Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-0424 PEC
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIG 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-fi of the Municipal Code of the '~~ Town of Vail an April 24, 2000, at 2:00 P.M. m the Town of Vail Municipal Building. 1n cansidera#ion of: A joint worksession with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development pianlmaster plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Gluster, commonly referred to as the Power bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of Vail 1 Vail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello A minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for a residential addition, located at 223 Gare Creek Drive #31Creekside Condominiums, Block 56, Vail Village # ~t. Applicant: Phil & Kay Talalai Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the pavillion roof replacement ,additional covered seating areas, addition to "stage left" buildings and new service area addition to the "stage right" building, located at 540 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation, represented by Morter Aker Architects Planner: George Ruther A request for a variance from Sections 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage), 12-6D-8 (Density} and 12-6D-+~ Setbacks}, Town Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower DrivelLot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch RoadlPart of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12t~' Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 1214-6, Town of Vail Cade, to allow for the addition ofi gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-G/Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Develaprnen# Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. ,. Community Development Department ~' Published April 7, 2000 in the Vail Trail_ TP}~11f0~Y~iii 1 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~-.~. PUBLIC NOTICE ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of '~~~I~ Vaii wilt hold a public hearing in accordance with Section i 2-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the «~ , Town of Vaii on April 24, 2004, at 2:00 P.M. in the Tawn a# Vaii Municipal Building. In consideration of: A joint warksession with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development planlmaster plan and a conditional use permit far a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of Vail / Vail Recreation district Planner: Darninic Mauriello A minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for a residential addition, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive #31Creekside Condominiums, Block 5B, Vail Village 1St Applicant: Phil & Kay Talalai Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the pavillion roof replacement ,additional covered seating areas, addition to "stage left" buildings and new service area addition to the "stage right"' building, located at 540 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vaii Village 7`h Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation, represented by Morten Aker Architects Planner: George Bother A request for a variance from Sections 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage), 12-6D-S {Density) and 12-6D-6 (Setbacks), Town Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2855 Bellflower Drive/Lot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain.. Applicant: Alan ~ Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit,. to allow for a proposed expansion at Vai! Meuntain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of l_ot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 121h Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Vlrilson The applications and information about the proposals are available far 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. !'lease call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Nearing impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published April 7, 2040 in the Vail Trail. ~. ?x71t;!V 4F YA[L ~ 1 w PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIG MEETING SCHEDULE Monday,. April 24, 2000 AGENDA Project Orientation 1 PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department .. .. MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits 1. Pearson - 303 Gore Creek Drive #2-C 2. Talalai - 223 Gore Creek Drive #3 3. Ford Amphitheater-540 Vail Valley Drive 4. Vail Mountain School - 3160 Katsos Ranch Road ~O}}~ Driver: George NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner fr©m 6:f1o - 6:30 p.m. pUB~~syf0 i 1:30 a.m. 12:30 p,m. Pudic Hearing - public Works Conference Room 2:Oa p.m. i. Swearing in of reappointed PEC members Diane Golden, and Brian Doyon. -Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 2000 Chair- Vice-Chair - 3. A joint worksession with the Design Review Beard to discuss the proposed development planlmaster plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bencf7 of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of Vail 1 Vail Recreation District Planner: Dominic MaurieHo 4. A minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for a residential addition, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive #31Creekside Condominiums, Block 56, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Phil & Kay Talalai, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Allison Ochs • MEMBERS ABSENT ~~ 4 ~~ is It Ttt>'4',V OF VAIL 5. West Vail Lodge -A worksessan to discuss a proposed height variance (Section 12-7D- 6, Town of Vail Code), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof ridge, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)/Tract C, Vail das 5chone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail das Schone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson fi. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the pavillion roof replacement , additional covered seating areas, addition to "stage left" buildings and a new service area addition to the "stage right" building, located at 540 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vail Village 7'h Filing (Ford Park Amphitheatre). Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation, represented by Mocker Aker Architects Planner: George Rather 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow tar a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12t~ Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson 8. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-CfLot 2, Block 5, Vail Village ist Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl Planner: Ann Kjerulf 9. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage), i 2-6D-8 (Density) and 12-fiD-f (Setbacks), Town Code, to allow far a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower OrivelLot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 8, 2040 10. Information Update ^ Town Council joint worksession with the PEC an May 2"~ in the Town Council Chambers, at 1 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss phiiosply related to development review projects and how to coordinate between the two boards. One two-year term PEC vacancy- (Torn Weber). PEC REPRESENTAT1VE AT DRB FOR 20a0- I:]oug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasiand Diane Golden Jahn Schofield 11. Approval of Apri - Jan-Apr. 5, '00 - Apr 1 ~, `aa - Apr-Jun '00 - Jul-Sep '00 - act-Dec `a0 I 1 a, 20aa minutes. 7 .~ The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's of#ice located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call. 479-256, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Devel©pment Department Published April 21, 2Q4C} in the veil Trail • _, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLlC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, April 24, 2x00 MEETING RE5ULT5 Proieat Qrientatian I PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department 1' :311 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT DRB MEMBERS Sohn Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom 'Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Gahill Site Visits . 1. Pearson - 303 Gore Greek Drive #2-G 2. Ford Amphitheater-540 Vail Valley Drive 3. Vail Mountain School - 3160 Katsos Ranch Road Driver: George • ~o~ NOTE; if the SEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p,m, 12:311 p.m. Public Hearing ~-Public Works Conference Room z:t}0 ~.~. Swearing in of reappointed PEC members Diane Golden, and Brian Doyon. -Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 200{7 Chair --- Galen Aasland Vice-Ci~air - Chas Bernhardt 3. A joint worksession with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the louver bench of Donavan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant; Town of Vail / Vail Recreation District Plannero Dominic Mauriello WORIKSESSioN - NO VOTE ~ ~~~~ ..