Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0126 PEC THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUFt PROPERTY PUBLIC RIOTICE tb NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plannin9 and Environmen#al Cammission af the Town df Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Cnde of the Town of Vaii on January 26, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration af: A request for additonal GRF'A utilizing the 250 ordinance, to aliow far an interior remodel, located at 1998 Sunburst DrivelLot 19, Vai1 Valley 3rd Filing. Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, pierce Br'tner Archifects Pianner: Reed Oha#e A request for a conditianal use permit tn construct four multiple-family dwelling units and variances from Section 12.7E.8 (Building Height), Section 12,7E.11 (Landscape Area) and Section 12.7E.11 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, lacated at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads Easf Building) ! Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 9 st. Applicanfi Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Maurieilo The applications and information about the propasals are availabie for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located af the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretatian availabls uptrn request with 24 haur no#ificatian. Please caN 479- 2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. ~ Gommunity Development Department Published January 9, 1998 in the Vai1 Trail. ~ „ TOWN ~F 1~AIG ~y Updated 1/21l98 9am ~ PLANNING kNL} ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIt3N Monday, January 26, 1998 AGENDA Proiect Orientation ILUNCH - Community Develo,pmeht Department 12:30 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:15 pm 1. Gramshammer - 231 E. Gare Creek Drive 2. Base Mountain Sports - 227 Wali Street driver: George {~'~xa~w r J Nt7TE: If the PEC hearing eutends until 6:00 p.m., the board wiil break far dinner from 8;00 - 8:30 p.m. ~ Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditimnal use permit to construct four multiple-family dwelling units and variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Area) and Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), ta allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crassraads East Building) / Lot P, 81ock 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Crossraads Plaza, Trevina L..P., represented by BillPierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello 2. A request for a building height variance fram Section 12-78-12, to allow for an increase in the 60{44% building height ratio for the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr.IPart ofi Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st. Applican#: Repi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a density variance from Section 12-78-13, to allow for the constructian of a twa-bedroam dwelling unit, lacated at 227 Wall Street (Hong Kong)/Lot B&C, Block 5C, Vai] Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: AS] Vail Land Holding, L.L,C., cfo Base Mounfain Sports - Bre#t Bamett, represented by Kathy Langenwal#er ~ Planner: George Ruther 1 ~'OW *YM ~ ...:u . ~ . ~ Updated 1I21i98 9ann 4. A request for a setback variance, to aliow for a revised parking lot, laeated at 4192 Spruce Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant. Altair Vail Inn, clo Mary Herzig, represented by Prudential Gore Range ~ Properties. Pianner; Dominic Maurielfo TABL.ED UNTIL FEBRUARY 9, 1998 5. A request for additonal GRFA utilizing the 250 cardinance, to allow for an interiar remodei, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive/Lat 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects Planner: Reed C3nate TABL.ED UNTIL FEBRUARY 9, 9998 6. Information Update 7. Approval of January 12, 1998 minutes. The applications and informatiort abou`t the proposals are available for public inspection during regu(ar office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Cammunity develaprnent Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpreta#ian available upan request wi#h 24 hour natification. Please cail 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDDfor information, ~ Community C7evslopment Departmen# Published January 23, 1998 in tne Vail Trai1. ~ Y 2 , Upctated: Tanuazy 2"7, 1998 ~ PLANNING ANC? E(VVIF2QNMENTRL COMMISSI4N Monday, January 26, 1998 FlNAL AGENDA Praject Qrientation lNt3 LUNCH - Communitv Development Department 1:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Maffet Gene Uselton Greg Amsden Galen Aasland (left at 3:15pm) Diane Golden . John Schafield Ann Bishop Site Visits : 1:30 prrt 1. Gramshammer - 231 E. Gare Creek Drive 2, Base Mountain Sports - 227 Wall Street C3river. Geprge ~ IUOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6;00 p.m,, the board will break for dinner from 6:04 - 6;30 p.m. Public Nearina - Town Council Chambers 2;00 p.m. 1. A request for a building height variarrce from Section 12-713-12, to allow for an increase in the 60I40°!o building height ratio for the Gas#hof Gramshammer, iacated at 231 E. Gare CreEk Dr.lPart af Black 5B, Vail tliltage 1st. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: George Ruther MUTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: JoMn Schafield VO7E: 6-0 APPROVED 2. A request far a density variance from Section 12-78-13, to allow for the construction af a two-bedroom dwelling unit, located at 227 Wall Street (Nong Kong)ILot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Villags 1 st Fi(ing. Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., cJa Base Mountain Sparts - Brett Barnett, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: George Ruther MC)Ti4N: Jahn Schafield SECOND: Ann 8ishop VOTE. 5-0-1( GaIen Aasland recused) TABL.ED UNTIL FEBRUARY 23, 1998 ~ 1 *VA& raw~ Updated: Jannary 27, 1998 3. A request for a conditional use permit to construct fiour multiple-family dweliing units and variances from Secti6n 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Area) and Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to aliaw for commercial and residential expansion, ~ Iocated at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Grossroads East Buildir?g) i L.otP, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Appiican#: Crossroads Plaza, 7revina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dnminic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL FEBRUAFiY 23, 1998 4. A request for a setback variance, to allow for a revised parking lot, located at 4192 Spruce WaylLot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addi#ion. Applicant: Altair Vail Inn, clo Mary Herzig, represented by Prudential Gore Range Properties. Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 23, 1998 5. A request for additonal GRF'A utilizing the 250 ardinance, to a11ow for an interior remodel, located at 1998 Sunburst DrivelLot 19, Vail Valley 3rd Filing. Appl9cant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale Smith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner , Architects Planner; Reed Onate fiABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 9, 1998 6. Information Update 7. Rpproval of January 12, 1998 minutes, The applications and infnrmation about the propasals are available for public inspectian during regular affice hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upnn request with 24 hour natificatiion. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Communiry Development Department ~ 2 MEMURANDU'M ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission F'RC7M. Community Development Department DATE: January 26, 1998 SUBJECT: ' A request for a variance fram Section 42-78-12 (building height) o€ the ?awn of Vail Municipal Code, to aliow for an inarease in the 60%/40% buiiding height ratio for the Gasthof Gramshammer, 6ocated at 231 E. Gore Creek DrJPart of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg Pianner: George Ruther I, DESCRIPTIC)N OF 7HE R EQUES7 The appiicant, Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg of Pierce, Segerberg, & Associates, is requesting a variance from Section 12-78-12 of the Municipal Code to facilitate the construc#ion of a hatel addition at the Gashtof Gramshammer, located a# 231 E, Gore Creek Drive. The Gasthof Gramshammer praperty is lacated in the Cflmrnercial Core i Z6ne Distric#. ~ Pursuant to Secfion 12-78-12 of the Municipai Cade, "Height shall be as regulated in the Vail Village Urban aesign Guide Plan and C?esign Considerations." Accord'rng to Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Gonsidera#ians, in part, "Building height restric#ions in Commercial Core I shall be as fallows: 1. Up to 60°lo of the building (building caverage area) rnay be built to a height of 33 feet or less, 2. No more than 40°1o of the building (building coverage area) may be higher than 33 feet, but na# higher than 43 feet. 3. The abave heights are based on an assumed 3 fee# in 12 feet or 4 feet in 12 feet roof pitches. Ta accammodate and encourage steeper roof pitches (up fo 6 feef in 12 feet), siight, praportronateheight increases could be granted so long as the height of the buiiding side walls is not increasedF As stated above, 40% ofthe roof area building height is limited to a height between 33 feet and 43 feet, and 60°1o is limited to a maximum of 33 feet in height. 'Che applicant is requesting a variance of 13.29% to allow 53.29°l0 o# the raof area to be between 33 feet and 43 feet and 46.71% of the roof area to be up to 33 feet in heigh#. Na portion ~ of the praposed roof area will exceed 43 feet in height. 