Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999-0524 PEC
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 May 24, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type Il employee housing unit, located at 1538 Spring Hill Lane/Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: Wiley Family Partnership Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a minor subdivision to Parcel F, Briar Patch, to allow for a change in the platted building envelope location, located at 1386 Buffher Creek Road/ Parcel F, Briar Patch. Applicant: Web Atwell Planner: Brent Wilson 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 2na Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther 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 final review of a proposal to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school for a ten-month period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther 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 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department TDWNO Published May 7, 1999 in the Vail Trail. PAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, May 24, 1999 AGENDA Proiect Orientation ! PEC LUNCH - Community Develooment Department MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Wiley-1538 Spring Hill Lane 2. Atwell -1386 Buffher Creek Road 3. Forbes -- 362 Mill Greek Circle 4. Mathias - 5125 Black Bear Lane 5. D'Agostino -1047 Riva Glen 6. Dobson Ice Arena-321 E. Lionshead Circle Driver: George NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 11:3n P.M. 12:30 pm. 2:00 pm. 1. A request for a final review to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school for a ten- month period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 employee housing unit to be located at 1538 Spring Hill Lane/Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: Wiley Family Partnership Planner: Allison Ochs 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs yk TOWN OF VAIL MEMBERS ABSENT 4. A request for a minor subdivision to Parcel F, Briar Patch to allow for a change in the platted building envelope "C" location, and required employee housing unit designation, located at 1386 Buffher Creek Road. Applicant: Web Atwell Planner: Brent Wilson 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6, to allow for the construction of a garage within a front setback and Section 12-10-8, to allow for the construction of an undersized garage, located at 5125 Black Bear Lane / Lot 11, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Montogomery (Mike) Mathias Planner: Allison Ochs 6. 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 7. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion and loading dock addition 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 8. A request for a final review of a proposal to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation Zone District," Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther 9. 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 JUNE 28,1999 10. Information Update r Education. Series 11. Approval of May 10, 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 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 21, 1998 in the Vail Trail 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, May 24, 1999 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Community Deaelooment Department MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Site Visits : 1. Wiley-1538 Spring Hill Lane 2. Atwell -1386 Buflher Creek Road 3. Mathias - 5125 Black Bear Lane 4. Dobson Ice Arena - 321 E. Lionshead Circle Driver: George 11:30 p.m. 12:30 p.m. NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m,, the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 pm. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm. 1. A request for a final review to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school for a tern- month period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`" Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Luther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH 5 CONDITIONS: TOW] V OF MEMBERS ABSENT 1. That the conditional use permit for the temporary structure expire on M 1-, 2984 July 1, 2001. 2. That the temporary structure be removed from the property on or before M 31, 2981- July 1, 2001. 40 *YA10L Tom Weber Diane Golden 3. That the applicant submit a written statement to the Town of Vail agreeing not to reappear before the Planning & Environmental Commission with a request for an extension to the conditional use permit for the temporary structure, prior to installing the structure. 2. 4. That the applicant implement the exterior materials improvements recommended by the Town of Vail Design Review Board prior to occupying the structure. 5. That the applicant underground the utilities, pave the access and cover or remove the hitches. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 employee housing unit to be located at 1538 Spring Hill Lane/Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley First Piling. Applicant: Wiley Family Partnership Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type 11 EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 3. 4. 2. That the applicant amend the submitted plans, showing a pedestrian access from the outside of the residence to the proposed Type 11 EHU. 3. That the wall between the primary unit and the EHU be concrete. A request for a minor subdivision to Parcel F, Briar Patch to allow for a change in the platted building envelope "C" location, and required employee housing unit designation, located at 1386 Buffher Creek Road. Applicant: Web Atwell Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the applicant provide the Town of Vail Department of Community Development with a revised final plat with all required signatures for recording, prior to submitting an application for Design Review for any proposed improvements on the lot. A request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6, to allow for the construction of a garage within a front setback and Section 12-10-8, to allow for the construction,of an undersized garage, located at 5125 Black Bear Lane / Lot 11, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Montogomery (Mike) Mathias Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-0 TABLED 2 5. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion and loading dock addition 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 MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-0 TABLED 6. A request for a final review of a proposal to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation Zone District," Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: VOTE: FAILED - MOTION FOR FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL (WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS TO THE TEXT AMENDMENTS) FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 1. That the DRB role be clarified to streamline the process. 2. Clarify and define what requirements are considered off-site impacts. 3. Remove "as determined by the Administrator" (12-7A-12). 4. That the Council review the parking issue or determine if the parking study needs to be completed. 5. That the right-of-way is considered for setbacks. 6. That the building height is determined by the applicant and the PEC. MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 4-1 (Doyon against) TABLED AS A WORKSESSION UNTIL JUNE 14, 1999 AND FINAL JUNE 28,1999. 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 JUNE 28,1999 8. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle l Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 3 9. 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 WITHDRAWN 10. Information Update ? Education Series 11. Approval of May 10, 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 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department E ?J 4 J+" MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 24, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school for a two-year period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12"' Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins of Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, is requesting final review of a request for a conditional use permit to allow for a modular classroom to placed on the school site. The modular classroom is intended to accommodate an increase in the demand for students to attend the school. The temporary classroom is expected to meet the immediate demand and would be installed for the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 academic school years. The modular classroom is approximately 20'x 60' in size and can accommodate 16 to 18 students. The applicant is proposing to locate the temporary building on the south side of the school partially under an existing canopy. This location was selected by the applicant for convenience and function. Since the May 1 o`" worksession meeting with the Planning & Environmental Commission the applicant has made revisions to the proposal. The revisions include moving the temporary classroom to the west of the original location to the south end of the gymnasium and increased the size of the structure from 20'x 40' (800 sqft.) to 20'x 60' (1,200 sq.ft.). A reduced copy of the proposed plans and a letter describing the request have been attached for reference. if. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Vail Mountain School's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the installation of a temporary modular classroom. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. T4WNOFYAIL Should the Planning & Environmental choose to approve the applicant's request, staff would recommend the following conditions be made part of the approval: 1. That the conditional use permit for the temporary structure expire on May 31, 2001. 2. That the temporary structure be removed from the property on or before May 31, 2001. 3. That the applicant submit a written statement to the Town of Vail agreeing not to reappear before the Planning & Environmental Commission with a request for an extension to the conditional use permit for the temporary structure, prior to installing the structure. 4. That the applicant implement the exterior materials improvements recommended by the Town of Vail Design Review Board prior to occupying the structure. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the temporary classroom is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purpose General Use zone district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the temporary classroom and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed temporary classroom will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. Ill. BACKGROUND According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the Vail Mountain School, is located in the General Use Zone District. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the general Use Zone District is to, "provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10)." 1. Sections 12-9C-2 & 3 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General Use Zone District. The temporary modular classroom is an allowed conditional use in the General Use Zone District subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. On Wednesday, May 19`x' the applicant appeared before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for a conceptual review of the exterior finishes of the modular structure. The Board has requested that the metal-sided building be painted to match the stucco color of the school, that the windows and doors be trimmed with 2x6 wood material and painted to match the trim color of the school, and that additional trim be added to improve the appearance of the structure. IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSIDERATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS In accordance with Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code, an application for a conditional use permit within General Use District, the following development factors shall be applicable: 1, Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Town of Vail Municipal Code allows for temporary structures subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The Code requires the issuance of a conditional use permit for temporary structures, in part, to insure that adequate steps are taken to insure that the structure complies with the development objectives of the Town. The intent of allowing temporary structures is to accommodate those situations when a permanent structure is not appropriate or circumstances, such as duration of use, warrants a temporary structure. In the case of the Vail Mountain School, staff believes a temporary structure is warranted for a limited period of time to accommodate the immediate needs of the school, as well as afford the School Board the opportunity to finalize plans for a permanent structure. Staff believes the two-year request is appropriate. However, a request for an extension to the two-year timeframe should not be permitted. 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. The requested conditional use permit will have positive effects on the immediate needs of the school to meet growing demands. The temporary classroom will allow the school to provide educational opportunities for up to 18 additional students. The structure will also provide the Board with additional time to pursue expansion opportunities to meet the school's long-term needs. It should be noted that the temporary classroom should not be considered as a long-term solution to the school's demand for space. 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 has revised the location of the temporary classroom on the school site. Staff believes the new location is a more appropriate location than the original. The new location reduces congestion of pedestrians at the front of the school near the parking lot and alleviates the safety concerns of having the classroom immediately adjacent to the parking lot and vehicle traffic. 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. The applicant is proposing to improve the exterior of the temporary classroom to minimize the negative impacts of the structure on the character of the area. The proposed location will also insure that the impacts of the structure are reduced. Overall, staff believes that due to the exterior improvements proposed, the location of the structure on the school site, and the temporary nature of the building, the temporary classroom will have minimal, if any negative impacts on the character of the area. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinas before arantina a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. 4 S-19-1999 12:56PM FROM SNOWDON AND HOPKINS 9704767491 t Vail Mountain School May I9, 1999 Town of Vail Design Review Board 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81658 Dear Design Review Beard Members; Thank you for considering our request to place a modular- classroom on campus for academic years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Having this temporary space will allow us to offer our program to a new grade of students and to create a more suitable computer lab. I appreciate your concern that the modular unit would be removed after two years (twenty- four months). We would be pleased to commit to that time limitation. 't7V'e are honorable people and would not enter into this agreement with false intentions. Please contact me if you have questions or wish to view the site. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, (;A}. Deter M. Abuisi Headmaster PMAIty 3100 KATSOS RANCH ROAD -VAIL, COLORADO 8165.7 • (970) 476-3850 + FAX (970) 476-3860 P_ 6 S-19-1999 12 : SSPM FROM SNOWDON AND HOPK I NS 9704767491 P. 2 JOW - .VAj 4l !` M -A 4WOO to +I ` Snowdon and Hopkins ? Architects SHEET Nth:.:; ....? ` t?"E>t9 ?"? By aaT? 201 Gore Greek tirive 970 476-491 -? ! '-. . . PV P- "vFmVeil, Colorado 8107 F?+x 476.77491 ± + ? vl? y. ? ? .7i,t S:iz G'tz co I _ a'` 161 40 34 f ° r ?g ?' 'P' x ?? ?;' t• .J ? rf rqi i "` - _- t! JIV i in d ?? `( r 12:SSPM FROM SNOWDON AND HOPKINS 9704767491 P_3 Snowdon and Napkins Architects JOB .\Ic I1,o MOUNTAIN 6 L vp% $HEFT NO. i ! 1 Gore Creek Drive 970 06-2201 BY MATE 0B .- , Coloraft 81657 FAX 476-7491 : 1? AW- - - f0M1vV VPk 13 x i? W s ...? ?. S-19-1999 12:SSPM FROM SNOWDON AND HOPKINS 9704767491 P.4 Snowdon and Hopkins * Architects VA IL** aae O U NTAI 46>L 201 Gore Creels Drive Vail. Colorado 616x7 SHEET NO. BY f7WVt' DATE, 970 476-2201 FAX 476-7491 ? ?...__....._?_..._._..._...:...?_.. -?:4 . i iii Ex x4-4 - f ?4 - ` ?„ i ? ? ?i ? ?• ? is 1 ? ?1 A H - J.... ..'? . r. _ vill X I !--?(i. _-- . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 24, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type ll employee housing unit located at 1538 Spring Hill Lane / Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st. Applicant: Gary and Doris Wiley, represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: Allison Ochs 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 12-13 (Employee Housing) which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. The definition in that ordinance states: Section 12-2-2 "Employee Housing Unit (EHU) shall mean a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth in Section 12-13 of this Code. Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in 12-13 - Employee Housing. For the purposes of this Section, a full-time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week. There shall be five (5) categories of EHUs: Type I, Type II, Type III, Type IV, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 12-13 - Employee Housing of this Code." The applicant is proposing a Type 11 employee housing unit on a portion of the lower level of a new primary unit. The employee housing unit will be approximately 651 square feet in size and will include one bathroom, a full kitchen, and a living/bed'room area. One enclosed parking space will also be provided for the EHU. As described in more detail later in this memorandum, the applicant is proposing to utilize all 500 square feet of the EHU credit allowed in conjunction with the development of the employee housing unit. r0WN0 YA II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of this application for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of Section 12-13 (Employee Housing) and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Section 12-18 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this application, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type 11 EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2. That the applicant amend the submitted plans, showing a pedestrian access from the outside of the residence to the proposed Type 11 EHU. Please note that under Section 12-16 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 17,208 sq. ft. Zoning: Two-Family Residential Standard Allowed Total GRFA 5320.75 sq. ft. Primary Unit 4820.75 sq. ft. EHU Credit 500 sq. ft. Proposed approx same approx 4700 sq. ft. 651 sq. ft. v v 2 Parking Required 5 spaces 5 spaces Primary Unit 3 spaces 3 spaces EHU 2 spaces spaces Site Coverage 3441.5 sq. ft. to be determined IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and imoact of the use on the develooment obiectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing study on November 20, 1990, it recognized a need to increase the supply of locals/employee housing units. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality diving conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's rental housing needs. 2. The effect of the use on light and air. distribution of copulation. transportation facilities. utilities. schools. oarks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be little impact from the proposed. Type 11 EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upon traffic with oarticular reference to congestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow and control. access. maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and oarkina areas. Two additional vehicles are anticipated in association with this EHU. One enclosed parking space is proposed, along with one other parking space. