Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-0608 PEC
TMIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town'of Vail will held a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town ofVall on June, 6, 1998, at 2 :00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. 1n consideration of: A request for a worksiession to discuss a major amendment'Io'Special Development Oistrici #6, Vail Villager lnn, to allowfor a hotel redevelopment, located at 104 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and 0, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruthe'r A request for a conditional - se:permit, to allow for a Bed and Breakfast operation; loeatedaet 1779 Sierra Trail /Lot 18, Vail,Village West Filing #1. Applicant: Malin Johnsdotter/ Robert Zeltmar Planner: Christie Barton A request for a major amendment to Special Development bi strict 22, Grand Traverse, and a: ` request for a major subdivision for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Dauphinais- -Moseley Subdivision Filing #1. Applicant: Patrick Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther A request for a side setback variance, to -allow for the construction of a garage, located at 813 Potato Patch Drive /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail ?otato,Patch. Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for an amendment to a previously approved-plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court /unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominc Mauriello A request for an extension of a conditional use permit for the Lionshead Children's Tent, located next to the Lionshead Childrens ski school /Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by David Thorpe Planner: Christie Barton A request for a minor subdivision to amend a building envelope, to allow for the installation of a gazebo, located at 1315 Spraddle Creek Road/Lot 12, Spraddle Creek Estates, Applicant: Dayco Holding Corporation, represented by David Argo Of No Name Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello:: A request for additiopal G.'RF +; utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for the construction,of a residential addition, located 'at ,199$ Sunburst Drive /t.ot,19, Vail Valley 3rd. Applicant:';; Nte'Accardo; represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner AIM P66ner: George = Ruther "1}1WX*VAtL A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for the conversion of a garage to GRFA, and for the expansion of the mechanical room, located at 345 Mill Creek Circle /Lot 14, Block 1, Vail Village 1st, Applicant: Lee M. Bass, represented by Snowden and Hopkins Planner: George Ruther A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for the expansion of the entry, located at 2005 West Gore Creek ?rive /Unplatted. Applicant: Tom Thomson, represented by John Perkins Planner: Christie Barton A request for a final review ©f a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a phrige to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/- Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L 'Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther , The app-lidations and information about the proposals are-,available for public inspection during regular effid6 hours,in the project planner`s office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 470- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 22, 1998 . in the Vail Trait. • • 1 Updated 6/02 1 pm 4. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court /unplatted. Applicant RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominc Mauriello 5. A request for an extension of a conditional use permit for the Lionshead . Children's Tent, generally located next to the Lionshead Children's ski school /Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by David Thorpe Planner: Christie Barton 6. A request for a'minor subdivision to amend a building envelope, to allow for the installation of a gazebo, located at 1315 Spraddle Creek Road /Lot 12, Spraddle Creek Estates: Applicant: Dayeo Holding Corporation, represented by David Argo of No Name Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello 7. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #22, Grand. Traverse, and a request for a major subdivision for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Dauphinais- Moseley Subdivision Filing #1. Applicant Patrick Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther 8. A request for a front setback variance, to allow for a proposed residential addition, located at 706 Forest Road /Lot J, Block 1, Vail Village 6th. Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner Architects Planner: Christie Barton 9. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st, Applicant: Daymer Corporation; represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JUNE 22, 1998 10. . A request for a side setback variance, to allow for the construction of an additional garage, located at 813 Potato Patch Drive /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JUNE 22,1998 2 v W3 r_ 141 " [A M 9 IN FABLED UNTIL JUNE 22, 199 A request for a side setback variance, to allow for the construction of an additional garage, located at 813 Potato Patch Drive /Lot 1, Block 1 Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by William Pierce Pinnnnr nominic Mauriallo Undated 6109 1 Oam 11. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operation, located at 1779 Sierra Trail/Lot 13, Vail Village West Filing 1. Applicant: Malin Johnsdotterl Robert Zeitman Planner: Christie Barton TABLED UNTIL. JULY 27, 199& _ 12. A request for a final review of a major amendment to SDD 4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development flan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by lobby Robinson Manner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 13. Information Update 14. Approval of May 13, 1993 minutes, TABLED UNTIL. JUNE 2 , 199 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the " Hearing Impaired, for information. Community [Development Department . Published June 5, 1998 in the Vail Trail. 4 1 Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 15 -5 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed <use: 1. Effect upon the existing tqp!qgr4phy.,,vecIetgtion, drainage and existin structures: Staff believes that the proposed addition will have no negative effects upon the existing structure or upon the existing vegetation in the area. Staff does not believe there will be any noticeable effect upon topography or drainage. Staff believes the proposed improvements will be in keeping with the neighborhood and the community 2. Impact on adjacent properties. The addition should not adversely affect views, light or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. The improvements face Gore Creek and blend in well with the existing structure. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development standards. The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the Town of Vail Design Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 11 of the Vail :Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 15, the staff shell review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrdunding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon review of the applicant's request, the staff has determined that the proposal is in compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development standards. No additional site improvements are necessary, B. Findi as: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 2 MEMORANDUM T©: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development . DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for additonal GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a remodelto I. (DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #4; Series of 1985, . which created Chapter,(12- 15 -5) of the Vail Municipal Cade, entitled "Additional Gross. Residential Floor Area." This Chapter, allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross. Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum all 'owance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. The applicant is requesting to add a total of 149 square feet within the secondary unit utilizing the - additional 250 square feet of GRFA. The addition would infill 42 sq.ft. of vaulted space :at the front entry and the remaining 107 square feet would be added atop the first flour, adjacent to the master bedroom. A small exterior deck is also proposed on the second floor on west side of the building. Due to the present configuration of the building, the total site coverage for the building Will not be increased as a result of the additions. The applicant's duplex was built in 1980 and received a Final Certificate of Occupancy in 1982. The building is nonconforming; in several aspects. First, the building exc '6edsthe maximum'building height by approximately 1 foot. Second, the building encroaches into the front setbackas well as, both side setbacks. Finally, the building is over the allowable GRFA: The Town of Vail-records show that this building complied with the existing zoning requirements when it was built; and is therefore, a legal nonconforming structure. In March of 1997, a 2503 GRFA allocation and facade improvements were granted for the primary unit. As a part of that request, facade improvements to the other half of this duplex (secondary unit) were also required and approved by the'Design Review Board (in May of 1997) to match the new architecture. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 15,587 square feet Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Hazards: High hazard rockfalls moderate hazard debris flow, possible avalanche influence zone- Allowed /Required Existing Proposed Remaining GRFA: 5,259 sq. ft. 6,092* sq, ft. 6,344 sq. ft: 0 sq, ft. Primary: W/250: 3,020 sq: ft. 3,941 * sq. ft. N/C 0 sq. ft. Secondary: W 1250: 2,239 sq. ft. 2,151 sq. ft. 2,298 sq. ft 101 sq. ft. (250) Site Coverage: 3,317 sq. ft. 3,091 sq, fit. 3,317 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. * Existing GRFA numbers are greater than allowed due in part to previous interior conversions. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA; the Planning and . Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect a 8n the existing topography. v tatio dr_ainage and exjgfing structures; Staff does not believe that the exterior additions will significantly affect existing site topography, vegetation, drainage, or existing structures. ° No trees will be removed as a result of the additions, and since both of the additions are on the second floor, no regrading is required. 2. Impact on adjacent prgpgrties. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. The facade improvements will match existing facade improvements and enhance this property making it more compatible with the surrounding structures, The additions have only minimal impacts on the bulk and mass of the building and will not negatively affect views from adjacent properties. 3. Com li nce with the Town's zoning re +uire nts and, applicable development standards. Section 12- 15 -5.B.6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the Town of Vail Design Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 12 -11 -1 of the Mail Municipal Code-. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 12 -15, the staff shall review the maintenance 2 and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find that the property is in compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. The driveway is paved and all utilities are below ground. Staff believes that the site is adequately landscaped and no additional landscaping i5 required. a. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively, impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends a pp roval of the a pp licant's request for 149 square feet of additional GRF'A (under the 250 Ordinance). Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria and findings outlined in Section IV subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively, effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. 3 t' -e SECT"A 6'- .SETBACK e LR4 GOOow D POS ' PROP09E6 DECK At U E.E LEVEL \—eL; LMITS OF EXIST... WOO f I 1 LIMIT QE EXIST WN G GOOTRRINT I 1 C E SIiIHO - ENC OSEX XM DEGK3$ t EL 5 —O' e UP EXISTING R " - �� WOOD DECK EXISTING rFF t .. C _ STONE FAVE2S — _ R !!P . f " + O � iEXL?TtNfa .. EXISTiftO k DE K EL IIS' -IX O 1 i P I I Q fi .. � ' SETBACK L --------- --------- ...-� "' P y UNE .. " .. ai ea�eRe Feel SITE DEAN TRUE BLDG NORTH NORTH i ( � L. INACCESSIBLE FOUR ATIONZ K12 GARAGE 0 - 6 - AREA - 'O . _ MECHANICAL EQUIP LOCAFION CONTROL. JOMi T. Ti•_O• 15E T 5LA9 EL. It i d W . _ _ UP Y01 57aRAGi; E - . • TFS.EktST SEA6' IO3 ItUD1TOOh[ , f - I 4 - �t+DS 157f0 4Q4 STAIR- Fk RA. AAA k 1 I RRIMARY UNIT Na [YORK TMS AREA ! C E I . I CNO NEW � \.�RK � I I F I FL0OR I f I I i j LEVEL Chi x� FLOOR F L A N*!W OG _ -- TRUE BUILD .s � SCAM Ili' +t' -OE. - NOR4Ff �NaRT (DC- (Di J - PL. EL. =OF los' -T° T.O.F. MAIN LVL t I-L- - ----------------- _ -__- _ _- - -__L T o F: LOWER LVL. ., .; .. .. :... . ... .:, }T.O. FOOTING - i i i MARY F F-- EXISTING STRUCTURE HATCHED AREA INDI ROOF LOCATION NEW DOOR t DECK MASTER BEDROOM E -- TOP PL, EL. Iov 11 P L. EL. IOt' -4 NEW RAIL TO M EXISTING T.O.F OFF EL 94' -t` MEMQRANDUM TO Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community development Department DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for the conversion of a garage to GRFA and for the expansion of the mechanical room, located at 345 Mill Creek CirclelLot 14, Block 1, Vail pillage 1st. Applicant` Lee M. Bass, represented by Craig Snowden Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Lee Bass, represented by Craig Snowden, is requesting to utilize the additional GRFA for both the primary and secondary dwelling units, located at 345 Mill Creep Circle'. Overall, ,a total of 271 sq. ft. of GRFA will be added to the applicant's primary/secondary structure. The applicant is proposing to use 238 sq. ft. of additional GRFA available to the secondary unit to convert an existing garage to living area, and to use 33 sq. ft., of additional GRFA available to the primary unit to expand an existing mechanical room area. The proposed garage conversion to the secondary unit is located on the north west corner of the existing structure. The applicant, is intending to provide an additional exterior parking space to replace the space lost due to the conversion of the existing garage for the secondary unit. if approved; 12 sq. ft, of additional GRFA will remain available to the secondary unit and 217 sq. ft. of additional GRFA shall remain available to the primary unit. Pursuant to Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residential door Area (250 Ordinance); "a single- family, or two - family dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional Gross Residential Floor Area not to exceed a maximum of 250 sq. ft. of GRFA in addition to the existing or allowable GRFA for the site. The 250 sq; ft. of additional Gross Residential Floor Area may be granted to existing single- family dwellings, existing two - family and existing multi - family dwelling units only once,, but may be requested and granted in more than one increment of less than 250 sq. ft." 10. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size • 23,309 sq. ft. 1 0.5351 acres Primary /Secondary Residential Development Standard Allowed Existing Proposed GRFA: Primary: 3,173 sq.ft. 4,097 sq.ft. 4,130 sq.ft. Secondary: 2,257 sq.ft 433 sq.ft. 721 ,sq.ft. Site Coverage; 20 % or 4,661 sq. ft. 14 % or 3,300 sq.ft. N/C Setbacks: Front: 20' 44' N/C Sides: 151/15' 17760' N /C/ 55` Rear: 15' 32" N/C Stream: 30' 30' N/C Parking; Primary: N/A 3 3 Secondary: N/A 2 2 Ill. GRI'TEPIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 15 Gross Residential Floor Area, of theTown of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requests for additional; GRFA based upon the- following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: . Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider, the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect -upon the existing topograp_hy, vegetation, , drainage and existing structures. Staff believes the proposed additions, each using ,a portion of the additional GRFA, will have minimal, if any, negative effects upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures in the vicinity of the Bass residence. Each of the additions is interior to the structure. The only exterior alterations to the site is a slight reconfiguration to the driveway /parking area. The change to the drivewaylparkir g area is necessary to accommodate the loss of the enclosed parking space for the secondary residence due to the conversion of the garage to living area. No tree removal is proposed. 2. Impact on adjacent properties. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. The additions will not - adversely affect views, light, or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. 2 M MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1998 . SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss a request for an amendment to a previously approved development plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Courtlunplafted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIP'TION'OF THE REQUET The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting, found that Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls has a vested development right for one structure in the exact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Building #18 and that anything in addition to or different than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval of an amended plan. Subsequently, on April 27, 1998, the PEC gave the applicant direction to amend the development plan by proposing single- family and duplex development. The applicant is now requesting approval of an amended development plan for the site of Building #19. The proposal provides 3 building envelopes (A, B, and C) =and a total of 4 dwelling, units. Building envelope "C" would contain a duplex structure. The applicant has provided a site plan of building site #19 only (no building forms or plans have been provided). Staff has requested from the applicant an overall site plan of the development so that access and Fire Department access could be evaluated and a description of how access easements would be established to the site. This information has not been provided to the staff in -a time frame that has allowed a review to take place and therefore the applicant has requested this item be placed on the agenda as a worksession. Building envelopes "A" and "B" would allow for 1,950 sq. ft. of GRFA each and.building envelope "C" would allow for 3,425 sq. ft. of GRFA for a total site GRFA of 7,325 sq. ft.