~ :ti TO}4'N OF V~tIL ~' 1 Glark Brittain Bill Pierce i 4. A minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for a residential addition, located at 223 Gore Creek Drive #3/Creekside Condominiums, Block 5B, Vail Village i~t Filing. Applicant: Phil & Kay Talalai, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 5. West Vail Lodge - A worksession to discuss a proposed height variance (Section 12-7D- 6, Town of Vail Code), to allow far the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof ridge, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. {West Vail Lodge)ITract C, Vail dos Schone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: Recut Carparation Planner Brent 1Nilson WORKSIESSION - NO VOTE 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the pavillion roof replacement , additional covered seating areas, addition to '"stage left" buildings and a new service area addition to the "stage right" building, located at 540 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vail Village 7th' Filing (Ford Park Amphitheatre). Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation, represented by Mortar Aker Architects Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahi11 VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH ~ CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant revises the proposal and relocates the proposed trash dumpster. The dumpster shall be relocated to an area. proximate to the upper parking lot. The final location of the dumpster facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the applicant submits plans to the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department #or review and approval of an improved laadingldelivery #acility. The improved facility shall be designed to increase the amount of storage space and reduce the need to large vehicles to remain parked at the amphitheater loading dock. 3. That the applicant submits a sign application to the Town of Vail Community Development for the new signs proposed at the amphitheater. The new signs shall comply with the applicable regulations outlined in the Sign Code.. 4. That the applicant submits a Design Review Board application and receives final design approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The final design shall comply with the adapted design guidelines for park dewelopment 5. That bike storage be addressed. 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of I_ot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Jahn Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-0-1 (Brian Doyon abstained} APPROVED WITH 6 CONDITIONS: 2 i . The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with an easement far the existing public bus stop at the southwest corner of the property. 2. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with drainage easements in accordance with the proposed grading and drainage plans. These easements will be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any proposed grading activities on the property. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the "Phase 11"' improvements on the property, the applicant shalt conduct a revised traffic study for staff review to ensure appropriate mitigation measures (if applicable) are addressed in a manner that is proportional to proposed "build-out" traffic impacts from the project. It is acknowledged that the threshold for identifying traffic impacts from this proposal will also include existing conditions and '"Phase I'" improvements. 4. At least one Type I11 employee housing unit must be constructed within 5 years of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy ~TCO) far "Phase I" improvements. The other seven units (for a total of eight} must be constructed prior to the issuance of a TCO for "Phase II" improvements. Required Type III deed-restrictions will be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Qffice in accordance with the above-listed schedule. The employee housing units will contain foil kitchen facilities, as defined in Chapter t 2, Vail Town Cade. 5. The bicycle path will run with a straight alignment from the parking area to Katsos Ranch Road {"punched through" the berm while avoiding vegetation). An easement will be provided to the Town of Vail for the bike path. 6. If future student enrollment exceeds 330 students, the applicant will be required to appear before the Planning and Environmental Commission again for a revised conditional use permit. 8. A request for a variance from Sections 12-61~-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vaii Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-ClLot 2, Block 5, Vai! Village 1 S` Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl Planner: Ann Kjerulf M4T1©N: John Schofield SECOtvD: Brian Doyon VQTE: 5-Q-1 Diane Golden abstained). APPR4VE><] WITH 2 CONL71TlONS: 1. That no GRFA may be added horizontally beyond the building envelope into the rear setback. 2. Prior #o the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must receive approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for renovation activities in the rear setback. 9. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage}, t 2-6D-8 {Density) and 12-6D~G (Setbacks}, Town Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower Drive/Lot 6, Block f,Vaii Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 8, 2000 r 3 1 1 {~_ Information Update o Town Council joint worksession with the PEC on May 2"d in the Town Council. Chambers, at i p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss philosply related i to deveiopmen# review projects and how to coordinate between the two boards. One twc~-year term PFCuacancy-{Tom Weber}. PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB Ft?R 2000- Doug Cahill - Jan-Apr. 5, '00 Chas Bernhardt - Apr 19, `00 Galen Aasland - May 3, `00 Brian Doyon - May 17, 'QO Apr-Jun '00 Diane Golden - Jui-Sep '00 Jahn Schofield - Oct-Dec `00 11. Approval of April 10, 2000 minutes. The applications and information about the propasals are availai~le for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community ^evelopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2728 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour natification. Please Bali 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • r MEMORAC~IIDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2040 SUBJECT: A joint worksession with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development planlmaster plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility far an approximately t2 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of Vail/Nail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello L DESCRIPTIflIV OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a park and recreational facilities as well as pre-school facilities on the approximately 12.3 acre site known as the lower bench of the John F. Donavan Park. The plan includes: • a soccer field • recreation areas, playground equipment, and park shelters • restroom facilities a park pavilion • a multipurpose recreational facility housing gymnastic, yoga, dance and other functions • basketball/ice rink • children's center housing Camp Vail and other multipurpose activities The improvements also include parking; drop-off and loading zones; loading and delivery; bus stop facilities; improvements to the S. Frontage Road; and a pedestrian bridge aver the creek. The PEC and the DRB last reviewed this proposal at a joint worksessian on February 14, 2000 and again on March 13, 2000. The Town Council reviewed the proposal on February 15, 2000 and March 14, 2000. Below is a summary of comments made: ~ The PEG and DRB suggested that the design team consider accessing the site from Matterhorn Circle. The Town Council in consideration of the comments from the PEG and DRS, decided that accessing the site from Matterhorn Circle presented problems with respect to neighborhood traffic congestion and major environmental impacts to Gore Creek and directed to consultant team to continue with access from the South Frontage Road. ,r--, ,~~~~ ~~~~. ':. fDWA'OF Vi1fL~ incorporate playgrounds, picnic areas, a basketball court, trail connections, and other outdoor spaces graphically an the plan. These have been included in the plan. ~ Maintain the traiVriparian areas and the area in the South East corner of the site referred to as the `°preserve." • Relocate same of the parking to the east end of the site to provide adequate parking far field uses and playground activities. The parking layout has been modified to reflect this improvement. ~ Improve the soccer field and surrounding areas to improve spectator needs. This has been modified on the plan. • Consider the needs far bus circulation on the site. The revised plan includes access far buses with a dedicated egress on the west end of the site, The PEC recommended eliminating on-site bus access noting that the existing bus stop on Matterhorn was sufficient. The Town Council asked the team to further study on-site bus access. II. STAFF RECOIUIMENDATION As this is a warksession to discuss the proposed improvements, no staff recommendation has been provided. The staff is looking for direction and comments from the PEG and DRB in preparation for a final review of the plan- Ill. R©LES OF REVIEWING BOARDS tom- Conditional Use PermEt (CUP) Qrd~er of Revieuv: Generally, applications will be reviewed first 6y the PEC for acceptabNity of use and then by the QRB for compliance of proposed buildings arrd site planninn- Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible #or final