Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1998-1026 PEC
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE )TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of I will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Nn of Vail on October 26, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In isideration of: A request for a Major SDD Amendment and Conditional Use Permit, to allow for a `°, ansportation business" within SDD #4, located at 1285 S. Frontage Road/Cascade Village. Applicant: Thrifty Car Rental, represented by Rudy & Associates Planner: George Ruther A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Rockledge Road/ Lots 2, 4, 7, 8A, 9A, and 15, Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lots 3A and 3B, Resubdivision of Lot 3 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 10A, Resubdivision of Lot 10 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 13B Resubdivision of Lot 13 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; and Government Lot 3, all in Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United 10 States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Ptarmingan Road/ Lots 1 through 6, Block 5, Vail Village Seventh Filing, and government Lot 3; all in Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a front and side setback variance, to allow for a residential addition to an existing 'rgle-family residence, located at 1755 West Gore Creek Drive / Lot 6, Vail Village West #2. Applicant: Daniel and Karen Forey, represented by the Keating Partnership Planner: Jeff Hunt A request for a front setback variance, to allow for the reconstruction of a garage within the front setback, located at 756 Forest Road / Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Emmet and Toni Stephenson, represented by Kevin Ebert A request for a site coverane variance from Section 12-21-14E of the Zoninq Regulations and a tront setbacK variance, to aiiuvv rur r,?? istruction ur a new single-fat i ziiy resioenoe with a I ype 11 EHU, located at 756 Potato Patch / Lot 4, Block 2, Potato Patch. Applicant: Wolfgang Berndt, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Allison Ochs Ih*VAIL A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, VailVillage Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther A request for review and comments of the proposed Lionshead Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lionshead Master Plan Team 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 October 9, 1998 in the Vail Trail. Updated 8/26 1lam PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, October 26, 1998 AGENDA Proiect Orientation ! LUNCH - Communitv Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Thrifty - 1295 S. Frontage Road 2, Forey - 1755 West Gore Creek Drive 3. Berndt - 756 Potato Patch Driver: George 12:00 p.m. 1:00 P.M. NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Nearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. A request for a worksession to review and provide comments on the proposed Lionshead Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lionshead Master Plan Team 2. A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Rockledge Road/ Lots 2, 4, 7, 8A, 9A, and 15, Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lots 3A and 3B, Resubdivision of Lot 3 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 10A, Resubdivision of Lot 10 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 13B Resubdivision of Lot 13 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; and Government Lot 3, all in Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Ptarmingan Road/ Lots 1 through 6, Block a, Vail Village Seventh Filing, and Government Lot 3; all in Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello MEMBERS ABSENT TOWNOFYAIL'{ Updated 8/26 1 lam 4. A request for a front and side setback variance, to allow for an addition to an existing single-family residence, located at 1755 West Gore Creek Drive / Lot 6, Vail Village West #2. 0 Applicant: Daniel and Karen Forey, represented by the Keating Partnership Planner: Jeff Hunt 5. A request for a site coverage variance from Section 12-21-14E of the Zoning Regulations and a front setback variance, to allow for the construction of a new single-family residence with a Type 11 EHU, located at 756 Potato Patch / Lot 4, Block 2, Potato Patch. Applicant: Wolfgang Berndt, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, VailVillage Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 Bast Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther 7. A request for a Major SDD Amendment and Conditional Use Permit, to allow for a "transportation business" within SDD #4, located at 1295 S. Frontage Road/Cascade Village. Applicant: Thrifty Car Rental, represented by Rudy & Associates Planner: George Ruther 8. A request for a front setback variance, to allow for the reconstruction of a garage within the front setback, located at 756 Forest Road / Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 61h Filing. Applicant: Emmet and Toni Stephenson, represented by Kevin Ebert Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 9. Information Update 10. Approval of October 12, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published October 23, 1998 in the Vail Trail. 2 ppppppr, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, October 26, 1998 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation / LUNCH - Communitv Develooment Deoartment MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Ann Bishop Brian Doyon Tom Weber Site Visits 1. Thrifty -- 1295 S. Frontage Road 2. Forey - 1755 West Gore Creek Drive 3. Berndt - 756 Potato Patch Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing{ - Town Council Chambers 12:00 p.m. 1:00 P.M. 2:00 p.m. A request for a worksession to review and provide comments on the proposed' Lionshead Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. Lionshead Master Plan Team WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 2. A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Rockledge Road/ Lots 2, 4, 7, 8A, 9A, and 15, Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lots 3A and 3B, Resubdivision of Lot 3 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 10A, Resubdivision of Lot 10 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 136 Resubdivision of Lot 13 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; and Government Lot 3, all in Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Maunello 41 MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED rOf94V (left at 5:00p.m.) (left at 3:55 p.m.) 3: A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Ptarmingan Road/ Lots 1 through 6, Block 5, Vail Village Seventh Filing, and Government Lot 3; all in Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Galen Aasiand SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED 4. A request for a front and side setback variance, to allow for an addition to an existing single-family residence, located at 1755 West Gore Greek Drive / Lot 6, Vail Village West #2. Applicant: Daniel and Karen Forey, represented by the Keating Partnership Planner: Jeff Hunt MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED 5. A request for a site coverage variance from Section 12-21-14E of the Zoning Regulations and a front setback variance, to allow for the construction of a new single-family residence with a Type 11 EHU, located at 756 Potato Patch / Lot 4, Block 2, Potato Patch. Applicant: Wolfgang Berndt, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0 TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 9, 1998 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, VailVillage 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 MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 23, 1998 7. A request for a Major SDD Amendment and Conditional Use Permit, to allow for a "transportation business" within SDD #4, located at 1295 S. Frontage Road/Cascade Village. Applicant: Thrifty Car Rental, represented by Rudy & Associates Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0 ?. RECOMMEND APPROVAL - MAJOR SDD AMENDMENT MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 9, 1998 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2 pppp- PPP 8. A request for a front setback variance, to allow for the reconstruction of a garage within the front setback, located at 756 Forest Road 1 Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Emmet and Toni Stephenson, represented by Kevin Ebert Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 9. Information Update 10. Approval of October 12, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1998 SUBJECT: A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Rockledge Road/ Lots 2, 4, 7, 8A, 9A, and 15, Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lots 3A and 3B, Resubdivision of Lot 3 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 10A, Resubdivision of Lot 10 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 13B Resubdivision of Lot 13 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; and Government Lot 3, all in Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. And A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Ptarmingan Road/ Lots 1 through 6, Block 5, Vail Village Seventh Filing, and Government Lot 3; all in Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Maurielio 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The zoning request has been slightly revised since your recommendation of approval on July 7, 1998. Additionally, this proposal includes a request for a major resubdivision of lots on Ptarmigan and Rockledge Roads. The changes in the rezoning are a result of fine tuning of the proposed plats. The Town of Vail is applying for zoning on property which was previously unzoned. This property was obtained by the Town of Vail under the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA) with the United States Forest Service. A portion of the land is proposed to be zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. The Town is working with adjacent property owners who may purchase this land from the Town. The remaining area will be zoned Natural Area Preservation District which does not allow for development. YOF