- The PEC, at its April 13, 1998 meeting, determined that the applicant is entitled to the GRFA contained in Building #18, which is 6,541 sq. ft. Additionally, staff has digitized the floor plants for Building #20, which the applicant refers to with respect to GRFA for Building #19 and has determined that Building #20 contains 7,275 sq. ft. of GRFA. Staff also analyzed this site in accordance with the LDMF zone district. This site, looked at as a stand - alone building site; would allow for 8,180 sq. ft. of GRFA, 5 dwelling units, and 11,922.6 sq. ft. of site coverage (see zoning Analysis). The proposed building envelopes include areas that are unbuildable. The Zoning Regulations prohibit development in this zone district on slopes greater than 40%. Staff requested that the applicant revise the building envelopes to exclude these areas and also exclude the areas where there are substantial number of trees on -site (Building envelope "B "). The applicant does not wish to amend the building envelopes, but has stated that they would not affect these areas with development. Staff believes that when creating building envelopes, as has occurred numerous times in the past, that they specifically exclude areas which are unbuildable, otherwise, staff believes there is no use in creating such envelopes. Building envelopes are intended to indicate areas where development should occur and therefore, must exclude unbuildable areas. Additionally, the language used on plats today by the Town of Vail'dces not allow, any grading associated with a structure outside of a building envelope. The proposed plan shows retaining waifs within the area of 40% slope and outside of the building envelope (envelope "B" and ' "). The applicant is proposing a pedestrian path and easement on the western portion of the site: II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Low Density Multiple Family Hazards: High and Moderate Debris Flow High Severity Rockfall Snow Avalanche Area of Influence Lot area: 34,064.7 sq. ft. (0.782 acres) Buildable area: 24,269.8 sq. ft. (0.557 acres) Standard Allowed LOWS Allowed Buildirt ##1$ Prop —used GRFA: 8,180 sq. ft. 6,541 sq. ft. 7,325 sq. ft.* Density: 5 dwelling units 6 dwelling units 4 dwelling units Site Coverage: 11,922.6 sq. ft. (35 %) n/a 10,245 sq. ft. (30%) Building height: 38' sloping n/a 3' sloping Landscape area: 13,625.88 sq. ft. (40 %) n/a 19,897.7 sq. ft. (58 %) Note: *A zone check of building ##20, reveals a total GRFA of 7,275: Ill, STAFF REQ01MMENDATION No recommendation has been provided as this is a worksession. Staff has provided the following; list of issues that should be addressed prior to final approval,: 1. The applicant provide an overall site plan of the entire development which clearly shows access to this site prior to scheduling for DRB review of the proposal. 2. The site plan meet all development standards utilized by the Town of Vail and that this approval is accepted only as a preliminary grading and layout plan. A detailed plan shall be required prior to scheduling for DRB review of the proposal. 3. The building envelopes be amended to remove areas containing 40% or greater slopes and the large stand of trees located in envelope "B." 2 "The Chalets at 'Timber Falls" Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to amend the previously approved development plan for Site #19 of Timber Falls Condominiums. The following ammendments are proposed: 1. Reduce density from 6 residential units to 4 residential units. . Changing the residential structures from a condominium format to a single - family or duplex format. 3. ` Maintain the 7,325 sq.ft, of GRFA indicated by the approved plan for Building #20. Site #19 is the last undeveloped parcel in Timber Falls and contains 24,270 sq.ft, of net buildable area. The applicant has established defined building envelopes for three structures (1 duplex and 2 single family homes) proposed. No structure shall be located within 15 -feet of an adjacent unit in accordance with past treatment of single- family conversions within the LDMF zone district. Exterior materials will be similar to those products used in the existing buildings at Timber Falls:.. Stucco base with natural wood siding, possibly some stone accents. Development standards for this LDMF zoning district shall be adhered to under this proposal, Site #19 shall become part of the Timber Falls master association. Upon: PEC approval of this proposed amendment to the development plan, a formal plat defining the GRFA, density, building envelopes, 40 °/a slope and 100 -year flood plain (non- buildable) areas, easements and site boundaries shall be submitted by applicant for review and approval by the Torun of Vail. The Chalets Building #20 at Timber Falls Density 6 units 4 units GRFA 7,325 sq.f . Unchanged Building Height ? 35' Parking Spaces Unknown, 8 Enclosed All parking off site 8 Uncovered All parking on -site History of Timber Falls Condominiums: Ownershit The Timber Falls project has been under the same ownership (Timber Falls Associates) since original work began to develop the property in 1972. Eagle County The 21.8 acre site was received Sketch Plan approval from the Eagle County on January 3, 1973, for Lots 1 -7, Timber Falls Subdivision. The lots were zoned multi- family and each lot was to contain several condominium buildings. The breakdown is shown below: Lot 1 Future site of Glen Falls Subdivision. Lot 2 Avalanche area and recreational amenities. Lot 3 Buildings 17, 18, 19 and 20. Lot 4 Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Lot 5 Buildings 14; 15 and 16. Lot 6 Buildings 10, 11 and 12. Lot 7 Buildings 8 and 9: The owner performed extensive avalanche studies, which are well documented in the remaining files at the Eagle County Planning Department, to satisfy zoning authorities at the time. The avalanche area was required specific mitigation and only recreational amenities were allowed to be constructed in this area. Buildings #1 -9 (44 units on 2.5 acres) were approved and permitted through Eagle County prior to annexation of the Timber Falls parcel into the Town of Vail on November 4, 19'74, Town of Vail The Town of Vail annexed the subject property on November 4; 1974. Annexation documentation on file at the town does not reference any density or developer improvement requirements. In 1976, a development plan Town, (see Exhibit "A" - Development Plan, obtained from files at the Town of Vail) was filed with the Town of Vail outlining the overall Timber Falls site plan and showing a total of 19 building sites (there was no Building # 13). Buildings 9 10, 1 l and 12` were approved, permitted and constructed between 1976 and 1978. In 1978, the Town of Vail Planning Department requested a master plan be submitted outlining the proposed "build out" for the remaining development in the Timber Falls project. According to the owner, this plan was submitted and approved by the Town ( See Exhibit "B" - Master Plan, obtained from files at the Town of Vail). This approved Master Plan clearly defines the remaining development as 7 buildings containing a total of 48 U' nits: The breakdown is shown below: 2 Building #14 7 Units Building # 15 7 Units Building 416 10 Units Building #17 6 Units Building #18 6 Units Building 919 6 Units Building #20 6 Units Total Density 48 Units The approved plans for each of these buildings, excluding Building #19, are contained in the files of the Town of Vail. Both the approved site plans for Building #18 and Building #20 (See Exhibit "C ") specifically denote the proposed location and size (identical to the 6 -unit configurations in Building #18 and Building #20) of Building #19. Buildings #14 through #18 and Building #20 were all constructed in accordance with the approved Building and site plans on record at the Town of Vail, and the Master. Plan filed in 1978. Amer receiving inquiries and an offer for the purchase of Site #19 at Timber Falls, the owner approached the Town of Vail Planning Department regarding the remaining GRFA available in the project. A response letter from Tim Devlin at the Planning Department (See Exhibit "D "), dated March 3, 1993, indicated the remaining GRFA as 38,657 sq.ft.. A second letter from Tim Devlin at the Planning Department (See Exhibit "E "), dated March 11, 1993, questioned the accuracy of the previously represented GRFA number and recommended using it only as a "rough estimate" until such time as a stamped survey confirms the site area and net "buildable' area. Much to the surprise ofthe owner and contrary to the development plan and master plan on file in the records of the Town of Vail, the letter goes on to indicate a remaining density oft units for Site #19 at Timber Falls: The owner responded in a letter to Tim Devlin (See Exhibit "F "), dated March 17, 1993; stating that the Town of Vail's analysis was flawed. if the Town's technique of using current zoning criteria in 1993 (disregarding all past approvals) to analyze the remaining density in the Timber Falls project, then the Town must focus their current zoning standards in 1993 to those lands annexed into the Town in 1974, or 10.575 acres. This approach would arrive at a remaining density of 23 units and a even higher remaining GRFA for Site #19. No further discussions or any applications were filed at this time. Purpose of Application: The applicant, AMS Development, Inc. (Greg.Amsden) negotiated a contract on December 29, 1997, to purchase Site #19, Timber Falls Condominiums, from the Owner. The applicant requested verification of existing density and GRFA for the subject parcel from the Town of Vail Planning Department in early January, 1998. After approximately 30 days of discussions involving the Town of Vail planning staff, town attorney, owner, applicant and applicant's attorney, the Town of Vail responded` in a letter to the applicant (See Exhibit "U'), dated 3 e FILE COPY TO WN OF VAIL Department of Community Development . 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 MVITIA11111U 970 -479 -2138 FAX 970- 479 -2452 TNA May 20, 1998 Greg Amsden AMS Development, Inc 500 S. Frontage Road East, Suite 112 Vail, CO 81651 RE: Timber Falls -� Proposed amendment to development plan Dear Greg: The Community Development Department has reviewed your preliminary plans to construct 4 dwelling units on building site 19 in the Timber Falls development. The following comments /revisions need to be addressed: I . The proposed building envelopes need to exclude areas that contain 40 % or greater slopes. Additionally, the building envelopes should exclude the large cluster of Aspens shown on Site B. Please revise the proposed building envelopes. 2. There shall not be grading of the building sites outside of the proposed building envelopes. Additionally, no grading shall occur in areas of 40 % or greater slope. Please revise the plan accordingly. 3. Site 19, as surveyed, includes areas located in Debris Flow Moderate Hazard and snow avalanche. Please provide a: site specific hazard report for the proposed improvements. This report shall be prepared by a professional engineer or geologist. 4. Driveway access to a site containing more than 4 dwelling units and less than 11 dwelling units is required to be 20' in width The proposed plan does not meet this requirement. The driveway width for 3 dwelling units or less is 12'. Please revise the plan accordingly. 5. A smaller scale plan needs to be provided showing existing improvements from the public street to the development site. Fire Department access requirements cannot be evaluated Page 1 of 2 ReCYCLEDPAPER 3 without a complete site plan. Afire truck will need to be able to turnaround, within 150' of the staging area. 6. The site plan must show adequate room for backing and turnaround ofvehicleson -site. As proposed the plan does not adequately provide the required 20' centerline.radius for backing and turnaround of vehicles. Please revise the plan to accurately show the batJkng radii, 7. Please provide a written statement indicating how "legal" access to the property, will be obtained or provided for. Will an easement be recorded` S. Please provide spot elevations at the edge of the existing drive where you plan to tie into with the proposed driveway. 9. Snow storage areas need to equal 30 % of the paved lot area. These areas must be accessible to plowing and must not contain obstructions which prevent use of snow storage area. Please provide calculations for the proposed snow storage areas, 10. The proposed pedestrian easement is located very close to the proposed building envelope for Site A. You may want to consider providing some distance between any proposed envelope and this path. r� RICH AND K1I US EN DIESIIGN, INC ?4RCHI TIE 1I'iC.IIIILIE AND DIE'VIEiLO P'M E'N r Hood °Lionns:ridge Loop #kid, Vail, Colorado, 81657 plhoirne`(97o) 476 -9128 fAx: (970) 476 -9023 email: irkdavait, net May 29, 1998 Dominic Mauriello Town of Vail Community Development re: Lot 19 Timber Falls - Proposed amendment to development plan Dear Dominic: These drawings should address your letter of May 20 to Greg, Amsden as follows. 1. We would like to leave the building envelopes as proposed,, with the understanding that no buildings will encroach into the 40% slope, and that the significant trees in envelope B shall be preserved. These two conditions are stated on the proposed development plan, Sheet 2 of the drawings: 2. We have not proposed any change in the grades within the 40% slope. As, for grading outside of the building envelope, it is impossible to achieve driveway access and drainage without it. 3. A site specific hazard report will be provided to you when Art Mears returns. We expect that to be before the PEC meeting on the 8th. 4< 1 have adjusted the driveway to be 20 feet wide. . An overall plan of the project will be provided to you by Greg Amsden. 6. 1 have indicated the backing radii for vehicles on site: 7. Legal access to the property will occur across Limited Common Elements: The ` property seller can provide you with a statement to that effect, if necessary, 8. 1 have provided a spot elevation at the existing pavement. 9; 1 have indicated pavement and snow storage square footage on the Proposed Site plan, Sheet 3. 10.The existing pedestrian path is actually almost entirely on the Phase 9 property, however, there is not easement for it. We are willing to provide an easement as shown, but the path will stay where it is. Thank you for your help. If 1 can be of any further assistance, please do not hacitnta to nnntart ma Wly Rtbh Brainerd Rich and Krusen Design, Inc. INDICATES EXISTING CONIFER t INDICATES "tsrrnGDECIDUOUS, PHASE 9 SE 9 F @l6TfN4.-84rt..6G y! F , , ti y � tti 5 � R • SITE A NUMBER OF UNITS: I � N MAXIMUM GRYA. - 1,550 PARKING SPACES: 4 COMMON A '� ,MAXIMUM HEIGiM 35 FEET i ` 2 PERTY LINE Sas -�, _ SITE` Nt`F5: F OF J-^ t MAXfM 1,9 BUILDING EN�LOPE /P _. PARKPNGSi' ES f } - /PROPERTY LINE w i - In'- _ k A rF t `' -XPMUp}7 HGHIF: J5 EE1:".�, ` ALL SItEES(x° AL.O LA 'a'• � �""`+• - ,�G 4s n ARE TV BR P t. V . „`�...' .l +� PHASE T � - - E$BTIN(i BitH.DPl!IG 4-4�.,,�.,� air / k p ENYL€iPk"- R P._ .If• �'k'W. i� C, > 0i:ia E �Lti fTE)b CfE AA COMMON AREA LO -Y't4 p�j �o VNISMINGASPHALTDROVE W moo,. r - - PROPERTY LINE - - -PR PER'1`I LtNF� - N t - - - - - - - -- . -- - -- - -- - - - l� cd LIMITED -C f} !Vt m Q tY A R VE A _ � [ l � t � . 1 � ,' � � •li ti./ - ( " �,r BBUILDING EoVELOP 1 " PHASE I I o C I j f 'li 1p / r A I : IYF NUg111" OF iz1, It ' r ' M.€ tbfUM GRFA `� W4S5 EXISTING BUILDING .. w P RKING SPADE) !f t STANDARDS FOR' ALL SITES: /IAXT6fUMHEll�tif 3{NVE�xr •ALL(MPRQYRMENTS, INCLUDING ALL PARKING SPACES. ARE - e - MAY i3, - TftBEWFTIf[N THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. . ROOF OVERHANGS AND DECKS MAY PROJECTAMAXIMU t� fir• � .r- � �;4.tt "������� { - 8 -- OF4FEETOUTSIDEOFTHE BUILDING ENVELOPE. - � - � �•` - i u�= ' P .- MAXIMUDRIVEWAYGRADE -8% n �i A S -E I M + BUTk.DPNGSMAY NOT ENCROACH INTO 40•!. SLUl`E AREA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN f _ : NORTIP 3. 9 tzrrecc upon tralTIe wnri parttcuiar reverence to congestion, automotive ana pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposal will have little negative impact on this criteria. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located;, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The temporary tent has been a permanent fixture in Lionshead. The structure is out of character for the area and does not improve the architectural integrity of the area. Due to its `temporary' nature, it does not benefit from building and fire safety codes as would a permanent structure: Residents over the years have voiced concerns over this tent and other improvements in the area. Staff believes VA should find a new home for the uses which occur in the tent. It appears that priority has not been given to this use and VA instead leases space that could have otherwise housed the activities in this tent. Ill. FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL -SE PERMIT The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make; the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for a temporary tent. 