Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0412 PEC0 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on April 12, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12-61-1-8, Town of Vail' Municipal Code, to allow for gross residential floor area (GRFA) in excess of the allowable maximum, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive #8 / Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: P. Anthony & Constance Ridder, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner:. George Ruther A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for outdoor patio seating at Special Development District #35, located at 242 East Meadow Drive / Austria Haus Club & Hotel. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: George Ruther A request for a minor amendment to a previously approved development plan, to allow for the construction of a skier tunnel at the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vain Valley Drive Tract B, Vail Village 1tt, Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates Planner: Jeff Hunt A request for an amendment to a previously approved final plat for the Tall Pines Subdivision, located at 2239 Chamonix Lane / Lots 1 & 2, Tall Pines Subdivision, Applicant: Chamonix Development Group, LLC & Paintbrush-Tall Pines, GP Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 8, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a modification to a platted building envelope, located at 1047 Riva Glen/ Lot 6, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino, represented by Robert Mach Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance to the front setback, to allow a new garage, located at 285 Forest Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st, Applicant: Steve & Linda Waterhouse, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Jeff Hunt TOW, 0r end'' A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, to amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the Ordinance, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive/ Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Piling. Applicant. Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Piling. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Spocial Development District #36 (VAC), to allow for an additional dwelling unit and reduction of accommodation units, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: .JWT 1967 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins Planner: Dominic Mauriello The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published March 26, 1999 in the Vail Trail. 0 EA PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, April 12, 1999 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Communitv Develooment Deoartment MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1. Ridder - 303 Gore Greek Drive 2. Austria Haus - 242 East Meadow Drive 3. D"Agostino -1047 Riva Glen 4. Waterhouse --- 285 Forest Road Driver: George Z*111 NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. 12:00 p.m. 12:45 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for outdoor patio seating at Special Development District #35, located at 242 East Meadow Drive / Austria Haus Club & Hotel. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for an amendment to a previously approved final plat for the Tall Pines Subdivision, located at 2239 Chamonix Lane / Lots 1 & 2, Tall Pines Subdivision. Applicant: Chamonix Development Group, LLC & Paintbrush-Tall Pines, GP Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-8, Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for gross residential floor area (GRFA) in excess of the allowable maximum, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive #8 / Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: P. Anthony & Constance Ridder, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: George Ruther TOWN OF 4YAR 1 4. A request for a variance to the front setback, to allow a new garage, located at 285 Forest Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: Steve & Linda Waterhouse, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Jeff Hunt 5. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, to amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the Ordinance, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive/ Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1,5' Filing. Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District #30 (VAC), to allow for an additional dwelling unit and reduction of accommodation units, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins Planner: Dominic Mauriello/Brent Wilson 7. A request for a minor amendment to a previously approved development plan, to allow for the construction of a skier tunnel at the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive / Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates Planner: Jeff Hunt STAFF APPROVED 8. 9. 10 A request for a modification to a platted building envelope, located at 1047 Riva Glen/ lot 6, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino, represented by Robert Mach Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26, 1999 A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 8, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26,1999 A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26,1999 D 2 11. A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and D, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant; Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner. George Ruther WITHDRAWN 12. Information Update t Timberfalls letter (in packet) 13. Approval of March 22, 1999 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 479-2358, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published April 9, 1999 in the Vail Trail 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, April 12, 1999 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / PEC LUNCH W Communite , Develooment Department MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Tom Weber Site Visits . MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Brian Doyon Ann Bishop 1. Ridder....303 Gore Creek Drive 2. Waterhouse -- 285 Forest Road Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. 12:15 p.m. 1:15 p.m. Public Hearinq .. Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for an amendment to a previously approved final plat for the Tall Pines Subdivision, located at 2239 Chamonix Lane / Lots 1 & 2, Tall Pines Subdivision. Applicant: Chamonix Development Group, I_LC & Paintbrush-Tall Pines, GP Planner: Dominic Maurielo MOTION: Tom Weber SECOND Galen Aasland VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-61-1-8, Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for gross residential floor area (GRFA) in excess of the allowable maximum, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive #8 / Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: P. Anthony & Constance Ridder, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 4-0 DENIED TOWN OF V'113 I 3. A request for a variance to the front setback, to allow a new garage, located at 285 Forest Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1 t. Applicant: Steve & Linda Waterhouse, represented by Steven Ridgn Planner: Jeff Hunt MOTION: Tam Weber SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS: 1. The north wall and roof line of the new garage do not extend any closer to the mature evergreen tree than the existing garage's wall and roofline, unless approved by a professional arborist. 