGEt~E7 \tt ~euir,#t5a3sxscrhee~e4C~+a'ldmee ` Fi\p«-pLEt~ ~n'c'~r^cc'cr"KO'°~c'xiortww p yyy~y CFEG [ [~CE . ~eMMrNZS.oteAE?EF~6./sm y5~5j~~ pf}R`Y.ktY{ ['n ~.ry ' l7 D~UYpDapt++c:rt4Ct4.>1f4JCYUR3.~irMO. GN~S..C"[Gl'00EI~YM'R CIGb~GSlSOSt1H4h~i,1.4FOICW+M . LOC[6 EXtOFtS tH°~ ~GOtFlUM . . . rmco.w.icrewa.c+. AitCH~T.fCT€ Z~EMOL.I"C'lCG3N P1.AN 1~ ° A20I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ox• a ~ . ~ ~wkn.vEr . . ~ t5C/ r~t i{ ; I ~rc~. .;'z . ::..~..J $ . w..y . ~ ~ ~ • . a~ ~ x ~ 29 c1 ~ z*~ a' ~m2e «N'[cM ~ f S G~ isl+l.o~K'+2i[ : 0~ • ~ imoGA.Tm , ~ i~ ~ 28 (J} 9 Lr .I ~ . RT'1t ( ~ E1~[illY LM. R1:VF ~ # \ k ~ RAk 4 flM. R11. ~Y..4D~fHt R..~MI f _ i45~~ f~ n ~rov-aov.w~sw.+k m ~ f PGYrN' •AYGtNPOt~it?U f E%ISIiN6 ~.f IF1.lW.LSi6 T ~3F0. . ~ . ~ PeIFl4ltGf 1~'IR[x.}I ryyy+ ~~y.}~y . . ~FOM1VN. ~ ~ . ~ ~ . .HVLTtWt. M G~AiG FFtt3`zLEN PIERGE ~y BR4NEIt' h~[tHITECTT r=NTRY l,mEVEL FLC?OR f SfTE Pt..psN a ~ 1/4.. r:a. A202 ~rtw ausrrx ~amx+ i.J Q -i ~ ~ 2 ~ z ~ r ~ 29 ,a~ a• rt~aee~s u- t ~ Z.y 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 28 a. ~ w LU F- FL. defF3' ' i~ lll{~ Rp01^ M.~11 - . . '~-~....y...r ' t . £i~°vT.ZR'~YD!°+IHNDtK[J~E ~ . ? . ...I E'J~TZLEE?~~ PIERGE BRf NEFt ~~ofm PLAN K R C. H1 7 F~[ T S t~ f 4~ t waf~w ~~:r . . . . 3LR~tX . . If<' e 1'Kt' . ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I F Z ~ 0 ( I ~ ~ M963 cl ~h{y bYJ ~K c r F ~ ~ ~ ~ El ~ c 0-1 Zd d1 euILVIN6 SEc~rIot~ - Fr~a~o9~z~ ~ j ~ U4• . C~-R~ ~ . 01 0 ~ ~ W ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~I -~+.k.~ { I ~ MPi~ftAdVAfWH 9Pf.Y1R! . GH6T.rLlcfM~6CU. ~ 3th1C5 ~ I ~ f i 4knY'fiil kN[A, . - .i ~ N36! . . . - • . . . . ' . . . . v,'.. ~"~'pf'~`~jt 7.{ p.L{LC~.~ pr2~rY 1i~ ip pI 6 ~t C. pE r=:7 . . . . . . . . . . . [aE nroms.r~. J ~4 ~ ~ .b~nr,+: . ~ !T h I~ t`i G. R ~ - - v- - - - - - - - . trtC3l2TH ELEVAT(Otd - PRC7PJ5EI? AECiftTECTS ti~Y ~ M4 ~ ~ .M4~a~ ~ NORfit~ ELEVATlC3N - EXf5T(Nb a4301 Z 0 ~ ¢ ~ Ifl" a ~ I D ~ S . . . . . , ~ ~ ~ og ~ ~ E... <<.. . ~ t/) `s 1 4 t C` ~ Ay w~av oF rau~ r ~ i r t t ; t' ~ "u~ I !bt Sik"CO m.a+suiwassu ~ SNEST SeGTtON - PR4f'45EL7 /7*11 WEST ELEV,4TtON - PRLr^1P45W va~ - r-o• l--~, -'=Gt' FitlTZLEN PtERCE SR}NER ~R 4 C~H I T Et.TT~ :rsr~:+rr.s r~risu -twV~4Jw~~ ~:n! AB0` . ! i, I4 I . , i . r . . Y + , . . , ~ K 6 u. ~ , x u ro : . . s . is . , . - ~ . . ~,i ~ • . ~ - ~ - ~ ~ , , . . , ~ . , , . _ . „ I • , G ~ u~~; ti ry ~ . y~TM ' 4 , i ~ W~ Ph Pii VIlhy u ~w . y, . u~ . x,,i;, ' w ° Y', ~i'~i ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ro W~ , s e ~ , ' L , R_ wN , d .,,~.~'.,,w.~.. , ~.R . W„ M,,.:. ,~v : , p ~c ,I ~t, ~ ~ r a~~,a ~ ul,' ti ,u'",^~ , s~1'~3_ ,~~4"r„~-„,: w,. ~g't ~.z,• . . +r`.`~, - `~e.~a _ , ~ ~ ~ , u , ur' la~l li~'NR~a,'~,'~u ~i&,,, ..,~t..~ d ~ ~'N;'~ , • ~ . , a"~m~ . , ,I. ; ~ l :~~'rrr~~ i i I,~ uV",,i, ~ i~~~'~,,, ~ , a~' ,~~f~!!,. ua a : € .r^ "1w:,r'~ . t 'a . ,°~u~x.a~ , ~ , ~ ; u r a . , I ~i i ii , Y•.r ~ ~ r ~ ~~ti~~'Y~?.r .,u1 ~~b~" ~`,~v,~ ~mi?'x~m,~ ~'9,~,~ G, i+I~M ~ r+~ o•z ,C:. „ _ ry > v+u , ~m...rw~ ~ ~"~u ~".t '~w .dCa~.+ 3..:...L~.,.,+:~~n x. ~',.,~^'y~..+a'~ "*~~.o.~': , .b.:,~w~,a4~~~w- ~ ~'~'.vn:..~. ~ ~ 5, a a ' - ~s . ~tdl ~"~`l'k u,~., , ' I ~ . _ • ~d,~ai-': ' =x~ - _ 'i` " ~4`` x'v.~-' aa.z~c._ ~ m.mr Y . - . ~ .a.~.• . ~ • , . ~ • ' ~ec..ar.i.a..,,t:u~sm~~,.me3..:m'ae.J. ~ ~ ' ~ . . „ , ~ ~ : f . , . . ~ , . . - - , • . ~ , , . . , . . , , . . , . . ~ . , . . , . . , . . . . ~ . WiM . . ; i , , i . r , _ . I 9 N . . . ' • ~ , . . . ~ . . . ~ '6 • • . ° . , , , " . . . , II " u„ + . µ ,s I X uu+, ~ . ,~w~ , , . , y 'PF~,,~ , r • jo • , ~~p ~ io y ~ '~.~dA,.,, ,M,< < _~u.P+: c'M4 k~d~ S,~~u ~ • 'R~~h- Pd'~ ' F.`,rtr~ ~ avW a ~~l..~. 'd ~ . .r. ' i'~~ a, ,o, ~ ~ •ai '"f~ ~ ,w. ~ ~r,, ~ ' .,N,:.+ ~ ~ : ~-'~r~~ u,. ' r w~~,~ "Wi, k~ !~ru -;r ~ a~`~ cdt~ r' ~.s~ M<.,.. ~ ~ I I I _ ~ ~ I b ~ . i S s v . ~ . ; ,h . . . . `w.. ,r~. . . < 4« ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ti•~ r~ , REFEREI`dCE WEST EI:,EVATION REFERENCE NORTH ELEVATIC?N ~ IM, ~ ; ~ "It , t ~ ~ . . ~ °w . , . ~ ; ~ ~ . n ~ • ~ 131 ^ : s . I~ ~l~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a'` .w ~ , ~ t ° . ~ y' . • ~ ~ m" . ~ f l~ ~ ,{Y'a d . #FF r • _ I~ , . "~I ' ~v~"~; '~s"• ~~~~,,.,~-r ~ I . . - , ~ > ~ . . , . . . . VIEW FRUlV1 N4RTH WEST k, JJJ ~ ~ ~ 'y 'I~~~~~I~I.II~I~I ~ ~.,~~+~"w'aM• N ~ . '`4R9'~.aW, : I+ ' . ~ n LOCATIUN UF NEW RC.IQF AT FC?URTH FLt70R LINE ~ F ~ - MEMt7RANDt11Vl ~ TO: Planning and Ertvironmental Commission FROM: Cornmunity Development Department DATE: Octaber 27, 1997 SUBJEGT: A request for a canditional use permit, ta allow for a Bed and Breakfast operation, located at 1477 Aspen Grove LanelLnt 3, Block 2, Liansridge 4#h Filing. Applicant: William Milier Planner: Lauren Watertan 1, DESCRIP`CIL7N OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Wil! Miller; is requesting a conditional use permit to aHow for a Bed and Breakfast aperation at 1477 Aspen Grove Lane. 5ection 18.58.310 o.f the Vail Municipal Code (8ed and' Breakfas# Operations) defines a Bed and Breakfas# as: "A business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which #he Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on #he premises and is in residence auring the Bed and ~ Breakfas# use. A Bed and Breakfast operation may short-term rent separateiy up to three bedrooms or a maximum square footage of 900 sq. ft. of the dwetling unit. Bed and Breakfast operations sha11 only be permitted #o accarnmadate a family as de#ined in Sec#ian 18.04. 110." The property is zoned Singie Family Residential and has a single family residence, with a TYpe I Employee Housing Unit. The applicant is proposing ta use fhree bedrooms of the main unit, totaling 878 square feet, for the Bed and Breakfast operation. Additionally, two unenclosed parking spaces v+rill be available for the guests. II. CRfTER1A TO BE USED 1N EVALUA7ING THIS PROP(7SRL Bed and E3reakfast Operaticans Criteria - 8ed and Breakfast oep rations shald be subject to #he following requirements: 1. Off-stree# designated parking shall be required as follows: dne space for the awner/proprietor, plus cane space for the first bedraom rented, plus one half space far each additional bedroorn rented. The parking requirement for this properky is two spaces for the EHU, three spaces far the main unit and two spaces for the Bed and Breakfast aperation, for a tofal af 7 spaces. The applicanf has twa enClosed parking spaces, plus five unenclosed parking spaces, totaiing seven parking spaces. Therefore, the parking requirement fior this praperty has been met. ~ . ~ , 2. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service shall be provided. ~ The appl'icant is proposing to keep all trash in the garage and wili have weekiy pick-up by BFi. 3, Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parking is strongly discouraged. No landscaping will be removed as a part af this application. 4. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential nameplate sign as defined and regulated by the Town Sign Code. The applicant has not praposed a residentiai namepia#e sign. 5. Mf aBed and Break#ast operation shall use property or facilities owned in corramon ar jointly with ather property owners such as parking spaces or a driveway in a duplex subdivision, by way of example and nat limitation, the written approvat af the other properEy owner, owners, or applicable owner's associatian shall be required to be submitted with the application for a Condi#ional Use Permit. ' The property is zoned Single Family Residential and contains a single family residence wi#h a Type I EHU, therefore, this criteria is no# applicable. ~ Gonditianal Use Permit Criteria Upon review of Section 18.60 -Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the follawing factors: A. Gonsideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact af the use on the develapment objectives of the Town. Bed and Breakfast aperations are listed as uses that Gonditional llse Permits may be applied for in 15 of the 22 zane districts within the Tawn of Vail, including aII dfthe residential zone disfricfs. The Vail L.and Use Plan has numerous goals, which articulate the Tnwn's desire to irrrprove aur role as a leading destination resort, including promoting the creation of accommodation units. 2 ~ ~ 2. The effect of the use on light and air, disfiribution of papuiation, transportafiion facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation fiacilities, and other public fiacilities needs. The praposed Bed and Breakfas# use will not have a nega#ive effect on any of fhe criteria listed above. Guests of the Miller Bed and Breakfast will likely arrive via their own vehicle, a rental vehicle, or by airport shu#tle van. 3. Effect upon traffic wifih particular reference #o congestican, automotive and pedestrian saf'ety and convenienee, traffic flow and coratrol, access, maneuverabilify, and removal of snow frorn the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposed Bed and Bteakfas# nperation will nof have a negative effect on the above referenced cri#eria. AII parking will be provided on-site. Staff believes that the B&B will not add significant traffic to this street. 4. Effect upon the charaeter of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the praposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff beGeves #his use will have little impac# on the character of the neighborhood, The Bed and Breakfast operation wiil not enlarge the ~ exis#ing struc#ure, or change if in any way. There may be an increase in the number of parked cars on the site, but staff believes tha# there will be iittle effec# upon the character of the area. B. Findings The Plannina and Environmen#al Commission sha11 make the followinfiindipgsbefore granting a conditianal use permit• 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accard with the purposes of the conditional use permi# secfion of the z,oning code andfhe purposes ofthe district in which the site is located. 2. That the propased location of the use and #he canditians under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare ar materially injurious tn prnperties ar improvements in the vicinity- 3. Tha# the praposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of #he zoning code. ~ 3 . ~ I11. STAFF RECOMMENL7ATIC3N Staff recommends approval af the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a ~ Bed and Breakfast subject to the follpwing findings: 1, Thaf the praposed location of the use is in accord with the purpases af the conditional use permit section of the zoning ctide and the purposes of the district in which #he site is 1ocated. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the canditions under which it would be operated or maintained wauld not be-detrimental ta the public heaith, safety, or welfare or materially injuriaus to properties or improvements in the vicinity, 3. That #he praposed use would camply with each of the applicable prnvisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. ~ ~ 4 i M~ ,0 ° > 57-0 t,4' S14 ~ 11,3 ',C4WO ~a63 ~ ~ r"~~" , ~ A\ ~ T ( ~~i2/VE W~ -......h i . t ~r ~ Aff ~G?.~Z ~J,aNHOL~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~flv r°' S en ~ f ~ - ~ 7) l.,? E - ~ ~ - B;S,T;-13 G I n ~t~ f ~ 6n~ B H 4 ~-r - v~,erF r tiy sf~L H6r Foa e(Saa=_55 C)~ I BELJROOM =f tR tIs ~ ~i-3~_" 3,;•'~t~J' 3- 3G. 3i.~~ I.. , ~ ?a 6g~ 2eera~ [ f"{f~Lt 2 n '-3~~,;• ~ C GL. # 5" ~ ~ - 14'-&, 51-6" 2 - i~-tr t~•-~" f( t.~ t ~ ' T f -r rc~iO ~ a p ~ ' rti '?Ov°~ UP BEDROOM 2 _ V ~ CJ 4 0 ~ { REG. ROOM - ~J 2755-2 ~ L'[REGT V'c?1T aAS FIREF'LAGE } ~t~ ~t',. ~ . . Fc>YER £L ~ . p5 ~ n ~ R.O. R.O. LEV EL 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ T4:Town of Vail 4ffiCe of Cammunity I7evelopmertt October,24, 1997 Lauren Waterton, Planneri We, the residents of Aspen Grove Lanei are opposed ta any fnrm of Bed & Breakfast operation gfli.ng in on the property of Wi1lia.m Miller at 1477 Aspen Grove Lane. This blaek is zoned single family a11Cj We Wa21t t4 preSeY'V~.' th~,' S 112gle fa1t21 ly e1'1'V1 T'0111T1E'T1t. A $G.d & Breakfast orr this privately orxrnecl street would campletely oppose this concept. We a1so questian the feasibi.lity of running a hospitality busittess off a private road. This resad is privately aWned by our Homecswners Assaciation. 'T`he Associatian pays fbr all maintenance and carries liabil.ity ~ insurance. We do not want any added 1 iabi 1 i ty of Bed & Breakfast guests. A business of this type would cause extra traffic an a road where many children play and ride bicycles i.n the summer and plaY in the winter. For these reasons we only want single f'ami.ly status in keeping with the rest rsf the neighbortiood. After cl:i.scussing th.is propflsal with the residents of Aspen Grave Lane, we clo have a majority in strong opposition to this applicati.on. Sincere. ~ d , homas J. gthes, sident Aspen Grove Lane 7- Lionsridge Subdivision Fa.ling #4 Homeowners AssociatRan ~ 'S IN Pedro Luiz R.zbeira 10d2ol97 ~ Mrs. Anne 7E'i~z The PrudQ~~ial vail, co , ~~~r A=e /f$GA.ay .l.hLi.nks.1 fv+Jr yolAy1.µ 0.SM/te Vn the Wd.ll rl.'41+tLltl.V.i+ pr`.an• I have be+en hearing aL1I alCtMg the constrz.~tion period that n~ ~lanned t4 c~o juat that. ' Althotzgh X tend to agree wa.th you ~hat a papa and muma ~tyle SadMand-~~eakfast~ should :not be a big~ nuisance,. what we have here is plarinad ho~al, not a fanily looka.ng far ways a~t ou~aiatence. You can ~ell Tom Rughs tnat I strcanglV oppc~~~ the Bed and Break£ast idaa ~ It just ~~rik~s me ac detricaus thG way this gezz,tlc3man is try'ing ob~airx f>}a.a p,ormit. Ratl he gane to the planrdza.g comrn.i~sion with the project ~ befox~han3, tk~ey ~er~ainly would 1ave dainanded a cc~~tlier constructioz~, geared to that end-use. c7ne pzobabl~ suoh xequ,arament could be a `?ot s~r~a paxking spaca, a,s the 1.ane 3.n ~rivate and he ca».rkot expect to go by usirxg it for g~~~king» I Ple~~e a~k Tom ta coxztact me i~ ~o needs anythin~,~ also from thia +ajjra,d. We wi;l.l next be a.n Vail Navembex 26 ta ~~cezbar 17„ and lvr~~ fozcia~~ getta.ng tc~gethe:r with yora and James. Wa=G agw~~ ~ e-ma3.l: pr4ual. oom,br ~ ~ . . ~ C c-As ~ ~ rUvAl ~ ~ C~R ~ ~ Ua& ~ SENT BY: 10-24-97 ;12:05PM ; S C C ADW150RS- 0704792452;# -I•1 DONALb & NAIVCYR:.EMEY 1971 Aspen Grnve Lurte VaiCy CO 81657 0 Octraber 74, 1t)97 Ms. Lausen Watcrton Tuwn nt' Vail Plmnning Commission Vail, CQlarado Fax: 970-479-2452 Re; Proposec1 Bed and Breai?.fast 1477 A:sTien Cirt<yve t." Dear Ms. Wtiterton: As owners of 1471 Aspcn Gravc Lane, we are strongly oppased tn the proposed est.ablishment of a bed and breakfast as proposcd by Wit7 Milfer for 1477 Aspen Grove Laae. Our oppasitiou is based oti the follewitig: ' 1. Aspcn Grovc Lanc is a private raad im an excI,usive residential aXCa. 7he pre;ence of.' a retail cvmmercial entcrprisc will ncgatively irnpact the quatity af IiEe tor our farttily, ~ - i1 wilt anc;rease traffic, - it wilt create aparking 1t7t, -it will have signagc and lighting not suited to the road, - it wi1l attract vendors, prospective custoiners and ofhers not strited tv a ivtally residential street 2. It will ncgativcly affcct the real estat+e vata4 of crur property. 3, 1t wi.l:l sc:t a prcmdcnce for the entire Buffcr C'rcck Road area Iiic pvssible other reiaiilicymmecciai businesses, Tke Buffer Creck Road area i5 an masis from the rampant commercializaafiic,n ctf the Vail Valley. `i`'hat was an impartant factor in the purchase of our hnmc in Scptemher, 1946_ 4. Our Taionsridgc 5ubdivision Filing #14 Iiameawners Astiucix#inn is opposcd. Wc hape that#hc'I'CJV Ylanning Baard wi11 to#aIIy reject this application. Fuurther, wc w4uld urge the cievelopment of longer term zflning' and planning policies t1Yat would ezihance the quality of litc in the Vail Va11ey. Si:ncercly, ~ ~ +23 'S? 13:54 55FfVARE P.1/1 ~ 1VIEMC?1tANDUM . TO:: To6vn of'Vail : Pianning Deparfinent . FkC>M. l3ruce King Owner of residenCe ut 14$1 Aspen Grove T,anc Lot 1, Block 2, Laons Ridge Sab., Filing 4 RE: Applicafion for a bed and bremkf'ast at 1477 Aspen Grrove Lane 1L,crt 3, Block 2, Liona Ritdge Sub., FrlYng 4 ` .DA'X'E: Oc#ober 23,1997 ~ As the owner of the above praperty on I..ot l, S wish ttr state my oppc3sifiiozz to 1icense bcing given for a bed and breWast. The following zssues cause me cancern: , 1. The stxeet is a private street owned by the Lions Rzdgc Home Owners Association. 2. The s#reet is not maintained by the Tawn of Vail, but through fhe Home C?wners Association, ; 3. Izzswrance covexage on the street is assessed to the home owners. r feel this coverage should not : be crianged ar madifed to cover such business. 4. ZaIso have conce:rns about inczeased xoad traffic . . and npise associaLteci wxth such establishments. : Sincerely> r 4Be King . 9701845-5879 (t)f~ice) 370/476-4630 (Hor~e) ~ Oct..2k 1.997 4 :30PM SHOOK HARDY BACDN No, 8$41P. 213LAw oFFIcEs SH00Y,,~1ARDy&BAC0N LL.F. ao coRPORArE wooos io 9401 iNataN GREEK PARKWAY wwsA3 atv. MrssouFu PC)5T bFFiCE BOX?a~128 ~ttlu&rOW. 'r'EwA~, ~ une~rm u~~mmr PAflTNMHIF iNCLU OVERt,AND PRRK, KANSAS 88225,5' 138 w+~st~INaTtsN. b.C. 6Ii~6 LONWN. ElWtAN[1 PR4Ft991bNA6GqRPOMT1GNy '("ELEPHONL(Qj~) 4$t4oo 1 FAMMILE {M}451-079 2upbi..GWtY'lEm-ax[Y OCtObei' 24, 1997 J. Eagens Eiapoum Dear Vail Planning Commission Board: We are reszdents at 1480'B Aspen CYrove Lane and wish to express our desire to bM atlour #he p'wner z'equesting to be a Bed &$reakfast to do so. It appeared this summer rnany visitors seemed to ba #here, and I wondered then if the nvcmer was operating a Bed & 13reakfast despite neighbazs° vvishes a-ad city permits or approval. 'UVe really have been unhappy witb the house and its owner 5ince its coinpletion. We da not feel it meets ttie highex standards of the homes vn our stree# ar the en#ire anea. To ixnagine it as a Bed 8c Breakfast is wazse evera yet. We puurcclased our hame in the Spring af 1993; the rnain appeal for the purchase was the secluded location and lack af cornmercial developrnent. We felt Aspcn Cxrove 7,ane was a real find, at that time, and hope it will remain ttiat way in the near and tlistant ~ future. Having a Bed & Breakfast on our stxeet wouXd inCZ'me the traffic a# al1 hoUrs. At some paint sst,rreet parking wauld be aeeded, and the streets are not designed for that purpose. At the very least it couid cause b-affic problems for thnse getting to and firozn their hOmes. Tf this crwner is allawed to operate a Bed & 33reakf"ast, what is to keep athes, either now or laterp fram doing the sarne? Soon we'Il be inovtm as Bed & Breakfast Laane instead bf Aspen Grave Lane, As far as 7 lmaw, none of the hornes on that Weet rent out #heir homes; T knavsr no one does in .A.spen Grove Townhomes. If we aIl choose to not make ext:ra money from our hames, then why would we wannt someone elsc to profit from renting? We wish the atmosphexe of trur street to continue as a secluded residential area and feel adding a Bed & Breakfast 'uvi,ll not rna.intain our peaceful, z`esidential environment. Please strongly crnsider the v%evvs ofresidents who wili be directly imgacted by the decision. Wasix't al1 af this previously discussed at the time of construotion wheu the Bread & Breakfast r-oncept was overwfiehriingly vetoed by xesidents? It was our impressian that this had already beerY votecl dowrL Haw frequently wi11 this be reconsidered? Can we be assured that we will be notified if it is reconsidered again? ~ Oc t 24 1997 4: 31PM sHaoK HARDY BAcoN No. s841 P. 1r1 vail P1a=ing Corzmission Board SH{?aK,H D. &BACUN Li-P C}ctnber 24, 1997 Page 2 ~ We wauld appreciate being kept apprised of any futwwe considerations in this regard, "Yau may contact us at our Kansas City phones: (913) 492-9583 or (913) 451-6060, ext_ 86036. Very truly ~ eila Wpmbles J. Eugene Balloun ~ ~ MEMORANDl1M ~ T0: Planning and Environmenta{ Commission FROM: Community Developmen# Department DATE: Oc#ober 27, 1997 SUBJECT. A request for a mincrr exterior al#eration in Commercial Core I and a variance fram Section 18,24.150 (site coverage) #o allow for an addi#ion to the Golden Bear Stare Iacated within the A& D Building, at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A& B and Part of C, Block 5-A, Vaii Village 1 st F'iling. Applican#: Lee Hnllis/Golden Bear Sfare Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTIC)N OF THE F2EQUESTS Minor Exterior Alteration The applicant is requesting approval of a minor exterior aiteration in 4he Cammercial Care t Zane tJistrict to add 68 square feet of commercial flaor area ta the Golden Bear Store,. located an the first floor of #he A& D Building. The reques# involves relocating the entry td the ~ store from the west side of the buiiding to the northwest corner of the building, adding commerciai flaor area adjacent ta the entry, reconfiguring landscape planters, and replacing the awning and sign. The applicant aIso proposes #o repair the concrete brick paving arrd the drainage pan a14ng the entire storefront and ta install streetscape landscaping anci benches in accordance with the Tawn°s Streetscape Master Plan. . According to Sec#ion 18.24.065, Subsection 3b, of #he Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in part, <`Applications for the alteration of an existing buiiding which adds or removes any enciosed fioar area of nat more #han one hundred square shaH be deemed a rninor e>tterior a1#eratinn,° Since the appiicant is proposing to add 68 square of encfosed ffaor area (<100 sc{uare feet}, the staff has coneluded the application to be a minor exterior alteration. Si#e Coverage The applicarrt's proposal #o add 68 square feet of commercial flnor area increases site coverage by 68 square feet. According fa Sec#ion 38.24.150 of the Municipal Code of the Town of VaiJ, in part, „Site coverage shall not exceed eighty percent (80°lo) of the total site area unless atherw's:se specified in the Vai{ Village Urban Design Guide P1an artd Design Considerations." Currenfly, there is 5,854 square feet or 79.77°!o si#e coverage on the applican#'s property. The ~ proposed addition would result in 5,922 square feet nr 80.70°o site coverage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of a site coverage variance of 52 square feet or 0.70%. 1 a 11. Zt7NING ANALYSIS The following summarizes #Fie zaning statistics for this CGI minor exterior alteration request: ~ Development Existing Proposed Standards RNowed Develvpment Development Site Area: N/C 7,338 sq. ff. to#al N!C (a11 buildable) Setbacks: Nane N: 112' NfC Required S: 1I2' E: 10, W: 1 /2' Heigh#: 33743' (60%I40°l0) N/A NlC Site Cnverage: 80°lo or 5,870 sq. ft. 79.77°/ti or 5,854 sq. ft. 80.70% or 5,922 sq. ft. (+68 sq. ft.) Parking: 1 space for each 300 N1A 0.23 spaces* sq. ft. of net retai# floor , area Landscaping: No reductian 64 square #ee# -4 tree grates 159 square feet - 13 tree grates withaut a variance 95 square feet - 3 planters 118 sguare feet - 7 ~ Iap nters 160 square feet - Totai 277 square feet - Tatal (on-site = 1 53 sq. ft.) (on-site = 186 sq. ft.)(+33sq-ft.) (off-si#e = 7 sq. ft.) (off-site = 91 sq, ft.)(+84 sq.ft,) *At this #ime, parking pay-in-lieu spaces are $16,905,05 each, plus the percentage the Consumer Price Index (CF'I) of the City of Denver has increased over each successive year. The applican# will be required to pay into the Town af Vaii Parking Fund, The amount of the fee will be determined based upon the parking fee that is in effect at #he time that a building permit is applied for. The applicant's propasal generates a fractiona} increase of 0.23 parking spaces, which wili be paid-in-lieu at the time of building permif issuance. This praposal results in a net increase of approxima#e!y 117 square feet of landscaping. Most of the landscaping proposed wiN occur offwsite and withi:n Town's righ#-of-way. Accnrding to the Municipal Cnde, off-site iandscaping cannot be cdunted taward meeting the landscape standard of "na reduction". Thus, the applican#`s praposal technically only increases Iandscaping by 33 square feet on the prnperty. 111, APPLICABL.E POL.1ClES OF THE VAIL VIL,LAGE MASTER PI.AN ANC? THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN A. Vaii Land Use F'lan "Gaal 1.1 Vail should cantinue to grow in a controlled environment, ~ maintaining a balance be#ween residentia(, commercial and recrea#ionat uses to serve both the visitdr and the permanent residence. 2 - - ~ Goal 1.3 The quali#y of development should be maintained and upgraded ~ whenever possible. Goal 4.1 Future commerciat development should continue to occur primarily in existing commereiai areas. Future cammercial develapment in the core areas needs to be carefully contralied #o facili#ate access and delivery. Increased density in care areas is acceptable so iong as the existing character of each area is preserved #hrough impiementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master F'lan. Gcaal 4.3 The ambience af the Village is impartant to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, aipine character, smali town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intirna#e size, cosmopoiitan feeling; enviranmental quality)." The applicant's plans for the expansion a# the Gofden Bear and the remadel of its starefront reflects a high quality redevelopment proposa1 that should anhance the commercial viabili#y of the Golden Bear without adversely impacting other cammercial and residential uses in the vicinity of the project. The propased redevelopment is in harmdny with Goals 1.9 and 1.3. Goa1s 4.1 and 4.3 expresss the desirabi(ity of accnmmodating addifinnal commercial growth in the core areas of Tawn, such as Vai1 Village and Lionshead. The proposed redevelopment is in harmony with these goals as the Gnlden Bear is 1acated at the intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street within the Village. ~ All of these goals note the importance of evaluating commercial expansions sa #hat the ambience af the Village and the identity of Vail are preserved. The quality features of the redevelapment will be discussed; especially in regard to their comp{iance with the Urban [Jesign Guide Plan and the VailVillage Mas#er Plan, in the fallowing sections of this memorandum. Goal 4.1 states in part, that "future cammereial development in the core needs #o be carefully controlled #o facilitate access and delivery " Qne of the few issues related ta the proposed redevelopment is a need to main#ain emergency vehicular access alang Gore Creek Drive adjacen# to the stnre#ron#. The proposai invalves adding plarrters along this elevation and installing streefscape trees. All would be contained within the cnnfines of the existing cancre#e drainage pan along Gore Creek Drive. The pavers and the drainage pan define the street edge in this area. Adequate sfreet width is maintained for Fire t3epartment access. B. Vaii Viliage Master P1anThe goals far Vail Vitilage are summarized in six major goal sta#ements. Each major goal focuses an a particular aspec# of the Village communi#y. "Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelapment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Viliage in order ta sustain a sense of cornmunity and identity." The proposed remodel invoives quality design details such as the addition of ornamental ~ dispiay cases, increased transparency to attract pedestrian attention, and reorientation of the entryway to the corner of the build`mg facusing on the intersectian of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. The addition of streetscape trees, benches, and planters fdr annua(s arrd perennials enhance the building's north elevation. A new awning reflects the gabled 3 - roof forms along the north elevation and draws #he first finor commercial out from under the domination of the upper floar. 