1 According to the applicant, the primary reason for requesting the building height variance is to a(Iow for an increase in interior ceifing heights and fioor depths in order to accommodate a "higher quaiity" hotel guest room design. An increase from an 8 faot to a ~ 9 foot ceiling height wauld provide the hotel guest the type of guest experience expected in a world-class destination resort like Vail. The requested increase would allow for additional structural floor depths permitting better mechanicallelectrical services and improved soundprovfing between guest rooms. li. BACKGROUNG _ • On February 24, 1997, Pepi Gramshammer submitted an application fior a majnr exterior alteration and a minor subdivision to the Gasthof Gramshammer property. Upon preliminary review of the propasal, it was determined by staff that the removai of the existing, legal, non-conforming, unstruc#ured (sur#ace), off-street parking area and subsequent construction of a structured af#-street parking area constituted a change in land use, and therefore, the property must be braught into compliance with the development regula#ions prescribed in the Municipal Code. • On April 14, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission upheld ( 6-1 Bishop opposed) an appeal of an admirristrative decision regarding the apptiicant's propdsal, finding that, "A private and public unstructured (surtace) aff-street vehicle parking is a different land use than private and public struatured (underground/enelosed) off- street vehicle parking." and therefare, the property must be braught in#o compliance with the development ~ regulations prescribed in the Municipal Code, or a change of non-canforming use must be approved by the Vail Town Counail, ~ On nllay B, 1997, the Vail Tawn Council approved (5-1 Johnstan appased) a request for a change of non-conforming use, thus allowing for the construction of an underground parking structure, with one conditiori. The Counci!'s condition restricts the on-sife vehiale parking to no more than twenty (20) vehicles. • On May 12, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession meeting with the applicant to discuss the prflposed hotel addition. The PEC was in general agreement wifh the pians submitted by the appiicant. The PEC indicated that the increased density proposed by the applicant seemed reasonable, that the excess sits coverage had to be reduced to the maximum allnwed by the Municipai Cade, that the applicant had to confotm with the maximum height limitations, and that construction was prohibited in the Gore Creek floadplain and the 50' stream setback. The PEC further indicated that the proposed minor subdivision relocating the cammon proper#y line between the Gasthaf Gramshammer and the Creekside Building was acceptable. • On August 25, 1997, the Planning and Environmental Gommission approved a hote1 addition to the Gasthof Gramshammer. The hatel additian was approved on the existing surFace parking area lacated between the Gasthof Gramshammer and the Creekside Condominium Building. The approval included an underground parking structare far up to twenty (20) vehicles, 625 square feet of expanded retail space, 1,940 square feet of ~ 2 spa/exercise facilityspace, eight accommodatifln units (3,283 sq.ft.) and one condominium with an attached lock-aff unit (1,652 sq,ft.). The total density appraved for ~ the project is five dwelling units, and 5,787 square feet of common area. IIL CGIMPLIANCE W1TH THE VAIL CC?MPREHENSIVE PLAN Vail Village Master Plan . The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element ofi the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The Vail Village Master Plan is in#ended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating develapment by the public and private sectars in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. Most importantly, the tfail Village Master Plan shait serve as a guide to the staff, review baards, and Town Council in analyzing fu#ure proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Far the citizens and guests of Vaii, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining haw the Village will grow in the fu#ure. Upon review of the Vai1 Viliage Master Plan, the staff believes the following goals, objectives and polic«s are relevant to the applicant's request: Goal #1 Encaurage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique arahitectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of cammunity and identity. 1.1 Objective: Implement a consistent Development Review Process to reinforce the character af the Village. ~ 1.1.1 Policv. [3evelopmen# and impravemen# projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the gaals, objeetives, policies and design cnnsiderations as autlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.2 Obiective: Encaurage the upgrading and redevelopment af residential and commercial facilities. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and pramote year-raurrd economic health and viability #or the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.3 Ob,j,ective: Increase the number of residentia( units availablefor short- term, overnight accammodations. 2.3.1 Policva The development of short-#erm accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density 1evels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for shart-term avemigh# rental. 2.5 Ob'e,jctive: Encourage the continued upgrading, renova#ion and maintenance of existing }odging and commercial facili#ies to ~ better serve the needs of our guests. 3 IV. Z{3NING ANALYS1S The foilowirrg analysis summarizes the relevant zoning sta#istics for this request: ~ Legal: 231 East Gore Creek Drive/Part af Lot A, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing. Zoning: Commercial Core i (CC1) . Lat Area: 0.2244 acrel 9,774.8 square feet Buildable Area: 0.1642 acre/ 7,152,3 square feet Development August 25, 1997 January 26, 1998 Standards: Approval PMo,sal GRFR: 5,722 sq.ft., or 80°lo Na Charlge (includes 787 sq.ft. ofi common area) Common Area: 5,000 sq.ftor 87°l0 No Change of allowable GRFA # of Units 5 DU's (1 DU & 8 AU's) No Change Site Coverage: 5,719 sq.fit., ar 80% No Change Landscaping: no net reduction No Change in existing iandscaping ~ ParkinglLoading: eleven parking spaces No Change & one loading berth E3uildittg Height: 40"/u = 33' -43' 53.29°/a = 33' - 43' 60°l0 = 33" or less 46.71 33' or less (42.5 feet max.) (42.83 feet max.) V, BU(L.DiNG HEIGHT VAR1,Al\1CE CRITERIA? AND FINC7INGS Upon review of Section 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town Qf Vai1 Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recammends approval of the requested building height variance. The recommendatian for approval is based on the following factars: A. Consideration of F'actors: 1. The relatianship of the requested variance ta other existing or pOtentiat uses and s#ructures in the viainity. S#aff believes the requestedvariance wif( have mininnal, ifi any, negative impacts on ather exisfiing or potential uses and struetures in the vicinity of 4 ~ # the Gasthof Gramshamrner. The maximum height of the additian has not been increased. The maximum height continues to be approximately 42- ~ 112 feet. The additional 4 to 5 feet of building height has been added to the areas of#he roof that were previousfy limited to 38 feet maximum. The areas of increased building height are concentrated on the northwest and northeast corners of the addition. While the increase in building heigh# in these areas has also increased building mass, staff believes the architect has created a design which contiues to be sensitive to adjoining properties: Staff further beiieves that the increase in the area of the roof over 33 feet in height, but less than 43 feet in height, will have no negative impact on the pedestrian areas adjacent #o the Gasthof Gramshammer. ` The Iocation and orientation of the addition ensures that the additionaF building height does nat impact the pedes#rian scale of the area, nor result in increased shading of the pedestrian mali. The hotel add'+tion continues to comply wi#h the Town's adapted view corridor limitations. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcemen# of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of trea#ment among sites in tMe vicir?ity or to attaFn the objectives of this title withaut grant of specialpriuilege. The Gasthaf Gramshammer property is unique in many ways. The hatel was built in the center of the Village prior ta the adoption of zoning in Vail (1973) and the fiormula#ion and adoption ofthe Vail Village Master Plan (1990). As such, the exis#ing lodge is non-conforming in relation to building height The existing non-conformity results in a practical difficulty ~ when attempting to match flaor fevels and structural elements of the new addition #o #he exis#ing bullding. Staff believes that the granting of the requested uariance will not resuft iin a grant of special privilege. We believe #hat the fallowing circumstances and conditions impact #he appiicarrt's ability to construct an addition that complies with the building height regufatians: - 1. C3n May 6, 1997, the Town Council approved and encouraged the apPlicant to accommada#e an-site parking far the hotel gues#s. Aithough the recommendatians o# the Vail Vi11age Master Plan discourages on-site parking and .vehicle in#rusion into the Village, the Gauncil's direction a(lowed the applicant to continueparking uehicles on #he property. The applicant has proposed an enclosed parking garage. The access ramp leading down into the struc#ure is at its maximum slope (12°lc) and the interior parking area is at the maximum cross-slope (5°l0). Ta further lower the buildin9 would resuit in excessive sIopes in the parking area. 2. In developing construction drawings for the hote1 addition, the applicant's representatives discovered a Town of Vail storm sewer undemeath the construction site. The storm sewer cannot be relocated or lowered. The eievation of the outfall at Gore Creek dictates the dep#h of the line and preverrts the applicant from simply increasing the depth of the pipe. ~ ~ 3. The existing lodge building creates fixed floor eleva#EOns to which the new additian must reasonably relate. Staff has worked with the applicant's represen#ative in the redesign of the ~ buiiding height. We believe the appiicant is requesting the minimum amount af deviation from the 60%/40°lo building heigh# ra#io ta achieve the gaals of the praject and the intent of the Munie'rpal Code. 3. The effect o# the requested variance on light and air, distributian of populatian, transportatian and trafific facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, . The proposed variances will have little, if any, effect on tMese factors. B. The Planning and En,vironmental Gommission shall make the follawin,g fiindrngs before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will nat constitute a grant of special priviiege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimerrta) to the pubiic health, safety or vrrelfare, or material(y injurious #o properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more af the fallowing reasons. a. The strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified ~ regulatinn would result in practical difficul#y or unnecessary physical hardship incansistent with the abjectives af this ti#1e. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circums#ances or conrlitions applicab(e to the same site of the variance #hat do not apply generally to other praperties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulafion would deprive the app(icant af privileges enjoyed by theowners af other praperties in the same district. VL STAfF RECpMMENDA71aN: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a buiiding height variance to a[low fior an increase in the 60a1o/40°/a building height ratia The recommenda#ion for approval is based upon the staff's review af the variance cri#eria and findings autlined in Section V of this memorandum. The staff beiieves tha# the building height variance shauld be granted far the foilowing reasons: 1. The requested uariance is not a grant of special privilege as #here are numeraus circumstances and conditians which impact the applicant's ability to construct the hotel addition within the prescribed bwiiding height regulations. 6 ~ * 2. An approvai of the requested variance will rea# be detrimental to the public health,. safety, or welfare, or will it be materially injurious to the other proper#ies and ~ imprtavements in the vicinity. 