2. That the site lighting be brought into compliance with the Town regulations. 3. That the pier & beam garage foundation & parking space be cantilevered to minimize the site disturbance. 4. That the plate height of the garage roof be determined by a reasonable 8' garage door.. 5. That the garage roof eave does not extend over the front property line into the public right-of-way. 4. A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District #30 (VAC), to allow for an additional dwelling unit and reduction of accommodation units, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins Planner: Dominic Mauriello!Brent Wilson WORKSESSION -- NO VOTE 5. A request for a minor amendment to a previously approved development plan, to allow for the construction of a skier tunnel at the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive l Tract B, 'Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant; Vail Associates Planner: Jeff Hunt STAFF APPROVED 6. A request for a modification to a platted building envelope, located at 1047 Riva Glen/ Loft 6, Spraddle Creek Estates. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino, represented by Robert Mach Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26,1999 7. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 8, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26,1999 2 3. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena,. located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2" d Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation. District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26,1999 9. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, to amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the Ordinance, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive/ Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 *5` Filling. Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 11. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for outdoor patio seating at Special Development District #35, located at 242 East Meadow Drive / Austria Haus Club & Hotel. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 12. Information Update a Timberfalls letter (in packet) 13. Approval of March 22, 1999 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 473-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 1?1 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 12, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to a previously approved final plat for the Tall Pines Subdivision, located at 2239 Chamonix Lane / Lots 1 & 2, Tall Pines Subdivision: Applicant: Chamonix Development Group, LLC & Paintbrush-Tall Pines, GP Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to amend the language contained' on the plat to allow certain building improvements beyond the building envelopes established on this plat. Those improvements include decks, balconies, patios, and roof overhangs. The proposed language is as follows. All future development will be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes. The only development permitted outside the platted building envelopes shall be landscaping, driveways and retaining walls associated with driveway construction. At- grade patios (those within 5' of existing or finished grade) will be permitted to project beyond the building envelopes not more than ten feet (10") nor more than one-half (2) the distance between the building envelope and the property line, or may project riot more than five feet (6) nor more than one-fourth (3) the minimum required dimension between buildings. Balconies; decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features projecting from a structure at a height of more than five feet (5') above around level will be permitted to project beyond the building envelopes not more than five feet (5') or may project not more than five feet (6) nor more than one-fourth (1/4) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. The applicant has provided a report from his geologic expert approving the proposed change; to the development plan in order to comply with the site specific hazard report for development on these lots. Can July 14, 1997, the applicant received approval of an amendment to the locations of building envelopes and property lines for the Tall Pines subdivision; As part of that approval the applicant placed a note on the plat stating: Future development on the two lots shall be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes. This restriction shall include all decks, roof eavelines, etc. The only development permitted outside the platted building envelopes shall be landscaping.; at- grade patios, driveways and retaining walls associated with driveway construction. -1- a' Ok' Y?iIL? RPM This language prevents any building encroachments beyond the building envelopes, including 40 roof overhangs, decks, patios, etc. This language was proposed due to the location of the Moderate Debris Flow Hazard which exists on the east half of the property. Ilk STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following finding: That the proposed minor subdivision plat complies with the review criteria and requirements of Title 13 Subdivision Regulations and Title 12 Zoning 'Regulations of the Town Code. Ill. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; of the Town of Bail Municipal Code. X, The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: The minimum lot size for this subdivision is 15,000 sq. ft. as prescribed by the Primary/Secondary Zone District. Staff Response: As proposed, this minor subdivision meets this requirement. Frontage: The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum Street Frontage of 30'. Staff Response. As proposed, this minor subdivision complies with a variance granted for these lots on December 16, 1996. S. The second set of criteria to be considered with a Minor Subdivision application, as outlined in the subdivision regulations, is: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. -2- The Specific Purpose of the Subdivision Regulations is as follows 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: The review of this request has followed the regulations prescribed for minor subdivision in the Municipal Code. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response. Staff believes that this resubdivision will not conflict with development on adjacent properties. I To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the request will have a negative impact of the value of land in the Town of Vail generally, nor in the immediate area. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. Staff Response: The plat note change meets the minimum zoning requirements of the Primary/Secondary Zone District 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and ether public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response. The plat mote change will have no additional effects on the above criterion. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land arid to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff Response; The plat note change will provide for an accurate legal description of the subdivided land - v -3- 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff Response. Staff does not believe that the plat note change will have any adverse effects on the above criterion as a report has been provided from a geologic expert approving of the project -4- y 1. 1. 11 Y III 11.11.1111 II IIII 1, 1 l 111.1$ 8111111111 Y11.11111 IIIIIIIW ill, I1 . 011411 Ilel11,1111 ,I IIJ111.11. I1. IIII DiII III LAINA III I,IL, 111.11061111 11.11 AIII 1 11111111 I110 . 1111111111101 111 1111111 III 11111111111 I1 .11 11 111 1 II 11. , 11 II 11 ° Tall Pimnes Subdivision m "malk L at i o n a p 'ROW qw m N w4ko E Is c"A 21 rA sz 2107 2119 nPLAM11 Subject Parcel 2191 crr - ssoa Po. TALL PINES SUBDIVISIO 1 i 2201 .91 uNPLATTED 2135 VALDAB 2196 1E _ 21 14 4 1937 2197 1? 13 2109 2249 2V7 GARMISCH 2m IL DAS S ONE 23" ms 2 3 lo WESTVNL 2401 9 MALL WEST i GQRI 2318 231s >UBDI 14 2171 2m 2211 2417 12 1 2172 13 2149 2334 2427 14 -7PACT C 7413 commERcm 2437 2428 Is :IM FILING 1 wrSI 2006 15 -1 5 2m LODGE CASA DIE, 50L - .'O ?YOC!A411 2446 17 TrEQ 2465 IPACTA 2409 TRACT D PHU.1ps 2419 4 21 TRACT zw 2312 WENOirs 29 22 23" zoo 24Z 224 V 27 23 WENDrs 7,478 2437 12 21" 24 2430 OTDI 20 2's 2430 2)54 2447 211 21 0 434 v 71' \ 3174 - 2436 is 2M - ^..» 2141 \\\\\\ ,?r.1 ?• / 24W 2Q35 3 1 1 111,. ,. 1„ n 1 1 111111 11 IIII .111 1111111111 IIII II II 1181.1 11 11.111111111111111.111111 11111111 M11 411 11111.111.,111.1111. 111111111 0 111111II.I -.I6, II. 11111111. 1111 11111 11.1 IAI, 11 .1 11 .11111 1 11 1 1111 11. 1 1 1, 1 ,.1 U. S. F s UNPLA, TIED NE CQRNER A" Mf ,Stf4/! A'- ME SEt;I( M SECBGW If. ? } 218.75' I`14 1L L PINES S RDI VISION TRACT A, JAIL HEIGHTS FILING NO. 1, AND A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN 5112 OF THE SE114 OF SECTION 11, T 5 Ss R 81 W, OF THE 6TH P. M. LOT Fs TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO BX.J2 MCQMA fA1f D FL G S-FLVOW AND A L D N R67tl'DD' E E&W- Z- - l y EHRtS-L ?ALANCHEH I RD h V' BUICD/NC _ ?'"„ ENVELOP ?. w " -6,669 S0UARE FEEr - 4813 AQR£S LOT 5 2 $ ?I APPROXU/AZE tOGOfW G" = 3396. MEOIUw S£i£R/TY ROCKFAfL HAIARD j LOT 15 N fia7 o E 9s ?2`; 4. 113.76' N N 8375'40' E O N 83•ES'?D" E 87.52 a.-- ? H 22,Y36 SLQTOUAkF FEEr p 0503 ACRES GRAPHIC SCALE a P k q ? ? q BULOMC p ? EYELOPE n n sob"? S 882tl'f/G' W 98.91' 4 -- 7L t.5 LOI- t - 26,669 SQUARE FEET 8 6,258 SQUARE FtFr WILDING ENVELOPE ACCESS ANP Ulkl/Y fA`.EALENT LffF UNf YgG'AIfD I(j/ 6Y MS PLAT-y..^---- ? - i COT 2 - 22.136 SQUARE FEET 16780 1 S 037 SQUARE FE£r suwvG ENVELOPE LOT 14 > sas?v?eW t p x (BASIS CF BEARfNG5J ` F(Apyb 6,78 REDAR O' ?%` ii wfrttaM cAP R.S Ntl_ fzs£ al. 11 ' FONNV 3/B"KEBAB :l w/ALau. eAP IS NO, usl I LOT 4 LOT 5 YAK DAS SCHONE- FILING NO, t NOMR ? 8EA(BNGM 586TO'OD"W ALLMEO ME NORMMY LOT ! NES OF 10M S AND 6 GF VA2 OAS 5CNON£ AGING NQ f. 8Cr!(EE FOUND Md?U,NENY,S As lN(ilEAT£O OA It or SURSE+:, 41EOEU6ER 1998. O D£NOIE6.SET `C AND PIS N 2682& 3J2i UENOIES SRKET ADDRESS FOR?W(j.`Q((?$;41Y.C+?'?' ? ?' 6 26vE?Cifq.Y. AL f.. t4E DEt#LOPMENT WLL BE lam-- _ AREA 'MMIN &E PLAM ' IO FNYGT A IHF La? YDC "/EHT P£Rf.' E 'I^ 'IFS SHALL BE Lq/mSCAPN& L 15 P?c = CE YGV AT CR DE -ME 1 RNG tI Pl t '..( ' , 8E ro P DErs;._ Br,G . - NE NL 6- .ORE M„ w l , I. A .;`•fER Be! ._.... SU, ISF SHALE M<,n onlq' Cy?* LJq 0 - 0 N CCESS? AND U ORA(KAG, E, v AND UA[?Y - Q EA5EMENT Q •M Z -"'-" S857333 'W 5L 07 £GYMLD BRASB TAG C NE CAP. // 1RAN5F ws? PAD PE k PGS 26426 CHARON/X LANE (50 1&J)Vnv mAP .4/NIFYNiTE8Ytl4UC ? wcse eRe?a ma ,d. .n.Y- u u aF dot e, wr oaSeeNN-/ /Yw 4F,. n+.ey Fa+w tau rr? ? awm. ?b m /MU:smuf?n a ym n ea?. Yrze t n? rha ub,rce sain b e Mu"n rrt m .?ueKK+d w'? i /<raomh.- ?... rzon a?ww.e-rw ?N vv, eeraa er"air N• •n x,e ?ww?o aesr `a:?`" r,v ep XR 2 .a eK avrao f s n urrc a ,. Y aAa ,+a am. t u uri€ 7 noarr dT Gyweofx... aw ewxaaeb •oa «mewnmy.+ wH h?F Y ? Py C.mm,waiw •R,,.es ,n=wxvG.Ak4EXVf80YU[d ELF: ,F.+? M • wpn,et r .a a e- A/Rid M of ro cawdo... ?? tw cmmruw LSK_^521?•" ;Z. p, ub sway ftN 20 mfi+wawr?r h.s a orHe+ N o+..Cr.n m e? ? 0"m.,x. ?e ?x adei. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 12, °1999 SUBJECT: A request for variance from Section 12-61-1-8, Density Control; of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for a residential addition to Unit #8 of the Vail Rowhouses, located at 303 Core Creek Drive/Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village 1s# Filing. Applicant: P. Anthony & Constance Ridder, represented by Gwathmey, Pratt & Schultz Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, P. Anthony and Constance Ridder; represented by Andrew Blumetti of Gwathmey, Pratt & Schultz Architects are requesting a variance from Section 12-6H-8 (density) of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. An approval of the requested variance would allow the applicants to add an addition to their townhouse located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Unit 8 of the Vail Rowhouses. The addition of 236 square foot to an already requested 250 square of additional GRF'A is intended to allow for the construction of a 32 square foot new front entry on the south side of the unit a 300 square foot deck enclosure on the second floor, and two, 77 square foot deck enclosures on the north side of the unit adjacent to Gore Creek. Since the applicants' property already exceeds the maximum allowable GRFA, and the addition is for more than the permitted 250 square of additional GRFA, a variance request must be considered by the Planning & Environmental Commission. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested density variance at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Unit #8. Staff's recommendation of denial is based upon the review of the criteria and factors outlined in Section Ili of this memorandum, and subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the density variance constitutes a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the High Density Multi-family Zone District. 2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the density regulation does not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Municipal Code. rOWN0,VAII, j 3. There are not any exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the High Density Multi-family Zone District. 4. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the density regulation does not deprive the applicant of development privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the High Density Multi-family Zone District. II. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 2,659 square feet Zoning: High Density Multi-family Allowed Existinq Proposed GRFA: 1,645 sq. ft. (wf250) 1,935 sq. ft. 2,421 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 32' N/C Sides: 20' 00/0" N/C' Rear: 20' 22' N/C Site Coverage: 55%,or 1,462 sq. ft. 42% br 1,117 sq. ft. 47% or 1,250 sq. ft. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Density Variance: Upon review of Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed residential addition will be compatible with the surrounding development. The additional mass and bulk that is proposed is similar to that enjoyed by surrounding homes in the area, and has been well incorporated into the new design. Staff believes, however, that the requested variance for additional GRFA is inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town. The 60% limitation was adopted by the Town to regulate development in the High Density Multi-family Zane District. The applicant's property already exceeds the maximum allowable GRFA. 2 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. Staff believes that an approval of the requested variance would result in a grant of special privilege. Staff believes there are no unique circumstances, nor any extraordinary conditions which impact the applicant's lot or residence which would warrant the granting of a variance. Staff has reviewed the proposal and visited the site. Based upon our review of the proposal and our site visit, we do not believe there is a physical hardship which impacts the applicant's property. Many of the properties in the vicinity of the applicant's property and throughout the Town have reached their maximum allowable GRFA and have utilized the additional 250. Staff does not believe that reaching the maximum development potential is a unique circumstance. 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 that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above- referenced criteria. B. The a q and Environmental Commission shall make the follpwina findings before orantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 11 ?.__.. }- --- T 4*100 ti Til 11 --t4 -- MONA t h N ? t"'' 5Y c 1t - a 1 _ . A - i ?l S p - rz, n ?K3Tc?` ??rr?aM ` t '? raPEN 0.Aic, ` Uf-E , 1 \ ? f e\ti? FVF L: pJ6 of Gk fm 7C7 ?°39•?r Gr??j{ ? q I y. o Ar .g. - ?r?"P. .t?? r, A1 sz a/e' a- '_. ih • • • I MEMORANDUM T©: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 12, 1999, SUBJECT: A request for a variance to the front setback, to allow a new garage, located at 285 Forest Road/Lot 20, Vail Village 1st Applicant: Steve & Linda Waterhouse, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Jeff Hunt f. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to the front setback requirement. The proposal involves building a new two-car garage to replace the existing one-car garage. The existing garage is about 297 sq. ft. and the new garage would be about 485 sq ft. The lot is subject to the following setback requirements: front 20'; sides and rear 15'. The existing garage has a front setback of about 3.25' and aside setback of about 13.5; see photo, below. The new garage would be constructed with a front setback of about 3.25' and a side setback of 15'. A copy of the plan is attached for review. A separation request was approved in 1989 to allow the garage to be separated from the dwelling. The approval was based on the site constraints presented by the existing dwelling. A variance was then approved in 1990 to allow the garage to be within 3' of the front property line. The approval was based on other garages in the area being within the front setback, minimizing disturbance to the hillside and saving a mature evergreen tree. uubsequent to this approval, the Town adopted development standards that provide for a 24' clearance between garage doors and the edge of pavement. Because of the subsequent development standard and because the new garage would be larger than the existing garage, staff required the applicant to obtain approval of a variance. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on this memo, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the variance. This recommendation is subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in WNOFV,11L k 10 practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: Parcel A: 6,865 sq. ft. Standard Allowed/Required Existina Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20' 15' 3.5' 4t , -. 11 Side: 15' 13.5' 15' ?T s 4 y e ?¢ i bt?s`J. 3 2 IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the Planning and Environmental Cot,iemaission shall consider the following factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed garage would be about 3.5' from the front property line and 15' from the side line. This would be an improvement of the existing garage side setback which is about 13.5. There are no nearby buildings on this side. The front of the existing garage is about 15' long. The new garage would have a front of about 22'. The new garage would have about 7' or 46% more frontage along the road. Structures are setback from roads for several reasons, one of which is to reduce the likelihood of collision. Having a larger garage about 3:5' from the road would increase the likelihood of collisions. Also, a larger garage about 3.5' from the property line would be more visually obtrusive to neighbors than a smaller garage. 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. Other property owners are required to place new garages in compliance with development standards, unless there are unusual circumstances. Staff believes there are no unusual circumstances in thisinstance, and that the garage could be placed on the property in compliance with development standards. 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. This is the main concern with the proposal. The development standard' that provides for a clearance of 4' between the garage doors and the edge of pavement is intended to insure safe and efficient transportation. The setback allows for most vehicles to be parked completely off the asphalt reducing the potential for collisions, providing for better vision clearance and allowing for street maintenance including plowing. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Town staff including the Public Works Department believes there are no legitimate reasons for the new garage to not meet standards. The slope of the property is less than 30%, which is the threshold to allow garages within front setbacks. The,stbpe does not preclude construction. As proposed, the north wall of the, new garage would extend 4' closer to the mature evergreen tree and the roof would extend about 6' closer to the tree than the existing garagie. The foundation would extend to the ground„ rather than be canilev;red as is the existing garage; see photo, below. Due to this, the tree world likely not survive for long, thus eliminating the basis of the original variance. It appears that the chief reason for the request is protection of the view from the east facing windows of the residence, which is understandable, but does not justify the granting of a variance to a development standard that others are required to meet. Also, there is the option of retaining the existing garage. 4 B. Necessarv Finding: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall' make the following findings before granting a variance 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation. would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. OTHER Should the Planning and Environmental Commission decide to approve the variance, staff recommends: That the Commission makes 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 5 the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. And that the approval be subject to the following condition of approval: The north wall and roof line of the new garage do not extend any closer to the mature evergreen tree than the existing garage's wall and roofline, unless approved by a professional arborist. F:XEVERYONEIPECIMEMOSi99\wATERHOU 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission PROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 12, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Special' Development' District #30 (VAC), to allow for an additional dwelling unit and reduction of accommodation units, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village First Piling. Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins Planner: Dominic Mauriello/Brent Wilson i. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The Vail Athletic Club (JWT 1987 Limited Partnership), represented by Stan Cope and John Perkins, has submitted a request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District (SDD) #30 (as amended by Ordinance No. , Series of 1998) to allow for a reduction in the number of accommodation units from 54 to 46, an increase in the number of dwelling units from 3 to 4, and an increase in GRFA as shown in the table attached to this memorandum. The changes are proposed due to financing constraints (the need to have additional revenue from the sale of a dwelling unit) and also the desire to construct larger accommodation units which the applicant states are more suitable for a first class boutique hotel. Additionally, the owner of a condominium on the fifth floor is proposing to add a dormer and 71 sq. ft. of GRFA to their unit. The two applications are being considered jointly. Below is a summary of the changes: Common Area: There is a slight reduction in common area (52 sq. ft.) from the 1998 approval. AUs: The number of AUs is reduced to 46 units. The GRFA allocated to all AUs decreased approximately 10% or 2,337 sq. ft. Most of the existing accommodation units are approximately 300 sq. ft. Some new accommodation units are proposed at 500+ sq. ft. DUs: The number of DUs is being increased by one unit. The new proposed unit is approximately 3,700 sq. ft. in area. EHUs: The number of EHUs remains the same at 4 units. The square footage allocated is being reduced by 39 sq. ft. The sizes range from 220 sq. ft. to 350 sq. ft. • The proposed changes to the building do not result in an amended footprint or modifications to To?f?,4?? the site plan. The previously approved site plan and conditions of approval are proposed to be carried forward. The building elevations are modified by the addition of several dormers on the south and north'elevations of the building and the enclosure of areas that were previously balconies. The DRB will be required to review these changes to the building. Overall the changes are minor in terms of bulk and mass or impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed building continues to meet the definition of a lodge with 64% of the GRFA devoted to accommodation units and 36% devoted to dwelling units. Reductions of the proposed floor plans are attached. In 1998 the applicant received approval to eliminate one dwelling unit and one accommodation unit and make other interior and exterior changes to the building. The 1996-approval allowed for 55 accommodation units, 4 dwelling units, and 4 employee housing units. The 1993 approval allowed 52 accommodation units, 3 dwelling units, and 4 employee housing units. The existing development on the property contains 9 dwelling units, 28 accommodation units, and 4 employee housing units. 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No recommendation is provided at this time as this is a worksession. III. AMENDMENT PROCEDURE The proposed changes described in Section I are considered to be Major Amendments to the 1993 approved SDD and subsequent amendments. As stated in the Zoning Code Section 12- 99-2, a major amendment is defined as follows: "Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved Special Development District ...,, Since the applicant's proposed amendments to the SDD involve changes to gross residential floor area, as well as density (number of units), the proposal is required to follow the Major SDD Amendment procedure. The PEG shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the proposal. The Town Council may approve the proposal via two readings of an ordinance. IV. SPECIAL. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA As provided for in Section 12-9A-8 of the Town Code, there are nine SDD review criteria which are to be used to evaluate the merits of a proposed Major SDD Amendment. It should be noted that the staff analysis of the project's compliance with the SDD review criteria has only focused on the proposed amendments to the SDD, and not on the balance of the 1993 or 1996 approvals. The review criteria, and the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with the review criteria, are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bunk, budding height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2 Minimal architectural changes are proposed to the design of the building. The overall scale, and mass and bulk of the proposed structure will generally remain as it was approved in 1993 and subsequently amended. The primary roof forms (and building height) will also remain as approved in 1993, with the addition of several dormers. Staff does not believe these changes will significantly affect the bulk and scale of the building. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable . relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The general uses within the redeveloped Vail Athletic Club (VAC) are not proposed to change. The building continues to meet the definition of a lodge as more than 50% of the GRFA is devoted to accommodation units. The floor area additions are relatively minor with respect to the overall scope of the project with an increase of approximately 2.62% from the 1998 approval or 2.78% over the 1996 approval. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10. Staff believes that the proposed amendments to the SDD are in compliance with this criteria. The Town's zoning requirement is for a total of 20 parking spaces to be provided on the site, which is based on the reduction in the number of accommodation units and the addition of a new dwelling unit. This proposal would reduce the number of required parking spaces from 22 to 20, however, the applicant is proposing to accommodate 22 parking spaces on-site. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. VA#L LAND USE PLAN The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for new or amended development proposals. The staff considered the following Land Use Plan Goals/Policies during the initial review of the 1993 SDD establishment for the Vail Athletic Club, and further, staff believes that these goals and policies continue to be applicable with regard to the current Major SDD Amendment proposal: 1.11 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1133 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 3^3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 442 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing 10 character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban 3 Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 4,3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) Staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment application meets the goals and policies of the-Land Use Plan as described above. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The staff believes that the 1993 approval for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club carried out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Additionally, the staff believes that the current Major SDD Amendment proposal also furthers the following Master Plan's goals and objectives: Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Obiective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Obiective 2.3 - Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policv 2.3.1 - The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. Obiective 2.5 - Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Goal #5 - Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Policv 5.1.5 - Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. The staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment application meets the Vail Village Master Plan goals, objectives, and policies as described above. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Although this project is located adjacent to Gore Greek, no portion of the proposal 4 encroaches into the fifty-foot stream setback, nor into the 100-year floodplain. There are no other natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Although this criteria was discussed extensively during the 1993 review, staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no negative impacts on this criteria. G. A circulation system designed for bath vehicles and pedestrians addressing` on and off-site traffic circulation. The staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no impacts on this criteria. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Again, the staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no impacts on this criteria. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Phase I of the VAC redevelopment has been completed (Club Levels - lowest two floors). The balance of the redevelopment is considered Phase 11. n VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB -- MAJOR SDD AMENDMENT -1999 1996 1997 1998 1999 percent Percent Approved Approved Approved Proposed Change Change Land Use Totals Totals Totals Totals from 1998 from 1996 AU GRFA: 24,898 25,063 25,008 22,671 -10.31% -9.82°% DU GRFA: 8,312 8,125 8,070 12,672 36.32°% 34.41°% EHU GRFA: 1,295 1,207 1,188 1,149 -3.39% -12.71°% Common Area: 15,054 15,553 15,945 15,893 -0.33°% 5.28% Conference: 1,545 1,500 1,330 1,330 0.00°% 16.17% Restaurant: 3,268 3,403 3,562 3,562 0.00% 8.25% Club: 21,609 21,609 21,499 21,499 0.00% -0.51°% Garage: 4,780 4,568 4,296 4,296 0.00°% 11.27°% Grand Total: 80,761 81,028 80,898 83,072 2.62°% 2.78%4 1996 1997 1998 1999 Approved Approved Approved Proposed Units Totals Totals Totals Totals # of AU's 55 55 54 46 # of DU's 4 4 3 4 # of EHU's 4 4 4 4 Develoment 1993 1996 1998 1999 Standard PA Zaninq Existing Approval Approval Approval Proposal Density 25 du's per acre 24.33 du's 30.33 du's 32.83 du's 31.33 du's 28.33 du's or 17.5 du's (density calc..) (density calc.) (density calc.) (density cafe.) (density calc.) (AU'sara 0.5 of aDU and EHU's are 0,333 - at a DU) GRFA 24,388 so, ft. 20,361 sq. ft. 32,282 sq. ft. 34,505 s% ft. 34,266 sm ft. 36,492 sq. #t. Notes: 1998 proposed square footage figures were calculated from a new and complete set of Vail Athletic Club plans at a scale of one-eighth inch equals one foot. A precise comparison with 1995 and 1997 figures is not feasible due to differences in previous plans' architectural scales, digitizing operators, and blue print reproduction images. The 1998 proposal includes a net total of 62 square feet of additional floor area that is located on the Fourth and Fifth Floors. f:Severyone emos\991Vac99 4 c Chub t' p?th?e ? a Map ,on Lo. t gupject ProPettY 7 VA?LVILL-'EFIl1N A?4CthiG l-0* .rah, S & #, V i f?L VILLAGE F1L1N1' 0 1 }Ui+?wtd MUS lp VAAUS CoNt3 wt Ali.:i?rt1L1 iiC ytp ?LUa 24 ' 252 TP.P•CT 8 & C {(USA' 30`3 13 T', 1 2 3 4 5 617 81 51t?11 17 M L 0 7-r VA,L 1 Cti€2ht1C? ? ..... , 362 14 K 365 ..,.R 40 1' 2 3/ 4 t? 56 v L> C MfIDV 360 TIVOI P ooment Department. peyel produced by the Gommun'? i` n 1 1 ?t}?f^t YYVVt?4l ;{"x.A IJ tmawat mezirnr ww mx pxt a w t+o•acMC! Mc Klci WMnfIIR cwwt, KVISM, f , r ? , ! ?t.-? __ .. _ «. ..-. ? « /AY57?r.._.. /J ^•4 SUb R S.S r 1?'g f .F j E g ? 1 1 ? I I ` F ; ? r 1 t. 1 y f f 1 ? 1 it {f / 7 t t 1 ?IW 1 ? Y f i f 4 1 f i s i I r 1 A t f ---------------- f 1 I t Lt 1 _ - f t ------- --------- co ^ t ? ? fkG1K Mf IK l 41 Vl\ ewi CIO \ , x I fX ! iY 1Y l F F 1 " - ----- --- f -- , & 1---- ---- 4 ? ii, (- I _------- - xf« ofEK - - ._ ? ? r O ( pa t??otk ; '. DooKe pAv DPAft CHECXM, wiE III it ,m rla , SD. I xx,ovellc«r 11 • T >.6 ? TO t Y Y?11/C , MWJFY Nt?n/f ! 10'-t. elf _ _ T ? Iy.M I i-C ' H[Q .-R? , __,__.?_.. __ i t ? f t f t: t i ! ? k : , t f 't E ? f f cz C t t' ? ? i r j 'f f ?ya l i , , R u IF, t _. 4 ! . ry Ei i•.. ------------ 751-171/ ?y ALA Qk: - - - - 11W T -1 KKK QkS a mw?wcf: xEansvws. Ins M T V V ._. ._._ _ti?. __._ -. ..__--....... .___.._ xMl HF ?? FX 71ff BA 10 f4 iT x3 f4 FY t_.. .F OT - t I £ ----------- ------------------ ------------- _ ; - a -'? I__-----_ ' ..i." t ri f e..u iCc`Prl . I7n ! II Yr n r i t E! . j - ' fNtApRt, ?iOClin tl{IMI, r i - WE. Ka 78. i'A9 s " wo- z or: y LOWN AI. 1WR c I-Mtq ttt8 .v.., Lt r Srs WtttluC2- kEVI">KiNR i La i o ,A ( r. o o a o e., o o „ x _ - r--- - - - - --- - - f i • ? , ' t , i , V a -- ----------- i t ------------- ------ -------- _ , t\ - L(FLA')? `- - 17 L (DI MAW ,n 7 6 ,._. I 'Y F 17+4. 4 r r ?. f tE i ' RE1FiInnM4 L!? t?l to ( 0 l;l ..._- f? & `c° OKAU ?Ay. ?>,aRy ? ? ? ? i 4 ' r LJ tA- _ ? bt w1i 94 Fi-vtJ -? - , ({ J , ?. I 1 JL= -'-L - Aft 4 ? } ? E4 1°r t( f bRA,7tF, meo?D 4 NIL w Is. 1995 11 ? ' " Rer s Y LD4R i • v rr rs rr n /r aan /r ! m-e pr srr A ar.w t/r ?y _? ,,,-_ _ ___ _ __..___ t • : r of AU i F - . , ? AU ? IBC ? ? fi ?.r . ri ! o o? (( LLL ? TWO AU 'J Ttnk lift Arl, [ T : : r t 9 k EMT** emook"m { 4 { o Thkd Fba P 10 E M _ CIXORI'1. AfWIM A F.sl I J W 0 .c ca ?C a a h ? Nt f n1 G oyt3 T cX??: r t-- O RFAN4t s axrc f,fCKUt ?u i DATE, IM Fa: 9; AI-3 , ?- 1fWP M•i?,/f M-b 3Jf ( t i t Y it fI ?p'4 f' ii"' .b'[gSM. A a ? mod I )A T ar ,r•Nr ry III ,r-e 711 t f t}r1 h 1 ? r ,epwft ?e,,1? c??-has . 9 sw mn : xM? • r-aw C to ik T te 1Q f2 tE V4' T Tr I r ... s, 1 r _ w Y es nv :s-er u-r t 1??T t ?d- I r 1 t i 1 1 ! I ?1 , t 1 r 1 ! 4 S w t Y I Q• tk V Y4?E RU I 1 1{I y 1 .. . n ?-?(( ??-''++?,, a f 99 E {}? 71101 e°E i iy ? ?t I ! I ` _ .V - 'V - _ _ ?f I y??y? G1iIR?f W {IIINW 45 - F S- x t/6" . r-6, W. CMIRC', frffo& a 0 2 Q1 78 ? ? tS} DRAW., t 471LCN€b DAM tb, 16, 1W Af.4 FOWR Mel AfiN FLt1CN5 r [ 1 1 P 1 i I k t F I• C East Ebwa 1 i 1 ! 1 1 ! i 1 1 I i 1 1 ! I I I 1 I _.? ? I?? I 4 '1 11 1 f 1 ik !t' '?I !?? f4i ' I 1 f EE 1B r ,a T OR !6?I'?nlh!I?lIVIIIIIIIdIIIII?VG?IIi??I R?milll??u?Ila?il no Om FA i?g JL?j I "r?llw I 1,T1 -11 1+111 W r i ? h r I i I ?i? I? . I? ill I hIl 1 I 1 f I° I -1 r. { V ' f r. i 1: F -mill 17 I"o f ??y p?y ?i 1 1 a 7 1 1 1. _ k _ ' 1 _ 1 ___.._.c.,._ t -------------- - I t -------- ! 1 _ 1 1 _ _ 1 . II t3 I I 1 1 I F k, I • , Cs d d C C .C cCu "? e4y W iA 1 4f1 t i i 1 ??I( t(( {rFi CF rvJJJ??111?? i , ED, EB -rrrCV?s n E u t I ! s ? i? ? ! ?? ? '? M? (1 f1 ? ? 1 it ?) ?f JAJ ssssissisitsss+?ssi? + f { Or- a-„e= (?r/ t] 12 Lt 10 '{7t' i t 1 1 ci441??? II -•? .s-. r I J?iB? ?? ? E? !1. ?,y? 1E?lrillTitf11111 ' _ fiI?,T?