Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0110 PECTd-tlIS 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 January 10, 2f}00, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request fior a side setback variance from Section 12-fiC-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for a residential addition over an existing first floor, located at 4295 Nugget LanelLot 7, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Pam Hopkins, representing Robert Maynor, M.D. Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a variance from Section 11-4B-3, to allow for one additional building identification sign, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. WestlVail Commons City Market, Vail dos Schone 3rd Filing. Applicant: City Market, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request fior a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing raw water intake structure and pump station, located on Black Gore DriveJLot 8, Heather of Vail. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 5112 Grouse Lane) Lot 8, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant: Don & Cheryl Illingworth, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Allison Qchs A request for a final review for a conditional use permit, to allow for the expansion of Buffehr Creek Park, located at 1953 N. Frontage Rd. WesU'Lot 40, Buffehr Creek Subdivision and 1950 Chamonix LanelLot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision and a request for a minor subdivision , to allow for the vacation of an existing lot line at 1950 Chamonix Lane) Lat 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 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. Please call 479-2138 far information. 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 December 31, 1999 in the Vail Trail. ti~ ~. .ti ?Yl~ilr(1FY:~IL ~' 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • Monday, January 10, 2800 AGENDA • PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Proiect Orientation !PEC LUNCH - Community Develoament Denartrnent MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visi#s 1. Maynor residence - 4295 Nugget Lane 2. Illingworth residence -- 5112 Grouse Lane 3. City Market - 2149 N. Frontage Rd. West Driver: Brent NOTE: If the PEC hearing Extends until 5:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:04 - 5:34 p.m. ~ z:oo p,m, ~ :00 p.m, Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:a0 p.m. 1. A request for a side setback variance from Section 12-6C-6, Town of 1/ail Cade, to allow for a residential addition over an existing first floor, located at 4295 Nugget LanelLot 7, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Pam Hopkins, representing Robert Maynor, M.D. Planner: Brent Wilson 2, A request for a variance from Section 11-413-3, to allow tar one additional building identification s~ggn, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. West/Vail Commons City Market, Vail dos Schone 3~ Fifing. Applicant: City Market, Inc. Planner: Allison Qchs 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type Il Employee Housing Unit, located ai 5112 Grouse Lanel Lot 8, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant: Don & Cheryl Illingworth, represented by RKD Architects Planner; Allison ©chs ~``~ ~~ ,r T01'Y,'~' OF yAil ~ MEMBERS ABSENT 4. A request for a final review for a conditions! use permit, to allow for the expansion of Buffeter Creek Pant., located at 1953 fV. Frontage Rd. VlfesULot 40, Buffeter Creek Subdivision and 1950 Chamonix LanelLot 34, Buffeter Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 5. A request for a minor subdivision , to allow far the vacation of an existing lot line at 1950 Chamonix Lane! Lot 34, Buffeter Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs T~4BLED 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing raw water intake structure and pump station, located on Black Gore Drive/Lot 8, Heather of Vail. Applicant: Eagle river Water and Sanitation District Planner; Brent Wiison TAEI`ED 7. Information Update 8. Approval of December 13, 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. Please call 479-2.138 for information, Sign language interpretation availalale upon request wvith 24 hour notification. Please Bali 479-2356, Telephone for the i-~Eearing [mpaired, for informatiort. Community Development Department Published January 7, 20x4 in the Vail Trail • r PLANNING AND ENVIPONMENTAL COMMISSfON PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, January 10, 2©00 MEETING RESULTS Project Orientation 1 PEC LUNCH - Community Develor~ment Department 12:f~0 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT . Galen Aasiand John Schofield Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill site visits . 3:0o p.m. 1. Maynor residence - 4295 Nugget Lane 2. Illingworth residence -51 t2 Grouse Lane 3. City Market - 21 d9 N. Frontage Rd. West driver; Brent .3 LUTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hesrinq - To+uvn Council Chambers 2:OQ p.m. 1. A request for a side setback variance from Section 12-6C-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow far a residential addition over an existing first floor, located at 4295 Nugget LanelLot 7, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Pam Hopkins, representing Robert Maynor, M.a. Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND. Diane Golden VOTE: 6-Q APPR©VED WITH 1 CONDITIQN: 1. Prior to final design review approval, the site plan will demonstrate an ability to provide parking for at least two vehicles and' demonstrate compliance with requirements for terraceslsteps within the Gore Creels setback. ~~~` ~. ,ti Tf11~IPI1,~ OF VEIL ~ i - '~ 2. A request for a variance from Section 11-46-3, to allow for one additional building identification r~gn, located at 2109 fJ. Frontage Rd. West~Vail Commons City Market, Vail das Schone 3~ Filing. Applicant: City Market, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SEGOND: Ghas Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0 DENIED 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 5112 Grouse Lane/ Lot 8, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant; Don & Cheryl fllingworth, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-0 Tom Weber abstained) APPROVED VYITH 1 GOIVDITION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II 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. 4. A request for a final review for a conditional use permit, to allow fior the expansion of Buffehr Creek Park, located at 1953 N. Frontage Rd. West/Lot 40, Buffehr Creek Subdivision and 1950 Ghamonix Lane/Lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Chas Bernhardt V©TE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That a f@nce or landscaping be added between the Branders Building and the Park to discourage activity overflow. 