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the orooosed use is to be located. includina the scale and bulk of the prooosed use in relation to surrounding uses. The scale and bulk of this proposed structure is very similar to those in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. Since the proposed v 3 employee housing unit will be located within the primary residence, staff believes this EHU will not significantly impact the scale and bulk of this project in relation to surrounding uses. 5. EmDlovee Housina Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as soecified by Section 12-13 of the Vail Municipal Code. Emetovee Housino and shall be subiect to the followina conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Sinale-Famiiv Residential. Two- Family Residential and Primarv/Secondarv Residential zone districts. The subject property is zoned Two-Family Residential. b. It shall be permitted only on lots which comoly with minimum lot size reouirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. At 17,208 square feet in size, this lot meets the minimum lot size requirements (15,000 square feet) in the Two-Family Residential zone district. C. It shall be located within. or attached to. a sinale-family dwellina or be located within. or attached to. a two-family dwellina Pursuant to Section 12-11-5@ - Desian Guidelines Duclex and Primarv/Secondarv Development. It may also be located in. or attached to. an existina aaraae provided the aaraae is not located within any setback. and further provided that no existina parkina reauired by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. This Type 11 EHU will be located within the proposed primary residence. However, it will maintain a separate entrance and will not be accessible from the interior of the primary unit. d. It shall not be counted as a dwellina unit for the purposes of calculatina density. However. it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom. as defined in Chaoter 12-2 - Definitions of the Vail Municipal Code. It shall be oermitted to be a third dwellina unit in addition to the two dwellina units which may alreadv exist on the lot. Only one Tvoe 11 EHU shall be allowed oer lot. The proposed EHU will be a second dwelling unit on the site. It contains a full kitchen and full bathroom facilities. e. It shall have a GRFA not less than three hundred (300) sauare feet. nor more than nine hundred (900) souare feet. An apolicant. however, shall be permitted to aooly to the Communitv I ]l 4 Develpprnent Department of the Town of Vail for additional GRFA not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU. The aoolicant shall submit an application for the additional GRFA on a form provided by the Communitv Development Deoartment. Aaoroval or denial of the reauest shall be made by the Desion Review Board in accordance with Section12-13-5. If an applicant obtains Design Review Board aooroval for 500 souare feet of additional GRFA for the EHU. he or she shall not be entitled to receive additional GRFA aursuant to Chanter 12-15 - Additional Gross residential Floor Area of this Code for either unit on the lot. If an anal cant obtains Design Review Board approvel for not more than 250 sauare feet of additional GRFA for the EHU. he or she shall be entitled to receive additional GRFA aursuant to Chanter 12-15 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area of this code for one dwelling unit on the lot. The EHU will be 651 square feet in size (500 sq. ft. + 151 sq. ft. in excess of the 300 sq. ft. of garage credit). The applicant has submitted an application for 500 square feet of additional GRFA utilizing the code provision that allows for the use of 250'3 "up front" when creating a new Type It EHU. No additional 250`s will be allowed on this property. The proposed Type 11 EHU includes one living/bedroom and therefore complies with this requirement. g. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a; one (1) bedroom Type 11 EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen (16Lvears of age shall reside in a two (2) bedroom Tvoe 11 EHU. Since this unit is a one-bedroom Type 11 EHU, the first section of this regulation will apply. h. Each Tvpe 11 EHU shall be required to have no less than one (.jj parking space for each bedroom located therein. However. if a one (1) bedroom Tvoe 11 EHU exceeds six hundred (600) sauare feet. it shall have two (2) oarkina spaces. All aarkinq spaces required by this Code shall be located on the same lot or site as the EHU. If no dwelling exists upon the orooerty which is orooosed for a Tvoe 11 EHU at the time a buildina Dermit is issued. or if an existino dwelling is to be demolished and realaced by a new dwelling, not less than one ?of the oarkinaLssoaces required by this paragraah shall be enclosed. A 300 sauare feet GRFA„credit shall be allowed for the construction of one enclosed n 5 oarkina space for the Tvoe ll EHU. Since this project is a demolition/rebuild, the applicant must provide one enclosed parking space for the proposed EHU. One enclosed parking space is proposed. S. Findinas: The Manning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of Section 12-13 (Employee Housing) and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Section 12-18 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. teveryonelpeclmemosl99ftley v 6 lid Ires I Fl ., .yam: eat q x lb f AM MALL fam z- glxM,I 0 awl (,5 t 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 24t", 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision (plat amendment) to allow for a revised building envelope and employee housing unit designation - located at 1386 Buffehr Creek Road / Parcel F, Briar Patch Applicant: Web Atwell Planner: Brent Wilson 1, DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting two amendments to the existing plat for the Briar Patch Development regarding Building Envelope "C": 1) A modification of the building envelope due to the vacation of an adjacent utility easement; 2) A change in the plat note requirement from a Type IV employee housing unit (EHU) to a Type 111 EHU. This plat amendment does not affect any existing restrictions on gross residential floor area (GRFA) or site coverage. Recently, the applicant was responsible for the burial of overhead power lines at the Briar Patch Development. After the lines were buried, an associated utility easement was vacated adjacent to Envelope "C". Mr. Atwell would now like to amend his building envelope to extend over a portion of the former easement. This proposed building envelope extension would allow for increased flexibility in locating a new residence, but no increase in site coverage. Additionally, Mr. Atwell would like to amend his required employee housing unit (EHU) designation. A detailed analysis of the proposed change from a Type IV EHU to a Type III EHU is provided in Section IV of this memorandum. TOWN OF VAIL k 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant' s request for a minor subdivision to allow fora revised building envelope and employee housing unit designation, subject to the following findings: That the proposal meets the review criteria for a minor subdivision contained in Title 13, Subdivision Regulations. That the proposal is consistent with the Town's development objectives, development standards for adjacent properties and the provisions/intent of the Residential Cluster zone district regulations. The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following condition: That the applicant provide the Town of Vail Department of Community Development with a revised final plat with all required signatures for recording, prior to submitting an application for Design Review for any proposed improvements on the lot. 111. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA One basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this plat amendment involves a minor re-platting of an existing building envelope and an amendment to a plat note, there is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor subdivision process. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria as outlined in Title 13 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a. minor subdivision application is as follows: A. Lot Area Although this application will affect the size of an existing building envelope, there will be no net change to the existing platted lot area for this development. B. Frontaae The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Residential Cluster zone district have a minimum frontage of 30'. The proposal will not affect the frontage for this lot. C. Site Dimensions The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and a shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80' on each side, within its boundaries. This application will not impact this requirement. z The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows; The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Title 13, Chapter 4, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 13-3-3-3.C. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses. The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision or a resubdivision of an existing parcel of land, it is the appropriate process to amend a plat and building envelope. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent property. Staff Response: The proposed plat amendment does not create any conflict with development on adjacent land. The applicant's request is consistent with the standards applied to other units on the property. Letters of approval from the adjacent property owners are attached. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff believes this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of land in the immediate area. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed plat amendment will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Resoonse: The subdivision regulations are intended primarily to address impacts of large-scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this particular proposal to amend this plat. Staff does not believe this proposal will have any negative impacts on any of the above-listed public facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land- and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: This goal of the subdivision regulations will not be impacted by the proposed plat amendment. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: This proposal will have no impact on these issues. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS A summary of development statistics for the Briar Patch building envelopes is included for reference: Building Unit Type Permitted Site Permitted GRFA Percent Envelope Coverage Change A Single Family 3,844 square feet 3,470 square feet 0% B Single Family 3,572 square feet 3,470 square feet % C Single Family 3,675 square feet 3,470 square feet 0% D Single Family 2,386 square feet 2,790 square feet % E Single Family 2,380 square feet 2,790 square feet % Existing Three Family 6,300 square feet 5,650 square feet % Triplex Total Eight Units 22,959 square feet 21,640 square feet 0% n 4 C J Lot Size: 353,010 square feet Site Coverage Allowed Per Residential Cluster Zoning: 88,253 square feet (25% of total site area) Existing Approved Site Coverage: 22,159 square feet (6.28°l of total site area) V. EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT REVIEW CRITERIA The following is a comparison of the proposed Type III EHU and the existing Type IV EHU requirements for Envelope "C": Type Density GRFA 280? Ownership Max Max.. Kitchen Parking Credits Calculation Restrictions Potential Bedrooms Residents Facilities Required Ili .5 d. u. 450-900 No Yes 2 4 Full 1 space 225 sf square ft. per bedroom IV .333 d.u. 200-300 No No nfa 9 Kitchenette 1 space 225 sf square ft. Both types of EHU's are conditional uses in the Residential Cluster (RC) zone district. Thus, construction of either type of unit will require a conditional use permit approval by the PEC prior to design review approval. As demonstrated above, a Type III EHU would be substantially larger than the existing required Type IV and parking requirements for this type of EHU are more stringent. Additionally, a Type III EHU may provide housing for more than one individual and improved living facilities. Given the Town's desire to provide high quality affordable local housing, staff believes the Type III EHU designation would provide a more effective, higher quality housing product that is more compatible with adjacent properties. 5 Figure 1. General Site Location Map Residences at Briar Patch Site Location Map N1 %N \\VA#L\DATA\EVERYONE\FEC\MEMOS\99\ATW ELL. ©OC 6 i . .... ..... ?J- °? .._ ,,•__ _.?i...•- 'err....., _....._._....._- --..._.,_r.-.,.___..____..._...._..---•.?{ _.._-?-,----?•_. -----'..._ ?f / ,?. ?__..? _ ?,,?-_ tam -.`-.+.r.?--.?"?-..- ?• . w SSW -. rte.. }}} _ r ?'rsr { ;y 63 re, ltd archite GVEL ILEA tup13et' J \.. \ - ??` ?\ \ ` ?I3OPtSRtDCiE TtIVISICSAt, CO(LORAD t ?t / na rrr+rr?w? ? ?`?? 1?` ? ? ` „? ,,? VATL.?•??,\? ?'``--?J ?, in ? ? ? ._._ Of 0 I ?'KTH aytaaa?s ?d 4.26.99 v C) 0 n N b a 6 N o? 9 0 1^ Iq 01 0 m 0 N 10 oo A ti Jeff Hunt, Senior Planner Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Re: Atwell request for envelope change Envelope "C", Briar Patch, Parcel "F" Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2 1386 Buffehr Creek Road Vail, Colorado Jeff: During the summer of 1998, Web Atwell brought about the removal of overhead electric lines and elimination of the accompanying easement from Red Sandstone Read through the subject property, Mr. Atwell now plans to build on envelope "C" which is just west of the abandoned easement. The construction program entails a primary residence of approximately 3,900 s.f., an employee housing unit of 750 s.f. to 900 s.f. and a three car garage of 900 s.f. Please note that this is not a request for additional CRFA. In an effort to have a more articulated structure with less impacting height, Mr. Atwell would like to increase the envelope to include the previously existing Holy Crass utility easement. The envelope footprint would be increase by 1,111 square feet to a new proposed total of 4,762 square feet. 0 U) W X 0 .t3 13 Gt } .Q RIi Cp In keeping with the spirit of envelope planning, the new area annex does not negatively effect existing views enjoyed by neighboring properties. Nor does the new area impact views from the valley floor looking up to the parcel. The new area doe not encroach upon geological formations or prominent trees. Additionally, the neighbors have been contacted by Mr. Atwell and have given their approval to this request. (Please see attached letters.) With this in mind, we make formal request for an alteration to Envelope "C" of Briar Patch Subdivision, 0.4 09 99 12: 46 XYZ 4 1970 476 6e?5 T . _ 7(CS Q(Q 6" rat ay: AtWd11 Development, Inc.; 070 476 6876; Mar•3i?D9 61.40PM.' Page 2/2 I Envelope, "C" P&. Briar Patch. Parcel "T" Lionsridee Subdivision. l;ilina 2 Vail. Colorado 1, George Strate, approve of the expansion of Envelope "C" as indicated on the drawing Awl, dated 3-12-99 by Viper Architecture. 4 G eorge Strate date • Aor^-4035 -99 10:50A Tondre & 5chuntachar, , P.C. 303 296 3390 P. t1.= ,?aent ay. Atwell Development, Inc.; 970 478 !4875; N???r 3t •99 4:69P?i; Page 2r2 Envelove "C" 0. Briar Patch. Parcel "F" Lionsridse Subdivision. 'C1fing 2 Vail. Colorado I, Brice Tondre, approve of the expansion of Envelope "C:" as indicated on the drawing A• 1, dated 3-12-99 by piper .Architecture. Brice Tondre d to Envelope "C" tr Briar Patch. Parcel "F" Lionsridize Subdivision. Filing 2 Vail, Colorado 1 approve of the expansion of Envelope "C" as indicated on the drawing A-1, dated 3-12-99 by Piper Architecture. David Stueber at C7 01 v Em.,elone "C" a. Briar Patch. Parcel "F" Lionsrid-e St,ibdivision. Filima 2 "Vail. Colorado 1, David Leach, approve of the expansion of Envelope "C" as indicated-on the drawiner A-1, dated 3-12-99 by Piper Architecture. Dav date' C MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission PROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 24, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-5C-6, to allow for the construction of a garage within a front setback and Section 12-10-8, to allow for the construction of an undersized garage, located at 5125 Black Bear Lane / Lot 11, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Montgomery Mathias Planner: Allison Ochs 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Montgomery Mathias, is requesting a variance to allow for the construction of a garage in the front setback and a variance to allow for the construction of an undersized garage to be located at 5125 Black Bear Lane / Lot 11, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. According to the applicant: What is particularly unusual about this structure is the nonstandard lot on which it was built in 1978... Gore Creek itself consumes 2/3 of this non-standard lot... at least as far as potential development and home improvements are concerned. Be that as it may, the building needs a garage and needs one greatly. A garage cannot be built on the creek itself, nor can one be built on the north side of the creek. The only area where a garage can be built is on the south side of the creek and the house. But to do so would require a setback variance from Town of Vail right-of-way of 19 ft., the standard length of a single car garage. A copy of the letter, dated May 14,1999, indicating the applicant's comments regarding the variance requests, along with pictures have been attached for reference. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the front setback variance based on the following findings: That the granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege. 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. ?y TOWNV OF PAIL ' 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in Two-Family Residential zone district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission grant approval of the front setback variance, staff recommends the following conditions: That alternatives for orienting the garage to allow for a full-sized parking space be explored, including side-loading opportunities. 2. That the garage shall not encroach into either prescribed side setback. 3. That the proposed garage meet Design Review Board approval. Staff is recommending denial of the parking space size variance based on the following finding: 1. That the granting of the variance constitutes a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties zoned Two-Family Residential. 2. That the granting of the variance is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or material injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission grant approval of both the front setback variance and the parking space size variance, staff recommends the following condition: 10 1. That the garage shall not encroach into prescribed side setbacks. 2. That the proposed garage meet Design Review Board approval. 111. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Montgomery Mathias, is requesting two variances for the construction of an undersized garage in the front setback. The lot, which was platted in 1969 by Eagle County, does not meet current Town of Vail minimum lot size requirements. The area was annexed in 1974. The residence, located at 5125 Black Bear Lane, was granted a front setback variance in February of 1977, allowing the residence to be constructed with a 15-foot front setback. The Planning and Environmental Commission granted the variance to conform to the required 50 foot setback from Core Greer. The memo is attached for reference. According to the February 10, 1977 staff memo: The lot topography and location of the stream bank dictate the proposed placement of the residence on the site. Considering the very small size of the proposed residence, it would be nearly impossible to construct anything on the site without some variance, either from the front or from the stream. We do not feel that the grant of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. The applicant is proposing a 9' by 15' garage. Current Town of Vail standards require a parking space to be 9' by 19'. Due to the 1977 variance and according to the submitted partial survey, the applicant currently has approximately a 17' front setback from the 2 40 property lime to the building. Therefore, the applicant is requesting two separate variances: relief from the front setback regulation to allow for construction up to the property line and relief from the requirement that parking spaces be by 9' by 19'. Front Setback According to the Town Code, front setbacks are regulated by Section 12-5C-6: Setbacks: "in the Two-Family Residential District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (16), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15')." Parkina Space Size According to the Town Code, parking space sizes are regulated by Section 12-10-88: Parking Standards: "Size Of Space: Each off-street parking space shall be not less than nine feet wide by nineteen feet long (9' x 19'), and if enclosed and/or covered, not less than seven feet (7') high.,' Town Code also allows for GRFA credits (Section 12-15-3A) based on the following parking space allowances: "Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this Title." There are currently 2 dwelling units located on the lot as defined by the Town Code. Because this lot is non-conforming (2 units on a lot under 15,000 sq. ft.), no additional GRF'A is allowed in conjunction with this request. Any additional GRFA would require that one of these units be deed restricted as a Type I EHU or eliminated entirely to bring this lot into conformance. (12-18 Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures, and Site Improvements) IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 11,156 sq. ft. Zoning: Two-Family Residential Standard Allowed Site Coverage 2231.2 sq. ft. GRFA 3214 sq. ft. Setbacks * 15115115115 Existino Proposed approx. 1000 sq. ft. 1135 sq. ft. NO ADDITIONAL GRFA PROPOSED 15111113115 11nc1101nc *Variance for front setback granted in 1977. No other variances have been granted, Current proposal shows garage in side setback. This is not a request for a side setback variance. E 3 V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The garage is proposed to be up to the property line and in front of the existing residence. Many structures in this vicinity were built prior to Town zoning and/or were built with front setbacks less than 20 ft. to allow for adequate setbacks from Gore Greek. Staff does not feel that the proposed setback variance will be detrimental to existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity if the proposal is adequately mitigated. The proposed garage location and a picture of the proposal have been attached for reference. However, the proposed undersized garage could result in undesirable effects to the uses and structures in the vicinity. Town Code prescribes parking spaces to be 9' by 19'. Should the garage fail to function as a vehicle space, the result could be increased parking in the Town of Vail right-of-way and along the street, causing safety and maintenance difficulties. 