o- Iiti_'? n Ii. BACKGROUND This proposed resubdivision and zoning change is a one of the final steps in a Land Exchange with the US Forest Service and the Town of Vail. The basic purpose of the exchange is to remove Forest System lands from within the Town boundary and to acquire Forest System Lands that have public or private improvements. One of the critical reasons why the Forest Service was interested in the Exchange was to address private and public encroachments on US Forest Service Lands. Lands owned by the Forest Service on Rockledge Road and Ptarmigan Road were the major issues of concern regarding encroachments. In the early 90's, the Vail Town Council directed staff to begin working with the Forest Service to address encroachments on Forest System lands and to identify ways to discourage private exchanges around the Town of Vail On Rockledge Road residents requested that the Town initiate an exchange to address encroachments on Forest System lands. Residents on Ptarmigan were very interested in protecting a 4.25 acre parcel on the South Side of Ptarmigan Rd. In 1994, the community completed the Vail Comprehensive Open Space Plan which identified properties that should be considered for a land exchange. In June, 1995 the Town of Vail and the U.S. Forest Service signed an agreement to initiate a land exchange. The original proposal for the land exchange involved 4 parcels of TOV land totaling 77 acres and 11 parcels of USFS lands totaling 110 acres. The exchange removes Forest Service lands from within the Town of Vail and involves a number of de-annexation actions to remove areas the Town of Vail would not acquire. In December of 1997, the Town and Forest Service exchanged titles to the involved parcels of land and now owns the lands identified in exhibits attached located on Rockledge and Ptarmigan Rd. Throughout the land exchange the Town has worked with property owners on Ptarmigan and Rockledge to develop a means for residents to acquire the land where they have physical improvements on Forest Service lands. This subdivision is now occurring simultaneously with the zoning application. Lands conveyed to private property owners will be deed restricted so that development can not occur on any land the Town acquired from the Forest Service and is noted on the plat as well. However, the Town believes that the zoning on the property that will be conveyed to adjacent property owners needs to have the same zoning to take advantage of additional GRFA and site coverage. This will involve zoning that land which will be conveyed to adjacent property owners to the Primary/Secondary District.. Tract A on both plats and the parcel on the south side of Ptarmigan Road will, however, be zoned to Natural Area Preservation District since the intention with these parcels has always been to be maintained as open space. Ill. CRITERIA The PEC shall make the following findings before granting approval of a zone change request: 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? The purpose of this major subdivision and rezoning is to address private encroachments on what is now Town of Vail property. The rezoning will be consistent with the zoning directly adjacent to the exchange properties on Rockledge Road and Ptarmigan Road. 2) Is the amendment preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses 2 0 consistent with municipal objectives. The amendment will facilitate legal access to both Rockledge and Ptarmigan roads. Completing this exchange and conveying the encroached upon lands to the adjacent property owners fulfills long stated objectives identified in the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement, the Land Use Plan, and the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. 3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? Addressing long standing private encroachments on public property helps to support a viable orderly community by not having private residential structures exist without legal access and clouded titles. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? Section 1.9 of the Land Use Plan on page 7 states that ANational Forest land which is exchanged soled or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain as open space and not be zoned for private development.@ This reference refers to private exchanges. The exchange with the Forest Service with the Town was a public exchange to protect open space that may have been disposed off by the USFS. The 4.25 acres of open space acquired from the Forest Service on the south side of Ptarmigan Road will be protected by deed restrictions and zoning. The land conveyed to individual home owners will also be deed restricted and will not allow development on lands acquired from the Forest Service. This zoning request will facilitate the resolution of long standing encroachments of private roads, structures, landscaping on public property. On page 10 of the Land Use Plan, the Plan acknowledges that the Town and the USFS need to work together to address lands that were identified for possible disposal. Lands on Ptarmigan Road and Rockledge Road were designated as such because of the private and public encroachments on these properties. This subdivision and rezoning will help facilitate the resolution of these encroachments. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this major subdivision and zoning requests subject to the following finding: That the proposed zone districts are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, are consistent with the Town=s Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and are appropriate for the area and that the major subdivision is consistent with the criteria and standards of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\,iMEMOS\98\TOVRE026.DOC 3 F? ` C Zovo%ina mctlo Vii' EDGE SUBDIVISION e YVN tint 1 n urf xavittgtl'? 11000' Lai- . _.. .. [9iMLL1Q .+. .... ._.. ... ?.__...._._miva'1 IF lYWy -W Ip/a q. C. sow's I'rIt Iq. It. 0.y[) +p, }t. IWli Co. fC. CUt { IAA vr"m mm rw [Jt a IAA v"m ILNCtlill lAIM YOIIII[IM Ctlf I SCTIL flnfU fI. ft. p.02 Amen} WFltlC NCKX I"Vb' m ISO u! Yw'14?1 ba?wsA ?2 i?. M ?? n Gr."n 1 0.d M+• ! v! i M>{? 0. Yo<rrq d Wilt Arv r 1.4 mm [iA .Y A1tA1UU9 0R o rotor Iwn wwvw r wm ' Yti4nnv"5'4[41$7fSt?nnr ffAM@ t Mx6&&1 lit?`1fPi (W YAM MT r mn ?rw nr• if 10 x rWM: s "' VA1LItI. tYllLl f.AWY& s` ir6a'al;YMl7Ly17ELJFW mact,c?rm w.- U?si?rtL} mn«MVf MW-[ pv"m bAA?;ACnlnrr; iomire an 00 !5 1/2 IOAD - / 5-216 Brand Jjmtlm CO 61560 _OM)_F49-eW, nVSS'alfiAiyvY??o,cc.? ? sao ?1.n..t 2 q_Y_? ? IIYIM.iIp? Wt's %W-v a 0 Mew' wwv IMAM= W" L-01* r? w . r to m a4u r.:is r? u. erar{te? ?a"r2?Gmr?iteR?a°giLx uw town a rwx.5rs mm 5rt. Mitt- M;1PmG1yw? tlF a twin e.n?t. Iw®rt q wam • ?Yr a'?n:t e'a"aar r? arn? U= ".. *book 11.111mun 01111 tAws ff wmpT WWI ?Ad im MLIOUW 1AU.1 FAMM AWA L" UK wato'°° - WI }*.. y 7 TA r ?>Ii;t RMT lII3M ratK let" u. ft. N.eo AAA "ow a ttlv q' m. r tY6[VyS?G ?Y?rtYk` Y Y?aM NYpW.YM1Yi Y yM .vt 07?. `* rteYC?Na??yf.IgC yU??.,Vy?fY 11MWHr6YL?ta I2tl{?6'f[p{? at Fn4?ryw?tY.n11 r Mw:+aW k+e?wW+Y ur. Mv?n?W?uil? M! t. ? ? ltt Y H tIFY ii bYtl YytlS at Yt` IYtA 2YW of toret?'R taG M +hW Y sY}c4 Y 4 uYk?lanl wrwit Wye Y M'q 3M1nGW Mart raa H NI}: s rtrhyq/.llatl r.YWe+M W u+W b in WKSy 4v? vla?a. a anew ?r'y wpi. a .gyn.., n,.?ti ww? >r H mom. t2 r.+t vuw n t Y YC WnW :b t?u,l?vnt ? i.:l r f?? p«tva a.a.r H urn a M.v??yemr.u? »+ wm v. a a..+.a{t ipq«Waye?r p??. v...,. Y w.tae. 1/YSWHSrt?igt 1lYLkrt+?? Tv N Y?l M. `f!rt? WIQ. Mt ai 0 { 44 YINn PUT or i 19I7MMSION TOl - OF_YAZ I. I[S.V {T1iiR• l?bi ws-` b LLyl MG1ptN! e1M I W? m i/t RM - 0 6-210 4rwV JLmtlon CD 61D06_cmj_L4376W- 9 0 0 - f t _. " Fff"L PUT ®F IK? ttii W?gt( Wiper ?g{,??wsy v?gv?y ?uv W wig m m ?t:av4ntl W d a 9Y T.M « Ltl]. 9W WI.MY WMlv4 MWw?Y+ ?PIWIF?}A Uf .U tlW Waww fiY _„_ as K IA tlY P.a? fan K Pbx a M1n• M?YP ¢WP.OR (` fw. oa+dYR PMnP.R ...ac.WRK da. a fa. nw « u® AR. W . r RR' K f.'On « Y.M1x ww? » 1Yn P4pR, K lek t PPxan R iMMW f JWt (rP M IMn. Pfurf a Mtl YrY fak .per. IMF fP u?dwar noP,M emaeas Pnm _____ aP K Jn. ffi C fro+ ,IPY1 L. Mlal PfY Prolla f. Man fi .nn w., Y..ie % .rgllfiilw, gfAm d fd. x9Mr P YM NvP? fMl(1aeKw new3.W PPWP d RnK uM An. W .wJ L?R?i nJ M+3w R Paul, nxKf h M affix aia Tw?r nnarP mm? Ftf,f. usa.a a i.n w wx ?x ego ., a na>,.a, aPSw FmW bSP ..?.__ Pu! K fn. fYb fans Pq atl aAM M ? !fY Pa M evwA PTARP )s. mPm dd 4 x? yp y?IIIW 11R asw Nbi KNlP 6f ti 4iri-????-N RU[4 OW 6W1fW ?? -AM ft-- A& Rnuf fsA ..`. Pd M YM Ofic RERLY K NYFVk Pf MyW R NPWnP RLntdro. fyb?ll?ly* w yq?pyyyy pypy .P ? y??. ? yp M pPAMI?>;pi! ri lYIMfil v!!-0C Y bitla6 f??PY1T?ly O MF6r .sY i iIa i N] tn. PRIw W ms.aAm aPPrY ffA"IGAN EDGE SUBO SION A REPIAT OF L!( 1-6 EIS 5 OF VAIL VMUhAGE SEVENTH FHJNQ A RE MAT OF ]fAl M OF VAEL MLI AGE TENTH FnJNGj SrMAt* r IN SRUnON9 8 & 9, "TOWNakmW 5 SOUM RANGE 80 WWr, 6th P.ML, TtYk+rt+t OF PAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, COLORADO 1l+woiY fAY w? b of Jn. x® O.w M of HRY Mx fSifYd ?u. dlrn fa ? x.111 ?df?` a ±i Pi pL a La i .?'ik ?1"u?i or iiC"6'iLs C'F:Sa r?ittJ¢xA am .F. Pn.t as w.s .dWN'{'llua W nwfata, ? Mwwl by ?,_ ti o! AA 6%If Pro WN Mw! a OnYL f. nawA a•. ? .r IW«rw. W wrwd'?dffa. r, MAmd !? mPmaYrr?y? 1 YiM hrfn 6 o.:lPnprw ?u?WaoMiwV? n! awa a 1~it f m fa tiw ua ,a t?iA i Oa, R lwti flRi? MPnM F>i:al. IIEY,Pa a tYH Rd YM ,vraf ww ro mddRn Rrfr Gdf?' i flffRlr Ylnaf?LM i W W Ilfb G! PF lM l ? 4 YW M'ilui?O? ?sb .u a svw an Wb. M:-EN?is?'GFWk fi, fY/Sn P nfltlP P M• fh PrRpvf 1,fOV«t t aYaOafK InJft a f6 PK « N AA W R Yf YPiPMY1RK1 PPnnro• fufr roM+! Kr P.Pn ,PVf nFa. 7.iw. a. f.r.m .nP+a mow iu?•vg Ypefy emit. ? nwpP ?? • ai tY: mica +.ia Wk L m i Ytlt MaK?i. FuaM• ?7 WP rxRf ati WM.- mtiRd Ia RPAf('d it ff ?P!b W Y+gvMA. Ks MwAi1W bMV M thb. b of fef to y an w «lf.wLaPP. rPSanY. Maw a s,n.Pm m.r, ?y ,yw ?w ro sn.n..M, wrr tMY fIrIYOl1d WAK Ye. ,.. w « Jn. JJr Mi ffMlft fyn. yPRO. n ? wPna b ?L :P? Y fF . . :'6, ?YiR ?«fl MbIW TdI K ftlL Mint MreMf M. . ..u lylfrYffilldle =xu . =w vr y00 m,+rYYm ?PP'aiP WM Au, MW t?iYg?.?N?._OMkaMnltl Mrlita HAf l f ro..rR: w onu....as Phi fiM elY n?yfy L? mfaRle,R ??PeWP w?1V` ? ?,A+'??4?1i !l.1PYn am dM dPreef JPrePf? fNP Pat Yr !I»Yb` rYUf Yf W HfM « fa fYf M M? Yn YtlP ,.,_,_ tly « An. RRf Pt ?.? ahab.,^ R RoW anKfinpbR, H• b MW ?. t1 FPJ! 4a2 Rd.a ? RrrWl » w,r arof.e s r.. r a r.K.,+.a aW .?.. w « . tn. w. "MMMMUMMM r.. 9'f 101 OF VAM Jn.'ft[fttPlt/A lfli/J 1f •'(1P/Pf futh fPOf fO llnt a:lf837lM Mh THOUPWisicm Ompom` eg an Ite wo - / "lo 04" tion co alto aJfwKa ms: of } °Y ?mr l.w ? a?e?uar ?