[ - Ulu T T 2A ?1 - -- t,e.. t to i 1 M, ca.7wtr: Rf114ppJtIS. A U ? 4 LQ T T 2A T I , { k I k I I 4p TOWNOFYAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 March 25, 1999 Kurt Davis 500 S. Frontage Road East, Suite 112 Vail, CO 81657 RE: Timber Falls-Site 19 proposed 6-plea Dear Kurt: The Planning and Environmental Comxriission (PEC), at its April 13, 1998 meeting, found that Phase X (Building #19) of Timber Falls has a vested development right for one structure in the exact form, size, density [6 dwelling units], and configuration as Building #18 and that anything in addition to or different than specifically that, will require a PEC review and approval of an amended plan. The actual building footprint of Building # 18 or 20 is 2,353 sq. ft. which does not include the covered stairs between the two halves of the building. The proposed footprint of Building '19 is 2,353 sq, ft. which also does not include the breezeway between the two halves of tlii building, The proposed breezeway for Building #19 is approximately 732 sq. ft. in area, which is approximately 432 sq. ft. larger than on Building #18 or 20. The proposed Building #19 also does not utilize all of the Gross Residential Floor Area that it would allowed by the April 13, 1998 approval due to building height, site coverage, and newer Building Code restrictions. It has been determined by the Building Division that the breezeways (covered stairs) that exist on Buildings 18 or 20 do not meet current minimum Building Code standards for exiting. The Building Division has also determined that the proposed breezeway for Building #19 is the minimum necessary to comply with the Building Code. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Community Development Department that the proposed footprint and breezeway for Building #19 complies with the intent of the PEC°s April 2, 1998 decision since the change in .Building. Code has created the need for a larger breezeway. Page 1 of 2 * RECYCLEDPAPER This decision will be reported to the PEC at it's April 12, 1999 meeting. Any affected person wishing to appeal this decision shall do so within 10 days from the date this decision becomes final. if you have any questions, please call me at 479-2148. Si erely, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Chief of Planning c; Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Timber Falls Master Homeowners Association Page 2 of 2 * TouNof vaII, Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 April 9, 1999 Joe Macy Vail Associates Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Re: Minor Amendment to Golden Peak Development Plan to Construct a Ski Tunnel; . Tract B, Vail Village 7th Dear Joe: Based on the findings contained in,this letter, the ski tunnel has been approved by staff with the following conditions. 1. A grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 2. The design of the tunnel entrance and exit shall be approved by the Design Review Board. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The request is for a minor amendment to the Geld Peak development plan to allow for the construction of a tunnel under a race course. The tunnel would improve skier access to Ski Club Vail, Pinos del Norte condos and North Woods condos. Currently, skiers must cross the race course on Ruder's Route. This crossing has the potential for skier collisions. The tunnel would greatly reduce the potential for collisions. The tunnel would be about 290' long, 20'8" wide and 10' high. The tunnel would be located under Ruder's Route ski run, west of Gold Peak chair #6, at about the 8390' elevation. 11. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Section 12-8D-6-D: Amendments to the approved development plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-9A-10 of this Title. Section 12-9A-10 is addressed below. 1 7M RECYCLED PAPER B. Section 12-9A-2: Minor Amendment (staff review). Modifications to site plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved district and are consistent with.the design criteria of this Chapter, may include changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation. The approved Cold Peak development plan includes the Gold Peak buildings, parking and ski runs. The tunnel would not affect these elements of the plan except for the ski runs. The tunnel would not alter the basic intent or character of the ski runs. The tunnel is in keeping with and would be incidental to the ski runs. The design of the tunnel will have to be approved by the Design Review Board. Staff believes the tunnel will actually improve pedestrian (skier) traffic and have no impact on vehicular traffic. C. Section 12.9A-10: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12-9A-2 may be approved by the Department of Community Development. Notification of a proposed minor amendment and a report of staff action shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the district that may be affected by the amendment. Notification shall be po*l...arked no later than 5 days following staff action on the amendment and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. As noted above, staff believes the amendment is consistent with the design criteria under subsection 12-9A-2. Notification of the proposal was provided to all adjacent property owners on March 25, 1999. No comments were received. You should be aware that this approval could be called up for review by the Planning & Environmental Commission. Please feel free to call me at 970-479-2140 to discuss the project. Sincerely, Je Hunt Senior Planner F;\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\99\GQLD-PK 2 Alt F_ Approved April 26, 1999 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 12, 1999 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: John Schofield Greg Moffet Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland Brian Doyon George Ruther Diane Golden Ann Bishop Jeff Hunt Tom Weber Judy Rodriguez Public Hearinq John Schofield called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2:00 pm. 1. A request for an amendment to a previously approved final plat for the Tall Pines Subdivision, located at 2239 Chamonix Lane / Lots 1 & 2, Tall Pines Subdivision. Applicant: Chamonix Development Group, LLC & Paintbrush-Tall Pines, GP Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had any comments. Kurt Davis, one of the two owners, said there were a number of studies done with Art Mears. He thought it ok to swell over.the envelope lines, as they did own the property, and that no view corridors would be affected. He said the supports would be 7' high. John Schofield asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Discussion ensued. Tom Weber made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-61-1-8, Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for gross residential floor area (GRFA) in excess of the allowable maximum, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive #8 / Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: P. Anthony & Constance Ridder, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects 1 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes . TOWN©FVATL t April 12, 1999 Approved April 26, 1999 Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Andy Slumetti, from Gwathmey Pratt