5. A request for a minor subdivision , to allow for the vacation. of an existing lot line at 1959 Chamonix Lane/ Lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vaii Planner: Allison ©chs TABLED 6. A request far a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing raw water intake structure and pump station, located on Black Gore DrivefLot $, Heather of Vail_ Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED 2 1 7. Information update 8. Approval of Qecember 13, 1999 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are avaiiable for public inspection during regular office hours in the project pianner's office located at the Town of Vail Camm~nity Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for informati©n. sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please Ball 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • • • MEMORANDl7M TC: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC}M: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 2000 SfJBJECT: A request for a side setback variance from Section 12-6C-6, Tawn of Vail Code, to allow for a residential addition over an existing first floor, located at 429 Nugget LanelLot 7, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Robert Maynor, M.D.: represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Planner: Brent Wilson DESCRIPTION OF THE RE~QIJEST The applicant is requesting a setback variance to allow for the addition of living space (GRFA) on the second story of an existing single-family residence. The subject structure was constructed in the 157©'s under Eagle County jurisdiction and later annexed into the Town of Vait. As a result, the property is not in conformance with the Town's setback requirements for the Two-Family Residential district. The property was granted a setback variance by the PEC in 1994 to allow for a small entryway addition. This proposal would allow far the construction of a walk-in closet (52 additional square feet} adjacent to an existing bedroom. The new GRFA would be placed entirety within the existing building footprint. However; since the existing building footprint encroaches into multiple required setbacks, any addition of GRFA within a required setback requires an additional variance request. Il. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance subject to the following findings: That the granting of the setback variances does not constitute a grant of special priv'riege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the Two-Family Residential Zone District. 2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulations results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Municipal Cade or the Two-Family Residential Zone district. `} 1 ~~~_•~ ~rnl /y y' ~Ty i7 "~~i ~~~YIIY VP Ytt1L ~. 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two-Family Residential Zane District. The Department of Community Development recommendation is subject to the following condition: Prior to final design review approval, the site plan will demonstrate an ability to provide parking for at feast two vehicles and demonstrate compliance with requirements far terracesisteps within the Gore Creek setback. Ill. REVIEWING BQARD ROLES The PEC is resnonsible for evatuatinn a nroaosal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. 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 Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4, Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. DesiprF Review Board: Acti~an: The DRB has NO review authorify on a variance, but must review any acccampanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DR8 proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surround'engs - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, ovefiangs, and other building forms 2 - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting iV. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 0.4079 acres or 17,767 sq. ft. Zoning; Two-Family Residential Development Standard GRFA~ Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Site Coverage: • Parking: Landscaping:. AllowedlReouired Proposed 4,$77 sq. ft. 2,430 sq. ft. 20' S `~ 15' 8'144'* 50' (Gore Creek) 38'* 20% or 11 % or 3,553 sq. ft. 2,006 sq. ft. 3 2* 60% ar 87% or ' 10,660 sq. ft. 15,582 sq. ft. indicates an existing legal non-eonfarmity 1/. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reraardina the Setback 1lariances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses ar~d structures in the vicinity. Most of the homes in the Bighorn Estates Subdivision are non-conforming with regard to setbacks. It is apparent that the original site planning for the aanits along Gore Creek was driven primarily by the location of the 100-year floodplain and not by standard lot setbacks. • 3 The proposed residential addition would be located within the existing building footprint and have minimal impacts on bulk and mass as khe existing encroachment would not be extended any further. Although new GRFA will be added to the structure, same existing GRFA will also be removed as part of this proposal. S#aff believes this request is consistent with existinglpotential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatrnent among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. This lot is restricted by front, side, rear and Gore Creek setbacks as well as significant areas of flaodplain_ There is a limited buildable envelope outside these areas (8.5°/© of the site} for the location of buiidingslimpravements. As mentioned previously; most of the lots located to the west 4within the Bighorn Estates Subdivision) have constructed living area within required side and front setbacks. Staff does not believe the granting of this request would constitute a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance en light and air, dis#riibu#ion of population, transporkation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this. proposal on the above-listed criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following flndinas before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special. privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • 4 b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strut interpretation or enforcement of the specified regr~lation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • r~ 5 o. E r~ a~ u s~ a a~ ~ ~ ~e ~- Z @ ~ :,. "s ~= m~~~w a~ s ~ a i i ~~ ~ i ~ , ~ 1 1 ~ r A °_~ _' 1 ' e ~ ; _z ~. y ~ ~~ ~~ ° ~" L~! I r S 'j ~'~ r"i~z ~,~cu i T f ~` ` 3 a ~ <Z s ~i £r 1 ~-~. ~'~f °2 W ~ O ~ ~~ C~] C.~ C`' s~ i~ ~ a ~ .a wI _~ • • ~~~ r 'O~ ~~rn ~a { r z~ ~~ x~ ~~ ~ x~ ~ s~ '~4 a ~w ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~~ a ~\ ~ r i .~r '~p ~~ r1 F ~! 11~-~1~~L _ FFF333 '. }ti CC ~~.