appravaUdenial of CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use an development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population; transportation facilities, ufiiities; 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, traffic 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. B. The environments! impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district or establish standards in the case of GU zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading f]esipn Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography RemovallPreservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision far snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - 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 - The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval. approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. IV. BACKGROUND The entire 51 acre parcel known as the .1ahn F. Donavan Park was acquired in 1980. A master plan far development of the site was adopted in 1985 which recommended a ballfield, play areas, picnic shelters, a basketball court, a skating pond, volleyball courts, and parking an the lower bench and a cemetery, open space and hiking trails on the middle and upper benches. That master plan, now 15 years old, was never implemented. Community facilities and park development were determined to be two of the top issues resulting from the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes which have occurred aver the past 3 years. On September 21, 1999, the Town Council decided to move forward with a process to determine which uses are appropriate and compatible with the Donavan Park site. The Town Council and the Vail Recreation District Board have directed staff to move forward with the following uses to be included in the master plan (generally in order of priority: ~~ Park use and soccer field ~ Pavilion ,~- lhllulti-recreational space (gymnastics, yoga, martial arts, etc.) (may be considered on other sites) ~- Children's Center (day camp, year-round youth enrichment programs and multi-purposelgenera#ional activity rooms} ~+- Gymnasium Indoor pool (25 meter by 25 yard} ABC/Learning Tree Pre-schools Pu61ic Input On January 5"' and ~m of this year, public open houses were held at the Red Sandstone Elementary School. The input received from the public at these meeting indicates the following levels of support for differing uses by those present at these open houses: Strang Support: Outdaar components (play fields, soccer field, picnic areas, shelters, and na#ural open space) ~ Gymnastics Facilities +~ Gammunity Pavilion with kitchen +- 1'reschoal Facility +~ Indoor pool (strangest support for a smaller 25 meter pool for community and with lap ability v. a competition level pool) Mixed Support +' Gymnasium r Children's Center (day camp, year-round youth enrichment programs and multi- purpase;'generational activity rooms) ~ Climbing Wall Limited Support: ~- Employee Housing (an-site) pn February 15, 20©9, following input from the public, the PEC and the DRB, the Town Council directed the consultant team to pursue the plan for alternative "C." C}n February 28, 29©0, a public open house was conducted at the Library to review more refinements to the preferred alternative. t V~ GENERAL uSE ZONE gISTRlCT REQUIREMENTS - PEC REVIEW Sections 32-9C-2 & 3 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General Use Zone District. The following are listed as conditional uses in the Genera! Use Zone District: - Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities, and uses. - Public and private schools and educational institutions. - Public and quasi-public indoor community facility. -Public buildings and grounds. - Public theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities. Ail of the uses proposed for this site fall into one of these categories. Section 12-9C-5 of the Zoning Regulations outlines the standards for developments in the General Llse Zone District. The Zoning Regulations state: In the General Use Zone District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be prescribed by the Planning and i;nvironmental Commission: 1. t_ot area and site dimensions 2. Setbacks 3. building Height ~. Density Control (dwelling units and GRFA} 5. Site Coverage 6. Landscaping and site development 7. Parking and loading VI. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSIDERATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS In accordance with Chapter 16 of the Municipal Gade, an application for a conditional use permit within General Use District, the following development factors shall be applicable. Staff has not addressed these factors at this time, however, at final review these criteria will be addressed. 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. ~. Effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Efifec# 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. 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 Planning and Environmental Gommission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use cermit. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning F3egulations 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 improwements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Rec ulations. F:IEVERYaNE'~,PEGIMEM051001Donov424,doc n ANGLE PARING YMIDENED SOU7}I FRONTAGE Rt7Ar7 ' WRI•f DELIICATEO RIGFI'f AHD LEFT' I•eIAN~ TURNING LANES OUTDO~OA PARK ENTRANCE - -- CO i ~ i I BUS STOP WITH SHELTER ~~ ~~ PARK AHD SOCCER FIELD PARKING AREA- - ----- ~ ~ 1 PHASE ONE PARKING. i2 SPACES I ; 1 ,1 PARK AND SOCCER FIELD PARKING AREA- ~ '~ ~,~ PHASE TWf3 PARKING- 2~ SPACES +i 1 ,'~; '.. ;~ ,• DEDICATED BUS AHO EMERGEHCY i l - VEFIICLE LANE 1 1 , li - - t/`~ ~'-~. -.'i. -~..-.. _ 'J ~. IINPROVE[7INTERSECTIQN AT FIATTERHORN CIRCLE ~ '' ~ I , ~ ~,~~~Yf%ii`. ~`f i i -r "/ -~ r - - -.. J f ~ f' ~ ` ~ rk~,.. i t~f~ ,1 { 7 ~i h f ~~ n - ' ~ ~ ^ ,Y ~ y~ f ~ I I ~1S { l ~ - ~~' E Y I ~ ~ I -, ~`yy ~r__l ~ R'~4R~ A~IQl~~' ~-~ `` *s'J r ~.._ '770 n~ r+,~~:i, _ _~ _ `-- PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE - "r! - --~ __ _ r~t__-~~~-''--- ~_--_--_ `~_~ i? _ P PtAr~ROUnD - ~~ ~ ----~: • '~ Donovan Communi Park Faciiit _ ~ (~de11 Architects, Sasaki Associates, Design Works#~ap d ~~ , ' ^~~ `' ~ i ~~ ~ ! ~ ~ J``,/ , a ~ ! / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f J / f t f f !/'' ~ jJ f'' ~ 1'~ j --~ ~'~ , _ j l f ~ ~ ~. ,. 1 / `~ _^ ~ ~`~_ _ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ iy J ~. 1 _- ~ ~ 5 i _ '. ~ e ,, f / Y J ~\ f -- _ , ,. ~ ~ yr~ ~ ~ F~~ ~ !~~ \\\\\ ~ ° r / ~v€anWs ~ i ~ 4J _ i ` ~ r-' ,' ., ,1 .n^ r- _ r . ~ i4 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ _ I ~1 i;e _ f~~- t_ a ~ - ~~~ -aa+a ,rv;u 1, i ~ ~ ~; ~-. ~ ...._r_,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~ ~~ . - ~,,~ ,t~ ~ ~_ .. `rr` ~' ~~~ ~ N_ ~~" .1'` ^` X14 ~~ i ~I: f r r ti ~ _ -- 1 1 i • • '~ • r I-AEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion of the existing facilities including eight Type III employee pausing units at Vail Mountain School, located at 316Q Katsos Ranch RoadlPark of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12~" Filing_ Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OIF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow far a phased master plan for long-term development at the Vail Mountain School campus. This conditional use permit would also include an approval for the construction of eight Type Ill employee housing units. Qn March i 3"' of this year, the PEG conceptually reviewed this proposal and requested that the applicant address the fallowing concerns prior to final review of this proposal: Employee Housing Units -The PEC stated the school should be required to provide employee housing at the carne rate (30%) as other private developments in the Town. Based on an increase in capacity from 244 to 340 students, the school would be required to provide a total of two employee pausing units (based on the standard of 1 staff memberfl0 students X 56 add'I students'`3f3°/Q}. Vail Mountain School is proposing eight Type III employee housing units. However, due to mobilization casts and economies of scale, the applicant would like to construct all of the proposed EHU's in conjunction with "Phase lln improvements. Traffic Circulation -- It has been observed by members of the PEC and. the Vail Town Council that a re-occuring problem during peak traffic flaw at the school involves the ustacking" of cars along the frontage road in anticipation of left and right turn movements into Katsos Ranch Road. The result is a congested access to the school and impacts to traffic flow along Katsos Ranch Road and North Frontage Road East. In an effort to address this concern, the applicant has provided a relocated access and revised parking and loading configuration for significant additional drop-off capabilities (10 ears at one time} within the property boundaries. A transportation engineering consultant has reviewed the proposal and faruvarded a traffic study to town staff for review. Landscaping -The PEC stated the existing and proposed parking areas should be upgraded to meet the Town's landscape requirements for parking lots. The applicant has provided a revised landscape plan based on this input. IIVA I LIDATAIE V r RYON EIPECIM Rf!