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2: That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would -be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3.: That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 12 of the Vail Municipal Code. IV. STAFF RECQMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the applicant's request for an extension of a conditional use permit for the Lionshead Children's Tent, generally, located next to the Lionshead Children's ski school/Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is not in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will not comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 12 of the Vail Municipal Code. C Setting the Standard for World Glass Alpine Resorts/ RLD AMBlONSNIFS YFt«EY� Vail Resorts Development Company .. . . . . . . . . . a . ♦ . . . s . . . e " ♦ . . . . ." ♦ . . ♦" . s . . . . . -.. t' • a ♦ .. r ":... ♦ "a Vail + Breckenridge + Keystone • Beaver Creek, • Bachelor Gulche + Arrowhead April 22, 1998 Mr. Dominic Mauriello Town Planner Dept. Of Community Development Town Of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. West o Vail, CO ulate, Recelvelt 81657 MAY 0,8 RE: Lionshead Children's Tent Application For Extension of Conditional Use ... Dear Dominic: Vail Associates herewith submits for extension of the conditional use permit for the Lionshead Children's Tent. The tent was originally approved as a temporary (winter only) structure for use by the Lionshead Children's Ski School. The intent at the original approval in 1995 was for the tent to be used for three years until a permanent ; solution could be constructed in Lionshead. Since that time the tent has remained in place (as approved by The Town- of Vail) and has been used by The Town of Vail and by Vail Associates for summer children's programs. The tent has also been utilized for the originally planned winter program function. The tent is scheduled to be dismantled during May 1998. The Lionshead redevelopment was the permanent replacement that'was envisioned by Vail Associates during the 1995 approval process for the Lionshead Children's Tent. Since that redevelopment process has taken longer than originally anticipated, the need for the program space that the tent provides has not yet been filled. The tent continues to serve its original function in the winter. The addition of the new gondola has increased guest traffic into Lionshead. The increased traffic has increased the number of children using the tent. In the winter time the Lionshead Children's tent is used by the following groups and functions: 1 The Lionshead Children's Ski School 2. The Project Challenge Program 3. The Youth Devo Program 4. Special Children's Events 137 Benchmark Road . Po Box 959 . Avon, Colorado 81620- 0959. phone 970,845 2350 fax 970.845 2358 t >; ORIGINAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 19,1997 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the summer use (Camp Vail) of the existing tent located at the Lionshead Ski School practice' area; located at 520 Lionshead Mail/ Tract t3, Vaal Lionshead 1 st_filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District f Vail Associates, inc. Planner: Lauren Waterton L BACKGROUND ANC) _DESGRIP1I0N OP ;THE REQUEST The Vail Recreation District (VRD) has requested a conditional use permitto allow for the summer use of the existing temporary_ tent, located on Tract D, Vail. Lionshe d 'l st >filing. The applicant has indicated that the construction work occurring at the Golden Peals Children's' Centel` during the summer of 1997 has caused them to temporarily relocate the Camp Vail and Pre -Kamp Vail activities to the Lionshead Center Building for this summer. in the fall of 1994, Vail Associates received approval to construct 'a, temporary tent at the base of the Lionshead ski portal in order to facilitate ski school instruction. The PEC granted the conditional use permit for a period of one ski season only. In the fall of 1995, Vail Associates requested a new conditional use permit to again use the tent for ski school activities, in a slightly different location than the previous approval. As apart of the request, Mail Associates asked that the conditional use permit for the;tent be approved for winter use, in perpetuity. Although the PEC did not approve the request to use the tent every ski season in perpetuity, they did agree that it could be erected for the next three ski seasons, expiring at the end of the 1997/98 ski season (April, 1998). The PEG approved this conditional use permit request with the condition that the tent be in place for no longer than a six -month period, to coincide with the normal ski season, and shall be removed promptly when the mountain closes each April. On May 20 1996, the PEC approved a conditional use permit to allow for the VRD to use the temporary tent for Camp Vail during the summer of 1996. This was necessary due to the construction at Golden Peak. The tent is located approximately 7' south of the Lionshead bike path (see attached site plan for exact location) and is constructed of a tan- colored vinyl material supported by pine logs. The lower portion of the tent sides is rough sawn logs and the upper, portion is vinyl, which can be' rolled up so that the tent functions as an open pavilion. The tent is approximately 18` tall at its highest point and is 4©' long by 24' wide. There is a wooden floor constructed in the interior of the tent. 'Electric, phone and gas lines have been run to the tent. As the tent is not used at night, there are no lights, inside or outside: Although many of the activities associated with Camp Vail will take place within the Lionshead Center Building, the VRD would like to utilize the tent to expand their children's programs to tOir�1'OFAIL . y include an appropriate location for indoor activities such as drama, discovery and art blocks. The VRD believes that they will utilize the tent at least 8 hours out of the -10 hours that Game Vail'is in operation each day. The requested dates of use are June 9th through August 22nd, Monday through Friday; The hours of operation of Camp Vail are 7 :30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m; 11. COMMERCIAL CORE 11 ZONING CONSIDERATiON5 Zoning: Commercial Core it Area: 1.545 acres or 71,656.2 sq. fl. Allowed Proposed Height 45 feet 18 feet Setbacks: 10' on all sides N: 14' S: 33" E: 13., W: 360' Site Coverage: 70% or 50,'159 sq, ft. N/A for "seasonal structure Parking: Parking is not required for temporary structures: Ill. ORITERiA AND FININGS Upon review of Section 18.65, the Community Development Department `recommends <approval, , of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The development objectives of the Town_ of Vail can be found in the purpose section of the Commercial Dore Il (CC11) Zone District, as well as the Zoning Title. , of the Municipal Code. The purpose section of the CC 11 Zone District calls for a; mixture of uses. Section 18.02.020 (8) 10, the Purpose Section for the Zoning Title, calls for the provision of recreational facilities. Staff believes that this recreational facility will provide an appropriate temporary location for the Camp Vail and Fire -Kamp Vail children's programs. We believe that the use of thislent to augment the functions of a summer day, care facility, for the summer, of 1097, is appropriate and adds to the mixture of uses in ,the Lionshead area: Staff has concerns, however, regarding the continued use of the temporary, ; structure. The originial approval for the winter use of the, temporary tent never contemplated the permanent use of the facility. We believe that when the conditional use permit expires for the winter season April, 1998), either a permanent building must be considered or the use must be discontinued at this location. Furthermore, staff would not support another request to extend the condional use permit past the April, 1958 expiration. 2 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will not be any negative impacts to the criteria referenced above. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that there will be little impact on traffic, or related issues, if the conditional use permit is approved. Parents dropping their children off for the Camp Vail program will park in the Lionshead parking structure and walk to the Lionshead Center building. Although the majority of arrivals will be through the Lionshead mail, some parents may arrive via the bike path, located on the south side of the building. In either case, staff believes that the proposed use of the tent is not likely to generate additional vehicular trips in Lionshead. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes that the requested conditional use permit to use the existing tent for the 1997 summer months will have little effect on the character of the area in which it is located. Staff does not believe that the additional use of the tent, in conjunction with outdoor activities, will have a negative effect on the neighborhood. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting ga conditional uepermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code arm the purposes of the district in which the site is located: 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 3 IV. STAFF RECQMMI NDATIC N Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to use the existing temporary ski school tent for Camp Vail activities for the summer of 1997, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under -which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. The recommendation of approval carries with it the following conditions: 1. That this approval is valid only for the summer of 1997. The temporary tent must be removed when the conditional use permit {for the winter use} expires in April, 1998. 2. That skirting must be added to the bottom of the tent (the entire perimeter) to prevent children from accessing the area underneath the tent. 3. That the applicant submit a building permit application to the Community Development Department for the temporary tent. The application must be approved and the tent inspected for all safety issues prior to any further use or occupation, ll. That no signs be placed on the property, or on the tent, until they have been reviewed and approved by the Town: 4 L MEM98ANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to amend a building envelope, to allow for the installation of a gazebo, located at 1315 Spraddle Creek Road /Lot 12, Spraddle Creek Estates: Applicant: Dayco Holding Corporation, represented by David Argo of No Name Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTIO -N OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to amend the building envelope established on Lot 12 of the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision in order to allow for the constructio n of a "gazebo" or picnic shelter on the upper (north) portion of this lot. The structure is proposed to be located east of the water tank on this lot in an area screened by existing vegetation. The applicant, has also provided a landscape plan to further screen the proposed structure. The structure is an ripen air building of approximately 850.75 sq. ft., of which, 180 sq. ft. counts as GRFA. The structure contains a bathroom, wetbar, and a gas fire place. Stairs accessing the area are already constructed. The proposed amended building envelope, although changed in shape and location, remains the same size as the existing building envelope (13,149.73 sq. ft.), 11. BACKGRQUNC The Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision is zoned Hillside Residential, and is generally located northeast of the main Vail roundabout. The planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the final plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision on'February 11, 1991. The,, final plat illustrates the location of site specific building envelopes for the building sites within the subdivision boundaries. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Area: 96,213 sq. ft. Standards Allowed Existin -Proposed Building Envelope Size: n/a 13,1.49.73 sq. ft. 13,149.73 sq. ft. GRFA allowance: 8,928 sq. ft. 8,390 sq. ft. 8,570 sq. ft: Site coverage: 8,078 sq. ft. 5,800 sq. ft. 6,650.75 sq. ft. IV. MINOR SU13DIVISiON REVIEW CRITERIA One basic mise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a p g new lot must be met. Although this building envelope amendment involves a minor replatting of an existing lot, there is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor subdivision process. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria outlined in Title 13 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a mirror subdivision application is as follows: A. Lot Area This proposal will not affect the lot area. B. Frontage The Vail. Municipal Code requires that lots in the Hillside Residential zone district have a minimum frontage of 50'. The proposal will not affect the frontage for this lot. C. Site Dimensions The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and 'a shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80' on each side, within its boundaries. The proposal will not affect the site dimensions for this lot. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is as outlined In the Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Title 13, Chapter 4, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under § 13- 3- 3 -3.C. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other ,applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity; and compatibility with surrounding uses. The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff BeWons e: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, or a resubdivisionof an existing parcel of land, it is the appropriate process to amend a platted building envelope: 2 PPPPPF 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict With development on adjacent property. Staff Response: The proposed building envelope amendment does -not appear to create any conflict with development on adjacent land.: . Additionally, staff has not received any input from the adjacent property, owners to whom,letters of notification were sent. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff believes that this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to, the, value of land in the immediate area of Lot 12. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient,- workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed building envelope amendment will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 6. To guide- public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds; recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as, opposed to this particular proposal to amend a building envelope. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative impacts, on any of the above listed public facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that is not applicable to the proposed building envelope amendment: 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: Staff feels comfortable with the applicant's proposed building envelope. The applicant's representative has provided a landscape plan which will help screen the proposed structure. 3 0 NAM ARCHITECTS May 11, 1998 Mr. Dominic Mauriello Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Ref. Spraddle Creek Estates ---Lot 12 Gazebo Submittals to PEC and DRB Dear Dominic: On behalf of the D'Agostino family, we respectfully submit the attached ,requests far Minor Subdivision to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Conceptual Design Review to the Design Review Board (DRB). The intent of our requests is to gain approval for a proposed gazebo structure on Lot 12 adjacent to the existing underground water tank. As you can see from the attached conceptual design drawings, a portion of the structure is enclosed space, while the majority of the gazebo is an open -air structure with roof above. The enclosed portion of the gazebo is approximately 180 square feet (SF) in size, which is well within the remaining allowable GRFA for this lot (per the Town's records; there is 538 SF of available or unused GRFA for Lot 12). Also, please note that the conceptual design of the gazebo will be revised so that it meets the requirements of Section 12 -15- (g) of the Town of Vail's Municipal Code for this open -air portion of the gazebo to not qualify as GRFA. Although the Staff has voiced some concern about the site location of the gazebo at the top of Lot 12, we believe that the proposed site for this structure provides the best opportunity to integrate the gazebo into the natural surroundings of Spraddle Creek Estates. The site location takes advantage of an existing level area located adjacent to the underground water tank, whichwill result in the deed for minimal excavation and sitework. In addition, the placement of the gazebo will take advantage of the existing significant forest of aspens on the hillside below, as well as the buried water tank to screen it from Vail Village and the downvalley areas toward West Vail. The Owner has also indicated that he will supplement the existing aspens on the hillside below with additional trees to further enhance the screening of this structure with natural vegetation, From an architectural design standpoint, the proposed gazebo will be a very low profile structure that will blend in with the natural hillside. Exterior materials consist of cedar shake roofing, native mcssrock stone veneer, and timber and logs with a .natural color semi- transparent stain finish. We believe that these measures will mitigate any negative effects of the proposed structure on the site and will result in a very unobtrusive appearance from below. 012411tonivu LANE , Gl,ENWOOD SPRINGS,CoLoILID0 81601 hi&n & F; x. 670- 911-6738 t f f i i PROPOSED REVISED BUILDING ENVELOPE LOT 12, SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES TOWN OF VAIL, EACLE COUNTY, COLORADO 1. �. :N.45 Of BfwaacSl e' &9'50`45 E— •650,04 v \. / tirn r � � \ � �-} N &9• -40'25 E — 462.73' \E s Y�UE tEt -grit n. nrrr - i �� >s<wrtss a+a w.a+cur�1`v 6a}kl� >RT�(MJ to u ' t • ` \ Yip 64i. YxiYa- �- Nv� -t-GP� .'�. f i LOT �12 - rr t RKrmtd, cF�xr�gef� r.at 121 M gwtkEP Ir A140f4 ACWTC 14ALEt`-r) A o LOT 14`�4ssr 4 L\ LOT f f ` e 4 . anon � m \ �a \m.w - csY.ter awrrawo[ . f "9ri)rrrta . .� .. wow ns . Hwy„„ rrrrrxe rru 68.52 T-34,22' .:{ . .cry. a ". L6 *6132" z M � . 5PRA,f3OLE CREEK FtOAi? rRacr 0 . �� E- �' �'M R•eseet Y�;Q tyaY di FY tLL4i~1nrµ .. •i�_Fdge a INr# Rand • 80 � yry,.st�r ., -, r.. .,. tlN . (UO.F.9) 4 "�X "t.(Q1 �J��.•, .�d"'EB"."s-�^f`" # 1.-. e• � *i v� ,• BT�jp ti nacre v...f •' � �,w��R! 4dF(owrrf � o �� k� •� . QATEBO i* LLLI co t Y < d n Y ` t.% `..'• : f' •' . o..0 I.JA ry�y.. co Z• * ry,p.a.mw wo.�aaRw. (v*wf "' L" L - � ' a.m«are.arxyr..- sf+�•:;4— d; - :�- .r'.t ` � -F - OG �F-• /!�t LU �. " •° � � ,."._. .;. air uRaruR�r ..n.M � ' " • � . -"~--- �~- ~.�""�_ _� bee..cNOUS 'ttrrs LL ". &Ivi - QEC�ouaue f�+iRU(35 1'S>r�7�lsatr fxrdfNaCweea r Y .--r -o • ._._. "'�,� �� ,� ,a+'` , Cawwr�ricsf. rRtas LOT 14 . � - � � � �nwr�( *a�t'i+k tt�rd4/ �•. 4aN1 tax n" a m EAS T ELEVATION Roots: 1/4 " =4' -0" . .-.4 I gw.w le. _... mr Room F_L,_OOR PLAN S W..4 1p. D.— � L. F_L,_OOR PLAN W I.– co a LU W F W LU " LU " Cat 6 o r "Cfi nary Cwp �// ix co " - " " w t^t wo Cdr oF.k. Hoot 0 ... ikspi.a to QionNB a.yad wwg op- op- t4' lag Mtn W tog P0.. ". co vJ . 8' tot ar.ek.f ruts- k.l. . ' - t6`to Pw(a r" OPEN tlVEN � tWBi OPEN N.If.teylkA.i lot Pt t4' tar Wan• W.R ' f1A Wprw W — _ .� 0a W4. W"h � " . Ylw+f ; MNf 8a4nHed Bas. " trtx•91p BaeAdmt PI. ».t as. afWd ... "-l.rye -W.a BouWr: ^" . .. P6 .d H a... of WA ••.••`•• "7139. " Wu o...q.: ppt. WEST ELEVATION S©UTH ELEVAT10N ■ ' E�awd 6 x N a.rtw - w h ,.w 0-4 p A4wV Wood �d Q C.d. are. R..4. OPEN OPEN OPEN W.X fNM LAw 91— W.4 B" LtiE N Edg. 4 —' . . � OMdNom P+ BWh� 9-9Hf CIXCtN. iN.b ""EIxB1 aR Crxbr.l. 966 OE Btr7oP 4 F c . ta. Ciwr W. L w . -. co .. . Ow ib.Pl.w:dr 9BQ LU "CweM. Eewd.Nan.k Eoo1M� Oorwish EwndNkm 6 Rooan� L L LU SECTION Q SECTION R M eoate: ua- =E'-a- seal.: ua ^ =t a• [r � dL co .. .. ,..:.� .Ooi 6. Q. 6097 . roaa — -- oar MEMORANDUM TO: Plannin g and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #22, Grand Traverse, and a major subdivision to Lots 5 - 10, Dauphinais - Moseley Subdivision Filing ##1, a resubdivision of Lots 1 -19, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing #3 Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, Pat Dauphinais, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District #22 (SDD) Grand Traverse, and a major subdivision to Lots 5 - 10 in the DauphinaisWoseley Subdivision Filing #1. The major amendment to SDD #22 includes; • an increase in the allowable GRFA for all existing and proposed employee housing units from 500 square feet maximum to 800 square feet maximum, • a change in the allowable enclosed parking area (garage) square footage credit from 600 square feet to 800 square to permit adequate enclosed parking for constructed employee housing units, • replat Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 into Lots 5, 7, 9 & 10, thus eliminating two lots within the Grand Traverse development area, • an increase to the maximum number of outdoor lights allowed on each residential lot to 15 per lot total, • a modification to the required setbacks on Lots 5, 7, 9 & 10; • a reapportioning of GRFA within the Grand Traverse development area, and • a reapportioning of the 600 square foot garage credit. The major subdivision within the Dauphinais - Moseley Subdivision includes: • the replatting of existing Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 and creating new Lots 5, 7, 9 & 10 (reduction of 2 lots). A copy of the existing subdivision and the proposed final plat have been attached for reference. f: \everyone\pec \memos \98 \sdd22.608 1 TOWN OF 1 !