3. The strict and li#eral interpretation of the building height regula#ion will resul# in a prac#ical difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship incansistent with the objectives of the Zaning Code. 3. There are exeeptions and extraordinary canditions applicable ta the appficant's site #hat do not apply generally to ather properties in the Gornmercial Gore I Zone . Qistric#. . ~ ~ 7 ~ I'age 1 ~ Master Plan Guidelines . Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelapment zcrhile preserving the unique architectural scate of the village in order to sustain_its sense of community und identity. 1.2 Objective Encouruge the upgrading and redevelopment of residential arzd cammercial faczlities, . This applzCant is requesting a variance to the height af the project as it relates to the proportion of height percentages. The percentage increase in height between 33'-0" and 43,-0" wi1l be approximately 12°10. No portion of the building will exceecl the maximum af 43'-0" in any area. The primary height adjustment is requested at the hotel portian of the building an the north part of the parcei. Specifically, we are asking for an increase in ceiling heights and floor depths in order to accornmodate a "higher quality" hotel guest room design standard. An increase from an 8'-0" to 9'-0" ceiling height would provide a better hotel guest raom experience which is expected in a"world class" destinatian resort such as VaiL The requested increase in structural depths from 1•_0•, to 1,_6•, is also necessary for accommodating PrimarY and secondarY structural elements but AtS" ~ better meehanical/electrical and acoustical environments in individual rooms. Air quality and acoustical isolation have become extremely impartant requYrements for today"s hbtels. In order to achieve these goals, additional depths are necessary. The increased height would have minimal massing impact on the street and pedestrian activities around the Childreri s Fauntain. There are no impacts to any view corridor. The heights along; the southern elevation impacting the Children's Fountain space wauld be urichanged. The screening of serviee facilities from the pedestrian view will continue to be of major impartance to the applicant. ~ F:\PR)\8ramshammer\dcrc\Master Plan Guidelines.doc ` ~ Page 2 ~ Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and pramote fear-round economic hettlth and viability for the viltage arcd fvr the corrzmunity as a7lyhole. 2.5 Ubjective Encourage the continued upgrading, renovatian, and maintenance of exzsting . , lodging and commercial factlitres to betfer serve the needs of our guests. The applicant is requesting an increase of 1,-'0„ to the spa and exercise level. A 9'-0" ceiling would greatly improve the quality of these amenity facilities. ~ ~ F:\PRJ\gramshammer\doc\Master 1'lan Guidelines.doc Y 4 i Page 3 Gaal #5 ~ Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aestlrtics of tlze transportation and circutrztion sysfem throughQUt the village. Objective , 5.1.5 Meet parking demands zz7ith public and private parking facilities. As currently ciesigned, the below gxade parking facility as•.4@4gfied _ functions adequatety for the guest and services at the hotei. Ldwering grades any furthex would greatly, if not totaily, impede the functionality of this space. Also, the iength and grade of the driveway ramp is governed by both property lines and Tawn of Vail maximum grading requiremcnts. The parking rarnp will be heated to rnaintain gaad access to the facilzty. ~ ~ Fc\PRJ\gramshaminer\dac\Maseer Plan Gwidelines.doc ~ Page 4 Hardship Tssues as they relate ta Variance ~ Buildin can not be feasi g bly lowered into the ground tcr gain additional helght. 1. Lowering garage would create exeessive ramp grade to parking entrance. . 2. Ramped parking is not considered good quality parking in excess of 5°l4. _ _ 3. Water table issues of lowering parking garage became a concern. 4. Town of. Vail storm drainage gnain was discavered running thro-Ugh parking structure. Inverts can not be changed due to Gore Creelc elevation. Elevation of piping rnust be accarnmodated in garage. This condition has negatively im,pacted the parking garage. 5. Existing building creates many fixed elevation condititarrs. Flaor levels need to xelate to ane another between new and existing construction. ~ ~ P:\PRJ\&ramshammer\doc\Master I'lan Guidelines.doc - PkK& ~ MAipadefin chftft P.4X" r RpOF AREA OVER 33 FEE2 *Ax 4rr a... ,.w Cht LU c«k-- , . - f aa ~ . r - i a jkE'~Y ~~fl'• g ,lm *r i~ a~bp ~^d"•~'•e" a"" % ~ . , : MEMt)RANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Deve(opment Department DATE: January 26, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance fram Sectinn 12-713-13 of the Town~ of Vail 'Municipal Code, to allow for the construction af a two-bedraarn dwelling unit, located at 227 Wali Street(aka Mong FCong Cafe)ILot 8 & C, Block 5C, Vai1 Village '1 st Filing. Rpplican#: ASI Vail Land Halding, L.L.C., c/o Base Mountain Sports - Brett Bamett, represented by Kathy Langenwaiter Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION C3F TWE REQUEST The app6cant, ASI Vail Land Holding, LL.G., represented by Ka#hy Langenwalter, is requesting a final review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) of a request fior a densi#y variance from Sectiorr 12-78-13 (density), of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The request is intended to allow for the cons#ruction of a two-bedroom dwelling unit, to be located at 227 Wall ~ Street (aka Hong Kong Cafe). If the density variance request is appraved by #he PEC, the applicant will submit an application ta the Tawn of Vail requesting a major exteriar alteration in Commercial Core I at a later date. The major exteriar alteration applicatian will provicle further details of the proposal. The applicant proposes ta redevelop the Hong Kong Cafe. To facilitate the redeveiopment of the building, the applicant is proposing to construct a new dwelling unit atop #he existing stcuc#ure. . T'he new dweiling unit will be appraximately 1,170 sq. ft. in size. In addition to the new dwelling unit, the applicant is proposing to construct approximately 2,638 square feet of new ski storage, ski rental and retail sales space within the building. The entire redevelopment propnsal would be reviewed according to the major exterior atter.ation criteria outlined in #he Municipal Code at a later date. According to Section 12-78-13 of the Municipal Code af the Town of Vai1, density in the Commercial Core I Zone Distric# shail not exceed 25 dwelling un'sts per acre of buildable site area. Based on this requirement, the minimum arnount af buildable site area needed to permit the construction of one dwelling ur?it is 1,742 square feet. The buildable site area af the appiicant's site is 1,612 square fieet. Therefore, in order for the appticant to construct adwelling unit an the site, a density variance of 0.075 du's must be granted in accordance wi#h Chapter 'IZ of the Municipal Code. 11, BACKGRt)UND On March 10, 1986, the Planning and Environmen#al Cammission approved a rrrajor exterior ~ _ - _ ¥ ~ alteratian ta the Hong Kong Cafe. during the review of the request, then Hong Kong Cafe owner David K. lrish, representing HKC Partnership, entered into an agreement with Ed Bleckner, Jr., representing The Fraises Corporatian, owner of the Lazier-Arcade Condominium Building, Units ~ 308 & 309 which are located ta the narth of the Hong Kong Cafe. It appears this private agreement intent af the was intended to address the approval process for a conditional use permit and approval af modifications to the exterior of the Hong Kang Cafe, specific to the requests at the #ime. The Town of Vai1 is not a party to the agreement. Staff has iderttifiied this _ as an issue as it may be brought up in relation to the current density variance request. Staff daes not believe that the Planning and Environmentai Commission public hearing is the . appropriate venue to discuss the previaus agreement, nor is a discussion of the previous agreement relevant to the varianee that is requested. A capy of the agreement and a . memorandum fram R.Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney, has been attached for referenee. In an attempt ta better understand the history of developmenf in the Village, s#aff has researched the Town's files ta identify other density variance reqwests. Our review determined that anly one density variance request has been approved in the Village. The following is a summary af that approval: On August 25, 1997, the Planning and Environmentel Gommission approved a density variance request for the Gasthof Gramshammer. The variance approval allowed the property awner to canstruct up to fiive dwe(ling unTts. l`he amount of devietion approved was ane additional dwelGng unit. In granting their appraval, the PEC found that: 1. The strict and li#eral interpretation of the density regula#ion will result in a prac#ical difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship (a large percentage of unbuiidable lot area due to the existence of the 1 00-year f(oodplain) inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code. ~ 2. There are exceptions and extraordinary conditions (27% of the applicant's site is prohibited fram development due to the 100-year floodplain) applicable to the applicant's site that do not apply generally to other praperties in the Cammercial Core I Zone District. Itl. ZONING RNALYSIS The following analysis summarizes the relevant zoning statistics for this reqwest. Legai; Lot B& C, Block 5C, Vail Vi11age 1st Filing. Zoning. Commercial Gore I (CGI) Lot Area. 0.037acrel 1,612 square fieet Buildable Area: 0.037acref 1,612 square feet L7evelopment Standards: Allowab[e Propased GRFA: 1,289 sq.ft., or 80°la 1,170 sq.ft., or 73% 2 ~ ~ d ` ~ ~ Development ~ Standards: Allowabte Proposed # of Units 0.825 DU's 1 DU (+0.075 DU's) . Site Goverage: 1,289 Sq.f't., di'+g0% *******,r,t* ' LBCIdSCapltlg: Il0 (iP.t 1'E.'dLlCtI0C1 ~""k***"'t*,r • in existing landseaping - Building Neight: 40°!0 = 33' - 43' 60% = 33' or iess These development standards have not been determined at this time. Should the requested density variance request be approved, the applicant will be required to submit an application for a major exterior alteration. The proposal wii] then be reviewed far cornplianee with each of the applicable development standards, N. QENSITY VAF2IANGE CRITERIA AND FINdINGS Upon review of Sec#ion 12-17-6, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, tMe ~ Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested density variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors: A. Cunsideratian of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance ta other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Hong Kong Cafe is lacated on 1lVall Street near the cenfer of Vail _ V'rllage. The building is adjacent to numerous types of uses as allowed in the Cammercial Core 1Zone District. Adjacent uses include a public plaza and retaillresidential uses to the south, residential prnperties (Lodge at Vai!) to the west and retai!