+IOSIOOIVM S2. DOC ~, Buffering between the school and housing units -The PEC requested a buffer to separate the institutional uses from residential uses on the property. The applicant has revised the site plan to reflect a separation of these uses. History of the Property The following is a brief synopsis of Vail Mountain School development over the last 20 years: 1979 -original 2-story buifd'rng constructed 1984 ~ north classrooms and rockfall berm constructed (berm is no longer necessary) 1989 -gymnasium and stage addition constructed 1992 -additional story added to existing building 1995 ~ library expansion 1999 -temporary classroom structure added On June 8`", 1999, the Vail Town Council discussed the PEC's decision to approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow far the addition of a temporary classroom structure at Vail Mountain School The council agreed the CUP could be extended for an additional year if the applicant presented a master plan to the council within the next year, The Vail Town Council reviewed the plan at their March 7~" meeting and expressed unanimous support for the plan. The applicant is requesting final review of this request from the PEC today. The plan involves signifrcant improvements constructed in two separate phases. Phase I (June 2Q00-July 2001) improvements include; • Demolition of the rockfall mitigation berm • Removal of the existing temporary classroom structure • Construction of an eight-classroom wing to the north of the existing building • An elevator connection to all floors • Reconfiguration of the existing access and parking area to allow for the addition of a "drop off' lane and additional parking. Phase II flonp-term) improvements include: • Addition of a 300-seat auditorium • Faculty hauling • Additional classrooms south of the gymnasium • Additional parking II. ROLES OF REVIIEWING BOARQS ©rder of Review, Generally, applications will be revle+ved first by the PEC' far acceptability of use and then by fhe DRB far compliance of proposed buildings and life planning. Pianninca and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final appravalidenial of CUP. 11VAILIDATASEVERYONEIPECIME~1oS1€}f31VMS2. rJ{?C i .~ The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: ~ . 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, traffic 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. Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts design Review Board: The DRB has no review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - RemovallPreservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site 11VAILIDATAIEVERYONEIPEC',iv1EMOS1001vE+/lS2.D4C 3 - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - 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 - The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that ail submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff mama containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. • Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. 111. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approvail of the applicant's request for a conditionaC use permit to allow for an expansion of the existing facilities at Vail Mountain School, located at 316® Katsos Ranch RoadlPart of Lot 12, Black 2, Vail Village 12~h Filing, based on the fallowing findings: 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 General Use zone 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 ar 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. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the approval: 1. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with an easement for the existing public bus stop at the southwest corner of the property. 11VAILIDATAIEVERYQtVE1AECIMEMOSti001VMS2.DQC :~ 2. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail with drainage easements in accordance with the proposed grading and drainage plans. These easements will be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any proposed grading activities on the property. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the "'Phase I I" improvements on the property, the applicant shall conduct a revised traffic study far staff review to ensure appropriate mitigation measures {if applicable} are addressed in a manner that is proportional to proposed "build-out" traffic impacts from the project. It is acknowledged that the threshold for identifying traffic impacts from this proposal will also include existing conditions and "Phase I" improvemen#s. 4. All housing units on the property shall be required to be deed-restricted as Type III employee housing units. These units must be constructed in conjunction with approved "Phase ll" improvements. Required Type I11 deed-restrictions will be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits far Phase II improvements. The employee housing units will contain full kitchen facilities, as defined in Chapter 12, Vail Town Code. 5. The bicycle path will run with a straight alignment from the parking area to Katsos Ranch Road {"punched throughn the berm while avoiding vegetation}. An easement will be provided to the Town of Vail for the bike path. 1V. ZONING AND THE APPROVAL PROCESS 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, fo 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) § 1Q}. Sections 12-9C-2 & 3 outline the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the General Use Zone District. Public and private schools and educational institutions are a conditional use in the General Use Zane Qistrict subject fo the issuance of a conditional use permit. • 11VAILLDATAtEV ERYONE1PECtM EMfJStio~?1VMS2.~oC ZOr}inp AnatvslS Zoning; General Use '~AII development standards In the GU zone district are prescribed ,by the PEC Lot Size: 6.122 acres or 2f6,674 square feet Existing Phase Density: Setbacks: FrontlKatsas: SidelFrantage Rd: Side: Rear: Heigh#: Parking: Site Coverage: G RFA: To#al Floor Area; nla nfa 90' 76` 358' 23' 27' 85 spaces 22,027 sf (8.26%°) nla 20,488 sf 78' 76' 3~8' 23' 27' 104 spaces 29,081 sf (10.9°J°} n/a 31,188 sf (+10,700 sf) Phase 11 8 EHtJ's = 4 d.u.'s 24' 76' 358 2a' 36' 916 spaces 37,469 sf (14.1%} 4,800 square feet 48,688 sf {+17,500 sf} V. RE4UIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. CONSIDERATIC}N Of FACTORS: 1. Relatianshio and imaact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. The Vai{ Land Use Plan applies a "PubiiclSemi-Public" land use designation on this property. This category includes uses such as schools, past office, water and sewer service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other institutions which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of residents. Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with all applicable objectives of the Vail Land Use Pfan. Staff believes the proposal furthers the fa{lowing specific goals: 1.1 Vail shaudd continue to grew in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. ;J • ~J 11VAILIDATAIEVERYONESF'ECIMEfUIC7S1001VdV&S2.~aC ~ 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.1 Additional residential growth shauld continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through privy#e efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions, 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 2. The effect of the use on light and air. distribution of ooouiation. transportation facilities. utilities. schools, Darks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs, Staff believes this proposal wiCl impact the following facilities: Transportation -please refer to item 3 below. Schools -Planned improvemen#s for the school would increase capacity to approximately 3a0 students and provide affordable housing for teachers and staff. Staff believes the proposal would have a significant positive impact on educational opportunities in the Vail Valley. Parks and Recreation -Staff believes the proposed auditorium facility could be a great amenity to Vail residents if managed via a publicfprivate partnership. The applicant has expressed a desire to provide opportunities for public events at the auditorium when school-related functions are not planned. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to conoestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flaw and control, access maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Traffic -The applicant's traffic engineering consultant performed traffic studies at Vail Mountain School an two occasions. Based on both the consultant's findings and traffic projections from the town engineer, construction of Phase Il improvements (specifically, the auditorium) could trigger the need for dedicated turning lanes. ',SVAILtQATA1EVERYONEIFE C1MET~1C)S1flO1VMS2. rJOC The Town Engineer's projections of need are based on the following data' ITE industry standards, traffic counts for the 15t" busiest skier day along the frontage road, the CDQT access code, and an assumed 300 student enrollment at build- out, Staff believes the propased re-routed access is sufficient to meet the needs of users far existing and propased "Phase I" improvements. However, due to potential fluctuations in student enrollment and traffic patterns, a revised parking study will be necessary to determine the extent of traffic impacts and mitigation {if necessary} to ensure a practical implementation of future plans once °`Phase 1" improvements have been constructed. Parking -the Vail Town Code {supplemented by ITE parking standards far educational facilities} would require a minimum parking space count of 104 spaces {total at build out). However, staff believes a higher number of students at Vail Mountain School commute by car than at an average high school and that the minimum 104 spaces should be increased slightly. The applicant is proposing a total of 116 spaces (an increase of 11.5°/m}. Staff believes this is a preferable,. but not excessive, amount of parking. 