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. While staff recognizes the physical constraints of the loft due to the location of the creek, staff does not believe that it is necessary to receive relief from the parking space size regulation to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment of the applicant's lot and the other lots in the vicinity, nor to attain the objectives of the Zoning Code. Allowing for the construction of the garage in the setback would not be a grant of special privilege. However, staff believes that the granting of the requested variance regarding the parking space size 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 Two-Family Residential zone district in general. While the Town of Vail has generally encouraged the enclosure of parking spaces, the siting of the residence has created a lot on which the proposed garage will not be adequate in size. Staff does not feel that alternatives to the proposed location and orientation of the garage have been adequately explored. Staff also has concerns that due to the small size of the garage, it would not function adequately as a parking space. 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 applicant is requesting that the garage be located up to the property line of the lot. While many structures in the vicinity are built within the front setback due to the proximity of Gore Creek and that many were built 4 prior to Town zoning, staff feels that the current proposal of the garage is 40 too close to the edge of pavement for safety reasons. The Development Standards prescribe that the door of a garage be located 24 ft. from the edge of pavement to allow for safe backing up of vehicles. The location and orientation of this garage could pose a possible safety hazard. The current orientation of the proposed garage allows for the garage door to be up to the property line. Alternative orientations and location could mitigate this hazard. Increased engineering will be necessary to ensure that the foundation, footers, and roof overhangs of the garage remain on the applicant's property and not on Town property. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina 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 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. L 5 Mathias Variance(s) 5088 vo 6 5159 1 ?~ 1 3 5026 --? 5118 Mathias Variance(s) Re`uest ,. . 3 2A 2 :. 5098 5016 ,128 5 1 6 006 10 ?5141 2 5163 006 5123 3 ;" rv j 1 r 0 5121 12 )14 4 8 5127 - TRACT A 13 5006 / 5119 t 5129 7 14 1_4 ? 517'7' V4'RtV OUSE 5133 5024 6 1 2 4 15 1-5 5115 5111 5109 5135 17 5 3 6 1 5113 17 5030 4 5107 5137 5165 A request for a variance from section 12-5C_5 to allow for the construction off a garage within the front setback and section 12-10-8 to allow for the construction of an undersized garage. N S 0 E 0F r ., ` f f .. ? r f 11 X JJ `???? ice. 7 C5==N 59?'5TT:1 E a F co _ ?t } , a a^ d. •ff}+- w rfit, t?' r= ,+ r w ? Y^ f -, ? r 5 ?? i1t ? ; V ""}" A.3 "'T r M 3 - t f` x ggc? s + ,.?, Wf~r_ '' A_. r oi ?a.?. Wang pye if wh" fie , t' ?, x :? ,rof ' ` c.? +• ? , f ?t ?`` ? !4 y? j , bank of FAWN :3 1) P" E, 3 3' J'^Lw Y - ?. +? ,Y r 1 ? ., . ' ? r ? ,•?t .war-,. "?• ? ?,q ,?a'b yap .. ? ; - ? ??? f -,?,? ?_.f = ..' +,k-a x ? _ .?^,• ? "k. ? ? . _ CN -"y ?r ??"•?v,? ?'`"k.?'?„}5"?"'i, ?,,:»?,?`i 1? ?. ? ''_f• ,? - 9.0? ??'1' k. - ? ? _ •,' ter, (? +y?` . ?r• ?" k ??,r ' ?";- {'x. ?_ 'x,s ?-, ,?„-7?'??'?:7.*?i??,,, ,,?' ?¢ ? ?,? _ ? ".?? ? r ` Y - it y'r ? ,? ?? : r -=-i ? ?'?. f `ti,`' ninl" N 0" AN'T t i x r r. 11 114 Xw' RN got, wpx 190 ;, s.r'w 5?- ;a.,? '? ?,?' < :?:• 2 fi? _ , ''p.-:? ti r t ,? ?_ xx r.us ,m ;. s ?... .,? ...?? ..d ?' c; '?" ce"'?. "'? "7u,?.T?.?;-=:'s i ? ? ?.? '? g',?t,:•,??`'[zi ? ? r r..,...F,-~Yri.?«?:- 'a. K,s?, r _ ?t^a ' cx sa ea:' -:ti,P"..'i'y.;.. _ a >;-£` _ `- '?=,t 'serA.'.'«;t k '`i,', , _. „,..u,?.. ^ •.ir" ' ,. ,'i 2' [ ,p OWN 0 AX ` : g. OR- 'f_s All e m,rs K Ey„1} - 4..-"x "i5 } Mme, , "*.3. .;.""5', .?:„y_:"<S„ P„i.T :k•? :.x" Wa, _ sl.,Y:y-x'f.:.= ,J.. ?? ?,.°. ^',., _ u?. ' _ ? A'. `:?' -"i ?;-• ?-?. 'ty .`".:'? ?.. , ?` _ . ?:. -.ran., ' ? . ?-.Buys, ', WIRM Not .4 a '? a r „• k. its y owl C? =G ?, ?ef '.t -_ y - - aa _wr=u.,r:?r ..?fir, ' `?y ! rte, .ct;y?` %N.. 1`r Y`= °z!A IV Not 1 ? MW T»' < a 3?- g?eg }. - -.s' c .=s- ? :?s ?a:, ;r 'S'% :?'€ "?`-• t. s _ ??' :k ?`, ?. ..,$ ?- ? yam, ? -. ` ?' ? ' ' ?? :? ..;° ? k ' ., :", ' ? Y ?. e? `' .? ' '_;,- ?, „'P?'-??- •?`t r % b??d ?'°„z i.'''?Td ?t ?-v , ? t?` >?"' ?. ° 4 t,? ?' .. ?,W,-. :.-. ,,, ....,...'. ---.._ .,,,..,?-•- ,w,:-,-r?::.? _..,?, '?k:..r a,?a;°:a??,???.?w•:te° ?:??,?,? ,. ? :-?,.?,.-. .??j:?;?°?'?e?^^a, .,?.- a? ,r,-,r-????..x?",?-„'?': -? ?'r=;,"?::a'xkw??ar?..;?";., ?,?r.=rs> m? +?J--? Box 4 Vail, Colorado 81658 (970) 476.8888 May 14, 1999 TO: Town of Vail (ToV) Dept of Community Development Subject: Request for Setback Variance of 19' for Garage Construction 5125 Black Bear Lane (Xel-Gar Lane) Lot 11 Block 2 Gore Creek Subdivision RE: Town of Vail Variance Request Requirements (Written and Verbal) 1. Precise nature of setback variance requested: The structure in question is located in East Vail on Gore Creek. While modest by Vail standards,, this single family home (primary w/ secondary units) has five bedrooms and four bathrooms. What is particularly unusual about this structure is the non-standard lot on which it was built in 1978. Essentially 1/3rd of the lot is south of Gore Creek; 1/3rd of the lot IS Gore Creek, and 1/3rd of the lot is north of Gore Creek. As such, Gore Creek itself consumes 2/3rds of this non-standard lot...at least as far as potential development and home improvements are concerned. Be that as it may, the building needs a garage and needs one greatly. A garage cannot be built on the creek itself nor can one be built on the north side of the creek. The only area where a garage can be built is on the south side of the creek and house. But to do so would require a setback variance from moV right-of--way of 19 feet, the standard length of a single car garage. 2. other aspects: a. Building a garage on either side of the structure: Not only is this non- standard lot split by the creek, but its irregular trapezoidal design has the effect of pinching any construction either east or west of the building. Moreover, building on the east would put the garage either very near or right on the neighbor's property line. To build on the west would: eliminate the structure's entry way...and likely would extend onto that neighbor's land. Also, the slope leading from the current parking areas down to the creek is greater than 30 percent and would negate as well any structures on the sides of the building. b. This is the only house/duplex in the immediate neighborhood without a garage. And in that respect I think the house detracts from the rest of the neighborhood (and "Vail itself?). And yet the non-standard aspect of the lot's design makes it difficult... really impossible to make the normal improvements under current ToV guideleines without some forms of variance for the construction needed. Support from neighbors is strong. And to some extent the neighbors are pushing harder for a garage than is the property owner. c. As the lot is non-standard, the original construction of the building involved an unusual mix of circumstances. The current parking area for the structure could hold a total of nine if not twelve cars. But much of this parking area is technically ToV right of way. Why this large, bulbous out-take from the old Kel-Gar Lane was designed as is ...is not clear. But this extra space does provide enhanced safety for backing out of the lot and for helping to keep cars from parking on Vail's streets. 0 d. Black Bear Lane is a cul-de-sac with only light neighborhood traffic. The bulbous aspect of the street in from the house: provides added safety in driving in and backing out. The distance between the doer of the proposed garage and the center of Black Bear Lane would be up to 75 feet...far and away more than enough. The garage would have zero impact upon the movement of my neighbors...zero. e. There are no as in no adverse aspects to the construction of the garage that can be perceived. The impact on transportation, utilities, public safety,p light and air, distribution of populations and the like is not immediately evident. But the positive aspects of the garage and the setback variance it implies are great. The garage would comply with ToV's mandate for property owners to keep their places up. Moreover ... in practical -terms a garage would allow for the storage of the norrall.. household items... items that in this case are thrown on the side of the structure in the open. 3. This request complies with Vail's Comprehensive plan in that the project pursued imp'-?"ves town structures and enhances the quality of life. 4, If a setback variance is approved for this non-standard lot under the hard-ship conditions described, a specific construction plan will be submitted to the appropriate ToV agencies for review, comment, and approval, The single car garage proposed, with its f9 foot setback variince approval, would have a bedroom/bathroom on top with GFRA considerations. Construction of the building would be projected for late summer, 1999. Names and Mailing Addresses of Neighbors (App A) Schedules A & B Land Title (App B previously submitted) Photographs of Residence (3) (App C) schematic of Residence (App D) Property's Site Location (App E) Recent (May 10, 1999) Survey (App F) 3-D Oriented Computer Schematic of a Proposed Garage On Site (2) (App G) Previous Construction Variance Feb 10, 1977 (App H) Y ?J 11 sa v fi •, v i:;:.- Mgr , .._;,<•?:::. .<. ::?.v;:f,y.: s^k,< .<.:.k•`""+Y; %.tK?,? ... WIN ' n..d 4<a> a<a: • Griffin - February 10, 1977 MO RAN" TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF C014101,11TY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1977 RE. REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE « J. C. GRIFFIN LOT It, BLOCK 2, Gore Creek Subdivision The applicant has requested a setback of 15 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 20 feet In order to construct a single family residence. The variance Is requested in order to conform to the required 50 fool- setback regal. u..?=4t from Gore Creek and due to the topography of the lot. The Department of Community Development has reviewed the, criteria and findings provided for In Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and our conclu- sions are as followst The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures In the vicinity. The plans for the proposed structure would have no adverse Impact on other existing or proposed structures In the area. There are several other lots l,n the Gore Creek Subdivision which will require similar variances In order. to place houses sufficiently away from Gore Creek. The degree to which relief from the strict or 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 ordinance without grant of special privilege. One of"the objectives of the Zooing'Ordinance Is to 'Protect the environment and to discourage excessive cuts or fills. The proposed location of the residence Is In keeping with this objective. Existing houses In the area which were built prior to zoning are as close to or closer to the front property lines due to the same lot configuration problems. We have not had any residences constructed along Gore Creek since the Institution of the creek setback requt. u.,.,.I. t 1 c` 40 The effect of the requested variance on sight and air, distifubtion of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. We ifo not foresee any adverse effects upon these factors. The proposed residence is quite small (less than 1,000 sq. ft. of site coverage) and a law profile. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems appilcable to the proposed variance. do additional factors seems to be pertinent. The Department of Community Davatopment finds that:.. That the granting of the variance will not consltitue a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified In the same district, We feel It Is more important to preserve the Gore Greek stream bank and.avold excessive cuts or fills than require precisely 20 feet of front setback. The lot topography and location of stream bnaks dictates proposed placement of the residence on the site. Considering the very small size of the proposed residence, It would be nearly impossible to construct anything on the site. without some variance, either freer: the front or from the stream. We do not feel that the grant of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. The Department of Community Development re-..„ands approval of-the requested setback variances • Y • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 24, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a proposed locker room and loading dock expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 321 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects, P.C. Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects, is requesting a final review of a proposed locker room and loading/delivery area expansion to the John A, Dobson Ice Arena. The proposed expansion is intended to accommodate a new team locker room, an administrative office, a multipurpose room with storage area, remodeled restrooms and an improved loading/delivery area. The new addition is to be constructed on the east side of the existing arena. The total square footage of the new construction is approximately 4,282 square feet. Access to the loading /delivery area is to be directly off of West Meadow Drive. The proposed expansion and improvements are intended to help the VRD meet the ever expanding demands for services in the Valley. Since the original submittal of the proposed project, the applicant has removed the gymnastics facility element and revised the configuration of the loading dock area. The District is currently participating in a Community Facilities planning process with the Town to determine possible location for a gymnastics facility. The Community Facilities Plan is anticipated to be completed some time this summer. 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for a proposed locker room and loading dock expansion to the Dobson Ice Arena. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's conditional use permit request, staff would recommend that the following conditions be made part of the approval: 1. That the applicant submit civil engineered drawings of the required West Meadow Drive realignment and bridge reconstruction for review and approval, prior to submitting an application for a building permit. xt TOWh?f1F VAIL 2. That the applicant retain the services of a Consulting Arborist to assist in the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Tree Preservation Plan prepared by A Cut Above Forestrv of Breckenridge, Colorado dated 3/20/99. All mitigation measures shall be strictly adhered to for the duration of the construction project. 3. That the applicant actively participate with the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board to develop a visually interesting, yet modest, loading dock gate design, and that the gate be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board 4. That the applicant revise the proposed landscape plan to include the relocation of the existing vegetation on-site, rather than off-site. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That the applicant revise the proposed site plan to relocate the existing layout of the pedestrian path and to include brick pavers at the entrance to the loading and delivery area. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. That the proposed plans be revised to add a note prohibiting roof-top mechanical equipment atop the new addition prior to the issuance of a building permit. BACKGROUND On Tuesday, August 18, 1998, the Vail Recreation District appeared before the Vail Town Council to request permission to proceed through the public process. The Town Council's permission is required since the ice arena is owned by the Town of Vail and is leased to the VRD. Following a brief presentation of the proposal to the Council, the Council approved the request to proceed through the process. On September 14, 1998 the applicants appeared before the Planning & Environmental Commission for a worksession to discuss the proposed expansion. Following discussion on the proposal, the Commission was generally supportive of the project. The Commission did direct the applicant to more closely look at the design of the loading/delivery operation of the arena. As a result of the Commission's concerns the applicant has redesigned the existing loading/delivery system of the arena. On May 5, 1999 the applicants again appeared before the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The purpose of the meeting was to present changes made by the applicant to the proposal to the Board. During previous meetings with the Design Review Board the applicant had been directed by the Board to make revisions to the exterior fagade of the addition to improve the aesthetics and to have a tree preservation plan prepared to address the impacts of the proposal on the existing vegetation. In keeping with the requests of the Board, the applicant retained a Consulting Arborist to review the proposed plans and make recommendations to minimize tree loss. The findings of the Consulting Arborist are stated in the Tree Preservation Plan (Dobson Ice Arena), dated 3/20/99. Generally, the Plan defines areas of critical importance to tree survival and proposes mitigation measures. The Plan recommends that prior to construction, a root feeding and crown pruning program be implemented. The purpose of these measures is to bring the trees back to optimal health before construction begins. The Plan further recommends that fencing be installed prior to construction to protect the critical root zone of the trees and that during excavation, the Arborist be on- site to supervise root pruning. Lastly, the Plan recommends a monitoring and compliance program during all phases of construction. The monitoring and compliance program is intended to insure that the mitigation measures are being implemented correctly, and that changes to the measures can be made if determined necessary. A copy of the Tree Preservation Plan has been attached for reference. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the John A. Dobson Ice Arena is located in the General Use Zone District. Pursuant to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the purpose of the General Use Zone District is to, "provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10)." Sections 12-9C-2 & 3 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General Use Zone District. The ice arena is considered a "public/quasi-public indoor community facility" and is an allowed conditional use in the General Use Zone District subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Section 12-9C-5 of the Zoning Regulations outlines the standards for developments in the General Use Zone District. According to the Zoning Regulations, "In the General Use Zone District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: 1. Lot area and site dimensions 2. Setbacks 3. Building Height 4. Density Control 5. Site Coverage 6. Landscaping and site development 7. Parking and loading IV. ZONING ANALYSIS The Development Standards within the General Use Zone District are proposed by the applicant and determined by the Planning & Environmental Commission. The following analysis describes the applicant's request. Lot Size: 118,058.46 square feet/2.71 acres Development Standard Existing Prooosed Site coverage: 35,848 sq.ft or 30% 38,239 sq.ft. or 32% Building Height: (addition only) N/A 251-8" Setback: (east side) 20' 2' V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSIDERATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS In accordance with Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code, an application for a conditional use permit within General Use District, the following development factors shall be applicable: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. In reviewing the applicant's proposal, staff identified a number of potential physical impacts. The potential impacts include: 1. Loss/removal of existing maturing vegetation. 2. Improvements to the configuration and operation of the loading and delivery functions of the arena. 3. Relocation of the West Meadow Drive alignment to accommodate semi-truck turning radiuses. 4. Addition of building mass above grade along West Meadow Drive. 5. Aesthetic appearance of a loading/delivery area along West Meadow Drive. 6. Elimination of bus traffic congestion and conflicts for west bound routes. 7. Increased pedestrian traffic and waiting areas outside the front entrance to the arena. 4 8. Removal and reconfiguration of the "bus damaging" retaining wall design in front of the arena. 