0 "Goa1 2 To foster a tourist industry and promote year-round economic heaith and viability far the Village and for the community as a whole." The proposed expansion will enhance the existing cammercial use and promotes year-, round economic health and activi#y by implementing many of the streetscape abjectives along Gore Creek C3rive. The additian of stree#scape shade trees, and benches improve #he aesthe#ic appeal of the Gore Creek Drive storefran#, and provide a place for pedestrians to rest and take in the s#reet life during the warmer summer season. "Gaal 3 To recognize as a top priority the anhancement of the walking experience thraughout the Village,° As discussed in Goai 2 above, the proposed remode1 includes the implementa#ion of many of the Stree#scape Master Plan elements. The addi#ion of benches, trees, repairing of pavers, and the addition of iandscape planters certainly enhance the pedestrian experience along the Gore Creek Drive frontage. The greater transparency of the windows and the addition of display cases shoufd draw the pedes#rian up to the storefront #o gaze inside. "Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space . opportunities," The proposed building expansinn displaces the existing landscape planter at the corner of the building. Additional planters are proposed alang Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. ~ To compensate far the displaced planter, six trees in four-faot square tree gra#es have been added a1ong both s#reets and three trees in grates have been added on the patio area adjacent #o Mill Greek. The applicant proposes to add thirty-tYrree square feet af green space on-site and eighty- four square feet of green space off-site. "Goal 5 Increase and irnprove the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics o# the transportatian and circulation sysfem throughout the ViiCage." The prnposed remadei should have no effect on transportatian and circulation in #he llillage. The implementatian of the streetscape trees and benches provides an improved pedestrian atrnosphere alflng Gore Creek Drive. "Goal 6 To ensure the cnntinued improvement of the vi#aI operafiional elements of the Village." The proposed improvements do not impac# access, maintenance and delivery activities in the vicinity nf the praject. The proposal will imprave existing conditions as the applicant proposes to eliminate existing drainage problems. Roaf drains along the nnrth eleva#ian will be hidden in the building wall at the awning; and wil( be routed under the pavers discharging directfy into the existing starm sewer system. The applican# also pro;poses fo ' regrade law areas where water currently stands and imprflve the overa(I drainage of the concrete paver area and drainage pans along the store front, so that dcainage enters storm sewer inlets as originafily planned. The applicant has agreed ta repair brnken 4 ~ heating elemen#s under the pavers so that the entire paver area will be equipped with a ~ functioning snow melt system, praviding a safer enviranmen4 #ar delivery personnei and pedestrians. IV. CC1MPLIANGE i1V9TH 1"HE PURPdSE S1"ATEMENT C)F COMMERCIAL CORE I Zt'7NE DISTRICT According #o Section 18.24,010 of the Municipal Code, the Commercial Core I Distric# isintended #o, "provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vaii Village Commerciai Area, with its mix#ure of lodges and commercia) establishments in a predaminan#ly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core i District is intended #aensure adequate lightr air, open space, and nther amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with fhe Vail Viliage Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site develapment standards that are in#ended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of #he tightly ciusfiered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architec#urai qualities #hat distinguish the Village.° The reorientation of the entry to the Galden Bear, along with the imp(ementafion of streetscape improvements, wil( enhance the pedestrian environment. The remodeled starefrdn# impraves #he guali#y and aesthetic appearance ofi this entire corner without interfering with the light, air and open space enjoyed by surrounding buildings and uses. The praposal meets the si#e development guidelines expressed in the Urban Design Guide P{an and C7esign Consideratians. ~ The proposai improves buifding scale by emphasizing the ground ievel retail area and reducing the building to a pedestrian scale. V. COMPLIANGE 1NtTH THE STREETSCAPE MAS7ER PLANThe proposai implements all of the recommendations of #he Streetscape Master Plan for #his proper#y. Seasonai seating and landscaping wi11 be added along the Gore Creek Drive frontage, brick pavers and drain pans will be repaired, drainage will be upgraded and additional seasonal colar will be added through the reorganization of planters. The Streetseape Master Plan specifies three additional tree planters, containing deciduaus trees, along Gore Creek Drive. The applicant proposes five additional deciduous trees intree grates aiong Gore Creek Drive, one along E3ridge 5treet and fhree along Mi11 Creek. VI. CUMPLIANCE WITH THE VA(L VILLAGE URBANDESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND dESIG1VCONSIDERATtQNS FC3F: VAIL VIL.L,AGE Design Guide Plan In the sub-area concepts, Gore Creek DrivelBridge Street Sub-Area, Item Na. 17 states "street access apened." This recommendation may pertain to pedestrian aceess along Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street or to access into and out of the A & C7 Building. Ei#her way, the current proposal improves upon the existing situatian. This cnmment could also refer to fire and mainfenance access (vehicular access), which will a(sa be ~ maintained at its current level. 5 - ~ Vail Villacie L3esi qn Considerations The following is a diicussion of the application's compiiance with the Urban Design ~ Considera#ion$ and the archi#ecturaUlandscape considerations expressed in the Vail Village Design Considerations planning document. Urban Design Considerations A. Pedestriartization; 1. Pedestrian-only S#reets Bridge Street is a pedestrian only street with a strong delineation af street edge expressed by exis#ing tree grates, plartters and small benches. One additionai tres in a grate is proposed along Bridge Street and five along Gare Creek C?rive will help define the street edge adjacent to the new entryway. 2. Pedestrian Streets-limited vehicular traff'rc Gore Creek Drive is a 25 to 35-faat wide section af asphalt, wi#h an additional 6 ta 8 feet of concrete pavers on each side. This width is more than adequate to accommodate the eurrent mix of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. . B. Vehicular Penetration: "Irt conjunc#ion with pedestrianiza#ion objectives, major emphasis is ~ focused on reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village...Ftoad consfrictions, traffic circles, signs and other measures are indicated in the guide plans #a visualiy and physica#ly discourage all but essential vehicle penetratian.'t Adding streetscape trees along Gare Creek Drive wi1l visually canstrict the roadway. #'lanters are s#rategically located along the building wali with streefscape benches loca#ed between tree grates. C. Streetscape Framewark: "To improve fhe walking experience, to give continuity fio the pedes#rian ways, as a confinuaus system, two general types ofi improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. dpen space and landscaping 2. Infill commercial store fron#s" - Ftelacating the entryway to the cflrner of #he A& C7 Building, popping the storefront out and adding display cases oriented toward the intersectitan of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street will fiacus visuai interest on the Golden Bear Store and the A& D Buildirrg. The addition of Iandscape planters and streetsaape trees alqngGore Creek Drive significantly improves this frontage by softening fhe two-s#ory buiiding 6 ~ facade. The addition of an awning furkher accents the first floor retail element, ~ pulNng it out from under the second levei bffices, creating interest and focusing the attentianCof the pedestrians. D. 5#reet Enclosure: The propasai will nat directly affec4 facade height. The addition of an awning and trees will help enclase Gflre Creek Drive and wf[I give if a more pedestrian scale. The proposed improvernents will provide a softer, mare defined feeiing and will add three dimensional varie#y along the A& D Buiiding's norfh elevation. E. Street Edge: "Buildings in the Village Care should form a strang but irregular eclge to the street." The proposed streetscape improvements and addition of the awning wilt add itregularity tfl the Gore Creek Drive fron#age. Existing jogs in th~ ~~uiidingwill be maintained, although aftered slightiy at the northwest corner of fhe building. The proposai inc{udes pfanters ihat are strategicaiVy located alnng the narth elevation with benches in#erspersed between lanciscaped areas. This, afong with the gabied effect of the awning, significantly improve the irregularity of the streetscape along Gore Creek Drive, which wiil help the pedestrian quality of the space. F. Building Height: ~ The application does not impact this eonsideration. G. Views and Focai Points: The application does not impact this consideratian. N. Service and Delivery: A loading zone exists alang Gore Creek Drive adjacen# #o the Miil Creek Court Building, The proposal will have no impact on existing loading and delivery services. 1. SunlShade: Due ta #he existing height and arien#ation of the building, the addition ofthe proposed awnings andbujiding area will notex#entishadows or interfere withadjacent property`s (ighf, ArchitecturelLandsca:pe Considerations A. Roofs A minor roof extensian is proposed. The new roof area wi{1 not be seen from the street levei and does not alter the existing roqf farms at the A & D Bui{ding: ~ 7 B. Facades "Materials ~ S#ucco, brick (or stflne), wood arrd giass are the primary building materials fnund in #he Viflage. C7f the above materials, s#ucco is the most consistentiy used materiaL" The proposed design mainfains the dominance of stucco with the contrast af river rock veneer on Iaw fandscape plan#er walis. The existing stucca calor, off-white, wi11 be maintained, bu# the trim coiors will be changed from ~biueto fQrest green. The new awning is also proposed to be a copper patirta. 7he praposed rock veneer on #he pfanter wa11s will match the stone #hat currently exists can the Gorsuch storefront (a picture of this stone work is enclosed). The applicant prefers the rounded, irregular river rock aver the existing rock at the A& D Building. According to #he applicant, the existing s#onework has a rectangular, manufactured laok. The proposed stonework will replace the existing stanework on a11 portions of the A& DBuilding. ~~Co10r For woad surfiaces, trim or siding, darker color tanes are preferred. Brotnrns, grays, blue grays, dark olives, slate greens, etc. Stucco . colors are generally white beige, pale gold, or other ligh# pastels. Brighfi colors shauld be avaided. Generally, to avoid busyness, and weak visual interest, the variety of major walf colors and materials shauid be no more than four nor less than two in eaCh ~ case. A colorlma#erial change between the ground flotir and upper floor is a common and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian scale of the s#reet.° The applicant's color palette of muted grays and beige (river rock), dark greert (windows, wood #rim, stcrrefront doar and awnings), and oPf-white (stucco) are in harmony with the calor guidelines. The applicant's proposal wiil add green to the existing colcrrs of brown, gray and blue at the A& D Building. The materials will be stone, wood, copper and stucco. Thus, four basic colors and four basic fypes of materiats are propased. "Transparency As a measure of transparency; the mos# characteristic and successful ground floor facades range from 55°lo to 75% of the total length of the commercial facade." The proposed transparency is approximately 50%o of ttte building facade. This is slightly below the range indicated above, but the applicant is proposing improvements tha# will draw attentinn to the storefror?# area such as the river rack faced display cases on each side af the entry door. The additional nrnamentation, the awning, streetscape benches and landscape planters, along with the reorienta#ion nf the entryway to the cqrner of the building, will draw pedes#rian attention to the building. ~ 8 .t "WltldQWS ~ F'or ciose-up casual pedestrian viewing, windows are typically desigrted tn human-sized dimensions. Graund fipor display vvindows are typica~liy raised slightly, 18 inches plus ar minus, and da nat extend much over 8 feet above the walkway Cevei." The proposed windows are at a pedes#rian scale. T"he pianfiers are 1.5 to 2 feet high and windows are 6 feet high, for a total height fia the tap of the windpws af 8' feet above walkway level. "Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements and are further subdivided by mufiions into smal1 panes which' is respansible for much of the o4d wnrld charm o#' the Village. Windows shauld give a pleasing rhythrn with harizantal repetition of single window elements especialiy aver long distances avoided. Bay and box windows are common window details which fiurther add variety and massing tn facacies and are encouraged." The propased windows have a pieasing rhythm and symmetry in both Incation and size. Mullions are used to divide the large g{ass panes into smafi panes. Bay windows and projecting disp[ay cases are designed to accent the entryway. "Doors Like windaws, dnors are impor#ant character and style giving ~ architectural elemen#s. They should aIso be somewhat transparent an commercial facades and consistent in detaiiing with windows. As an axpression of entry, sheiter and welcome, proteeted antryways are encouraged. Doorvuays may be recessed, extended or ccrvered." The entryway eansis#s of double glass doors in the same style as the windows with mullions dividing up fhe large giass plates. The doorway is recessed and covered with an awning, providing a protected entryway. C. Decks and Patios No decks or patios are prapased by the app(icant. D. F3alconies No balconies are propased by the app(icant. E& F. Accent Eiements and Landscape Elements The accent elements are in harmony with the recarnrnendations of the Design Guidelines. The colors and materia{s proposed are consistent with cofors and materials used acrass the street (Gorsuch). Lighting along the storefront has not been €inalized and will need to be approved by the DRB before a building permit is issued for the prnject. ~ 9 ~ G. Sertrice This consideration is not applicable to this appiication. ~ VII. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FIiVDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060; Criteria and Findings, of the Tawn of Va'il Municipal Code, the Community Development C7epartment recommends apprQVal of fhe requested si#e coverage variance. The recommendation for approval is based upan on #fie follawing factors: A. Cansideration of Facfors; 1. The relat[c,nship of the requested variance to other existing or patential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative irnpacts on the reiatianship to other exis#ing or potential uses and s#ructures in the vicinity of The Golden Stare or the A&C3 Building. The request for the additional 52 square fee# of site coverage wili result in an improved streetscape and pedestrian experience a1ong Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive and will not in#erfere with the operation of the existing businesses on adjacent properties. 2. The degree ta which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulatian is necessary to achieve ~ compatibili#y and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or ta attain the objectives of the title without gran# of speeial privilege. The stafif has warked with the applicant to reduce #he amount of deviation (+0.70%) from the site coverage developrnen# standard. Staff believes the appGcan# is requesting the minimum amou,nt of relief from the site coverage limitation to obtain compatibiiity and unifarrnity amongst#he sifies in the vicinity of The Golden Bear. Staffi daes no# believe that the gran#ing o# #he variance request will resuCt in a grant of special privilege since the in#ent of the deveiopment standards is being met. The si#e coverage fimitation of 80°lo was intended, in part, ta ensure that an adequate amaunt of #he site was left undeveloped ta permit areas for landscaping and streetscape. The applicant's request to increase #he site coverage percentage by 0.7% does not have any negative impacts on the tandseape area of the Golden Bear Store. In fact, the applicant praposes ta increase the net Iandscape area on the property by approxirnately 33 sq.ft. and ta implement the recammended actions in the Streetscape Master Plan. Staff further believes that the request does nof constitute a grant of special privifege since the addition proposed by the applicant furthers the goals and objectives of the master plans of the Town of Vail without resul#ing in negative impacts on adjacent properties ar uses. As discussed in Sections N1, iV, V, & VI of this memorandum, tYte applicant's proposal implements many of the recommendations propased in the Town''s Mas#er Plans. As stated in the Vail ViNage Master Plan, ~ 10 ,<Vail Village has nat escaped the agirtg process. There i$ a need to ~ encourage the cantiuned upgrading and enhancement of existing Iodging and 68mmercial facifities within the Viliage in order ta rnaintain the unique character that is its mairt attraction_" Lastly, staff beiieves that while it is always possible to design and construct a building that is in full compliance wi#h the Zoning Code, it is not always practical or reasonable to do so. Staff acknowledges that the appiieant could redesign the addition and eliminate 52 square feet of site coverage. However, the design and construction of the existing building comer is nat condusive #o substantial changes. S#aff believes that such a change would negatively impact the applican#'s use of the GoIden Bear 5tare. Staff feels that the benefits af the addition outwaigh any possible negative impacts. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution ng population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and u#ilities, and public safety. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative irrtpacts on ligh# and air, distribufion of population; transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The F'lanning and Enviranmental Commission shall make the fo(lowing findings before qranting a variance: ~ 1, That fihe granting of the variance wiN not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That fhe granting of the varianee will not be detrimental #o #he public health, safety or welfare, or materially irrjurious to praperties or improvemehts inthe vicinity. 3. That the variance is warran#ed for one or more of the follawing reasons: a. The strict and I'rteral 'rnterpre#ation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the abjectives of this title. b. There are exempticrns or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applieable to the same site of the variance that da not apply genera(ly to nther properties in the same zone distric#. c. The strict interpre#ation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners af other properties in the same district. io 11 VI11. STAFF RECt}MMENDATiUIV Nlinor Exterior Alteration ~ The Cammunity Development Department recommends approvai of the request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Gbre I to The Golden Bear 5tore. The recamrnendation for appraval is based upon the staff's review of the minor exterior alteration criteria ou#lined in Sectians Ili thru VI of #his memarandum. Staf# believes the applicant has met each of the criteria. Should #he Planning and Environmental Gornrnission chaose to grant an approval of the rninor exterior aiferation request, staff wauld recommend the following candifions: 1. That a public way permit and a revocable right-of-way permit be executed prior to issuance of a building permit. The public way permit application shall be acctampanied by a constructian fencing, traffic control, and staging pian. These plans must be reviewed and approved by Pubiic Works and Community Deveiopment staff. The appiicant shalf coordinate and receive approval far a11 final grading plans for the paverldrain pan repair wark from Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The appiicant sha11 also coordinate plans to direct rooftop run-off inta the storm sewer system with f'ub4ic Warks. 2. That #he applicant prepare and subrnit a detailed ex#erior fighting plan for review . and approval by the pRB prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That the applicant provide a minimum of twn streetscape benches along Gore ~ Creek arivelBridge Street prior ta issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant coordinate irrigation pians and plant material selection decisions with Todd CJppenheimer at Public Warks prior to issuance of a building permit. C7n-going maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be required of the applicant. Final Town review and appraval of landscaping around the Fire Department connectian shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. That payment of the parking pay-in-lieu fee shall occur priar to issuance of a buiiding permit. Site Coverage Variance The Community Development Department recommends appr8val of the appiicant's request for a site coverage variance ta a11ow for an inccease of 52 square feet, or 0.70°l0 of site coverage, aver the allowable. The recammendation for appraval is based upan the staff's review of the variance criteria and findings outlined xn Section VI1 of this memorandum. The staff believes #he site coverage variance should be gran#ed since the granting of the variance will npt constitute a grant of special privilege to the applican#, nnr will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar welfare, nor will it be materially injuriaus to other properties in the vicinity of The Golden Bear Stare. The s#aff believes the site coverage variance is warranted for the f411owing reasons: 1. That #he granting of the site caverage variance allowing for an increase in site coverage by 0.70°la does nat result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation an other properties in #he Commercial Care I Zone C7is#rict. ~ 12 2. Tha# the granting of the variance will nat be de#rimental to the public hea3th, safety or ~ welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to the adjacent properties or uses in the vicinity of the GoCden Bear gtare. 3: Tha# the striet and liferal interpretation or enforcement of the 80°lo site coverage limitatian would result in a practica# dif#iculty inconsistent with the abjec#ives of #he Cammercial Core I Zone District devel4pment standards and the goals and objectives of #he Master Pian documents of the Town of Vail. o: ipeclmemos\gnid bear. o27 ~ ~ 13 ~ u. x . ~ ~ f a . . :-~W- . ~ S~ ` ' i . ~ ~..,r-r " : 1 ~ ~ ~ 'f`~,."~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r J ~ r ~ a~/1~~ ~ ~ '~~~,r~~~~„~1~ , .r'~~ r t,.,~~..'-~' . ~ ~ ,~i ; ~ W (i'~'„?y~ ~ i ~ . .~~~.1•~'j } ~..es 7 ~;j .~,~1"" ~K' ~'~t ~ ~~,jd I 1~~~~~_ •t ..tr.`° ~k, . l. x ~ ~,,,-T.~y,,,,.•,;,... __...--.~-..a~+~ u_...~y ~ ! M1~.. ~,,,~"Mif,7Myi ~~I~~?~~~ y,rr.;. - - , e . , , . . . y 4al.