+ 01L � 11. PACKGROUND Special Development District #22 M ! or Amendment t • On May 7, 1991, the Vail Town Council introduced, road and approved Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance #13, Series of 1990, to provide changes to Special Development District #22 that concerned lot size, corresponding GRFA, employee dwelling units, and architectural guidelines. Ordinance #13 Series of 1990 was the original ordinance establishing. SDD #22. • On September 22, 1997, the Community Development Department approved, and the Planning and Environmental Commission upheld, a minor amendment to SDD #22. The minor amendment allowed for changes to the architectural guidelines outlined in Section 11 of Ordinance #10, Series of 1991. The changes included: • architectural guideline requiring that all the residences in the SDD have copper gutters and downspouts, and • the ability for the residence constructed on Lot 14 to have the garage doors of the residence facing the road. Pursuant to Section 1 -9A -2, Definitions, a major amendment to a Special Development District is, in part, , "Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units, modify, enlarge or expand any approved Special Development District." The staff has determined that, since the applicant is proposing to change the number of dwelling units in the SDD; to increase the allowable GRFA for employee units, this application shall be a major amendment. Major Subdivision • On April 17, 1990, the Vail Town Council approved: the final plat for the Dauphinias- Moseley Subdivision, Filing #1. The final plat created 244 residential lots comprising 6.042 acres and established 3.741 acres of dedicated open space. The 24 lots and the dedicated open space make up the area of Special Development District f#22. With the exception of a vacation of a property line defining the boundaries of Tract C, no changes to the original plat have been made. In accordance with, Section 13 -2, Definitions, of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations: a major subdivision is defined as, "Any subdivision involving more than four (4) lots, or a subdivision proposal without all lots having frontage on a public, approved street, or'with a request to extend municipal facilities in a significant manner, or a proposal which would negatively affect the natural environment as determined under Section 12- 12 -2." The staff has determined that since this application involves more than four platted lots, it is a major subdivision to the Dauphinais- Moseley Subdivision. f: \everyone \pec \memos \98 \sdd22.608 2 Ili. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA The following are the nine Special Development District review criteria to be,utilized by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating a Special Development District major amendment: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer trines, identity; character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes the proposed major SDD amendment will not have any negative` impacts on the above - described criteria. The proposed major amendment does not effect the design compatibility of the development, nor will it effect the architectural design; scale, identity, etc. relative to the existing neighborhood and adjacent properties: The amendment will have a slight impact on the bulk and mass of six of the residences constructed in the SDD. The applicant is proposing to eliminate two lots within the SDD, however, the applicant is not proposing to eliminate the GRFA approved for those lots (replat Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 into Lots 5, `7, 9 & 10). Instead, the GRFA from the combined area of existing lefts will be reapportioned among the newly created lots and Lot 2. This reapportioning of GRFA, if approved, will result in more GRFA on several of the lots which equates to slightly larger buildings in terms of both bulk and mass: An analysis of the GRFA redistribution is provided below: Lot No: Lot Area: GRFA: Garage: Site Coverage: Existing Proposed Existing_Proposed Existina Proposed Existing Proposed 5 12,197 23,330 2,718 5,314 600 1,200 25% 20 % ( +11,133) ( +3- ,596) ( -5 %) 7 11,543 15,393 3,596 4,495 600 750 25% 25% ( +3,850) ( +899) (N /C) 9 11,456 14,588 3,596 4;495 600 750 25% 25% ( +3,132) ( +899) (NIC) 10 11,979 14,429 3,596 4,495 600 750 25 % 25©/0 (2,450) ( +899) (NIC) 2 16,243 16;248 3,596 4,495 600 750 25% 25% (N /C) ( +899) (NIC) B. uses, activity and density which provide a compatible' efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Approval of SDD #22 permits a total of 24 single - family dwelling units on the entire Grand Traverse property. A minimum of 6 employee dwelling units are required to be 3 built into any 6 of the single- family dwelling units: Additional employee units, up to a total of 24, may be constructed in the development if desired by the developer or the individual lot owners-. The applicant, via a major subdivision application, is proposing to reduce the total number of residential lots in the Grand Traverse development from 24 to 22. Staff does not believe that this reduction will have any negative impacts on the existing or potential uses, activities or density within the surrounding areas. As mentioned previously, the developer shall build a minimum of 6 employee dwelling units within the development. Each employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum square footage of four hundred (400) square feet not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet, according to the SDD ordinance. The GRFA shall not be `counted toward allowable GRFA for the SDD. The developer may choose to transfer up to three hundred (300) square feet of GRFA from the primary unit to the employee unit. This GRFA transfer shall be deducted from the total allowable GRFA for the primary unit. The applicant is proposing to increase the total allowable GRFA for the employee dwelling units from five hundred (500) square feet maximum to eight hundred (800), square feet maximum. This GRFA increase shall only be available for use when constructing an employee unit. The additional three hundred (300) square feet of GRFA shall not be eligible for use in the primary unit. No other changes to the development standards are proposed (Le., site coverage, building height, etc.). Staff believes that this request is reasonable and will have no negative impacts on the existing development or surrounding uses Staff believes that the additional GRFA will . improve and enhance the overall quality and livability of the employee units constructed in the development. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10. Pursuant to Subsection 413(5)(A)(1) of Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, (the ordinance establishing SDD #22), "garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit and one for each allowable employee unit," shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA. Historically, staff has interpretation this to mean that whether an employee unit is constructed or not, the maximum allowable garage credit shall be six (600) hundred square feet total. The applicant has disagreed with the staff's interpretation and wishes to resolve the issue. The applicant is proposing to amend the text in Subsection 48(5)(A)(1) to read as follows; "Garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit and three hundred (300) square feet not exceeding a maximum of one space for each allowable employee housing unit. This regulation shall apply to each of the lots in the development with the exception of Lots 2, 5, 7,' 9 & 10. On these lots, the garage credit for the primary unit shall be as fellows: 4 Lot 5 - 1,200 square feet Lots 2 5, 7, 9 & 10 750 square feet Staff believes the text as amended is consistent with the intent of °the off- street parking requirement outlined in Chapter 10 of the Municipal Carle, with the exception of the increased garage credit for the primary units on Lots 2, 5, 7, 9 & 10. On those lots; staff does not believe that an in creased garage credit is reasonable, nor appropriate. Staff can find no justification for increasing the garage credit on these five lots in the development. Again, with the exception of the increased garage credit for five primary `units; staff believes that the clarified interpretation, is consistent with the off - street parking requirement for employee units in other zone districts; D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive P,ian, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Municipal,Code regulates outdoor lighting on residential lots in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12- 11 -5(J), in part, "For lots in residential zone districts, the maximum number of outdoor light . sources per lot shall be limited to one light source per one thousand feet of lot area. The location of the lights shall be left open to the discretion of the property owner, so long as the lights are in compliance with this Code." Additionally, the following lighting regulation was adopted with the establishment of SDD #22, " Outdoor lighting shall be indirect with a concealed light source except for an entry chandelier which may be exposed globes with a fixture of black or weathered copper -like metal. All exterior lighting shall be reviewed by the DRB." The regulation prescribed for SDD #22 makes no Mention of the maximum number of lights. The establishment of SDD #22 (1990), and the lighting regulations contained within, pre -dates the adoption of the Town's Outdoor Lighting Regulations (1991): Prier to the adoption of the Town's lighting regulation, there was no restriction on the maximum number of outdoor lights on the lots in the SDD. Since the adoption of the Town's regulation, the staff has regularly applied both the Town's lighting regulations; as well as the regulations prescribed in the SDD. Due to the clustered nature of SDD; and the resulting lot sizes, outdoor lighting within the development has been limited to as few as eight lights per lot. The applicant has requested to increase the maximum number of lights per lot to one light per thousand square feet of lot area plus seven (i.e., 10 000 square foot lot = 1/1000 square feet (10) ± (7) = 17 lights total: Staff agrees that there should be a change to the outdoor lighting maximums, however, we disagree with the applicant's approach. Due to the relative similarity of lot sizes in the development, staff would prefer to simply allow 15 lights per lot regardless of the lot size. Staff believes that 15 lights is reasonable given Uniform 5 Lot No: 5 7 9 10 Building Code lighting requirements and the use of outdoor lighting for aesthetic purposes. Additionally, the Town has recently amended the Outdoor Lighting As regulations exempting certain type of low level, fully cut -off, ground lighting. Staff would suggest that Subsection 4A(1 1)(a)(0)(9) of Ordinance x#10, Series of 1991, be amended to read as follows: "Outdoor lighting shall be indirect with a concealed light source except for an entry chandelier which may be exposed globes with a fixture of black or weathered copper -like metal. The maximum number of outdoor light permitted on each lot shall be 15. Outdoor lights which conform with Ordinance #22, Series of 1997 shall be exempt. All exterior lighting shall be reviewed by the DRB." E. Identification and mitigation of natural anchor geologic hazards that affect the ; property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, or floodplain that affect this request. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural futures, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. To facilitate the proposed major amendment, the applicant: is also requesting a major subdivision to the Deuphineis- Moseley Subdivision. The major subdivision would reduce the total number of lots in the subdivision from 24 to 22. As a result of the major subdivision and the creation of the new lots, there will be a slight modification to the setbacks on the new lots. Setbacks for the entire development are prescribed on the Approved Development Plan prepared by Arnold /Gwathmey /Pratt Architects, dated March 22; 1990. The applicant is proposing to amend the rear and sideyard setbacks on the newly created lots only. No other changes to the setback requirements are requested. An analysis of the revised setback is provided below: Setbacks Side: Front. Back: Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Propgse 10' 20' ( +10) 1 "0' 10' (N /C) 60' 60' (N /C) 10' 12' ( +2) 10' 10' (N /C) 57' 57' (N /C) 10' 121 ( +2) 10' 10' (N /C) 54' 55' ( +1) 10' 12' ( +2) 10' 10' ` " (N /C) 48' 46' (N /C) 0 0 LJ G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. The staff believes that this review criteria is not applicable to the applicant's proposed Major SDD Amendment. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize° and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The staff believes that this review criteria is not applicable to the applicant's proposed Major SDD Amendment. 1. Phasing plait or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. As discussed previously, a major subdivision to the Dauphnais- Moseley: Subdivision is proposed. See Section IV of this memorandum for greater details. IV. MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA According to Section 13 -3 -4, Commission Review, Criteria, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning. Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies; utility, companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13 - -3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town." The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a major subdivision application is as follows: A. Lot Area There is no minimum or maximum lot size prescribed for SDD #22. The majority of lots range in size from 8,494 square feet to 16,243 square feet. Staff believes that the proposed lot sizes comply with the intent of SDD #22 and are compatible With surrounding development. B. Frontage The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum frontage of 30' along a public or private street. All of the new lots proposed by the applicant meet this requirement. 7 C. Site Dimensions The Zonin g Regulations ulations re q uire that each site be of a size and a shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80' on:each side, within its boundaries. The applicant's proposal adheres to this requirement. The second set of review criteria "to -be considered with a, major subdivision request is as - = outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows: The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, this is the appropriate process to amend the subdivision. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent property. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the requested major subdivision will result in conflicts with existing or potential development in the vicinity of SDD #22. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements can the land: Staff Response: The proposal will not have a negative impact on this criterion. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious., convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development, objectives: Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed major subdivision, to be in compliance with the intent of SDD_ #22 and will achieve harmonious, convenient, workable relationships among the surrounding land uses -and is consistent with the Town's development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The proposal will not have a negative impact on this criterion. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The proposal will provide accurate legal descriptions for the property. 8 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land; Staff Res once. This proposal will not have any negative impacts on the above- described criterion. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Special Development District #22 Major Amendment. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested major amendment to Special Development District #22. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria and factors outlined in Section III of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission' choose to approve the applicnt's request, the staff would recommend the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following conditions part of the approval; 1. That the maximum garage, credit for each of the primary units constructed in the development not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. 2. That the maximum number of outdoor lights permitted on each of the lots in the development not exceed 15 lights total. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff would recommend the Planning and Environmental Commission make the fallowing findings: That the proposed major amendment to Special Development. District #22, Grand Traverse, is consistent with the intent of the district and the purpose of special development di,' as defined in Section 12 -9A -1 of the Municipal Code of the Town of -Vail. The -Commis ion further finds that the major amendment complies with the criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Municipal Code and Section III of the staff memorandum Major Subdivision. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the<requested major subdivision to Special Development District #22: Staff s recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria and factors outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff would recommend the Planning and Environmental Commission snake the following findings: That the proposed major subdivision to the Dauphinias- Moseley Subdivision, Filing 41 complies with requirements outlined in Section 13 - -4 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail and Section IV of the staff memorandum. i it ...FINAL PLAF �I DAUPHINAIS -It OSELEY SUBDIVISION FILING NO I A RESUBDIVISI€7N OF LOTS I THFRU 18, BLOCK 2, LION'S RIDGE LANE, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISOV FILING NO. 3, TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO - rd SOLAR GRE9T SHEET 2 OF .Z .. ". .. L&. t tFt r CG>NCOMINILAfs - aPEN51`AGfa o-cxx Tao."-Ersrras rtzrrfa- . - E45EX5iEEN %S �.Na s, n�X«Ess EASEMFNF t 00? a4 � \ ' PARCEL. -'� f �a.'" D - Td Da ztt a - ffa Tao �r5o .. �Y �A p 5GCE FN J'fCF "!7 t4 \ G PS /6 4c . .. ttAE a 11w aISIAW G sa 1V `G \} 21 ds? � o G�, ^'tr,•.