/residentialtres#aurant uses to the north and east. The mix of the uses is further segregated harizontally on each o# the properties. According to the Municipal Code, the purpose of #he Commercial Gore I Zone District is intended to provide sites and ta maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with i#s mixture of lodges and commercial establishmen#s in a predominantly pedestrian environment. This district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropr'rate to the permitted types af buildings and uses. The District regulatians, in accordance with the Vail Uillage Urban Design Guide Plan Design Considera#ions, prescribe site development standards that are intended ta ensure the maintenance and ~ 3 y ~ ~ preserva#inn of the tightiy clus#ered arrangements of building fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation af the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. ~ While staff agrees that residentiai dwelling units are intended in the Commercial Cnre I Zone District, they are only intended when they are proposed on lots of appropriate sizes. (n the Commercia( Core 1Zone District, the minimum lot size is 5,000 square fieet and the smallest lot size that still permits oneAwelling unit on it is 1,742 square feet. The app(icant's lo# is only 1,612 square feet in size. Staff believes some form of residential use is appropriate on the ' applicant's property. Staff's befiief is based on the Vail Vallage Master . Plan, According to the Vail Village Masfier Plan, Goal #2 "To Foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round ecanomic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.,, Objective 2.3 "9ncrease the number of residential uni#s available for short-term, overnight accommudation." PolieV 2.3_1 ~ "The development of short-term accommodation units is strongfy encouraged. Residen#ial units that are developed above existing density levels are to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available far short-term avernight rental. To meet these goals and objectives, staff be{ieves there are alternatives ` available to the applicant other than a density variance. The applicant is permitted by rigMt to develop a residential use on the property. For example, for density calculation purpases, accommoda#ian units, as defined by the Municipal Cade, are counted as 1I2 af a dwelling unit. Therefore, the applicant could canstruct one accommadatiort unit on the site and a densi#y variance would na# be necessary. Additionaliy, twa Type I11 Emplayee Housing Units could be cdnstructed on the site as they are counted as 1/3 of a dwelling unit far density purposes. Each of these types of residential units would further the gaals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. Staff further believes that either type of residential development would be consis#ent with both the existing uses and structures in the vicinity of the Hong Kang Cafe. 2. The degree to which relief from #he stric# and literal interpr+etation and enforcement o# a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniform`i#y of treatment among sites in the vicinity or ~ 4 . + ` ~ ta attain the objectives of #his title withaut grant of special privilege. ~ Staff befieves tha# the applieant is requesting the minimum amount of reiief from the strict and literal interpretation of the density caCculation #u achieve the goals of the praposal. Staff does believe, however, that the granting of the density variance would result in a grant of special privilege. Staff feels that there is no practical difficulty nor any physical hardship effecting the applicant's proper#y which precludes development on the site that would be ineonsistent with the deveiapment regulations. Staff further = feels that a denial of the variance request wauld nat deprive the praperty owner of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the Comrnercial Care I Zone District. Simply being the owner of a small iat in VaiC Viltage is . nat grounds for granting a variance allowing an increase in develapment potentiai. As stated previously, the appiicant is perrnitted by right to develop a residential use of the prpperty thraugh the construction of an accommodation unit, employee hausing unit ar a combination of the two. 3. The efFect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and trafFic facilities, public facilities and wtilities, and publia safety. Staff recognizes that the appraval of the requested density variance and the subsequent redeveloprnent of the Hang Kong Cafe may effect the avaifability of ligh# and air ta the condaminiums units in the L.azier-Arcade Building. Staff further recdgnizes the availabifityof light and air could be ~ effected if the applicant chooses #o exercise all develapment options. Fnr example, the applicant cauld propase ta add a third level of commercial or offiice square footage atop the Hong Knog Cafe. A variance approval woultl not be necessary, however, the views from the adjoining praperties could still be impacted. Therefore, staff beiieves the appiicant's request will have lit#le, if any, negative impact on the above criteria. B. The Plannina and Environmental Gommissian shall make the follawing,.findinas before aranting a variance1. That the gran#ing of the variance wi11 nat constitute a gran# of special' privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classifiedin the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will nQt be detrimental ta the public heal#h, safety or welfare, ar materially injuriaus #o properties or improvemen#s in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incnnsistent with the objec#ives of thistitle, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditians ~ 5 b , ~ w applicable to the same site o# the varianee that do not apply generally to other praperties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretatinn or enforcement of #he specified regulatian ~ would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners o# other praperties in the same district. V. STAFF RECC7MMENDATION The Community Devetopmenf Department recommends denial of the applicant's t-equest ' for a density variance tn ailow far an increase in density from 0.925 dwelling units #o one dwelling uni#. The recommendation for denial is based upan the sta#f's review of the variance criteria and findings outlined in Section IV of this memarandum. 7he s#afF believes the densi#y variance ls not warranted for the following reasorls. 1. The granting of the variance wilf constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Commercia! Core I Zone District. 2. The strict and literal interpreta#ion of the density regulation does not result in a practical difficulty and unnecessary physical hardship inconsisten# with the objec#ives of the Zoning Code. 3. There are no exceptions or extraordinary conditions applicable to the applicant's site that do not apply generaiiy to other praperties in the Commercial Core I Zone Distric#. A small lot in and of itself daes ncrt constitute an extraardinary condition. ~ 4. The strict interpre#ation and enforcement di the densityregulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjayed by the owners of o#her properties in the Commercia1 Core { Zone District, ~ 6 peelAangenwai#er architects, I.i.c. david mark peel, adi.a; kathy iangenwal#er, a.i.a. ~ 2588 arosa drive p.o. box 1202 vai(, co 81658 470-476-4506 970-476-4572 fax u BASE MOUNTAIN SPORTS DENSITY VARIANCE Hong Ksng Cafe Buiiding Part of Lots B and C, Block 5C . Vail Village First Filing 227 ti1Va11 Street Vaii, Colorada December 15, 1997 The Hong Kang Cafe Buitding has recently changed ownership. The new owner will be upgrading and remodeling the building for use by Base Mountain Sports. The basement wiil house ski storage lockers, men"s and women's accessible restrooms, and mechanicai equipment fQr the building and new elevator. The first fieve1, accessed from Vilall Streef, will pravide ski rental services, andthe second level adjacent to Ear{ Eaton Piaza will be a retail shop. Also proposed is the addition of a third level to accemmodate a two bedroom residentiai uni#. ~ Section 18.24.130 of the Tawn of Vail Zoning Ordinance states that in Gommercial Core I, density shall not exceed 25 dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. This relates to a minimum site area of 1742.4 squarefeet per unifi: The site area of the Hong Kang Cafe Building is 1611.7 square feet, 130.7 shart of the minimum. Based on the site area, 92.5°l0 (.925) of a unit is allowed; therefore, #he owner is requesting a variance of 7.5% (075) of a unit ta allaw the construction af one dwelHing unit. . The aIlowabie GRFA farthis site is 80% of the 1611.6 square foot site or 1289.3 square feet. The GRFA of the proposed urtit is 1196 square fieet or 92.8% o# the aHowable GRFA. Due to the compact size and the design of the dwelling unit it wi11 not meet the criteria of a{uxury second hame, but can be a viable short term rental unit. Although the existing site coverage statistics will not change with this proposal, por#ions af the structure at grade are being removed and other areas infiilled. A net Ioss of 16.3 square feet of building footprint at grade will occur. In addition, the prflperty wiA have a ne# gain of 24.9 square feet af landscaping where a planter will replace part of the existing patio. 7he current restaurantCbar use requires 12.7 parking spaces. With the praposed ~ changes, the retail parking requirement will be 11.1 spaces and the residential ~ ~ requirement will be 2 spaces with a tQtal of 13.1 spaces, an increase of .4 parkingspace. ~ The proposed uses of the Hong Kang Cafe Building - ski services, retail, and a residential unit - are permitted uses in CCI and typical of #he surrounding buildings. The architectural character of the propased building is similar #o the style preferred . . in Vail Village thus strengthening the relationship of this building to its neighbors. Also, the additianal landscaping, relocated entrance from Earl Eatqn Plaza, and - enlarged entrance from WaII Street will enhance the re{atianship of the pedestrian with this property. . The minimum lot size allowed in Commercial Care I is 5,000 square fee#. Nawever, this property was plated with considerably less area and is only 32°fo of the required 5,000 square feet. This of course was no# caused by the current owner who would like to enjoy thesame rights, uses, and privileges of his property - the inclusion of a residential unit - as his neighbors. Because of the physical hardship of the site area being substantially smaller than athers in GCI, because the site area is so close ta the minimum required for a dwelling unit, and because the proposed dwelling unit is smaller by nearly 100 square feet GRFA than allowed on a property this size, this variance will achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among the sites in #he vicinity and is not be a grant of special privilege. ~ The grant of this density variance wiil have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, and publie safety. Neverkheless, the additian of a#hird story will have an effecfi an a number of these issues and will be addressed in conjunction with a rnajor exterior alteratian request in the near fu#ure. The Hong Kong Cafe property is not a designated sub-area described in any part of the Vail Comprehensive Plan; however, this variance request and proposal comply with #he following statements frorn the Vail Comprehensive P1an: ILand Use Plan GoalslPolicies 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlledenvironment, maintaining a balance be#ween residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and #he permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. ~ * 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core shauld be carried inta new ~ development in the ViNage Core through continued implementation tif the Urban Design Guide R(an. 1.12 Vail should accommadate most of the additional growth in existing . developed areas (infill areas). 