9. Relocation of the pedestrian/bike path to the entrance to the loading and delivery area. Staff believes that the proposed expansion to the ice arena, to accommodate expanded locker rooms and a new loading and delivery facility, is in compliance with the development objectives of the Town. However, areas of concern with the proposal include the loss of existing vegetation and the visual impact of the loading dock on West Meadow Drive, the size and configuration of the loading and the timing of the proposal given the Town's efforts to formulate, adopt and implement a Community Facilities Plan. Staff believes that these concerns can be mitigated by the applicant. Mitigation measures might include relocating some of the existing vegetation on-site versus off-site, designing the loading area to adequately handle two delivery vehicles, insure adequate screening of the loading dock area, and begin construction on the improvements after the design charette for the Community Facilities Plan. 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 the proposed locker room expansion and new multi- purpose room with the administrative office will have positive impacts on the above-described criteria. The expansion and remodel of the existing Dobson Ice Arena facility will allow the Vail Recreation District to improve and expand its services to our guests and the residents of the Valley. The District anticipates being able to bring sports teams and special events to the community that under existing conditions could not be accommodated. 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 new loading dock has been proposed by the applicant to enhance and improve the operations of the ice arena. Currently, loading and delivery at the ice arena is accommodated at the arena's front entrance which is located on the south side of the building. In the past, the existing location has resulted in public safety concerns and created congestion of pedestrian and bus traffic. Problems arise at the arena when delivery vehicles are loading and unloading at the front of the arena and bus traffic attempts to continue around the north side of the landscape island in the middle of West Meadow Drive. Since buses are unable to negotiate between the delivery trucks and the numerous retaining walls in the area, accidents occur. Problems with pedestrians are also created when large trucks are parked at the front entrance. As lines of people start forming as they wait to get into the arena, the lack of adequate space forces pedestrians out into the bus traffic lanes. The Town and the District have identified these problems in the past and seek to resolve the situation. The location of the new loading and delivery area will attempt to alleviate the existing problems. The proposed location is removed from the front entrance area and setback out of the bus traffic lanes. The new loading and delivery area will be snow melted to eliminate snow removal concerns. Access to the loading dock will be off of West Meadow Drive and has been designed to accommodate the maneuvering requirements of a 65-foot long semi-tractor and trailer. 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. The proposed building addition and new loading and delivery dock will significantly alter the appearance of the existing ice arena. The most notable impacts will be along the portion of West Meadow Drive in front of the arena. Currently, as many as 24 maturing evergreen and aspen trees are growing at the east end of the arena. With the exception of only a few of the largest evergreen trees, the trees where planted as part of the landscape plan for the original construction of the ice arena. According to the proposed plans, 21 trees will need to be relocated. To offset the effects of the tree loss the applicant is proposing to install 26 new trees. It is anticipated that some of the trees that need to be moved can be replanted in new locations in the vicinity of the improvements. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before arantina a conditional use oermit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. 1-1 C 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 24, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of proposed text amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District regulations amending the various development standards and revising the development review process Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Tom Braun Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On December 14, 1998, the applicant's representative, Tom Braun, appeared before the Planning & Environmental Commission with a request for a worksession to discuss text amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. During the meeting, a number of issues were discussed. A copy of the minutes from the December 14th meeting is attached for reference. On January 2, 1999, the applicant's representative met with the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Vail Town Council for a joint worksession to further discuss the proposed text amendments. Following a presentation of the issues and amendments by Tom Braun, the Council and the Commission each agreed that amendments were needed. On February 22, 1999, the applicant's representative again met with the Planning & Environmental Commission to continue discussion on the proposed amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. A copy of the February 22" meeting minutes have been attached for reference. The following discussion issues were concluded and needed no further discussion, according to the PEC: ? Building height shall remain unchanged with a maximum of 48' for sloping roofs and 45' for flat roofs; + Common area shall no longer be limited to 35%(per Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1999); s A 10% limitation shall be placed on restaurant and retail development with a conditional use permit required to exceed 10%; + Setbacks shall be 20' on all sides with the ability to reduce the setback requirement without a variance given that certain criteria are met; + Horizontal zoning should not be implemented. Instead, the market should determine the uses on the, different levels of a building;and 11 TOFrV OF VAIL s The proposed text amendments shall be applicable to all properties currently zoned Public Accommodation. Rezonings should not be required. On March 22, 1999, the applicant again appeared before the Planning & Environmental Commission for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. The purpose of the March 22nd was to continue discussions on the following issues: e The Commission agreed that the GRFA, site coverage and landscaping figures should be amended, though a final percentage for each standard was not determined, The Commission agreed that the definition of a "lodge" needs to be amended to further insure that accommodation units are constructed in the Public Accommodation Zone District, yet a final definition was not concluded. The Commission expressed a need to revise the development review process, but again, further discussion was required. Following discussion on the above-described issues, the Commission concluded the following: e The GRFA percentage needs to be increased to accurately reflect the development objectives of the community and the goals of our master plans. The Commission instructed the applicant to continue to study the issue and propose a percentage for the Commission to evaluate. The site coverage percentage should be increased. The applicant had been proposing an increase from 55% to 70%.. The Commission believed an increase to 65% was more appropriate with an emphasis on continuing to require on-site parking. The Commission did not favor a reduction in the landscape percentage requirement. Therefore, the Commission is recommending that the landscape percentage should remain at 30% of the site area. The Commission concluded that the definition of a "lodge" should be amended to require that at least 70% of the allowable GRFA be devoted to accommodation units and that 30% be available for dwelling units. The Commission also believed that the "use" of a unit should determine whether the unit is considered a dwelling unit or accommodation- unit, when calculating density (dwelling units/acre). In which case, fractional fee units or other forms of interval ownership could be considered accommodation units for density calculating purposes regardless of the presence of kitchen facilities. e The Commission believed the development review process needed amending. The purpose of amending the review process was to improve upon the ineffective nature of the review process of special development districts, continue to provide opportunities for public input at public hearings other than the Design Review Board, and to create a more user-friendly, customer-oriented and streamlined process. In response to the Commission's interests, the applicant has proposed that a process similar to the review process for Vail Village and Lionshead be adopted,and implemented. The applicant has amended and completed the text amendment proposal since the March 22nd worksession meeting. All aspects of the proposal discussed and concluded acceptable by the Planning & Environmental Commission prior to the March 22 nd meeting remain unchanged (i.e., building height, setbacks, uses, implementation of amendments, etc.). The final changes made to the proposal include: v Increasing allowable GRFA from 80% to 150% of the buildable area of the site. ? Increasing the allowable site coverage from 55%o to 65%o while maintaining the minimum landscape requirement at 30%0 of the site area. o Amending the definition of a "lodge" to state, in part, "that the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units is equal to or greater than 70% of the total gross residential floor area on the site." Amending the development review process to implement a process similar to the process just adopted for Lionshead. This process would require Planning & Environmental Commission consideration of all proposals for projects which add accommodation units, dwelling units, fractional fee units, more than 1,000 square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project that has substantial off-site impacts. The Design Review Board would continue to be charged with the responsibility of review all projects, regardless of unit types, square footage, etc. The process would also include a Compliance Burden and Mitigation of Development Impacts requirement, as recently required in Lionshead. A copy of the applicant's proposal is attached for reference. The applicant's proposal outlines the proposed amendments and provides additional background information on each of the amendments. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the amendments, the ability of the amendments to resolve the problems identified with the current development standards, the development review process, and the discussions at the public hearings. Should the Commission choose to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to the Town Council, staff would recommend that the following findings be made part of the motion: 1. That the proposed development standards further the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 2. That the proposed development standards are in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Public Accommodation Zone District. 3. That the interests of the community are being met by the adoption and implementation of the proposed development standards and the revised development review process. E Ill. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS The intent of the proposed text amendments to the Public Accommodation Zone District is to update the Town's development standards prescribed for those properties zoned Public Accommodation and to adopt and implement a new development review process for property undergoing development or redevelopment in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The applicant, staff, Town Council and community have identified two problems with the existing Public Accommodation Zone District. One of the underlying problems identified is that the existing development standards (GRFA, density, setbacks, etc.) are outdated and do not allow the flexibility needed to develop a viable, high-quality lodge and lodging product. The ideas of the 1970's, when the development standards were originally adopted, are outdated and new means of regulating the development and redevelopment of lodges are needed. A second problem that has been identified is the existing development review process. Since the current development standards for the Public Accommodation Zone District are outdated, a majority of the most recent proposals for development and redevelopment in the District have been requests for special development districts. Special development districts have been utilized for redevelopment as a means of achieving the necessary flexibility to develop a viable, high-quality lodge and lodging product. One need not look very far to see that the special development district review process is a very difficult and arduous process rarely ending in a win-win situation for all the participates. Several problems identified of the process include inequities in the review process, ill-defined development standards, uncertainty in the decision-making process, poorly-defined roles and expectations of the applicant and Boards, and the vast amounts of time, expense and energy required of the process itself. Staff believes that the proposed amendments to the development standards and the. development review process, as outlined in this memorandum, serve to meet the goals of this amendment process set early on by the applicant, staff, Town Council and the community. The review process of these amendments has included numerous worksession meetings with the Planning & Environmental Commission, Town Council and members of the community. Through the review process numerous revisions have been made to the proposal in response to the dialogue and input `and feedback provided. These revisions include the continued limitation on retail and commercial square footage, maintaining the existing building height limitation of 48 feet, the assurance of public input throughout the development review process, etc. According to Section 12-7A-1 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the purpose of the Public Accommodation Zane District is: intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature 4 of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. 30(1977) § 7: Ord. 13(1973) § 7.100). According to the Official Zoning Map, there are eighteen properties in the Town of Vail zoned Public Accommodation. These properties are generally located around the periphery of the village commercial core area and include the Austria Haus*, Bavaria Haus, Chateau at Vail (Holiday Inn), Christiania Lodge*, First Bank of Vail, Galatyn Lodge*, Lot P-3, Marriott, Mountain Haus, 9 Vail Road (Holiday House), Ramshorn Condominiums*, Swiss Chalet, Roost Lodge, Talisman, Tivoli Lodge, Vail Athletic Club*, Vail Village Inn*, and Villa Valhalla. Of these eighteen properties, seven have received approvals for special development districts and have been identified with an asterisk (*). If approved, the Public Accommodation Zone District will insure that the lands set aside for lodges and guest-types of accommodations will meet the needs of the resort community and the Vail residents. The proposed amendments will effect those 18 properties currently zoned Public Accommodation. The majority of these properties are located at the periphery of the Town's commercial core areas. Many of which have already undergone redevelopment that meets or exceeds the development standards being proposed. Lastly, staff believes that these proposed amendments further the goals of the community as identified.by the Town Council. One of the critical strategies of the Council deals with the communities economic stability. According to the Council, a critical strategy of the community is to, "promote a strong, viable local economy through a partnership with the private sector (i.e., PA property owners). The local economy should have a solid economic base and reasonable rate of growth. The Town will work to strengthen Vail's economy while maintaining environmental and design excellence." Objectives identified by the Council to attain these goals include, in part, Increase the number of live beds in Vail Village and Lionshead Work with the private sector to improve the quality of the existing bed base. r; CHAPTER 7 COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS DISTRICTS ARTICLE A. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION (PA) DISTRICT SECTION: 12-7A-1: Purpose 12-7A-2: Permitted Uses 12-7A-3: Conditional Uses 12-7A-4: Accessory Uses 12-7A-5: Lot Area And Site Dimensions 12-7A-6: Setbacks t2-7A-7: Height 12-7A-8: Density Control 12-7A-9: Site Coverage 12-7A-10: Landscaping And Site Development 12-7A-11: Parking And Loading 12-7A-12: Exterior Alterations or Modifications 12-7A-13: Compliance Burden 12-7A-14: Mitigation of Development Impacts 12-7A-1: PURPOSE: The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi-public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. ate Pttbfie t, . Dis4iet iz -.iterded-rri{'r`, iaC a..e_ . _ _ -g g ffnAs at defl:%?z.,.. ?.at-t8 e?EFeed * _i t firtr_ (25) ' .. _ll_ g _t:, per aefe. (Ord. 30(1977)'7: Ord. 8(1973)' 7.100) Changes To Existing PA Zone District This change will delete reference to lodging unit densities in the PA District being limited to 25 dwelling units per acre. This change is consistent with the proposed change to the Density Section which will exclude accommodation units, EHU's and FFU's from densidy calculations. L` 12-7A-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the PA District: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, r-eefeatieiial or retail establishments located within: the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch or terrace. (Ord. 37(19$0) 7: Ord. 19(1976) ' 8: Ord. 8(1973) '' 7.200) Changes to Existing PA Zone District This section eliminates the 10% limit on recreational uses. Recreational uses are now listed as an "accessory uses" and would be permitted with no limitation to floor area. Other Issues Discussed During PEC Work Sessions The original amendment proposal was to eliminate the 10% limitation on eating, drinking, recreational and retail square footage. This raised two concerns during PEC worksessions. Foremost among these was the potential for a PA property to have a very significant amount of retail space which could potentially change the character of buildings and the neighborhoods in which they are located.. Concern that the PA district would essentially become another CCI district was also discussed. It was not the intent of this amendment to allow for a PA property to be developed predominantly as a retail center. Rather, the intent was to not arbitrarily limit retail, restaurant and recreation uses to 10% of the allowable GRFA. In response to concerns that were raised, the proposed amendment will only eliminate the 10% limitation on recreational uses by classifying recreation uses as an accessory use. Eating, drinking and retail square footage in excess of 10% of allowable GRFA would be made a conditional use in order to allow for cases where eating, drinking and retail square footage in excess of 10% of allowable GRFA may be appropriate. 12-7A-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast, as further regulated by Section 12-14-18 of this Title. Churches. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of a main structure or structures located on the site in a nonconforming multi-family dwelling. Fractional fee club as further regulated by Section 12-16-6A7 of this Title. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers. Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Professional and business offices. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures. Public or private schools. Public park and recreational facilities. Public transportation terminals. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Theaters, Ming rou , and convention facilities. Type III employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-6 of this Title. Type IV employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title. Eating, drinking and retail uses occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential, floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. (Ord. 22(1996)'2: Ord. 8(1992)'19: Ord. 31(1989)7: Ord. 3(1985)' 1: Ord. 27(1982)' I(b): Ord. 6(1982)'8(a): Ord. 8(1981)'2: Ord. 26(1980)'2: Ord. 8(1973) 7.300) Changes to Existing PA Zone District As described above in Section 12-7A-2, this section has been amended to include "seating, drinking and retail uses occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site" as a conditional use. In addition, meeting rooms have been eliminated as a conditional use. As proposed, meeting rooms will be listed as an accessory use. 12-7A-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PA District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title. Minor arcade. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted lodge uses. Meeting rooms. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 6(1982)' 8(b): Ord. 8(1973) ' 7.400) Changes to Existing PA Zone District As described above in Section 12-7A-3, this section makes meeting rooms an accessory use. 12-7A-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: 0 The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) , 3) Changes to Existing PA Zone District This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District. 12-7A-6. SETBACKS: In the PA District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20`). At the discretion of the PEC, variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of Exterior Alternations or Modifications (Section 12-7A-12) subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: 1. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. 2. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 3. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. 4. Proposed building setbacks willprovide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. 5. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. (Ord. 50(1 978) '2) Changes to Existing PA Zone District Changes to this section will maintain the existing 20' setback requirement and will establish a process for allowing deviations to the 20' requirement provided certain design and performance standards are satisfied by the applicant. These design and performance standards are intended to allow flexibility for the property owner to deviate from the 20' standard without satisfying variance criteria (hardship and special privilege) while at the same time ensuring that any deviations demonstrate a public purpose, result in a superior design solution, etc. Other Issues Discussed During PEC Work Sessions The amendment originally proposed for setbacks was to determine setbacks based on compliance with Urban Design Guide Plan criteria (the process currently in place in CQ. This approach recognized the unique and sensitive design issues that are present throughout the Vail Village area by considering qualitative design considerations to determinesetbacks in lieu of an arbitrarily pre-determined setback distance. Having no prescribed setbacks in the PA District generated much discussion during the PEC work sessions. Many noted the benefits of providing flexibility with setbacks. However, there were concerns expressed regarding how no prescribed setbacks could potentially impact adjacent property. The 4 proposed amendment is essentially a compromise solution that maintains the 20' standard, yet permits deviations without satisfying stringent variance criteria. 0 I2-7A-7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48'). (Ord. 37(1980) ' 2) Changes to Existing PA Zone District This section is identical to the existing PA Zone District. Other Issues Discussed During PEC Work Sessions While there was some discussion regarding height limits, the applicant and the PEC agreed to maintain the existing height limitations. 12-7A-8: DENSITY CONTROL: Not more than eighty-(" one hundred and fifty (150) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. qusre f i+ of idef A' ^' +loaf ?re s*?ali b e tied far each l;, Jr:w-e ay-- f listed i Seefie~' 12 ? n ? of vJ, and-fte ? :-.5^.sciri -ases sha4l tiet exeee4 eighty (80) sqttafe feet ef gfess Beef for z'aa 'I one-hundred (190) ___1.__ r fe t efbuildable site afe Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. For the purposes of calculating density, employee housing units, accommodation units and fractional fee club units shall not be counted as dwelling units. (Ord. 50(1978)' 19: Ord. 12(1978)'2) Changes to Existing PA Zone District This section increases allowable GRFA from .8 of buildable site area to 1.5 of buildable site area and eliminates limitations on the total number of accommodation, employee housing units and fractional fee units. Excluding EHU's, accommodation units and FFU's from calculation as dwelling units is consistent with the newly established zone district's for Lionshead. The increase in GRFA is intended to bring Other Issues Discussed During PEC Work Sessions A great deal of time was spent with the PEC discussing the appropriate level of GRFA for the PA zone district. Three Commissioners felt GRFA could be eliminated and that the other PA development standards and the Urban Design Guide Plan would provide the Town with adequate tools to review the design of development projects. Other Commissioners felt a GRFA ratio was necessary. As a compromise solution, at their last work session the PEC directed the staff and applicant to draft an amendment that would establish allowable GRFA at 1.2 (the applicant's original proposal), with an additional provision that would allow for greater GRFA provided certain performance standards were met. 0 After subsequent discussion between the applicant and staff, it was agreed that if GRFA is to remain as a development standard, it is most appropriate to have a set GRFA ratio and to avoid a standard that is not nailed down. GRFA is probably the most significant eltzilicut of this amendment process and one of the underlying goals of this amendment process is to eliminate to the extent possible uncertainties in the development review process. For this reason, it was agreed that the most appropriate way to deal with GRFA is to have a set ratio. The proposed GRFA ratio of 1.5 has been made by the applicant in order to address one of the PEC's primary concerns - and that is if the PA district is to be revised, amendments should be made that provide flexibility while at the same time provide control. A number of the PEC members felt a ratio of 1.2 may not be high enough, and were also comfortable that the Urban Design Guide Plan and other development standards are far more effective in controlling the bulk and mass of a building. It has also been demonstrated that buildings with 1.5 GRFA ratios can satisfy the Town's design goals and standards. For this and other reasons, the proposed amendment to GRFA has been changed 1.2 to 1.5. 12-7A-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fiP five fe f*' 57%) sixty-five (65%) of the total site area, unless otherwise specified by applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. (Ord. 17(1991)'7: Ord. 8(19707.507) Changes to Existing PA Zone District This section increases site coverage from 55% to 65%. The intention of this amcndinent is to allow flexibility to the applicant in the design of lodge properties and to the Town in the review of such projects. In addition to increasing allowable site coverage, amendments to the PA District will also establish the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations as review criteria to evaluate development projects.. Reliance on the Guide Plan will provide the Town with the tools necessary to ensure design solutions are appropriate and if necessary, further restrict site coverage. Other Issues Discussed During PEC Work Sessions In their direction to move forward with amendments to site coverage, the PEC recognized that this change will provide benefits similar to proposed amendments to setbacks by allowing greater latitude in the design of buildings. As with proposed amendments to setbacks, proposed amendments still provide the PEC the control to limit site coverage to something less than 65% based on a project's compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan. Another direct benefit of this amendment is that if a project were to develop at the maximum 65% site coverage, it would all but guarantee that all required parking would be enclosed within a building. This is due to the fact that no changes are proposed to the existing 30% landscape requirement. For example, if 65% of a site is covered by buildings, 30%o would be required to be landscaped, leaving only 5% of the site for driveways and 6 surface parking. Realistically, this would only allow room for driveway access to a parking structure and a limited number of drop-off spaces. Current regulations allow 55% of the site to be covered by buildings and require 30% of the site to be landscaped, leaving up to 15% of the site that can be used for parking. While the proposed amendment allows for greater building coverage, it can actually result in a decrease in the amount of site area used for driveways and surface parking. 12-7A-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum, area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19 (1976)' 8: Ord. 8 (1973)'7.509) Changes to Existing PA Zone District No changes are proposed to this section. Other Issues Discussed During PEC Work Sessions While there was considerable discussion related to landscaping requirements, it was agreed by the applicant and the PEC to maintain the existing landscape requirement. 12-7A-11: PARKING AND LOADING: Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) ' 8: Ord. 8(1973) "7.510) Changes to Existing PA Zone District No changes are proposed to this section. Issues Discussed During Work Sessions While comments were made that parking requirements should be evaluated, it appeared that most were in agreement that parking requirements should be considered as a part of the town's efforts to evaluate parking requirements.. This project is scheduled to be initiated this summer. The PEC did, however, agree thatFFU's should be treated as accommodation units when calculating parking requirements. As proposed, this amendment will be implemented by amending the parking requirement schedule in Chapter 10 of the zoning code. 12-7A-12: EXTERIOR ALTERNATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 12-11 of the Zoning 7 Regulations. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, 10 fractional fee club units, any project which adds more than 1, 000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the Administrator) shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as a Major Exterior Alteration in accordance with this Chapter and Section 12-3-6: Hearings. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the Community Development Department for Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board review. The following submittal items are required: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the Administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application; Contents: An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee, and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel. The owners list shall include the names of all owners, their mailing address, a legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property (including the name of the property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative (if applicable). Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared not more than thirty (30) days prior to the application submittal date. b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Platt, the Vail Village Streetscape Master Plan and any other relevant sections of the Vail 0 Comprehensive Plan. c. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features. d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements, and other encumbrances, including Schedules A and B3. e. Existing and proposed site plan at a minimum scale of one inch equals 20 feet (1 " = 20), a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a minimum scale of one inch equals 20 feet (1 " = 209, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of one-eighth inch equals one foot (118" =1 9. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Streetscape Master Plan. f Sunlshade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the springfall equinox (March 211September 23) and winter solstice (December 21) at ten o'clock (10:00) A.M. and two o'clock (2:00) P.M. unless the Department of Community Development determines that the proposed addition has no impact on the existing sunlshade pattern. The following sun angle shall be used when preparing this analysis: SprinzlFall Equinox Sun Angle 10: 00 A.M. 40° east of south, 50° declination 2:00 P.M. 42° west of south, 50° declination Winter Solstice Sun Angle 10:00 A.M. 30° east of south, 20° declination 2:00 P.M. 30° west of south, 20° declination g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a minimum scale of one-fourth inch equals one foot (114" = 1) and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses. h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties as deemed necessary by the Administrator. The scale of the model shall be as determined by the 0 Administrator. i. Photo overlays andlor other graphic material to demonstrate the special relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, and adopted views per Chapter 22 of this Title. j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Administrator or the Town Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission may, at his/her or their discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if it is determined that the requirements are not relevant to the proposed development nor applicable to the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Kid Village Streetscape Master Plan. 4. Work SessionslConceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the Administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the Planning and 10 Environmental Commission, a conceptual review with the Design Review Board, or a worksession with the Town Council. 5. Hearing; The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 12-3-3 of this Title. 6 Lapse Of Approval; Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this Article shall lapse and become void two (2) years following the date of approval by the Design Review Board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. 12-7H-13e COMPLIANCE BURDEN.• It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation Zone District, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the mail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Streetscape Master Plan, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative affects on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Changes to Existing PA Zone District This change establishes the Vail Village Master Plan., the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, and the Vail Village Streetseape Master Plan as the primary review criteria for development of PA zoned properties. This review 11 process mimics the review process recently established for Lionshead and as such this change ensures PEC review of all major development proposals on PA-zoned properties. 12-7A-14: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of f'their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced withthe goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements.. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off-site impacts. Changes to Existing PA Zone District This is a new section proposed for the PA District. It is drawn from the newly created zone districts for Lionshead. The intention of this section is to provide the Town with the basis for negotiating off-site improvements that may be necessary to mitigate the impacts associated with the development of PA-zoned property. E 12 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 - DEFINITION OF "LODGE" Lodge; A building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of individuals or families either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units erewed ? "idefttie fl^^r ^ n deye?e a ?, da"i~g ti-ft is equal to or greater than seventy percent (70%) of the total gross residential floor area on the site, and in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. Changes to Existing Definition of GRFA This change will increase the amount of GRFA devoted to accommodation units from 50% to 70%. This change was suggested by staff and agreed to by both the PEC and the applicant. It was felt that this change will result in lodges that are more consistent with the purpose of the PA zone district. 13 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 10 - OFF-STREET PARKING/LOADING 12-10-10 Parking Requirement Schedule: A. Accommodation and Fractional Fee Units: 0.4 space per accommodation or, fractional fee unit, plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit. Changes to Existing Parking Requirements This amendment will classify a fractional fee unit the same as a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating parking requirements. Currently, FFUs are considered dwelling units for the purpose of calculating parking requirements. n 14 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 14, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom Weber Public Hearinq MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Bishop Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest Dominic Mauriello George Ruther Jeff Hunt Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate an existing property line, located at 2695 Davos Trail / Lots 16 and 17, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Randall J. Fischer Planner: Jeff Hunt Jeff Hunt gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant or public had any comments. There were no comments. John Schofield asked if the applicant agreed to a condition to remove the existing garage. The applicant agreed to the condition. John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther Glen Aasland and Brian Doyon disclosed for the record that they had clients who owned property in that zone district, but they saw no conflict. George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 14,1998 1 C Tom Weber said with regard to the 10°!x; he hadn't heard why to limit it to 10% and there was no clear argument to do so. George Ruther explained 10% was so one particular use would not dominate the site. Tom Weber said it may be restricting redevelopment when hotels want to provide these amenities for their guests. Greg Moffet said when you restrict it to 10%, you don't meet today's standards. Tom Braun said his premise was what was the problem with 22% or 12%. Diane Golden asked, why put a limit on it. Galen Aasland stated that 70% would do away with a bed base to support these services. Greg Moffet said food and beverage operations don't make enough to pay the rent to be on Bridge Street and as a "stand alone" they would not make economic sense. Dominic Mauriello said it was a goad idea to have these uses on the first floor of buildings, more spread over the Town and not confined to Bridge St. Tom Weber said he heard the arguments to take it out, but he wanted to think about it, but he questioned how valid these public buildings were as a conditional use. 0 Greg Moffet said there was no use by right. Tom Weber said everything needs to be conditional use. Dominic Mauriello said any of the properties could have a public transportation facility on their property. Tom Weber said most of the public uses could be taken out. Brian Doyon said the market would dictate the 10%, but Churches should be out and he had no problem with private clubs or cultural facilities. He said a use for a private condo association would be defeating the purpose of being a lodge, if you cant get a reservation there. He said that public amenities were expensive and it was pointless to add all of these as a conditional use. John Schofield said 10% was too arbitrary and to let the market dictate. He said the conditional uses make sense. Greg Moffet said to get rid of the 10%, as learning centers are private schools and offices are nice downtown. He said he didn't see imposing on people to change the code to permit the use and so he suggested leaving the conditional uses in. Tom Weber asked if there was a possibility the 10% would affect the neighbors. 3 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 14,1998 Galen Aasland said not to eliminate the setbacks. He also didn't agree with eliminating everything so it just would go to the DRB, because there would be no public process. He said he wanted the majority of the properties to have hotel units. Diane Golden said it was interesting to have PA zones next to high density zones that had restrictions. George Ruther said PA was the one district that required 50% lodges. Diane Golden thought the review process was fine and wanted to keep the Roost in the PA Zone District. Greg Moffet said we are now taking steps to change the review process and he said the SDD process didn't work, as it was too arduous. He said as long as we can keep the Roost a lodging building, he didn't care how it was zoned. Dominic Maurielio said currently a lodge could be built by going through the DRS only. He suggested making some uses conditional uses so that they would come before the PEC Board. He said the way the code treated permitted and conditional uses needed to be looked at. George Ruther explained that a use by right goes right to the DRB. Tom Braun stated that this draft would provide more assurance to guarantee public input. Dominic Mauriello said staff would like to move away from all the Boards looking at an application and there was a section of the code that dealt with non-conforming uses. He asked if it was a permitted use and square footage was being added, would the applicant really need to come before the PEC or can they go before staff and the DRB. George Ruther summarized the questions that needed to be addressed were: how many hoops would applicants have to jump through and what Boards would they need to go through. Discussion #3 - Develooment Standards George Ruther explained that they were proposing to amend the GRFA ratio and so what do we do with all the SDD requests. John Schofield thought that SDD's still had a place. George Ruther said SDD's have been identified as being problematic and difficult for the staff, and the public to go through and he asked if we had gone far enough when redoing the standards. Greg Moffet said that GRFA was not germane enough for the PA Zone District. Brian Doyon asked what it would take for redevelopment. Russ Forrest said Tom Braun could do an analysis. 