Schultz, representing the owner, stated that 2 of the other lots were over the 60% site area of allowable GRFA, and this was determining density. He said lot 12 was at 91 % of the site area. John Schofield asked for any Commissioner comments. Tom Weber asked why the adjoining owners were over in GRFA and if they were built before the overriding zoning. George Ruther said they were built under Eagle County regulations. He said that while there was a non-conforming condition on the sites, there was an opportunity to add 250 sq. ft. Tom Weber thought it would be a grant of special privilege. Galen Aasland had no comments. Diane Golden thought it would be a grant of special privilege. Andy Blumetti said that they were just trying to catch up with the existing owners. Tom Weber said the project was developed under County zoning codes, not under the Town of Vail code. John Schofield said he saw no hardship and therefore a grant of special privilege. Andy Blumentti said the hardship was trying to catch up with the other owners. Galen Aasland made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion to deny passed by a vote of 4-0. 3. A request for a variance to the front setback, to allow a new garage, located at 285 Forest Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1 s`. Applicant: Steve & Linda Waterhouse, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Jeff Hunt Jeff Hunt gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. 2 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Apri112,1999 is Approved April 26, 1999 Steve Riden representing the applicant, said he compromised and reduced the length of the garage to 20', with a 19' inside space. He said lengthening the retaining wall was included in the proposal to protect a mature tree and that the situation was being improved by moving the garage further away from the side setback. Galen Aasland asked if there would be space above the garage. Steve Riden, said no. John Schofield asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Tom Weber said he was in favor of this and suggested that the new outside parking space be cantilevered, as he thought the tree would be lost with a foundation. Galen Aasland agreed with Tom. He said it needed to be cantilevered, so as not to change the water table and the garage needed to be limited to 1 story. Diane Golden said she was in favor of granting this, as the applicant had made a concerted effort, and so she agreed with her fellow commissioners. John Schofield said the tree warranted a hardship and that there were other garages in the front setback in that neighborhood, but the lighting on the existing lot would need to be brought into compliance as part of this approval. He suggested using one or more of the existing piers and cantilevering the north portion. Steve Riden said he could cantilever 5'. Tom Weber made a motion for approval with 5 conditions; 1. That the north wall and roof line of the new garage do not extend any closer to the mature evergreen tree than the existing garage's wall and roofline, unless approved by a professional arborist. 2. That the site lighting be brought into compliance with the Town regulations. 3. Than the pier & beam garage foundation & parking space be cantilevered to minimize the site disturbance. 4. That the plate height of the garage roof be determined by a reasonable 8' garage door. 5. That the garage roof eave does not extend over the front property line into the public right-of- way. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 4. A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District #80 (VAC), to allow for an additional dwelling unit and reduction of accommodation urns, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 852 F. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, Vail Village First Filing. 3 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 12, 1999 Approved April 26, 1999 Applicant: JUVT 1967 Limited Partnership, represented by John Perkins Planner. Dominic Mauriello/Brent Wilson Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Stan Cope and John Perkins, representing the Vail Athletic Club, introduced themselves and Stan Cope stated that they were looking for fewer high-end hotel rooms with an increase of more than doubling'the AU square footage. He said they were trying not to have controversial redevelopment and that only one dormer on the south side increased the mass of the building, with all the redevelopment being down on the third floor. He said they would like to try and change the AU zoning, since they were an SDD and would like to have 46-46 keys in the ordinance for a little more flexibility. Dominic Mauriello said there were other SDD's out there that have flexibility created in the ordinance. Discussion ensued with issues being raised on the size of the EHU's, the large size of the new DU and concerns over the separate application for a new dormer, etc. No action was taken. John Schofield stated for the record that there was no public present to comment. 5. A request for a minor amendment to a 'previously approved development plan, to allow for the construction of a skier tunnel at the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 456 Vail Valley Drive / Tract B, Vail Village 7th Piling. Applicant: Vail Associates Planner: Jeff Hunt 6. 7 STAFF APPROVED A request for a modification to a platted building envelope, located at 1047 Riva Glen/ Lot 6, Spraddle Greek Estates. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino, represented by Robert Mach Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26, 1999 A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear setback, located at 2657 Arosa Drive / Lot 8, Block D, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 4 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 12, 1999 Approved April 26, 1999 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26, 1999 8. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2" d Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 26, 1999 Diane Golden made a motion to table items #6, #7 and #8. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 9. A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, to amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the Ordinance, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive/ Part of Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village 1S` Filing. Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 10. A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 11. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for outdoor patio seating at Special Development District #35, located at 242 East Meadow Drive / Austria Haus Club & Hotel. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 12. Information Update Timberfalis letter (in packet) 5 Punning and Environmental Commission Minutes Apri11211999 Approved April 26,1999 Russ Forrest asked if the PEC would like to be involved in the Orientation process of the new PEC members. 13. Approval of lurch 22, 1999 minutes. Tom Weber made a motion for approval of the amended minutes. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3-0 (Diane Golden abstained). Diane Golden made a motion to adjourn. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. 6 Planning and EmAronmenial Commission Minutes April 12, 1999