4, Effect upon the character of the area in which the orooosed use is to be located. including the scale and bulk of the orooosed use in relation to surrounding uses_ Staff believes the proposed scale and bulk of the additions are consistent with the existing facility. Additionally, staff does not believe the additions will negatively impact adjacent uphill structures. The proposed roof ridge height for the auditorium facility is 1' 8" higher than the existing building ridgelines and less visually impactive than the existing rockfalE mitigation berm and chain-link fence. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the follawina findings before arantina a conditional use permit: 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 district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which dt would be operated or maintained would no# 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 previsions of the condi#ional use permit section of the zoning code. l1VAILIDATAIEVERYONE1PEClMENlDS1001Viv152.©OC ~` 5 9 ~+ ' ~ ifs 1 i~ ~f !! .T ~Ta, i ~, _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ 1 f ` ` , ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ ! ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ r f., ~ ~ ~ h ~ L f C ~p ~ ~ ~" r ~ w ~ ~ r ~ ttt oir ~ ~, ~ Y ~ ~ ~~ ~ $ ~ ~/ j~Q f~ E ~~ '* 6 `` ! f b s t r ~1k +'/ ~ _ '° f .r r ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ Ef ~ ~~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ t Y` f ~ ~ ~ R I~ f t ' k j ``} ``l f 1 ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ i /J ~ ,% ~_ t ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ^ i ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ,s + ~~ , ~ ~ ; g ~ t ! ' ~ t i ~ s ~ * ~ ) R i J~. ~ 1'` I ~.. r ~~ r ~,..,~ ~ tii~x i` ~g G 3 'o 5 r 7{ LL~, ~.~ ~ ~ u 9 1 ~.. ..~ ~..rra-IN .~~U1- • • .~ s d ~~ d E 4 ~- L_ _ { I I I :~ I ~~ I Ia 0 I I I L s i ~~ d d ~~ s~sP C~ I I J ~ ~~ 3 ~ d ~,~ ~~f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~~{~; 4''A~IL MC7E1NT~41N SGHDdL i~~g ~ ~~ ~!?; ~ "JAIL, ~L~KADO 3P ~r ~# ~_ ~~ j a ~_ o ~ - E b f ~_ ~~ 4 e t ¢`q 1 A r__~ i ~ ~ ~ - a j ~ IJ 1 ~~ ~' ~~ ~. Q a 5 ~zF a II 99 1 ~" ~. ~ Y r'~+~,~~~ ~ Y,~IL MflUNT,41N SGHUOL -4i~ ~ UGC t1~1 ~ ~~i~l I~ X40 ~+ Rar~rtj t~oa~ _ ~ ~ 3 - :.~..,..--r.~~b~~~,-,:,, -E~~-~. _,~, • • • .. k ~~ cPi SP i D~ C'.. • • h§ i ~~ a ~i ~E r~ ~~ ~~ A'~ P~ A~ P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F~, ;~~' ~ YAIL MOUNT}41N sc+~L ~~$ ~ ~_ ~{J ~ ~~;, ~ vAi~, coLrx~,avo i f ~~ ~~ _~ $ ~~ ~ e ':, 0 ,, ~ R E z ®II ~ _ - - ~ ~-~ ~_~~ ~~ ~ b ~~ ~- ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~-, r~ . Z~ ~~ ~~ 4 8 s '~ i -~ ~~ °, ~~ ~, ~. ~ x g~i~~~ ~ Y~41L MOUh1TAIN 5GHP4L is°~ ~ ~_~~' ~ I~~'.!~ SIbO KA'Tr.~O~ RA~kf RUAD ~~~~ ` ~ K ~~ • • ~. ~. ~Ip ~~ ~~ ~~ ~I • I'NEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, Z00© SUBJECT. A request for worksession to discuss a proposed height variance (Section 12-7D-6, Town of Vail Code), to allow far the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof ridge, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. {West Vail t.odge)ITract C, Vail dos Schone ##1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: Recut Corporation, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Smith Planner Brent Wilson I. EACKGROUNQ AND DESCRIPTION QF THE REQUEST -- - Earlier this year, the PEC approved the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the conversion of 83 accommodation units (hotel rooms) fo 41 employee housing units. Additionally, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 5, Series of 2000 to allow for the condomniumizaton of employee housing units Created from accommodation units. This request involves a proposed remodel of the existing free-market units at the upper levels of the building. The applicant proposes to add dormer and tower elements to the building (u#ilizing the "250" bonus credit) in order to provide an upgraded architectural product and increased marketability of the free-market units. The applicable "Corrmmercial Core ill" zoning allows a maximum building height of 3~ feet. Since the existing (legal non-conforming) ridge height exceeds the allowable height per the zoning, any addition of bulk and mass to the existing roof structure will require a variance [per Section 12-18-5{A), Vail Town Code, "Non-Conforming Lots and Structures"]. On April 19th, 2000, the Town of Vail Design Review Board encouraged the applicant to pursue the proposed design and variance request with a scaled-down bulk and mass of the proposed tower elements. Final design review approval is pending PEC approval/denial of this variance application.. Project History The West Vail Lodge property, constructed in 1979 under Eagle County jurisdiction, currently includes 83 accommodation units (hotel rooms), 19 dwelling units and significant commercial floor area. In the 1980's, the Town of Vail annexed the property and applied Commercial Core IIl zoning. This zoning designation does not allow dwelling units ar accommodation units as a use and the property has been rendered non-conforming ever since its annexation into the town. • 1~.VA1 LIDATAIEVERYONEIPEGIMEMOS10~l1lNULODGE3. DOC 1 ^~ ~. ~ ~-~ ~: TOINId OF YAIL ~4 In 19J~ ,the Vail Town Council approved a special development district (SDC~) at the site to allow for the addition of a new three-story building containing 37 Type I I l employee housing units- This project was never constructed and' the approved SDD became null and void in ~ 994. II. REVIEWING BOARD RQt_ES -VARIANCE Drder of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for irrapacts of the proposed variance and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed ,buildings and site pfanraing.. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action. The PE'C is responsible for final approval/derria! of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal 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 Ti#le 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. Design Review Board: Action: The DF2B has Nt7 review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRS is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal far: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Remove.!/Presentation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - 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 - The design of parks . 11VAILIDATAIE~/ERYOIVEIPECIMEMOSIaO~LN Vt OC3GE3. DOC 2 Staff; The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background nn the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals nr denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION StafF will provide a recommendation to the PEC at the time of final review of this application, IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Since the property was developed under Eagle County jurisdiction., the existing building has been granted a legal non-conforming {"grandfathered"} status. Allowable Building Height: 38 feet Existing Building Height: 5$.5 feet Proposed Building Height: no change; dormer/tower additions = 57.2 feet max. V. REC~IIIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS -VARIANCE A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Variance Requests: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the primary issue involving the relationship of this structure to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity is the bulk and mass of the existing building. The existing building was constructed legally under Eagle County regulations in 1979, but adjacent properties are lower in profile and typically smaller in scale. The applicant has stated that part of the goal of this proposal involves "breaking up" the existing linear bulk and mass of the building. Staff agrees with the preliminary architectural concept, but has encouraged the applicant to pursue a design that expands the height non-conformity to the minimum extent possible. The applicant has provided an alternate scenario based on input from staff and the Design Review Board with a diminished height and mass within the tower elements. Staff has assn requested the applicant provide a conceptual sketch utilizing reduced "shed" dormers (as apposed to "gable" dormers}. The applicant asserts, however, that the configuration of the residential units and the preferred roofing UVAIL"tDATAIEV ERYC]~lE1PEGIMEMQS10fl1WULODGE3.DOG 3 materials do not lend themselves well to a shed dormer configuration and would present a practical hardship. Adjacent building heights include McDonald's at approximately 36 feet in height {via an architectural projection} and the West Vail Mali property ~.vith approximately 32 feet of building height. 