2,1 The community should emphasize its role as a. destinatian resort while accommodating day visitors. . 42 lncreased density in the Core areas is acceptabie so long as the existing charac#er of each area is preserved through implementatian of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Viilage Mas#er Plan. 4.3 The ambianee of the Village is importanf to the identity of Vail and shoUld be preserved, (Scale, alpine charac#er, small town feeling, mountains, natural se#ting, intimate size, cnsmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) Vail Village Master Pian "There is a need to continually maintain and upgrade the quality of existing buildings, as we11 as stree#s, walks and utility senrices. Vail's economy relies to a ~ Iarge degree on maintaining its averall status and a#trac#iveness as a world class resor#." GCJAL #1 Encaurage Nigh quality redevelopment while presenring the unique architectural scale of tlie Village in order ta sustain its sense of comrnunity and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encaurage the upgrading and redevelopment o# residential and commercial facilities. GCJAL #2 To faster a strang tourist industry and pramo#e year-araund ecanom'rc health and viabili#y for the village and for the community as a whole 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of Iand uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow for develapment that is compatible with #hese established land use patterns. „ 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for shar# term overnight accammodations, GC7AL #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement ofi the walking experience throughout the Village. ~ ~ 3. 1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. ~ The Land Use Plan diagram indicafes this area as a mixed use. "Lodging, retait and limited amaunt of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 320 residential uni#s, fihe mixed use character of these areas is a majar factor in the appeal af Vail Village,," This property is in the area designated to be in the 3-4 sfiory range of building height on the Conceptua/ Buiiding Height P/an. °E3uilding heights greatly influence ` the character of the buiit enviranment in the Village. This is particularly true in the Village Core where typical building heights of three to faur stories establish a pleasing human sca(e." Vail Village Design Considerations Again, #he addition of a third story will have an effect, mosfily positive, an each of the issues discussed in the design cansiderations. These will be addressed during the major exterior alteration process. ~ ~ 370 Seventeenth Street ~ , ' Republic Plaza - Suite 2600 Denver • Colorado 80202-5626 ~ Telephone: 303t825-0800 F'acsimile: 303J624-7610 ~ Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, p C. Attorttel.s at Ltztt, E-Mai1: Berenbauml@aol.com .1anies L. Kariz-F'}relnn Direct Dia1 3031592-8323 January 8, 199$ SENT VIA FACSIMILE George Ruther Town Planner Town af Vail Vail, Colorado Re: Variance Rec~uest for 227 Wali Street Dear Mr. Ruther: This firm represents Mr. Ed Bleckner and the Fraises Corporation, owner of Units 308 and ~ 309 in the Lazier-Arcade Condaminium Building in Vail. These tTnits are located immediately adjacent to the New Hong Kong Cafe. As we understand the variance request, the purpose of the variance is to allow the canstruction of a third story on the New Hong Kong Cafe building ta accornmodate a two=bedrooln residential dwelling unit. The proposed variance, if granted, wauld result in the total blackage of any view of the mountains from my client's property. I have attached for yaur informatian an Agreement reached in 1986 between the tlaen owner of the New Hong Kang Cafe praperiy and rny client whereby the awner of the New Hong Kong Cafe property expressly agreed to specific height limits for the building on that property. The puzpose of those height limits was to ensure that the view from the deck of Unit 309 of the Lazier-Arcade Candominium Building was not blocked. Any new canstruction raising the elevatian of the structure on the New Hong Kang Cafe praperty is contrary to this Agreement which was recorded in 1986 and is binding on the successors and assigns of the owner of the New Hong Kong Cafe praperty. Because this Agreement was recorded in 1986, any new purchaser of the property since then would be on notice of this building restriction. ~ H:U?OCS\CLIETJ'I1RB\BLECKNER\CORR,E5UtIJTfIER.LTR (cig 11$/98) 4VAIL ~'QWN Office af the Town Attorrtey 75 Sauth F'rontage Raad Vail, Calorado 81657 . . . . . 970-479-21.47jFczx 970-479-2157 TM MEMORANDUM TU: George Ruther FROM; R. Thamas Moorhead DATE: January 19, 1998 ' . SUBJECT: HKC Partnership/The Fraises Corporation Agreement dated 3/10196 Gearge, my review of this agreement leads me to the opinian that it does not relate ta the Town of Vai1 zoning ordinances. The Town of Vail is not a party to this agreement and its seems to address the appraval process for a conditional use permit and approval of modifications ta the exterior of the ~ Hong Kong Cafe consistent with the time frame that 3t was entered into. If any additional informatian is necessary, please contact me. ~ Thanks. RTM/aw Attachment ~ REI:YCLEI7YAPER r Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C. , artoaHeYs nT ixw ~ Letter t0 January 1998 Page 2 It is my client's position that the Town should nat grant a variance which permits a violation af an existing Agreement which is recorded against the praperty and af which the Applicant should be aware. I will appear at the hearing on Monday afternoon on behalf af my client to object to the variance request. If you have any questions before that, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, BERENBAUM, WEINSHIENK & EASUN, P.C. ~ J James L. Kurtz-phelan JKl'lclg Attachment cc: Ed Bleckner Fraises Corporatian (via facsimile) ~ x:\])ocskcz,rPN'rRE\Bt,EcKNEx\coxrEs\RtrTHER.Lrx(cigz/ai9s) • r 3 5 4 !+iN~'T~'~: E~;:LE_ 0Y. R;:CIFTc ` ` . 02256 -aao+c...... . FEB 2S '81 .7M025 ~ - ri?c AGREEMENfi 7'~s , THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of Marc~i 1986, by and between THE HKC PARTNERSH , a. C c~ l, o r~. d a partnershi p {"HKC") , and THE FRAISES CORFORA- TZON, a Colorado corporatian treferaced to herein as " FYa ises") . . . W - ~'e Io+c~t~d - WHEREAS, HKC is the owner of the Hang Kong Ca a"t 715- Wall Street, in Vail, Colorado, legally descrn ExEib"ft Aattached hezeto and incorpo:rated herein by r this reference, and intends to en2arge the Hong Kang Cafe in such 2 ~ a manner as to cause certain impacts upon Units 30$ and 309 in the Lazier-Arcarle Candomini.um building loGated in Vai1, Colarada, which IJnits are owned by Fraiaes ("Fraises Property") ; and WHEFtEAS, in connection with the expansion af the Hong Kong Cafe, HKC is required to obtain a conditional use permit and apprc~val far madification of a building exCer~.or frr~m t"~e Town af Vail; and ~ ~ WHEREAS, in connection with seeking those approvals, Fraises is willing to foregv its ri.ghts to oppose granting o£ " such approvals up on the execution and satisfaction af the ternas. W= and conditions of this Agreement by HKC; and ~ WHEREAS, HKC, in order to work cooperatively with Fraises for the purpose of obtaining speedy appraval from the Town af Vail is willing to abligate itself to the terms and conditions set forth in tha.s Agreement. NOW,'THEREFORE, in cansideration of the premises, their mutual covenants and pzomises, and other good and valAxabxe consideration, the receipt and sufficiency af which is hereby acknowledged, Che parties hereby agree as fallows: 1. Fraises hereby agrees not to oppose the issuance of a conditional use permit or appxoval of modifications to the exterior of tihe Hong Kong Cafe by the Town of Vail. 2. HKG hereby agxees that the expansiori of the Hong Rcrng Ca£e (referred to herein as the "New Building") shall be construcCed in such a manner, notwithstanding any $gprova.ls by the t'own of Vail to the contrary, such that the New Building does not=-violate any of the following conditions: (a) The top of the PYrami.d skylight in the center of the raof of the New Building shall nat be higher than six inches below the railing cn the deck to Unit 309 af the Fraises Property. } (b) The top of the major rcof line on the New ~ Bui3ding shall nat'be more than six inches above the floor of the deck ta Unit 309 af the Fraises Prnperty. t 1 . d. . . . . _ 1 el t ~ ~yr Y~i~i:~ ii' ~i4~ (c) The. top.of the spoke skylights an the roof of the New Building shall not be ffiore than 18 inches sbove the floor of the deck to Unit 309 of the Fraises Propertyd (d) A11 skylights located on the roof of the New • B4ildxng shall be fixed, double or triple glazed, dark bronze tinted plexiglass. (e) Interior shades of dark brawn or dark bronze fiberglass netting shall be inetalled on the spake skyl3.ghts on the narth hali= of the New Building and on the PYramid skyTight on. the New Building and shall be extended across the skylights duri,ng nightt3.me use of the Hong Kong Cafe sa as ta reduce the amount of 3ight emitted thraugh the skylights. (f) T'he exhaust hoads far the kitchen and grili shall be located 3.n the southwest corner of the roof on the New Building. (g) AI1 mechanical equipment on the roof of the I3ew BuiIding shall be hi.dden from view fram the deck on Unit 309 of the Fraiaes Property by roof or enclosure elements whieh sha11 be na higher than the major roof line as described ir? paragraph 2(b) above. ~ {h) There shall be no direct uplights insta3led on the secand floar of the New Building, 3,t being agreed that lighti.ng on the second floor of the New Buildi.ng shail be through fi.xtures which direct a].1 light in a downward direction. f i) 'I`hhe fireplace flue on the roof of the New Building shall be no wi.der than 18 inches. ( j) There sha11 be no exits from the north side . of th+e second floor af the New Building. 3. HKC herebp agrees ta conform all drawings prepared far Town approval, building permit issuance and cnnstruction gurposes to the criteria set forth in paragraph 2 above and to construct and operate the New Building in canformance with such criteria at all times. R'° 4. The parti.es hereby agree thatt in the event either party breaches-the terms and canditions of this Agreement, the party nat in bresch shall be perm3.tted to bring an action for @ specific perfarmance ar damages in the Ds.stric't Court far the County o£ Eagle, 5tate of Colarado. ' 5. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and shall be construed and enforced in sccordanee with the laws of the 5tate of Colorado and shall be hinding upon the parties ~ herettr, thei.x respgctive heirs, successars and assigns. . ~ 2 ~ t ° . 02256 ` 3M025 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed the ~ foregoing Agreement as of the date and year first set forth above. HKC PARTNERSHIP, a Colorada general partnership . ' - BY z - Its General ar ner ` , THE FRAZ5E5 CORPt3RATIC3N, a coloraaa corpc,ration . • SY : Edward Bleckner, Jr. President ~ ~l . ~ . . ~ ~ -3- e. w . t i rY r.,.r.in+1+,h i'~ ~ A PA-R?" dF I:OT C, BLOCK 5--Co VAtt,. VIL.L.AGEs FIRS"T FIl,..iNG, GOtlitiil"Y , qF' ERGL.E, 5TATE flF !COL.ORADA. MORE PAR'TICUI..ARi..Y DESCR IHED AS' FClLL.DWf, : CCIMMENC ING AT THE NOFtfiNEAST CQRNEA QF L.aT $i SAI C` $L.QCK 5-C: THENCE WESTERLY a[.ONt; TNE NORTWER4.Y Lit'.tE DF SATLt i.QT D. SEING tIN A CURVE 70 THE LEF'T HAVING A RADZUv OF r-82. ?9 FEE'T. A GENTRAL. ANGLE*OF C1F" 49 UEGREES 30 MItJUTES 06 uECONDS. AN AFiC DIS7ANCE OF 86. 48 FEET, TNENCE S. 10 DEGREES 30 M:NUTE$ 16 SECaNDS E. , 134.00 FEET TCi THE rRUE Po x raT OF BEGINNIMG, THENCE > CCENTINUTt+aiG ALONG THE AFQRESAID CC1;.:'f2SE 36.00 FEET; TNENCE N. 79 ~ DEGREES 29 M2NU7E5 44 aECCtNDS E. a 44.00 FEET, TNE.NGE N. 34 DEGREES 30 MINUTES Ib SECONDS W., 42.00 FEET: THENCE S. 79 ; i}E.^,REES 29 MZr#U`fES 44 $ECt7NnS W. . 4.00 FEET: 't'NElv:.E S. 20 llEGREES 30 MINUTES ib SECqN1JSE. , fs. qt? FEET: THENCE S. 79 DEGREES 29 MIhiU7`ES 44 SECONDS W., 40.00 FEET Tt1 Tf;E TRUE PCIIN'C OF BEGINNZNG. ~ ~ _ ~ - • . . . ,x ! ' . l : • . r . , ~ . ~ AMY JORGENSEN GONLEE . ~ January 21, 1998 Planning and Environmental Commissian cIo Genrge Reuther , Town of Vail ` 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Qear Gammissioner: This latter is in response ta the request for variance submitted by Base Mountain Sports, Hong Kong Gafe Bldg., Part of Lots B and C, Black 5C, Vaii Village First Fiiing, 227 tlVaIf Street, Vail, CO. . I am an owner of Condominium Unit 305 located in the adjacant building, The Wall Street Buiiding, f I am apposed to the building of an additional floor onta the existing structure or a revised structure of the Mong Kong Ca#e. I feel s#rangiy that the additional height and voiume at this location will crowd ~ the existingopen space area of Earl Eaton Plaza. I would fike to note that several of the condominium owners of the adjacent WaN Street Building were recently denied the right to increase their flaar pian area even though: • The increase was eompletely internal #o fihe existing stfucture. ¦ The increase in floor plan was less than the deviation reguested by the applicant. n The timi;tg of the modifiuatioras v~~~ ~pprcpriate due to the comple#e interior rebuilding resul#ing from the recent fire. The granting of a variance would be grantirrg a special privilege in violatic~n of Vail's zoning ordinance and clearly discriminatary. Sincerely, Amy o en e oniee ~ ! ~ n ~ t '3tevex1 Tut~ ~ 600 ROIIt@ 44-55 Highlant3, N@'W' YOr3L I2.~'',2$ ~ 3anumry 22, 1998 - Flaniung and Emironmental Comtnissian °lo George Renther . Town of Vail 75 S Frontage Road West . Vail. Colorado 81657 Commissioner: I write this letter on behalf of the Turk family, owners of unit 307 at The Wali Stteet Building. On Tuesday, January 2()th we were informed by other Wall Street Unit ownsrs that on Monday, Januarv 26, 1998, there is a variance hearing scheduled for Base Mountain Sports to request an expansion to the Hong Kong Cafe Building. Besides being a unit awner, I am currentlv the president of the Lazier - .Arcade Cnndominium Association. I am e.xtremely displeased about not beiug infarmed about the hearing as I absulu#ely wauid have made p2ans to attencl. After spealdug with the Town af Vail Planning Commissian, zt was made ~ clear to me thai it is the abligation of the applicant ta notify adjacent ProiertY oNvners in a timeiy fashion ...we were not notified at all ! (?ver the past eight vears we have tolerated ever-vthing from freqaent episodes of late night rasvdiness ta the constant mismanagement of the notorious garbage heap that -v-isibly overflows between the bvildings and sznells (even in the winier). Understanding the way the building is being managed (or mismanaged) preseutly. I am hard presserl to figure how they will handle the respansibility af larger - traTic flows with a future sxpansion. I am of strong opinion that The Hang Kong Cafe Building is already detracting frc>m t2ie qualiiy and value of the residential uni#s located indirectly abave. Due to these reasons, I am respecffidly requcsting any application for expansion on this property be denied. Sincerei > ~ sc~~n Turk ~ 12-3-6 12-3-6 ~ C. Ntatice: the subject matter of the hearing, and a s#atement that the applicatian or 1. Nczt less than fifteen (15) days prior infiorma#ion relating to theproposeti to the date set for the hearing before change or amendmen# is available in the Planning and Environmentaf Com- the Administrator's office during regu- mission, the Administrator shall cause lar business hours for review or in- a copy of the notice to be puhfished spection by the pubiic. once in a newspaper of general circu- lation in the Town. D. Evidence: 2. Irt addition to the published notice, 1. The Planning and Environmentai the Administrator shail cause a copy Gommission shall base its de#ermina- of the notice to be mailed by firs# tions upnn statemenfis cantained in c#ass mai1, pos#age prepaid tQ the the appficatian or petition, upon re- owner or owners af record of the prop- ports fram the Town staff or cansul- er#y which is subject of the hear6ng tants, ifi any, and upon evidence pre- and the owner ar owners of record of sented to the Commission at the hear- the property ad}acent to the subject ing. property (if the adjacen# property is a condominium project, nvtice may be 2. The Town Council shall base its mailed to the managing agent, regis- determinations upon statements cnn- tered agent or any member of the tained in the application or petitiort, board of directors thereof), for any upon reports from the Town s#aff vr amendment, change or app(ication cansultants, ifi any, upon euidence ~ rela#ing #o: submitted to the Planning and Envi- ronmental Commission and the rec- a. Changes in zoning district ommendations or fiindings of the Com- baundaries; missian, and upon evidence presented tca the Council at the hearing. b. Gonditiona( uses; 3. Hearings shall be conducted in c. Variances; such a manner as ta afford an appli- cant or petitioner and ali interested d. Development pfans for special parties the apportunity ta submit ex- development districts; and ceptions to the recordr fi.011te11t1OnS, and arguments with respect to the e. Changes in the densi#y contrai issues entailed, pravided that the sections in any of the zone districts. Planning and Environmental Commis- sion and the Town Council may limit 3. The within required notices shall the taking of evidence to evidence nat sta#e the time and place of the hear- previously submitted and made a ing, name o# the applicant, a general matter af record. (CJrd, 49(1979) § 1: description of the subject property C7rd. 16(1978) §7: Ord. 8{1973} indicating its location (which may be 21.400, 21.403) shcawn by map), a brief summary of ~ ?'own of Vail ~ JAhI 22 198 13 :41 F'R BERENBAUM--WE I NSH IENK 303 629 ?610 TO *00958?050919?04 P. 02i02 370Smnteenth Strw Ttepublic Plau - Suice 1600 Dcnver • t':tritarxcin 80202-5626 TCiephone: 303A25-0800 Fatdnnile: 3431629-7610 ~ 8erenbaum, Weinshicnk &Eason, P.C. Accornt;vs at 1aw F-Maal: ELrcnbmnn ~dI2nr:c,m JAuncti L. kurtA-I'he[up l3irect Dial 3031592-8323 72numy 22, 1948 fi .''1' V`TA FACS IT,F George Rtxther - TOWn Planner Tuwn of Vail ; Vaii, Colorada Re; I)ensi _ Varianc St fOr 227 Wa11 Street alMLY KOWadt IR and Block 5C# Vait Vi11= Fir~.~ F'1~i~ I)ear Mr. Ruther: As you knnw, this ~`i~m represents the cawner af [Tnits 308 and 309 in the Lazier-Areade Condotniniums in VaiI, vuhich Units are immediately adjacent to the property far which the above= 4escribed density variance has been requested. We are aware that the density variance request has ~ leen tabled urdi1 Januazy 26, 1998, for failuuree to provitie notice to certain aetyacertt Prc+pertY owners. I spbke witti my client this morning whb has spoken with the owners of a11 but one of the xesidential cvndominiurn units in the Z.azier-Arcade Condominium Building. None of those residential unit owuers have rcceived any notice of the hearing scheduted ior January 26, 1998. Based upon this faUtre Co pmvide notice ta those owrers, Z herewith abject to the hearing beiung he1d untii such titne as proper nntice has been given. Pleaw let me kuow before Monday maming Yf Che hearing wi11 le tabletl again until prtrper notice ha,s been provided. Very trury yours, ;BAUM, W'EINSHIENK & .~ASt)N, P-C. anurtz-P J.KKPIcig , Attachnient cc; Ed Bleckner ~ Fraises Corptrxatirrn {via facsimiie} fC1ElClCS1LR. L'riC(+3~ I137J9R} WW T(tTlliC . ? ~ BRENTWILL CAFITAL, LLC P.U. BOX 23215 ~ LOUISVTLLE, KY 40223 January 22, 1948 . Planning and Environmental Commission °,/o George Reuther Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 61657 Dear Commissioner. This letter is in response to the request for variance submitted by Base Mountain Sports, Hnng Kong Cafe' Building,, Part af Lots Band C, B1ock 5C, Vail Village First Filing, 227 Wall Street, Vail, CC?. Brentwill owns condominium Unit 302 located in the adjacent building, The Wall Street Building and is opposed to the additional floor of the existing structure or a revised structure of the HQng Kong Cafe'. Aesthetically, the additional height and valume at this location will erawd ~ the existing apen space area of Earl Eaton Plaza. We have reviewed Mr. Crramm`s January 24th letter and support his position and request a denial. Sincerely, f v~ W. Thamas Hewitt WTHlrh VIA: UPS Next Day Air ~ ~ . ~ KAREN HEllMAN 1000 lSLAND $LVD • PH04 • WILLIAMS ISL.ANp ~ FL • 33160 ~ J8Si11rZfy Zd, 199$ Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Uail - % George Reuther 75 S. Frontage Road West , Vai1, CO 81657 , Dear Comtnissioner: This letter is in response to #he request for variance submitted by Base Mountain Sports, Hong Kong;Cafe Bldg., Part of Lats B and C, B1ock SC, Vail Village First Filing, 227 Wall Street, Vail, CO. I am the owner of condominium Unit 301 located in the adjacent building, The Wa11 Street Building. I am opposed to the building of an additional flaor onto the existing structure or a revised structure of the Hong Kong Cafe. Aesthetically, the adelitional height and volurne at this iocation will crowd the existing open space area of Earl Eatnn Piaza. Factuaily, the applicant cleariy does not rneet the requirements af site area minimum as relates to units ~ allowed. The applicant argues that his site is toa small, that the small area of the site "...was not caused by the eurrent owner..." . Yet the site was just as small when he recently purchased ix. The applicant states that he is only 7.5%o short of requirements to build a residential uttit and a variance would not be a grant of speciai privilege." Even thaugh the numbers should speak for themselves it should be noted that several of the candominium owners of the adjacenC QVa11 Street Building were recently denied the right to "iminirnally" increase their floar,plan area even tttough: a. Such increase was completely intemal to the existing structiue. b. Such increase in floor plan was simiiar ar less ttian tha 7.5% deviation requested by tlie applicant. c. The tirning of such modification(s) was appropriate due to the complete interiar rebuilding resulting from the recent fire. The granting of a variance would be granting a special privilege in violation of Vail's zoning ordinance and would be discriminatary. I respecifully urge a denial af this request. Sinc rely ~ r - . . e . U.'I~AT~E ~ REGA"TN'G 5TATE LAND B+C?ARDtBLM PROPOSED L.AN`S3 EXC?FIANGE IN EAGLE A:.'