~Lf•,. ~ I { iE GVLDEN (»LEAR TWE GERiT2 GROUP EtJG6NE GERI'T"L AIA ~ ROBERTSCIN MILLEat TERRELL ~ Atzcftt'eE cT s; PC ~ The Go1den Bear Addition and Rernodel A1D Builcling Vail, Coloraclo The foliowing is the response requii-ed in conjunction tivitli our application for exterior alterations in commerczal core Vail Village. Commercial Cnre I,LCCI) I}istrict Paragraph 1$.24.010 The attached drawings clearly dernonstrate the propasal's conforrnance wixh the purposes of the CCT. Pedestrian Environment The re-orientation of zhe entrance to the square and the addition of substantial landscape areas and benches will enhance the pedestrian environrnent. Light Air and C?pen Space$ The proposal will nat effectively reduce the vnlume of space a3ong the two pedestrian streets nr the square, ancl the additian of the awnings wi11 arciculate the space and create focal points ~ at the pedestriarz level. IJrban Design Guide Plan Sub- Area Concepts # 9 Transparency increased and pedestrian scale # 11 Limited building expansion - fa~ade Transparency increased to strengthen pedestrian activity # 15 Entry oriented to intersection # 1$ Increased graund floor transparency Pedestrianization The quality af the pedestrian way is increased through the addition of the planters and awnings. Vehicle i'enetration Not applicable. Streetscape Framewark Landscaping has been added to enhance the framework and additional articulation adeled to the bLg.ilding to create addz`tional visual interest and activity. ~ Yost Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949-0926 Avon, Goloradt> 51620 Fax: (970) 949-1017 Internet: http:/lvail.net/rii1t E-Mail: ,rmt@vail.net . RtJBERTSON MTLLER TERRELL AKcEftmE r*rs, PC ~ Street Enclosure The general characteristics of the "outdoor raom" are unchanged. Awnings have been added to create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from upper building heights. Street Eda The shape of the building now has additiona.l articulation with irregularities, jogs, and landscape areas to create greater visual intexest. Additional textures have been introduced ancl the awnings will create welcame pratection from rain and snow when "window shopping" dr simply pausing while walking through the Village. Views The additian will nnt adversely affect the long views down Gore Creek and $ridge Street. From a distance, the eye will be directed down the street, and while closer, the awning and articulated windows create focal paints. Sun/Shade . Due to the existing height and orientation of the buildingy the additidn ancl awnings wi11 not extend existing shadow patterns. Facades ~ Material 1 Color The design maintains the dominance of the stucco with the contrast af the river rock and landscaping. The stucco will remain aff-white with trim and awnings of forest green. Th.e rnaterial palette is lirnited to avoid "busyness" and the awnings reinforce the pedestrian scale. Windows and Doors The doors and windows are articulated and will be painted a green-black for richness and to reinforce the Village's ald worlcl character. The entry is recessed and covered to enhance the sense af shelter and welcome. The orientation of the square also reinforces this sense. Accent Elements Awnings, landscaped areas with annual color flowers and accent hghting are all utilized to create visual interesti and texture. Rounded cobbles (river rock) are used an the entry columns to create additiona1 texture and interest. The cobbles are used an several buildings in the area, including the Sonnenalp and tihe ciock tower building. ~ Past C7ffice Box 7630 Telephone; (970) 949-0916 Avon, Golorado $1620 Fax; (970) 949-3017 Internet: http;//vall.net/rtnt E-Mail; rme@vail.net „ - R(3BERTSON MILLEIt TERRELL ~ A [t C: II I'I' C T 5, P C Vai1 Vrllage MasteY Plan Intraduction - Upgrading buildings Encaurage continued upgrading and enhaneement of existing commercial facilities to maintain unique character of the Village. Goal #1 The proposal is a high qua]ity redevelapment which enhances the arcliitectural scale of the Vi]1age, and helps reinforce its identity. Goal #2 The propasal will enhance the commercial viability of the Galden Bear. Goal #3 The -cva[king experience is enhanced by the orientation of the entryto the square, the addition of the awnings and planters, and the greater transparency and articulation of the win:dows and doars. Gwl #4 Substantial additional areas of "garden space" have been added. ~ Goal #S Not applicable. G9zl #b Nlinor improvements (landscape planters) are proposed on the ViRage right af way in a manner which will not interfere with snow removal, maintenanee, fire access, etc... Heated sidewalks are provided. ~ Post O£fice Box 7630 Te]ephone: ~(970) 949-0916 Avon, Colarado 81626 Fax: (970) 949-1017 Internet: http://vai7.net/rmt E-Mail: rmt@vail.net ~A 4 Rt7$ERTSt?N MILLER TERRELL AR cI f~'r r cT s, P G ~ Strectscape lVlaster Plan Tn additian to the issues raisetl in the Urban Design Guide I'lan and the Vi11age Master Plan, the Streetscape Master I'lan identi£ies the followang issues to be adclressed: Exi$tingpelestmm &aracter to be marntdindand enharxed Ident%fy vprmunities for add'~ng bnd~caX pcxkkets. Mtrre seatingareas are ne&iV Raof drains to 1e co&W and run under growid to strnm clrazn. ` These issues are addressed by the proposal and most have been commented an earlier in this discussion. In addition, benches are included in the planter design and the roof clrains wi]l be directly connected to the starm d:rains. The fcallowing additional specific recommendations are made: T ' More uriiform paving rnaterials - concrete unit pavers. Addition of planters and trees. ~ ~ Removable planters with seating on south side of Gore Creek Drive. The property already has concrete unit pavers with heating. Additionallandscape areas with trees and flowers are a parC of the plan, and sufficient roarn has been reserved for the additinn of removable planters with seating along the south side of Gore Creek Drive. ~ ~ Yost Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949-0916 Avon, Co}orado 81620 Fax: (970) 949-1017 [nternet: http:/Ivail.net/rtnt E-Mai1: rmC@vail.nee R.4BEIiTS 0 N MI LLER TERRELL A.R c;t-f iTe:cI°s, PC The Golden Bear I.fandscape Inforrnation A/D Building Vail, Calorado Tree Wells (5) Size - 3' square Type - Flush cast irongrate Contents - 4" (rnin) cal. Aspen Raisednlanters (6) Size - Varies '1'ype - Raised concrete / stane veneer Contents - Armuats and perenmals including, but not lirnited to the following -Gerarrium -Pansies ~ ~ Yost Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949,0916 Avoii, Golorado 81620 Fax. (970)949-1017 InCerneC, htCp:Ilvail:net/rmt E-MaiLrn1t@eait.net t ~ ~or- G RAMSNAMI"'1ER GOKSUC4 t.`fC) fj(OR.E. CKEE}C. PR.ItiJE . . M CA54NO E~LDG ~ , ~ . ~ caL ~ LU S . n ~ ~IIC4NITY tA AP pK.tvC 4wpw ~ tRE64~ r ~ 1 c.T - Nivl 7~/~N'ftiF 4 ~Xi{7iN? PAYlk.'E 1 ~1 W +C?.-Waai% ! ' KNt+ + ~ } . , . ~ ~ p, ~iaR't? i ~ ~ ~ ~i 1 k •av t ~ _i,w w 16a.iai.t+1~,-'w''+' . . ~ ?~.w, f. DfnAR !cTa" Y i . . i~ ~ S14? .iF4ifEYTt,A» ( 4 + t ~ 4 , i#tluar~.Ry Y++~w Mr.t`cw+4 t 1 * il,,, ~ ~ ~ w. ~ ~ ` ! ~ _..l~p bUIi.Gt41 C-l , ~ - 1 J l ~ ~ ~ 5 l~C E P C A , ~ G~Ot,D EW bEAP- i'cUG~l+E~ ~~1~-I"C'3 ~1J~ • `I'NG CtirEfLtT-Z ExRAUP ~ . : - ~ _ - ' I rf 1 'N ~ ~Jw I u , 1 a ~w7+t j t~N1t N r wTiw~ fttF4l~~i41- """'_k . tWE oF 4AST¢ ~"trKC l!'idllT--t ~ " Y r~..~' ~ ~ X, w 1 . \s'~O' l~ i! i0'«0' t~ ~ ~ia`. p' _ ~y r~ iv'. a. . ~ i' i' Ii~;,p• _~--~„',b« 'y~ f"~ . . .~v....._"~..._ . _T..._ . ~ ~.W.. ~ * r L A IY ~ ~ ~ ~~~-""1~ ~ . \ . ` , . ~ . 4 . rti7't.t 1 - .^f^ . . . . r`"~ < .7 • ~ ~ ~ DE~f,~ . w~ .._..e.~..~ plMw ~ ~ ~li$srM'r.~',. ( ~1~ : . r.` ( ; ~ ' \~{J~,r~~ r. . ~ t~i-• i.T;. ~awttefi ' ~r~&w sTeustiWVS PFAt+t ~ aro' eoK "t,f:s rfituL 1VI stl" St'1K6 ~4k"T65 NOR7H ELEVAT1aN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ~ ~ r~X ~ .1 ~ w+-.~~ PLAN ~P L. A~~. ~ 1.--~ ,~,,..1~y r r!=`~ I y i [ ,J i i NhM ~.WNS1M~t ' " k w t T, t'; i> ~ a j . t"i , t •'l 1 4 , . *,~{!k ~ ~ 1 " . . y,.~. ~{6W f:SYi~l4LkCf S~3MM! !`~HT pU~NttJ.- 1HCw bm(~b PMNtC4- WEST ELE4r 1T1C1N f-NTRANGE° ELEVAT1C)N , G~~~EN BEAR Ath 'C~ CY~UP ~ ELS~M~ OSP•11'4~ TNro CnEW p,cvie6v ib rce 85 ~ 1~ F~ .e, I ;a, M. M Y't t+i t 0 i` t 'T" t-4 F` i« 1= R 7`f' i ~ Fa' fl 1 P#F'' _ Fr 1 . , r Pt*t4;tS;s' FaX Nt3t€3! 7M ~lr~ '1 7d ~J~l C6Y¢1Ay ..70" bf ~d~."~ S +.snKmt jotWAA~ 0w GtW!ij6. t~i~f ~rf~ ~lvarw Y f Ta4,r~l F7flt 0 J 11iS4rixHtKx~ ~ ~{M3SPdy ~ ~~(~Ik;lri ~_~~iQ~fC~i~uG +...i».. - . . wa,,..r . . ~ 4 ~ , ~ ~ . # ~ ~ - _ . . . , ~ - , ~ ~..._.Y t iai ~ _ ~Sy y v N?. ~ N 4 1+~~'`k F 5~`E - w EXd s3 N ING EN9 R3 AC'V D AWN$ C'$ GS ~ f I , { ~ . . ~ r ' II u ~ EXASTlNG CORtVER STOf~EFFtONT AND AVVNiNG ~ t. Rr . II c~ tro ~ ' GORE CREE61 5Ji"6IV E4...E11AD IVN ~ ~ . . ,:r,~ 'a.•: _ s.x._1_; 3. ri ~ G . ~ b.. _ M 4 rl ~ I "i~ i I i II 1!!° ' G+DRE CRlEEK DRtVE E~EVAfi1CJN ~ 4 "Y ~I ~ L~ ++4r11 :;p,. , ~ ~ 4x n v L+ C4.J¦LNEi? OF V4Jlt..VINV AT GOS\S.. iAliELf\ F a ~ v ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~~j4,~ ~•.3=a~.~:.~,a ~ ~ ~ ~T ~ ~ DECK A~ ~~~E CREEK ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ f." rk • i „ ~ ~ ~ NIEW I1MTV ~DEC71 AT CREEK V ~ h v, I I ~{y~Y ' ~ I+ I ~Nti'~d ~ P 3fa~ ~ , i ~ y I ' , i ~ ~I . , ..~r.. . i t,~~`• ' } yY~~ S, ' r . . , . ° I _ . .a ,I . ~ ~ \ , VIE1IY OJT V~F DELSII~ A~! VRLET! ~ ~ . MEMC>RANtJUM ~ TC}: Planning and Environmental Gommissign FROM: Cammunity Development Department DATE: November 11, 1996 SUBJECY: A request for a major amendment to 5DD #4 (Cascade Viflage), to ailow modificatians ta allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven LaneiLots 39-1 & 33-2, G[en LyonSubdivision. Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Diane Larsen Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DES+CRtPTtt7N C)F TME REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Viilage, development Area G) to Lots 39-1 and 39-2 (single-family residential lots) {ocated irr the gien Lyon 5ubdivision. The applicant is requesting the foliowing: , 1. That the lots be subject to the PrimarylSecondary Residential zone district eaiculation for Gross Residentiafi Floor Area (GRFA)(S:ection 18.13.080 of the Zoning Cade) which is consistent with all of #he ather residential lots in #he Gien ~ Lyon Subdivisian. Currentiy, each lot is limited to 3,100 sq. ft. of GRFA per Resalution Na. 10, Series af 1982. Under the proposed calculatian, Lot 39-1 wnuld be entitled to 6,446.65 sq. ft. of GRFA and L.ot 39=2 wouVd be entitled to 6,834.34 sq. ft. of GRFA. 2. That the Iflts be subject to the height limitations ofi the PrimaryJSecondary Residential zone district (5ection 18.13.075 of the Zaning Code) which is consistent with all af the other residentiaC lats in the Glen Lyon Subdivision. Currently, the buifding heigfit for these Iots is restricted to 25' per Resolution No. 10, Series of 1982. Under this propnsai, building heigh#s would be restricted to 30' for flat raaf structures and 33' for sfoping raof structures. 3. That each lo[ be entiCled to a Type ll EHU (whichrequires condifiionaluseappravai). All other lots have been allowed to go through the Gonditional Use review process for the establishment of Type II EMU's in this subdivisian. The current ordinance is silent on the EHU issue and is proposed to be arnended to clarify this issua. The actual number of EHU's allowed will aiso be limited based' on the access ta the site. The skier bridge was approved aC a width tha# wifl only aHow three dweiling units including ENU's on these iwo sites. The applicant is praposing building envelopes on the property which wi11 preuent the rernava] of any existing trees and prevents development on slopes greater than 30°!b (see attached survey). The envelopes are more restrictive than the typical setbacks for a PrimarylSecor?dary Residentiaf zoned lot. ~ 1 . Piease note that the applicant's originai reques# proposed to calculate the GRFA fcir these two lots according to the Single-Family Residentia[ (SFR) zone district but has amended their ~ appiication at the request of staf#. The 5FR calculation results in GRFA far Lot 39-1 af 6,843.3 sq. ft. and Lot 39-2 af 7,618.7 sq. ft. Piease see applicant's statements attached. 111. BACKGRDUNd The Glen Lyon 5ubdivisiorr, when originaily planned in 1978, under SDD #4, cantained a provPsion that "no residential lotsha11 contain morethan 4,200 squarefeet of GRFA." This provision was also included in the restrictive covenants #or this subdivis9on, which the Town is a party to. At that time, Lats 39-1 and 39-2 were one large duplex lot, Lot 39 {2.4853 acres}. On February 16, 1982, Resolutian No. 10, Series of 1582, was adopted allowing an amendmen# to SDD #4 to allow Lat 39 to be divided into Lats 39-1 (1.043 acres) and 39-2 (1.221 acres). The lots were restricted as single-family residential lots, therefore na# increasing the overall density of the development. The proposal resulted in 0.2213 acres being dedicated to the Town as part of the stream tract. The resolution restricted each lot tp a maximum of 3,1(}0 sq. ft. o# GRFA and 25' in building height. See attached Resolution No. 10, Series o# 1982 and the staff memorandum dated February 1, 1982. On July 3, 1990, SDD #4 was amended by Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1990, which removed the 4,200 sq. ft. af GRFA restric#ipn for al( "dupfex"' lots wiihin the Glen Lyon Subdivision. The amendment aiiowed the lots to be calculated under the PrimarylSecondary Residentiai zone district for GRFA. Lats 39-1 and 39i2 were specificaliy no# amended by this change as these lots were single-family residentiai lots {see Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1990 and the staff memorandum dated June 11, 1990}. In July of this year, a minor amendment to this SDD was approved allowing the development af a driveway and bridge ta access ihe site via an easement across Lats 40 and 41. The bridge provides access for skiers to travel berieath #he driveway. The applicant worked closely with the owners ofi Lot 40 in order to develop a plan that was acceptable ta aif parties impacted by the development. 2 ~ lil. Z4NING IaNALYSIS ~ Lis#ed beiow is the zoning analysis for Lat 39-1 and Lot 39-2. in addition, an analysis o# Lot 40 and Lot 41, which are lacated nearest the site, have been included #or comparison. Zoning: SDC1 #4 (with no underlying zoning) Standard Existing 5tandard FroposedStandaed Lot 39-7 Lot size: 45,433.08 sq. ft. n!a Allowable GRFA: 3,100 sq, ft. 6,446.65 sq. ft. (includes 425 sq. ft. credit) Allowable Building Height: 25' 30' fiaV33' sloping Allowable Garage Gredit: 600 sq, ft. 600 sq. ft. Allowable dwelAng units: 1 du 1 du + 1 Type ll EHU Lot 39-2 Lot size: 53,186.76 sq. ft. n/a Allowable GRFA: 3,100 sq. fii. 6,834.34 sq. ft. (includes 425 sq, it. credit) Allowable Building Height: 25' 30' flatl33' s{csping Allowable Carage Credi#: 600 sq. ft. 600 sq, ft. Allowable dwelling units; 1 1 du + 1 1"ype }J EHU For cornparrsun: Gurrent Standard Lot 40 Lot size: 37,392.6 sq. ft. ' Aflowable CRFA: 6,469.63 sq. ft.* Allowable Building Neight: 30' flatl33' sioping ~ Allowable Garage Credit: 1,200 sq. ft. Allowable dwelling units: 2 Gat 41 Lot size: 45,713 sq. Pt. Allowable GRFA: 6,885.65 sq. ft." A11owable Buifding Height: 36' flat133' sloping Allowable Garage Credit: 1,200 sq. ft. Allowable dwelling units: 2 Note: Lois 40 and 41 inciude an additiona1425 sq, fii. of GRFA for the second dwelling unit and are allowed an additional 600 sq. ft, for the seccrnd dwelling unit. IV, CrRITERIA.T~ USED IN EVALIJAT1NG 11-11v~ PR0P0.'?. A~.. As stafied in the zoning cade, the purpose o# the speciaV development district is to: encourage flexibility and creafiivlty in the development of land in order to promote its mast appropriate use; to imprave the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and ecdnomical provision flf s#reets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic #eatures of open space areas; and to further the averail goals af the community as stated in the Vaif Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan #or a special devefopment district, in conjunction with a property`$ underiying zone diskrict, shalf establish the requirements for guiding development and uses o# property incfuded in the special development district." io 3 The following are the nine special development district criteria to be utiiized by the Planning and Environmentai Cammission when evaluating SDL7 amendment proposals: ~ A. aesign compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and ad}'acen# praperties relative to architec#ural design, scale, bu1k, building height, buffer zones, iden#i#y, charac#er, visual integrity and orientation. No specific building or design is being requested by this amendmen#. Any proposed development wall be reviewed in accordance with the SDD #4 ordinance and the Town's Design Guideiines. With this requested amendment, development on these lots wi11 be consistent vvith development allowances on neighboring lots and with this subdivision as a whale. While homes on these lots will be quite large, impacts to the si#e and neighboring properties wAI only be minimally impacted. 5ingle-family structureswill be oriented within building envelopes on the propertfes and wi(1 be genera(1y low on the site. There is adequate room for bufifering development on these lots from neighboring lots. This property is mostly adjacent #o Forest Service properky and is only marginally adjacent to neighboring duplex [ots. The applicant is providing buiiding envelopes which protect all existing trees and prevents development on sfopes greater than 34%. Staff beiieves the proposed modifications to the devel4pment standards will pravide equal , treatment to similariy situated residential lots and will not negatively effect the surrounding properties or the environment. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, e#ficient ancf wnrkable ~ relationship wTth surrounding uses and activity. The proposaf does no# change the approved uses for the property, These lots will cantinue to support developrnent of single-family hames. The potential intensity nf development will be similar #o that of adjoining Iots. Staf# believes that the proposal is compatible with adjacen# development and provides for an efficient and workabie relationship with surrounding uses. C. Compl'rance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The appiicant is not praposing to change the parking requirernents as they relate to these lo#s. Development on these lots will continue to be required 3 parking spaces, assuming deveiopment af structures of greater than 2,000 sq. ft. in size. D. Cnnforrnity with applicable elements of the Vaii Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Des'rgn Plans. 1. This area has been platted and zoned under SC1D #4 for residential development. The proposed changes do not change the use o# the pro:perty. The Town of Vail Open Lands Pian, adopted by the Town, iden#ifies these lots as private development sites. The use prescribed by zoning for these lots is consistent with the CJpen Lands pian. 4 ~ 2. The foliowing are the applicable Land Use Plan gaals and palicies which ~ relate #o this proposai: Goal 1.1 Vail shouid continue to grow in a controlled environmen#, maintaining a balance between residential, commerciai and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and perrnanent resident. Gaal 1.12 Vai( should accornmodate rnost afthe addition~aigrowth in existing developed areas (in-#ill areas). Goal 5.1 Additianal residential growth should continue #o oceur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal 5.4 Residen#ial growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a fuN range of housing types. The staff believes that the propased amendmen# to the approved development plan is incompliance with the Town's Land Use Plan. E. Identifiication and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the properiy can which the special development district is proposed. ~ The property is not located in an area of natural or geologic hazard. F. Site plan, bwilding design and location and apen space provisians designed to produce a funcfiional develapment responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overali aesthetic quaiity of the community. The proposed appiication aliows the same type of developrnent currently allowed on the site. The applicant has proposed buiiding envelopes which respect existing trees, steep slopes, and setbaeks. The praperty, when divided irrto two lots in 1982, included the provision of land dedication #or open space and stream tract. Any development proposals for the property will be reviewed by the Design Review Baard and wiN be subject to the Town's design Review Guidelines. Staf# believes the proposal is sensitive to environrnental features of the site to a greater extent than exists under the current al~lowances. G. A circulatian system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffie circulatian. The applicant is nat proposing to change or affect this criterion with this proposal. io 5 H. Func#ional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. ~ The applicant has proposed building envelopes which respect existing trees, steep slopes, and setbacks. The property, when divided into two Io#s in 1982, included the provision of Iand dedication fior open space and stream tract. Any development proposals for the property will be reviewed by the Design Review Board and wili be subject to the design review guidelines. The buiiding envelopes pravide adequate buffer area on the site. S#aff believes the proposai is sensitive to environmental features of the site to a greater extent than exists under the current aliawances. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that wili maintain a workable, #unctional and efficient relationshFp throughout fihe development of the speciat development district. This criterion is not applicable to this development. V. STAFF REGOMMENDATIC?N The Community Development Department recommends #hat the PEC recommend appraval of the applicant's request ta the Town CoUncil for a majar amendment to Specia! Deuelopment District No. 4, subject ta the following finding: 1. That the proposed amendments to Lo#s 39-1 and 39-2, Gien Lyon Subdivision, within SDD #4 are consis#ent wiCh the nine development criteria contained herein and are consistent with the development standards allawed on the other ~ residential Iots within this SDD. The recommendation n# approval is also subject to the follawing conditions: 1. That the following language be placed on the development plan and included in the ardinance for these lots: Rli fiuture development will be res#ricted to the area within the building envelopes. The only development permitted outside the building envelopes shall be iandscaping, driveways (access bridge) and reiaining walls associated with driveway construction. Rt-grade patios (those within 5' of existing or finished grade) will be permitted to project beyond the building envelopes nat more than ten feet (1 b') nor more than one-ha1f (tl2) the distance between the building envelope and the prnperty line, or rnay project not more than five feet (6) nar more than one-faurth (1fa) the minimum required dimension be#ween buildings. F:\EVERYONEtPEG\MEMO5i97\P ENNING.O27 6 ~ A '~S6a42p0 J,t 582~`0~'5~W .54`.7"W / 49 xa TRAGF K .w f ~ I ' SHADING 4NL5tCATES 362,5r8 Sµ F, FRAGT PREVfW5l.Y C4NYEYE€1 TO 8,3223 dC. • ' FfJDYNDFYAIL. p4 ~QO ~ ii'\ ~v~l•~` 6 3(~ J / 0.0~~ ; . .tity 16 8211}613 a5C4.ri. - / .t8. 0 UtiFity Finemtnt R° S 64.20.' 178.00 866 ytr' ~ naa~.s ar"e ~~L ~ N $8 '45`57'~£ 1,384.90' tae.ss' ~0' r < ~Il~? ~ ME GQRNER $W= NE~< `t ~ 540°45`t4"W ,,5~~ y~~~"~ ~ Accear ortd V1iHty Eosemert 3 hf:NNL:T}k L. GLE^7N. .60 tIF.RC81 :f'T~7. Ltc.!"ISf:D UtiDFR TIIE LhWS OF T!!f. 54.08 Tf4-, 1 ' .Qol 12 Ct,ftR[:CT AND CQM!'LETE PLhT OF TtSE. C:S.k E:DICflTED AND SIIC~WN tiERF.UN, TltRT St't 'N:#tU.~I . B.L.M. E1 OF 5ATD IIROFERTY 61' MC n!JD i;V6t.R MY . ' APPROVAL OF P~.AT Luckriaw R~aa Dir~exstaNs at~ ~ruE LOTti, ~ N. ~ 37,3926 Sa,fl. DSVtDSON. RS THE SAM~: ARI: STAI.En Lt~~ rms ~ .8584aC. MANSFFELD CORPORATIOft AS BENEFICIARY OF A DElED OF (yf' VA1& RF:CULATIOVS G(JVERNIt36 TttE. St ' a GY ~ TRUST RECQRQED It1 BOOK .1-10 AT PAGG~_. I ' ~ r~ BY ITS SIGNRTURE IIELQW, APPI20VES AND CONSENTS TO tN WIT^FESS WtiERE6F I PtAVE SE:'S' MY !IF'. , N8R°43'41"W I. 'F'NE GLEN LYON S[3B6IVISFON ANLI THIS PLAT. J-G/.f/-- _ .A,ll., 1970i .,,itry 21 ~ '!b3 31 . . I $04°52~37~WV EXECUT£D Tfi1S dAY OF- kA1L y ,A.Q.. 294. E76 ' 24 71_. , I ~ If B ~Y-,~~^~c~~ R,M: R Y WALTER A. KQELBEL 41 ~ RSSISTANT SECRETARY PRESIDENT APPRQVA?L 8Y Pl k a h o~~ 45,713 sa cf. j E . 0494 at. TEfIS PL APPRQVED BY 4'tfE TcAJF3 i~F ~ ~ DRY OF .A.D. , 291 GQR8 CREEK ASSC>CSATES AS BENEFZCIARY OF A IIEED OF ~ TRUST RECORflED IN SdQK A"'?/ AT PAGB,175 SY IPS I TUr.`. ~ 1h5 5ZGNATURE SEIAW, APPF2dVES AND CONSENTg 2'O 2"HE GL :-:~u: LYON SUF#DZVISION AND THIS PLAT. EXEG[7TEI7 TtiSS 9 ~ ~ 90.00 lWS.tTB 3. DAY OF 'A ~r + ~o to t 3t ~ , . . a"~ ( ry ~ ! w o, °o FREI7E CK S. PTQ , - 42 ~ RS ATT0I2NEY IN FACT FQR DATED: J-/'f 24,954 Sq.ee00 `F = GC1RE CREEK ASSQCFATES /f ~O.SFQ6AC. o Ea57 tIreE Sw;, r~fZ. 406S¢Ft ~z 411014 AC APTESfi: _ STATE Of CQLQRADQ ' j . 4 COUNTY OF EAYiLE . ) ,ry. x t / A-PPf~p~4JvN.4 OF ~y) ..WESFNAVEN. C.IRCtE. THE FOREGOiNGAPPROVAL OF PEAT 4tAS RCKNOWLBDGED. r t ~A`~4F fi 46 BEFORE' ME THIS_ A DAY OF~ULY ,A.D. ~ 4' 46 29 ~F' &Y WALTER A. KOELBEL RS PFtESIDENT OF THE TtiZS PLAT OF GLEN LYQN S119DIVISIOk Y ~ I 6 MANSFZELD CORPORATSf7N: A C4LORAD6 CORpORATIOH} AND' 9€ THE TOWN OF VASL ItXD DEDTCI\TF(kti f) ~ • ~`~y r7..~04;i S¢[t: "~7 FRED£RICX S. OTTQ AS ATTORNEY IN FACT, FOR GORE ~tiH4WtI F€ERE02~2 IS FFEItEBY ACCEPTEb $Y 'CH iNIAC W I ~ Sp 48 CREEK ASSOCIRTES, A'RHODE E9LAND LIMITEII PARTNERSHTF. MA7CH t4 T#~r . EE SttEE 2 OF Z Tfi£ MY COlSMZS5ION EXPIRE5 ! ~ rft.acr WITNE55 MY HRNII AND SEA , i . r / 5,0e7 sq.rr. ' BY_ :1ts9 no. No( z~r~u.~..L e~ ;,u, ` onreo: iOWN 6F 4kk4 BQUNOAftY ~ . t-TOWN aF vc.~L sT~~a~ s~a:c-rt sel pm/coc 232.31~ Se+ P'nfcav ~ 4P [ s 16827 a L s 16827 g8Q°5457~ ~~QyE sar-49•,~3..t o96.50~ Nto4~ta 56 $2 S82°07`57Tf2ACT kt ias ea a 187 ac ~s. s~a2iop ~+e1.as'o° E -c c~ 'A~ 69e ',kg 04 N i. 2e~3.~d I Ng;°ao ae"e 161.41 2A T RAG T 0. . ~ ~ . LO zz39-2 tloo° s n~ LOT 39-1 U22 1,043 ac ~ ~ - ~ 4m W w~ ~ x 6.~SKkWkY EASEMENT ? `~d' / 0 (8oek 395, PoQe 935) d , Wwar EASEMENT ( Boak 3'Y5Page 455) UTt~.FTY EASEMENT (PL4FTE0)`~. . Le3 P'~/Cop 16827 . ~ . ~ . -7296 C65.04' N H8°45 57"E 518:00, ~ NE 06 C6i Secfion f2 TSS, RBtW, 64h PM. ~ Sei PlnlCop t 5 16827 E1hkpE,ATTEO ~ T"fiis resubdivisfon subjact [o sestziceions an.rhe Develapmenc.Ylan far u ~ C. M FOREST SERVfCE chis propercy on reeotd wfth the Dcparcmene oE Cammunity 4ewelopment, Tawrt af VafL, Eagle County, Colorada. I ~I 20 ACCESS AND UTfLtTY EASEMENT ~ . Baok 273, Paqe 611 Besak 282, Poqe 083 . . p4 Bpak 2T3, Poge 981 8ook 4(}5, Paqe $80 0 , ,I ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ , cnv4j" ~ [ ~ ~ ' _~I • .s _ ~ J_ ` ~g~.. 6pR~ _ i% ~ M~t ~ ~ . ~ / ta~oaSne v ~ ~ ~ / ~ , , ~ i ~ ? ~ ~ ~str ~ ~ /j f/ . °°r~°~'in" ~ !AT 3I1-t I" .w~s F / w~ ...riar.