2. The degree to which relief front the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in fire vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Most of the West Vail commercial area was developed under Eagle County jurisdiction and annexed into the Tawn in 1986. As a result, multiple non-conformities exist among structures {both residential and commercial} throughout the immediate area. Since the building height for the West Vail Lodge property was established legally under Eagle County regulations in 1979, staff believes some relief may be necessary from the strict or literal interpretation of the Town's more stringent zoning regulations on this property. Similar "dormer" additions of GRFA above allowable building height exist within special development districts throughout the town- 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utili#ies, and public safety. Staff does not believe this proposal will impact any of the above-listed facilities. New proposed building elements will be lower than the existing roof ridge of the building and will be set back a minimum of 80 feet from property lines. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fallowing findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2, That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b_ There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 11VA1L1DATAIEVERYONEIPECIMEN10S10o1W VLC)©GE3.DDC 4 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. • 11VAIL1pATAlEVERYQhlE1RECIMEMOS1001W VLO[7GE3.DOG 5 _ __ -~ ~: c- . .~ `~~, .- ~. -r ate,. ~~ .:. "+~...„ April 06, 200() Brent Wilson Dcpartmeaat of Coznmunit~~ Deveiopmcnt Town of Vail 7~ S. Frontas7c Road ~%ail Colorado Rl;: West Vail bodge Redcveloprnezat Dear L3rcnt: FRITZLEN PIERCE SMITH A R C II [ T E C T S Per our Conccptuai DRB zaaeetin~F on .April 5, 2000, attached is a T'LC application for a hciglat variance. The request liar the height variance is for the rae~v doz'Iners and towers that are proposed based on floc DP`B's recommirndation for breaking up the existing mass of the roof. Lonliing Requirements The Vw%est Vail Lodge is in the: Commercial Core ; (C.C~) ~alzing district. CC3 has a ma~:imum height limit of 3&'-0". 'I~he existing facilit•s= was built in ! 97? in Eagle Count~.~ and was nflt required to meet TC~V zoning regulations at that time. The current roof ridge height for the residential wine at the south end of the building is 60.6' above existing gz•ade and 44.2' above existing grade at the north end of the building. Proposed Dormers and Tr1'wers 'T'he redevelopment proposes adding (8) dormers, The dormers are ~~,3' above finished grade at tlic south end of the building and 3~,9' above existing grade at the north end flf the building. Six of the proposed dormers are 5.3' lower Haan the existing rflof rid~~e line, however two of'tlae dormers arc I.~- below the ridge lane. Additionally, two towers arc proposed to anchflr the ends of the buildings. The towers are ~.~' abo4~c the existing ridge line. FPS wil] he revisisav the tower design ba.5ed on DRB feedback. 'I'he purpose of the two diffi;rent do}rmcr hci~Thls~'stvles and the tflwers is to establish a rhythm and pattern to the 2?0.6' lonb roo{'line and building mass ol~the residential «ing. "'hc new elements divide floe mass into ~ smaller campasitions. t;:'~.(1(9Q? - 1~~est 4'aii Lads;:: Kedev.^IgpmCntll'rpjeCt CorrespondencelTow~n crf vaiit.PiiCfa4UC~cvpd.wpd Nlanning • Architecture s interiors 1 ea0 Fast V<:if galley (give Fallrid~;e G 7 • Viii, (rd !11 Gal • ips(c~Jc:nlorado.r~et. • .ax {9;{)) 476-49(71 • {97(]) ~7G-fi:I42 Practical Dit'fculties and. Physical )E](ardships Due icy the existing roc~i ride 6einb b?' to ''?.b` aho~~e. the zone. districts allaw~-able Ilei~~l~t, it ~.~vould lie extremely cii£ficult to E~realiup the lame muss of the roof without exce;;din,* the 3$"-f?" hei~7ht limit. l3esibn Rcvier~~ Bflard .4t the Apri.I 5, ?Q(~0 conceptual reyiew_ the DRB feedhaclti was ~enerall~~ pasiti~Fe re~ardin~ the prc~pc~5ed inlpravements. At this. point, FPS i5 a~~~aitin~ tl~ei}- written f'eLdl~acl~. Ti~tank you for all your help an this project. Please ca11 with any questions ar con~zz~en~~. S i nccrcl~- , `~ __ \ _J !'~ Stephanie T,ord ~~-ch i tact • [::1()f}02 - 1~r'c5l Vail i.od~e R~dcvclo~rrncsitl~'rgjc~t C'orres~nnsicnce~;!"na~n ~f V;aill~'J:Ct?~7l)fiwpd.wpd MEMORANDUM T~Q: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2(l~D(D SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow far the pavilion roof replacement , additional covered seating areas, addition to "stage left" buildings and new service area addition to the "stage right" building, located at S4Q Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7t" Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation, represented by Morten-Aker Architects Planner: George Ruttier DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Valley Foundation, represented by Jim Morten of Morten-Aker Architects, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the replacement of the pavilion raof, the addition of covered seating areas, an addition to "stage left" buildings and a new service area addition to the "stage right" building of the amphitheater, located at 544 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vail Village 7~h Filing. The Vail Valley Foundation has identified two major goals for the proposed improvements to the amphitheater. First is to ensure that the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater continues to be a state of the art performance venue. The second is to ensure that the facility is fully functional for bath the performersfartists and the guests. At this time the users have outgrown the current capacity of the amphitheater. In order to address these goals the Foundation is proposing to focus the improvements on four primary areas: 1. Accessibility 2. Weather Protection 3. General Facility Improvements, and 4. Performance Improvements Accessibility improvements include the addition of fixed, handicapped accessible seating in Sections I and 1V, and the construction of a new system of ramps #o provide access to the second level of the venue's plaza. Qnce completed the entire facility will be "opened up" and accessible to the handicapped guests. Weather protec#ion and comfort improvements include the entire replacement of the existing roof panels designed to cover not only the seats, but all the walkways and aisles and the construction of a new roof over the tope of the existing performance area. In addition to the roof replacement, the Foundation will also construct two new covered areas at each of the entrance gates. These new covered areas will protec# ticket collectors and gate greeters from the weather. Lastly, to ensure that the amphitheater remains open air and an outdoor facility, natural gas service will be run to the amphitheater and additional heaters will be installed far the stage and radiant heating will be installed in the stage floor. ~~r ~, ~ TOWN OF YAIL ~ There are numerous general facility improvements proposed. The improvements include replacing the beverage tent with a permanent structure, the construction of a second beverage facility near the east gate entrance, the expansion of the concession building, the expansion and relocation of the ticket office and the expansion of the women's restroom facilities. The performance improvements include the expansion and upgrading of the existing facilities. The Green Room will be expanded along with enlarging the showerlrestroom facilities, a second production office will be constructed and the basement of the amphitheater will be finished to accommodate symphonies and dance groups. A reduced copy of the prapo5ed plans has been attached for reference. II. STAFF RECQMMENDATI(]N The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the proposed improvements to the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater located in Ford Park, Staff s recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections IV of this memorandum. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the conditional use permit request, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following findings,: °That the conditional use permit request complies with the criteria as outlined in Section lV of this memorandum. The prr~posed improvements further the development objectives of the Town of Vail, cr~mply wifh the intent and recommendations Qf the Ford Park Management Plan-An Amendment to fhe Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan., and will not 6e detrimental to existing or potential uses, nor will There 6e any adverse effecfs upon the disfribution of lighf, air, traffic or population. " Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request, staff would recommend that the following conditions be made part of the approval: That the applicant revises the proposal and relocates the proposed trash dumpster. The dumpster shall be relocated to an area proximate to the upper parking lot. The final Iodation of the dumpster facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the applicant submits plans to the Town of Vaii Community Development Department for review and approval of an improved loadingfdeliveryTacility. The improved facility shall be designed to increase the amount. of storage space and reduce the need to large vehicles to remain parked at the amphitheater loading dock. 3. That the applicant submits a sign application to the Town of Vail Community Development for the new signs proposed at the amphitheater. The new signs shall comply with the applicable regulations outlined in the Sign Code. 4. That the applidant submits a Design Review Board application and receives final design approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The final design shall domply with fhe adopted design guidelines for park development. 