° 4- fl I g N N E W dx fa �/t P 5 07 N 00'E Jae. Oa " y gf} µ'G t `G ✓<• a d2 " . '° # s'N Jt .eP E ge.dAT� 'G. 20 =Pnl m \V s fat `. azd4 Aa. - E 5 SO9e Oa X EJ:N - - - - it L'- �,Xf �,�\ dry �••• /( - a s #1 as Jf E r.F.00 - GA `& P.als ae.gx '6A\ We US. tu. e N.Ff dt'N'E lG.lx - & o2la ec, dl Q" w 4 ,hs „ o s 11 'We te.lo � S,. � \ Gal `O. - " W N Tr x aff•N ea.xII ... s r: . " 9Y ea a \b " azxP tt s 1a Ft •tr ;F.9f - C%, a }\ N 9a a#•s} v ssa ro-'w� fb' , IE S N W tE r 11. a1 .. \ •G - - 00 ! $ 3t" y5 - ` E1 WapE sx 11 .41 4w. #r\ t l8 .+ "� to / "'. 1 .p. yi•y. . re a da to Ira• Ie zII . �� �1 \ &„V v f - �,� - " - - W fx N N 00 M e2 Je E .19 . ` ©�' \\ .•\ p6 l.4 5 6 .. Jr KJIVJr M[ De.N N Wat. N s Sr rr w ♦a se - - 'kt a. riff n 1 rx t rr Ne2 cc.e �V - L! N N ae bt E 2L It _ _ T(��tt \ 14 055 r o26S 4. tf'}eeN -- Pd 1IO #9 a0 Y II.N ES 'bQ G 1 EJ J SP`09'aa•e Jx.xII tfe ID9J`fY `Sr "N .d4.¢d dc�kp0 aft `'k is '�< - 2Y NN# dT'N IIt.III RaF<eI P. /9ff'Xe N M PJ 2# al'6 120. At �, Qp N a el N•eP•E .rt 9z - �k - do rp . �p ` - - - :aa: NfFO N^urE fa,.a± LOT 2` JJ 91J De'N'E /1.1V 15, EI" /k' P ♦YE I x r y a. /Jff Aa . ell -"w Mt: FA maim AAC tAMtfNF LY92XT' a," aVa (� $ �1, 5& �• QZ9J AR.J J" 2# O. a, 117,11 re9.11 Dt, ar Jas.19 N 9t'aff'N'E' 1` V �fg - x 2 le arts- wta tff9 se xs 91 m,: as N 1J'DII'z2'E 1 it 2o•.H• rrII,at"_ IIIZ# qz# JIIZ. rr N,ar ^x•zz•E 11 tS - - f� - .. tQe•oe• lOJ1.T£ }#RS Je.9J TJ.99 Nx0'SJ'.Ct'E 'lt to d 9t ze . N.dF 19 to M" M9 m # W071. t9• NZ I"." 9x.1r 'e'. eJ 1 J Je 1t-• . IIa. ae c 9J e." s.su s 90 # 2db t 0 g M. ee - N ar to J0 a9 s so WW - F_GT - II 211. M 7114 S1 )J . tIJJ o- a �9 211- 21t.1 j9 1 ¢. J JaTS Pr A S 11 lae P I 2.0 3.116, 2Gas az14 ts Ae" . fi r•�_ y, a r °i N� �' •Q 6a - - - - taka c L44 51.49d1. J2 ff oe Rfm e9 9N 14.1r c9 3,1".01: t o.0 9 2 A le Ww .JJ M.0 a& s 1 X ba y ot¢f ert< t F na ed - 15 ��•�� r<t <ks o.aaa .e d" I1 J262F• t /0.Oe .. e { ...Yf P 1J. / .. 11 is. IQ Sff e1 a9a ZZY.9a 59 wx N.qd 19 ' S tP 9 t9 9 l9 i (' tFt Is J Sr I #• NJ•9e W +Y .'1 I# t a ! -WV - I9 JJY ai° alr. ae ..a! rJ:J .N. i✓: x N Wk. A. 4 / v - _ ��� x .. � t.a c a.ada a E ra<4 xa <., as .. _ , Jr I't1`Jt•'" ' 919.09 ... #9 F .dt L} 99.N 5 J1 J612'K . - ". � . .' - - ?r PJa9 9a. - 1 / Ta <k a.9 Caad 9 I lltkK ,la N Da fa b 09 " 2fi 5F 7a 21 10.00 J: 9t M 9J 1 os -. 0 tJ ei N: - .. •• J•»rmnJ - 29 d# a4 J# 60.00 a5 d: ? b 9a S i9 M OI \ f f doPx Pw 9cXr i . aa'. N 0`{#"ta`- Sa.Oa Jy 'M 'a•6 19 -29"N J J tar °-T*cy - ht•'' - M .JW' {a 26 9`aw. e0.,o0 "' l:aa "n 29 WzF c :# Jr "aaJa` 2dJ0a. . so0 9 "19ae . 91 d9+9a<..:J1 t xJ 9,lW tl -NNM F / 11 SRlPiET t 'E EE - " 4 �t" ' rJ N119.6G2 J w el la'.: rWae a.o !0%23 Aa s Mi s a'" JR' ".*` ,N.5. f3,Q^ e , fa - "x• t d . . .. .. .. . .. 4 # N 1 oa Yx' ttt:aa :# Na m.aa Xis 'v aN a I 'U ?6C 0<t9bF . H Ftrasabn{ xax fxii RfY fkl[X udi k Jf t JF •Y1' . a9r.IM .JR 1< 0.J .JX N rJ J t 4a. kl eo.ea N 9. •e" I TRACT A k r J kk Rx xr a aeti; x t" N e�as`rz"' atle'.tMi' ea.N K JP BhB ;s or 8$AN[NO3_ 6 aff q @ 1 rcE6 rfy [ne itne ua; . s 66t <F fill. .p xa. t t e ` "Jx 2 ri fev r b 9`30'N "" aW,lXt N,Sr N xa N.6f NJJ 1 a 9 ,. .t ... 6atwa. fabrva afnb" 1 dJ xF ' ", f[ t pl o-t 4tan' V 8tdxx f t d hf h t l d hX. t t kbf A R,,fax to abs'at:' 9iN,Ftf 2.09 - Art1 2. +F� N 8J m•e �+ .a • a - r ZdrK � �f SW�{vlbian #YiMf.Me• Z. CkMd�M &voi d2$ n4 Psb. 44kv - '" W.u. . - a5 J'19•M`. IItB.J?t == as. z# - _1#,G 9r: tr put .. , . dt ai� r ., t Fo k.kb Ra 24 J F if b k t Y 1- - ?9 i'24`Jd" 1JJ ,9J m JJ n :" Ie AF:,.N eJ•16'69 `f' - Co Fg h � ; ikk.d 4x:d."CbxNXMG6 C[TCXFIxa Xxb xCxxXOCkxa QR41xXxCCk9a.,x1. JT 0VN�59`. StJ.t! . Y4.PP 19.95 fie b9. N }e`29`k? E 'ty t8� - X21 6 xa<et to die{ 19 er+a`2a" S4F.Er- N, t1 r +'.a+ SII. #/ Nee *'19`I6aE' t _ NO f S " .H." 19Ha � ${RlCf 6Y'19CC Ra W10. .1 04 meR 16la 141 6E GFDt9Ctli l - 6- dbnets f nd ptm and caF 4.6. k1114 DISYRFCi sq. x2 1- tWim wr .0..W4ip9C i w. biut LOT`- 2 -_ �" AM9 CaAC -1 xXAe- w ",- uNfSY Ma JCNTxCCiL9iR Sei GYn and ... L.S. F2a98 C ruix.t mt, nn'. YUIM atm i 19 x%mb muxib- Loo Ip" " 1 ESJl61 ri }!Yt€�ta` OF aG'1 F_"R CREEK - - - - - FY IRRtau- lfioahWrt `� �'" ^kttw°` ' - JLW Ess(naerlER�w. . w _ w.�'ura w � W' "�1°Wqura.w v..vn - - .' v a. . E dF' t •. FINAL PL T DA CUP-IINA IS - A11OSELEK SUBDIVISION FILING NCB. 1, A RESU3DI VISION OF L 0 TS 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10, TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO {EaurA2a fiSUYAfG14 Aft!L2NY.�s C ' - xmXa /t< w aeX rp .mrmen.P'x59.aG. ihM,rt efWYxur rM aryrtY, /GM,tl N M, rPm ar3kt fegFr u mnrli Ca >vda drm {M m Mb.c - - - d <PXS,.'� k f, r..f k0. NWGG,- G... ✓N SebmrHn f,rII ' � le / 4 • � PAWf G GG%ttf A£+'F fk .1 Rft�anN� t GS � AM AL t M1Ya" LiYIXMD4 {� ��^yyli CAI , PA. s: IYXS�fnS k6 GP P, . k PA. s: 26 6z$ rtxj2 R6' LOT 4 - I� �f �/+vRM+k Gm+ t ev, rvimm�d �t py M eft aerr pw M6m yy I rroaff' m cs__4rwr, rra ' �. P tOr t OnM l 1 lvN ro �� � \l�' � tau�e> >ti e" PUrnR rr �, rttxreattm .r acm�un�rx a Gaetcea irao[s.wltie¢.t�tausurctru , - y LOT 5 2.X11 SIXXARf FCE'f Q.Y43 AdTF5 - r� €b S R. 4 4 u+4�$ un�Gws -Gm X r €x he , q� W ew/diM.. €,s�'e Curo'YV .ww ue - }xNH d Im, 1feHer4 Giak' YY.IIIr _ GRAPHIC SCALr Cs�r��■u�a��n■ ,,, � _. � . 4 f. "Y x�r� � • S 0 2g � r;.1J6 �'.�. LOT 7 . SIX/ARf €Err - r66Y } ��.. �. `I4 66� = °•.r• - kG � � y5� g G,a � ate. €« a. t«�ri Ina �oair. me.... Aa rsrs G«row...t�,nwe«: � axzaar � r r�.r as a. ✓ o,..a.+�. wox d �0"'a+ .v,wr°"e'wYra,G.+„e.. .—wrr cr,G„rb,, - - we.,r ne,.ma w „m - - - . '� MAW NoR 1RnR w/1'G.4S. CAP LS NO. i ?fB3 srAK a' fad � s muPYr a'rAeeE' 1 X ,r SUK.at GpYm56 A Jss � , LaNfYa IJ - � .� ,; )�5 LOT 9 " G !4,439 swARr €rrF a >. UJSd AGRE'S - , wra.w rMV > a�a,.r �•— u. rro tf�.a ma,aeea., m4 n.�w,up •n w,o-.r � - rm ."—'_ , mMaw daa ma,nd . 6QS(SJd!JJEd64iGS; S51Y4AI NREfilEERA E..kNQ12468 it pr SaEER1fsma r Car[P€f AW A rLY 51 RfRAR Wy:A4 GAP PX 77/1 SeW771EASt' 6IX7NFR G` Ear S AS1MfA'CAIffA P6RPU56 rAII hat MAX is !a fMEM AN SauARf S. ANa'a AMU EIMIdrAlE LOTS 6 -.7NR & GAZE` f 5Wit£4:' r€Ar -1999 OENIXIES SXRE6k ADDRESS --• f66Y ,Tr fPt 4�` 7r�$ ' CUPW RAM$ L€NGM TANGENT -Ck- 42806' 87:96' 4L5J' C? 221.66' 6662' 41,94' EF-'= 62 &.0¢' ='7FUb ' Cf Vlaw'. 7f.9t' J5.9:4' - LS x71;66' .15 f5` -7, =71, 'A445, C6 2A, 86' ', .7,I xx` J6.95' - � reG n:r G+a *, ire a w LOT to f4,59$5IX/AR¢XCff Boa ,LOT it FGUMU R {6FR tY/PtAS CAIN' AMGEE 14 fY (-^µ k RLS W. 761$6 Ar - - FUUlAGf Q" t6f$ Xt' - / � -- ' f .� - - - - CNEbw 6fAHWG On M 8 &9r' N 4$4361 "E -- 02'w:16" .. .. 8&CW N 5W45'4J`E 7154'00" fl.ti3''` N4S51't4l r 00561W- - 21.8,' = 0 42711M1" f N 41t825. 'Pf.4 ?T4• rz69' N 52 4 x5' E NPV• 16" - y '_ ewu yy yY 4 � pry - � 066, $ tt 110 ,f b / . t G� 4 Fd " .. FR IN - ,,. � .� -� � L y G. � _ / �� 4 . �!! e� .. ... ... Iii /i %T}'� rvff off rr X rx r. -- aGGiIYC$E ,u'Tx "w,a. -maw ar x«3; "e,tl.,..Mmma <'�wAi� xl S5 ° G,�., rune ma,rsf' t�Na dMtM dY (drl rtxwF fm++%k C(kn WM Gh„�•�. ffiX N AR /4W .. A-1 - rw— a mm eF tW L .t'emmla GwmW4 .. Mlan'x. aFf vor,a ra.�.e6X S'f - . Ax r% _ _ ° " ' Gmt„_„ er�rr w ... �1T�"" : <raa�xar.da�' —'—" -- a to twG«a _ - _ " } F crfirYKdf4 � E �l Ifee bi adHm YXv/l� weak u"M}ww,.u. ea.+✓t Gr Me -. - a ybrrra ruK 9vgs-Hn. zd4n � v P du� • _ jir ttndiaa.IIbaim -� uos " e ue ' MEMORANDUM TO: Punning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 8 1998 RE, Ordinance revising the Design Review Chapter (adding -a design review trigger), allowing interior conversions for multiple - family dwelling units, reorganizing the Conditional Use Chapter and allowing Type 11, Employee,Housing Units as a permitted use in Single - Family, Two - Family and.Primary /Secondary Residential Zone Districts. 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST. On March 17, 1998, the Town Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would clarify , when a nonconforming site must be upgraded to meet the [Design Review Guidelines. The Design Guidelines include such requirements as paving parking areas, placing utility service Tines underground, compliance with the lighting restrictions, and not utilizing plywood as a siding material. The code currently requires all nonconforming properties to be brought into compliance with the Design Guidelines with any addition of square footage. The staff interpretation, which has been used for the past couple of years, allows, expansions to single- family, two - family, and primary /secondary residential uses of 150 sq ft. or less without complying with the guidelines. The Town Council directed staff to increase the threshold to 500 sq. ft. (excluding 250 ordinance additions) and therefore, staff has been implementing the 500 sq. ft. over the past several months. Staff presented 2 alternatives to the Town Council. One proposal allowed expansions of up to 500 sq. ft. for single-family, two - family, and multiple family developments. Council did not want to extend this new threshold of 500 sq. ft. to multiple- family developments but instead directed staff to include multiple- family developments in the interior conversion regulations. The proposal requires the upgrading of commercial and multiple- family developments with any addition of floor area, units, common area, or garage area,. The proposal allows nonconforming single-family,� two- family, and primary /secondary uses a one -time expansion of up to 500 sq. ft. without compliance with the Design Guidelines. In addition, staff is proposing to amend the Zoning Regulations to allow Type 11, Employee Housing as a permitted use instead of as a conditional use. Staff believes the current conditional use permit requirement is a barrier to applicant's wanting to build these units. It adds additional time and expense to a development project. This change would also help reduce staff workload and all staff to concentrate in ether needed areas. There has not been a denial of such a request, for a long time. Staff Is also proposing to clean -up the conditional use section of the code by creating anew subsection which will contain all use specific criteria and standards for uses listed as conditional uses. The proposai will eliminate the use specific criteria which are repeated throughout the 1 ME OF *VAff } zone districts and consolidate them in one section. For example, the section from the code listed below is from the CC2 Zone district, under the conditional use section: 12 -7C-4: CONDITIONAL USES; GENEIRALLY. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12 -14 -18 of this Title. "Brew pubs" as defined in Section 12 -2 -2 of this,Title;. subject .to the following conditions: A. There is no exterior storage of supplies, refuse, or materials on the property upon which the brew pub is operated, and B. The operator of the brew pub shall comply with the Town's loading and delivery regulations as set forth in this Title, and C. Brew pubs which sell beer or "ale at wholesale or which sell beer for off-site consumption are allowed so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off -site consumption do not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Under the proposed ordinance, A, B, and C above would be deleted and replaced with simply, "Brew Pubs." These criteria will then be moved to the new subsection In the Conditional Use Chapter. This is similar to what was done for fractional fee clubs last year. Specific criteria were created for this use and placed as additional standards in the conditional use section of the aide. This amendment will create a consistent way of treating such criteria when amending the code in the future: It. SUMMARY OF CHANGES (see ordinance for specific language): Design Review Trigger Section 1. This section creates a new paragraph within the Design Review chapter. This contains the language allowing the 500 sq. ft. expansions without requiring upgrades of existing nonconforming conditions on site. 250 Ordinance Sections 2 and 3. These sections eliminate the 250 sq. ft. additions for multiple- family developments. 250 additions for multiple family dwelling units are only allowed to be interior, and therefore; by adding mu ltiple- family dwelling units to the Interior Conversion section, there is no use for these provisions. Interior Conversions Sections 4 and 5. These sections amend the Interior Conversion section of the code by adding multiple- family dwelling units. All regulations in the area stay the same except that provisions precluding multiple family developments are removed. 2 Conditional Uses Sections 6 -14. These sections amend the conditional uses listed in each zone district by removing any specific conditions that a use must meet. These specific conditions are moved to the` conditional use chapter of the code. This is similar to what was done last year I for fractional foe clubs. Any use specific criteria is list in the conditional use chapter, instead of being repeated throughout every district in the code. Section 15. This section creates a new subsection (12 -16 -7) in Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, entitled "Use Specific Criteria and Standards." In this subsection, ill conditional use- permit standards and criteria are listed for any use requiring additional review criteria and standards. This reorganization is needed to develop a consistent method of amending the Bode. The Town Council directed staff to revise this section in review of a proposed amendment to the code. Staff ;believes this will make the code less cumbersome to read. Type 11, Employee Housing Unit. Sections 16 -18. These sections delete a Type 11 EHU as a conditional use in the Single- Family' Residential; Two - Family Residential, Primary /Secondary Residential; and the Agriculture and Open Space Zone Districts and list a Type 11 EHU as a, permitted use in these same zone districts. Additionally, the Employee Housing Chapter is amended to list a type_ 11 EHU as a permitted use in these chapters. Additional Provision. Under the provision for a Type 11 EHU, it states that when a request for additional GRFA is being made for a Type 11, EHU, the approval shall be made by the Design Regrew Board. Staff has been including the additional square footage request along with the Conditional Use permit for these projects. It was the belief by staff ;that the provision allowing DRB approval was in error and that it should have been the PEC reviewing these requests. Staff is proposing to allow the DRB to review these proposals in accordance with code provision as written from now forward. 111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. F:\EVERYONE\PECWEMOS\98\DESIGNTP.608 MEMQRANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department Dominic Maurielio, Senior Planner DATE: March 17, 1998 RE: Design Review Trigger Staff has developed two alternatives for setting thresholds for the upgrading of existing nonconforming properties which are nonconforming with respect to the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines include such requirements as paving parking areas; placing utility service lines underground, compliance with the lighting restrictions, and not utilizing plywood as a siding` material. Most of the guidelines are just that, guidelines. However; several requirements, like the ones above, are in fact standards: The proposed code language will provide clear direction as to when these standards" will be applied. Staff has considered what nonconforming sites and structures exist today. There are numerous single - family and duplex developments which do not meet some aspect of the Design Guidelines. These sites are generally located in East Vail and West Vail. Several multiple - family developments do not meet the Design Guidelines. One example is the g p Camelot Townhomes (plywood siding, overhead utilities). Fewer commercial properties are nonconforming with respect to the Design Guidelines. Generally, commercial properties have redeveloped more often than residential properties and therefore have been upgraded to meet code or were originally constructed in compliance. One example of a nonconforming commercial site is the Roost Lodge (zoned PA) which has plywood siding. The code currently requires all nonconforming properties to be brought into compliance with the Design Guidelines with any addition of square footage. The staff interpretation, which has been used for the past couple of years, allows expansions to single - family; two- family, and primary /secondary residential uses of 150 sq. ft. or less without complying with the guidelines. Option #7: Option #1 requires the upgrading of commercial and multiple - family developments with any addition of floor area, units, common area, or garage area. This option allows single- family, two - family, and primary /secondary uses a onetime expansion of up to 500 sq. ft. without compliance with the Design Guidelines. The proposed language is: 1 MWNOF M 0 • Nonconforming sites and structures; Effect of Design Guidelines Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the Design Guidelines, due to annexations or changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required to conform with the Design Guidelines when allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) (the GRFA that is permitted by the density control section of various zone, districts), commercial floor area, or garage area credit is added to any existing structure or site. From the effective date of this ordinance (April ?, 1998), there shall be permitted a one -time exclusion from this provision for an expansion to single- family, two - family, and primary /secondary residential dwelling units. This one -time exclusion shall be allowed for a single expansion of 500 sq. ft. or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. in which case structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites or conformance with the Design Guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform with the Design Guidelines. An expansion which is greater than 500 sq, ft., or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the entire site (including other dwelling units located on the lot) with the Design Guidelines: General maintenance and upkeep of a property shall continue to be required regardless of the amount of floor area added to a structure. The one -time exclusion noted above shall not preclude the Design Review. Board, pursuant to the Design Guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the expansion /remodel. Expansions made pursuant to Section 12 -15 -5, Additional Gross Residentialfloor Area (250 " Ordinance); shall require full compliance of the entire site with the Design Guidelines.- Interior conversion additions pursuant to Section 12 -15 -4, Interior Conversions, shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and structures to fully comply with the Design Guidelines, unless it can be .classified as a demo /rebuild, pursuant to Section 12 -2 -2 of this Title. Option #2r Option #2 requires the upgrading of commercial developments with any addition of floor area. Multiple- family dwelling units would be allowed expansions of 500 sq. ft. or less. AnyAdditions to units or common area in excess of 500 sq. ft. would require that the development, as a whole, be upgraded to meet the Design Guidelines. For example, all dwelling units in Camelot Townhomes could be expanded by 500 sq. ft. each, without requiring the buildings to remove the plywood siding. However, if they wanted to expand one unit,beyond 500 sq. ft. or add units to the development, the entire development would be required to be brought into compliance with the guidelines. This option also allows single - family, two- family, and primary/secondary uses acne -time expansion of up to 500 sq. ft. without compliance with the Design Guidelines. The proposed language is: Nonconforming sites and structures; Effect of Design Guidelines. Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the Design Guidelines, due to�annexations or changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required, to conform with the Design Guidelines when one (or more) of the following is proposed to occur: 1. When a commercial use is expanded in gross floor area; or 2. When a multiple - family residential dwelling unit is expanded by more than 500 sq. ft. There shall be a one -time exclusion allowed for a, single expansion of 500 sq. ft. or less of allowable GRFA per dwelling -unit, as of the effective date of this ordinance (April ?, 1.998) In which case, structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites or cenformance'with the Design, Guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform with the Design Guidelines. An expansion which is greater than 500 sq, ft,; or any subsequent expansion to ,a structure, regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the entire site (including other structures and dwelling units located on the lot) with the Design Guidelines, or 3. When a single - family, two - family, or primary /secondary residential dwelling unit is expanded by more than 500 sq. ft. There shall be a one -time exclusion allowed for a single expansion of 500 sq. ft. or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit; as of the effective date of this ordinance (April ?, 1998). In which case, structures may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites or conformance with= the Design Guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform with the Design Guidelines. An expansion which is greater than 500 sq. ft., or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless;of size, shall require full compliance of the entire site (including other structures and dwelling units located on the lot) with the Design Guidelines. General maintenance and upkeep of a property shall continue to be required regardless of the amount of floor area added to a structure. The one -time exclusion noted above shall not preclude the Design Review Board, pursuant to the Design Guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the expansion /remodel. Expansions to single- family, two-family, and primary/secondary dwelling units made pursuant to Section 12-15-5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), shall require full compliance of the entire site with the Design Guidelines. Interior conversion additions pursuant to Section 1 -15 -4, Interior Conversions, shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and - structures to fully comply with the Design Guidelines, unless it can be classified as a demo /rebuild, pursuant to Section 12 -2 -2 of this Title: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Option #2 be pursued and an ordinance be drafted. F. \EV ERYoNE \DOM \MEMO9$SD ESIGNTR.130 • 0 • ORDINANCE NO. . Series of .1998 .. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, Zt}NIN �REGULATIONS,;CHAPTER 11, DESIGN REVIEW, SECTION 12.11 -5'. DESIGN GUIDELINES; ADDING A PROVISION ALLOWING, LEGAL NONCONFORMING SINGLE - FAMILY, TWO- FAMILY, AND PRIMARYISECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BE EXPANDED BY 500 SCI. FT. OR LESS WITHOUT REQUIRING STRUCTURES AND SITES TO BE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES; AMENDING CHAPTER 15, GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOORAREA (GRFA), SECTION 12 415-5: ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE),; DELETING SUBSECTION 12- 15 -5(C) WHICH ALLOWS A 250 SO. FT. , ADDITION TO MULTIPLE- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; AMENDING CHAPTER 15, GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA), SECTION 12 -15 -4. INTERIOR CONVERSIONS, TO ALLOW INTERIOR CONVERSIONS IN MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING, UNITS; AMENDING CHAPTER 16, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, CREATING A NEW SECTION 1- 16-7: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SECTIONS 12 -68 =2,12 -68-3, X1.2 6C -2,12 C- S,'12*6C -2fi AND 12-. 613=3 AND CHAPTER 13j EMPLOYEE HOUSING, SUBSECTICN12.13.5(a)(1) TO ALLOW TYPE II EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS AS A PERMI'T'TED USE IN THE SINGLE - FAMILY, TWO- FAMILY, AND PRIMARY /SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to allow homeowners the ability to = Construct small additions to dwelling units without overburdening owners with costs associated with bringing legal nonconforrnities into compliance with existing design guidelines; and WHEREAS,, the Town Council believes reorganizing certain sections of the Zoning: Regulations will make them easier to read and use; WHEREAS, it is advantageous to allow Type ii, Employee Housing Units, to be approved` by the staff or Design Review Board, in order to make the process less cumbersome for the applicant and less time consuming for Town staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this amendment to the Vail Municipal Code at its ? ? ?? ?? meeting; and WHEREAS, the Town. Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to amend said Chapter and Sections of the Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOXIN OF VAIL, COLORADO; THAT. Section 1. Title 12, Chapter 11, [design Review, subsection 12-11-3 is hereby . amended to add the following paragraph: C. Nonconforming sites and structures; Effect of Design Guidelines: Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the Design Guidelines, due to'anhexations or changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required to conform with the Design Guidelines when allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) (the GRFA that is permitted by the density control section of various, zone: districts), commercial floor area, or garage area credit is added to any existing structure or site.. From the effective date of this ordinance (July 2, 1998), there shall be permitted a one -titre exclusion from this provision for an expansion to single- family, two-family, and primary/secondary:. residential dwelling units. This one -time exclusion shall be allowed fora single expansion, of 500 sq., ft. or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. in which, case, ordinance, Series of 1898 1 structures "may be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to Conform with the Design Guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform with the Design Guidelines. An expansion which is greater than 5010 sq. ft., or any subsequent expansion to a structure, regardless of size, =shall "require full compliance of the entire site (including other " dwelling units located on the lot) with the Design Guidelines. General maintenance and upkeep of a property shall continue to be required regardless of the amount of floor area added to a structure. The one -time exclusion noted above shall not preclude the Design Review Board, pursuant to the Design. Guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the expansion /remodel. Expansions" made pursuant to Section 1215 -5, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance), shall require full compliance of the entire site with the Design Guidelines. >intedoi conversion additions" pursuant to Section 12 -15-4, interior Conversions, shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and structures to fully,comply with the Design Guidelines,, unless it can be classified as a demo /rebuild, pursuant to Section 12 -2 -2 of this Title. Section 2. Title 12,. Chapter "15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRPA), subsection 12- 15�5(A) (Additional Gross residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)) is hereby amended to read as follows: " A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town for a period; of at least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area'(GRFA) to such dwelling units, provided the criteria, set forth in this Section are met. This Section does not assure each single - family or two - family dwelling unit located within the Town an additional two hundred fifty (250) square feet, and proposals for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town development standards. The two hundred fifty (250) square feet of additional gross residential floor area may granted to existing - single- family dwellings-,,.- dnd existing two- family and existimg rmuftHafn4y dweliing,units only once, but may be requested and " granted in more than one increment of less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Upgrading of an existing dwelling unit under this Section shall include additions thereto or renovations thereof, but a demo /rebuild shall not be included as being eligible for .additional -gross residential " floor area. Section 3. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), subsection 12- 15 -5(C) is hereby deleted in its entirety, Section 4. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA),, subsection 12- 15 -4(B) (interior Conversions) is hereby amended to read as follows: B. Applicability: An)r >dweitirrg unit dweilirtg-tttiits that exceeds allowable GRFA will be eligible to make interior conversions provided the following criteria are satisfied:. 1. Any existing str�ly dwelling unlit or a y existing dwelling unit within et strtjettf�ee defined I shall be eligible to add GRFA, via the "interior space conversion" provision in excess of existing or allowable GRFA including such units located in a special development district; provided, that such GRFA complies with the - standards outlined herein. 2. For the purpose of this .Section "existing .unit" shall mean- any dwelling unit withim " that has been constructed prior to August 5, 1997 and has received a certificate of occupancy, or has been issued a building permit prior to August 5, 1997 or has received final Design Review Board approval,prior to " August 5, 1997: 8. Mttlti family dwelling units aree-m-, eligible to- add GRFA purstiant to this Seefiem. Section 5. Title 12, Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), subsection 12 1.5 -4(0) ( interior Conversions) is hereby amended to road as follows: D. Process: Applications shall be made to the Department of Community Development staff on forms provided by the Department, Applications for interior conversions to, anydwe, 10,g Ordinance, series of 1998 2 • single femilly, two family, and prime"eeemdefy type dweiiimg units located in a special development "district (SD©) pursuant :to "this Section shall also be allowed without amending the GRFA provisions of the SDD. However, properties with GRFA restrictions recorded on the plat for the development shall be regulated according to the plat restrictions unless the plat is modified to remove such restrictions. The planning: staff will review the application to ensure the proposed addition complies with all provisions of the interior conversion section Submittals shall include: [remainder of paragraph remains unchanged] " Section 6. Major arcade, et al, listed in Title" 12, Chapter 7, Sections '12-78-2(C) and 12 -7E -4 of the Municipal Code shall be "deleted and replaced with: "Major arcade Section 7. Barber shops, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Section 1'2- 78 -3(0) of the Municipal Code" shall be deleted and replaced with: Barber shops, beauty shops, and beauty parlors. Section 8. Bakeries and confectioneries, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter,7, Sections 1"2- 7B- 2(B)(1), 12- 7B- 2(B)(3), 12- 7B- 3(8)(1); "12- 7B- 4(A)(6), 12- 7B- 4(A)(7),12- 78 -5(B)(i) and 12 =_" 78- 5(B)(2) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Bakeries an d confectioneries. Section 9. Brew Pubs, et al, listed in Title 12 Chapter 7, Sections 12 -7C -4, 12-70-2, " 12 =7E-4, 1'2- 7F -4(A); and 12-7F-4(B) of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: " Brew pubs. Section 10. Commercial storage, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 12 -7C -4 and 12 -713-2 of the Municipal Code shall be "deleted and "replaced with: Commerdal storage. Section 11. Television stations, et al, "lister! in Title 12, Chapter 7, Section 12 -7C -4 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: "Television "stations, Section" 12. Transportation businesses, et al, listed in Title 12, Chapter 7, Sections 1'2- 7D-2, 12- 7F -4(A), and 12 -7G -3 of the Municipal Code shall be deleted and replaced with: Transportation businesses. Section 13. " "Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, subsection 12- 16-6(A)(7) is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 14. Title 12, Chapter "16; .Conditional Use Permits Sections 12 =16 -7 and 12 -, 16 -8 are hereby renumber as 12 -16 -8 and 12 -16 -9, respectively. Section 15. Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Section 12- _1 6 -7 is hereby added to read as follows: 12 -16 -7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards: The following "criteria and,standards shall be applicable to the uses listed below in consideration of a conditional use permit. These criteria" and standards shall be in addition to the criteria and findings required-by Section 12 -16 -6 Uses and Criteria: Bakeries and confectioneries The use shall be restricted to preparation" of products specifically for sale on the premises: Barber shops; beauty shops and beauty parlors No exterior frontage on any public way, street,_ walkway, or mail area is permitted. Brew pubs a. There shall be no exterior storage of supplies, refuse, or materials on the property upon which the brew pubis operated. b. The operator of the brew pub shall comply with the Town's loading and delivery regulations as set forth in this Title. c. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at" wholesale or which sell= beer for off -site consumption are allowed so long" as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off- site consumption do not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Ordinance, Series of 1998 3 Commercial storage No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. Convenience food stores a. Maximum store size shall be 8,000 sq, ft. b. No more than thirty three percent (3361x) of the gross building area of the entire structure on- site. Major arcade a. No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted, . b. Amusement devices shall not be visible or audible from any public way, street, - walkway, or mall area. Television stations a. The production room /studio shall be visible from the - street or pedestrian mall, b. - The television station shall be "cable - cast" only, requiring no additional antennas. Time -share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time - share license proposal. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time -share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time -share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as are presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shad provide at least as much accommodation unit gross residential =floor area.(GRFA) as fractional fee club unit gross residential floor area (CRPA). b. Lock -off units and lock -off unit square footage shall not be included,in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. C. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a, high level of occupancy. d. Employee housing units;may be required,as part of any new,or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units required will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. e. The_ applicant_ shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building-, and written statements from one hundred. . percent (100 %) of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, . of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. Transportation businesses a. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved parking areas. b. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights of way and adjacent properties, consisting of landscaping and berms, in combination with walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of vehicle storage. C. The number; size and location of vehicles permitted to be stored shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other commercial and/or residential uses, d. Parking associated with transportation businesses shall not reduce or' compromise the parking required for other uses on -site. Section 16.: 12, Chapter " "Title 6, Residential Districts, Sections 12 -613=, 12 -603; 12 -60-3, and 12 -8A -3 are hereby amended by deleting the following: " Type II employee housing unit as set forth in Section 12-13-5 of this `title.- Section 17. Title 12, Chapter 6, Residential Districts, Sections 12 -68 -2, 12 -6C -2, 12- " 6D -2, and 12 =8A -2 are hereby amended by adding the following use` Type 11 employee housing unit as set forth in Section 12 -13 -5 of this Title. Section 18. Title" 12, Chapter 13, Employee Housing, Section 1243�5(8)(1) is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. " It shall be a" permitted use in the Single - Family Residential, Two - Family Residential and Primary /Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Section 19. If any part, section, subsection, . sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, or pi Irase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections; sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. " Section 20. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of tne7own of Vail and the, inhabitants thereof. Section 21, "" The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as "pr=ovided,in- " this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that " occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the prevision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not "revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. " Section 22 "" All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts,thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order," resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore" repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED, PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this ?? ,day of ? ?, 1998, and a public hearing ; for second reading of this Ordinance set for the ?? day of ?? 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Robert E. Ford, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL this?? day of ? ?, 1958. Ordinance, Series or 1998 5 JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A. ASPLANALP, JR. ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN DIANE L. HERMAN R. C. STEPHENSON SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH LAW OFFICES DUNN, AsPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 300 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 June 2, 1998 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Project Dear Commission Members: TELEPHONE: (970) 476-0300 FACSIMILE* (970) 476-4765 KAREN M. DUNN CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANT We represent three residential unit owners at Vail Gateway Plaza and have been requested by them to provide you with written comment with respect to the application of Daymer Corporation for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, the Vail Village Inn Site ("the Vail Plaza Hotel Project" or "the Project"). Having reviewed the plans submitted to the Town, we wish to set forth our concerns with respect to the relationship of the Project to the Vail Village Master Plan. From our review of the plans, it appears that the portions of the Project located immediately adjacent to Vail Gateway Plaza will be 60 to 84 feet above the existing grade to the south of Gateway Plaza on Vail Road and 70 to 100 feet above the existing grade to the east of Gateway Plaza on Frontage Road. This proposed building height is not inconformity with the Conceptual Building Height Plan of the Vail Village Master Plan, which establishes a building height guideline on those parcels adjacent to Gateway Plaza of 3-4 (stepped) building stories. Inasmuch as the Conceptual Building Height Plan defines "building story" as nine feet, the corresponding building height guidelines are 27 to 36 feet. Nor is the proposed building height in conformity with the Sub-Area # I - I Plan at page 3 7 of the Master Plan, which requires that the mass of buildings "step-up" from pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along Frontage Road. Construing the two together, the structure to the south of Gateway Plaza could not by any interpretation exceed four stories or 36 feet. The proposed building heights for the Project adjacent to Gateway Plaza therefore exceed master plan limitations by as much as 33 to 48 feet on Vail Road and 43 to 64 feet on Frontage Road. In other words, the plan proposes a building that is at least twice the height limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan on those parcels. Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Municipal Code includes as part of the design criteria for approval of an SDD "conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans" and provides, with reference to those standards, that: "It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: . . ." We are not able to find anything in the applicant's submittal to suggest that the height limitations of the master plan are not applicable or that the applicant is proposing a solution to the conflict with the master plan which is consistent with the public interest. We can only conclude that the applicant is asking that the height limitations of the master plan be ignored for purpose of the application. It is therefore the purpose of this letter to provide you with a review of Colorado law on the relationship between master plans and zoning, including in particular the type of zone district know as the "planned unit development" ( PUIY') or, as it is known in Vail, the special development district (IISDD"). Based upon our review of that law, it is our belief that the master plan must be strictly adhered to in the consideration of SDD zoning, and we respectfully request that your commission so determine at the outset of its consideration of the application. The Colorado Supreme Court first addressed the effect of a master plan in 7heobald v. Board of County Commrs, 644 P,2d 942 (Colo. 1982). In that case, the court held that a master plan is advisory only and that, in order for it to have a direct effect on property rights, it must be further implemented through zoning. Thereafter, in Beaver Meadows v. Board of County Commis, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985), the court held that, while a master plan as an advisory document is not necessarily binding on the zoning discretion of a governmental body, it is binding when the zoning legislation requires compliance with it. Most recently, in Board of County Comm is v. Conder, 927 P,2d 1339 (Colo. 1996), our supreme court was faced with a subdivision application which conformed with applicable zoning but not with the county master plan, which had been adopted as a "guideline" by the subdivision regulations. Over two dissents, the court held that the county could enforce the master plan compliance provision legislatively adopted as part of the subdivision regulations. Taken together, those cases tell us that, to the extent that zoning is inconsistent with the master plan, the master plan will prevail, provided compliance with it is required by some regulation. We recognize that the Town has great flexibility in the amendment of special development district zoning and that a purpose of an SDD zone district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. We also recognize that our local district court has upheld the Town council's adoption of SDD zoning over a challenge based upon the argument that the adoption of it constituted "spot zoning" in contravention of the Town's master plan. However, we are not arguing that the present IS application violates objectives or policies of the master plan, which are aspirational in nature. Rather, we are arguing that no zone district within the town may violate a very specific height In limitation imposed by the master plan, given the master plan's incorporation into the Town's zoning, including SDD zoning. It should also be mentioned that, so far as we are aware, there has not been district court review of a rezoning in this county since the Conder decision. Prior to that decision, it might have been argued that an SDD zone district, because it establishes special rules for that zone district, may override master plan requirements. However, in Conder the court affirmed Larimer County's denial of an application for a PUD subdivision based upon the subdivision's creation of density in conflict with the county master plan, even though (as the court emphasized) the proposed use of the land was in compliance with the county's zoning resolution. It must therefore be concluded that, if the entirety of the Larimer County zoning resolution could not have the effect of overriding the county master plan, PUD or SDD zoning could not have that effect. We also recognize that zoning is a matter of local and municipal concern; that the Town's zoning authority is governed by its own charter and ordinances, Zavala v. City & County of Denver, 759 P.2d 664 (Colo. 1980; Service Oil Co. v. Rhodus, 500 P.2d 807 (Colo. 1972); and that the cases cited in this letter address county master plans. However, the Z= of zoning authority is contained in statute, § 31-23-301, C.R.S., and that authority is conditioned upon the adoption of a master plan by § 31-23-303, C.R.S. Further, the statutory purposes governing the adoption of a municipal master plan, § 31-23-207, C.R.S., track with those governing the adoption of a county master plan, § 30-28-107, C.R.S., and both counties and municipalities are required to find master plan compliance as a condition to approval of a PUD, § 24-67-104(1)(1), C.R.S., absent a superseding ordinance of the municipality. Vail's ordinance in fact is consistent with that statute. Finally, the discussion contained in the county cases cited are a discussion of general principles of land use law. It is therefore our conclusion that your commission must give literal effect to the Vail Village Master Plan, including in particular the height limitations contained in it, in considering the application for the Project. Of course, the Town's master plans may be amended, but that process should only be initiated by the Town council, Pursuant to § 31-27-207, C.R.S., "careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of present conditions and future growth" are required. Initiation of that process, we believe, ought not be motivated by a single application. It is our understanding that the applicant believes that the economic benefit of its project to the community, including hotel accommodations and conference space, outweigh the importance of master plan compliance. In that connection, it is well to bear in mind the purposes of the Town's zoning regulations as they are set forth in § 12-1-2, Vail Municipal Code: "these regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality." Ic That purpose, we suggest, is intended to preserve the character of the town and not to promote economic development. We need not remind you that members of the public, including our clients, have relied on the Town's land use regulations. Our clients were told, when they purchased units at Gateway Plaza, that they would continue to have unobstructed views, and they made major investments based upon that information. If those views are obstructed, their investments will be significantly devalued. Our clients understand that the Town's zoning was not enacted to protect their personal view corridors. However, because they are adjacent landowners and because the value of their property may be of by your recommendation to council, they have standing before you. Section 12-3-3, Vail Municipal Code, provides for administrative determination or interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance and for review of such determination or interpretation by your commission. We urge you to request an interpretation of § 12-9A-8(D), Vail Municipal Code, and a determination that that provision requires that the application before you strictly comply with the building height limitations of the Vail Village Master Plan. In making that request, we do not wish to minimize other aspects of the Project which would require that on the merits your commission make a recommendation of denial of the application. The impact of the Project on Frontage Road is difficult even to imagine. Traffic flow through the roundabout intersection and along Frontage Road would be increased very substantially, with the attendant noise and pollution caused by vehicular traffic. Without an impact analysis, it is impossible to say what the of of the Project would be on level of service at the Main Vail Roundabout, That impact is aggravated by the absence of pedestrian access from the village core. Further, the refocusing of activity on Frontage Road, together with the overall height and mass of the Project, would have a fundamental, potentially devastating effect on the feeling and character of Vail. We intend to press those issues at time of hearing on the application, if that stage is reached. We again urge that an initial determination be made that the Project must comply with the Vail Village Master Plan, That determination, for obvious reasons, would serve to focus consideration of the application. JWD:ipse cc. Mr. Lipcon Mr. Johnston Yours very truly, DUt,N,N,: PLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. John W. Dunn III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST Upon review of Section 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested front yard setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to ether existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed encroachment of the deck enclosure on the third level into the front setback will have minimal impacts on existing'or potential uses and structures in the area. Bulk and mess will not be increased by the proposed enclosure as it is currently substantially enclosed. The project will not impact adjacent property owners as the house will remain a residential use. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and.. enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Due to the existing steep slopes on the property, staff believes that this ro osal will not `be a rant of s ecial A .l M n of the homes in the 0 V p g p privy ,u . a Y area are built close to the road in order to reduce the impact to this site nd th e h "11 b If dd't` °' d ' th of the a es c angel w� e minor. an a ion was one �n a rear house, unnecessary site disturbance would need to occur. Limiting disturbance in the area of steep slopes to the rear of the structure will' reduce the potential for erosion and damage to the environment." 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and, air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues. This proposal maintains the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. The elanning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings, before grantina,a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district: 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. 'The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same: district. IV. STAFF RECQMMENDATION Upon review of Title 12, Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community, Development department recommends approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute: a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the 'same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following condition: 1. That the applicant shall maintain a limit of disturbance line as shown on the site plan; No building auditions -shall be allowed beyond this line in the future This limit of disturbance and any associated variances will <become obsolete if the duplex is demolished and rebuilt. f :teveryonetpeo /memost98 /Adam.608 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 8, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: ' STAFF PRESENT: John Schofield Greg Moffet Dominic Meuriello Galen Aasland Diane Golden Christie Barton Ann Bishop (left at 5:30 pm) George Ruther Tom Weber Judy Rodriguez Brian Doyon Tom Moorhead Public Hearn 2:00 pm. The meeting was called to order by John Schofield at 2.00 pm. 1. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for the expansion of the front entry, located at 2005 West Gore Creek Drive /Unplatted. Applicant: Tom Thomson, represented by John Perkins Planner: Christie Barton Christie Barton gave an overview of the memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add, but the applicant was not present. He then asked for any public comment, There was none: There were no comments from the Commission: Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, as detailed in the staff memo. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0. 2. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for the construction of a residential addition, located at 1998 Sunburst Drive /Lot 19 Vail Valley 3rd. Applicant: Nate Accardd, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Brines Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and stated for the record, that 101 sq. ft. of GRFA would remain available for this property. Tom Weber recused himself from this item. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 8, 199 8 John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not He then asked for any public comment. There was none. Brian Doyon had no comments. Galen Aasland said he would like the construction signage to be approved. by the Town of Vail. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the condition that the construction signage be brought into compliance with the flown of Vail regulations. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 -0. 3. A request for additional GRF`A, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for the conversion of a garage to GRFA, and for the expansion of the mechanical roam, located at 345 Mill Creek Circle /Lot 14, Block 1, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Lee M. Bass, represented by Snowden and Hopkins Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. He then asked for any public comment. There was none. Tom Weber asked George to review the residences on the lot. George Ruther explained the applicant's residence: There were no comments from the rest of the Commission, Ann. Bishop made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo, with the condition that the Public Works department review and approve the, proposed parking plan. Brian D©yon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5.0: 4. A worksession to review an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted: Applicant: RAD Five: L.L.C., represented by Greg;Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Dominic stated that the PEC had directed him to obtain the site coverage for Building 19, which was approximately 2600 sq.. ft. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutcs 2 June 8, 1998 John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Greg Amsden, with AMS Development, explained that he was developing the site along with his partners. He stated, regarding item #3 in the staff memo, that the 40% slope was a strict interpretation and left a jagged edge and if they followed the edge, they would have to jog making surveying more difficult. He said they could not build into a 40% slope, but they wpuld'be willing, to plat restrict the 40% slope area and the area containing trees to preserve them. He said, regarding item #4, that he assumed the .driveway and drainage would need to be graded outside of the envelope. Dominic Mauriello said grading pertaining to access was excluded, and could be graded outside of the envelope, Greg Amsden stated the original parking plan used the existing parking areas. He said they were now taking pressure off the existing parking and placing the parking on-site and he said that he didn't know if the Fire Department would approve this at this time as being large enough. Dominic Mauriello said the applicant would have to meet the development standards regarding parking and that cars would have to back up and turn around to exit the parking lot. Greg Amsden said they would try to transplant all the misplaced trees. Dominic Mauriello said, regarding item #3, that the applicant wouldn't have to follow the jagged edge that Intermountain Surveying surveyed. He said they could simply draw a straight fine that excludes the 40% slope 'area. John Schofield asked for any public comment. Mel Brody, a resident across the creek and an affected homeowner, stated that this was a lot of development on such a confined area and he had personal concerns about how cluttered it would look. Galen Aasland stated that the PEC had to look out for the interest of the community. He said the development right was to build the same as Building 18 and if this project was significantly larger, , it would be denied. He said if the applicant wanted to build the same as Building 20 with an EHU, he might listen. He said that this was larger than what Bu lding 18 was: He stated that the water table around the trees would be affected, killing a significant' number of Aspects within .5 years. Greg Amsden said the buildings were much larger than this new proposal covering more of the site, but that parking was within the building envelope. Galen Aasland said the PEC could grant a larger space if parking was contained within the site. He said the impact on the site was going to be more impact, then if it were 18. He said building this close to the edge of the creek would affect the neighbors. He said the applicant would need to come back with a plan more consistent in scale to Building '18' to get his vote. He said he couldn't vote for buildings that hung off the cliff, as they affected the neighbors. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 8,1998 3 } Ann Bishop said staff requested an entire development plan and this should meet the development standards set by the Town of Vail. She thought what was being proposed was interesting and the applicant should continue forward on this path and hopefully be able, to sage the trees. She felt that three separate buildings were better than one large building. Tom Weber said he would like to see lower level and smaller units and he too was concerned with the large amount of site disturbance. He supported the idea, but it still seemed like they were cramming a lot into the area, He said the applicant needed to get a replat without all the jagged lines, with the break line figured out. He asked how much overlay zoning was being added to this lot. Dominic Mauriello said this would be treated similar to a SDD. Tom Weber asked for an analysis for design standards purposes. Dominic Mauriello said the zoning analysis was on page 2 of the staff memo. Brian Doyon echoed some of Galen's responses. He said regarding the similar character, similar site disturbance and massing, that this was much larger, with the architecture and landscaping quite different from the existing buildings. He said the landscaping would need to be replaced caliper per caliper. He said that the example shown misses in so many categories, that his vote would be to deny this request. John Schofield said the previous approval was for a building to be built similar to Building 18 and he was concerned that the site coverage would have been less than 2,600 and now the site coverage was 2 1/2 times that amount with too much site disturbance. He said the driveway access was a concern and even if it met the development standards, the guidelines didn't anticipate two parking lots accessed by one driveway with cars backing up in order to get out. Dominc Maunello asked if, architectural plans would be needed at the next meeting. Tom Weber said he had a concern with the building heights. John Schofield said he would like to see the site coverage and renderings Rick Rosen said he wanted the Commission to remember that Building 18 was an arbitrary building. He felt it should be the average square footage of all the buildings, He said°we were not requesting the PEC to approve identical buildings, as we were needing to overturn the 1972 type of development. He said they could bring in an SDD and get 38,000 sq. ft. He said the development site was beautiful because of the trees and we were not going to take them down. He said they were trying to amend an outdated development plan. He mentioned that Spruce Creek was a Townhouse development that Michael Lauterbach did and it worked. He advised the PEC not to just aim at Building 18. He said if they built Building 19, they would be; putting -in 10 more parked cars into the already crowded Timberfalls parking lot. Brian Doyan asked if it was better for everybody and would it fit in with the site and area. He didn't think it did: Tom Moorhead said to the best of his recollection, the applicant was to build a building `according to the prior approved plans. He said that Building 18 was selected out of a hat and that anything other than that would have to go through the process. Dominic Mauriello said a parking plan was needed in context with the surrounding area. John Schofield said the PEC needed to see a plat with the access easement indicated on it_ Dominic Mauriello said that this should come back for a final approval and not another, worksession. Rick Rosen said the applicant needed answers resolved in their minds. Greg Amsden stated that if the trees were an issue, we could change. Jahn Schofield said he would not like the bike path going through someone's backyard, and to remove it from the building envelope:, Tom Weber said the site disturbance was a concern and the applicant would need to prove why this was a better scenario than building Building 19. Greg Amsden stated all ears will be headed out of the parking lot the front way: 5, A request for an extension of a conditional use permit for the Lionshead Children's Tent, generally located next to the Lionshead Children's ski school /Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1st. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by David Thorpe Planner: Christie Barton Christie Barton gave an overview of the staff memo and said that staff was recommending denial, as the tent was becoming a permanent use. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add and stated for the record, that the applicant was not in attendance. He then .asked for any public comments; There were no public comments. Galen Aasland stated that this was not approved for permanent use and with no input from the applicant, he would deny the request. Ann Bishop had no comments. Tom Weber was in agreement with staff. Brian Doyon was in agreement with the staff recommendation. John Schofield said this was a temporary structure. Ann Bishop made a motion to table the item. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes' June 8, 1998 Galen. Aasland seconded the motion. Ann Bishop withdrew the motion. Galen Aasland withdrew the second. , Brian Doyon made a motion for denial. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 -1, with Ann Bishop opposed. Dominic Maariello stated for the record, that Ann opposed the motion for denial because she was in favor of tabling the item. At 3:45 p,m, Dave Thorpe representing Vail Associates arrived, and said the reason he was late was that he was researching whether retail space was available in VA's buildings. He added that he felt the children would not be safe in other locations. He said this was not the permanent solution VA had in mind 3 years ago, but the Lionshead redevelopment was scheduled for 1198 and the master plan is now just being worked on. He said until the redevelopment, VA needed the tent for the 6 -14 yr. olds. John Schofield asked for any public comment. There was none. He then asked if the l'EG would reconsider their vote for denial. Galen Aasland suggested having a straw vote, but not to ask for the tent to be used until the year 2002. He thought there could be some flexibility for 1 more year. He stated that VA has had plenty of opportunity to find additional space and that the tent was not safe for children in for the long term, Ann Bishop agreed to consider its usage for 4 year, but not for 5 years. Tom Weber agreed with his fellow Commissioners, but encouraged VA to find a permanent place. He thought:the tent too close to the creek with the steep drop-off'. Brian Doyon disagreed, since the tent was an eyesore for the residents there, with no benefit for the Town or surrounding community. Ann Bishop ,moved to reconsider the application. ` Brian Doyon seconded the motion. ` The motion passed by a vote of 3 -2, with John Schofield and Brian Doyon opposed. 6. A request for a minor subdivision to amend a building; envelope, to allow for the installation of a gazebo, located at 1315 Spraddle Greer Road/Lot 12, Spraddle Greek Estates: Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Applicant: Dayco Holding Corporation, represented by David Argo of No Name Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Nlauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant had no comments. He then asked if there was any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland reiterated that the P1C was not approving any glass or glazing in the future and that the building must remain open. Ann Bishop had no comments. John Schofield asked about the landscaping and how the sewer would exit the lot; David Argo stated the sewer would back into the utility easement, tying into Lot 1.2. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval. Ann Bishop seconded the motion: The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0. 7. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #22, Grand Traverse, and a request for a major subdivision for Lots 5, 6, 7; 8, 9 and 10, Oauphinais-Moseley Subdivision Filing #1. Applicant: Patrick Dauphinais Planner:- George Ruther George. Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Pat. Dauphinais gave the history that this was put in place in 1990 and granted 500 sq. ft. for the employee housing units. He said 500 sq. ft. was too tight for the EHU s and so they were asking. for 800 sq. ft. units. He said the debate was whether we were entitled to any square footage for an EHU. He said he wrote the verbage that brought a garage into the scheme of things. He stated the primary owner was shorted and the secondary garage was very tight, He said by getting a larger house, he didn't want to walk away from any of the square footages. He stated, in the process of doing an SDD, their ordinance was more restrictive that what the Town required. He said the square footage of the lot determined the number of lights allowed:' He said the total of 17 lights caused a problem., He said two soffit lights should be above the doors, but they are only allowed one. He said that the covered deck lights would have no effect on the surrounding areas. He said there would be no lights between the houses and the only time there would be a light on the backside of the garage was when there was an EHU which needed ,a light for the the EHU walkway, He mentioned that they had an allowance for an additional 4 lights, when putting in an EHU: Planning and Environmental Commission" Minutes June .8, 1998 George. Ruther clarified the role of the PEC stating that this would be a recommendation to the Town Council. Pat Dauphinais said he was allocated 9- driveway cuts and would like to preserve the mature landscaping; by requesting one more driveway out. He said that all the driveways were heated, George Ruther stated that Public Works or staff has not had an opportunity to review the curbcuts John Schofield said the driveway was not on the application, but the PEC could discuss it Pat Dauphinais asked if we could add the driveway to the application at this time. George Ruther said it could be passed onto Council for a recommendation. John Schofield asked for any public comments. There were none. Galen Aasland said he agreed with Pat's comments that the Lighting Ordinance needing updating, but that the PEC was not here to debate the Towns Lighting Ordinance. He said this needed to be treated with consistency, regarding the street cut. He stated these were not 60' spruce trees and could be replaced. He said he had no trouble with the square footage trade -off and was fine with the replat. He said the garage credit needed to be treated with consistency throughout Town. He said by giving a 1200 sq. ft credit; the ordinance should be adhered to. He said he was in favor of a larger EHU: Ann Bishop stated she was in accordance with the staff recommendations Tom Weber agreed with Galen, but agreed with adding lights for egress for another dwelling unit. He said he was struggling with this. Brian Doyon agreed with the staff recommendation, regarding the lighting and the garage. Pat Dauphinais said he was Trot asking for any additional site coverage. Brian Doyon asked about adding lighting for an EHU. George Ruther said staff chose 1.5 lights because of the cluster nature of the development'. Brian Doyon said the aspens that were there were not of subsequent worth and so it was not necessary to reroute the driveway. John Schofield agreed with the increase in EHU from 500 sq. ft. to 8 00 sq. ft. He then asked Pat if he was having good Back selling the units with the deed restriction in perpetuity. Pat Dauphinais said that all the units were appropriately rented and that he did receive some resistance from the buyers, but that resistance was in the minority. He said that once he explained to the buyers that the Town didn't operate with ghosts, and that workers were needed in Town, he was able to sway the buyers in favor of the deed restriction He said this was accomplished by education and not enforcement, as enforcement meant nothing. John Schofield thought replatting the lots was going in the right direction. He said the number of Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 8,1998 8 • lights in the code was short - sighted. He stated that there was a conflict between the Lighting Code and the Building Code, which required a separate light for each entry. He thought because of this, the PEC could grant some variance in the Lighting Code. He said the reallocation of GRFA was fine. Galen Aasland asked staff if an EHU were to be built on less than 15,000 sq. ft., would the applicant get a 300sq, ft. or 600 sq, ft, garage credit? George Ruther said 600 sq, ft. Pat Dauphinais said, regarding the lights; that every lot in Town was allowed one =light per 1,000; but none of those lights had specs pertaining to spotlights. He added that all his lights were downlights or washing walls. He said he imposed this on himself and stated he was not lighting like everyone else and because of this, could the PEC pass on to the Town Council their support ' in favor of more lighting, since his lighting was indirect. Major Subdivision Galen Aasland made a motion for approval for a recommendation to -Town Council, in accordance with the staff memo, including the finding on page 9 of the staff memo. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0. SID #22 Major Amendment Galen Aasland made a ,motion for approval for a recommendation to Town Council with the following 2 conditions: 1) That the maximum garage credit for each of the primary units constructed in the development not exceed six hundred (600) square feet, unless and EHU is constructed on the lot, in which case, an additional 600 sq. ft. garage credit be allowed, and 2) That the maximum number of outdoor lights permitted on each of the lots in the development not exceed 15 lights total. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0. John Schofield asked the PEC if they wanted a motion on the driveway curbcuts: There was no recommendation on the curbcuts. 8. A request for a front setback variance, to allow for a proposed residential addition, located at 706 Forest Road /Lot 0, Block 1, Mail Village 6th. Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner Architects Planner: Christie Barton Planning and Environmental Commission 1vlinutes June 8,1998 9 Tom Weber recused himself from this item. Ann Bishop said she had practiced law with Mr: Chapman and Mr. $perberg, but felt she could be fair and impartial in this matter. Christie Barton gave an overview of the staff memo Dale Smith,; representing the applicant; said that the applicant had taken the proposed dormer out of the front setback. Bruce Chapman, representing the Hermans who were the other owners of the duplex, said his clients didn't agree with the style and massing of the proposal and said that the applicant would need to show a hardship. He said the previous old plan did not require a variance and that it was not a real hardship to build in the back. He said that Chapter 17 of the code required that all the owners of the property sign the application for a variance and that the deck property was jointly owned by both owners. He said his client had,not given consent for this variance and advised the PEC that they were building out into the common area, John Schofield stated that the PEC was not a party to the declaration, nor could the PEC enforce it. Tom Moorhead said owners must sign applications. He said he had an opportunity to look at the plat and party wall agreement. He said Section A of the code stated that names and addresses were required, but it did not go into interpreting party mall agreements. He said requests are brought forward to the PEC and if the owners had differences with one another, that would be in another forum. Rob Sperberg, the attorney representing Nancy Adam, responded to Mr. Chapman. He said that light, air, privacy and open space were goals that this addition optimized,, since the Herman's lived on the west side and the additions were on the east side. He further stated if the addition was in the back, light and privacy would be lost. He said the objection from the immediate neighbor to the east has been withdrawn, because landscaping will be between the areas. He said that the one party that would be most affected has withdrawn all complaints and that staff did a commendable job in coming up with the right recommendation. Jim Ware, attorney for the Austrians on Lot 8, said they withdrew their objection, but that -they didn't want to see site disturbances. He said the Austrians didn't have a problem with the addition to the north. Brian Doyon said the roof was over the height from the last meeting, but that it,had been corrected on this cleaned -up application: Galen Aaslnd said the applicant had appropriate grounds for a variance and also that the applicant had taken out the dormer from the front. He said this was completely different from the Orrison request, as the bulk and mass were contained on the site: Ann Bishop agreed with Galen and said she would vote in favor of approval. 13. Information Update Tom Moorhead clarified the motion to reconsider pertaining to item #5 and to notify the applicant of the mistake. Ann Bishop moved to table item #5 until the next meeting and to advise the applicant. Galen Aasland seconded the motion: The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0. Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the Ordinance and apologized for It not making the agenda and said that it would only pertain to multiple - family. Galen Aasland asked about the 1997 date on page 2, third paragraph from the bottom of the memo: Dominic Mauriello said that was the interior conversion date. Galen Aasland said a 250 should be easy for the applicant and they should not have to come before the Planning Commission. Dominic Mauriello said staff was looking at ways to intent EHUs and what staff was focusing on here was what Council directed us to do, Ann Bishop asked to review this at another time. Tom Weber had no comments. Brian Doyon had no comments. John Schofield said he liked the intent, °but he was concerned about this conflicting with the UBG ; He said that anything over 150 sq. ft. Would require a building permit and that the language :thatt addressed bringing things into compliance needed to be reworded. He pointed out on page 2, in the middle of the page, the verbage that referred to "other dwelling units on the lot,,' that he didn't see where you could require someone to do something theydidn't own. He said the intent was to encourage people to do things on their own and to exempt the over 500 roadblock to encourage neighbors too. 14. Approval of,May 18, 1998 minutes; Tom Weber made a motion to table the May 15,'1998 minutes to the next meeting. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 -0. Galen Aasland made a motion to adjourn, Brian Doyon seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes June 8,1998 12