~a.. ria ~ ~ ` / / ~ / ~ , f • wae n~e~r r"Tt OLM ~ LYOU Lar soe ZZ , PFALSOMWY WAILEM owMA" r_~ . , LARSEN & KC7VACEVICH, P.C. counselors at Law 953 S. Frontage Rtsad West, Suite105 ~ Vaii, Golaradra 81657 Diane R. Larsen Tei: (970) 476-871 i Jili E. Kovacevich Fax: (970) 476-8672 October 22, 1997 VIA HAND DELIVERY Dominic F. Maurieilo AICP Tawn Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Raad Vail, CO 81657 Re. Amendment to Applicatian for Amendment to SDD No. 4 on behalf of Hagopian & Pennington LLC L?ear Dominic: This letter is in response to your letter dated t7ctotier 17, 1997. As we discussed over ~ the telephane, you do not beZieve that staff wouid support an amendment to SDD#4 that would allow Lots 39-1 and 39-2 a GRFA calculation based on two dwelling units per lot, because this would change the density of the SDU. You indicated the amount af a]lowable +GRFA proposed in your C}ctnber 17, 1997 letter is the maximum staff could reasonabiy support. After discussing the alternatives with Mr. Pennington, he has decided to accept yQUr proposed changes to hi$ application, in arder to expedite the approvai pracess by having staff suppart of the amendment as it will be presented to PEC. Enclosed please find two full size surveys of the Lots showing existing trees and setbacks, and an 8 1l2 x 11 copy of same, as you requested. My client's agreement to amend the Application as set forth in your IeCter is cunditianed upon GRFA and building height being caiculated exactly as set forth therein, and the Building Envelapes being as depicted in the enelQSed survey. As we discussed an the telephane, he would alsa like staff support of a Type iI EHU far each of the 1ots, and he would like you to specifically provide in the ordinance that the bridge and driveway rnay be constructed outside the building envelope and within the setbacks. ~ LARSEN & KOVACEVICH, P.C. ~ Dominic F. MaurieIlo Tawn of Vail C3ctober 22, 1997 F'age 2 Please call me 'rf you have any questions. Aiso please iet me know the time that we wi11 be on the agenda for the PEC hearing on October 27, 1997. Very truly yaurs, LARSEN & KOVACEVICH, P.C. t r Diane R. Larsen ' DRLlkes Enclosures ~ cc: Mr. Tim Pennington ~ STATEMENT IN SUPPORT bF Al'I'LICATI4N ~ FQi2 APl'RC1VAL OF AN AMENUMENT T4 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRIC"T NO. 4 I. rNTROI7UCTTON Lots 39-1 and 39-2 (sometimes referred to herein as the "Lots") are Single Family Lots in Glen Lyon Subdivision that are treated significantly differently than other Single Family Lats in the Town with respect to Gross Residential Floar Area ("GR.FA") and building height limitation. Applicant, Hagopian &Pennington LLC, seeks equal treatment with other Town of Vail Single Family Lots. Applicant is requesting approvai of an amendment to SDl? No. 4 tn pravide that GRFA and builciing height limitatians for Lots 39-1 and 39-2 be calculateti pursuant to the requirements ofChe Single Family (SFR) Zone Dzstrict, Sections 1$,10.0$0 and 1$.10.090 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. II. BACKGR(JUND nF EXISTING GRFA AND HEIGHT LIMTTATIONS The protective covenants for Glen Lyon Subdivision were recordefl in April, 1978. At that zime, Lots 39-1 and 39-2 were combined in a single lot, designatedLot 39. Lot 39 , consisted of 2.4853 acres and was the largest residentialloY in Glen Lyon. From xhe inception, the protecCive Covenants of Glen Lyon (the "Cxien Lyon Covenants") contained the following restriction: °No residentiai lot shail contain more than 4200 square feet of GRFA." Andy ~ Norris, the developer of Glen Lyon Subdivision, explains in a letter to Dominic Mauriella dated September 9, 1997, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, that when he developed Glen Lyon Subdivisitin, ",there was considerabie laoseness in the Town's definition of GRFA. " He voluntarilv restricted each lat Co 4200 square feet of GRFA, even thaugh the ordinance governing SDD Na. 4 provided that allowabie GRFA on an.y iot 'rn Glen Lyon was gaverned by a formula based on lot size, which wauld have allawed more GRFA in many cases. SDD No. 4was thereafter amended to match the more restrictive 4200 square foot CrIZFA restrictian of the Glen Lyan Covenants. In 1982, Mr. Norris applietl for an amendment to SDI7 No. 4 to resubdivide Lot 39 into two Single Family Lots. Resolutaon Number 10, Series of 1982 (°`Resolution No. 10"), subdividing Lot 39 into twQ Singie Family Lots, was approved by Town Cauncil on February 16, 1982. Resfllution No. 10 provides the maximum height for buildings on the two Lots is limited to 25 feet and the maximum allowable GRFA is 3,100 square feet for each Lot. Resolution No. 10 sCates in the "Recitals" that the lat "possesses characteristics making iC appropriate for two single family structures of a high qualiry, Iow z'ise nature" and that °ttie owner of Lat 39 and the develaper of Glen Lyon Subdivisian agreed to the conditions and limitations placed upon the division of Lot 39 into two separate lots." Except for the stateYnent that the developer of Glen Lyon agreed to the conditions and limitations, there is na explanation in ResaluCion No. 10 which gives insight ta the reasans for such conditions and limitataons. Tlierefore, Applicant researched the Town files and consulted with Mr. Norris to see if there was a legitimate reason to restrict GRFA and height. ~ ~ The Town's .~'zles on SDD No. 4 provides helpful inforrnatidn regarding the hzstory of the subdivision of Lot 39 into two lots and the reason for the severe restrictions on GRFA and height set forth in Resolution No. 10. A staff inemorandum to I'EC dated February I, 1982, shortly before Resolution No. 10 was passed, states that Mr. Norris proposed the limiCations. Mr. Norris' letter confirms that the GRFA limitation of 3100 square feet on each of the resubdivided lots was established by him in consultation with Town staff "to be consistent with the existing mflre restrictive Glen Lyon CC&R's. " Minutes from the PEC hearing of Febntary 8, 1982 show Chat Mr. Norris requested 3100 square feet of GRFA, anci that the lirnitation on G12FA was not a Town-impased restriction. Mr. Norris also voluntarily proposed an extensive landscaping plan to aid in screening the Lots from view, which has been implemented by the present owner. In May, 1990, the Glen Lyon Covenants were amended by the written consent of more than 75 % of the owners of the Glen Lyan Subdivision, as required under such covenants. The sole pnrpose of Che 1990 aanendment to the Glen Lyan Covenants (the "Amendrnent") was to delete fihe mare restrictive Glen Lyon GRFA restriction, thus allowing Chethen more liberalTown of Vail GRFA restrictions to govern all lots within Glen Lyon Subdivision. Tn fact, Lots 39-1 and 39-2 {then designated 39 (A) and 39 (B)) are specifically identified in the Amendment as lots to which the GRFA increase applies. Thus, the Crlen Lyon home awners' intent to increase the GRFA allawabie to Lots 39-1 anc3 39-2 is clear. Tn May, 1990, shartly after the Glen Lyon Covenants were amended, properCy owners ~ wha had vated to pass the Covenants Amendment proposed an amendment to the ordinance governing SDD No. 4 to delete the more restrictive Glen Lyan GRFA restriction that was still reFlected in said ordinance. A letter in the Town's files dated May 11, 1990 which was submitted with the application to amend SI7D No. 4 explains that as a result of the Town of Vail's adapt'ran of the GRFA standards in the Glen Lyon Covenants, Glen Lyon property Qwners were negatively impacted in relation to other similariy situated property owners in Vaii. The property owners were requestinb parity in the G1en Lyon GR.FA standards with the rest of the ToWn. A staff inemarandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated June 11, 1990 confirms the GRFA restriction was initiated by the developer, wiCh unintended negative effects on Glen Lyon lats. It pravides in pertinent part: At the time that SDD #4 was adopted, the GRFA definition was in the processof revision. By putting a maximum GRFA in the densiry requirement for the SDD, the developer's intent was ta lock in a specified GRFA allowed for the lots. This was intended to protect againsC fiature changes in the interpretations of GRFA. The ceilzng, however, became a restriction for the Glen Lyon property awners, as the GRFA requirements did not become more restrictzve (as the developer had anticipated). Jim I2ubin, the Cammunity Development Department director at the time of the original adnption, canfirms that the GRFA maximurn was initiated by the developer to guarantee the GRFA for Glen Lyon lats... ~ 2 Thus, the Town's files on S1)D No. 4 show that Mr. Narris proposed the GRFA maxirrtum, but that the unanticipated effect was not fair to Glen Lyon residents compared to ~ other Town af Vaii property owners. The Glen Lytrn homeowners' proposed amendment to 5DD No.4 was passed by Town Council on ruly 3, 1990, as Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1990 ("Ordinance No. 20") eliminatin~ the Glen Lyan GRFA covenant a$ to duplex lots, but without mention of Lots 39-1 and 39-2. Since there is nothing in the Town's file to justify treating Lots 39-1 and 39-2 differently than other lots zoned Single Family, why was the a1lowable GRFA on Lats 39-1 and 39-2 nat specif'rcally amended in 1990 ta be gaverned by Town standards, as the other G1en Lyon residential lots were? Mr. , Norris' letter is helpful in answering this questian. His letter states there were several issues unique to L.ots 39-1 and 39-2, but urrrelated to GRFA or building height, that the Town sCaff wanted resolved before the Lots woultl be brought into confarmity with Town of Vail SFR Zone District requirements. For example, portians of the access roati to Lots 39-1 and 39-2 encruached on Forest Service land, Vail Associates had raised cancerns about an on-grade skier c~rossing that intersected the proposed driveway, and certain utility easements needed ta be va'cated. The Town staff requested that all these matters be resolved before the GRFA applicalble to L.ots 39-1 and 39-2 be amended. Applicant has recently completed resolution of a11 these matters; the last one being the approval by the Town of the canstruction of a skrer underpass. Applicant now requests that SDD Na. 4 be amended to treat , Lots 39-1 and 39-2 the same as all other lots in the Town of Vail zoned Single Farnily. Applicant and Mr. Norris believe that the process that was begun in 1990 ta have al1 Glen Lyon lots treated the same as other similarlyµzoned lots within the Town, shouid be automatic, based on Che recent resolution of the issues forrnerly affect'rng Lots 39-1 and 39-2. Nonetheless, if the ~ Town desires to re-examine the GRFA and height Iimitations, Che facts that support the change in GRFA and height to match the Town Zoning Code, are compclling. Presently, Lots 39w1 and 39-2 are 1.043 and 1.221 acres, respectively. (Lot 39 as originally platted consisted of 2.4853 acres, but a portion of Lot 39 alang Gore Creek was deeded to the Town when Lat 39 was resubdivided into Lots 39-1 and 39-2.) They are still the two largest lats in Glen Lyon, and are therefore large enough ta support additional GRFA, as calculated un.der Sectian 18.1(}.090 of the Zoning Code. The marginai increases an GR.FA, when, compared to neighbo,ring structures such as LiFtside Condominiums and Glen Lyon C7ffice Building, are insignificant. LQts 39-1 and 39-2 are a significant distance from South Frontage Road, compared to both Liftside Condominiums and Glen Lyon Office Building, which are directly on Sauth Frontage Road. Many Spruce and Ladge Poie Pine trees were ptanted by Applicant, which have already grown to significant heights, and will continue to grow and screen more fully any residence to be built on thc Lots. The limitatzons to low-rise, 3100 squarefoot residences on each lot is simply not justifiable considering the neighboring structures, the size of the Lots, the landscaping and the currern Tawn Code governing Sinbie Family homes. 3 ~ ~ III. LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR AMENDMENT Town Cade Section 18.40.090 governzng 5pecial Development Districts pravides: ...,before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determinedthat such deviation providesbenefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This deterrnination is ta be made based on evaluation of the proposed Special Development District's compliance with the design criteria outiined in Section 18.40.080. The basic premise of Sectian 18.40.090 is that developrnent standards for a lot in a Special Development District should comply with the underlying zone district and r:hat any deviaCion therefrom should not be taken lightly. It follows that since Lots 39-1 and 39-2 are Single Family Zots, they should be treated the same as other Single Family Lots. Among the criteria in Section 1$.40.080 that must be considered in deCermining the appropriaCe standards to apply ta Lots 39-1 and 39-2 are "design compatibility and sensitivity ta the immediate env`rronment, neighborhaod and adjacent prnperties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, buiiding height, buffer zones, identiry, eharacter, visual integrity and orientatian. " Applicant contends that any re$idence to be built on Lats 39-1 or 39-2 that ~ camplies with the square footage calculation under Town SFR Zone District requirements Will be campatible with the immediate neighborhood and adjacent properties. As discussed above, neighbaring property owners who were required to be notified of this application for amendment include Liftside Condominiums, a relatively recent addition to SDD N0. 4, and Glen Lyon Office Building. Both are large structures and are located closer ta Sauth F'rontage Road than wouid be any residences ta be buitt on Lots 39-1 and 39-2. The visual impact of any residence to be built on Lots 39-1 and 39-2 under SFR Zone district requirements will be substantially :less than the visual impact of such existing sfiructures, especially with the large trees already grow;ing on Lots 39-1 and 39-2. Furthermore, any residence proposed to be buiit on either iat wiil also be subject to Design Review Board scrutiny, which is sufficient to ensure quality, site- appropriate residences. Under Colorado law, the PEC and Tawn Council must not aet arbitrarily or capriciously in exerciszng their discretion in evaluating the criteria set forth in the Zoning Cade. See Sellon v. Manitou Springs, 745 P.2d 229 (Colo. 1987). With no rational basis in the file for discriminating against Lots 33-1 and 39-2 when compared to other Single Family Lots within the Town, ta deny this application would seem to be arbitzary and capricious, and, therefare, void under Colorado law. ~ 4 . i f IV. CONCLUSIt7N ~ Lots 39-1 and 39-2 have different GRFA andheight restrictions appfied to them than other Single Family Lots within the Town of Vail for reasons that are no longer j~ustifiabie. In 1990, the Glen Lyan Hnmeowners requesCed that the lots within Glen Lyon be treated the same as all other lots tivithin the Town, which request was granted by Town Council with regard to all Glen Lyon lots except Lots 39-1 and 39-2. Due to other issues unique to thase two lots, GRFA and height limitations for the Lcrts have continued to be govemed by Resolution 10 frnm 1982, which were self-imposed by the developer of Glen Lyon and the then-owner of the Lots. Town files indicate the restrictions were p.roposed by 1VIr. Norris, and have not been rernoved due to other issues unrelated to GRFA and height. With the resoluCian of the issues concerning the access road and the vacation of easements, and, most recently, the approval by the Town af a skier underpass separating vehicles from skiers, there is no raticsnal basis for continuing the restrictions in ResoIution No. 10. Tawn Code requires that development standards not deviate from the underlying Zone Distxict unless the deviation provides benefits to the Tawn that outweigh the adverse effects of the deviation. There appear to be no benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of continuing the severe GRFA and height restrictions now imposed on the Lots. Lots 39-1 and 39-2 are two of the 1argest lots in Glen Lyon, are zaned Single Family, and are located near Cwo very large structures, Liftside Cortdominiums and Glen Lyon C}ffice Building. The visual impact of Single Family residences built in compriance with SFR Zone District GRFA and height standards will be negligible compared to the visual impact of those two neighboring structures. Applicant's Single FamiZy LoCs should be treated the same as aCh.er Single Family Lots in the Town, and should be governed by Sections 18.10.080 and ~ 18.10.090 of the Town Cnde with regard to GRFA and building height. To deny this applicatian to remove unnecessary restrictions on the LoCs in order tn treat them the same as ather Sin-le Family Lots would be arbitrary and capricious. ~ 5 ~ Andrew D. Norris 196 Lq Verecict Road Santca Barbara, Caiifornia 93108 ~ September 9, 1997 Dominzc F. Manriello, ATGP Department of Gommunity Development Town af Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail> Colorado $1657 Re: Glen Lyon 5ubdivision - Lots 39-1/39-2 :Dear pominic; ~ I was the develoPer of the Glen Lyon Subdivision and was therefore responsible for the project's planninb, permittina, canstruction and sales. Development controls far the project were established by the recorded plat and the Conditions, C4venants and Restrictions (CC&R's), An imporrant element of the CC&Rs were limitations on the amount of Gross Residential Flaor Area (GRFA), as defined by the Town of Vail zoning regulations, that could be constructed on each lot. At the tisne it was considered impartant to establish GRFA standards because there was considerable "looseness" in the Town's definition of GItFA. Gien Lyon's CC&R's were more restrictive. Ln 1989, the Town approved the division of Lot 39 into twa lots. The approval established Lot 39-1 an:d 39-2 as a minor developrnent plan. Each Iot was 1irnited toa single family home and the GR-FA limitations were established by me in consulta.tion with Tawn staFf to be consistent with the e:cistin:g Glen Lyon CC&R's. A minor development plan was developed that included establishing building enveiopes and a landseape plan. Follawing the Tawn's approval, si~nificant components of the landscape plan were implernented by [he owner. These included earthwork and tree plantin~ for screening. In 1990, the Town made refinements and clari:£ications tQ its definitian af GR:FA. Town cotinci1 was interested in creating a uniform standard for a11 residentiai lats. The Glen Lyon property owners supported this praposal and requested that I conduct an eiection by Glen Lyon property owners to seek approval to amend the CC&R's to bring, Glen Lyon's ~ GRFA standards into compliance tivith the Tawn's standards. The amendment passed and EXHIBIT A L>orninic F. Mauriella, AICP Deparcment of Community Development Town of "Vail September 9, 1997 ~ Paae 2 the GREA revision approved. The amendment applied to a11 Glen Lyon lots, including Lflts 39-1 and'39-2. However, since Glen Lyon Subdivision is in Speeial Development District No. 4, Town approval was required for any chan;e in GREA. A proposefl amendment to SDD No. 4 was submitted to che Town to provide th.at Town GREA standards would apply to all Glen Lyon lots. By this tame it had been discovered that porcions of the access road to Lots 39-1 and 39-2 encroached an Forest Service land and that the planned on-grade skier crosszng with the driveway wauld be unacceptable to Vail ?.ssociates. Va;.l Associates insisted that a separated ;rade crossing be, :ors'ncted. Alsa, utility easements across Lot 39 needed to be vacated. Tawn staff requested that no change be made in the GREA standards applicable to Lnts 39-1 and 39-2 until a11 such issues surroundinb the Lots were resolved. Tt has required several years to resolve all of these requirements, the final one being approval of the skier underpass. It has always been my understanding and abreement with the Town that once a11 the issues surroundinb Lots 39-1 and 39-2 had been resolved, the lots would be brought into confarmity with the Town oF Vail's then current development standards for residential lots. ~ I.f I can pravide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Andrew . Noms ADN.sb bc: D.iane Larson EXHIBIT A 4 t . i . ~ RESOLUTTON n10 (Series of 1983) A RESOL,UTIC3iI OI" fiITE TC7Vt1V' COUNCIL , A\SENDIF1G S'PECIAV DEVELC?P?,IENT DiSTRZC'T N0. 4 TO PEtOViDE TFta1T LOT 39 OF TFIEGLEN LY'Oii SClP,D EVIS7ON MAY DE DIVTDED IN'i0 TSYO (2) SINGLE FAlIILY J,OlS; PRt3- VTbING A hfAS'TER D-EVEL(aPttE`iT PLAti THE1?EFbRE; SETTING FC71?'~:~i A TNriNTY FTVL•' (25) FOtIT IiEIGl3T LIIIITATYON AND THIRTY OVE fftJNDRED (3100) SRUf1R.E S'00'P 4IAX.IIMU,1I GROSS RESIDEYTIAL I'Lt?C1Ft AREe1 (GRF?1) LTniITATION'; ANT3 SETTI\G FOfi.TH I3ETAILS RELATTNG TYIERETO. ZVHEftEAS, the Town Council has previously appraved 5pecial , Development District 4, commonly knotivn as Glen Lyan Subdivisipn, ..r to insure its planned and coordinated development in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and CYHEREAS, the Town CounciI was of the opinion ti7at the existing LaG 39 0f Glen Lyon Subclivsion possesses characteristics , ' making it appropriate for two (Z) sin;le family structures of a ~ higYz quality, low--rise nature; and, WfIEREAS, tlYe Planning and Environrnenta.l Commissian has reva.etived said amendment to Special Develdpment Bistrict 4 and recommencteci its appxoval; and t;`HEREAS, tiie owncr of Lot 39. , and the clevelopex af the Gl.en Lyon Subdivisidn have agreecl to tlie' cond~tions and limitations placed upon the diviszon of sazci lot into tsvo (2) separate 1ots; and, NOW, TIIEFtEFORE, BE TT RESdLVED BY TFIE TOWN COI3NCTL OF THE ~ TOWN OF VAIL, CflLOR.ADO, THAT: SectYOn l. Lot 39 0f the Glen Lyon Subdivision, a paxt af , Specia.l Develapment District 4, shall be dividecl into i;wo (2) residentia.l lots in accordance with the hlaster P1an thereof. Section 2. The liaster Development Plan for Lot 39 and the division thereof is hereby approved and the development of said `-r divided Lot 39 shall be in accordance tivith the within approved :~)•r.,r,.w biaster I7evelopmen Plan and conditions herein imposed. ` , _2_ Section 3. 'The n,axxmum height of builtlings on Lots 39 (A) and 39 (B) of the G?en Lyon Subclivision, as herein approved, shall ~ be twenty five 2~5) feet as cietermined in aGCflrclance ivith the ~,wrrwrr~r~ applicable provisions of the V'ai1 Zoning Cocle. Section 4. The maximum allowable gross residcntial floor area (GRFA) on Lots 39 (A) anct 39 (B) of the G1en Lycn Subdivision as herein approved, shall be thirty one hundred (3100) square feet each. IN'I'ROT7UCEI7, READ, APPT?OVED AND ADdPTED TIIZS 16'TH DAY t7F FEBRUARY, 1982. ATTEST : Colleen Kline, Taxvn Clerk ~ . . , ~ ~ NEMORnNDuli 1'O: P1.anning aricl L:nvironmentai Commission , FRUM: I)epartrtient of Community Uevelopment/Pc;ter Patten DATE. February 1, 1982 SUBJLCT: Twa amcndrn2nt requests for Special Development L?istxict 4--- Czscade Village/Glen Lyon. Applicant: Ancly Norra.s Arlcly Norris is xequesting twa amendments to Special Deve7.opnient; District 4. C7tle is for area A o£ the Di.strict-,Cascacle Village, to a11o4v the parking structurcJ ath].etic club builciing to encraach inta the cxterior propezty line setback. T}le seconrl request is to allow Lot 39 of Clen Lyan Subtlivision (Area C;), an existing 2.48 acrc pxwimary/secanclaxy lot to be resubd3.vicled into two single family lats, 1. ANsrrrnMrrrT REcnnDzNG PArzx zNc s TRucTuRE sr:mBACx A. T11c ttEQuLST `i'tie reciuest: is to all:owtIYC relaxat7.on af Secti.otYS 18.46.100 Sotbackstvith regarci pnl.y to this builtling anzt 18.46,170Parking o£ SD-D4 so that; ~ the buxlcli.rlg coittaini.ng the parking structur.e ancl athJ.etic club catt be constructed ta wi.thi.n 2 fcct oi: the nort}7ern pxopcrt'y ]:inc, abutCia~g the Soi.itli Frorttage Road, rathcr than the requized 20 feet. The I'axking sectioti rli.ctates tliat no Z7axka.rlg shall be lncai'.ecl in ztty fxant sei.back azea. The proposal is for undcr,grou»ci ~~~Lxkin~; tc~ lac so l:or.atetl. I'1~e xeasori fc~x t}zis rec{uest ~.t thxs ~ime is an eaxlier ovexsi.ght irl tilc original Mas~,er I'3.an for Cascacie Vil~.a~;c. ~ B. I3AGKGROUND T}re origiTial Master Plan was approved as a basic guicle for placement of each structure, but was not a cletailecl design for eacti individual builciing. Sncleed, manor acljLtstments in the placing oE eacli strtrctuxe naturally has occurrecl at the Design Review Boarcl levc7.. 7n texms af the parking garage and atliletic club, the master plan simply dici not allow for ader{uate room fox afull size viable tentris caurt facility wi.th xegard to the nortl7-soutlz climensi.ons as restxicted by the existing xoad. As the Cascade Village praject prngresses accordi7ig to the adrspted Master Plan anci xegulations contained in Si)D4., each building site is xestxicted by such givens as buildings both existing and planned, xaads, util.ity locatians, etc. 'i'his piece of the "puzzle"--the paxking structure and athletic club--has simply been squeezecl xnto the extexa.ox property setback by some o£ these restrictions, a situation not envisio:ned, of course_j in the 1979 Master Plan. ~ . ~ ~ . ~ (:asctrcfc Vi.ll<ir,c -2- 2/1f82 C, Ihit'AC'fS OF~i'HE PI2Qf}OSAL ~ '1'}ie bziilcling is proposed to be Iocatecl SO £ceC from the existing pavemcnt of t:}ie Sotit-li Froiitage IZoaci, except w}ier. e the i7cw x•i.g}lt turn latac wii 1 be locateci, the structure ioill be 45 f.eet away from the pavemcrrt. As one travels uaest on the rnacl the gracle c:hanges so that one experiences less and less of the building i.mpzct the E`urtlier west otie gets. 