2 III. BACKGR©UN!] According to the ~fl•acial Town of Vail Zoning Map the Gerald R. Ford Park is zoned General Use. The purpose of the General Use Zone District is, "to provide sites for public and quasi-pubfie uses which, because of their special characteristics. cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and far which development standards especially prescribed far each particular development proposal or project are necessary fa achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 9 2_ f-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The Genera! Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and cerfain types ofquasi-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. 29(9994) § 90)" An expansion to the existing amphitheater requires the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations. In 1997, the Town of Vail adopted the Ford Park Management Plan - An Amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan. The purpose of the plan is to guide the outcome of future development in Ford Park. The Amendment is to be used in conjunction with the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan. In instances where conflicts or discrepancies between the plans exist, the ~ J97 Master • Plan Amendment shall take precedence and prevail IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FflR A CONQITI~ONAL USE REKNIT The conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: "In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject fa the granting of a conditions! 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 fo 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 Tawn 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 wifh the development objectives of the Town and wit! not be detriments! to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditions! use permifs shall be denied. " Upon review of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit to allow for the replacement of the pavilion roof; the addition of covered seating areas, an addition to stage left" buildings and a new service area addition to the "stage right" building of the amphitheater based upon the fallowing factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting an a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 3 1. Relationship and impact a# the use on development objet#i~es of the Town. The Town of Vail adopted the Ford Park Management Plan in 1997. The plan outlines the goals and objectives far future development within Ford Park, The plan recommends the following six major goals: 1. Preservation and protection 2, Reduction of vehicular intrusion 3. Reduction of conflict between venues 4, Resolution of parking and Frontage Road access problems 5. Improvement of pedestrian circulation and access 6, Delineation of financial responsibilities Staff has reviewed the plan with these goals in mind. Additional consideration was given to the goals, objectives, policies and action steps listed in Section 5 of the plan. Unless otherwise stated, staff believes the applicant's proposal complies with the relevant policies and notion steps. Action Step 2.1.1 recommends that additional on-site storage facilities be created within the amphitheater #o reduce and further control the frequency of delivery and service vehicle intrusion into the park. The proposed plans illustrate areas of additional storage to be constructed adjacent to the service dock (224 sq. ft.). Staff suggests that the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning & Environmental Commission how the proposal complies with Action Step 2.1.1. Action Step 2.1.3 recommends the construction of a central trash collection facility accessible from the South Frontage Road to be used by ail leaseholders within the park. The applicant is proposing to construct a trash dumpster facility adjacent to the amphitheater. In keeping with the recommendations of the plan staff recommends that the applicant be required to revise the proposal and relocate the trash dumpster. The dumpster should be relocated to an area more approximate to the upper parking Ivt. The final locafion of the dumpster facility shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail. Action Step 2.2.2 suggests improving the loading dock facilities at the amphitheater. The goal of the improvements to the facility is to expedite the unloading and setup of performances and to reduce the need for large vehicle (semi-trucks} parking outside the amphitheater area. Staff believes additional attention is needed to satisfy this goal. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to re-submit plans to the Town of Vail for review and approval of an unproved loadingfdelivery facility. 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 the proposed redevelopment and remodel will not have any negative impacts on the above-described criteria. 4 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 street and parking areas. Many of the recommendations of the Ford Park Management Plan focus upon vehicular and pedestrian access, control, circulation and safety. The staff has reviewed the proposal for compliance with the numerous recommendations outlined in the plan. The review and recommendations are outlined under criteria No. 1 listed above. 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 redevelopment and remodel of the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater was anticipated during the development process of the Ford Park Management Plan. The proposed improvements to the amphitheater do not encroach beyond the leased area of the amphitheater. Upon review of the application staff believes that the proposal will not have any negative impacts upon the character of the area, nor will the added scale and bulk of the amphitheater negatively effect the surrounding uses. In fact, staff believes that if the each of the recommendations of the are implemented as anticipated, the character of the area will be much improved. B, Findings 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. ~. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated ar 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 ~, I} ,;~ i ,~: ~ .. ~; .: ~~ u~ ~T ~ vl ~`' I ~~~ ~` T / i r I 1 7 ~ :1''E~~ :~.~o ~ ~ol~ < - r~. ~~~~ a a ~, `e Z . ~Q' :~ ~~ .~ -~ ;P ~~ ~1 ~~ of it f ^~ t -~ ;, !~ -- ~ GERAL© R. FQRa i E d ~•~ '~' ~~~ ~ AMi~M-I~TI-IEATE~,-- ~;~MpRTEttA[{ER _ ;: ` ~.~ir : , '° ViLAR PAVI_LIOtV i` ~i - -- ~~_e r~ ~~ • rn r __ _ , ~ ~r• .. m A ,~ r: N y I ~ z H m~ , ~ i '`~ r % , '! ~ O T,q' .N ~ ' I I 1~1 i \ !~ ~ 1` \ ~ ~~ w ~1~i y 1 (• H \ ~ i - I ~; ; I'' ~ .~ / I I I I I' P i 1 \ S ~ ,~ \\\ r { I I ' + i ~~;; `L~~O~. 9 ~Z. `~,~ X5y' ~ %~ ~ ~ "III / ~/ ,./; ~ '~~ r ~ ~ ., ~ f ~ ~ ;~ 1 ~'/ i e<~ , i ~ I, ~ ~ . ..,~ A~~ v 1 ~ / i / ~ ~~^~ ~ A ~ ti ~y .~ ~_ .` ,` ~.,.y ',., •.1 '. . • _.... s ~I ~ ~! I~Ii G ERAL~ R. FORD _ _ I .. ~ ~ ~ ---- MORTERA{<ER ' i I is - ANIPHITI-FEATI=R..._ ~ a~ I I~; ~ .._~~_ _ ~I = REM~DEL_ ~ , ~ I~~ - -~ ~ a r .. .. .. ~ o. . a ._._._,.._ ~ ~ ~ Ili VILAR PAVILION I'~i z snmm m mr?~ ~ ~z~ ~ z~z 3 c~~~ b .. ' _ _. jam. - J~~ ~ Q y ~ y ~"" ~ fig i/--1 \ 1 "i•n,~ ~ ~ , 1 } ~ ~ 1 ~- ~ 1 a V m ~ / ~ _" `~ ~ i _~ I i ;' '., I'll ~ ; ''• '` 1 '~ ; ~ ~~ 0 1 r - `~ `. ,,`~~~~ ~~., `~., t~ , rn z mm ~~ x~ ~m m r n a a a ~ ~~ ~ ~'~~i~ ~~, ~ I , ,' ~ AEM P--" !-~l IDT H E.ATE R~ MoRTERAI<ER._.__.w"' 'I Ii::. _ -~ ~ s, ~ ~ .,, ,,.REMODEL, ..,.,.o ~i rV ~.'•.~ 'til !'~I VILAR F'AVlL!©N - .....,~__._.... I. .~ ~~ ~...~ ~ r ~. - '; ~ ` 4 r.- i .G j ' I ~ ~. `'a ti. r°, =q., x~ ,` . ~ e ,~,,, ``'~~ a ~, ~ ,~~~ ~ ~sa Z Z r ~~ ~ ~ ~~il; W $ n i nt,, ~ /; i ,r r, Ir1 I I I ' i i i ~ \ 1 \~~~. ~, ~. ,~,A • • ~ ~ m o n ~ z c ~ m ~ J ~=~ ta~~ ~? m C z re ~R m b ~ ~~ yo~o~ ~ ~m a°n°~' a~~ corm wm ~a ono m~ ~~.~~ ~ az ~x~y ZEN ~q~ mz Wz mz -Z1~ 7C~mi~~d O m~ O~~nZ mt~ N~i7 -a~l~ m2 ~m urC1 y~+~3 ~ y~ ztn7ntn ~G7~ ,r C1rn cn~ ~-~ N~ I f _. ! CW / y~ -~. ..,. ~ f f f. , r. y I ~ ~ vm #_ ~ ., ~ - ~ ~ r~ A ~G ~~ 67 ~ '. S ~ '`~ r ti's r I .~ ~ ~I~~ j l i rr ~...~ ~ f r k ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ i ~`' ~ ti ~` 1 l~ ~ ~ it '( \ ~~, ~ ~ _ _ \ N ' ~ y~mz oz~~ az ~~ ma~~ az N~~'° ° z x ~ ~ a~ r~ ~ z m ~ ~~yn m ~~ ~~ ~ m~~m ~~ zC i ~ a ~ ~ m ~ rm~ ~ ws-I a~w ~~~~ ~ : '~ ~ a ~a z n m m ~a m ~ m ~ ~ ~ ° ~ aO a u i a N G7 H c T , I ~ !~- ~~ ~ ` " - I I „ ~ ~ ., I :' k I j~~ M 1-1 I T H E AT E R._ REM~D_EL Marzr~r~A[cE ..