=1i~~ z~••- ~ K C ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ J ~~ ~i I `~ ~ ~ ~ ..4 6 8 ~ g S " 3 e,', ~ s § _ ~ A ~ U- ~ ~~. ~ ~$ ~§ a s ~~ $ ~ S a ~~+ Aga ~4 ~~ 4 I J, ! j v v. ~~~ g~ ~~N) ~Y~' 3~~ ~S~ ~j ~~ ~~~ ~~s ~~~ ~~ ~~ cgs ~~. y~ ~ 5 ~r'SE ~E9 ~~ P ~ ~; ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ i ~5d z c' ~~ ~~ "II ,' i`.. ~~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ Q " ~ ~ '~""'°" MAYNOR RESIDENCE REMODI=L • LOT 7 ~ ' °~° "~'' m•,~° 4295 NUGGET LANE, VA1L, C©LORADd j BIGHQRN ESTATES, EAGLE COUNTY COL©RAD© i Snowdon ~ Fiopfdr¢s• Artirile~, P.C. m,~,.~...~. ~,..,__, yr revm a>an rnzaro-:m .. , czJaraomn~ r~xw~u • d ~ T ~6 ~ ~ ~ ~~ a d ~~ s ~ ~ ~ ,q /~ ~~ :~ a~ rn { ~II~ ,,' C~ ~~ ;, ,~ i ~ _~ _ - - ~~ 4 t o s ~~ ~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ s v ~~fi 4 t~ ~ ~~ ~° $ 4~ ~ s S~ ~ 4~ ~a ~~ ~x ~'~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ ~ ~~ ~ ,1 ~ `~ A m ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~xi ~~~Y 5~ ~~ ~ i J{I C it 6 ~~~ §*~ _$ a 6g ~ ~ ~ V i 4 z 0 • ~°~"~" ! MAYNOR R1=SIDENCE REMODEL • LOT 7 a I °'" ~_a.°~ 4295 NUGGET LANE, VAIL, COLORADO Ih~ BIGHORN ESTATES, EAGLE COUNTY COLORADO S~wwdQn and Fbpkin8 • Afsl1119d8. P_G. VFI, [,al lsb 916SI FA%JT&TJ91 R.O. Ba 34lflall Ntlps SUVM PlLLSiT-0!51 • c• ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ s +4 I i LJ :7 ~a m 0 A ~ p ~y~ $~ I ~° >~ e ' rs~+ r.9 ~ ~... ¢1..r =.n. ~ ! Vii, "~F J--.r4, } r I ~~~ ~ y LS ._r. ri °' ~ _ ~`-}~' Y~7 -^ au ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ tl ..x t R ~ r ~ ~. _~ 1 ' J r ___~___. _-__. ___ _ _ __ ~ _ . ~ - ~ ~ '. I tit. ,~--- " _ _ : . ~- ,r~M.. .~,~ , - ~ `, r-.! ~' Ix ,~ i i .; S 4_______________ ___i________ F J 4z .1r. I l \\\\ i . .% I f` I _ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 9 i~ i~ sy ~i ~~{ ~~ ~c~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~'~ a~~°~ ~ 7 ~~ F ~ '~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~4 F R.~\~ I ~ C Y Y '_~Z ~~ib K RC'S ~a0 .m Nwbr o.w Nov. a.,rra 6 - -- ~ -- Q~,~ ~ s MAYNOR RESIDENCE REMODEL • LOT 7 4295 NUGGET LANE, VAIL, COLORADO BIGHORN ESTATES, EAGLE COtlNTY COLORADO Snowdon and Hopkins • Adchibads.'P.C. M,~,~~.. ~.>~, Yal C.at+IMS/151 FIJ[lT6T~94 P o.Om rau RNw sYwl aros+lfibbs /.. Wia~eo aww F~s~lm1~ ~~~ ~ ~~; a ~ z p ~Y y~} S~~ - ~ "3i a 3 hl~d x_. 6 ~ ~ _1n I~ ~s ~~~ ® a ~ s J ~' - ~ ~ i ~ ~ ,~~ ,I d -- _ - -- ~ ; - r _~ _ y , ~,~ ~ } - - ~ 1 ~ ~ ~- , , O ~ ... ~ ~ + _ ~ '-! II 1 c ~ {I ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~i 1'71 rn _ , ~'~ O -- ji ~ - ~~ _ - ~ ~9 ~~ , ~~ ~~~~ y~~ ~~~~ !b~ ~~ ~ ~as z~~~ ~~~ r°a~ ~-~ ~ ~: a ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ m~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ¢ ~b ~~ I~~ R~"a~ b t? I s ~I F Q ~ 1' m D z ~~ ~ ~ ~~ bl~a ~~ l Jt ;.," I,w 5 ~` $ °~ 3 z 0 ~.:: ~~ I JI ~1~ §I~ ~~ ~/~ i \~.~ ~, r ~ 1'. r ' ~ ~ ~ '~ i ~g FITI~x F~~ ~4 °~m P ~~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 2~ ~~ ~~~ ~~F • • '"""'°"' _ ' MAYNQR RESIDENCE REMODEL • LpT 7 j 3 1 °~ ~~~° ~~~ 4295 NUGGET LANE, VAIL, COLORADQ j ++ ~ 63GHQRN ESTATES, EAGLE C©UNTY CQLQRAD4 ~owaon antl Hopkins *Hrchilaas, F.C. ~. ~. c,.eorn. mwnmi w.~a.m ereax rau+rxaa+ a o.ao- yu~rmc ~.~+e ,,... ., ~ CaNraa BM7~ FAQ %i-06% J" • • 4°* a7 s, ~3 d, ~~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ .I j ~M; z ~ iE `{ .~ _ ~~a ~$~~ ~ ~ ~~~ a°s ~~y 4Ix~ ~ ~da ~~~ ~~~~ S~E~ ~~ ~~~~ ~m r ~ ~ ~ '4' ' ~ ~ `, R 9a~g ~ a ~ 4 a e~~ 4~ x III ~.. ~3 IC ~~ ~i!$ f ~~ ~~ ~ '""'°" ~ MAYNOR RESIDENCE REMODEL • LOT 7 a I °" '"~'.a'"° 4295 NUGGET LANE, VAiL, COLORADO ~ i i BIGHORN 'ESTATES, EAGLE CQUNTY COLORADO 1 ir~~i ~~ S F Q ~ v.e. car.m esesr wcsisrrai P,~, ew 4Yi I Xle I4tlP 8tY1 91Q-'Ai+0151 1. .. ~ ,r~Y~elMt! fAR 51t-0NI ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ `~ ; ~~ l r • MEMQRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 1fl, 20~p SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 11-4B-3, to allow for one additional building identification sign, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. V11estNail Commons City Market, Vail dos Schane 3`d Filing. Applicant: City Market, represented by Mark Prichard Planner: Allison Ochs • 1. DESCRIPTION C!F THE REQUEST The applicant, City Market, Inc., is requesting a variance to allow for one additional building identification sign located at 21 Q9 N. Frantage Rd. WestNVail Commons City Market, Vail dos Schane 3`d Filing. The applicant is proposing to add a sign which states "City Market Parking above the parking structure. This sign will be approximately 20 sq. ft. A rendering of the sign, along with the proposed location, have been attached far reference. The applicant's letter argues that this additional sign is needed because the !ewer level parking entrance is difficult to see from the road. The applicant's letter has also been attached for reference. The Sign Variance Sections purpose reads as follows: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Title, variance from the regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a structure, ar the location of the structure, from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations, or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cast ar inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason far granting a variance. II. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal far: ,, ~~.~. y ii TO D'I'Y Ol'r Y'SI~ ~ A. Special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings.; topography, vegetation, sign structures r other matters on adjacent lots ar within the adjacent right of way; whic~would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or canditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. B. That such special circumstances ware not created by the applicant. C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this Title; and wi(1 nat be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. D. The variance applied foe does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. E. Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the propased variance. Design Review Board: Actian: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB applica#ion. III. STAFF RECQMMENDATIC~N Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for the building identification sign variance based on the following findings: 1. That no special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures, ar other matters on adjacent lots or within the right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. ~. That granting the variance would not fne in general harmony with the purpose of the sign code. 3. The variance applied for does depart from the provisions of the approved sign program more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. IV. APPROVED VAIL C{7MMONS SIGN PROGRAM According to the approved Vail Commons 1 City Mar3cet Sign Program, the signage that is currently allowed specifically far City Market is one 20 sq. ft. Building Identification sign, and one 20 sq. ft. wall sign. Each individual retail establishment is allowed signage per the code, To date, no sign variances have been granted. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Befare the Planning and Environmental Commission acts on a variance application from the approved sign program:. the applicant must prove physical hardship, and the Planning and Environmental Commission must find that. 2 1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way., which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided:, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to al! businesses ar enterprises. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that there are special circumstances which warrant the granting of this variance. While it is difficult to identify the parking structure as belonging to Vain Commons, staff believes that additional signage is not necessary. Staff would instead encourage the applicant to place some sort of signage regarding the availability of underground parking within City Market. Staff believes that the existing signage is adequate in identifying the business. The applicant would be allowed traffic control signage not to exceed one sq. ft. (or 4 sq. ft. for multi-purpose traffic control signage.} . 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. Staff Response: As stated above, staff does not believe that special circumstances exist. . 3. That the granting of the variance will be in genera! harmony with the purposes of the sign code, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in generaf. Staff Response: The current Vail Commons /City Market Sign Program allows for adequate signage. Currently, City Market has one tenant sign above the entrance to City Market, along with a building identification sign on the building facing North Frontage Road. Staff believes that this existing signage is adequate. 4. The variance applied for does not depaat from the provisions of this Tifle any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Response: As stated above, staff believes that there is already adequate signage to identify the applicant's business. The additional signage is proposed to state "City Market Parking.." Staff does not feel that the proposed 20 sq. ft. sign is necessary to identify the applicant's business and staff does believe that there are alternatives to encourage use of the parking structure other than additional signage. In addition, one of the existing signs could be relocated to this location. VAILDATAlIEVERYflIVE;PEC,'99MEMQlCITYMARfi Request f®~ Sign Variance The lower level parking lot entra~ice to the Vail Commons Shopping Center, as extremely difficult to see frown the road and unrecognizable f=rom the adjoining Vail L7as Shone parking lot. for Chase reasons, City lV•iarket is requesting a variance to the sign code in order to place one (1) City Market Logo parking structure sign above the entxauce to the lower parking garage. This proposed City ivfarket logo sign will be illumi~~ated red paa~ Channel letters not to exceed ZO square feet (see attached drativings}. Town Ordinance 11-4C- i (I~) limits building id~:ntitication signs to one per building. 4V11i1e this limitation is valid for single level buildings with easily accessible parking areas, it is inconsistent with a building whose main parking entrance is approximately 19S ft from the building and is obscured born normal view. In reality, the entrance to the unde~~n.,und parking structure, I/ bie~ck from the entrance to tl~te City 1Vlarlcet store, needs its own separate sign to adequately identify it. Vail Commons is configured in such a way tl}at the entrance to floe lower level parking structure is difficult to see traveling eastbound on North l±rontage Road West and impossible to see traveling westbound. This deficiency in visibility is not relieved by tlla non-illuz-ninated, brown and white parking sign which is currently being, used. This brown and white traffic control sign is too small to adequately identify the location c~fthe underground parking structure. As such, it fails to draw ilxe attention. of customers to the existence of the parking structure and because it is non-illuminated' fails to function at all after dark. The consequence of poor visibility and lack of identifying markers on the parkinb structure is that customers drive past the entrance to the lower level parking garage onto the upper level parking area, unaware that the lower Jewel parking area either exists or that it belongs to City Market. This creates a situation where traffic congests on the upper Ievel, while the lower parking area is relatively unused. This proposed sign will bring attention to the fact that there is an additional underground parking area and that this space is for City Market and Vail Co~x~rnons customer use. This will encourage customers to ttse the lower level pZrlcing garage, thus getting them out of the snow and inclement weather and at die satrze time, alleviate some of the eraffic congestion on the upper deck. Under these unique circumstances, the current statutory limitatiorxs on signage create an undue burden and an unnecessary physical hardship on Cho City Market and the Vail Commons Shopping Center. Furthcrmorc~, in as much as demand for parking in West Vail often exceeds supply, the community as a whole is not realizing the full beneft of this extensi~=e parking facility. This proposed sign will conft3rm with tl~e overall sign plan for Vail ~nrntrzons in type, size and cc~14r, and it will be placed at such a distance from the #ront entrance Qf tlxe building and atfier suns in the complex that it will not present a cluttered look. This sign is also consistent with the type and si2~: chat would otherwise be found an neighl3oring buildings. In essence this proposed parking structure identification sign will mitigate the poor visibility and lack of identifying markers on tfle lower Level parking Garage and at the same time this sign is consistent with the uRiique development of Vail Cornmans and the Town of Vail. ~`ar the reasons set Gut above, pity Market, Ir~c. respectfully requests a variance from the Vail sign ordinance. • • 1 .. ~<<~ ~ ~6/ k ~ <<o ~ ~z ~ e ~a Q U C/7 • • z ~~. 1. 4 + ~ ~ ~o .~~~~ ~-~ V .~ 1 ( 4T Y~ '~ry R ~, a •Y Y~ - _M ~ .