'I'lie bui3,cling a_s 12 feet }ii.gh at eave liiie or1 the north e].cvation tvitla ~ppxtrxi- mateiy a 6 ill 12 roof pitc}i. Ttie roof materictl pxoposed is a gray metaI similar to the hlillrace Conrlominiwn roofs. No unsolvrible problems exist taith regarrl ta utility locations, tl substantial lanctscaping prflposal wit3t a 1arge amaunt of evergreciitrees is proposedfor the area between the buildiilg anclthe Soutly Frolxtage Road, It is- higlily urilikely tt7at ,r ~l~e So~itll Pzon~a~e Itoacl ~vill t~e expariclec3 to fdur lanes~ due to physical (gradc an the side oE the road) anci traffic amnunt factors. '1'lle conclusian frorn the above fttcts ir7dicate ilo significaiit negative factors an nioving tlzc builc3ing clasc ta the property line. Nlaintaining 50 feet from the roacl is a sufficient "breathing" distailce for snow reiiloval, minor roacl inlpraveiiicnts (wi.clera shoulclers) and visut11 fir,~oxiiTtity. A physical hards3lip exists i17 the g7.vens of mariclatory clcsign ct•iteria (tennis courts) ancl the exisLing roacl ancl adjacent builclings. RLsC0M4tENt)A'1`T ON `I'}lc t)or7artment of Coiiinilini-ty Devclopment recomrneixds al3proval of tlle ainendiriel-zt to 'Scir14 allawing the parking structureJatlrletic c1ub to encroacli 18 fcet itlto tlle nortli prapex•Ly setback anct to qualify the aeqtiixemeni; of: tlo paritiitg in the front sctbacl< to apply to parking otilcr t}iazi eiltirely undergx•ouitcl. `1'}ie staff feels that t}icre are minimum impacts of this arnendmeitt clue to tlic large clistaiice to tlte roacl surface. `I'he builcting is designcd to mita:gatic visual inrpacts on Che nort}Y side, afiid the laiictscaping s#tould provi,cte a visual screen, furtlier impraving tlYC aesttretics of the site cleveJ.opinerit. tiYe agrec t11at the setback exceptioia s}ioLzld be made orily £or thxs buildirtg, with the provision tllat otlaer uridergrouncl parkirig could be 1ocated witllin required exterior setback areas, subject to Design Review Board appraval. II. ~`DTVrSION OF LO'' 39,GLEN LYON SUBT7rVIS10N ~ . A. T'IIE. REQUEST Lot 39 of Glen Lyon Subdivision (Areaf:G of SDD4) was createcl with the original approval of SDD 4. The cluplex 1ots are developecl basically in accordance with pximaxyjsecondary development regulations. The 10t currently cantains 2,48 acxes of total site area., and the propased dxvision would easily tneet the requirement i.n the Single Family District af contain- ing 12,500 sauare £eet of buildable $ite area. I'roposed is to liave ~ two ].ots" . one of ,88$ acre and one of 1.48 acres, whiie dedicating to the town ,115 acre af land along Gore Creek. The stream tract praposed ta be dadicated is adjacent to property already owned by the tawn thraugh a previous dedication. Giiscaclc Villzigc. _3- 2/1/82 ~ Mr. Norris a.s propasitlg at7ct wil:l commit to a mastex plan fax- the clcvelop- ment on tlle$e two lots. 1le propases two low-rise (1 to 2 storY) luxury sirlg2c fami2y iiomes tvith exLensivc lanctscapitig anrl wntez• i'eatures. 1'!e requcsts that cach housG be allowecl 3100 sc{uaie feet of Gioss I2csiclential Flaor Area and will restrict the hauses to a 25 foot height lz.niit7tion. B. ZN1PACTS OF REQUE57' C;urrently, the lot coulcl be devcloped into a cluplex with a maxa;nium floor arca of 4200 sc{uare feet.-This is the covenant restra.ction of wliich the t4wn is a co-signator, anci consequently, errtforcer. The proposal Youlrl increase the allawable Gf2FA by 2400 square feet ta 6200 squaxe ' feet total. . Visually, the site is c{uite open and contains only one txee, a large evergreep J.ying very close to the proposed ctrmman lot line of the two new lots. 'Chus, any cievelopment OII the site will be xcadz.ly secn by passersby orl t}le South Fzotttage t2oatl aticl I-?Q. llivicls;ng the lot and accepting the clevcl.opment plan a11c~ws twa separatecl structures of a low profi.l enzLure, but coveriztg nrore of the sa.te t}tan untlcr pa'esent rcstr.ictions. '1'lre 25 faot height Zitna.tat;ion rec:tL?ces by approxitnately ~ ten feet the a].lowable ]ieight of titc stixuctures which coulrl be built tinclcx ctixrcitit rcgitlations. `I'lie cleve].npment plan xGfJccts a very }zig}i quality dcsign saf stytzctures a11d t11eir surrouricling gxouncis, aiid would assure sucli lligh Qual:i.ty af the zlnlcr7clmcfat i~ approvec1. Access for the new castcrly lot woulcl bc prov:idecl by an acccss casemcnt a?j the northern sicle of= ].ot 1. '1'he access dr. ivc woulcl bc heavily pl:antecl on the nortlr side to zecluce t}tc visual impact frotn i:}ie IlortlY. In summary, the result of aZ7proval af tlic rcquested amendtnent xs t}Xat ctevel.opment oI= a laxgcr poxtion of the site wauld accur, but the devcl.opmerlt would be of aguaranteed high quality with xi7inimai negative visual itnpact. C. ~`REGOMMENDATION The Department of Community bevelopment recommends appxoval of the praposecl ` divisian o£ Lat 39 into two single family lots with the condition that each residence be restricted to 2100 squaxe feet of GRFA. We feel pasitive about the development plan praposed, but we consider an increase o£ Gf2FA of 2000 square feet to be excessive and a. grant of special pxi.viIege. There is no special circumstance or harciship a.nvalved in the requesi for the extra GRPA, and Cae feel t}iati we must be consistent in judging such requests. Thus, we recflmmend appxnval of the atnendment requested with a revised development plan xeflecting a maximum GRFA for each ~ residence af 2100 square feetr ORDINr1NCE NO.20 . series oL 1990 ~ AN C7RDTNANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10, SERTES OF 1990, SPECIAL DEVELOPMEN'T' DISTR3CT NO. 4, SEGTIt7N 18.46.100 C, DE1ttSITY FLOOR 11T2EA, AREA C GT,EN LXON D{JPLEX LOTS TO PROVYDE FOR GIt05S I2ESIDEflTI1sL FLOOR AREA TO BECAL,CI3LT1TED PEr'2 Z'ifE TZEQUIREMENfi - OF THE PRIi,L'~RY/SECONDARY ZONE DIS`I'R3CT SEC`I'ION lII . 13 . t780 DEPdSITX CONTROL; AND 5ETTING P'ORTfI t7ET113LS Xid RI::Gi'1RD THi,I2: TO. iaHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail 2•iunicipal Code authori.zes Special Development nistricts within the Town; and 39HEREAS, the 3`own Council approved Orclinance No. 10, Series of 1990 Special Development District Pto. 4 Cascade Village; and IdtiEREAS, a majority of the property owners withiix tlrea C, Glen Lyon Subd:ivision af Speoi,al Developncnt District N0. 4 have requcsted ta amend Section 15,46.100G of Spccial. Devel.onnent District No. 4; and WHEREAS, the Planninc and Environmental Commission has recommended that the Grovs Reszclential F1.oor Ilrea for Duplex lots within the Glen Lyon subciivision be calcuiatcd pcr Section 18.13.080 of the Vai1 i•Iunicipal Cade; ancl jD/s WHEREAS, thc~ Towp Council considers that it is rcasonab e, appropriate, and beneLicial ta the icswn ancl its citizcns, ~ inhabitants, and`visators to amend Orciinwnce No. 10, Series Of 1990 to provicle for this ehange in 5pecial I7evelopment District No. 9, Cascacle Village, Area C Glen Lyon T7uplex Subdivision. NOW, TIlEftEFOT2E, BE IT ORDATNED BY TIiE TOWN COUNCIr, OP TiIE "i'OWN OF VAIL, COLOI271D0, AS rOLL0445: Section 1. All the procedures required for a Major amendment to an SDD as set forth in Section 18. §0.100 have been cor,iplied orith. Section 2. Section 18.46.100 Paragzaph C, Density Fl.oor Area, Area C; Glen Lyon duplex lats is hereby amended by the deletion of the following sentence: "Na residential lot shall contai7 more than 4200 sq. it. of GRF'A per the G1en Lyon subdivision covenants." Section 3. If any part, section, subsectian, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the zemaining portians of this ordinance; and the Town Cauncil hereby declares it would have passed this orda.nance, and each part, section, subsectian, . sentence, clause ar phrase thereof, reqardless nf the fact that ~ any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by declared invaYid. . I Sectien d. ' The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ~ ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Seetion 5. The repeal cr the repeal and reenaetmerit of any provisions of Vail biunicipal Gode as pxovided in this ordinance shall not affect any right whicfi has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any pxasecution commenced, nor any other action or proeeeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision zepealed or • repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provisiori hereby sha11 not revive any pravision or any ordinanee previausly repealed ar superseded unless expressly stated herein. 5ection 6. A11 bylaws, orders, resolutions and nrdinances, or pazts therenf, inconsistent herecaith are hereby repealed to the extent only af such inconsistency. This repealcr shzll not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution ar ordinance, or part thereaF, herctofore repealed, ' SNT~ODUCED, REhD AND PASSED ON PIRST READxNG THIS 3rd day of JulY ,1990, and a public hearing shall be held an this ordinance on the 3r.d day of JuLY , 1990 at 7•30 p.m. , in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, . Colorado. ` ordered published in full this 3rd day Qf JuIY , 1990. ` , .I ..l xent R. Rose, ay r ATTEST : t~\~~'~~° ~~~i{L-f~/h{,~il.C../ • Pamela A~ }3r~nr~meyer, 2'awn Clerk ZNTRC?Dt7CED, READ IiRD APPFtOVED OT3 SEGONt7 READI23G ANb ORnERED PUBLISHED bv,.t?t-1p ontv this 17rh day crf .trll v , 1990. Kent . Izose, Mayor ATTEST: - Pamela A. IIrandmeyerO, Town C1:erk 2 TO: Planning and Environmental Cammission FROM: bepartment of Community Development ~ DAmE. June 11, 1990 SUBJECT: A major amendment to Special Development District No. 4-Cascade VilZage, Area C, Section 18.46.100, Paragraph C. deletion of the following sentence "No residential lot shall contain mare than 4200 square feet of GRFA ' per the Glen Lyon subdivision cavenants", which amends the GRFA requirement to conform ta the Primary/Secondary zone district, Section 18.13.080, Density Contral. Applicant: Greg Amsden for 75% of the property owners. I. DESCRTPTZON OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major amendment to Speciai Development District No. 4, Cascade Village. °The request is to delete the requirement which states "No residential Lot shall contain more than 4200 sq. ft. af GRFA per the Glen Lyon Subdivisian covenants." The amended code will read nGRFA shall be calculated for each lot per Section 18.13.080, Density Control Aand Bfor the primaryJsecdndary district of the Tawn of Vail Municipal Code. With the ~ ~ del this restriction sit con~rolsr ~ar du le Lots 1-3 and 40-52 af Area C will be averned by Sec ' n 8.13.080 0~ e unici al Code. Because of the 1ot sizes, the amendment will allow 40 of the 51 duplex lots to increase their GRFA aver what is curreritly allowed by the SDD No. 4 density requirements. Hnwever, these lots will not be granted more than what is allowed under the Tawn's density control for PrimaryJSecondary lots. The applicant is not requesting any other changes to the ' development standards. II. BACKGROUND At the time that SDD #4 was adopted, the GRFA definition was in the process of revision. By putting a maxamum GRFA in the density requirement for the SDD, the developer's intent was to lack in a specified GRFA allowed for the 1ots. This was intended to protect against future changes in the interpretations af GRFA. The ceiling, however, became a restrictian for the Glen Lyon property owners, as the GRFA requirements did not become more restrictive (as the developer had anticipated). Jim Rubin, the community Developiment Department director at the time of the original adaption, confirms that the GRFA maximum was initiated by the developer to guarantee the GRFA for Glen Lyon lots. l ~ ~ The applicant has received signatures fram 75.07% of the property awners appraving the change in the GRFA requirement. The amendment will not include Lot 53 (Cnldstream). The amendment wil1 only affect duplex lots located in this Axea C. Al.so the amendme Under res u' ' 982 these 1.ot e ~ subdzvided and zoned 5in le ~'ami ' . , a hei ht rest , of 25 feet and a maximum GRFA of 3100 square feet per lot. ITZ. SPEGIAL bEVELC7PMEN"I' DISTRICT CRZTERIA Section 18.40.080 of the zaning ccade sets forth the following clesign criteria to be usad in evaluating the merits of a Special Development District. It is the burden of the applicant ta demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the fo1lowi.ng standards or demanstrate that one or more are not applicable or that a practical solution cansistent with the public interest has been achieved. ' A. Desicrn compatibility and sensitivity tca the immediate environm~nt, neighborhoo~ and adjacent.prop~rties ~ relative to architectural designj scale bulk, buildinq heiqht, buffer zones identity, charactex, visual iritearity and arientatifln The granting of the request will allow for an increase of the allowable GRFA for many of the duplex lots lacated in the G1en Lyan Subdivision. Currently the lots are rcgulated by the density requirements for P`rimaryJSecnndary zoning with a maximum allawable GRF'A af 4200 square feet. 40 lots in Glen Lyon are restricted by this maximum. It is impartant to recognize that by dele-ting the maximum for GRFA, they taill an1.y be allowed to build what is all:owed undcr Section 18.13.080 which regulates the GRFA on a11 PrimaryfSecondary lots. The mass and bulk af the bui.ldings will increase in compar3.son to what woul.d be al:lowed wa.th the 4200 sq. ft. of GRFA maximum due to the increase in a1:lowable GRFA. B. Uses activit and densit which rovide a cam atible efficient and workable relationship wi.th surroundxncf uses and activity. The request will have no effect on the uses or activities of the area. The application will have no effect an the number of units in the subdivision. Tt ~ 2 will increase the mass and bulk of the buildings because the allowable GRFA will be increased. ~ The following is a chart depicting the range af additional GRFA that would be allowed for a number of lots: # of Lots Additional, GRFA 11 0 18 1-250 sqs f't. 10 250-500 sq. ft. 5 500-750 sq. ft. 6 750-+- sq. ft. C. Compliance with parkinq and laadinq requirements as outli.nea in chapter 18.52. Off-street parking shall be provided as stated in the SDD Ordinance. This wauld require dwelling units with up ta 2,000 square feet of GRFA to pravide 2 parking spaces, and dwell.ing units over 2,000 square feet to provide 2.5 spaces per unit. These ara the standard ' Town af Vai1 parking requirements. D. Canfarmity with applicable el.ements of the Vail ~ Comprehensive Plan, Town palicies and Urban Desian Plans. The application does not request any additional GRFA ather than that which is allawed on other comparable PrimaryfSecondary lots_in the Town of Vai1. There are no planning studies that relate directly to this request. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or gealogic hazards that affeet the property on which the s_pecial development district is propased. Geologic hazards will be iclentified and mitigated as required by Section 18.69 Hazard Regulations of the Town af Vai1 Municipa3. Cade. F. Site plan, buildinq design and location and open space pravisians designed to produce afunctional development responsive and sensitive to natural featuxes, ve_getation and overall aesthetic qual.ity of the commun ity . The only element of the above criteria that will be affected by this request is building design. By 3 ~ deleting the 4200 square foot maxzmum, the mass and ~ bulk will be increased aver what is currently ailowed in the subdivision. However, the mass and bulk of the structures will be no more than what is allowed on other comparable primary/Secondary lots in other a;reas of Vail. G. A circulation s stem desi ned for bath vehicles and pedetrians addressing,on and off-site traffic circul.ation. , There wi11 be na change to the circul:ation system. Since there wi1.1 be no increase in density, there are na expected increases in use that wauld require a change to the circulation system. H. Functicanal and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features,- recreation views and functions There will be no change to the existing landscaping and open space plan. Individual lots will be required to landscape 60 % of 1.ots as per the Section 18 .46. 1.70 Landscaping of SL7L? #4. I. Phasin lan or subdivisiort lan that wa1l maintain a ~ workable, functional and efficient relationship thrauqhout the development of the special develfl mp ent aistrict. There wi1.1: be no effect on the phasing or subdivi,sion p1an. 23 nf the 50 3,ots involved have either existing homes or are under construction. No additional lots are proposed with this application. IV. DEVELUPMENT STANDARDS All development star?dards for SDD# 4 are very site specific. For Area C, develapment standarcls including height, setbacks, site coverage, parking and landscaping are in accordance with the requirements for the PrimaryJSecondary zone district. Thi,s request would a11aw the Area C density cantrol (GRFA) to be in accordance with Section 18.13.080 of the Vail Municipal Cocle. ~ 4 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ~ Staff recommends appraval of the request to delete the statement that "Na residential lot shall contain more than 4200 square feet of GRFA per the Glen Lyon Subdivision covenants" as stated in Section 18.76.100 af SDD #4 Ordinance W10, Series of 1990 as applicable to Lots 1-38 and 40-52. The staff feels that this restriction was used as a means of guaranteeing GRFA to the Glen Lyon lots and instead, the maximum became a restriction. We feel that the deletian of the maximum wi11 have na negative impacts on the surrounding properties. The amendment will allow the above Iots ta be controlled under the density requirements that are used for all other Primary/Secondary lots. There will ~ be no chan e in the densit re irements for Lats 39I ad' 39II nntro,lled b Resolu ion No. l0 series of 1982. ~ ~ 5 54 zRAcr K VALLI G~.EN L 1~1 SUBDIVISIUN Hi tt~ ~p ~ ! k ~ 40 PARKING , l..AS4.+ADE STRt1CTUFtE ~ VILLtil7E CONDMANSFIELD < OMlNlUMS 43 42 ~ . y,~ I ? I • B.L.M. ; C.M.C. , 44 gy MILLR f MIl1F?AGE GASCAOE ~ ---~sa nc ` Pua5E rr - LtwcE 45 `14 ct~#• N , 14 ~ ~ . 38 MiLLancE as t r ~ cicnc.E 1"a zoo' PHA5E 2 r~ CC?LDSI"REAM . ~Pt-A 47 200' . i, ~ , . . . 53 ; 481. 49 . ' r 82 51 50 1~,aCUy'-I ' 3t ,Gl..E COll TY 34v•,, :a iNflL.ATTEd UNF'!_AT'1`E 301, 7'RACT B i,lf~ ,~i~t~~~•~~ a lb (:w w~`'-~f1AV~N , ~ O .j C)~`, Sa t~ p ~ J 0 ~ ~ ro 0 \ m tvti ~ 00 \b . \'i~J G+~l~ , f O1 .:.S`.. ~ .w~..~t . OP t\ ~ ~ AVAH-1,A~~!:,,F-. _ \OC Q ( ~ ~ ~ 0 . ' • ~ , ~ . b ° May 1Z , 199`0 ~ Town of Vail Planning Department Attn: Shell.ey Mello 75 So. F'rontage Rd. Vai3., Colorada 81657 " Dear Shelley, In accordance with Paragraph #18 0f the Protective Covenants of Glen Lyon Subdivision, 750 0f the property awners of the privately-owned land included within the boundaries af Glen Lyon have given their written consent ta amend the said Covenants (Recarded 5J2/90 in Boak 528, Page 154. A copy of recorded document is attached). Thc amendment deletes Paragraph ~17 of the covenants. 'I'his paragraph establis~ed a ceiling nf 4200 sc{uare feet on each lot within the subdi~vision. It was the developer's 4-ntent at time of recording the original covenants ta "lock in" a speci£iecl amount of GRFA to protect against any future downward trends in a:nterpretations of GRFA. As it turned out, this limitation actual.ly had a negative effect on all.owable GRFA in relation to other proper-Ly owners cvithin the ~ Vai1 Va11ey. The implementation af this ceiling on GRFA inta the Spec7 al. Develapment Dis trict and 'Pown of Vai-1 Ordinances was done to accomodate the Pratective Covenants and property owners of Glen Lyan. The applicant asks the Planning and Environmental. Commission and Town Council to consider and approve the following admendment ta the existing Special Deve3.opment District No. 4, Area C, as defined in Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, Section 18.46.100, Paragraph C: Deletion of the following sentence: "No residential lot shal,l contain more than 4200 square feet of GRFA per the Glen Lyon subdivision cnvenants". If any members of the Planning and Environment Cammissitin or the Town Council have any questions regarding the brapased amendment, please contact Greg Amsden at 476-7990 or Andy Norris at 476- 6602. Thank you for your eonsideration and conperation in this matt r. Sin er Y ~ G Amsden GAJmeb . Glen Lyon - Lot Sizes and GRFA GRFn Under ~ Existing New hdditionai Size GRFA Amendment GRFA Available Status o£ Lot (ncres) (sq. ft.) (Sq. ft.) with amendment Lat 1 0,4272 4111 4111 uttchanged 2 0.4026 4004 4004 unahanged Built 3 0.4827 4200 4353 153 4 0.5131 4200 4485 285 6uilt s 0.4607 4200 4256 56 Bui1t 6 0.4574 4200 4242 42 7 0,9684 4200 4290 90 IIuilt 8 0.4628 4200 4266 66 9 0.5381 4200y_ 4594 394 Built lfl 0.7851 4200 5210 1010 Built 11 0.7056 9204 5037 837 nuilt 12 0.7658 9200 5177 977 13 0.8085 4206 5261 61 14 0.7418 4200 5116 916 15 0.~5626 = 4200 4701 501 BuiSt 16 0.5123 4200 4482 282 Built 17 0.5448 4200 4623 923 lII 0.4536 4200 4226 26 Built 19 0.4730 4200 4310 110 $uilt 20 0.4920 4200 4393 193 Built 21 0.5011 4200 4432 232 22 0.5092 4200 4468 268 Suilt 23 0.5175 4200 4504 304 24 0.4374 4155 4155 unchanged 25 0.4534 4200 4269 69 26 0.7087 4200 5044 844 27 0.5294 4200 4534 339 28 0.6598 4200 4935 735 29 0.5171 4200 4844 644 Built 30 0.6237 4200 4858 658 Built ~ 31 0.5770 4200 4757 557 32 0.5078 4200 4462 262 33 0,4289 4118 4118 unchanged 34 0.4250 4101 4101 unchanged Built 35 0.4416 4174 4174 unchanged Built 36 0.4463 4196 4196 unchanged 37 0.4265 4109 4109 unchanged *38 0.4609 4200 4258 58 *39A 1.2353 3100 n/a n/a B 1.2500 3100 n/a nfa 40 0.8584 4200 5370 1170 Bui1t 91 1.0494 4200 5786 15$6 42 0.4914 4200 4391 191 43 0.5706 4200 4474 279 dd 0.4111 4040 4040 unchanged 45 0.4761 4200 4324 124 Built 46 0.4350 4200 4225 25 Built 47 0.4534 4200 4205 5 Bui1t 48 0.4489 9200 4200 unChattged 49 0.5105 4200 4736 536 BU11t 50 0.5009 4200 4431 231 51 0.4474 4199 4199 unchanged 52 0.4826 4200 4352 152 $uilt **53 4.2121 n/a nfa n/a ***54 1.7977 nfa n/a n/a 35.si9z * Single Family Residence Lots not incluaea in amendment. **Coldstream ***G2en Lyon Commerciai Building *NOTE*; Bui1t means built or under construction. ~ MEMC?RANDUM ~ TQ. Planning and Enuironmental Commission FRC7M: Community Developrnent Department QATE: October 27, 1997 RE: A request for an amendment to Section 18.54.050(J) (Design Guidelines - Outdoor Lighting) af the Zoning Code to exempt light sources which are no rnore than 18 inches above grade and are either fully cutoff ar have a maximum initial lurnen output of 250, from the total aliowable number of exterior light sources permitted on a praperty. Applicant; Roy and Paula May, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner Planner: Lauren Waterton 1. DESGRIPTItJN OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Code to allow additional ex#erior light sources beyond the totaf allowable number o# exterior light sources permitted on a properky. The additional light sources are prapnsed to be no more than 18 inches above grade and are either fullY ~ cutoff ar have a maximum lumen output o# 250 (the equivalent of a 25 watt bulb). The proposed code revision would amend Section 18.54:050(J)2b (Design Guidelines - flutdoor Lighting - Frequency). The existing text is shown for reference, the proposed additional text is shown in italtcs. b. Frequency. For lots in residential zone districts, the maximum number of light sources per lot shall be limited to one light saurce per one thousand square feet of lot area. The locatian of said iighfis shall be left open ta the discretinn of the property owner, so long as the lights are in compliance with theTown of Var1'sMunicipai Code. Lights saurces, which are placed no more than 18" abvve finished grade, and are either fully cutoff, as defined by Sectiarr 78,04. 137, or have a maximum initiaf lumen output of 250 (equvilent to a 25 watt bulb), may be a!/vwed in additiQn to the total number of permitted vutdoor light sources. Number, /ocation and styte of such light sources is subject to t7esign Review. The proposed text change would allow lights such as, step lights, (andscape lights and waikway kighting, in addition to the lights currently perrnitted. These lights are generally recessed into wa{Is or mounted just abave ground level and pravide iighting for a small area. The appficant has indicated that because the current regulations limit the total number of lights per site, there is a tendency to use ane brighter light than to use smaller more focused lights. The result is a greater impact on adjacent properties firom these brigh#er lights. The appiicant has stated that the proposed change meets the intent of the lighting regula#ions which is to minirnuze the unlntendedandundesirable effiects of outdoor lighting. ~ H. BACKGR4UND ln 1993, the Design Guidelines were amended to add the autdooriighting reguiations. The current regulation5 for residential properties limit the maximum number of light fiixtures #o one light source per 1,000 square feet of Int area. Fnr example, a 15,000 square faot lot is permitted a maximum of 15 exterinr light sources. There are alsa resrictions on the total luminance of each fixture and the maximum height. The only light sources which are currently exempt from these regulations include Christmas tree lights, sign ilrumination and municipal Iightirrg. See aftached for the compleie regu(ations fior outdoor lighting. I11. C4NF0RMITY WI"TH TFiE T+DWN'S REC.EVAN7 PLANNiNG.DOCUMENI"S In considering the proposed amendment ta the Zoning Code, staff reviewed the intent of the Design Guidelines and the purpose statement of the Uutdoar Lighting. Zoning Code Acctirding to the purpose statement of the Design Review chapter, the intent of the design guidelines is to ensure that developmen# is compatible with the existing iandscape and to protect neighboring properties from negative impacts of development. The 'rn#ent of the Uutdnor Lighting section of the Design Review chapter is to "minimize the unintended and urtdesirabie e#fects of outdoor lighting while encouraging the intended and desirable sa#ety and aesthetic purposes of outdoor lighting,,, Staff believes that the proposed amendment is in accordance with both the purpose statements ofi the Design Review chapter and of the Outdaor Lighting sec#ion of the G7esign Review chapter. The ability to add additianal low level lighting may reduce impacts ort ~ adjacent properties. Property owners would have the ability to use #hese low level Iights which have limited impacts on adjacent properties, while improving safety, particularly around steps and walkways. Staff believes that this proposed amendment will not negatively impact adjacent properties and can imprnve the overail aesthetics of outdoor lighting. IV. STAfF RECt)MMENDATIQN Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments ta the Zoning Code, subjecC to the fo1(owing finciing: That the prnposed amendment is in accardance with the purpflse statements of the Design Review Chapter of the Vail Municipai Code and is in accordance with the intent af the Outdoar Lighting regulations of the design Guidelines. ~ 2 zaNING ~ 18.04.137 Fulz cutoef. "Fu11 cutoff" means a light source irn which no more than two and five-tenths percent (2.5%) of its Cotal autput is emitted above ninety degrees (90°) as measured frflm nadir as shown in the example below: ~ . , . . . . , ' . • . , w . . . „ r w.... ~ -~Ca? • , . - ~ . , . . . . . • . . . . . ' , . , ~ • ~ 'Y (Ord. 9(1993) § 1.) 