5 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 14,1998 Russ Forrest said staff will continue to say that GRFA, as it related to commercial use, was the least useful development tool. Brian Doyon said he would still like to see the model and the site coverage change was a good idea. John Schofield said by modifying accessory uses, we would go to bulk and mass and the bulk and mass should control. He said setbacks where necessary and parking standards needed to be addressed as a development standard, for example, in the CC1 with parking on site, or pay- in-lieu. He said this needed to be part of this package. Dominic Mauriello said staff would be studying parking in the Town, since they received a $3000 grant from Northwest COG. John Schofield said if we started changing ratios, we would have to look at parking and loading and delivery. Greg Moffet asked what do we want, as Council wanted live beds and this was a good first step. He said if the purpose was to increase the bed base, we then needed to figure out how to get more beds. He said ceiling heights didn't cut it and we don't need GRFA. He said we cannot embrace the past, but need to compete in the real world and make a living. He said we needed to book groups in April and May and FFU's needed some kind of limit. He liked the idea of GU zone standards, if we clearly delineated the roles of the bodies in this process. He suggested delineated this as it related to this zone district. He said to figure out how to solve the problem and then execute it. Jim Lamont said if we were going to change the GRFA system, everyone should get it back, not just in the PA and we needed to know the consequences of it. He said he didn't understand the distinction of common areas or hallways being the same as conference rooms and the 50% relationship of AU's and FFU's. He said there was no sense in units per acre, and it was a market force. He said he didn't know about site coverage, and there was a value of the 20' setback between buildings, such as with the case of the Austria Haus. He said people were going to be concerned that this was universal enough and not just applying to Johannes. He said he would like to see centralized parking structures and he would rather have parking on-site. Dominic Mauriello said we can't lump GRFA Townwide and if we needed a parking analysis, the applicant would have to come back next summer. 3. A request for a minor subdivision to transfer a portion of Government Lot 3, obtained by the Town of Vail from the United States Forest Service, pursuant to the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement, to Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked for any public or Commissioner's comments. There were no comments. Planning and Environmental Commission 7 Minutes December 1A,1998 ?y r t? r? Vill PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 22, 1999 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Ann Bishop Brian Doyon Tom Weber Public Hearing MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest Dominic Maurielio George Ruther Jeff Hunt Allison Ochs Judy Rodriguez 2:04 p.m. Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a renewal of (and an amendment to) an existing conditional use permit at the Lionshead Miniature Golf Course, located at a portion of Tract B & D, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Charlie Alexander Planner: Jeff Hunt Jeff Hunt gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. He did not. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Brian Doyon asked what would happen to the wall at night. Charlie Alexander said it laid down flat. John Schofield asked how the applicant proposed to screen the area. Charlie Alexander said when the fence went into the ground, it would be covered with 4' tall perennials and he added that the rock would be 24' tail. John Schofield encouraged the applicant to stay as far away from the bike path as possible. Galen Aasland said there should be no parking condition attached to this request. Ann Bishop echoed Galen's comments. Diane Golden asked how long it would take to dismantle it and how the employees would be trained in the dismantling. Charlie Alexander said dismantling would take only a few minutes and employees would be personally trained. Planning and Environmental Commission 1 Minutes February 22, 1999 1-1 Ann Bishop moved to table this item. 0 John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 3. A request to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessier, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and advised that this would be a recommendation to the Town Council. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Tom Braun said he had not proposed a change in the percentages of the initial application, but that just came up in discussions and he had just heard the numbers for the first time today. Greg Moffet asked for any public input. There was no public input. L.odoino Definition: Tom Weber said the numbers were not appropriate, because of the give & take aspect of recent applications. 10 Russ Forrest said we did group units that provided accommodation units for guests during the Lionshead process. Brian Doyon agreed with Tom Weber on the numbers issue and said he hadn't seen any, numbers to make a decision either way. George Ruther asked the PEC for direction of encouraging up to 50% of a property for condos. Greg Moffet stated those condos would be unrented second homes. Brian Doyon said we need to have numbers on total units and he would like more information. He said more condos (penthouses) would be needed to make redevelopment work. John Schofield asked how there would be assurance for accommodation units to remain au's instead of turning them into dwelling units. He wanted more than 51% GRFA for au's. Galen Aasland said beds needed to be replaced per sq. ft. Ann Bishop agreed with the other Commissioners comments and agreed with Galen's comments. Diane Golden said her goal was to have more people living in Vail and that she would need more information. E Planning and Environmental Commission 3 Minutes February 22, 1999 John Schofield said that creating a new zone would offset an option, but would make this more arduous. He said he would like to see, speaking from a developers standpoint, that if he met the criteria, he would know exactly where he stood. Greg Moffet said he does not want to see a design review come out of this. He said he was comfortable with the CC1 review process, as they did not protract into 6 month ordeals, such as the Golden Bear. Dominic Mauriello mentioned that some types would allow the PEC to be the approval Board, taking the SDD process out of play. Tom Braun .said, in theory, an SDD any request could come in. Develooment Standards: George Ruther said this was the 3rd time we had seen setback, GRFA and building height changes. Tom Braun said we were not saying no setbacks, but setbacks with a purpose. He then showed an illustration of a 6:12 roof pitch vs. a 3:12 roof pitch and said there needed to be dialog if the Town was encouraging steeper pitched roofs. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no comments. Galen Aasland said the GRFA ratio needed to be changed and since this dealt with reality, it was appropriate to change. He said he was for eliminating the 35% common area, the 10% in dining, the density limitation and agreed to the 50-70% increase in site coverage. He also said he was ok with decreasing the landscaping requirement. He did say that the consistent height in the Village gave it its charm. He said, speaking as a developer, that the mid-height scheme could be manipulated and would be a disadvantage to the Town. He said adjacent properties have relied on setbacks between buildings and they were beneficial. He mentioned that under the current zoning system, it was difficult without an SDD, but he would like to change the zoning, rather than have no setbacks. He said the PA should be 20'20'20', but relief may be requested without a variance from the PEC using criteria along with the 7 that staff had shown on page 5. Ann Bishop agreed with the development standards, building heights and maintaining the levels stated in the memo. She said she also agreed with Galen's language about the setbacks. Diane Golden also agreed with the development standards and Galen's language regarding setbacks. She thought that the building height should stay the same, as well as the site coverage, but she was concerned with going, from 30%-20% in the landscape requirement. She felt an increase in GRFA to 120% was ok. Tom Weber voiced his concern on evaluating the code with just the summary and he didn't agree with adjusting the volumes on GRFA. He agreed with Galen to have setbacks as a starting point. He said he was having a hard time with eliminating the 10% dining. He asked using the definition of a lodge, was it necessarily in the character of development to take out the 10% altogether and so he had a problem taking it out. He thought by increasing GRFA to 120%, we still were going to have variances, so it still wouldn't hit the mark by what's out there now. He felt the building height should be kept as written. He said regarding the distinction between the eave height and the roof height, a distinction would need to be made where the eave was placed. He agreed with taking out the 35% common area and bumping up the site coverage. E Planning and Environmental Commission 5 Minutes February 22, 1999 charm of Vail was seeing flowers, trees and grass and if the landscaping requirement was reduced, you would be taking some of the charm that is Vail. He said the amendments don't fit all eighteen property owners and that this was an SOD for one property owner, representing only one property owner, Mr. Faessler. Kaye Ferry said she was not comfortable with eliminating the 10% limitation for business. She said she was in favor of more hotel rooms, but the intent was to get more activity on the streets. She said she was more concerned about not losing live beds in the process of these transitions. She agreed with John not to pursue GRFA any longer and she said to strive to make the changes that will accommodate the largest number of people. Hans Woldrich said when landscaping is decreased, you will have a paved Town, which should not even be considered. Jim Lamont said he received several letters and they were not in the packet. George Ruther said the letters were addressed to the Council. Jim Lamont said all letters should be available to the public. He said he was trying to make the distinction between the Urban Design Guidelines and the Master Plan, as he didn't know where those boundaries were. Russ Forrest said this information could be provided to him. Jim Lamont stated that he believed an SOD was for large blocks of property. He said because of the sheer size, that special consideration should be given. He said if we now visit the same subject as the VVi and change it for the Austria Haus behind gates, he can't see why there is a distinction made. He said the development standards were shared consistently in different zone districts., and an established pedestrian precinct needs to happen. He stated that setbacks reduced on the street would be ok, but not between properties. He thought mixed uses and horizontal zoning made sense to tradeoff, but why did we want to expand a CC1. He said loading and delivery needed to be addressed, as the Bavaria Haus had 18-wheelers blacking the road to address the Austria Haus. He said we needed a vision in order to solve the problem. He asked how many times do we need to tell you we don't want GRFA and we shouldn't be discussing height, because we have already decided on 11' floor to floor in Lionshead, so that height standard should apply. He stated that if height is changed, it would need to be changed in every zone district. He asked if 11' was appropriate for Lionshead, why then is it not for everywhere else? Russ Forrest asked Jim if a limit should be placed on the number of floors based on the 11 height. Jim Lamont said we have got to evaluate whether preserving the character of Vail Village is a good argument. He said the Tivoli, Christiania and Villa Valhalla don't want anything to do with this proposal, as they were very happy with how they can redevelop. He stated he didn't mind if this application was for Mr. Faessler, but let's call a spade a spade. He said there was a big difference with what Joe Staufer got and what Johannes Faessler was getting. Galen Aasland questioned that if the property owners that Jim mentioned had written letters, you would have fthought they would have been forwarded to us. Jim Lamont said he would deliver the message to them. 101 Joe Staufer said he had told Johannes that he was in support of using an SOD for one property owner, as an SDD would give back to the Town. Planning and Environmental Commission 7 Minutes February 22, 1999 Jim Lamont asked if the public was paying for infrastructure. He said the open impact fee was nebulous and needed to be defined through an impact fee ordinance, as what you are doing may not be legal. Russ Forrest said it was legal as a general nexus. Jim Lamont said we cannot tax ourselves back into success. He said he was nervous about flow far we were taxing the developer. Dominic Mauriello said this was no different from an SDD. Galen Aasland asked about the language regarding the maximum average building height and asked how many times a year could the 1,000 sq. ft threshold be used. Galen Aasland asked how Chapter 10 dealt with parking and loading. Dominic Mauriello said that we have a grant to fund a parking study. He said if there was not land for parking, it would be either parking pay-in-lieu, or off-site. He said they recognized that the parking regs were a disincentive to redevelopment. Galen Aasland asked about GRFA on page 21, 8c and 8d as not treating single-family and multiple-family the same. Dominic Mauriello said that was a good question and if we were not going to regulate common area, maybe we should just look at floor plate or the outside walls. Galen Aasland asked if this affected all of Town, had the Town been given proper notice. Dominic Mauriello said if we start counting on every level, it would impact the applicant's ability to do additions in the future. Galen Aasland said we are trying to get consistent zoning throughout and this perpetuates differences. Russ Forrest said direction has come from Council and he disagreed with Jim, as the Council was moving incrementally with GRFA with the design standards. He suggested putting it in the form of a motion to forward to Council. Galen Aasland suggested changing Chapter 15, so that the two chapters were consistent. Ann Bishop said she was concerned with the tax implications on developers on page 18. Diane Golden said she had no comments. Tom Weber suggested modifying the development impacts and would like to add streamtract improvements. Brian Doyon wanted to see "banks" as a use-by-right on the first level of a building and financial institutions on the 2nd level . He mentioned under 12-7h7, the studies show the winter solstice at 10am (if the sun is even up) and at 2pm as the sun casting shadows. He questioned if this was appropriate and suggested a different time or perhaps switching to 4pm, when a business does business. He thought public art improvements was actually private art and needed to quantify it more. Greg Moffet proposed the language in all cases shall be very reasonable, with relation to development impacts, with reasonable as a standard used in all law. Planning and Environmental Commission 9 Minutes February 22, 1999 John Schofield made a motion to recommend approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 6. A request for the establishment of Special Development District No. 36, to allow for a commercial expansion, located at 680 W. Lionshead Place/ Lot 3, Block 1, Lionshead Third Piling. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association, represented by Robert LeVine Planner: Jeff Hunt TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8,1999 7. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 7 (The Marriott Hotel), to allow for the construction of the Gore Creek Club and a remodel to the existing hotel, located at 714 Lionshead Circle / Marriott Mark. Applicant: HMC Acquisition Properties, Inc., represented by East-West Partners Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999 8. A request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by hurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL MARCH 8, 1999 9. 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 MARCH 8,1999 10. 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 15` Filing. Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MARCH 22, 1999 Tom Weber made a motion to table the above items. John Schofield seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission 12 Minutes February 22, 1999 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 22, 1999 SUMMARY Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT:MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL. PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Diane Golden Sybill Navis George Ruther John Schofield Ann Bishop Ludwig Kurz Allison Ochs Galen Aasland Judy Rodriguez Brian Doyon Tom Weber Public Hearinai 2:00 p.m. Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a joint worksession with the Town Council to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation" Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowner's Association, said the Tivoli neighborhood did not want to change. He said however, that they wanted equal treatment with GRFA, but did not want commercial. LODGING DEFINITION: Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Bob Lazier, owner of the Tivoli Lodge and some commercial downtown, said the Town could use some new hotel rooms, but warned against stifling developers, as there was a huge need for 500-1000 beds. He said there appeared to be a movement towards the Holiday Inn site. He said we seem to be trying to put everything in a basket, so that all are treated equally, which is not necessary, as long as they are treated fairly. He said the character of Tivoli was very different from the economics of the Sonnenaip and that commercial was not needed, as it was walking distance to the Village. He said to put all public accommodations under one umbrella would be difficult. He said the height requirement of 48' limited the Tivoli. Tom Weber said George was going in the right direction. Brian Doyon said it was in the right direction, but would like to see the duration of time for FFU's. TOWNO VAAIL ?' Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 22, 1999 John Schofield suggested looking to the use definition of an accommodation unit vs. a dwelling unit. He asked if there was currently a 247hr. desk requirement under lodges and if not it might be something to consider. He then asked if all the current accommodations in the PA Zone District had 24-hr. desks. Galen Aasland agreed with John that the purpose of the district was short-term units. He said the smaller hotels would potentially still work without a front desk and he was comfortable with the 70%, but there needed to be flexibility to encourage redevelopment. Greg Moffet said to add a provision that the number of AU's needed to be replaced. He said the 24-hr. desk was appropriate most of the time and that there was a difference between a front desk and a 24-hr. desk. REVIEW PROCESS: George Ruther gave an overview of the review process. Tom Braun suggested not fewer meetings ; just not 6-8 worksessions on the larger projects and to have projects finish out closer to where they would end up. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Galen Aasland said he agreed with what the PEC talked about, and agrees to have adjacent property owners notified. He said he liked the format to deed restrict employee housing and would like to see some kind of scenario set up so as to not be a surprise to the developer. Tom Weber said it needed to get as close to a design-by-right process as possible. Brian Doyon agreed with Galen. He said the PEC would like to take some of the issues and make the decisions and not have to go to Council since they were planning issues. He does not like two groups reviewing requests. He then gave the example of the Austria Haus, with the PEC giving approval and Council turning it down. John Schofield said to refine it have zoning and design criteria so applications can go right to the DRB. Greg Moffet said he preferred to see requests reviewed more closely to the GU process. He said everybody would benefit if a Council review was at their option. He said that developers now go thru the PEC and then have to start all over with worksessions with Council. He said he would like to see a list of factors that have to be considered, such as setbacks, etc., and if we could take mandatory Council review out of the process, then it would be streamlined. George Ruther summarized the PEC comments that if an applicant was not asking for any Deviation, he could go right to the DRB if all development standards were met. He said the minute they wanted to vary, the PEG kicks in. He said if the development standards were met, there seemed to be a clear path to move forward with the project. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Greg Moffet said Jim asked to include in the process a consideration of the characteristics of the neighborhood. Planning and Environmental Commission 2 Minutes March 22,1999 George Ruther said we were not rezoning, just amending it and the goal of this project was to identity text amendments. Tom Braun showed a slide presentation. Greg Moffet said, for the record, he just received proposed amendments to the PA Zone District. He then asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Greg Moffet said that Council has stated that they don't want to eliminate GRFA. John Schofield said as long as Council knows that at least 3 of the PEG (John Schofield, Greg Moffet and Diane Golden)are in favor of doing away with GRFA. George Ruther reminded the PEC that 120% would be our maximum, but to the developer it's the minimum and realizing this, he asked how flexible was it. SITE COVERAGE AND LANDSCAPING: Tam Weber said he didn't think we should go as high as CC1 and CC2, but that as long as 65% works well with 30% landscaping. Brian Doyon said to keep landscaping where it is. John Schofield said he would tend to keep landscaping in the 250I0-30% range, rather than parking. Galen Aasland agreed with John. Greg Moffet said to treat this like it was a flexible criteria to be considered. He said the consensus among the Board members was to treat FFU's like AU's, rather than DU's. George Ruther summarized to relieve applicant from requiring parking on-site. 2. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the consolidation of two dwelling units in the CC2 Zone District, located at 124 E. Meadow Drive I A portion of Lot 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Alfredo L. Suarez, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Tom Weber recused himself. Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked for any public, applicant or Commission comments. There were no comments. John Schofield made a motion for approval. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission 3 Minutes March 22,1999 The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 3. A request for a rezoning from Primary/Secondary Residential to Residential Cluster, located at 2497, 2487, 2485 and 2477 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block H, Vail das Schone Filing #2. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland stated, for the record, that he lived about 3 tots over from this property, but that he saw no conflict. Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the request. Chas Bernhardt handed out a letter that explained how these parcels were purchased with RHETT funds. He stated at a recent neighborhood meeting of about 40 people, that 38 were not in favor of this project. Karen Scheidegger, an owner of some lots in the vicinity, stated she was opposed to this as it was purchased with RHETT funds fora park. She said that had she known she could have built a cluster of townhomes when it was zoned Primary/Secondary, she would have and she asked why the Town was able to do this, Karen Schdeigger stated it was not right to have a cluster development, when it was zoned Primary/Secondary. Allison Ochs stated that at Town meetings, the Town goals were to cluster. I* Greg Moffet said this application clearly satisfied the finding the PEC is required to make. John Schofield made a motion with the condition that Council use the strongest possible language to ensure that the park area remains as park land/open space and one option was to include it as Charter Open Space. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 4. A request for annexation and zoning of out door recreation of an unplatted portion of the SE IA SE I/4 SE 1/4 SW t/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located on the north side of Arosa Drive, and abutting Sunlight north to the east and Town Manager's house to the west. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Karen Scheidegger asked if there was a guarantee that this land would be left open as open space. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 22,1999 Allison Ochs said it would be rezoned outdoor recreation at this time, but could be rezoned in the future. John Schofield made a motion for approval. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. John Schofield' amended the motion to add a condition that Council use the strongest possible language to ensure that the park area remains as park land/open space. One option was to include it as Charter Open Space. Brian Doyon seconded the amended motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 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 sz Filing. Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development Group Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 12, 1999 6. 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 2na Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL. APRIL 12, 1999 7. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the required side setbacks, located at 3003 Bellflower Drive / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Mr. Guillermo Huerta Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL. APRIL 26, 1999 8. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Piling. Applicant: Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Planning and Environmental Commission 5 Minutes March 22,1999 TABLED INDEFINITELY Tom Weber made a motion to table the above items. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Galen Aasland made a motion to table item #8 until April 12 t". John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 9. Information Update 10. Approval of March 8, 1999 minutes. John Schofield made a motion for approval as amended. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Galen Aasland made a motion to adjourn. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 5;10 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission 6 Minutes March 22, 1999 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PA ZONE DISTRICT 114/1899, rev. 3/20 Dwelling Common Rest., Retail, Site Building Land- Site Area Units GRFA Area .recreation Coverage Setbacks Heiqht scams Allowable 251ac 80! 35% of CRFA 14% of GRFA 55% 20120120 45748' 30% Summary of Seven Re-Developed Vail Village PA Properties Austria Haus 55 ac 56/ac 66% 16°l0 % 2'-19' 48' Bavaria Haus 2.02 ac 22.2/ac .:' ?7/ 65% 12% n/a 56' n/a Christiania .38 ac 35.5/ac 5? ; 48% 8°! 39°/Q 0'-15' 44` 32°/a:,:, Galatyn Lodge 50 ac 23/ac ?... 21% n/a ; 33°l0 2'-8' 47' n/a Ramshorn .67 ac 31.3/ac ;L n/a n/a 27° 7`-10' 42' e/a Tivoli Lodge 40 ac 60/ac n/a n/a ?' nIa 6'-16' n/a r/a Vail Athletic Club .69 ac 48.5/ac 62% 102% r 0''- 0'-2' 59767' °ro Averages 39.5/ac 96% 52% 47% 25% Other Vail Village PA-Zoned Pro perties 9 Vail Road 65 ac 41/ac 29% n/a 4°f 2'-18' n/a rig Talisman 509 ac 31.4/ac n/a n/a 3?°l 01-20' n/a n/a First Bank .48 ac 12.5/ac .> n/a' n/a n/a 8'-19' n/a `6°l0 '.: Swiss Chalet 78 ac 32/ac W1 53%° 29% 38°fa ..:. 01-9' n/a n/a Mountain Haus 49 ac 153/ac 390`. : n/a 25%° 0°1° st)` 0` n/a n1a Villa Vahalla .312 ac 38.4/ac n/a n/a 37`h 7'-18' n/a n/a Holiday Inn n1a n/a n/ r n/a n/a _;pla n/a n/a I/a Averages 51.3/ac 169% 41% 49% Note: All statistics are from the Vail Village Master Plan and TQV Community Development staff memos. 0 0 0 561-798--9843 HARMON PAGE 01 Vail Town Council Germaine Harman February 15, 1999 970 479 2157 561 798 984. 798 8287 Telephone Mayor Rob Ford and all Council members, it was with great disappointment I heard the news that'the Council Meeting for February 16th was postponed. I had my bags packed and ticket in hand! I cannot help but fee- that if it hadn't been postponed, the applicant's proposal ~or the Vail Plaza Hotel, stood a good chance of being denied.. k-- i As I stated in my corments prior to the January 19th Council Meeting, yes, Vail needs growth and revitalization. S) this I and many countless others are not opposed. Just the magnitude of the project proposed. Since making my initial comments, I have had another tougl't or two. Lionshead has been on 'the drawing board' for what seers lake years. Discretion regarding the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel would appear to be key here. The ramifications of a hasty 'yes' decision could impact Vail negatively for years to come. I am quite perplexed with the enormity of the spa area. I :find it interesting that the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera is no where near that square footage and yet Conde Naste has ratedl it the #3 spa in the countryl My late husband and I had been blessed with the where-with-all to build a 14,000 sq. ft. home and when I envision ju?r. t a spa being 25,000 sq. ft,, I can't help but wonder, 'Does Prado plan can inviting the entire state of Colorado for pool parties]?W. Parking - If T am not mistaken, there would be approximately 326 hotel rooms, 15 fractional fee units, and a 20,00( sq.'ft. conference center. Add to this, the size staff for a complex of this magnitude. Yet, there are only roughly 394 p eking spaces in the plans. Where are the rest to park? H. • 02/17/1999 15:05 1-•843-844-8024 ITTLESON PAGE 01 February 1.7, 1999 The Honorable Rob Ford, Mayor Town Council Members Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Proposed SDD6 - Prado Amendment- Faessler FUl?l-ic. Acs^flmmn ion zorjq?trict azWdmen- Dear Mayor Ford and Town Council Members: We object to the magnitude of the above amendments, as they are currently proposed, because they adversely affect the established character of their neighborhoods and Vail Village in general. We are in support and urge the Town Council to approve reasonable .improvements to Vaal Village. We are residential property owners in, the Village Center Condominiums. We own a condominium unit immediately adjacent to the new Sonnenalp Austria Haus. We spoke out against the first proposal for the Austria Haus as it was excessively large, being out of character with Vail Village, and not sensitive to adjacent property owners. When we saw the results of the redesign, after the 'down council rejected the first proposal, we believed the project was reasonable. We feel that the project is good, now that the building is completed, and an improvement to the Village. We are particularly pleased that no streamwalk was constructed. The stream bank, once it has been put back in a natural conditions, will return to its natural beauty for all to enjoy- We believe very strongly that new buildings should not be much taller than the new Austria Haus and that setbacks from the stream tract and adjacent private property should remain as they currently exist in the zoning code. We do not favor allowing commercial uses that have street fronts in established residential neighborhoods where currently no exterior commercial uses exist or are allowed. We support commercial, uses along street fronts where the building is within grated pedestrian areas. 1183 POLO Sabo Lane, G7rm Pod, &C 2W Td. (843) W-25001 Fn fM 3' WSOUs C-ma?1: i'tt 10WCa ltty,COm e Receivol F 1 I;J Date Receive(. EB 2 2 1999 1E E February 19,1999 'Nail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Town Council Member, RECEIVED FEB 2 1999 I have received a letter from the developers of the VVI site, requesting me to sign a letter approving their plan for redevelopment. While much of what is said in the letter is true, I am concerned that many people will sign it without knowing enough about the developers' plans. The bulk and height of the plan is way out of proportion to what should be built in Vail Village. I urge you to insist that the plan be scaled down in harmony with the Village. I am also very concerned about how the Town staff and PEC encouraged the applicant to design a building which is way beyond established guide lines. The same thing happened to the developers of the Austria House. The cost of building in Vail is very high and adding design cost for a plan that cannot be used is very unfair. It would seem that both the staff and PEC must be made to comply with the directions of the Council. Sincerely, Robert F. Fritch Owner Sitxmark Lodge Year Around Resort Lodging 183 Gore Creek Drive • Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-5001 + FAX (303) 476-8702 Alagri! ?dge Date Receive t. FEB 2 ? 1999 Jon A. Shirley 366 Hanson Ranch Road Vail, CO 81657 Phone 970-476-5948 Fax 970-4766053 February 19, 1999 Town of Vail Attn: Town Council, Planning And Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 To: Mayor Rob Ford and 'T'own Council Members Planning And Environmental Commission Subject: Faessler proposal The Faessler proposal to amend the Public Accommodation Zone District is reported to be on the February 22, 1999, Planning and Environmental Commission agenda. I would like to register my strong opposition to this proposal. Our neighborhood is currently residential in character and this would totally destroy that character. Our street already has traffic congestion from the delivery trucks and the (unlawful) unloading and pick up of skiers. This would greatly increase the traffic on the street on the street and add far more pedestrians to the already crowded street. We purchased our home with the understanding that the lodges in the area would stay lodges and a change to making the area a shopping district would certainly have a detrimental effect on the value of that home. In addition I fail to see how taking what is currently lodge space and converting it to stores will-help with the need for more accommodations. It would appear to nee that this amendment would allow lodges to convert rooms to stores reducing accommodations and further adding to the acute problem of employee housing. Sincerely FEB-19-w99 FRI 2:21 PM ION & MARY SHIRLEY FAX NO, 425 454 6962 G FAX TRANSMITTAL FROM JOIN AND MARY S14IRLEY 366 Hanson Ranch Rd. Vail, CO 81657 FAX: 970-476-6053 PHONE, 9701-476-5945 Date: 02/19/99 PAGE 1 of 1 To: Mayor Rob Ford and Town Council Members Planning And Environmental Commission Town of Vail Subject: Faessler proposal The Faessler proposal to amend the public Accommodation Zone District is reported to be on the February 22, 1999, Planning and Environmental Commission agenda. I would like to register my strong opposition to this proposal. Our neighborhood is currently residential in character and this would totally destroy that character. Our street already has traffic congestion from the delivery trucks and the (unlawful) unloading and pick up of skiers. This would greatly increase the traffic on the street on the street and add far more pedestrians to the already crowded street. We purchased our home with the understanding that the lodges in the area would stay lodges and a change to making the area a shopping district would certainly have a detrimental effect on the value of that home. In addition I fail to see how taking what is currently lodge space and converting it to stores will help with the need for more accommodations. It would appear to me that this amendment would allow lodges to convert rooms to stores further adding to the acute problem of employee housing. E 199 MAY 19 '99 03: 44PM FISHMAN AND TOBIN SYLVAN M. TDISIN 101 OhiESWOLD LANE, UNIT S0 HAbcr-tr-%.rnu, PA 1=41 May 19, 1999 Paz to: Planning and Environnitntal Co...r. uion of the Town of Fail 970-479-2157 Re: A request for a final review of a tjr.yk,osal to amend the Town's' ublic Accommodation!' Zone District, Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Cross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Gev-b,4 Ruther P.1/1 Oa understanding is that this applicant is asking for a blanket upzoning of the Town's public accommodation zone, which we are categorically against. We feel that anyone, who wants to upzone a project, should apply on a. project by project basis, so that the decisions can be made on a case by case basis, Fran and Sylvan Tobin jp8 't Development standards However, critical development stan- in Vail need updating dards such as building height and landscaping will not be changed. And For the past several years, the . most iinportaritly, the proposed Town of Vail and Vail business own- amendments will actually increase ers have lamented decreasing or stag- the town's level of review for Jebel- nant business, usually by pointing., opment in the PA .Zone District by their collective fingers at down-valley adopting design criteria that will growth, lean snow years, or in;some ., .maintain or, enhance the quaint, cases, the not-so-graceful aging of,, pedestrian character of Vail Village. some of Vail Village's older hotel This is:j tst;one example of what we and condominium properties. We can accomplish by - updating the can't control snowfall, but we can town's developmentstandards. I hope control our ability to compete. Next you'll join the in supporting these week, the town begins public hear- changes, which will not only help ings to discuss possible changes to Vail aesthetically, but will also be an development standards in Vail's Pub- integral part of Vail's future ability to lic Accommodations Zoning Dis- compete. . Sincerely tricts, standards which for the most , Rob LeViue part have not changed in 20,, years. What this means, in simple terms; is manager,. Antlers that the town is taking a fresh look at development ahd re-development standards for many of its hotel and'.: , condominium properties.o -the standard. of yryear•appl Probably not. Do we'- neeed its ? these standards to_encourage-quality ' = re-development to tl? v?lla?e:cq?e`2 , Probably so, its a 27 ear Vail. Est ?e?t:.-aud busiiu„55nlatz;, anu.?te?,... meiizbsx of the Vail Town Council, I have`watched ;while improvements: y on pur'ski incitaitain.llA*e octtpaced itnpr , Yemarjts in our'.tbwii. Today, , we have an epportunity to. make ttp sorrte 'of that .}tilt grottby. upda"? ' mote.-.q uahty developtnertt and r,e ' deve?n2ent ,oi ntazty of 'these•: properties. And [ cniphasize the word "qual tv," The Taw-ztof.Va t has stat;._.-11 ed.'for the record that it waiIts?, to,, encourageyustlitJ redevelops ten#apcl indre_mes ia.hr tel and lodguig, beds. The i-vp.sed arnendtnents` tit the town's development standards, in the -? town's lodging; zone would do just that-. In fact,. the propposed amend- ments would actually increase. some development, standards to provide- flexibility for prraposed projects to be designed to meet today's market., M Busmess Proposal could have impact on competition By Elizabeth Mattern Daily Staff Writer VA IL As the Town of Vail's Planning and Envixu",;..tal Cua,.,„ission discussed a proposal, this week to change the zoning for a group-of Vail Village,. lodging facilities, it wasn't so much the poteriti it bulk and mass that local business owners were wl"si.,d about. The:proposed amendment to the Public Accom- ~ modation Zone District, encompassing 18 hotel sites, could elrEU, ate the 10 percent limitation on retail currently allowed in the lodges. 'We are going to see more T-shirt shops, Jew- elry stores; galleries and ski shops." Joe '5taufer, former owner of the Vail Village Inn, said at the Monday meeting.. "I don't think a proliferation of commercial space is a benefit to the community."' The proposal, commissioned by Johannes Faessler of the Sonnenalp Resort at Vail, would bring zoning standards more into line with the r",..,' projects that have been built, such as the Austria Hans, which had to go through a time-con- suming special approval process. The amendment would allow the 18 properties to have a 40 percent increase in gross residential square footage, an increase in site coverage from 50 percent to 70 percent, and setback regqu,uto ,eats determined on a case-by case basis instead of by an overriding rule. In addition to eliminating the retail owners worried. The Cis3l/j/, Thursday, l±obruqry 25, 1999---hagL A5 over zoning change with hu gt..rooms, more meeting space and more indoor sectional facilities -such as spas and that som"etback requirement should specifically again within a month before making, "its way to the limitation, the amendment also would decrease the landscaping requirement from 30 percent to 20 per- cent. "This deals with reality"' Planning and Envi- ronmental. ('vuuuiSSion mc.uber Galen Aasland said: "This is where buildings are going, I think. Cadging has changed around the nation and the world, "the town needs to recognize that.,, The.????ment proposal was intended to allow hotel developers more flexibility to create lodges work:=r3ut_xocros -which the Sonnenalp report clahqa, customers now expect and desire. But1?aye Ferry, president of the Pail Village 11rlerellaltsAssociation, agreed with Staufer that abolisltii :the 20 percent retail limit would adversely affect neighboring businesses. "akingforthe merchants, Iwould say we are not willing to give up the 10 p?...,.,? restriction," she said. ` merchants are -in favor of creating more hotel rooms within the town limits, and our intention in doing so is to attract more visitors, ... But I don't want those people to then become cap- tives inside a building where they don't have to leave a hotel to eat or shop or buy an aspirin or get a drink." The Planning and Environmental Commission did not vote on the proposal and gave mixed feed- back on the retail aspect.. Most on the panel agreed be designated at least as a "starting point." The issue will came before the commission 0 unlimited retail space. ext. 619. A proposed zoning ainendmea# could allow some Vail Village hotels to have Vail Town Council for final consideration. Elizabeth Mattem covers Vail,. Mintum and Red Glff. She can be reached at (974) 949-4555, 0 Approved June 14 1 999 E PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 24, 1999 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Public Hearinq MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Golden Tom Weber John Schofield called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a final review to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for the Vail Mountain School to construct a temporary classroom on the site of the school for a twelve-month period, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`x' Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner George Ruther E George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant had nothing to add. Brian Doyon had no comments. Galen Aasland said he wanted to offer enough opportunity to remove the classroom after the school year ends in two years. Pam Hopkins said the 5-yr plan should be adopted in July and she would like the temporary classroom to remain until 2 years from July 1st. Doug Cahill asked about the hitches being up against the building. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. John Schofield asked if the utilities would be underground and if the access would be paved. Pam Hopkins said the access would be sandstone and electricity would be the only utility. George Ruther asked if the PEC would like the hitch removed. John Schofield said, yes and suggested something other than metal siding. Pam Hopkins said trailers don't come with wood siding. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 24, 1999 STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest Dominic Mauriello George Ruther Allison Ochs Brent Wilson Judy Rodriguez 2 Approved June 14 1999 Brian Doyon stated originally we were talking one classroom and now we have two. Pam Hopkins said since they were so late, they just had a larger trailer available and the second classroom would be a computer lab without additional students. John Schofield asked for any public comments. Duane Piper, a neighbor, asked if this was for larger enrollment. Pam Hopkins said this would be for a peak enrollment before the 5 yr. plan was established. Galen Aasland made a motion in accordance with the staff memo, amending Condition 1 &2 to have the date read July 1, 2001. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. John Schofield amended the motion to have utilities be underground and that access to the facility be paved and the hitches be covered or removed. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 employee housing unit to be located at 1538 Spring Hill Lane/Lot 14, Block 3, Vail Valley First Piling. Applicant. Wiley Family Partnership Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Kurt Segerberg, representing the applicant, said the EHU was below 500 sq. ft. in order not to have to provide two parking spaces. Allison Ochs said she just received the plans this morning. John Schofield asked for any public input. There was no public input. Doug Cahill asked if the walkway to the unit would be heated, as this was a safety concern. Kurt Segerberg said, no. Chas Bernhardt asked for a letter from the adjoining homeowners approving the additional unit and he wanted the new modifications to the EHU Chapter to be applicable. Brian Doyon asked for reassurance that this would be an EHU and not an addition to the house. He asked if the wall between the two units could be concrete. Kurt Segerberg said that that would not be a problem. Galen Aasland disclosed for the record that he had looked at the lot some years ago, but saw no conflict and he saw no reason to change the plans. Planning and Environmental Commission 2 Minutes May 24, 1999 Approved June 14 1999 John Schofield said because we have had a problem with EHU's over the years staying as EHU's, this would be making sure they stay EHU's. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo and the additional condition that the wail between the units be concrete. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. - 3. A request for a minor subdivision to Parcel F, Briar patch to allow for a change in the platted building envelope "C" location, and required employee housing unit designation, located at 1306 Buffher Creek Road. Applicant: Web Atwell Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Duane Piper, the applicant's representative, commented briefly. Galen Aasland asked if the adjacent property owners had been notified. Duane Piper said, yes. Brent Wilson referred Galen to the memo addendums. Brian Doyon had no comments. Doug Cahill had no comments. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6, to allow for the construction of a garage within a front setback and Section 12-10-8, to allow for the construction of an undersized garage, located at 5125 Black Bear Lane J Lot 11, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Montgomery (Mike) Mathias Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. 0 John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Planning and Environmental Commission 3 Minutes May 24, 1999 Approved June 14 1999 Mike Mathias said he had a non standard lot and so he had to have a variance. John Schofield asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Doug Cahill said you don't just want a Band-Aid, but something appropriate for your needs. Dominic Mauriello said a smaller garage used as a storage unit would displace parking. Chas Bernhardt asked if he asked the Town to lease or purchase the cul-de-sac. Mike Mathias said, no Dominic Mauriello said the documentation received from the applicant was incomplete and therefore could not be advised on alternatives. Chas Bernhardt advised that it would be beneficial to look into an alternative in order to have a fully functional situation. Brian Doyon said the applicant needed a professional architect to solve the problem. He advised the applicant to get someone on board to design this as a much better product for the Town. He said he couldn't vote without seeing the plan and he was not in favor of a smaller garage, but a bigger garage. He said cars needed to be able to be parked in garages and this was a storage bin. Galen Aasland said this needed to be consistent with the Town's goals and guidelines and the small size of the parking space makes this a special privilege. He said there were options to trade property, as well as the side option. 1101 John Schofield urged the applicant to explore alternatives, such as leasing or purchasing land from the Town. He said there were architectural solutions and the applicant needed an actual survey. He stated the small size of the garage made this a special privilege. He asked if the applicant wanted to table this to explore alternatives, as the configuration of the lot was a hardship that warranted a variance. The applicant requested to table this item. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this item. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 5. A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion and loading dock addition to the Dobson Ice Arena, located at 221 F. Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and stated that the DRB and the Town Council have already seen the model. Planning and Environmental Commission 4 Minutes May 24, 1999 Approved June 14 1999 John Schofield asked the applicant to walk the PEC through the model, since it was the first time they had seen it. Otis Odel explained the addition. He said the upper level space would accommodate hockey- related activities and the applicant had settled on this design with the DRB, since it would not affect the purity of design of Dobson. He said they were looking at the alignment of Meadow Drive with Greg Hall. John Schofield asked for any public input. There was no public input. Brian Doyon asked George who would be policing the loading area. Jim Heber said he would police it, once the gates are closed. Otis Odel explained the gates would be closed when loading and delivery was over. Brian Doyon asked about an alternative on the north side for loading and delivery. He said he was concerned with the removal of the landscaping. Otis Odel explained that approaching from the east, trucks could not make that radius and approaching from the west was in direct conflict with the Lionshead Master Plan. Galen Aasland said he shared Brian's concerns with tree removal on the southeast side, as it was a pedestrian area. He said he always saw an 18-wheeler in the pedestrian area. Jim Heber said the only time the TV trucks park overnight was for the Christmas Show. Doug Cahill asked how a truck would back into the loading dock . George Ruther said they would come in from the West and head out east. He explained that if the trucks would come in on the north side, they would come in at the top of the bleachers and they needed to come in at ice level. He said the drain would empty into the sewer line.. Chas Bernhardt said he thought it was well thought out and he liked it. George Ruther said this approval would become the development standards for this site. He explained that there was no property line between Dobson and the Library and that the east bike path had its own right-of-way. John Schofield asked if they had explored the possibility of trucks not backing into the bustop area, where pedestrians get off. He then asked for any public input. Jim Lamont asked if parking in the front would not be allowed. Jim Heber gave the example of the ski swap being loaded through the new facility. Otis Ode[ said a 10' wall would be at the bottom of the dock. John Schofield said he was hard pressed to recommend approval when this needed to be more pinned down. Planning and Environmental Commission 5 Minutes. May 24, 1999 Approved June 14 1999 Brian Doyon said we are a long way off from recommending approval. George Ruther said Greg Hall said not to go to the expense of having civil plans, because Greg would have the final review. John Schofield stated that that was the PEC's role. Dominic Mauriello said roads were generally built without the DEC's review. Doug Cahill said a lot of green space was being removed. George Ruther said ultimately Greg Hall would have to approve the grade of the road and the DRB would approve the landscaping. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. Brian Doyon said the road alignment needed to work with the pedestrians and the landscaping. John Schofield said what the PEC has seen was a very good start, however it needed a more definitive plan to address the pedestrians and bike path, etc. Galen Aasland agreed with John and Brian in seeing a more definitive plan and he suggested tabling this item. The applicant requested to table this item. Brian Doyon made a motion to table this item. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 6. A request for a final review of a proposal to amend the Town's "Public Accommodation Zone District," Chapter 7 and amendments to Chapter 15, Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), Town of Vail Municipal Code. Applicant: Johannes Faessler, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. John, Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Tom Braun summarized how this met the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. John Schofield asked for any public comments. Rob Levine, from the Antlers, said this was our economic future for the Town and we needed the flexibility to develop in Town. Jim Lamont, East Village Homeowner's Association, said since he had been working the streets since last year, the opinion was that it deserved more thought. He said there was a willingness to entertain greater density, but not more commercial. He said the Tivoli, Christiania, Galatyn Planning and Environmental Commission 6 Minutes May 24,1999 Approved June 14 1999 and the Ramshorn don't want it. He said that if trucks were out of the neighborhood, then a 0' setback made sense. He said the East Village would encourage site coverage increases, as well as density. He said the Bavaria House, Holiday House and the Vail Village Inn sites all needed redeveloping. He said conditional uses made sense in the commercial cores, but why would you have offices replace hotel rooms and why make a neighborhood be something they don't want to be. He suggested reversing the process by putting the DRB process before the PEC, as you would find the adjacent property owners would then come in and participate in the process. He said that loading and delivery cancel a good nights sleep in the Village. He suggested space was needed basements to provide a warehouse for storage and have small vans pick up from the warehouse. Streetscape improvements should be paid for by a hotel tax paid for by the hotels to give back to the government and finally, to change the setbacks, you would need to have permission of adjacent property owners to keep peace and harmony. Galen Aasland said with regard to the 10% limitation, he said this proposal allowed it to exceed this. Jim Lamont said the issue for the character of the neighborhood is how it looks' outside, as an adjunctive use or internal to the building and a conditional use would change this. He said if a neighborhood didn't want the options, they should be allowed this choice. He said it would be fine for specific sites such as the Holiday Inn, the VVI and the Bavaria House. George Ruther summarized that this proposal doesn't support horizontal zoning. He said that commercial existed today as a permitted use and that this regulation would only allow a property to exceed with a conditional use permit. He said that SDD's were a problem, as the "sky's the limit,,, as well as it being an arduous procedure. He said that since adjacent property owners don't know what could happen in an SDD, this was an attempt to resolve this. He said there was still the ability to continue to require mitigation for employee housing. He said that nobody wanted zoning by neighbors and the intent of this amendment was to clarify what was allowed. He then went on to state that these changes had been made by public comments. John Schofield said, for the record, that public comments were closed, and he asked for the Commissioner's comments. Doug Cahill said this modification wouldn't quite work for a few of the smaller neighborhoods. Jim Lamont said zoning law was dictated by similar conditions, with some changing through the SDD process and that "one size doesn't fit all.,, Doug Cahill said he was having trouble not being involved in past discussions. John Schofield said the intent was to allow maximum flexibility, but have standards set. George Ruther said the intent was to get some of the flexibility that the SDD process has allowed in the past, providing some latitude, and not be a blank sheet of paper, so the adjacent property owners were not surprised. Chas Bernhard asked if this would eliminate future SDD's. Brian Doyon said people want the acceptable sizes and quality for revitalization, without forcing them to go through the SDD process. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission 7 Minutes May 24, 1999 Approved June 14 1999 George Ruther said an important consideration was that properties wanted deviations from the setbacks and site coverage He stated the goal is was to form a review for adjacent property owners with what the expectations were and not use the SDD process. Chas Bernhardt said this would slow down the SDD applications in the future. George Ruther said that that was the intent and the text changes would be in the already current PA Zone District. Chas Bernhardt asked Jim why a lodge wouldn't want this. Jim Lamont said the character of the neighborhood would be affected, horizontal zoning would not be controlled and an unregulated amount of commercial could happen. George Ruther said it was not fair to say there was no limitation on commercial, as it existed today. Brian Doyon said he was ok with the GRFA, but he would like the landscaping kept at 30%. He said he had a real problem with the DRB reviewing all projects. He said they needed to work with the design at hand and the PEC would work on the planning issues. He felt that the Lionshead Master Plan guidelines did not apply, so to remove the "recently required in Lionshead" statement. Galen Aasland agreed with Brian and said that the setbacks were finally right. He said he was not sure about the GRFA and that parking was severely lacking. He said he wanted to see what the parking plan was for me to vote for this. John Schofield said that even with Jim's and Galen's concerns, this was ready to move forward. Russ Forrest said ideally in a perfect world, as in Lionshead, we would have the parking, rezoning and employee generation all coming together. He said that if a developer wanted to redevelop, he would have to come in as an SDD, if this doesn't pass today. John Schofield said he was comfortable with the 150% and to keep landscaping at 30%, and the lodge definition goes to the heart of the issue. He said regarding the review process, that he agreed with Brian to keep the DRB limited to design. He said he had no problem in making the 3 findings. He said he was distressed, on page 8, with the sentence "as determined by the Administrator" and would like to see the definition of off-site impact. He said to pin down what "large scale" redevelopments were. He said with those changes, he was comfortable going ahead Tom Braun said at one of the first worksessions, parking was discussed to not be included. He said he was curious about the loading and delivery problem, which would be a Council policy decision and shouldn't hold up this ordinance. Galen Aasland said he would vote against this because the parking was not resolved. John Schofield said he was sensing a lack of direction from the Board. Russ Forrest said that a lot of this discussion was centered around implementation. Galen Aasland said he would vote for denial because of what was missing. Planning and Environmental Commission 8 Minutes May 24, 1999 Approved June 14 1999 0 Brian Doyon made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo and the findings with the following revisions to the text amendments for final recommendation to Town Council, 1. That the DRB role be clarified to streamline the process. 2. Clarify and define what requirements are considered off-site impacts. 3. Remove "as determined by the Administrator" (12-7A-12). 4. That the Council review the parking issue or determine if the parking study needs to be completed. 5. That the right-of-way is considered for setbacks. 6. That the building height is determined by the applicant and the PEC. The motion failed for lack of a second. Galen Aasland suggested that there was general agreement in the text amendments, but he would like to table this and get input from Council. Doug Cahill made a motion to table this. Johannes Faessler asked to define what needed to be done. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. Russ said 99/0 of the discussion was regarding implementation. Doug Cahill amended the motion to table this as a worksession on June 14th and then have the final recommendation to Council be decided at the last meeting in June. Brian Doyon said that parking had nothing to do with this application, since all the properties are responsible for their own parking . The motion passed by a vote of 4-1, with Brian Doyon voting against. Galen Aasland said he wanted the text changes from our notes and some strategies for parking and loading incorporated into a motion. Doug Cahill just wants to find out the parameters of the current zoning district. Chas Bernhardt had no comment. John Schofield said he would like to see parking, IHU's and the text changes from the motion that failed, addressed at the next meeting. 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. JUNE 28, 1999 Galen Aasland made a motion to table item #7 until June 28, 1999. Planning and Environmental Commission 9 Minutes May 24, 1999 Approved June 14 1999 Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. is The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 8. A request for a variance from Section 12-6'D-9 (Site Coverage) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% and a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Front Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for an encroachment into the front setback on a Primary/Secondary Residential zoned lot, located at 362 Mill Creek Circle / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant. Walter Forbes, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt Architects Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 9. 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 WITHDRAWN 10. Information Update o Education Series 0 Dominic Mauriello said he planned to have a series for new members with Tom Moorhead regarding the roles and responsibilities of the PEC for the new members. 11. Approval of May 10, 1999 minutes. Chas Bernhardt had changes and made a motion to approve the amended minutes. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Brian Doyon made a motion to adjourn. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission 10 Minutes May 24, 1999 Approved June 14 1999 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 10, 1999