+dwevaoatrmx rods at u nff aePt J a e " A .1 n d .., „? w. a IM' VIVA It ... p?y? yy yy qY N ?i?. spy y y ? W ? ? I.gVRr1Y MIW' Y N q1A YqA r ?Y6 NMV'iM ?u.w IAi SSw tl Y1t YV%?YrF%rY Y y} ?}. F; i?Ali /4`lW tN vM1ql R yq?riNW, WM?..u?.Yiwgwy?NW?gYw.r%wM 1}qY qE ? n'fWvWt i. l ?ar gOfM Yr-wgral Ylr Y YU+ a a ?! ?tt M1AMf Iwl er ri t/.%H P a rR?y^u rit ur y Y ? r ? p ? { w h err ? ? ra >rP 1%'r?vb y@ ? wYlti L, o-.n a4]sLyt ?y r? ?4 racy t r , .i l`nt?+u?i1,rN irwF t',iRRF 'MU,N i ?++N +aVW l k W ? r ,? ? ?. y ? ?y ?y ? r ? i .?Nr? r_?M?AUY?rt.?r?a?N?q??4y?r????+tl+11r ?yYgap g YY ? +t ? JM' +W ? y p ? u N ?q +llgrY lYil M WY Frr pYV+M4, ??+w Y (i°mrwr RY?rxN .+ar a.K t- Adi K w%o? Ria a' r%fngq t ? wY,%R trq ft +?i. aar r wr w aY,r n awwY+ wwww wnr w r+r? d%wa W YYq a rA rv% wwa 6r%s A W awl rW'x ¦ irr% Yra Yrl FYIS /n?11 K M.I Mr NrmgFn mart laA bi 2 w wmn%wr } awr. s rr a nr% a% N Y wq N go- Fir-- -Al %wr? r rr ra .r.%qn +uuY M b wuafrim wygrY . A Yew wK%.__ N N Aa rs Y ww.nli r sa wlr u%s 4 igrgw w%i?iitiY?aw RFn V ymwm r y.y ar Fritrq. M%W f?al?M Cil?W%:iR irW. r M is a% qur'x YCS?Vi?'. rgwA wr rm d rwt .nws .wwo ??r W m.a.ra rn%.r M o®n tqr .__NIA AAM q.ri aw a: w%.M d.+b rrA K 41wa% W-V ;r ?yM ry,%Y6q LrHY.q rr rarYaA MNr r YYt TafYw lG??wi??. M,Y MwNY Flag rwN a a ?%x ti KID. J4 rra isullr nF Ylgwr y rY wrawY w.rt YwY bawrtl%awwaWr N FR frI Y Y q ruYG M ,.,?. q lnlr r w RAgFM I? IRNn O ?yMq? ?MrYY lwNOrR rs wawlra%IIrO YM r dls N A e<d FA dra F d airr rrr .Yqp. ews"'6'I?rrYl N uTY'9Gw'S.wiYr N tN % Wb?arganr wr%%wr,. Tl?lr '. Y MI YKIg11g1 YYgrY e t r 11/t drgM MrY _._.+b M Ea. I Owr >w ".h L iwr ft~ I"- dal M RA8 M ? r. mxn a• ?sY?r1°?' A`?Y?'?°'a"iuai 57wuY inMM ?1?Nr+%'F a s wY. r-taFa rvr w1 rw wrq wrr arq nwr wr MgrrrMn. rps? ? ais%%a rgF.s. N k AR rd wdwww d? d d4 aM ".IA. IL Now 14 rra r. rnr K awry F. rA RAd V ?r. N YrtyY.gew. %yyw I ry N6 dAiRM fUfry 'Y iiVK'awwiY In FtN '$l um.M1ME YarrngYw%+u rr.%nw+r 7itl%r k. W wYriwW rWwF rML i'ildi VY RMt 09 FORFi3T 13W?/?ryMp ION O a J c ala ann°CO 015 ?1 OM) ads-00 O )Ww %Y 6 I0r Ez MT I.AA !Y':pffi"Op[ ft% 0 VdF1UAC%v !. RS iA m •awt A M a 9 - i 0 0 ANAL PUT OF ROC DGE FOREST SUBDIVISION Wxw a.a a a.?.. r w.rP a wepw. w w ..D ....Dr ..DY 6 Hxr^ rrm v rx pWmm 1 w wa""["'""~.a re? 7? «.cn wr .:+y?i'.7°rx•>a"?.w awvvs7?r-r&A. W bma.fe..ciruc wM1?mffi ±s Wl p"rim vDrWirt °`P+ `1W.hAamw?wa ra m6Le mr ru. w. w a`w'o+ x rra n.. OWt1Q ?x 9Mr pY(x1Yr 'kwtnDVt< r bn?u4?. p+ix. 4 W. eq .t .i. AD. x A` pD .YYx.:1mW P.NI.F ppnw. W IxM AH aitlF rYrv+'.Nx Air W bwebx+rWs Waft• mma"m w. A.'+s APP Dc. Y(A60' ?x. UYItt x Ti TtW.ll Av4vsc r rv+Y.W?. Pnas wr fiJ............ W .e li Ab. F MLaI, .. ..N}Yx. W1uAx i pM ?D .xp , +? FlP?x W bx.ox? spiv 9WfkA (!?!'y w SamiI= Wmm kR W 'Yt} ti?it? N IW Yfut o+Mb N MAM m1b mt wdLw Wr NM. pP ? IY .tx I..Mxn q.TYw1 NvM Yf#K d f - wa. v f T+Mpbrl 1A4?k r .i1d11? bM1Y s NY pi Af . f W bL. Tp vr..mrexxi ?+s?D._ xpxaW?Pw? ? W mw? a~x.. msY p? p. .n Wv .rwr v s a a u.u wad ?wx am. #• @m?e, ? p??,`yy k.WM m'no?i ip?` Yi WM?A Hipyw?. ? L?WpN.!' ?? ?PewLx b!A I/Y?i ,. , ?1, wxw f? 1Y41M N? K wM1 lWl?p. 1YY.v Y.11 A. 11?Itrun .DM m •.h l.s x fr .x c.r .r .u ws w ?avrxwa axle x Na.r pWl pM ?? #u N Al fllp. +awr vm cmam brllpCla lidYM xP'W by .T?? T? M' ptY W Fp„? q? r? 4p'`I 1M T . 4M tI?YC.?f? Y fYf MtRb? ?r .. D m 4x #TTFpi: N YYA OOeevfl IM M Wll pelmeNO. 'pd.l 6?3 pyC >ry. ?pYni pv ? Tu1i bi qHl PIMfIMW W iubxmlal CWUMm tlW ATfpap 'bMlf f! pi14 bkrwY ?wl?"M3 P1riiiW tq ?, ,. ,. ,,. SCMwYMIm ?mww or too ma L !t# uxs'A1D'xi tlp p.Np/ aRkip/ b? a W trl xi?nrs m•mgo 'm - py1pM ? •fi 'or1Ax#'x• w W. vunf r?. eD,?a ne e.me a tlr °???° ? anw. ?«: am ea N WP+?Y R WT. A DSpwr ,I.wr z #.t h" 0..! k8 . 1r. pt"r&rlll- MUL PLAT Of RODGE P.tT SUBMUa1oli l TM _4F_.X?1iL n w.tj lRrmwt em r=?M,?* M??W4g? •}T ?"-- a t?pt?n'rP? COWORM tudul-Ation Co NO= lim, 243-OW a %mviiM ,to ow. xt 14 on kmat a of 3 PJrAra ' ROCKI"GE FOREST SUBDIVISION - YY bu* li 1 WN`M R[OtP['Y 'f ie[YYWii914rf LOfNMa?QY yy ` # ?y lYQj [t r 1 LWlid ca+ra[3 = LD7 rift wa 4f e buurmw ) R ? Jwr41vl* 1 r.L. NIbYW'i???• C?d?b { !A t'ffw.y??r,.?,? 6LIQ' '• Yj+?' + .K' a.ekWar.u r vut ?-[ IAt v WW%= cruc ?•wo arsnp 0 ?y.A.p?? iQ btlYailt?Y??? ?n 7Lrr Y RtlbR [Lfl. K41WfWM1YJb WP Q Y4110 tbMM I[i.f/i M IOiM 9 MI I".0 ; t 1 ?r'°r t { ??"wow .} I...?r+d»w 1 ' rasa 1 4`yy _ xdrAt A 1liQ'4 l/?'s a t .?'' tMM1N4 S .'t . 5 f $ dfy,yi??n` ?'?$ at. [T j,. f:Ti , =' -- i {? Jcalry i ----------- >t - . w ears J? SY![[ ?L.VLLVStHef tlr 74! mummw fT to" I ? LHN/CMM UM u T PAYM oft LM M VKEMMWM? u.. a u. Ell Is ma mama ii s? v; 7 P1'llrtA? rz } rum TM , i/ • A044 tl NiO1 ?y i K w is ? d W1? to rrA?cv w..?: dun L .ribl itlohE to tMNln H'4iL _.. ,..-.-. r.u. ti itlren r owaLrl 4 [.+n oY iti? FYLfIQ ififaSt r".WM. ITM f].tMl Vl 1ft0u&XJM" FORM BL?,??IVIHION TM OF YAL ?iN[ uupM i11111Ma?><.ri iYf W Wl b". 4T uka iC A ?TIIt K1N .. [ 1 i'(IMA[ .eM R1M C Ivt KAIDI?I! 6R1-. ?p !tl 1!! FIOAO - f/ 5-ti0 OP?[1A> Jlnetian CO mime mm JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. DIANE HERMAN MAURIELLO SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH WESTSTAR SANK BUILDING 1038 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 300 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 22 October 1998 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 Re: Rockledge ResubdivisionlRezoning Proposal Ladies and Gentlemen: TELEPHONE: (970) 476-0300 tAC51MILE' (970) 476-4765 KAREN M. DUNN CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANT You have scheduled for public hearing on the 26th of October, 1998, a proposed resubdivision and rezoning of an area of Vail adjacent to the upper portion of Rockledge Road. Our Firm represents the owners of the lots currently identified as Lots 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 7, 8A and 9A, Block 3, Vail Village, First Filing, who have been involved in the evolution of the proposal which is coming before your Commission. I shall be out of the state on the 26th of October and unable to attend your hearing, but I believe that this letter will serve the purpose of providing you with notice of several concerns which we understand our clients share. The most recent plan for the resubdivision of this property was received by us earlier this week. Our comments to that proposal were covered by a letter to the surveyor and Russell Forest which accompanies this letter. Those comments cover the technical issues with which we are most concerned. Because of the fact that we do not have the proposal for rezoning at this time, we wish to express what we understand to be our clients' expectations regarding this process. The areas north of Rockledge Road and north of and adjacent to old Mill Creek Road east of the Rockledge cul-de-sac are to be placed in the zone district identical to that in which the current residences are located. The area identified as Tract A is to be placed in the open space and natural preservation zone district. One more general issue, not covered in my earlier letter, is the following. Our clients understand that this resubdivision and rezoning is to be conditioned upon and occur simultaneously with the closing on (a) the conveyance of what is now Town-owned property south of the current boundary of Vail Village First Filing to the participating property owners and {b} the conveyance of an L.Aw OPf'1cEs DUNN, ABPLANALP & MAURIELL©, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION N& E area identified as Tract A on the resubdivision plat to an association for the purpose of preserving its open space nature. We have been expecting but have seen no contracts for those transactions. We understand that the contracts will be terminable by the Town of Vail or any participating property owner, if one or more of the components of the program were to fail. Although we recognize that there will be at least two hearings before the Town Council on these issues, it seems appropriate to bring up this concern as early as possible. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. AAAJr xce Mr. Russell Forest 9 JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A. ASPLANALP, JR. DIANE HERMAN MAURIELLO SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH L.A.W QFFICEs DUNN, ABPLANALP & MAURIELLo, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WESTSTAR BANK BUILDING 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 300 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TELEPHONE: (970) 476-0300 FACSIMILE: (970) 476-4765 KAREN M. DUNN CERTIFIEO LEGAL ASSISTANT 22 October 1998 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 Re: Ptarmigan ResubdivisionlRezoning Proposal Ladies and Gentlemen: You have scheduled for public hearing on the 26th of October, 1998, a proposed resubdivision and rezoning of an area of Vail adjacent to and southwest of Ptarmigan Road, Our Firm represents the owners of the lot currently identified as Lot 4, Vail Village Tenth Filing, who have been involved in the evolution of the proposal which is coming before your Commission. I shall be out of the state on the 26th of October and unable to attend your hearing, but I believe that this letter will serve the purpose of providing you with notice of several concerns which we understand our clients share. The most recent plan for the resubdivision of this property was received by us earlier this week. Our comments to that proposal were covered by a letter to the surveyor and Russell Forest which accompanies this letter. Those comments cover the technical issues with which we are most concerned. Because of the fact that we do not have the proposal for rezoning at this time, we wish to express what we understand to be our clients' expectations regarding this process. The area thirty feet to the east of Lot 4, Vail Village Tenth Filing, and the other area thirty feet to the east of Vail Village Tenth Filing, are to be placed into the zone district identical to that in which the current residences in Vail Village Tenth Filing are located. The same is true of the areas north of Ptarmigan Road. The area identified as Tract A is to be placed in the open space and natural preservation zone district. One more general issue, not covered in my earlier letter, is the following. Our clients understand that this resubdivision and rezoning is to be conditioned upon and occur simultaneously with the closing on (a) the conveyance of what is now Town-owned property east of Lot 4, Vail Village Tenth Filing, to our clients, (b) the conveyance of the property south of the current boundary of Vail Village Seventh Filing but north of Ptarmigan Road to the participating property owners there, and the subjection of the remaining adjacent property to a conservation easement acceptable to the Town of Vail and the property owners. We have been expecting but have seen no contracts for those transactions. We understand that the contracts will be terminable by the Town of Vail or any participating property owner, if one or more of the components of the program were to fail. Although we recognize that there will be at least two hearings before the Town Council on these issues, it seems appropriate to bring up this concern as early as possible. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Ve Arthur A. Abplan'p, Jr. AAAJr xc: Mr. Russell Forest 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a variance to allow for an addition to encroach into the front and side setbacks, located at 1755 west Gore Creek Drive/Lot 6, Vail Village West 2nd Applicant: Daniel and Karen Forey, represented by The Keating Partnership Planner: Jeff Hunt DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to the front and side setback requirements. The proposal involves an addition to an existing single family residence. The existing lot is 11,089 sq. ft. The lot is subject to the following setback requirements: Gore Creek 50'; front 20'; sides and rear 15'. The variance would allow an addition to be constructed to the front and side of the residence. The addition is- comprised of about 258 sq. ft. of GRFA, The existing residence complies with the applicable front setbacks, but already encroaches about 9.5' into the side setback. The addition would extend the front of the residence about 1' into the front setback. The addition would align with the existing sidewall and thus would not extend further into the side setback. A copy of the plan is attached for review. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: 11,091 sq. ft. Standard Allowed/Required GRFA: 3,197 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 2,218 sq, ft. (20%) Setbacks: Front: 20' Side: 15' Proposed 2,854 sq, ft. (existing plus proposed) 923 sq. ft. (42%) (e)(sting plus proposed) 19' 9.5' Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance to allow an addition to be constructed in the front and side setbacks based on the following factors: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors: • TOWN O*M1 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The addition would be to the front and side of an existing residence. The addition, excluding eaves, would only encroach about 1' into the front setback. The front of the residence faces West Gore Creek Drive. The addition, again excluding eaves, would encroach about 8' into the side setback, however it would align with the existing wall that already encroaches about 9.5' into the side setback. The wall is not parallel to the property line, so it pulls away from the line. Thus, the proposed side encroachment would actually be less than the existing side encroachment. No concern or opposition was received from agencies and adjacent property owners. There should be no significant impacts from the addition to uses or structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The variance would allow an addition to the front of the residence, the side that is most visible. The addition would improve the overall design of the house. The proposal would not be allowed without a variance due to the setback requirements. Additions would likely be allowed to most other residences in the vicinity. The granting of this variance is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the area. The applicants are requesting a variance due to the constraints on their property. Other property owners are allowed variances if applicable criteria are met. Thus, this would not be the granting of a special privilege. The addition would improve the appearance of the residence. One of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to require design review of buildings in order to affect their appearance in the community and to protect and enhance property. The subject lot is zoned P/S. The P/S Zone has a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. A typical 15,000 sq. ft. lot in the P/S Zone would contain about 8,000 sq. ft. of buildable area. The subject lot is only 11, 089 sq. ft. and was annexed into the Town. The combined effect of the setback requirements applicable to the lot reduces the buildable portion to about 838 sq, ft. Under these regulations, it would be quite difficult to construct the addition to the residence. 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 would have virtually no effect on these issues. B. Necessarv Findinas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall 2 0 make the following findings before granting a variance: ?. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilk: le inconsistent with the limitations on other properties clas i i ? in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the variance to allow an addition to be constructed within the front and side setbacks, subject to the following findings. 1. That the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. 4. 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. FAEVERYONETEMMEMOS\98TOREY 11 v ?; i? . _? - ...tea y f y... J.+-?-\ '?• r a?a?L ta© c a r? ` A ?. ..--a•".0" 644V 04?ww oA ?F? MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: DATE: Community Development Department October 26, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a variance for site coverage to allow for construction of a new single family residence and EHU at 756 Potato Patch Drive / Lot 4, Block 2, Potato Patch Applicant: Wolfgang and Traudl Berndt, represented by Michael Lauterbach Planner: Allison Ochs Ia DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Wolfgang and Traudl Bemdt, represented by Michael Lauterbach, are proposing to construct a new single family residence and Employee Housing Unit at 756 Potato Patch Drive. Section 12.21.14 of the Municipal Code requir that a lot zoned Primary/Secondary, with an average slope greater than 30%, shall have a m a;:imum allowable site coverage of 15%. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow for 18% site coverage. At this time, they have not applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the Employee Housing Unit. According to Section 12.21.14, in areas of excessive slope=, there shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be required by the Dr . , n Review Board. If the variance is granted for 18% site coverage, the garage may still be allo?_ led in the setback, at the discretion of the Design Review Board. The applicants' representative has expressed the reasoning for the variance as follows: "This variance is sought because in excess of 1,700 square feet of gently sloping buildable site coverage which is unencumbered by the front and side setbacks is consumed by a water line and utility easement. Consequently, if that area had not been consumed by the easement, the structure could have easily been designed to allow 20% site coverage." A copy of the letter, dated September 28,1998, indicating the applicants' comments regarding the variance request, has been attached for reference. A copy of a survey completed by Eagle Valley Surveying Inc. has also been attached, calculating the area consumed by the easement. II. ZONING AND SITE STATISTICS Zoning District: Lot Size: Buildable Area: Average Slope: Primary/Secondary Residential District 23,522.4 sq. ft. (0.54 acres) 23,522.4 sq, ft. (0.54 acres) 37.9% TOWNO WAIL ' Standard GRFA: Primary Secondary* Site Coverage Driveway Setbacks Front Side Rear Allowed P/S 5,452 sq. ft. 3,186 sq. ft. 2,266 sq. ft. Proposed 5,322 sq. ft. 4,422 sq. ft. 540 sq. ft. 3,528 sq. ft. (15%) 4,256 sq. ft. (18%) 2,352 sq. ft. (10%) 1,780 sq. ft. (7.6%) 20 ft. 4.5 ft. 15 ft. 29 ft. / 2 ft. 15 ft. 21.5 ft. *EHU has not been applied for as of 10/20/98 Area Excluding Setbacks: 13,946 sq. ft. Area Consumed by Utility Easement: 1,477 sq. ft.* Total Lot Area Remaining: 12,469 sq. ft. Area Remaining with less than 30% Slope 900 sq. ft. *1,722 sq. ft. including area cut off by easement BACKGROUND Site Coveraae Variance Reauest Site coverage requirements for lots in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District are regulated by Section 12.6D.9 (SITE COVERAGE), and are further regulated by Section 12.21.14E (RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES) of the Municipal Code. According to Section 12.6D.9 of the Municipal Code, "Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area." Additionally, Section 12.21.14E indicates that if the average slope of the site is in excess of thirty percent (30%) beneath the proposed structure and parking area, "Not more than fifteen percent (15%) of the site area may be covered by buildings; and not more than ten percent (10°I%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking areas.,, The reduction in allowable site coverage on lots with an average slope in excess of thirty percent from 20% to 15% is intended to reduce the overall site disturbance and limit the destruction of natural features such as mature stands of trees and other types of vegetation. v 2 • Front Setback Front setback requirements for lots in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District are regulated by Section 12.6D.6 (SETBACKS), and are further regulated by Section 12.21.14K (RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES) of the Municipal Code. According to Section 12.6D.6, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'). When development is proposed on steeply sloping lots, the Municipal Code provides relief from the front setback standards, encouraging development closer to the street. According to Section 12.21.14K of the Municipal Code: "There shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be required by the Design Review Board. Garages located in the front setback shall be limited to one story in height (not to exceed 10 feet) with the addition of a pitched or flat roof subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board." Allowing the garage in the front setback is intended to reduce site disturbance and to ease access on steeply sloping lots. Inf. CRI I ERiA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. While few other homes in Potato Patch have excessive slopes, most have under 20% site coverage. Attached is a table of sites in the vicinity, showing lot size and site coverage. The average lot size is 28,356.96 sq. ft. The lot size of the Berndt Residence is 23,522.4 sq, ft. The average site coverage in the vicinity is 3,694.21 sq. ft. or 14%. The proposed site coverage for the Berndt Residence is 4,256 sq. ft. One other lot in the vicinity is restricted on site coverage because of excessive slopes. Because of the extreme slopes, keeping as much of the site coverage towards the front of the lot will reduce site disturbance and visibility from surrounding areas. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff does not believe that it is necessary to receive relief from the site coverage regulation to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment of 3 A the applicant's lot and the other lots in the vicinity, nor to attain the objectives of the Zoning Code. Instead, staff believes that the granting of the requested site coverage variance would be a grant of special privilege as it would result in treatment not enjoyed by other property owners in the area, and in the Primary/Secondary Zone District in general. While few other lots in the vicinity have excessive slopes, many remain under 15% site coverage. Most, if not all, lots in the Town of bail contain utility easements or similar encumbrances. 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. Staff does not believe any of the above-described criteria is applicable to this request. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's site coverage variance request subject to the following findings: That the granting of the site coverage variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 4 2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 5 Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Variance Request September 28, 1998 Subsequent to the purchase ofthits lot, the owner requested that three noteworthy items be incorporated within the initial single-family architectural plan. It was requested that an EHU be contained within the structure even though EHU square footage in excess of 250 square feet would be deducted fioni the allowable site GR:FA, the garages including one for the EHU would be faced away from Potato Patch Drive which would limit driveway frontage to fifteen feet on the busy switchback, and that the residence be massed at a distance from Potato Patch Drive and limited to two consecutive levels even though the site coverage might then be limited to fifteen percent rather than twenty percent. Consequently, the owner of the above referenced lot is requesting a variance from a portion of the Hazard Ordinance (section 12-21-14) which reduces building site coverage from 201/o to 15% on two-family primary/secondary lots in which "the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent". The difference between 20 and 15 percent site coverage on this lot represents approximately 1,200 square feet. This variance is sought because in excess of 1,700 square feet of gently sloped buildable site coverage which is unencumbered by the front and side setbacks is consumed by a water line and utility easement. Consequently, if that area had not been consumed by the easement, the structure could easily have been designed to allow 20 percent site coverage. The owner is appealing to your sense of fairness in granting a variance which will allow 20 percent site coverage. A variance would guarantee the retention of the EHU, garages facing away from Potato Patch Drive, and a two story building profile. FROM Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. FAX NO. : 970 845 9504 Oct. 20 1998 03: a3PM P2 0 October 1, 1998 Mike Lauterbach RE; Lot 4, Block 2, Vail 1 Potato Patch Mike, Per your request we have calculated the square feet of some specified areas of the above Lot 4, The results are as follows: A - Area of 20' wide utility easement excepting out 20' front setback and 15' side setback. 1477 sq ft - Area of unusable triangle piece northwest of said easement and southeast of setbacks, excepting out 20' front setback and 15' wide side setback. 245 sq ft C - Area of land less than 30% slope not fatting within any setbacks.or the above mentioned unusable area or easement. apx 900 sq ft Please call if you have any questions, Sincerely, Stan Ho eldt, P.L.S. r Eagte Valley Surveying inc. 40 0 40 80 120 Feet OrNTAYn C,A'T/' J noftir TRACT C Address Legal Lot Size 784 Potato Patch Dr B1, L15 34,630.00 786 Potato Patch Dr B1, L14 30,492.00 1 782 Potato Patch Dr B1, L16 52,446.24 1 780 Potato Patch Dr B1, L17 35,734.00 778 Potato Patch Dr B1, L18 20,821.00 775 Potato Patch Dr 1131, L19 21,532.00 777 Potato Patch Dr 1131, L20 20,710.00 781 Potato Patch Dr 1 B1, L21 18,543.50 1 785 Potato Patch Dr IB1, L22 18,251.60 1 789 Potato Patch Dr 1131, L23 18,543.00 1 754 Potato Patch Dr B2, L3 1 20,909.00 i 758 Potato Patch Dr B2, L5 36,400.00 748 Potato Patch Dr B2, L7, f 2 40,390.40 742 Sandy Lane 11-3, f 2 17,019.00 1 774 Potato Patch Dr 1132, 1-11 1 29,750.00 772 Potato Patch Dr B2, L10 i 49,579.00 736 Sandy Lane B2, L6, f 2 1 16,318.001 Average Lot size. 28,356.96 Site Coverage Percentage (allowed) (allowed) 6,926.00 20%. 6,089.60 20%1 7,866.90 15%1 7,146.80 20%a 4,164.001 20% 4,300.00 20%1 4,142.00 20%0 3,708.70 20%0 3,650.001 20% 1 20% 4,182.00 20%a 7,280.00 20%01 8,712.00 22% 3,403.80 20% 7,437.00 25%1 25% l 20%4 Average Site Coverage: Site Coverage Percentage Slope motes (existing) (existing) 3,653.001 11%{- j 2,160.00 7%125-28% 2,973.80 6%1 40% site coverage restricted to 15%0 4,338.00 12% 20%0 4,120.00 1 20%- 3,682.001 17% - ok - 4,072.31 22%- over on site coverage 3,062,001 17%- 2,613.00 12°1a 16%1 6,413.00 18%- 3,651.00 9%1- I 3,366.60 1 20°10 - variance denied >20% site coverage 3,920.00 1 13%- ok 1 1- ok I 1- 3,694.21 14%a MEMORANDUM to: ' Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow a "transportation business" as a conditional use in the district, and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Thrifty Car Rental business in the Cascade Village Hotel & Club, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Westrac, Inc. dba Thrifty Car Rental, represented by Rudy & Associates, P.C. Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Thrifty Car Rental, represented by Rudy & Associates, P.C., is proposing a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village and pending the outcome of the major amendment, requesting a conditional use permit. The proposed amendment would add a "transportation business" as an allowed conditional use, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, within the Cascade Village Special Development District. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a Thrifty Car Rental business within the Cascade Village Hotel & Club. If the major amendment is approved, the applicant wishes operate a car rental business out of the hotel. The proposed operation would be housed in a small 8x 8' office space existing within the hotel. The car rental operation would provide a maximum of twelve rental cars that would be stored on-site within the existing underground parking structure. The proposed rental car storage area is currently owned and operated by the Cascade Club Hotel & Club and used to meet the parking demands of the hotel. The applicant anticipates that at no time will there be more than 4-6 rental cars parked in the structure at a time. Should additional parking become required, the applicant has indicated that the increased demand for parking will be provided off-site. if. BACKGROUND According to Section 12-9A-2 (Definitions) of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, a major amendment to a special development district is defined as, in part, w "Any proposal to change uses; increase GRFA; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge, or expand any special development district." Since the applicant is proposing to change the uses allowed in the Special Development District, the staff has determined that this request is a major amendment. Section 12-16-1 of the Zoning Regulations describes the purpose of a conditional use in zone districts and land use development. According to Section 12-16-1, the purpose of. a conditional use is, "In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this Title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this Title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this Chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. (Ord. 8(1973) § 19.100)." According to Ordinance No 8, Series of 1995, allowed conditional uses in Area A (Cascade Hotel & Club) of Special Development District No. 4 include: ? A wellness center, ? Fractional fee ownership, r Special attraction, ? Ski lifts, ? Public parks and recreational facilities, and ? Major arcades with no street frontage on the public way. All conditional uses shall be reviewed per the procedures as outlined in Chapter 16, Section 12 of the Zoning Regulations. The applicant proposes to add transportation business to the list of allowed conditional uses. III. MAJOR AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA The review procedures and criteria for major amendments to established special development districts is prescribed in Section 12-9A-10 (amendment procedures) and Section 12-9A-8 (design criteria) of the Zoning Regulations. Section 12-9A-8 provides nine principal criteria that the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall use in evaluating the merits of amending a. special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal complies with each of the criteria, that one or more of the criteria are not applicable to the amendment proposal, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Staff has reviewed each of the criteria and believes that only the following two criteria are directly relevant to this application: El Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff Response: A "transportation business" or car rental business is not an unheard of use in association with a hotel or similar type of lodging business. The two uses are compatible with one another, and when properly provided for and operated, should not result in negative impacts. The provision of a car rental business within a lodging business is simply another amenity provided to the guests and patrons much like ski rental or restaurant dining. Staff believes that the proposal to amend the special development district to include "transportation business" as a conditional use is both reasonable and appropriate and that the conditional use permit process adequately addresses potential- issues. The conditional use permit process enables the Town to review a request for the use to assure compatibility and harmonious development with surrounding and existing uses. This process permits the Town to place conditions on the use to ensure that the location and operation of said use would not be detrimental to other existing or potential uses or . the Town's development objectives. Parking & Loading: Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations. Staff Response: Nearly all uses within a special development district result in impacts on parking and loading. Given the serious negative impacts that result from inadequate parking facilities, staff believes that all uses within a special development district must be able to accommodate the parking demand they create. In the case of a car rental business, the demand for parking created by the use is not necessarily generated by the customers. Instead, the demand for parking results from the need for adequate vehicle storage. Staff believes that if the demand for parking can be adequately addressed to ensure that no negative impacts will result, that it would not be unreasonable nor inappropriate to allow a car rental business as a conditional use at the Cascade Hotel & Club. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria and findings for a request for a conditional use permit are outlined in Section 12-16-6. A. Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning & Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1, Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. . The applicant is proposing to operate a car rental business out of the Cascade Hotel and Club. The car rental business would be comprised of a small administrative office within an existing space in the hotel and the storage of 4-6 rental vehicles in the existing parking structure on-site. The applicant has indicated that as many as 12 rental vehicles may be available at one time. Staff believes that the proposed use would have no negative impacts on the existing use or the development objectives of the Town. As stated in the section above, a car rental business operating out of a hotel is not unheard of. Staff does believe however, that in order for the use to be compatible, adequate provision for rental vehicle storage and other necessary business needs must be provided. . 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Staff believes that the proposed request for a conditional use permit would have no negative effects on the above-described criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. The applicant is proposing to store the rental vehicles within the existing parking structure on-site when the vehicles are not in use. The anticipated need for vehicle storage would be between 4-12 parking spaces. According to the existing uses approved for the Cascade Village Special Development District, all of the existing parking facilities on site are beyond c<apa-ity. In order for the staff to support the proposed conditional use request, the applicant roust demonstrate the ability to provide at least 12 new parking spaces on-site. Staff believes it is important to provide the vehicle storage spaces on si e and not attempt to rely upon a "managed" parking solution. Historically, "managed" parking solutions have not been effective and are very difficult to enforce, thus resulting in failure. 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 proposed request for a conditional use permit would have no negative effects on the above-described criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Title 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 this Title. E r. V. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow a "transportation business" as a conditional use in the district, and recommends denial of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a Thrifty Car Rental business in the Cascade Village Hotel & Club. Staff's recommendations are based upon our review of the criteria outlined in Sections III and IV of this memorandum. With regard to the conditional use permit request, staff believes that in the absence-of adequate on-site rental vehicle storage, the use would result in serious negative impacts inconsistent with the Town's development objectives. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the request for the major amendment to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following finding: That the addition of a "transportation business is both a reasonable and appropriate conditional use when conducted in association with a hotel or similar type of lodging business in the district and when adequate provisions for the operation of the use are provided. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to deny the request for the conditional use permit, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following finding: That the proposed car rental business and the proposed operation thereof is not in compliance with the parking and loading requirements of the Town of Vail and that due to the lack of adequate rental vehicle storage, the use would be detrimental to the existing and surrounding uses in the vicinity of the Cascade Village Hotel & Club. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the request for a conditional use permit, staff would recommend that Commission place the following conditions upon the approval That prior to the conditional use permit approval becoming effective, the applicant amend Special Development District No.4, Cascade Club, pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 12-9A-10 of the Zoning Regulations. 2. That the applicant's proposal adhere to the following standards: A. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved paved parking areas; S. 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. LI Pubac PWki-e .app o . , t Go den Peak WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS 2 s ALPINE SKI.1999 ?~- 00, YI Vi 71 VAIL-BEAVER CREEK CO LORA DO-USA Z7 w ions mat 72 °-_ in s , 000000, ?t 1 s- 1 - ? 7x111 __7 , sa :r Wt headCr ,+R B?11, ,,,,,F` UMY A, ices r cY 17 , Cascade za vi -age : E n age 161 VY. ?r Ate, t a 12` DUN 1". *U08 a 1J Opening Ceremonies E.t Organizing Committee Hospitality U Wax Rooms M Vail Television Compound 5 Satelite Press Center 67 Vail Finish Stadium 7) Race Office/ FIS/ Jury Room Ford Pork Golden Peak Golden Peak International Base Christiania at Vail International Base lodge at Vail Team Captain's Meeting lodge at Vail I_.I Frontier Center Vail Parking Structure M WASC Info/Lodging/Transportation Vail Information Center 10 Main Registration 11 Formal Awards Stage 12 Security Headquarter 13 Medical Center 14 Rodeo 15 WASC Information b I. *.,roational Broadcast Center 17 Press Center Press Conference Vail Tran e," to#ion Center Vail Village Children's Fountain Vail Police Department Vail Valley Medical. Center Dobson Ice Arena lionshead Parking Structure Cascade Club Vail Cascade Hotel Vail Cascade Theater r s w t t .» ?_ ? / ? k t i i.^",.?i "'? ? ? ` ? t ?""? `..? l i?.J. rv?, ?`k? y i ? t F i ? 4 y ` V A - ? _. _ --" f r(? 4 f / ? 1 t Y r Y ' F l ?? `? C y i I 4 y r l ' i / i \ ?\? \ ? t r y i t I ? 1 \ 1 1 ? t f I I I I it f r . r I f V Ant i \ ? \ , \. t1 ! 1 I t i , 4 i t t \ A \ f I `?} s t i i 1 d, I t / 9 1 ( f f I 1 I v ? y i ?t t t l y I f/ i 1 t t t S i i V 4 1 t/ f f I f I t i ? ? y t ? ' f f f f/ ? k t i y \ ..?` y i f f f - t t t t t t ? /? I i ?t\ t f / t t } t y y y /iy a t ? *' . I I I f f' tt SI Vy yt t# ty t %/S y it SIgYNq t i i ti? i I I( I t tY I , 4 I 1 t y t t /'? y i ? "`` (?y7 7 1 t f. t V i t t tt ! t i f t ? 4 t 1 y i t. ?/• t i ,/ i ?y tt i 3 I t 1 ti tt 4 Y(? tt ? / ` ?i \ t i i i 41 >1 t t y t t t i I (fV- 4932 Bleacher Seats `-- 1# Media Seats t t t { a t i t? o r t i ? 71 V.I.P. Seats t t ? ' y t ? t f ? i i i i 10 ADA Seats t a y 10 Attendant Seats y i t i y t t ?a r -- i i 5048 Total Seating Capacity 6 1 t i t i 1 \. /. f F .. i Y ? k V i t y ? ? ?, i ? t i i i 4 1 #. i I p} t t ! I i ? t I ? V \ I i i ? ? J '?.« ?! ? 1 .. 7W DRAN C, 6XILMIa1NE PRNMU OF +.W too2 ZXAe SL. leabnapdN. IN 40225 tDROWG TITLE . 00OGI. 6 ,., u.: OF, AM SLB14M r.M*; <11900_22ELROD FAX:(I)W7-606-2334 VAIL \/ALEPY E01ANpATTION ?. e NOT. THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY JACK K. ELROD DATE: CO.,INC.-NUSSII SPECIAL EVENTS LTD. FOR USE AS A CONCEPT DESIGN OPTION ONLY AND SHOUT BE SUBMITTED TO THE Approved as Submitted: -OWNER AND/OR LOCAL BUILDING INSPE(MON AUTHORITY FOR Approved as Corrected: REVIEW AND APPROVAL, BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH FIN& DESIGN. _ALL DRAWING DIMENSIONS MUST BE FIELD 41:KINW. Revise and Resubmit: IN.