1$.04.140 Grade, existing. The exzsting grade shall be the existing or natural tapag_ raphy of a site prior to construction. (C}rd. 37(1980) § 1.) 18.04.150 Grade, finished. T'he finished grade shall be the grade proposed upan comp]etion of a projeet: (Ord. 37(19$0) § l.) (Vail 4-95) 308 ~ DESIGN REVIEW ~ clevelopment. In additian, the design review board rnay require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, lartdscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated tocreate unified site development. J. Outdoor li htin . 1-"~urpose. This subsection of the design guidelines establishes standards far minimizing the unintended and undesirable side effects af ontdodr lighting vvhiie encauraging the intendecD and desirable safety and aesthetic putposes of outdoor lighting. It is the purpose of the design review guidelines Co al1ow illumination which provides the minimum amount of lighting which is needed ior the property on which the light sources are located. In addition, the purpose of this section is to protect the legitimate privacy af neighboring residents by contralling the intensity of the light source. 2. Approval required. All outdoor lighCing within the town limits shall conform to the standards set forth below. For t}ie purpases of this subsectian, residentially zoned properties shall be defined as those in hill;;ide resrdential, ~ single family, twa-family, primarylsecondaryy, residenfiial cluster, 1ow density rriuiti-family and medirim density muiti-family zone district, as we]1as al1 special clevelopment districCs which have any of the above- referenced zone districts as the underlying zoning. All other zone districts shall be cansidered, far the purposcs of this sectian, as being commereial zoned. ti. Luminance. Light sources located on all property in the , Town of Vail which are not fully cutoff sha11 exhibit a ratio af source ]umens ta luminnus area not exceeding 125. For example: source lumens 125. luminous area b. Frequency. For lots in residential zone districts, the maximum number of light sources per lot shall be limited to one light source per one thausand square feet of lot area. The lacaCion of said lights shall be ]eFt apen 454j-2a tvaat 11-16-93> ~ ~ ZUNING ~ . ta the discretion of the property owner, so long as the lights are in compliance with the Town of Vail's Nlunicipal Code. c. Height Limits far light fixtures. (l) For a11 light saurces located in commereial zone districts, the maximum mounting height far light sources on a pole shall not exceed thirty-five feet. The maximum mounting height fdr light sources affixed to vegetation shall not exceed eight feet. (2) For all light sources located in reside;ntial zone districts, the maximum mounting height for light sources on a pole or on vegetation shall not exceed eight feet. d. Light sources affixed to stt-uctures. For all praperties withita the Town of Vail, light sources rnay be aFfixed to any wall of a structure. Light snurces shall not be af~'zxed ta the tap of a roof af a structure. . e. Cutoff shielcis. A!1 light sources located in commercial zone districts which exceeti fifteen feet in height shall ~ exhibit a fulicutoff shield. f. Lrghts which flash, mave, revolve, rotate, scintillate, btink, flicker, vary in intensity or ealor, or use intermittent electrical pulsation are proh'rbited. 3. ExempCions. The standards of this sectian shall not app1Y to: a. Christmas tree lights which are of a temporary nature located in residential zone districts, as listed in Section 1$.54.050 3, 2, and which are illuminated only between November 1 and April 15 of each year. b. Christmas tree lights which are temporary in nature and are lacated in zone districts other than those residential districts listed in Section 18.54.050 J, 2. c. Sign illumination, as set forth in Title 16. d. Municipal lighting installed for the benefit of public health, safety and welfare. 4. Nonconformances. As of the effective date of this sub- section, all autdoarlighting that does not conform ta every requirement of this subsection shall be legal nanconforming 454j W2b (Vail 11-16-93) ~ b ~ DESIGN REVIEEW ~ - outdoor lighting. Legal nonconforming outdoor lighting shall not be moved in any direction, nor shail there be any change in use or light type, or any t`eplacement or structural alteration made to the nonconfarming outdoor lighting, without the autdoor lighting conforming to all applicable requirements of this chapter. 5. Penalty. The penalty for violating this chapter shall be a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars per vialation. Each day of violatian shall constitute a separate nffense for the purpose of calculating the penaity, (CJrd. 9(1993) § 8: Ord. 46(1991) 2, 3: Ord. 12(198$) § 2. Ord. 24(1985) § l: Ord. 9(19$5) 2, 3: Ord, 39(19$3) § 1.) 1$,54.051 Park design guideliries. A. Purpose. These guidelines shall be used by the design review board in reviewing any proposals for the development of Town ' of Vail park land. The guidelines shall be used in conjunction with the general design review guidelines found in Section 18.54.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Cade. It is the intent ~ of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time encouraging park development that will complement ttie natural beauty of our park ]aiad. The purpose of the guidelines is to provitie cantinuity in the character of the parks which will be developed over many years. The guidelines will provide consistent design criteria to maintain the qualiry of Town of Vail parkS through all phases of development. B. Building materials and design. l. GeneraX. a. Natural materials are strongly encouraged in park constt-uction. Materials ai7c.i detailing must compIement the park's environment as well as be functional and attractive. b. Materials and designs shoulti 6e chosen that are economical to maintain. 454j-2c (vari11-16-93) ~ P t l 3 OGtObei" 1997 TOW11 Cjf Va11 Community Development Planning & Environmental Committee Re; TOV 4utdonr Lighting Ordinance Amendment A 12 C Fi I T E C T S 'I'he purpose of this submittal is to review the existing TOV Lighting Ordinance and it's possible alteration. I would like ta review three things, it's stated intent, i_e. why it was created; the existing 4rdinance in teTms of it's speci~'ic requirements, and difficuities that are arising with it. With this in mind, r would then like to review poter7tial amendment(s) to the Orciiriance. As stated in theOrdinance, it's intent is "..,to minimize the unintended and zrndesirable szde e,f`f'ect of autclcror lighting, while encourczging the inlcnded and desirable sczfety czndcrestlactr'c pz:trpo.ses ' of autdoor lighting. and "...to protectChe legitinzate privctcy of nezghboring re,stdejat r...". Thisconcept is still valid and carreet. However manp of the speci~'ic requirernents generated to ~ inlplement this concept are nolonger valid. The Orclinance, as it is currently written, uses the area of a given site tacletermit-ie tlle quantity of "light sources" allowecl for that siCe ( a ligllt source being detned as "a single artiticial pointsource oC luminescencc...". t7ne liglzt source is pernzititecl for each one tlzausalid sqciare feet of site area. Other definitions 1loteci zn t11e (Jrdinance include; Luminous Area - the maximum light emitting from a single source (tlie pllysicalarea of source lneasured in square inclles). SoLirce Lumens total initial lamp lLimens of the IiglYt saurce. Height Limits - maximum mauuzting height for residential applTCatians is cight feet (8'), Luminance - a ratio of source iumens to luminous area. Exemptions - current residential exemptions inclitde Cliristrnas tree lights, and [address] szgn illumination. These requirements were based on the lighting technology and desired aesthetic effects available at the time the C7rdinance was written. These requirements no longer fully accomplish the goals for which they were infiended. With the existing codes, it is possible tn meet al1 requirements, yet sti11 create undesirable side effects. Nevv technolagy which uses both smaller light sources and lower luminotzs output are discouraged with the existing warding of the cotle due ta the quantity restriction. The current Ordinance provides no means far the Town ar Design Review Board to make any subjective exceptions to accommodate new technfllogy and design cancepts. ~ L:\95151D0C\LTTEAMEN,WPD Planning a~ Architecttire o Interiors 1650 East Vail Valley Drive Faliridge C-9 a Vail; CO 81657 • fpb@colorado.net w fax (970) 476-4901 i(970)476-£342 10l23r97 11:17 rAx 9704764901 FtITzLEN PIERcE Q00r3 ° Belbw are two proposed exemptions to the existing Lighting Ordinance, which allow the T'Own ~ and Design Review Hoard the appactunity to address dcsign proposals on artt individual basis. These exernptions c3o not alter ar undermisze thc existzng Ordinance in any way, but provide a means fQr that Urdinance to meet its intended goals; "..to minirnize the unintended arsd undesrrubl'e szde effect o,f outdnor lighting, whzle encouragzng the intended and desirable safefy and aesthetic purposes o,f autdoar tfghting..." and "...to pratect #he legitimate privrzcy n.f nezghboring residents...". PROPflSED EXEMPTION Additional Lighting Light sources requested beyoncl those allowed by Section 1$.54.05(}(C)l 1, Item b. Frequency shatl meet the following, I,ight Sources, rvbich are placed no more than 18" above finished grade, tneeting existing Sectiors 18,04.137 Full-Cutoffor 18,54.050 Luminace, rnay be granted, far safcty ancUor . acsthetic pwrposes, at thc discretion of the Directory of Community I7eveloprnent. ~ L:1951 S\L7tJCtL.i-S'A MLNZ. W Yll ~ p{anning a Architet-Ture 0 Interiors 1650 East Vail Valley Drive FalCridge G-1 ? Vail, Cd 61657 4 fpbgcoltrrada.net o fa3c (970) 47G-4901 a(970)476-fi342 EX6LMPlC's 6'lP e-W-ev'1'oY"` ~ G~~ ~:1 ~~r~~ C t~ t~~ ~1~, fi~?~u.. ~~~e~ ~ ; _ °'4"Pv-4' VA/:> is" ~ , ~ ~ ~.~v~,. o~~r~de. • „ ~ ~ 982 r- ~ ay)~ -q)a 41 Cki..~o'~~ C?ownligh# Bollard The classic wedge fix1u're is r7ow avaif- ablewith a choice af pasts as crcom- pfete bollard fixture. The vvoocl post provicles simpfe instollation 6y dif-eciburial and maintenance-{ree finishes, The steel post rnaunts with corTVentional ..5-. f~ase plate. See Section D- 682 - for a more complete descriptian o/1he fixlure ~ head. r_~' Grape Vine Filigr2es' Hummingbird. filigreel) , Y ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ ,,~jr ~ r 11 ~ ! z ' J ESP-7AGW Evergreei7 7°' low Vo[tageStem Mourrt with EP-7AW0-6Z ctassic Arcfi Overtay,' gotd white iridescent g[ass and verdic~ris patina finish. Pine Needle Sycamare Fi[igree ~ Evergreen 7" Post h~aut~t fixt~tre with FiligreO stantlartl ctassic Arch Overlay,'O whtte Stem Mouni-low Voltage opatestent art glass anc1 bronze finish. Fixture Overatt Maximum Modet Height Neight Wattage Past Mounis ESP-7 7 19 1I2" (1)12V-50W* Fixture pveratt MaximumESP-9 9 3,'4" 21 llx" (1)12V-50W* Modet Heaght Neight Wattage • 12r-70e'l rroG ni9 m,,,u re>>wter+. Fixiures mount wien t°squd,e x EP-7 7 3I4" io 3ra" (1)60 s,a", EP-9 9 3/4" 12 3A° (1)100 ~ EP-12 12" 15" (1)100 ~G~~ 1 C.~ t' id9~ +~~".1/1I~ L~~? W~ ~ EP I6 15 i,s" 19 i/z (0100 t~ dy fistures rntie'nC with d 1~~ 1.(5 po>t adopter. C U.L. Irzfed fbt wzt ~~~~lW'~' ~..?l~? 1~4'v~/P I~/~ R.?{/`„ locatrons< futwes ccrn be modrped jo+ 13SY campar( jtnoresrent larnprny. 1~ w ~ ~ ~ 1997 . o~~~ n of VaI*I: _ 4IL TO W ~ H ~ ousi.ng Strategic. Plan ~ - ~ Tabie of Contents I Introduction . , Purpase, Philasophical Basis, Objective II. Backgraund Historical Zrack record of pttst efforts III. Identification of Today's Need Doczcmcnting the need,for lacal's housing IV. Inventory of Upportunities Land, f'unds, r-egulcztory requirements, ineentives ~ V. Problem 5tatement, Objectives, and Guidelines Conclusion r egardang the need, with polzcies ta guide the fi~ture deciszarts . & actions of the 7'own: VI. Impiementation Road man far makzng the vzsian cz reality f\everyoneiPEC\nemos\971stratplan.o27 ~ ~ updated 10/23 6.30 pm w I. INTRODUCTION ~ A. Purpose • Tbe purpose ofthe Tawn of Vail 1997 Comprehensive Housing Strategic Plan is ta dacument the need far adequate housing and to establish a framework for - - action. It arCiculates in a coniprehensive manner wLhy . adequate housing for lacal eznployees is an issue for Vail and how to address the problem af creating affordable housing for the diverse local Vail community. This strategic plan ; a identifies tlae multiple resources available to the community and how they can be combined in ways that wi11 be effective, and n provzdes a framework for decision-making, which can be relied upcrn by developers, ~ cammunity members, and elected officials. B. 1'hilosophical Basis for the Strategic Plan The philasophical basis for the Strategic Plan is the compelling need to address two critical issues facing the"Vail community: n Maintaining Vail's ecanamic viability, and n Enhancing Vail's the sense of cornmunity. Economzc viabzlitv The lack af affordable housing for employees within the Town of Vail affects our status as a warld-elass resort. Our econQmic vitality is threatened as necessary jobs go unfilled or are fiiled with unmativated workers. f teveryonelPEClmemos\.9'7\sczatplan.o27 ~ 2 updated I0l23 6:30 pm Gompetition for empluyees is no ionger just between ski areas or between regions, but has now become an ~ issue within the Vail Valley. Employees who find hausing down valley are likeiy to find jabs there, tao. This prablem has directly impacted rnany employers in Vail, including the Town of Vail, in efforts to appropriately fill employment positions. - . Sense of Gvmmunity Much of Vaii is made up of honzes which hause part- time residents. Approximma.tely 70 percent of the Town's housing stock is being used by this segment of our community. Although able to rnake a unique contribution tcr the Town, part-time residents are not able to engage in local activities on a day-to-day basis. As long-time la.cals are drawn down valley, more homes in Vail's neighborhaods are occupied by part- time residents and are vacant most ofi'the year, thus negatively impacting the sense of cammunity in Vail. There is a strong economic zncentive for full time residents to sell thein comes in Vail and move down valley. "The trend resuits in an underutilized housing stock in Vail. ~ C. Clbje+ctive of the Strategic Plan: 2he fundamental objective of the Housing Strategic Plan is to maximize the creation and preservation of , housing for local empioyees and to,rnaximize the ' opportunities to leverage existing resources. D. Nature of the Strategic 1'lan: Focus The focus of the plan is on the why, who, what, haw and when of affordable housing in Vail. It is a pra,gmatic apprnach, focusing on the practicai arscl available resources. Past studies and the data currently available indicate that the problern warrants serious attention. Rather than replicating previous studies to assess the need, the plan focuses on specific implementabie solutions that address previous recommendations. ~ . f:\everyone\PEClmemosl97lstratplan.o27 3 updated I0t23 6:30 pm ~ Benefits of the plan This plan makes decision-making easier for all parties interested in affardable housing, including elected afficials, employers, developers, and future residents. It brings together in one dpcurnent the various ideas ' and opporlunities fcar solving the prablem of the lack of affordable housing for locals. Dacumenting the vanous ideas in a pian such as this will enabie us to move past rnere discussions and an to i=ltmentation. It will also elarify the rale of the Tflwn to all those who participate in the housing arena. Long. terrn outloak The plan is intended to be used over the next five to ten years by the Town of Vail leadership. 4ne of the goals of the plan is ta enable future Town Councils to build . on the groland work laid by previous councils. Consistent application over time will lead to the most successful results. GeographicaZ Seope ~ The plan acknowledges that solutionstcr Vail's housing problem cannot be c" letelX addressed within the town limits of Vail. Because land and ather resaurces are limited, Vail will have to cantinue to work with the other players in the Vail Valley where and when apprnpriate. However, loeating hausing east of Dowd . Junetion is seer~ as a necessary priority in order to effectively address the economic and community . 3mpacts associated with the lack of housing far lacals in Vail. . Commtrnitv Coltabaration 'Y'he plan emphasizes the need for cornrnunity collaboration in the decision-rruaking on each housing actian when development is proposed. f:leveryone\PEC\usmos\97\stratplan.a27 ~ 4 uptlated I0123 6i30 pm IL BACKGRUUND ~ Past efforts to develop affordable housing in the Town af Vail demonstrate that affordable housing for local employees has been a pressing neetl since the inception nf the community. The purpose of the overview provided below is ta highlight the suceesses, as well as the failures, of'the various past atteznpts " to adclress the housing probletn in Vail. It documents the role , of bath the public and private sectors over the years. With this information, the appropriate role for each entity wiil be clarified. A. Eariy Efforts the 1970s Affordability and availability have been at the root of Vail's housing prablem since tbe Tawn's beginning. In the 1970s, the housing problem was most pressine, during the ski season, but - eased each spring. For those individuals interested and able to maintain employment over the summer, there were numerous housing options available. Some of the early efforts to specifcally addiess employee ~ housing included Apoilo Park, Sandstone 70, and Vail Villa.ge • 9th Filing (Red Sandstone Circle). 1. Apalla Parkwas built in the early 1974s by lacal deveidpers on land pzovided by Vail Associates under a long term lease. Uriginally, it included four buildings -and 98 dwellirrig units. Aspects atfecting viabilit~. of the development included land casts, constructian costs, and year-round occupancy rates. Vail Assnciates subsidized the develo ~nent bY Praviding a 1'c~w cast I~ land lease, conditioning tlae 1ease rate with a requirement that the land must be used for employee ~ housing. VA pravided an optidn to the developer to purchase the land far uses otlier than employee housing, but disincentivised the conversion with a high purchase price. Hawever, due to the lawer than Apoiio Park . estimated revenue generated by employee rentals, and the potential for greater revenue from other uses, the developers purclaased the land from VA after ° approximately S years antl converted half of the project into time-share candominiums and the other half to short-term accommodations. This conversion was of ~ great concern to tlae community at the time. f:\everyone\PEG\rnemos\97\stratplan.o27 5 updated 10123 6:30 pm . i . . 2 Vail Village 9th Filing is a-single family subdivisian ~ located at the intersection of the North Frantage Road and Red Sandstone Road. It ineludes 12 lots, which Vail Associates sold ta VA employees, enabling them to build homes for themselves, Some of the original employees who bought these parcels remain as VA ' employees and cantinue to live in these hnmes. . However, withaut a cap on appreciation, the lots were . affordable for anly the onginal purchasers, and in one case the buyer left VA immediately after acquiring the Single ~am~t~ xo~c,e in ~a~~ v~t~age ~th- lot. 3. Sandstdne 70 is a collection of duplcxes and fourplexes located irnmediately west of the 9th Filing. The developer,of this proj ect addressed a market niche for entry level ownership housing with this develop~nent. At the time, it was located on the autskirts of Town, ~ making it affordable relative to locatians closer to the center of Town. It continues to hold its original ~ position in the market, as 53 of the 67 units are occupied by locals. In conclusion, the first employee housing efforts in Vail were based in the private sector. The impetus for development of employee housing appears ta have primarily been that of fiiling a market niche that was under-served, due to a lack of housing Sandszone 70 options for locals. A signifieant hurdle wa$ the cast of land, solved in one instance by a long-tenn lease from VA. From the case history, for-sale projects were more viable than rental - projects. The one rental project (Apollo Park) was not viabie . - ouer time, because of paor ticcupancy rates due to the _ seasonal nature ofthe hausing demand. B. Growing Town Invalvement --1980s Two projeets, Pitkin Creek Park and Timber Ridge, came on-line in the early 1980s. Both were signifcantly larger and more complex than earlier effarts. It appears private sector's mativatian to enter the housing market had not changed from the previous decade. However, this period shows the increasing rale nfthe Tawn of Vail, specifcally with financing and deed restrictions. ~ f leveryone\T'EG\Cnemos\97\stratptan.o27 6 updated 10l23 6:30pm 1. PitTiin CreekParkwas one of the first opportunities far the Town to play a greater rale in addressing the ~ housing problem. From its inception in the late 1970s, the prolect was based on municipal rate finaneing (vs. ~ market rate, vvhich was higher), for both the , construction phase and the end-user buy-out phase. ' This methfld af financing pravided iower cost fuunds for construetion and provided individual mortgages far home buyers at signifieantly lower rates than the then- current conventional market rate financing. The fnancing was provided via the Town's ability to secure allocations fromthe State of Gtiiarado for Industrial Revenue Bonds (I2.Bs) and Private ActiviCy Bonds (PABs). As a result of its participation, the Town required the developer to deed-restrict the 156 Pitkin Creek Parx condominium units with stipulations that the home buyers be employed in the Upper Eag1e Valley and that resale prices be capped at an annual rate of 1.5 ofthe Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Town requested that the restrictions run in perpetuity. However, the deveioper could not se1l the bonds with this condition and the Town, developer, and bond purchasers ultimately compromised on a restnction lasting seven years. ~ 2. Timber Ridge was developed concurrentiy with Pitkin Creek Park, In that project, the developer proposed a Special Development District and requested to tripie the number of dwelling units above the perrnitted - z~oninR to allow for 198 units. The Town approved the .fl . - request, with the conditian that the ideveloper deed restrict'the prQperry, limiting residents to those emplayetl at business located in the Upper Eagle ValleY : and re quirin g lease periods be written for no less than 30 days. The restrictions placed on the deed expire 20 years from the eompletion of the project, which is November 30, 2001. In 1987, the project went into <Timber Ridge foreclosure. Causes for the foreciosure were primar7ly due to the seasonal fluctuatian ofthe revenue stream, which is significant, as it highlights the eha,llenge assaciated with rental developments targeted at the " seasonal ma.rket, f-\everyone\I'ECtmemos\97\stratplan;o27 ~ 7 updated 10123 6:30 pm In conelusion, the Town became more active in the housing arena during the 1980s, facilitating financing, approving bonus ~ densiry, and taking measures to prevent housing from being quickly converted into other uses vvith deed restrictions. The impetus for private sector development of housing for lacal emplayees eontinued to be the financial return provided by ta`rgeting this under-serverl niche in the market. The scale of , the projects grew from 12 - 100 units in the 1970s td 150 - 200 _ units during the 1980s. ` Althaugh the introduction of deed restrictions helped maintain r availability and affordability more than had occurred previously, the deed resfirictions of these projects were relatively short in length. After seven years, pitkin Creek Park units were sold on the free market and many have been purchased by second home owners. Today, of the 156 units at Pitkin Creek, 67 are owner-occupied and 55 are used as long- term iocal rcntals. Since the expiration of the deed restriction, 34 units have been converted ta secand hame ownership. The deed restriction on Timber Ridge expires in 2401, enabling the owner to cansider ather uses for the properiy at that tirne. ~ C. Recent Efforts the 1990s After the two previously discussed developments were brought on-line in the early 1980s, real estate prices fell significantly due to the oil and gas recession. Housing costs dropped and development slowed. The 1989 Wcrrld Alpine Ski Championships eoincided with an upward trend in the real , - estate rrzarket. The desire of the communi .ry to provide worid- class services, and the 'need far the empiayees to da that emphasized the need for affordable housing. In 1990, the . Town of Vai1 commzssioned a housing needs assessment, which was campleted by RRC Assaciates, a research and consulting firm. C}ne of the recommendations stated that "An additional 800 to 1,000 units would be absorbed by the Eagle Caunty winter market over the next two to tlaree years." It also identified between 3,000 to 3,840 persons requiring some level of assistance to secure affordable housing. The study recommended multiple steps the Town of Vail couldtake to address the problem. Many af the recommendations were in fact, irnpiemented by the Town, including; ~ f:\everyonelpEClmemos\97\straiplan.o27 8 updated 10123 6;30 pm ~ 1. Zoning Code Amendments Among the steps taken in respanse to the study, the , Town adapted amendrnents to the zoning code to create incentives for the development taf caretaker units and similar deed restricted units throughout the community. As of flctober 1997, there are 106 employee units dispersed throughout Towni with ' varying degrees of restriction. (Early caretaker restrictions did not specify that the units had to be occupied by employees; anly units appraved sinee May 1994 have that requirement. 