~' ~li~ MEM©RANDUM TO: Planning anal Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 10, 20f10 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type II employee housing unit located at 5112 Grouse Lane f Lot 8, 1/ail Meadows 151 Filing_ Applicant: Don Illingwarth, represented by Tom Weber of RKD Architects Planner: Allison Ochs ' 1. DESCRIPTION OP 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 Housl~rg} 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 - Emplayee Hausing. l=or the purposes of this Section, afull-time employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty {3d} hours per week,. There shall be five {5} categories of EHUs: Type I, Type I1, Type III, Type IU, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 12-13 -Employee Hausing of this Code. As described in more detail later in this memorandum, the applicant is proposing to utilize all 5010 square feet allowed in conjunction with the development of the employee housing unit. The Design Review Board granted a separation request for the 2 units, finding that the stand of mature trees on the lot were a significant site constraint. The applicant is proposing a Type II employee housing unit above the garage of one of the units. The employee housing unit will be approximately 539 square feet in size and will include one bathroom, a full kitchen, a living room, and. one bedroom. One enclosed parking space will also be provided far the EHU. ~ . ,, rott~ o~ s~;~¢ lJ II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of this application for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of Section 12-13 (Employee Nausirrg} 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, ar 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 12-1fi (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 condition: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vai! Department of Community Development_ This document will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's ©ffice and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 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. III. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: .51 acres ar 22,216 sq. ft. Zoning: Twa-Family Residential Standard Allowed Tota! GRFA 5822 sq. ft. Unit A t~nlt B E'NU Credit Parking Required EHU 5(7fJ sq. ff. 7 spaces ~ enclosed space Praaased. 5797 sq_ ft. 2851 sq. ft. 2407 sq, ft. 539 sg_ ft. 7 spaces i enclosed space • 2 IV. CRITERIA AN[7 FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting vn a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the ----- Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing study on November 20, 199Q, it recognized a need to increase the supply of focalslemplvyee housing units. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living 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 population. transportation facilities, utilities. schools. parks 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 particular reference tv congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control. access. maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. one additional vehicle is anticipated in association with this EHU. One enclosed parking space ins proposed. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. Effect uovn 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 scale and bulk of this proposed structure is very similar to those in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. Since the proposed employee housing unit will be located within the western unit, staff believes this EHU will not significantly impact the scale and bulk of this project in relation to surrounding uses. Empiovee Housing Units may be allow_ ed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Section 12-13 of the Vail Municipal Code, 3 v ~mralavee Housing and shall be subiect to the fallowing conditions: a. It shall be a conditional use in the Sinole-Famly Residential. Two- Family Residential and Primary/5econdarv Residential zone _. districts, The subject property is zoned Two-Family Residential. b. It shall be germitted ondv on lots which corngly with minimum lot size requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. At 22,216 square feet in size, this !ot 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. asingle-family dwelling or be located within. or attached to. a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section 12-11-5(I1 -Desion Guidelines Duplex and Primary/Secondary Deyelooment. It may also be located in. or attached to. an existing garage provided the garage is not located within any setback. and further orovided .that no existing ~arkina required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. • This Type II EHU will be located within the proposed western unit. However, it will maintain a separate entrance and wil! not be accessible from. the interior of the western unit. d. It shall not be counted as a dwelling unit for the purt~oses of calculating density. However. it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom. as defined in Chanter 12-2 -Definitions of the Vail Municipal Cade. ft shall be germitted to be a third dwelling unit in addition to the two dwelling units which may already exist on the lot. Only one Tvpe ll EHU shall be allowed ner lot. The proposed EHU will be a third 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 1300) square feet. nor more than nine hundred (9001 square feet. An - - -- -- applicant. however. shall be permitted tg apply tg the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional GRFA not to exceed five hundred (50(71 square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU. The applicant shall submit an application for the additional GR!^A on a form provided by the Community Development Department. Approval or denial of the request shall be made by the Desion Review Board in • 4 accordance with Section12-13-5. If an applicant obtains Design Review Board agoroval for 500 square feet of additional GRFA for the EHU. he or she shall not be entitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant to Chapter 12-15 -Additional Gross Residential Floor Area ofi this Code for either unit on the lot. If an applicant obtains Design Review Board approval for not more than 250 souare feet of additional GRFA for the EHU. he or she shall be entitled to receive additional GRFA pursuant to Chapter 12-15 - Additional Gross Residenfiad Floor Area of this code for one ___ dwelling unit on the lot. The EHU will be 539 square feet in size. The applicant has submitted an application for 500 square feet of additional GRFA utilizing the code provision that allows for the use of 250's "'up front" when creating a new Type II EHU. No additional 250's vxrill be allowed an this property. g. No more than two 12l adults and one {1 ] child not older than sixteen (16] nears ofi age shall reside in a one {1] bedroom Tvpe II EHU. No more than two {2] adults and two {2] children not older than sixteen f 16] nears of aQe shall reside in a two f2) bedroom Tvpe II EHU. Since this unit is none-bedroom Type 11 EHU, the first section of this regulation will apply. h. Each Tvpe II EHU shall be required to have no less than one 11] garkina space for each bedroom located therein. However. if a one 11] bedroom Tvpe II EHU exceeds six hundred 1600] souare feet:. it shall have two {21 parking sauces. All parkins sauces required by this Cade shall be located on the same lot or site as the ..EHU. If no dwelling exists upon the property which is proposed for a Tvpe: II EHU at the time a building permit is issued, or if an existing dwelling is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwelling. not less than one {11 of the parking spaces required by this paragraph shall be enclosed. A 300 souare feet GRFA credit shall be allowed for the construction of one enclosed parking space for the Tvpe II EHU. Since this project is a demplitionlrebuild, the applicant must provide one enclosed parking space for the proposed EHU. One enclosed parking space is proposed. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: 5 i 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 yr improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Section 12-16 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Code. (;everyonelpeclmemaslOQlllli ngwo • ~] ~~ ,~_ _,~ ,n _- , . _ _ ; .~ _ ~ ~L -- --. ~. - ~-~~_.~_ ,. ..__. _ _.-5_ _ "" `` ~ - ~~ r t ~ ~' d '~' f ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~-- --.~i %~ y / l f r"` ~ _ b- C''~ ~ ~~ ' ~ c rr ' ~ t~ N tS~ ~ t^ ~ `~ r t ~~'~ ~'1 r ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~'ti J ~} 1~- ,, ~~ FI ~~ ~~ ''. ~~ ~ ~ ~° `Y' ~ ~,, ~ ~ `''~. ~ ~ , ~ ,,~ ~.- ~~```~ ,- • FAX Date; January 1Q, 2QQ0 To Allison Ochs and the Planning CammisSibn F~'om Gordon L_ Gx'aves~An tJwnex cit. the px'©perty at 5104 Grpuse LaTTe Unit $ To Whom it may Conceri7,: I Nearby register my disapprpval of: the pxoposed candztj.onal use permit far.a type II EHU 1[~cated at 511.2 Gzous~: Lane_ Far many years this- nea,ghJ3pz'hood has been, a quXet c~xea. for single family ar tWO family strue~ures. T4 give this permit in an axes that is sb strllCtllx4?d ~ seems a deviatioin ix'ori1 it's ~irstended :use. ~1lsa 1 defin,tely feel that our property'Will. be affected adversely.in'ts value if this is carried through, There are many other areas, in the. veil, valley Where multip],e housing exists. Why not have them bui;lcl in these areas? I plead with you ~n©t to have this propc~sel ga through _ Si.noexeYy Gordon L. Grayes--Orrrner C ~ -~ ~ ~, • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 1 Q, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a final review for a Conditional Use Permit, to allow far the expansion of Buffeter Creek Park, located at 1953 N. Frontage Rd. WestlLot 4{], Buffeter Creek Subdivision and 1959 Chamonix Lane/Lot 34, Buffeter Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Allison Ochs h DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Tawn of Vail is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow far the proposed expansion of Bufffehr Creek Park located at 1959 Chamonix Lane f Lot 34, Buffeter Creek Subdivision and 1953 N. Frontage Rd. West 1 Lot 49, Buffeter Creek Subdivision. In. November of this year, the Tawn of Vail requested a rezoning on this property from PrimaryfSecandary to Outdoor Recreation. The Planning and Environmental Commission voted to recommend approval of this rezoning to the Town Gouncii, who approved the rezoning request on January 4, 2af}0, A Conditional Use Permit is required for a park in the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. This Conditional Use Permit will allow far the expansion of the park onto Lot 34, along with allowing redevelopment of the existing park (Lot 40). II. BACKGROUND Buffeter Creek Park was developed as a neighborhood park in the late 1989's, Presently, the park consists of an open tort area, landscaping, picnic tables, and a small parking lot, In ~ 993, the Comprehensive Open Lands plan identified Lot 34, which is adjacent to the existing lot, as a high priority far acquisition. It was purchased with funds #rom the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT} and identified as the location for Buffeter Greek Park expansion. Public meetings were held earlier this year to begin gathering comments and suggestions from the neighborhood regarding the proposed expansion of the park an both the existing lot and Lot 34. In June, a survey was delivered to neighborhood residents to gather mare ideas about the park. This information was then analyzed by Tawn of Vail staff and the results were mailed to residents and presented at another neighborhood meeting in early November, ,, 4~ ~,,. ~o>:~ua~varil ~i The park is currently in the Town's approval process and has been through one conceptual Design Review Board meeting and heard far the rezoning request by the Planning and Environmental Commission. A conceptual design of the park was presented to Tawn Cauncii on December 2t, 1999 and the second reading of Ordinance #37, Series of 1999 the rezoning from PIS to ©R) was on January 4, 2Q0~. The minor subdivision request has been tabled at the request of the applicant. This will allow adequate time to include Lat 34 as Designated open Space prior to the consolidation of lots 40 and 34. III_ RaLES ©F TI•iE REVIEWING BOARaS Planning and Environmenta! Commission: The Planning and Environmenta! Commission is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 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. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, trafific flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 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. 5_ Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Aeview Board: The Design Review Board is responsible for evalr~afing the Design Aeview application far: ' t . Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. RemoWalJPresenratian of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage an-site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of kandscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessary structures ~ 0. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor I'rghting 13. The design pf parks 7 1V. ST-~FF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends appro~ral of the conditional use permit far a neighborhood parrs, subject to the fallowing findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Outdoor Recreation Zane District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. REVIEW CRITERIA FUR THE CUNDITIONAI_ U5E PERMIT The review criteria fvr a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vair Municipal Cade. Buffehr Creek Park (both Lots 40 and 34} is located in the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. The proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Title t2, Chapter 16. For the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives ofi this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties, The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties- Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Through numerous neighborhood meetings, participants have identified the need for passive and active park uses- Staff believes that the proposal follows the development objectives of the Town of Vaii, as these objectives are stated in the Land Use Plan: 1,1,1, Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial, and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.1.2. The quality of the environment including air., water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 2.7 The Town of Vaii should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed park expansion will provide both active and passive recreational uses for the surrounding neighborhood.. The park ,program includes a paved path, picnic tables, play equipment and a restroom. 