~Cll ROCJT'T COGfiiTIES jAiN`tJARY 20, M8 Over the last year tiierc has been an ongoing public process regard'zng a pxoposed disposiuon by the State Und Board of properCies in Eagle, Routt and Piticin Court*ies, and possible related 3a.nci exctianges with the BLM. In eonnecCion with this pttc8ss thete has been a series of public meetings. r1t the mast rwenz of thoso meetings an November 12, 1997; the laxxrrtl exchaz;ge Working Group put forth a Final Repcrrt and Proposed Outcvme ( the "P*apasal"), which trvisioned a tbre: -way lanci exchange betwcen the BLM, Land Board and Eby Development Company ("EBY"). Pursuant to the Proposal al1 of the 7C,and Board propezdes being disposed ot wouid erld up in the hands of the BL1VI ar of itud owners adjacent to c:"r related to the. State ]ands. EB'4' would end up with approximately 1,200 acresot BZ,M 3arYd nartheast of the "I'own ai ~gi~~, which would be artnexed to the Town in a manner being negotiat.ed with the Town of Eagle. EBY wouid a350 end up with approxirn,ately 240 acres of BLNi ie.tld vn the hillsides above the Turun of Eagie, which would be clonated to the Town of Eagle furhiliside protectxonpisrposes %n cannecticsn tvith the proposed annexation. Additionally, approximately 10 BLM isalated ' parce1s throughout Eagle Gounty would be exchasaged to adjacent vr rela#eci land bwnexs. Finally, the Land Board wuuld receive the proceeds of the di5pasa1 of their Iands, which would ~ be uwilized by the Land Boarc3 in nonsimultaneous exchangcs ta acquire rep)acemen:t .L0-nd $aa:td properties (prabably outside ofi Eagle County). Sinct :he. Novetnber 12, 1997 pj.lblic m~eting turther prragress has been inade, and the BLM, Lanci Board aj?d L-BY ase ready to ente.r znto an Agrwment to Initiace, which is a non-binding tiocunietit that a11ows dhe par*ics t..o prrceecl witit the variaus steps necessary fo-r an exchan;e (e.g, obtaining appraisa.ts and other studies of theland.). The Agreement to Znitiate is intes~ded to incorporate the cvnceprs pur foath in the Proposal, and the Prqposa1 is an ar#achment to the Agreernenc Co Ini.tiate. bri IanLiary 13, 1998, the Eag1e `Z'own Board was bsiefui on tt!is maxCer, and, withcut c+amrnitcing to an ann~xatian ar de:velopment, gave its apDroval to the Agreement to Tnttiatf,-. The finat decision to proce°d with any exc3Yange will noC be made until a.Il studies enG r~guiatory requirements tiave been completeci; na =lier tha.-l this fall. During that tYme the4e will be additional notices and apportunities for public input. A draft of the Agreernent to initiatc is avai,able for raview at the Eagle Trrwn Hab.. It is anticip,ated that a final version wii3 be execuked by the parrtzes on 7anuary 27, 1998. Anyone witkr comments regarding the currunt draft af the Agreement to Tnitiace shbuld provide them to tilike Skrugar, the Wqrkina Group Facilitatort by pliane at (303) 820-5640, or by fax at (301.) . 820-5656, by no later than 1anuary 26, 1998, ~ DONALU M. CIIRTIS 1448 BRAEBURN BUAb FLOSSMUOR, IL 60422 ~ January 10, 199$ Planning and Environmental Commission c/o Town of Vail 75 Soath Frontage Raad Vail, CO 81557 Dear Comission Members: I have been a condominium owner in the Landmark Tawer in Lionshead for approximately ten years. During that time my famfly antl I have grown to love Vail and are enthused about the plans to imprave Lionshead. However, we do have two serious areas of concern about the propasals that we understand are presently under discussion: L Lianshead's core space is very limited. It is far better reserved for pedestrian traffic only and not for busses or other fornts of mass transit. Lionshead is not so large that people cannot' convenientiy walk to loading areas providing access ta busses aperating alarig roads lacated on the outskirts of the area. in that way the norse, fumes and hazard to pedestrians will nat be right in the heart af Lionshead. For us at least, watking is a way af life when we are there. Mixing busses and pedestrians in the limited core space woald very negatfvely irnpact our perception af quality af life in Vail. ~ 2. We note propasals ta increase density and bui[ding heights. One af Lionshead's grea#est attributes today is the ability for one to see the mountains over and between the builtlings. Building heights of two stories along pedestrian walkways rising to a maximam of faur s#ories an height as one moves aNvay from those pedestrian ways waald fit with the overall Vail feeling. Allawing increased buittling heights rvauld close everyEhing in, definitely turning Lionshead' into a second class location. If the decision es made to markedly increase the populatian density in Lianshead, we will be left with a crowded, caAnmercial area with the seriaus delivery, traffic and parking proirlerns that overpopulation masf eer#ainly wiil bring. Yes, we are cancerned Concerned that the plau that is finaliy executed will cansider the inferests of present. property owuers at least as fniiy as it considers and serves the commcrcial interests involved. Our future in Vail depernds upou you and the decisions ytru witl malce. Please don't let as down. Sincerely, c ~ . _ . _ . . t , _ : . . . . • w APP~ , F~l 0 ~ ~..k_? `~a~ . . 2ksA. . . . . ~ -k r. ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~ January 26, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Gene U$elton Mike Maliica Greg Amsden Gearge Ruther Galen Aasland Judy Radriguez Diane Golden John Schafield Ann Bishop Public Hearft 2:00 p.m. The meeting was calied to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a building height variance from Section 12-78-12, to aHow for an increase in the 60/40°lo building height ratio for the Gasthof Gramshammer, lacated at 231 E. Gare Creek dr.iPart of Biock 5B, Vaii Viliage 1st. . AppNcant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner; George Ruther ~ George Ruther gave an overview of the staff mema. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Kurt Segerberg, representing Pepi Gramshammer, explained the model and showed how it laid ou# between the two buildings. He explained that the spart shop, lnbby areas and entry had fo reiate to the existing lodge and that the stair tower was taken out ta get below the 43' height elevation. He said they discovered that the original ceiling heights were nat adequate. He said that they were asking for about 1/Z fee# of structural depths, as this would be steel construction which would aid in the spesd ofi completion of the project. He said they needed more roam to make the acoustics work. Kurf stated that the parking garage ccan#rolled this project and tha# they were using the 12% maximum grade down to the garage. He said they discovered an existing starrn sewer down the center af the garage, which was a surprise, but that they were accommodafing it irr the projec#. Jim Viele, the Contractor for the project, confirmed what Kurt said regarding the quality of the project. He said the imposition of today's standards put a burden on the property owner. Greg Moffe# asked for any public comrnent. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner'-s Associatian-(EVHA), said staff created a series of canditians explaining that this was not a grant of special privilege. J:im said he had been approached by many people who wanted a 9' head-height and he wanted staff and Gauncil #o change the Zoning Code ta a11ow the incremental height limitation to apply in thi$ zone district. He said if that was done, the Town would get more peaked rnofs. ~ Planning and Environmental Commissian Minutes Janaary 26, 1998 r Galen Aasland said the 9' ceiling was reasonable and the storm sewer hardship through the garage was reasonable. He asked Kurt why a structure with steel pianks was not chosen. Kurt Segerberg said he Iooked at a number of different types of systems and expiained that the ~ steel frame extended firom the garage all the way up. He said it worked out well to use just one subcontractor. Ne said #hey stayed away #rom pre-cast because of the cost and scheduling problerns. Jim Viele explained that pre-cast doesn't lend itself to cutting thraugh. Galen Aasland asked haw the height was being affected by the dwelling unit in the center of the building. George Ruther said there would be very little change in the percen#age ratio. Ann Bishop had no commenfis. Diane Golden asked what the ceiling height of the dwelling unit was, Gearge Ruther said the ridgeline was a maximum 43' high. Kurt Segerberg said there would be na height increase inside the dwelling unit. , .lohn Schofield agreed that a 9' ceiling was necessary and the sewer #hrough the garage was a practical difficulty. Greg Amsden had no camments. Greg Moffet said the storm drain was the reason for the variance. ~ MikeMollica said Galen brought out a good point, that if they just needed 9` ceilings, fhey could bring the height down. Pepi Gramshammer, the owner, said #his ho#el was builf in 1964 when 8' cei(ings were ok. He said there were different rules for di#ferent people in this Tawn, as there were buildings with 4 stories. He said he had 3'/z stories and that every building on the back side of his hotel was taller. He said that the Vail Vilfage Master Plan encouraged more high quaiity Village lodging: Jim Lamont said the structural technique was beyand the purview of the planner and he didn't see where Mike could say fhis was new information. Kurt Segerberg said he had a memo regarding the Austria Maus and there was na problem with the variance. Ann Bishop made a mation for approval, in accardance with the staff inema, with the change that there be more specific language added stating there was an easement through the project. John Schofieid said he would second the motian, ifi Rnn wnuld removethe change to themotion regarding the easemenf (anguage. Ann Bishop said she would remove the request for a change to the motion. i'lanning and Environrnental Cornmission ~ Minutes January 26, 1998 2 _ E . . , The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. ~ Greg Moffe# requested approval of the minutes, as Ga1en Aasland was recusing from the next item and Ieaving. 