'I"hus, while many of the units are used consistently with the spirit of the deed restriction, only 24 af the totai of 106 units are required to be occupied.) 2. Housing.Autharzty In 1991, the Town established aHousing Authority to develop affordable housing, appointing five community members to the board from afield of 25 interested applicants; Although the Town Council did not support proposed rezonings associated with the projects proposed by the Authority, the increased ~ awareness of tke need motivated the Cauncil to become proactive iu solving the problem. Council assumed a stronger role in the affordable housing effort by purchasing a parcel of landy referred to as Vaii Commons, which could accommodate housing without requiring any rezoning requests. 3. Vail Commons - - The Town purchased a b-plus acre site located on the North Frontage Road in 1993, earmarking it for housing. In 1994, the Town initiated a process to develop the site. In a:ddition to the residential use, it ~ became apparent that a commerciai component wauld make the development economicaliy feasible and deliver affardable units without direct subsidy fram the i' Town. After testing the capacity of the site for various . . densities, target markets, and uses, the Tovvn held a national competition for developers to build a mixed- ..A use program of cnmmercial buildir~gs and local's va~~ Commons housing units. After some debate on the best program for the site, the ~ Town selected a developer who then canstrueted 71 perpetuaily deed-restricted units and 7(},000 square feet • f:\everyanelPEC\memos\97\stratplan.o27 9 updated 10123 6:30 pua m of commercial area. The project includes 53 townhouses and condorniniums, sald through a lottery to individuais and families who wanted to purchase real estate and put roats down in the community. The units were occupied immediately after certificates af occupancy were issued and the project was 100%0 ' camplete by 3uly, 1997. The deed restrictions require that owners be employed in Eagle County, that the homes be owner-occupied, and that the resale prices be capped at a 3%'~ annuai rate of appreciation. In addition to the 53 owner-occupied units, there are 1$ rental units for the employees of the commercial business on- site. Many af the components tif the development were precedent setting, includin,g the clear need for community dialogue concerning affordable housing propasals. The three efforts discussed above stem from the 1990 Housing Study. Other efforts occurring during this period are described below. 4. Public Wnrks Seasvnal Housing With the Vail Commons development underway, the ~ Town Council appraved plans for a 24-unit seasnnal employees development at the Town's Pubiic Works site, slated for completion in April of 1998. S, l)own Vallev Actzvztv ~ r It is impartant to note that as the down valley market has grawn, ather private sector and governmental t.•~ q agencies have taken an active role in providing -affordable housing. Two large housing developments P.ib1ic works Site have been constructed down valley, beginning with EableBend in Avon (240 units built in 1991), and Lake Creek Village located just west of Edwards (270 units built in I993). Avan compieted a 17-unit ownership project in Wildridge in 1991. In 1997, Vail Resorts broke ground an RiverEdge, a 104 unit development lacated in Avon. Each of the three projects required public sectcsr participation; specifically assistance supplied via a non-profit lacal government sponsored corparation, which provided tax free firiancing. 6. Unsuccessful Przvate Sectar Ef, f'orts in Vazl In the early 1990s, a developer teamed with a Vaii ~ architectural firm and proposed 250 ernployee housing units on three sites in Town-- one located in f:\everyone\PEC\nempsl97\stra#plan.o27 10 updated 10123 6.30 pm - Intermauntain, one located in West Vail, and one located in central Vail. Each af the three sites required ~ rezonings; one site was owned by the Town. Even after scaling the magnitude oftlae proposal ciown ta 1$0 units, the community still opposed the rezonings and the developer did nat pursue his application. During the 1990s, there vvas a signrficantiy larger e#fort made - by both the private and public sectnrs than had been made"in previous years. The demand for housing grew and the , ' seasonaljry of vacancy rates diminished. (This is evidenced by the low year-raund vacaney rates aver multiple years for the large employee housing developments.) UpPortunities in "'Vail have become limited, due to the lack of available sites, the need for rezonin; for additional density, and the need for subsidies. The Town recognized the positive impacts of 1ong term deed restrictions and maved from requiring seven and 20-year restrictions to restrictions that run in-perpetuity. Enforcement is a key fallow up action which the Town staff wil1 provide to insure the units are used consistently with the restrictions. The total number of appraved deecl restricted units occupied or under construction in the Town af Vail as of October, 1997 is ~ as follows: Dispersed lOb Vail Comrnons 71 Public `VVorks 24 Timber Ridge 19$ Tatal 399 D. Lessons Learned The efforts from the past are described above ta show what issues have prevented the Town fram reaching its goals in the affordable housing arena. Belaw is a summarry of the lessons learned to date. l. Land availability and cost continue to be the most difficult hurdles tQ clear. • 2. Eveiy affordable housing develapment is a pfllitical challenge. While six sites proposed for hausing f:\everyoneU?EC\nemoa\974stratplan.o27 ~ 11 upaatea 10/23 6.30 pm - ~ between 1990 and 1995 have been stopped by community opposition, the two mare recent efforts ~(1935 - 1997) have been ,suceessful. 3. Deed restrictians are necessary to preserve availability and affordability for future generations of residents and ' to protect the initial public investment (financing, Iand, subsidy, etc.) .-4. Partnerships are key. In the eariy 1990s several projects initiated by both the private and public sectors were not successful. However, the public-private partnership projects developed down valley and most recently with Vail Commons have been successfui and prflvide oppartunities to leverage public resaurces. 5. The histarically seasonal nature of rental demand has becnme less of a prablem over time, but the cyclical nature of the seasonal demand that remains makes seasonal rental housing the most difficult product to provide. ~ ~ f \everyane\PEGUnemosl9'3\stratplan.a27 12 upaated 10/23 6:30 pm r 111. IDENTIFICATION OF TODAY'S NEED. ~ The local's housing problem is frequentiy identifieci as ane of the priznary issues facing the community, and rnany individuais have personal stories abnut the difficulties encountered in finding affordable housing in Vail. TThe statistics shawn below regarding the home ownership rnarket and the rental market in - Vail document the need. They shaw the trends since 1990 and benchmark Vail's eurrent status. A. The Hame Ownership Housing Market Far the purposes of traeking historical hdusing data, two types af housing have been selected to represent the real estate market; "candominiums" and "half-duplexes." These housing tyPes are commonly faund in Town and are less expensive then the close counterparts af "single family'> and "tnwnhouse," and therefore, are deemed to be more affordable for locals. Since 1994, wages in Eagle County have increased at a rate of ~ 3.8 °la, This compares to a housing cost inerease of 8.7% in real estate sales. Clearly, wages have not kept ace with ho~.using costs. (See charts and sources listed belaw.) There is a perception that wages in resort areas are higher than in non- resort mountain communities and compensate for the higher costs of living, specifically housing costs. However, when Eagle County wages are cornpaxed to that of the state or . - national averages, the local wages lag behind due to the fact, , that the high p'aying sectors, such as rnanufacturing, are under represented in this area and the low paying sectors, such as retail services, are over represented. Table l: Avera e Annual Wa es for Ea le Coun : Annual Wages Houriy Wages 1930 $18;814 , $9A5 1991 $19,741 $9.49 1992 $21,505 $10.34 1993 $22,0$3 $10.61 1994 $22,263 $10.70 1995 $23,367 $11.23 9 Source: U.S. Bureau of Ecanomic Analysis f \everyone\i"EC\memos\47\stratplan.o27 13 updated 14/23 6:30 pm . ~ Tabie 2: Median Sales Prices for Residential Real Estate in Vaii: Condomiziium Ha1f Duplex 1990 $134;000 $315,000 1991 $130,000$236,400 1992 $155,006 $333,000 - 1993 $166,000 $436,000 • _ 1994 $187,250 - $405,000 . 1995 $212,000 $462,500 . . 1996 $210,000 $530,000 Source: Eagle Counry Assessor's Office Table 3: Percent Chan e Since 1990: Wages 3.8% Condominium Costs 8.3% Half Duplex Costs 9,1 °lo Average Hauszng Cost $.7% ~ Wages vs. Sales Prices of +Condos Annuai Rates of increase $25o>aoo . $200,000 ~ . ' . $150,000 ~ $100,000 i $50,000 ~ $0 ~ 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Wages - Sales Prices ~ f:\everyone\PEGlmemosl97\stratplan.o27 14 updated 10123 6:30 ptn . ~ Note that wage data represents ai1 of Eagle County, not just Vail. Assumptions about the relationship between Vail and ~ Eagle County would need ta be made to break the data down to represent just the Town of V'ail. This has not been done as , it would diminish the accuracy without elarifying the analysis. Home sales prices reflect the real estate transactians compieted within the municipal boundaries of the 'T'awn of Vail. For _ these purposes, sales. prices shown axe the rnedian price, as that . . is a better reflectinn of the market than the mean price. A more effective methnd of cvaluating the wages vs. hausing issue is ta campare the number af average paying jobs needed to purchase the avexage condomiuium or half-duplex. Table 4: Number of jobs required to purehase a home in Vail; (Cam arison Qf Table 1 and Table 2) Condominiurn Half Dup2ex 1990 2.6 6.3 1991 2,3 4.3 1992 2.3 5.0 1993 2.2 5.4 ~ 1994 2.6 5.6 1995 2.9 6.3 The assumptions made for the analysis above include a down payment af 10% of the purchase price, a mortgage rate reflecting the average rate for the calendar year-, private mortgage insurance of .075 % of the 2oan amaunt, insurance LL rates ba-sed on iocal providers estimates, and the tax rate for - East Vail, which falls in the middle of a relatively tight range of mill ievies far the various parts of the Town of Vail. (See Exhibit A.) As the data shaws, housing Iocated in Vai1 is beeoming less and less attainabie for local employees. Some may suggest that the housing mmarket for Vail workers iogically includes all of the Vail Valley, and that the less expensive homes down valley adequately meet the housing needs afVa.il ernployees. 1'hat argument merits two additionai consideratians. f:leveryonelPEC\nemos\9'7lstratplan.o27 ~ 15 updated 14123 6.30 pm ~ a First, locatiug housing autside Vail, or encouraging locals to ~ seek housing outside Vail, defeats the two primary goals of Va1I's strategy. It does not bolster the sense of community, nor does it maintain the econamic viability, given the job competition down valley. Secondly, down valley housing casts, aithaugh statistically lower than Va.il, a:re stzll unattainable for many residents and demonstrate similar, and in some cases steeper, growth rates. - B. The Rental Honsing Market The tables below show the housing costs and typical wages far seasanal employees in Vail. The jobs shown reflect those which would be filled by entry-Ievel seasanal workers, and the housing renta.l rates are the averages of available apartments in the fail of each year, as found in the Vail. Daily classified section. Tabie 5: Cantract R.ents 1990 1994 1997 one bedrootn $670lmo $700/mo $790/mo two hedroom $ I, l 0011110 $1,3 601mo $1,4001mo ~ three bedroom $1360lmo $,1,555/mo $1,750lmo ave/bdrm $5211mo $602Imo $6621mo Sotirce: The Vail Daily Table 6:-Wa es 1990 1994 . 1997 _ lift operator $6.001hr $6.50/hr. $7.75Ihr . busdriver $7.50/hr $8.751hr $10,25/hr ski patrol $6.501hr $6.50lhr $&.OOfhr Saurces. Tawn of Vaii and Vail Associates, Inc. Human itesaurce {3ffices Table 7: Com arison of Wa s and Housin Rates af Growth Average Wage Increase 2.6% Average Rent Inerease 3.0°l0 ~ f:\everyane\PEC\memos\97\straiplan.o27 16 updated 10/23 6:30 pm ~ c The financial industry rule of thumb is that housing costs should not exceed 30% of gross income. In the case of entryw level seasonal workers, the average pvrtions spent on housing ~ is much higher. Table 8: Percentage of monthly income required to be spent on housing, ` based on avera e rental rates of individual bedraoms ' 1990 1994 1997 w 12ft 0peT'2tOT' 54.3d/o 57.8% $3.4% btts ilriver 43.4%0 43% 40.4%0 ski patrol sa°ra 1 s7.s~o sl.7na C. Implications for the Town's Gaal of Maintaining Economic Viability Filling available job openings with qualified, motivated workers is a pzimary concem for local bust-ness crwners, incl-uding the Tawn of Vail itself. Vacancy rates and turnover rates increase costs, as training and uvertime budgets are strained. Tale 10 Iists major employers in the Valley. Aithough some are located autside of'the Towni the graup reflects the top ten largest employers in the County, and is intended to docurnent the ~ needs of a majority of the emplayment positions in the Valley. Table 9: Em loyee shortage a.nd turnover estimated b lar e em lo ers in the County Business Total number Shartage of Employee ofemployees employees in 96197 Tumover summer J winter winter seasnn each season Vail Associates, Inc. 2000 i 4Q00 150 SO% . Cordiilera 650 i 375 30 15°r'o Eagle Caunty School Uistrict 600 4 7.5% City Market (4 stores) 504 41 91 %o Vail Valley Medical Center 500 25 30°1o Hyatt Beaver Creek 300 / 450 50 80°lo Sannenaip 340 / 370 20 34°l0 Eagle County 300 0 9%, Masriot 2501275 5- 12 40% Town of Vai1 216 / 251 9 12.5°l0 ~ f \everyane\I'EClmemos1971stratplan.oZ7 ~ updated 10123 6.30 pm ~ , D. Implications for the Town's Goal of Enhancing the Ser?se of Community ~ The cast ofhausing is directly related to the supply/lavailability of housing. The pereentage of homes in Vail used by part-time residents has remainecl in the 70°lo ra.nge for the last several years. Vail's high proportion of hame which stand vacant , much of the year affects not only housing costs, but also the _ goal of enhancing Vail's sense of community. Tncrea.sing the percentage of full-time resident is an important goal of this plan. In conversatians with many second home owners conducted during the Vail Tomorrow process, as well as the responses in the community survey, there appears to be a trend of part-time residents making Vail their hame. In the 1996 community survey, 1I percent of the part-time residents reported they were "very likely„ to make Vail their primary residenee in the next five to ten years, with another 12 percent indicating a motlerately high level of likelihood. It is important to nate that the demographics of the eomnunity rnay ehange as a result of this trend. ~ Table 14: Percent of local home awnershi Percent ofhomes qccupied by locals 1940 27.53% 199L 26:61% 1992 26.72°l0 1993 27.14% 1994 34.47°~'a 1995 29.78% 1996 29.56°10 Sources: 1991 w 1996 Colorado Demography Service 1990 U.S. Census ~ f:\everynne\PEClmemos\97\stratpiau.o27 I $ updatec11U123 6:30 pm : I Y . INVENT(JRY (JF OPl'ORTIJNITIES+ A. Land ~ I. "Hidden Resource " Parcels . 2. Underutilized Parcels 3: Privatelv Held Vacant Parcels 4. Ptrblzclv Held Vrzcant Parcels 5. Potentaal Land Trddes with the Forest Service ` B. Funds C. patential 12egulatory Requirements I. Growzh Martagement. 2. Employee Generation.. 3. Inclusianarv Zonirtg. D. Potentiallncentives V. PtILIGIES ON THE DEVELOPMEN'T OF HOUSING A. Problem Statement ~ B. Objectives: C. Guiclelines VI: " - TQCILS, FIJR IMPLEMENTATION A. Community Decision Making _ B. Problem Statement C. Estabiishing Givens VRI. Conclusian f-.\everyane\l'EC\tnemos197tstratpiaan.n27 ~ 19 updated 10t23 5:30 pm LAW OFFiCES IYIf1RCE & INGRMSSIA (a professional corporation) ~ auite 210 1314 North Third Street Phoenix, Arxzona 85004 Telephoaee 602/257-1100 Facsima.le: 6021257-1685 October 10, 1997 Planni:ng & Environmenta:l Commission Town of Vail 75 Sauth Frontage Road Vail, CO $165 Re; Lionshead Re-develapment ~ Ladies and Gentlemen: My wife and I are owners at the Westwind, in Lianshead. We = have recently received some materials outl.a.ning vari.ous plans that are underway for the "re-development" of Lionshead. ~ I want to particularly vaice our strang disappaintment that the Town .is even consi.dering a redevelopment plan Yahich wauld allow any vehicle traffic (even i.f it is only town buses ) to cut through the Lionshead Ma1.l south of the Lifthouse or between the Landmark and the Sunbird Lodge, We are equall.y disappainted that the Town may be considering allowi.ng Vail Associates to redevel.op the Sunbird and Gondola Buil.ding properties i.n a way that encroaches into the Lionshead ma1.l area. My wife and I selected Vail as aur seconcl home after visiting several ski areas in Colarado, Utah and Ca1.ifarnia. We selected Vai1 and the Lionshead area in partieular because we were comfortable with the secure community atmosphere that it prrav.ided for our young cha.l.dren. An important factar in our consideration was the secure ambiance af the vehicle-free Lionshead mall area. Even before we became owners at the Westwind, when we were simply visitors, we felt camfartabl.e that our children could go out to play or just ta walk aaraund the Lianshead mall area and be safe and secure. The fact that we, our chilclren and other guests could go fram the Westwincl to the lifts without crossi.ng any streets was also a major factor in our chQice of Lionshead. Putting astree-t thraugh the mall eitren if it is 1.imi.ted to Towri of Vail buses or allowing Vail Associates to encroach ~ into the presently-open area wi.th new hotel or candc,mi,ni.um buildings will destroy much of what braught us tQ Vail in the first place. ~ Planning & Enviranmental Commissipn Town of Vai1 C3ctabex 10, 1997 Page 2 ~ And let' s face it, nothing you can do will liznit traffic ta Town caf Vai1 buses. How many times everv day are there unauthorized vehicles often 1.ast tourists, who are too busy gawking to watch where they are going on, sectians of Meadaw Drive that are supposed to be 13.mited: to buses, We appreci.ate the cancerns of the Lianshea:d merchants, and we apprec,i.ate that Va,il Associates' need to redevelop the property presently accupied by the Sunbird Lodge and the Gondola Building. Surely, however, their aneeds can be met without being harmful to everyone else. Surely, their needs can be met without destroying the ambiance that makes Lionshead special to owners and visitors. Thank you for your considerati:on. Sin~erely, r; ~~nqer R:" Marce RRM: par r~ ~,.r.. . , A;AWESTWIND\LETTSRS\PLN&EN91s009 ~ ~ October 13, 1997 John D. Kucera flwrrer of Vail 21#306 in Lionshead since 9977 6178 5outh A1ton Way Greenwaad Village, C(7 80111 (303) 773-3593 To: Towrt ofVail Council CJear Sir/Madam: I have seen some of the concepts from the new plan far redevelopment of Lionshead. 1 am in-favar of the transi# corridor, even as i# appears to run directly adjacent to my building. The corridor cannot gn closer to the mountain and the Frontage Rcrad is too distant. I arn aiso in favor of a major new hotel with convention facilities encompassing the otd Gondola Building and Sunbird Lodge, I bslieve a new hub of lodging and retail wauld reawaken the whale Lionshead area wi#h new shops and ~ restaurants. Hawever, I wouldn't want this complex ta rise more than faur orfive s#ories. i believe that as much view as possible shou{d be maintained in the corridors ta give people a sense of why they come ta Vail, it's the moun#ain, l also think thehotel compfex shouidbe no more #han five storiesand the fourcondominium buildingsto be three or four stories. I believe it is importarrt we take khis opportunity to redesign Lionshead #or the next 50 years. This may mean changing current buildings ar tearing down for new structures ar transif flow (including my bailding, Vai! 21). 1 also think an upscale hotel on the West End of the parking structure has merit. I don't want Vail to become overcrowded, but the real#y is that the convention market is big, and; we will confinue to lase business to Beaver Creek and 7he Gascade C#ub until a real facility is built. Thank yau for taking the time to read my comments. Si cerely, , John D. Kuc ra cc: Tawn of Vail Council Planning & Envirdnmenta{ Commission ~ ~ Mark & beborah Kdbelan 12 Metnorial Poirtt Houston, Texas 77024 QcCober 20, 1997 rI'he Pianning & Environmental Cornmissian 75 S. Frontage Rcl. VaiZ, Colorado 81657 Dear Gentlemen: My wife Deborah, and T have been visiting Vai1 for aver 20 years and in 1993 we purchased acondo in the Lancimark Tawer in Liansheacl. We are cautiously excrted about many of the redevelopment fdeas proposed but are disappointeci that in almost every article or letter about the redeveloprnent the basic premise is that Lionshead is undesirabte, unattractive or outdated. We happen to like the Lionshead area which is why we purchased our conda in Lidnsheacl rather than Vail Village. ~ As a point of comParison I would like ta list the reasons we prefer Lionshead to Vail Village, the amenities we prefer in Vail Village and the improvements wewould like to see in Lionshead. Reasons we prefer Lionshead to Vail Village: l. The proximity of the Gandola ancl the new Aclventure Ridge at the tap af tbe mountain are distinet assets. 2. The panaramic views of Vail Mountain from Lionshead are superiar to the views from Vail Village, 3. The ski runs at the battorn are user friendly anci always have better snow than thase going into Vail Village. 4. The two ski lifts at the base of Lionshead are more accessible to skiers and there is more raam to rneet groups and put an skis. 5. Lionshead is quieter especially at night (fewer screaming anci yodeling drunks). ~ 6. fihere is a feeling af safety in the Lionshead area, We have let our children roam the area when they were younger (S and 9 ~ years ald), but would not do that zn Uail Village. The amenities we refer in Vazl Village: 1. The retail shopping is much better in the village. Lionshead has T-shirt shops and ski equipment shops and very iittle else. 2. The selection af restaurants is much more extensive in Vail Village. Improvements that we would like to see in Lionshead: l. Replace the Gonclola building anci Su.nbird Lcydge build.ing with something that includes retail and restaurants on the graund level. A restriction on the height of the structure is of NtAJOR. IMPOgt,'I',ANACE. We STItt3NGLY dislike the imposing building at Beaver Creek which block the mountain views; I would vigorausly object to any structure that is taller that the peak of the Sunbird Lodge. ~ 2. Imprave ped:estrian flow through the area. The Cancert Hail Plaza and the part of Montaneros that has the Gharlie's T-Shirt shop block pedestrian traffic frnm the west. Most people caming from the east da not walk up the 20-+- stairs ta go through the Concert Hall Plaza. Almost no one knows there is a bus stnp in front of Concert HaZI Plaza. If this building could be rebuilt with a ground level pedestrian walkway between twa rows of shops it would generate cansiderably more tra#'t`ic. Most visitors walk as far as the Gandala building and do not realize there is anything past this point. Even if they walk up toward Bart Yetis they cannot see much past the Montuck Restaurant. This is especially true when there is a 15' high mound nf snow piled in the middle of the walkway just east of Banner Sporxs. This view problem can be alleviated by properly designing a builcling, to replace the Gondola and Sunbirci buildings, which draws people to the west with additional shops. If people can see that there is more to explare ahead and they don't have to walk up a flight of stairs, they wiil continue ta explore. ~ 2 Istrongly object ta the propasal that a bus route be built ~ through a partion of the pedestrial retail area. A revised route that includes a stop at the parking lat just north of the Landmark could be successful if peaple don't have to climb 20 stairs to get to the bus. 3. Reduce the road noise from the expressway thraugh Lionshead. Although the noise is not naticeabie from the pedestrian walkway, it is very naticeable at night in the condos. I arn sure that there have been: many complaints. zn conclusion, I wauld like ta stress that we da likc Lionshead and would prefer nat to turn it in to a second Vail Village. T1Ve believe that having twa distinctly different areas or Villages at the base of the mountain is an advantage to tihe Vail 12esort. We are lnoking farwarcl to the final master plan and redevelapxnent area. Sincer Mark Kobelan ~ J MK ~ 3 TNE WES7V111ND October 22, 1997 Tnwn Counsel Town qf Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, ColQrado 81657 Re. Renovation af Lionshead To Wham it May Concern. . The Westwind condominium building is locaied in tt'qnshead, The building was thefirst to be built in Lionsttead. 