>w.W VDIM OF SITE PLAN ' ? OR O comiAw? inc. NfPROp1CED OR LQNED. N Plltf OR M 1.0 .rSam Niigiai, A . - ? ? OPENING CEREMONY SITE PLAN Nib, " "LL 1101 t0 BE usm N ma i. rt *0 a'W n U 1- H! W 7N l2. m YY#" 1w WY COf6fnL4E A DEI MOM ( BNECnr m N?? S3 ? c>RELo-F f ACQ-lAi,1. ACC>R/N(E L __ _ m E A JOINT VEN'tum SEATING CONTRACTOR 1 `'py pCTgg 1"S. S. GRADY 11NON ?AA 2X4 Framed Wall 6' +54 +4p +36 tf C I I 35' 24 Framed Wall -\ -1z`-S"1 35'- 8' +22 +FO +54 - aim 1 +24 +18 (DA SECTION, VIEW PTE THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY JACK K: ELROE) CO. FOR USE AS A CONCEPT DFSI N OFTION ONLY AND SHOULD DE Sb2UITIEO TO THE ONNER kJD/OR 'LOCAL BUILDING INSPECTION AUTHnRPf FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH FINAL DESIGN ALL DPAWING DIMENSIONS MUST BE FIELD VEFLIED. k V-6" +o +6 +42 3'-8" +,a 2x4 Framed Wall 2x4 Formed Wall ( +18 k26 }Ji 42 +-50 f56 3 4' +66 +J2 +66 - 4', -4` 4'-- . +46 +54 G' 33' PLAN V!FIN- v ,h DIUWG, WiDING THE PPJN"8lF AEY7;gN6 vc2 sE a s .:ago 00 . n ae115 of DES" IS THE PROPERTY OF 1N TRIS DR ( em-2T EIAaO Fu I! ? dee-27N D A Z D 6 - doff BD ar 101y, x. a" cl, Inc ??C ' ??:, o DuN a meumeo nTH rN TE mE ?•??.1,1?i1.?ir??lri?Y1i0? " 47 4( p10'IPC OS SIILr9 AGREEMENT NUT P IS NOT TO BE COM. ? l(?._ _ REPROYrcEO OR Eowm - m PART ca worm r re» - -- - ?wwcxo. *01. M WILL HJT TO BE USED III kn Approved OS 0 feCfgd; uMME wNER W AT W,1 C cOw n u e k RMEN= 04 35 -- wsat, em ?REnLr TO ne wx VAJL VALLEY fDUNDP.IILW SL R2vu9 and Resubmit - 6uoB cW_ ACCEPIWE OF ms S. G?wr I ..... .. pux>NC>n<e eE 07K(RPED AS AGREEMENT AwI PLA.woAN IN ; otjwhm To R,'ESE cprxrvw5. I I ? $EP , PLAN & SECTION, VANS [ENTRANCE -1TQ' 3 0 1 ?. PIN 50' TRADING-., ? ??s.',rr?. Spy r 4 1 bC SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD t s 170' `Tents Existing Structures Booths 115'x 15'? '<' Food & Beverage Concessions f 'l Stage ENTRANCE - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 26, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Diane Golden (left at 5pm) John Schofield Ann Bishop Tom Weber Brian Doyon (left at 3:55pm) Public Hearinq MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Dominic Mauriello Jeff Hunt Allison Ochs George Ruther Tom Moorhead Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Greg Moffet asked for a motion to table item #6 on the agenda, at the applicant's request. John Schofield made a motion to table item #6. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Scott Bloom gave an update on the Vail '99 Championships. A request for a worksession to review and provide comments on the proposed Lionshead Master Plan. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lionshead Master Plan Team Dominic Mauriello stated that this was a worksession intended for discussion by the Commission and input from the public. Ethan Moore, from Design Workshop, said he would explain to everyone the substance of the plan and that he was looking for input. Dominic Mauriello stated, for the record, that a letter was received from Art Abplanalp and distributed to the PEC members at the pre-meeting. Ethan Moore said the existing reinforcement of the Lionshead pedestrian circulation was incorporated into the Master Plan, with an emphasis on an unbroken pedestrian corridor, which didn't exist today. He then went over the layout, using overheads. He said the first component was, in a conceptual sense, to complete the connection to Vail Village. He then explained the Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 26,1998 I t ? Civic Center Complex with an architectural connection to Dobson and the Library. Tom Weber asked about the importance of the Civic Center. Russ Forrest said this was originally an idea when the Library was constructed, as a community hub area. Ethan Moore then continued with the functionality of the area. He said the Rec District said there was a need for a drop-off associated with Dobson. He went over the drop-off points and said that the new entrance to Dobson on East Lionshead Circle would be downplayed as a drop-off area. He also said that emergency vehicle access to Vail International would be cut off and so a new access was needed to the east of Dobson or from the Frontage Road. Ethan Moore stated that for the first time, the structure was full once at night last year. He then said that before housing or anything else is considered on top of the structure, the parking capability needed to be exhausted. He said, per Public Works, that 15 - 20 times per year the parking overflows onto the S. Frontage Road and there might be a demand to add a deck and that over time, two decks could be added.. Diane Golden said the Rec District wanted to put a gymnasium on the east end of Dobson and that parents needed to see small children get out of the car and go the their facility. Russ Forrest said he met with Piet Pieters about adding the gymnastic facility component to the Civic Center site. Ethan Moore said there were competing uses, and that the structure should not go higher than 3 stories, or proportionately it would be too large. He said the additional stories could be accessed through the structure, or by stairs. John Schofield asked about a study regarding upper level retail, where the housing was proposed. Ethan Moore explained that a strong pedestrian corridor was the goal in this area and our retails have shown that retail which is separated from the pedestrian is problematic. He said service vehicles have been removed, as well as the shuttles and skier drop-off. He said by doing this, a strong pedestrian plaza with a vehicular crossing had been created, instead of the other way around. He explained the service and loading area, saying the snow dump from the structure needed to be addressed. He explained how the residential traffic would exit the area and there would be an opportunity to gate the through traffic, but that some enforcement would be required. He said the Frontage Road would be doubled in width, using acceleration/deceleration lanes with a landscape divider. He then explained the Gore Creek corridor with proposed nature trails having a passive use or a wetland riparian use. He said it would be ADA accessible with a non- asphalt surface, such as crushed rock. Dominic Mauriello said Art Abplanalp had concerns with this wetland area, as addressed in his letter. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 2 Ethan Moore explained the interior retail mall of Lionshead. He said a pedestrian loop around the ski yard is needed to be strengthened. He said in order to have a connection between the retail core and the ski yard, it needed to be visually tied together with a stairway. Ethan Moore said the 10' setback in the CC2 would be eliminated in some areas by establishing build-to-lines. He said a small ice rink could happen in the central pedestrian plaza and that Montaneros and the Concert Hail Plaza should get together and create a functional pedestrian corridor to the west of Lionshead. He then explained the North Day Lot Transit Center. He said 18-20 Pepsi size trucks could be accommodated in this facility. Brian Doyon suggested a one-way street on West Lionshead Loop to prevent traffic congestion. Ethan Moore said that Public Works liked the realigning of the Frontage Road, as it would take up slack in their bus route. He said that Geoff Wright said the noise issue associated with this transportation facility, needed a strong landscape buffer and noise buffer for the Landmark development. Greg Moffet asked if we were prejudicing against the VA housing on this site, with a PEG approval. Ethan Moore explained housing could be on top and gave the example of European centers that were roofed. He said you could excavate down a plate for parking. He said the program here was given priority, but it wouldn't preclude building on top. He said this would remove the access in front of the Landmark's Building, that VA was letting the Landmark use. He then explained the connection needed for the Lionsquare Lodge. As for West Lionshead, he said VA needed 1'la acres for their cat fueling operation and that the triangle of land created next to Vail Spa by the realignment of the Frontage Road would be perfect for office space. He said the west end would provide for seasonal employee housing, to replace the beds lost (110 beds) in the Sunbird Lodge. He said the Forest Road homeowners wanted the cats to go away and the alternate cat route might not be on Forest Road. He said however, that the alignment of Forest Road had some flexibility. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Tom Weber asked about the snowmelt systems and he didn't think snowmelting was the best solution for all areas of Lionshead. Ethan Moore explained that only the primary mall would be recommended for snowmelt. Tom Weber said snowmelt benefits steep grade issues and that he would like to have the portals and gateways more subtle in nature, rather than created by a building. Dominic Mauriello said the DRB was the other body reviewing the design guidelines. Tom Weber asked how the Town determined average building heights, as it was confusing. Ethan Moore said they were looking into that. Brian Doyon had no comments and stated he would provide his comments as part of the DRB review. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 3 John Schofield said the Forest Road folks wanted them to take a look at the tennis courts. Ethan Moore said there was a concern about development occurring on the tennis court site and also snow cats on their road. He said there would be development pressure on the site and if development was being considered on this private property, it would be appropriate to provide criteria to evaluate a rezoning request. The master plan is not providing recommendations for specific uses on the property. He said he questioned it being associated with recreational usage with skiing on the mountain, as the Forest Road homeowners suggested in their letter. John Schofield said one of the ground rules was no net loss of parking . Brian Doyon left at 3:55 p.m. John Schofield said undergrounding 1-70 should be incorporated into the Master Plan, as it related to this plan. Galen Aasland asked about the sales tax base and asked if property taxes would increase. Russ Forrest said a menu of financing would be provided to help fund public improvements. Galen Aasland asked about sales tax revenues. Russ Forrest said Stan Bernstein had done an analysis of sales tax and property taxes. Galen Aasland asked about the speed limit changes proposed on the Frontage Road. Ethan Moore said that would be a function of Public Works, as well as the circulation issues and increase in traffic. He said the plan does not make any speed limit recommendations. Galen Aasland said the PEC agreed on changing the language in the Design Guidelines to read "to create a cohesive resort and community environment." He said he would like to see a graphic supporting the Forest Road changes for solo cats, as well as a graphic showing office space or the north day lot and the Lions Pride Building North-South connection. He said the report was well done, as well as the Design Guidelines first part, but he said the second part just maintains correct status quo in mountain resort design. He felt it should instead develop a framework for better developments. He said he would like to see something that encourages why we came to Vail. Ethan Moore said the DRB felt dictating a theme with too much detail was inappropriate and agreed with Galen's statements. Ann Bishop commended everyone for their cooperative effort and would prefer aquick time table; She also said she did not understand Mr. Abplanalp's letter. Russ Forrest said we anticipate a change in zoning on the tennis court aglopen space site and therefore, wanted to provide some guidance for future rezonings. Tom Moorhead said the Town Council said they were requested to ignore the tennis courts in this process, as it pertained to this Master Plan. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 4 Russ Forrest said it would be an issue raised with the Town Council for their review. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet asked about the north/south orientation preference and where it was in the document. Ethan Moore said it was in the body of the document in Chapter 4. Dominic Mauriello said it was linked to a previous building height scenario, but still remained an element of the plan. Greg Moffet said it should be a ground rule. Russ Forrest said the document should reference the north/south orientation and be emphasized. Greg Moffet asked for a graphic on the North Day Lot to show housing and that we should revisit the building height on the west end of Lionshead land areas on the perimeter, to allow for greater height. Dominic Mauriello said Council left open the building height on the perimeter of Lionshead. Tom Weber said the building height should be increased in those areas. Greg Moffet said the consensus of the PEC was to increase the height on the perimeter and we should take the opportunity to push the issue. Russ Forrest said we would raise this to Council next Tuesday to look at another plate higher., Greg Moffet said float the balloon and raise heights on the whole periphery. 2. A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Rockledge Road/ Lots 2, 4, 7, 8A, 9A, and 15, Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lots 3A and 3B, Resubdivision of Lot 3 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; Lot 1 OA, Resubdivision of Lot 10 Block 7 Vail Village 'First Filing; Lot 13B Resubdivision of Lot 13 Block 7 Vail Village First Filing; and Government Lot 3, all in Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello (Items #2 and #3 were conducted simultaneously) Planning and Environmental Cow-i-inn Minutes October 26, 1998 5 3. A rezoning and major subdivision for property previously unzoned and owned by the United States Forest Service and transferred to the Town of Vail, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement to Primary/Secondary Residential District and Natural Area Preservation District (NAPD), for property located at Ptarmingan Road/ Lots 1 through 6, Block 5, Vail Village Seventh Filing, and Government Lot 3; all in Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello C Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo and said, since it was changed slightly, it needed to come back before the PFC. He pointed out the change on his first zoning map on page 3, that the bar for Lot 2 should also be primary/secondary. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Galen Aasland stated, for the record, that he had clients who owned property here, but he didn't feel there was a conflict. Ann Bishop stated, as did Galen, that she didn't understand Art Abplanalp's letter. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 4. A request for a front and side setback variance, to allow for an addition to an existing single-family residence, located at 1755 West Gore Creek Drive / Lot 6, Vail Village West #2. Applicant: Daniel and Karen Forey, represented by the Keating Partnership Planner: Jeff Hunt Jeff Hunt gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Galen Aasland said the lot allowed for an expansion and was not a special privilege, Tom Weber agreed with Galen's comments. Greg Moffet said it was a tight lot with unusual circumstances and agreed with Galen's comments. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Planning and. Environmental Commission Minutes October 26, 1995 6 Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request for a site coverage variance from Section 12-21-14E of the Zoning Regulations and a front setback variance, to allow for the construction of a new single-family residence with a Type II EHU, located at 756 Potato Patch 1 Lot 4, Block 2, Potato Patch, Applicant: Wolfgang Berndt, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs asked that this be tabled at the request of the applicant, due to a time restraint. John Schofield made a motion to table item #5. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District No. 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 George Ruther asked that this item be tabled at the request of the applicant. John Schofield made a motion to table this item. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 7. A request for a Major SDD Amendment and Conditional Use Permit, to allow for a "transportation business" within SDD #4, located at 1295 S. Frontage Road/Cascade Village. Applicant: Thrifty Car Rental, represented by Rudy & Associates Planner: George Ruther Greg Moffet disclosed that the applicant was a customer of his, but there was no conflict. George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the conditional use approval would be provisional, since the SDD would need to go to Council for review. George Ruther said, yes. Pluming and Environmental Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 7 Greg Moffet said we should look at this in two parts. He then asked for any applicant comments. There were no applicant comments. John Schofield mentioned the garage was blocked, so they were not able to do a site visit. Mike Standard, with Rudy & Associates, explained that the ground floor was used for employee parking and he said he would schedule another site visit. He said there were alternatives to storage, as there was no real storage on this site and he could do with two spaces. He said if the garage shut down, as it did for the PEC's site visit, their business couldn't be run. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Tom Weber said this was an appropriate use for an SDD. John Schofield echoed Tom Weber's comments. Galen Aasland said it was an appropriate use. Ann Bishop echoed Galen's comments. Diane said it was an appropriate use and asked who owned the parking structure. Mike Standard said the parking structure was owned by the Cascade Club, but the top floor was owned by Mr. Otto. Greg Moffet agreed that the rental car business was an appropriate use and the PEC was comfortable recommending approval for the SDD to Council. John Schofield made a motion to recommend approval of the Major SDD Amendment to the Town Council. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. George Ruther said in the Core 3 Zone District, a conditional use for a transportation business was allowed. Galen Aasland said he couldn't support a managed solution for parking, because it was impossible and there was not enough space for the uses that were there. He said this was not good for the Town and there were better spaces in Town or in West Vail. Mike Standard asked about the Ruins. Ann Bishop said we needed a car rental business, but she had to go agree with what the staff recommended. She encouraged the applicant to pursue it and work it out with staff. Mike Standard said he wanted to dispel the notion of storage. Diane Golden asked how many spaces were there. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Oetober26, 1998 8 John Papps, with Westrae, explained that the parking was never full and it was the hotel's idea to give us 12 spaces. Diane Golden said she would be in favor of this with more information. Greg Moffet said we could put it on a 6-month trigger. Tom Weber said would like to see some sort of diagramming as to what was being allocated, with some sort of employee count to prove haw many spaces were available. John Schofield said the PEC had seen two other requests in the last couple of months for this area and there wasn't enough parking to go around. He said he would like a parking analysis for the whole district. He said he would have to see something very convincing, but without the physical facilities, he felt it was not a good idea and stated this wouldn't work in the winter. Greg Moffet said this was a great use and in a great part of town for this use. He said the challenge was who owned all the rights to the parking spaces. He said he has never pulled into that parking structure when it was full and he recommended the applicant table this and come back with evidence that it would not be a strain. He suggested parking at Mill Race. Mike Standard asked to table this item. Ann Bishop left at 5pm. John Schofield made a motion to table the conditional use portion of this item until the next meeting. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 8. A request for a front setback variance, to allow for the reconstruction of a garage within the front setback, located at 756 Forest Road / Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6`" Filing. Applicant. Emmet and Toni Stephenson, represented by Kevin Ebert Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 9. Information Update 10. Approval of October 12, 1998 minutes. Tom Weber had changes on page 4. John Schofield made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 26, 1998 Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Diane Golden made a motion to adjourn. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5.10 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 26,1998 10