2. Approvai of ,3anuary 12, 1998 minutes. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval as read, Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vate of 6-0. 3. A request for a density variance from Section 12-78-13, ta allow for the canstruction of a two-bedroom dwefiing unitf focafed at 227 Wall Street (Hong Kong)/Lot'B &C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1 st Fifing. Applicant: ASI Vait Land Holding, L.L.C., c!a Base Mauntain Sports - Brett Barnett, represented by Kathy Langenwalter F'lanner: George Ruther Galen Aasland recused himself. Greg Moffief discfased that he said adver#ising ta the applicant, but felt that it was no# a conflict. Greg Amsden disclosed tha# he knew Richard Rosen, but saw no conflict. ~ Ann Bishop disclosed that she once had an office in Wall Street Building, but saw no conftict. George Ruther disclased that he was purchasing a home from Richard Rosen, but that if didn't influence his decision, to recommend denial. He then gave an overview offhestaff inemo. George said notification was mailed to the adjacent property owners on 12124/97 and he then read for the record, the adjacent property owner's list. He said the item was tabled, so additional notification could be made and tha# the natics was published on January 9, 1998. George thren read fram the cade regarding notificatian and said that staff believed thaf all notificatians had been made in accordance with the code. Greg Moffet advised that the agreement mentioned in the staff memo would not be discussed, since the PEC was not a Civil Court. Rick Rosen, an attamey representing ASI, Base Mountain Sports, explained that the applicant was here ta request a variance to ailow for a residentiai dwelling unit, since the Master Plan encouraged increasing the bed base. He $aid that the variarrce section in the Tawn Gode stated that va(ances were permitted to prevent practical difficulties or hardships resu1#ing firom the size ear shape af the site. He said tha# this site was carved aut and Brett inherited it and that this variance would not be a problern to other structures ar uses in the Care. He said the degree af relief wcauld-nat be asking for a special privilege, as they were not asking for more square f%-,)otage, just the right to go ahead with a residential unit. Me said that anytime you grant a variance, yvu give a special privilege. He said, regarding light and air, that the applicant had the right to build up, so long as fhey didn'fi violate the height restrictions. ~ Planning and Environmental Cnmmission Minutes January 26, 1998 3 . . Bretf Barne#t, the Owner of Base Mauntain Sparts, explained that they were adding a 6-person additional bed base and that the building needed to be impraved. Greg Moffet asked for any public camments. ~ Jim Lamont asked Gearge Ruther for the date this was piatted. George Ruther said in 1979, it appeared this site was crea#ed out of a portion of the Lazier Arcade. Jim Laman# said there was nothing in the Town records saying it was platted. Mike Mollica said the parcel, if ever platted, appears to have been done after July 1979. Jrm Lamont requested title information and if this was a separate parceL He asked Mike if the units per acre in the memo was an inferpretation based on having a whble uni# if it wasadwelling unit or a fraction of a who1e unit in order to build an accommodation unit. Jim felt that part of the rationale to meet this code interpretatian was of the magnitude of legislation fior the Council, not the PEC. Ne said if there was not a whale unit, the property nwner would be deprived of their right. Jim again said an interpreta#ive matter needed a legislative remedy. He stated that light and air came inta play under the conditional use permit. He said #hat issues of view were not at play, buf light and air were. Jim said the EVHA argued thattheCore had to be a mixed use nf cammercial with residentiaf. Greg Amsden stated that any upwacd bui(ding beyand the second flaar required a conditional use, excep# office space. Jim Lamont said to check the code; that commerciai use and residential uses needed a ~ conditional use. He said there was an appearance af rendering an apinion in the memo on the agreement that was decided was not an issue crf the Town's. Jim said that until the standing of the subdivision was resolved, the zoning densi#y cauld not be determined. He asked haw staff could arrive at their numbers, without knawing how it was zoned. James Kurtz-Phelan, an attorney representing the owners of unit #308 arrd #309, thought it was impartant that the applicant intended to build another story which flawed nut of the variance request. He said the issue af light and air must be considered, as i# did have a negative impact an the units and would affect #heir use. He said gran#ing the variance required a finding that the gran#ing would not be materially injurious to properties in the uicinity. hie brought up the letter from Amy Jorgensen-Conlee stating that other variance requests had been turned down. John Schofield asked for specif+cs of wha had been turned down. James Kurtz-Phelan said he didn't know, he was just quoting Amy's letter. Rich Traverse, an attarney representing the Lodge Condominium, stated there was no hardship that had been mentioned here and if approved, it would be setting a dangerous precedent. Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill who was the President of the Condo Assaciation a# 244 Wall Street, stated with praperty rights, if a variance created a densi#y change, then a{I the awners would like to have it in writing, as they would like the sarne thing. He said the C1ne Vai1 Piace awners would like to have that same change, if approved and that if appraved, the owners would ga to Council to have the same privilege. Planning and Environrnental Commission ~ Minutes January 26, 1998 4 " . . w t Greg Amsden said each variance request needed to be reviewed on its own merits. ~ Jack Curtin said this variance wnuld creafe a significant density increase of 7%. Greg Mo#fet reiterated that i# should be presented #hen, nat nnw. Mike Molliea stated that mixed use develapment was encouraged in the Core, krut that there was no requirement that stipula#ed mixed use on a particular property. Gearge Rutner read the cade regarding allowed conditional uses. He said the need far a conditional use permit would depend an the primary access; whether it was on ground level or up stairs. George also said he couldn't find when #his property was subdivided, but that it was subdivided prior to 1986. George said a way to res4lve the platting issue was to allow the app{icants time #o research it by tabling this item. He said the acreage figures came off an Improvement Lacation Certificate and also, that zero setbacks were permitted. Greg Moffet clarified that if access was by the 2nd story, then it was a use by right. He said fhat uses an the 3rd story require a conditional use permit. Jim Lamont asked if there was sufficient agreement on the site area. George Ruther enfered it into the record, an ILC submitted by Johnson Kunkle Associates, , Jim Lamont asked where the main entrance would be far this project. Mike Mollica stated that the applicant was nat required tn submit drawings at #his #ime, ~ Jim Lamont asked about building a whole uni#, Mike Mollica read fromthe c6de, thaf 25 units are aNowed per acre and that the defini#ion of accommodation unit was uery clear. Jim Lamont said it needed #o be made clear that the applicant didn't have a whaCe unit. Rick Rosen said staff was carrect regarding accessing by either the 2nd us. the 3rd floar. He said the praject would be accessed by Eatan Plaza , which is the 2nd flaor. He said there were specific SDD districts which deviated from #he density requirements, but thaf process causes rnore controversary. John Schofiefid asked if the appiicant had iooked elsewhere to trade 130 sq. ft. with the Tovvn. He said the owners da have the right to go up. Greg Amsden said he can't see a reason tv grant a variance ta absorb that 130 sq. ft. and so he recommended an AU, an EHU, or lacate that iand elsewhere for a trade. Rick Rosen asked that this item be tabled in order to taikwith the 1`own. John Schofield made a motion to table this until February 23, 7998, Ann Bishop secnnded the motion. ~ The motian passed by a vote nf 5-0-1 Planning atui Environmen#al Commission Minutes January 26, 1998 5 Ann Bish4p asked s#aff to make sure this was being calculated in the proper manner and would aiso like the camments of the adjaeent hameawners. Rich Rosen stated they had talked to the prnperty owners. ~ Mike MoNica offered to answer any questions that the PEG needsd answering, ar to meet with any of the PEC members. Ann Bishop stated that this praject was fairly camplex. Diane Golden said the PEC's hands were tied, but she would like to see EHU's. Greg Maffet said he sees a clear use by right. He said, as it related to a-DU, he didn't see how it wras not a grant of special privilege and that the lot being too smafl was not a hardship. Brett Sarnett asked wha# the difference was between a variance and a speciai privilege. Greg IVioffet explained that yau had to establish that granting a variance was not a special privitege. He gave the example af F'epi's appiication; that if a storm sewer went through fhe proper#y, it was a hardship. Kathy Langenwalter asked why Pepi was allowed to build. , Greg Maffet said he was building a Iot of AU's. George Ruther said that 27°l0 of the buildable lot area for Pepi's was in a floodplain which satisfied the finding gf a physical hardship. 4. A rsquest for a canditiortal use permit to construct faur multiple-family dwelling units and ~ variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Area) and 5ection 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, Incated at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossrnads Eas# Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., representedby Bill Pierce Pfianner: Dominic Mauriello T'ABLED IJNTIL FEBRUARY 23, 1958 5. A request for a setback variance, to allaw for a revised parking lot, located at 4192 Spruce WaylLat 5, Bfock 7, Bighorn 3rd Rddition. Applicant: Altair Vail lnn, c!o Mary Herzig, represented by Prudential Gare Range Properties. Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL. fEBRUARY 23y-1998------ Planning and Enviranmental Gommission ~ Minutes January26, 1998 6 . ~ , 6. A request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, #o allow for an interinr remodel, located at 1998Surtburst DrivelLot 19, Vai1 Valiey 3rd Filing. ~ Applicant: Nate Accardo, represented by Dale 5mith, Fritzlen, Pierce Briner Architects Planner: Reed Onate TAB4.ED UNTIL FEBRUARY 9, 1998 7. Information Update Diane GoVden gave an update on AiPP. She said that Seibert Circfe had been approved by the AlPP Board and it would now go to Town Council John Schofield made a motion to adjourn. Ann Qishop seconded the motion. The mation passed by a vv#e of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 pm. ~ ~ 1'lanning and Environmental Comrnission Minutes 7 January 26, 1999