7he loca#ior? and views of the mountain are an enormnus benefif to the bwilding and are major factors in the buiiding's walue. . The Westwind owners are spending a significant amauni o# money (in excess of $1 millian dollars) this year and next renovating the interioc and exterior of the buiidirrg, The owners agree that the Lionshead area needs renovation. We at The Westwind are doing our part by significanliy renovating our buiiding. . The potential loss of mountain views and incteased naise congestion around aur building are a significant concern to `fhe Wes#wind owners. . We believe any renava#ian project in the Lionshead area which is taller than the cloek tower wi11 have a significant nega#ive effect on existingbuildings in the acea. ~ . A building higher than the clock tower would not help to develap the Lionshead area. in fiact, ik wvuld rrtost likely have a negative ef€ect an the existing Lionshead buiidings and make it mucn more difficult for the existing building owners to have the desire to invest r'noney (as 7he Westwind owners have) into their buildings. . The clock tower is ta11 enough. Any benefit received by some sma(( number of condominiurns or hotel rooms buil# tal(er than the ctdck tower cauld not possibiy be warth the negative e#tecf it wou#d surely have on existing Lionshead buildings. . !n additian, #he current "l.ionshead Mail" area appears too smali fpr a traffic corridor. It is pniy two tn three blocks from the East Lionshead bus stop to the West Lionshead Concert Mall Plaza bus stop if you enlarge the mall area, it would s#i11 be only two to three blocks w'tde - hardly wide enough fnr a traffic corridor. . We have asked Geoffi V1Jright ofi Des#ination Resorts to monitor this situation and tn keep us informed. If yau have any questinns, please don'# hesitate to,ca{I me at 312.347.5903 or my assistant, Bets, Fa(rel1 aC 312.347.5937, Si cerely, , . _ ~ames F. Beeaae President, The Wesiwind Namepwners' Association ~ cc: The Westwind Board of Directors Chris Ryman -Vail Associates The Westwind Nomeowners Mike Porter - Vail Associates Town of Vail - p(anning and Environmenta( Committee GeoFf Wright - Destina#ion Resoa Town of Vaif - design and Review Board ~ PLANMNG ANa ENVIRONMENI`AL CC}MMISSION October 27, 1997 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: I\JIEMBERS ABSENT: ST'AFF PRESENT. Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Susan Connelly Greg Amsden IVlike Moilica' Diane Golden Andy Knudtsen Gene Uselton George Ruther John Schofield L,auren Waterton Ann Bishap Dominic Mauriella Judy Rodriguez Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A reques# for approval of a major exterior alteratian, to ailow for the canstruction of a new entry and comman area in the 7reetops I building, located at 452 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, B{ack 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing. Appiicant: Treefops Condo Associatidn, represented by Larry Bames ~ Planner : Dominic IVlauriello Dominic MaurieNo gave an overview of the staff inemo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any commenfs. William F'ierce, on behalf of the applicant, had no cammenfs. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had no camments. Greg Amsden inquired abaut the existing landscaping in front. BiIl Pierce said there vvere pine trees. Ann Bishop commended the applicant on the improvement. Diane Goiden had no camments. Greg Moffet stated for the record that fhis application was consistent with the purpose statement Tn the CC2 Zone District. Dominic Mauriello stated that the applicant would bring the lightinginto compHance. ~ I'lanning and Bnvironmentai Commission Minutes october2?, 1997 ~ - . ~ ~ Greg Maffet suggested making the lighting acondition, John Schofield made a motion far approval with 1 condition that the exterior lighting af the entire ~ structure be brought ints compliance with the Town af Vail code. Ann Bishop seconded #he mo#ion. The motiqn passed by a vote of 6-0. 2. A requsst for approval of a minor exterior aIteration in CC1 and a site coverage variance, ta aifow for the renavation of the exterior and improvements to The Golden 8ear, located at 935 S. Frontage Road, #302/ Lats A&B, Black 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: C. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. C7ietrich Planner: George Ruther George Ru#her gave an overviewr of the staff inerno and said that fihis same request was approved in 1995, with the addition of the site eoverage variance. Greg Moffe# asked if the applicant had any#hing ta add. Paul Miller, representing the Galden Bear, asked if the streetscape benches were in addition to what was on the landscape design. George Ruther said, yes. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. ~ Ann Bishop applauded the appiicant on the imprnvements. fliane Galden s#ated that the prdject met the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. John Schofield asked #he applicant if he agreed with #he staf# condifions, Paul Miller stated in arder to address the intersection, #he need was creafed #o bring the building forward. John Schofield said the intersectian caused a special circumstance which would allow granting a variance. Gene Uselton asked if the conditions were accep#able ta the applicant. Paul Miller said, yes. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Maf#et said that this request met all the criteria. He said #hat there was more latitude in the CC1 to grant variances, with regards to the special privilege issue. He said the goals and objectiues wauld result in a practical difficulty. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ~ October 27, 1997 2 Ann Bishop made a motian far appraual with the 5 condi#ions, in accordance with the staff ~ memo. Diane Galden seccrnded the motion. The mation passed by a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operation, located at 1477 Aspen GrovelLaf 3, Block 2, Liflnsridge 4th Filing. Applicant: William N. Miller F'lanner: Lauren Waterton Ann Bishdp recused herself, as she was representing a gentleman who was employed by the applican#. Mike MoIlica gave an overview of the staff inemo and said that there would be 3 addi#ional cars on the site and that staffi was recommending approvai with 3 conditions. Greg Maffet asked if the applicant had any comments. Will Miller, the owner of the praperty management company at Mantaneras, said this use lessened the impact versus ren#ing the property Qut short-term. He said he secured diffierent • vacation parties fhrough the managemen# company for short-term rentals. He said short-term occupartcy allowred in the house was 10-12 persons, plus the housekeeper, generating more cars than what wauld be generated by 3 couples if the. use was a bed & breakfast. He s#ated that he ~ wauld be in residence on the site. He explained that vacant rooms were rented out in the sumrnertime with one persan per bedroam. He sta#ed that based an the number of houses on the street, he was not overloading the stree# and wouid be accauntable, since he wauld live on the premises, Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Tom Hughes, president of the Aspen Grcave Homeowner's As$ociation, stated fhey were against this use. He said the intention of this neighbarhoad was to be a single family neighborhaod and he had not heard one positive comment about the request. F'eter Kyle, a next-door neighbor, said he was planning on selling his home and the B&B would have a nega#ive impact on the sale of his house. Carroll Orrison, the awner of the 2nd house bui(fi on Aspen Grnve Lane, said the area was isolated fram the city and he thought the area should onty have single farnily homes. 7arn Hughes said that 7ract B inciuded this private road. He said he represented the ownership and they kepf it plowed and maintained. Ne said since they owned the road, they wanted to keep it private. John Schofield questioned if the road access was owned jointly by the 11 owners and controlled by the Association. Planningand Environmental Cammission ~ Minutes October 27, 1997 3 Tom Moarhead said he reviewed the declarations and although the road was privately owned, there were no restrictions in the declaratiorrs andthe road was described in the declarations as a ~ public rnad. He said if the raad had been described as a cammon area, then this application would require permission. John Schofield questianed a public road privately owned by the association. Tom Moorhead explained that the application wauld have required the Association's signatures. Tom Nughes said Tom Moorhead was correc#, but a majority rule had the abili#y ta change #he declarations. Jahn Schofield said the PEC didn't have the ability to change it and untier the criteria, the Association didn't have any authority now. Gene Useltan asked who owned the road. Tom Hughes said the Homeowner's Association. Gene Uselton said he thought Mr. Miller should have the approval of the other property owners. Tom Moorhead said the Association declarations did nat have any controi over the use of the road, nnly #he maintenance. He again expiained that the road was not a common element and therefore, withaut control, although it could be changed. He said the Association did not have any direct authority ta control the use of the road. Gene Useltan asked if this was a legal matter, ~ Tom Maorhead said the Town of Vail did not enforce private covenants. Greg Amsden asked abaut the definition of Section 38.04.110, as referred to in the memo. Nfike Moilica read the definition of 18.04.110, wha# constitutes a family and explained the Section's intent was to define how many individuals could occupy an individual dwelling unit. Greg Amsden asked if this was zoned single family. Greg Moffet stated this use was permitted. Diane Go1den asked if Will Mi(ler had an EMU with a separate garage. Will Mifler said, yes. Diane Golden asked if there wauld be three B&B bedrooms downstairs. Will Miiler explained the traffic pattern of the B&B users if this was approved and said a VA employee lived in the EHU. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ~ October 27, 1997 4 ~ Diane Golden said she was sympa#hetic to both parfies, buf the Tawn has made a statement #hat B&Bs are permissible. WiA Miller said that directly across the street was a multi-family project and this use wouldn't change anything and he would go back to 3 roammates in the summer. diane Golden said a conditianai use permit could have cor?ditions fa sea how it goes. Greg IVlaffet said the PEC cauld sunset this. He said, knowing some of the players with srnall children, the elected officials said B&B's were a desired usage for every zone district. He said tha# the conditions were clearly met and it was unfortunate tha# the neighboncood couldn't get #ogether. He said more covenan#s cauld be deployed, but as it appeared, this was a case where the PEC was compeiled to grant approval. Greg Amsden asked for infarmation about the kitchens. Wil1 Mitfer said the 2nd floor kitchen was not installed. He said it was a rough-in and con#ingen# on wha# happened with the usage. He said it had only a mierowave and' a sink. Jflhn Schofie(d made a motion for approval wi#h the condition that an apprnval wcruld not be required by the Aspen Grove Lane (Lionsridge Filing Nn. 4) Hameowner's Association and that the canditional use permit wili expire in ane year from the date of approval. Diane Golden seconded #he mation. ~ The motion passed by a vo#e ofi 4-1-1, with Gene Uselton opposed and Ann Bishop recused. 4. A request far a major amendment to SDD #4 (Gascade Village), to allow modifications to allawable GRFA and building h.eigh# limitations, focated at 1150 Westhaven LanelL.ats 33- 1& 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivisian. Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Diane Larsen Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriella gave an averview af the s#aff memo. Greg Moffe# asked i# #he applicant had anything to add. Diane Larsen, representing the applicant, concurred with the sta#f's recornnrrendation. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. Ann Bishop had no comments, but thanked Mr. Norris for his le#ter fihat described the history. Diane Golden had no comments. John Schofieid had no comments. Gene Uselton had na camments. ~ planning and Envirflnmental Comrnission Minutes Oatober 27, 1997 5 Greg Amsden said he was 'snvolved in the changing of the GRFA in the code and saw no negative effect in Glen Lyan. ~ Greg Moffet agreed with Greg Amsden, but asked ta applicant ta please not come back with snowmelt bailers in the setback. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval with one condition, in accardance with the staff inemo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vate of 6-0. 5. A request for an amendment to Sectian 18.54.050 J(Design Guidelines -outdoor lighting), to allow for the exemp#ion of Ipw wattage lighting from the autdoor lighting regulations. Rppiicant: Roy & Paula May, represented by Dale Smith/ Fritzlen,Pierce, Briner Planner: Lauren Waterton Dominic Maurieiio gave an averview of the staff inemo and explained that #his was to allow low level lighting to make a property safer, after the aRB final review. He then explained the new language. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. John Schafield thought the 25 watt output was on the law side and he thought it should be in the 40 watt range. He said stairs typicaily have wattage in #he 40-60 watt range. ~ Gene Uselton said this was a sensible proposal. Greg Amsden said he was in favar of this, as it was a safety issue. Ann Bishop had no cornments. Diane Golden agreed with the safety issue. Greg Maffet said he agreed with the safety issue. John Schofield made a motian for approval with a change in the language to include a maximum initial lumen output of 400 (or equivalent to a40 watt bulb). Gene Uselton seconded the mation. The motion passed by a vo#e of 6-0. 6. A request to review a draft of the propflsed Vail Strategic Hausing Plan, which is intended to set the direc#ion of the Town in its ef#ort to address locals housing. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen Planning and Envirarunantal Caminission Minates ~ October 27, 1997 6 ~ , Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the staff inemo. He said he was hearing fram the shop ~ owners that they couldn't get emplayees and fhat they were closing early with customers left Qutside, so this was affecting the economic viability. He said the focus of the plan was to make decision making easier and that #hey were focusing east of Dawd Junction for housing. He then described the nature and background of the plan. Greg Moffet asked Andy how much of Timber Ridge was master leased by VA. Andy Knudtsen said he didn't know, but the management was concerned about tao rnuch cnncentratian from VA. Greg Moffet said his experience with VA was that housing was used like a college darm, with 3 employees to a unit. Andy Knudtsen mentiorred that Pitkin Creek Park units were deed restricted, but since restricfians were lifted, Pitkin was in demandby second homeowners, as it was so close #o Denver. Ann Sishop asked ifi any irrvestigations were going on regarding EHU's up on Forest Rnad. Andy Knudtsen said he found "signs of life" in all deed restricted uni#s when he drove by, with ane exception and is still having a problem with the CappY residence. Ann Bishop asked Andy if he was foNowing up. ~ Rndy Knudtsen said yes, with the 24 EHU's which require occupancy and that he was getting an update from County and sending out letters shortly, to a(I owners who said they had EHU's. Ann Bishap said that the enforcement issue was the most important and there was only one sentence in this document pertaining to that. Diane Golden asked abou# the response from the last letters sent aut and if people really filled the questionnaires out. Andy Knudtsen said he did no# have the speci€ic numbers, but would get back with Diane with the answer to her question. Andy Krrud#sen said that the Housing Authority came abaut in place of a funded staff position, but that Cauncil wanted to be mare involved. Greg Amsden said it was political wifh the new Council. Andy Knudtsen said the Housing Au#hority was not disbanded, as it was fo be kept available for bond issues. Diane Golden asked whaf the Cify Market units were rented for. Andy Knudtsen said he would report back to Diane. Ne also said that Eagle Bend in Avon had very high occupancy rates. ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Ivlinutes October 27, 1997 7 ( Y Gene Uselton asked about the Red Sandstone prdject. Andy Knudtsen said the project's construction cas#s came in higher than expected and that all ~ the units wauld have been deed restricted. Greg Moffet asked if table 3 showed a compounded, average or annual rate. Andy Knudtsen said he believed it was campounded. Gene Use[ton concurred. Greg Amsden said he thought tabie 10 was high, Andy Knudtsen said he wan#ed the PEC input for additions to the plan and what ta elaborate upon. Ann Bishap was curious about the wages. She asked if the Town was making any effiork to meet with emplayers to discuss the wages, as there was a huge problem. Andy Knudtsen said the Town shauld pick the issues to address, knowing that resources are limited, and not all issues cauld be addressed. Greg Amsden stated #hat because the hausmg supply was low, there was enough dernand far high rents. Ann Bishap said there were 3-4 roommates per uni#. Ann Bishop said there should be discussion regarding wages, as obviausly there was a huge ~ difference with the amount of money people made here. Jahn Schafield said the hourly wage was on #he 1ow side, bu# the average ski instructor was alsa a waiter, etc. Artn Bishap said there may nat be much rental available, but what's available was of poor quality. John Schofield said a qualitative factor shauld be in the document. Greg Moffet sfiated we should be having code compliance with building codas with more inspections. John Schofield said we had slumlords and the Council had not dane anything with enforcing the Uniform 6uilding Code. Greg Nlaffet said if units were candemned, there would not be any employee housing. Ann Bishop said if we were known for dumpy rentals, we shauld begin to change our fiacus towards clean and affordable rentals. Greg Moffet said if an illegal dwelling uni# was condemned, then it would be saltl, demolished, and there would be no more housing. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes Octaber 27, 1997 8 . , John Schofield said the Council would have ta decide to either take a heavy handed approach or ~ provide incentives. Andy Knudtsen said adding UBC inspec#ions to the staff warkioad would bite off more than we could do right now. He said that the City of Baulder requires tandlords to be registered. Greg Amsden said that everything that has sold recently has been irnproved, so why would the Town spend their dollars to cure their share flf #he market. Gene Uselton said he recognized the need far the Tawn to provide housing within the Town limits for essential employees (e.g., police, fire fighters, bus drivers, snaw plow operators); but, for seasonal workers who are nat empioyed by the Town of Uail, it made economic sense #o consider working with the private sector to develop high density hausing in down vatley locations such as Berry Creek and #o pramote an adequate #ransportat'ron system. Diane Golden said workers should live in Vail and be a part bf the communify. She said good examples were the Public Works site and Vail Cornmons. Gene Useiton asked why seasonal employees had to live in Town. Andy Knudtsen said thafi jobs were available down valley and that emplayees living down valley would end up working down valley. Susarr Gonnelly stated why would you drive through Dowd Junction if you didn't have to. ~ Greg Moffe# sta#ed, as a farmer commuter, if you want #o impose that an the employees who serve yau in the Tawn, then you had to foot the cost. He said the public sector in this Town can find warkable solutions. 'He said seasnnals were needed in Tawn who were not exhaus#ed all the time and for example who would have keys to the water main maintenance when pipes break. He said the private sec#or would not work. Greg Amsden said you can't blame the private sector, because it's only rtow that the public sector has dQne anything. He said that no one did anything years ago. Ann Bishop encfluraged fhe Town CQUncil to hire an en€orcement officer and impose heavy fines. She said if we were going to have old employee housing, then lets have qaod quality. Andy Knudtsen asked #he PEC what direction they would like the Town to go in crea#ing housing. Diane Galden said she would like to see the Town concentrate eas# of Dowd Junc#ion and agreed with Ann regarding follow-up enforcement. She stated that Vail Gommons added ta the viability of the Town. John Schofield disagreed with Ann regarding enforcement, and would-rather encaurage incentives, such as tax credits. He #hought the market would go away, if incentives were not given. Ann Bishop agreed with #ax breaks as incentives, but with an enforcement componen# and also consis#ent employee housing with old properties that have not been inspeeted. ~ P(anning and Environmental Commissian Minutes t3ctober 27, 1997 9 ~ a . . , Gene Uselton didn't think you could impose market solutions on anyone. Greg Amsden said, regarding Category A, that land needed to be priaritized to find out which ~ parcels offered the most units. He sugges#ed the Town par#icipate in bond related financing and give developers incentives. He said it was toa late to discuss grow#h management and to focus on the SDd projects or the high density. Ne said the Town needed to get creatiue with Timber Ridge now and look into a joint venture with private funds. He said the Tawn couidn't create the 198units #hat wauld be lost with Timber Ridge. He said Timber Ridge needed to be guttedand upgraded. He said with regards to deed restrictions, to put a dollar amount on incentives, i.e,, we will pay x-number of doflars to deed restrict and renovate the unit. Ne said anather incentive might be to waive the building fees to upgrade. Greg Moffet said, regarding the land issues, there were great opportunities far the Town to get involved with more housing stock. He said every business owner would like to have a unit for their employees. t-le swggested that the Town acquire units to sell to the owners of businesses with a deed restriction and that the community had to help solve the problem. He agreed wi#h Greg Amsden an the inclusianary zoning. Ne said that most af the high density in Town was in pre#ty bad shape. Greg felt that employee housing had to be a part of the Liflnshead redevelopment and part of the equatipn with inclusionary zoning. He said, as a Tawn, flur focus shauid be nousing in Town and he was not interested in creating dvwn vailey ghettos requiring bussing employees. He said he didn't want a retirement ccrmmunity, rather to diffuse the housing in Tawn, He said with interregianal cooperation, we would never get anything done. Gene Uselton said that deed restrictions would be more acceptable to private lenders, if they could be tied into an appropriate index, such as the CP1, rather than a 3% limit on appreciation. Grag Rmsden asked Andy abou# the lending prospects wi#h deed restrictions. ~ Andy Knudtsen said there was no problem. Greg Amsden said with new housing, there should be an incentive to build another unit on a single family lot. He said #o make it sellable for the people with a deed restriction on the lot. John Scho#ield said to develop packages to inalude financing, banding, tax credits, abatement of fees up front, e#c., $o peaple vvouldn't have to come up with cash dolfars. Greg Amsden said Berry Creek should be considered #o trade foc a West Vai{ parceL Greg Moffet said ther'e should be heavy focus an the Vail Tomorrow actions and housing solutions which should be integra#ed into the Master Plan. 7. A request for a major amendment to SDd #4 (Gascade Village), to allow for a revisian to the development plan for the Glen Lyan Office Buiiding site, Idea#ed at 1000 S. Frontage Rd. West/Lof 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision, App[icant: Glen Lyon Ofifice Building Partnership, represented byGordorr Pierce, AIA Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL NQVEMBEa24, 1997 Planning and EnvironmenfaI Commission Minutes ~ October 27, 1997 10 • K 8. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow far the cons#ructian af the Aipine Garden Educatinn Center, located at 620 Vail Valley C7riuelTract A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch Planner. Geor•ge Ruther TABLEC7 UNTiL NC3VEMBER 10, 1997 9, To approve, deny, or modify an Enviranmental Irnpact Report for the proposed Bonth Fai{s Townhomes rockfall mitigation wall, located a# 3094 Boath Falis CourtJLot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 12th. Applicanf: Booth Falls Condo Association Planner: Russ Forrest TABLED UNTIL. NtJVEMBER 10, 1997 10. A request for a major ex#erior aIteration and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), ta ailow for construction of a parking garage at The L.ionshead lnn, Iacated at 705 S. Frontage RdJ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail L.ionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represen#ed by William Pieree ~ Pianner: Dominic Mauriello - TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997 Greg Amsden made motion to table i#em 7 un#il November 24, 1997 and items 8, 9 and 10 untii Nnuember 10, 1997. John Schofield seconded the mation. The motion passed by a vate of 6-0. 11. lnforma#ion Update Susan Connelly announced that tomarrow at Tawn Council, financing a1ternatives for Lionshead wouid be discussed and that Barb Schofield would be one of the panelists. Susan Cannelly announced that the Chamber of Commerce and Baard, af Realtors were ho6ding a"meet #he candidates" night on Wednesday, from 7-10 pm. SusanConnelly announced the November 1, 1997 "Hollyween" fiundraiser. 12, Appraval of September 22, 1997 and (Jctober 13, 1997 minutes. Greg Moffet and John Schofield had changes on the October 13, 1997 minu#es: ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 , Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the September 22, 1997 and October 13, 1997 ~ minuies. John Schofield secortded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-(}-1, with Gene Useltan abstaining, as he was not presen#, Greg Amsderr made a mation to adjourn. John Schofield seconded the motian. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. The meating adjourned a# 4:45 pm. ~ Planning and Environmentat Cammission ~ Minutes ~ ~ October 27, 1997