3. 'i~ffect 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 street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposed neighborhood park w'sil not have a negative effect on the above referenced criteria. There are four parking spaces and one van-accessible handicapped parking space provided. No parking is proposed off Chamonix Lane due to the difficulties of providing the required turnaround. as back-out spaces are not allowed on a bus route. The park designers felt that providing this turnaround would use up too much park land and therefore decided to increase the parking and functionality of the existing lot, accessing off N. Frontage Rd. West, 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes this use will have a positive impact an the character of the neighborhood by providing open space and recreational activities for the neighborhood. Ail of the proposed structures on the site will be integrated into the site. B. findintts The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, 4 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • 5 r rn~ ar I ,, ~ ~ !!! ~ ! ~ ~ F~ ~, ~:~ ,. '- ~ fS7 ... ~ ~. ~.. ,~ r i' `~ ~ '~ ~ { ~ t T N ~ ~- \4 T F~ \~ r f '~ / T MM Q ~ J 1 !i y'h Y ~ M, c~~~ ~O• c~ ~rn ~ '~~q~~ 4~ ~ 6 t ~. ~ ~ _ _, _. - - .. r ~~ r.-__ ,~ "~ I `~'Ji O ° ' ~~ v~ ~~ _ _ ~_-- _ r;~~~ ~, s~ ~ ~ < - - ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~~~ fSS ~ ~a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , f Y N ~~ Nj ~,,,- Nb'1d~lIS 1~3~~~d hCISI~VdX3 }ikJ~'d ?!33L'~ cilfJJf18 NOllV1HOdSNVFi415ka0M ~Ilgfld dp 1N3rilFlbd30 ~.~ ~i ~`~~~ ~~~~ ~`~~~ ~ •- ~ ~ ,.3 2 `~ ~ I ~ -s ~ P ,• . a a ~ ti ~' • ~~ ~ ~ i f``; .r ~ ~:.c• ,~ ~. ~ I ~- ,s:,' ~ ~ ~ , 4, :~,.3 ~ fi d I ti ~ ~f 4 ~.,~ ~ r .: 1. ~ ti ~:' ~~ ~ ,` ~s ~ CU ~ ~ ~ 4~ V ~ ~~. ~~ I ~ ~ ° _' } J ~1 °j ~~ ui Y i ~- /''~~ ~~~ I _~--~ 2.0' CMP BRANDESS BUf~DING PARKING LOT 2~ 5% 4%i rll 1 NORTH FRONTAGE ROAD k~\ PLAY AREA ~CCE~SIBLE PATH ~~ BIKE PATH B uffeh r ~ reek Park Parking Lot improvements 5 total stalls including 1 ADA compliant stall Scale;l "= 2U' • Approved 1 i24/00 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, January 10, 2(1f71) ~~~~"' v ~ ;~. ~~,~, . Mlr7ute5 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAI=E PRESENT: Galen Aasland Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Dahill Public Hearing John Schofield Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. 2a)Q p.m. A request for a side setback variance from Section 12-6C-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for a residential addition over an existing first floor, located at 4295 Nugget LanelLot 7, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Pam Hopkins, representing Robert Maynor, M. D. Planner: Brent Wilsan • Brent Wilson gave an overview ;,~ the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if any correspondence had been received regarding this. Brent Wilson said, no, Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had any comments. There were no applicant comments. He then asked if there were any public comments. Judy Harris, anext-door neighbor, asked about the addition above the garage, She asked if the roof was slanted and also where the hot tub would go, Pam Hopkins, the applicant's architect with Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, showed on the plans that the hot tub was sunken into the roof. Doug Cahill stated that there were no grants of special privilege and the applicant was not increasing the bulk and mass. He asked if the applicant was ak with the terracing of the steps. Pam l-iapkins said, yes.. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. Diane Golden asked if any trees would be disturbed. Pam I~opkins said, no. Tom Weber had no comments. Brian Doyon stated there was no special privilege granted. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 1D, 2DD0 Brent Wilson Allison Ochs Judy Rodriguez Gregg Barrie Todd Oppenheimer 1 n; .,. •i r, ~I Approved 1/24i(}0 Galen Aasland said there were no special privileges and he too supported this application. Brian Doyon 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. ~. A request for a variance from Section 1 i-4B-3, tv allow far one additional building identification sin, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. WestlVail Commons City Market, Vail dos Schone 3' Filing. Applicant: City Market, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Qchs gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Mark Pritchard, from City Market, said he believed there were special circumstances. He said because of the partnership with the Town of Vail, they were made to turn the entrance of the parking garage sideways. He said they relied on tauri5m and the tourists would not see the entrance. He said the top-level parking was consistently congested and presented a hardship, He said the entrance was not visible and signage would help the decor of the shopping center. He said the parking structure was a separate building and unmarked, even though there was adequate signage for City Market. He said the parking goals of the Town and City Market were the same and the entire parking structure was going unused. He said the DRB was in favor if this in November and he would be happy to answer any questions from the PBC. Doug Cahill asked if other options were discussed with the Planning Department. Mark Pritchard said the smaller sign was inadequate, as it could not be seen. Doug Cahill suggested a ~' sign on the stone wall, rather than on the structure. Allison C7chs said a 4' indirectly lit sign would be ak. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. Howard Gardner, an owner of a neighboring business to the west, said he too recommended denial, as it was a special consideration and this variance would materially affect the neighbors. He said Gity Market was asking far a 50% increase in signage. He said it would be an unfair advantage, which would draw customers away existing businesses. He said he didn't want the area to look like West Col#ax. Tam Weber said, because of the safety factor, City Market needed signage, but they needed also to stay within the code. He said it was aself-created hardship. He said the sign needed to be as close tv the road as possible and illuminated and would solve 75% of the problem. Brian Doyon agreed with staff's report for denial, as it would be precedent setting. Doug Dahill agreed with his fellow Commissioners on the dangers of precedent setting. He said that locals know about the garage, but prefer to park above. He suggested incentives to park below. Planning and ~nvir®nmantal Commission 2 Minutes Ianuary J 0, 2000 approved ~ r2a~oo Chas Bernhardt said he agreed that the parking garage needed direotions. He explained that the job of the PEC was to review proposals to fit within the boundaries of the Code. He suggested the applicant take this to Council, who could bend the rules. He said there were other sign options available.. Diane Golden agreed that there were other options.. Galen Aasland agreed that there were other options and the applicant was asking about a special privilege that the neighborhood didn°t enjoy. He reminded the applicant that it was the approval process that required the doors to be where they were; they were not there as a result of the partnership with the Town. Doug Cahill made a motion for denial, in accordance with the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion for denial passed by a vote of 6-0 . 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 5112 Grouse Lane/ Lot 8, Vail Meadows Filing 1. Applicant: Don & Cheryl lllingworth, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Tom Weber recused himself from this item. Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland said the Board was in receipt of a letter objecting to this application. Allison Ochs stated hero other verbal comments had been received; one favorable and one against. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. They did not. He then asked if there were any public comments. Chris Brenner, a neighbor in 5104 A ,the owner of 5104, Robert Howard, stated that this property was one of the Vail's most heavily treed lots and because of the lot fines, they had always maintained trees in the area. He said an additional 500 sq. ft. with parking would impact the lot. He said that this was a sensitive piece of property and the south-side neighbors were against it. Brian Doyon said he was in favor of the employee housing and that it would fall under our current regulations. Doug Cahill said he was in favor of the EHU. Chas Bernhardt said the EHU was an ordinance passed by Council ,and by law the applicant can do this. Diane Golden had no comments. Galen Aasland said he was in favor of this application. Briar] Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Planning and Enuirvnmental Commission 3 Minutes January ] l7, 21~OQ Approved 7/24/00 4. A request for a final review far a conditional use permit, to allow for the expansion of Buffehr Creek Park, located at 1953 N. Frontage Rd. WestlLot 44, Buffehr Creek Subdivision and 1954 Chamonix Lane/Lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Gregg Barrie reviewed what was discussed at the worksesson and again stated that the conceptual plan was developed from the survey that was sent out. He said they were able to push the path away from Dave Hilb's property line and that the restroom was pulled up and screened from the road. He said the restroom was put closer to the smaller playground and ADA access was provided at all entrances to the park. He said that the parking area was 1 B' x 43' or 113 larger than the original proposal.. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Doug Cahill said the signage should be closer to the park and asked ifi there was Clear vision when leaving the parking area and crossing the bike path. Gregg Barrie stated there was 35' from the vegetation to the bike path. Chas Bernhardt asked if CDOT had any say with the parking. Gregg Barrie said, no. Diane Golden asked about the two parking places on Chamonix on an adjacent kat. Allison Ochs said they appeared out of nowhere and staff was working to remove them. Diane Golden asked staff to look into it and said that the plan looked good_ Tom Weber suggested studying the signage and making it work better. He asked if landscaping could be between the Brandess Building and the park to discourage any activity between the two. He said that maybe the grade difference provided a barrier, but we would need more landscaping. Todd Oppenheimber suggested putting in a split-rail fence making it a less desirable place to walk through. Brian Doyon said he saw no problems. Doug Cahill made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo with the condition that a fence or landscaping be between the Brandess Building and the park to discourage overflow. Galen Aasland said a sign needed to be provided on the north side or Chamonix Road. Todd Oppenheimber explained that the wayfinding study was reviewing ail the park signs and there would be park sign changes, as part of the bigger package. He said though, that they could Certainly put up a sign. 5. A request far a minor subdivision , to allow for the vacation of an existing lot line at 1954 Chamonix Lane/ Lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Planning and Environmental Carnmission ~ NTsuutes 7arruary lo, 2004 r Approved 1124100 TABLED 6. A request far a conditional use permit, to allow far the construction of an addition to the existing. raw water intake structure and pump station, located on Black Gore Drive/Lot 8, Heather of Vail. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED • Brian Doyon made a motion tv table items #5 and #6. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 7. Information Update Kris Widlack gave an employee housing update and explained the 4 types of restrictions ; 1 } Old Restriction -Executed prior to 1992, no response required, nv occupancy requirement, not in perpetuity. 33 units - 27 responses (34 full-time employees housed. 2} Mid Restriction -Executed between 1992 -1994, Survey requirement, in perpetuity, no occupancy requirement. 24 units - 13 responses (13 full-tune employees housed}. 3} New Restriction -Executed after 1994-, Survey requirement, in perpetuity, occupancy requirement. 38 units-49 responses with affidavits signed {62 full-time employees housed}. This excludes Vail Cammans and Red Sandstone. (62 of 63 Vail Commons units have signed affidavits}. Diane Golden said the Tawn of Vail's employee housing is working and we need to get it in the paper for public relations. George Ruttier gave an update on the Vail Plaza Hotel going to Council far final reading. 8. Approval of December 13, 1989 minutes. Tam Weber had changes. Diane Golden made a motion for approval as amended. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Diane Golden made a motion tv adjourn. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3-Q. The meeting adjourned at 3:10 pm. Planning and Enviranrnental Commission Minutes January lU, 2[TOQ S