-..._~._ rt - ~'' C~ -._ i F' ; I ~~ VIL.4R PAVILION _i~--- - w ~ ~ ill , m ~C~ ~'-+Q ~Z~ w~'~ a°,i ~-ar ~~~ fpm ~r _ a' f, , rljf+i rl ~I i! /f~ f~ m'^ ~~`\ ~- - ~~ ~ _. ~ ~ I7 1 i r• 'tai ~~ ~. ; ! ' ~7 .~`. ~..~ A -.., y 3~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~ _ _. ~ i F ~ o :~:+, ~ + r;~ .,, i ~~ *~lc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , q ~7 ~ ~ i ~' `~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~ 1 ~''' ` ~ w ~; ~ ~~ ~~ ~ 7 1. Y' ~ \. 4' rel t 7 r ~~ v ~ \~ ~ ~' ~ ~ i ~~ ~,~ n i 1 ~l, 1 ~ ... ~'`, ~a ~`~ , ~ ~~ '~,~~ ,, ~ i `.` ~. ~m .~ ,~ z ° ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ c- ~~, m.i,~^ r ~ ~~+zo rs aom ~~ #~~~ ~ ~ Q~ ~y D y y T ' III KO • I , - - ,', ., ,, _ ,' - . i - -- '~- -- --- i ,,y -. _`_ ~ Icy' '~`r_~_.. __ \ ~ ~~ ~~' ,I ~ i , t - i i •. .. `i' '~I P ~ .... - ~ it%~ ~1 ~ i n .~ ~\ -; , _~ _ ~ `~` , r {14 r ,'~ 4s~ ,^ 1} ,t i \'~ ... i~ 1, 1 9 ~~ f ~~ ~~. ~ , -~,,, ~ ~i i~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ - ^~ ~ I E ~ I, s ~ Ff 1 ~ ~ i , ! , '~ ~ - f i Y 'r ! f t t.~ ', ~ ~ ~~ - ~~ ,, ~. ` ~' ,l \ `. •~ ~}. - ~'~ .~` ' ,__ a. I ; I II'~ ~~~~~.~ R. Fo~zn -- i -- ~. - ~ ~ ~ .. i~ - ~ , A M P H I T H_ E.4T E l~ MotzrErxA[«t~ Q] ~ i ~ ,,. ...~~~.©,C]E.L.. .,,~..., , ~. ...r. o_ ,._..~ ^ ~= ~ ~ 3 I~ ~' ~ I I I I ~~~ _V I_LAR--PA,_V_ I l.,.l ~ N ~ ''~ .c -~ ;~; c n { ~~~ O m m m C m I~ ~I r~ ti ~ ;. , r , -~~. `~ ~- r ~ ~ ; r~ °, . `~ -' ~ ? ~' 1' ~ ~ `+`r' s d-' r; ~ zr r ~ o ~ ~ ~~ - { ~ u ~ ~' S _ E ;I, i' r' m ~~. r m m ; r " n c ~ o ~~ ,! ~~~, ~' r, ~~ III g ~ 3 ~ ~ ~6 ~~ I I ~ jj ~ `` i I! / ~. ~ p f.^~ y J M1 r ~ ~ ~ s ~: ,} 3) o ~ i.i ///1/~~~~'1y~ ~__-- A ~ __ ,dun 1 ~r I` ~.1 ~ ~~~ SIT ~~._ ~ ..- . m `~i ._ ~~. ~ !". j~ -- ~ _ ~e ~ ~ \, •C ~ ' ~ '' r ,_ ICI -~ I~~ :> ~~ ~ ~ -~ ~. i E ~ ' a ~ ,` ~ -~ r' 1 I I ~ r I I II F rl i t ~~ r CI w r 's ' I '~~ ' I . r r: ' ` l ~ G I z I ~~. I ~ II R , r ~' I. :, ~~ ~ , r r r I , _ ~' ~ 1 .] l / 1 S; i~. , ~, i! ~ ~ / ~ ~ I~ c ~ I II i ~I GERALC~ R, F©Rl_7 ]~, I -- __-- _- - ~~ ~, a=l~~ !~ i~ ~if AM_ PHITHEATER ~MoR ' -~~ D li ~~i~ REIN CI I3El.,:. o , -- -- I :!i lil!; VILAR PAVILLION I -- ~ ---- _ , ,~ I I i ; . r r _ ~.. ~'~ _ f~ ~ ~ ~r J~~ ` • - r i U ' • r 1 , • / _ a -~ - r t~ `. ~ _ _. _ ^ . \Ai I ` ~ ~ J _ te ~ ~ y \. - : e .,r __ ~ I i a~~ ~ ;:~~ ~ I I~ f f~ t • , ~- + ~ ; '~ '~ ~ I } r 1 ~A\~, iF I ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ''_ - ~, ' ~' ' ~ ~ ~ A t ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ I ~ ~~~ ~ #•..~ ¢F Av v ! 1 I ~I 1 i I < ~'_~ I I' ~ ~ \ I i J.- t r '7 ,' ~ 1 ~ ~~ ' I I I I I i1 ~, j ~ I ~ 11 ~4~ .y ~ \~ ~ I ~ ,•5 , '"~ J~ a ~~ ~ ~~ ' I ~ "t 1 a5 ;1 P" ~ I ~ ° r ~ 1 \1~ ~~ ~ rl ~ rn '1 >-•~ X114 / ~, ~ .: ^~\~ :\ s ' \\ •\ "' ~ i ; i I 1 i ~ `~ I I ~ h ~~I~II~I~~~ 'II I9 ! I ~ 1! E ~ " \~ \~"'~ ADZ, ly~ir/r~~r"~~ ~ ~ ~'~'~-'-~-~~ '' ~~ ~ t ~ ~ r ~ ` `` ~ \~ „~~~-~ ^?~ ~ r~: l fl •~/i / ~' iy~~ r j • -7 I ' 1" rr "" 1 I f i - i ...,.\ ~ ~. \ ` ~J/ ;/~+~~' '~` % Ifs 1 / ~ ~~, ~ ~. ..,lam ~~ ~ ~' i '\ c ~ ~, t ~ / ~ s~ rr ~~ r ; ji c.\ `~ y'~ ~~ -~1 R..-.~, "~1* yS~~~ r1-e)~ 1 i` •\ ~I f I V I F i ~ ~ < < ~:i ~ ~ ~ '' ~ ~ ~r `.\ ~ `:C A~ - T `: 1 ~I x a 3 ~~ I ,~ £ f }la : ,III i i i~ ,.~ ~i~j I ~ ~" GERAIL~_ F~. F' R~ A.MPHf•THEAY~~2 _: __REMQLIE-_, _p _ VI,L.AR PAVILION_ MO12T~RAICER.~.I i-1+ _~ ~ a ,.~~ .w..a. I i ~~~ ~` ~' ,"j ::~` :7 '"'mod ~ ~ I ~4 ~ ~} - ~~ ` ~`,~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ 1 i~ .: , ~ .' ~ ~~ I ~ i' ,~, ~~,~~ ~, t 1 ~ ~ 1 °~ I i j~ F~ \ ~` ~~" ~. ~ r~ f' ~~ a o .I ~ V I I 1 ~ { t ~_ ~~~ , 7 I l l l~ i t ~X-,y.-y j,ti nix 4. 7° ~ 71 . \jI o ' ~ t ~~ '~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,_ , ~ ;.~ _ ,,, ~ f t i it ,`` `i ~ ,~, - - 1 ~ ~ ~7" Ill' ~ ~ s ~~ ~~~'~ 1 a7 ~ '3 x`~~-~,~~~ ~ @ ~ ~~A ~~ ~~ ~ u ` ~'a I. i F~ 'K< I I ~ sly ~\~ ~. ~ .. ~' kl l Y `L ~ I ~ ~ I I I I , I ~ ~I , ~~ I,'\ '\ ~I ~"~~F~~7~,;,~ ,sill i ;i1 ~iJi ~ i ~ ~` \ \.• '• ~.4 ``~ q' I I i j~ I i I~ j I f i- j VIII I V , I i Z ~ ..`•, ~ 7 }Y lI 4 y~~ I .1. I~ I I I ~ i i al ~~ I~ f~ ' I ~ ~~ ~ '~~, ~ 7 J'.. I I I I ~ l; ~ I ti ~,..., a /1 / .y J. ~ I ` ~C k f ~.~~ 7 ;c ~ ~ 1 \ . \ `.~ ~ e `o, ~. P \ ~` `'- - ,, ~ ~'~ '~~ , ~ ~ i • ~ 1. f I fT iii -~ ~.\~- . ..~ \, h .: ~ ~ r y t ~ don \\~ ~~~,•, \ ~~~ ~~-~d=tiv '~ , yip `~~ \ F ~::a ~~ ~` . ,. ~ ~ ff ; ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ n ~ - ~. .~, _: I~7•- ; I '; _, GERALC]_ R.__.F~Ra ~ >~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I AMP ITH E,c~TER p ~ ~ i .¢...RF~,Q.aE~.. .e,o..a. ~!Illi I: i ~ v1LAR~PAVILLC]N ~a~~ ~ I~' 1 • ,I ~~ -~ I -- -- - '~ ~I I s-+1-~ t c i~ I f ~ J d r= f ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ,~ - - =~ rn , ~ ~ ,~ --- ~ ~--~ n ...--- r ~ ~ ~ ~ C? ~ b.,,, ~ I~ ----- - I ~ ~~ - -. ~ _ i _ _- i ~_ ~ `` ' ~ ~4~i LF.' - V i~- !r ~. 1... 'i ~ r - ~- -~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~ a~ ~~_ m ~~~~~~ ~ T' ~,~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ z ' v~ =i ~ x ~ r k ~~ ~ E ~~,• ~ s a ~- t~ ~; . ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~£ _. k , . r +~ -- ~ 4 F ~ I - ~_ ~.,~. ~ ,. _a ~ ~ Ili,; GERALC~. R• ~E~G ~ _ _ ~. i ~ ~ " ~ ' ~ ~ A M P H I T H~ a- - --- N] ~rz~~'r~~ y_i cr_-: 1V i~_ia~ I ;,~* EMOOEL _, ,,, - .~..~, -...e y -- 4~5~ ~~i ~VI AR YPAVILI~N I - -- ......-- --- I ---- i I°:::- I. ~ „I, : ~ { --I it . D ~~~ i ,,p ~!~ e ~;~ , d i ij, ~ 1 ~x s M A~ .21n ~~ m° f ~~ an ~~ ~i~ Fi-i~.:•«r- s ~~~ Y r f 'r,~l'~,~~~`~''y~ ~,w~ i :, :; v a m 'z z F .~ .~ -,, . ' f ~ '~ it ti +I i~ 1 ~1 1'`~l /, ~ fi I 1 .e r I s I i= - I~ 11 _x a, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~Iw ~\~''~ ~ i 1 ~i~N 4 II ~fl ~~- ~~ ._ r1 =gyp/ ~ F _ ~ ~ 1' <i , \~\~` V ~~ ~ ~ ` c L~+7 D Z r - r ' ~ I I:~ti1 ,. -- f i~ /„ r. ----~ I Il ~i' }}II ! ~~ 4 i ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ' ' I~ ~ ~ ' I ~;L7 e1I~1 L, _~ I ~ ~ ~~i1-! - - C ~ i ' ~,~y , I ~m ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~i~ e , ~ , ~ ~~~ ~~ ~cr - - a ~ C y ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ;=~;~.'T ~ ~-~~ ~ 4 ~ ' ;h` J I I i i _____ _ ~ ~~:~ ,' i t s' G F2ALD R FC1 RD T E R iC P H 1 'T 1 ~ ' ~N14rrr~RAtcE~4,~~~~ i3TC' I ~ A~ ~ l -~ E A . w....._.. ° y s ~~ ~~!i I,- ~~ VILAR P~?.V1_LIC]N- I i i , ~' ~• . ,y Y • C. rr ~ ,- . - ,. ~-~: -~- r , Fr ~ ~ I; r {- " ' ! n - - ` ~ - i ~~ C v~ z ~~ ~C xn 6 i ~ I n L A /: / ~~ ~ 1 ,, ._.__ ~ _ I --- i.., s ,~ 1 ' +r--rte rY, Y hh.. -rsT~.F~~~-~-. ~f~'1 ~ ~. ~. (. i. .~ . .,~1 m-•v.• F j pr' " J .i5~] } ~ ~ ~ ~ tt't.. L r-~, l ~ , -~ ~ i ~ rn -7+ ~ , y = it ,. Il I ,~;;~ ~ ~ n j ! , ~ ~ ~, rn J ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ~ / i ~ i "~- . ~ Z I / T ~~ k yFY~ r1 ~ ~^~`I!t . ~ '~~ I ~. ~ •3 'll ~~ ~ I ,: !:E . GERALD R. FURQ AMPF-~I?'HEATER =e ' €I ;~ jl ~ !' ~ ....,. BEM-~,~EiL. i 4 . `~3 I I ,~h ~. ~~,~ . ~ ., .,.... . V1LAR PAVILIQN /'~~ =;•~~1 :i~ ~~ i =~ az ~m '~ui ~~ - 'O z ~ ~ m ~~ v ~ I wC i I 1 I I I ~~ ~~ oa ~ a~ a~ 'z~ :. ~ .~ jq.. Y'°T f •' x C'.qY _C ' r.:ik" _~-_- .~__ ! P_ .. ~. --S -" ~ ii~~ .,~ w`` r tt 1,~~ __ ~T.. I ti~ ~!/ ~I ., 1~j 7~~_ J,,~. 71 ~ ~ ~,,, ~, c~ - ~-1 ~Ic7 ^_- i O .~" `~. ~ i Y { ~ T~ ~ ~ / .H ~ iR rt i~~ ~b ~~- ~~ ,: _ s~ S w,~' ~ I- ~ a= ~~ ~4,s~ //fh~~~' I v Ll~~ ~_ '~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i 1 { ]II ~ i ~£ I ~~I J ~ ~._ ~. 1 I~ r f -•--,.L ~~ ~~ m a ~ T mow] O C C 2 -i ~~ f ~ A I 9 y i i i 3 ~ ` i r __ it ~E(-EA_ LU R,__FQRD _ ---_ A P H I T H~ A T R 1N~RTERA1cER.`~.% ~ i ~ i=;' i VELAR iPAVILION__ j .__ _ _i ~____...~_~._' • ~, -_ ~ -- ---• ._ i. 4 ~;; I ,~ , ~~ i :;~ ,~~__ E`_ 1' ` I " ~i~ ::. i fJL~., ~ ~ I ``If II A -t~ II I ,I `l + ~ / 1~ ~ 1 4 YY ~' " ;1 i y "`I i i "~jl II wo0. 1tI I ~ i ,y yl ' ti ~; I ~~' ~` ~: ~ ~ % `` ~ 1 V ~ I ~;~ I ~ d i ,, ~~f~ ~ _~ t", .& i M :Jr ~' ,~ a ~; ~ ~ ~ , , ~r. I - ~, ,ij f~ { ~ fff+ _,~ `~ ~~1" '~ i ~ `'a~ I, (~~ ~ ~ .~ ;~ I . ~ ~ ~' ,>;~'~ f ,~~ - ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~__ -~ '~ r f~ •o ~ I~; ° f t; ~ ~ d , n, ,"~ I ~ f ~ .;~ ~ ? = III ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= S ~ ~ i~ , q ~ ~ I ,y : i d t _ ~ ., ha -- ..R Cn ~ i _~ - ~ i i~ ~ d i R 3 s I i k~_ ,~i;z iil i'II ~ ~ GERALD R F"CIR© I ~ ~ n ~ I i ~ ~ ~ ` ~ - A MI~P H I T P. T E R _ MoRTEItAKER '~-~•' = i to f= ~ ~ I _............ I ha I _ ^~ I , __~ V1LI~N~ V PA LAR .. - ~¢ ,I ~~i --~ ~ , I ~; i i11 .~~ - ~ ~ _ l ~~~~~~!~- ~~~ - `~~'` i -,~ ~ ~~ ,~ ,,_- ~ ~._- _ ;1 l ~ ~ t~.eµ~ ~~~ a o P ~ ~' ~1 ..ti ~Y ~'~ `_ ii . } ~` ~ i rr ~ _ ~ i 7-~ r~ ~ ~ ~ i 1~1 f ~ I ~1 i FED '~-- ~ \:~ - ti~, 1 y~ ~ ~r4 _ _-! ~I ~ ~'~ ~ fi ~ l Iw -;f' r ~ - ` a ~ ~ i =I ~ jr "c j f r.'` m ~ I'Ia i+ t- ~ ~ LI ! jR ~ ~ ~~, 1• i ~ i ~.1'',u~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l_ ._r - -.~-,- ~ _~flr _s Fr fl t •1 S ff ,~ --~-- It -- ~'-~' - :~ i rT- ~ ^'~ ~ -- _'' - ~ i , f ~E I \' J -"~ a ~ ,L,,, x u7 ~r I ~ ~ r ~° i ~tm r d i ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~~ =i ~ ~ ~ . rrf r'~ ~ ~ I ~ .'c n _ I ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ^~ - .n ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ 1 I I i f I 1 _. _ e - -__ __ _ - _ _ _ A PHI i-i E AT E F~ MtiR7~RAxER~;I~~ r .:1 ._. ~ w ~ it F fL ~N VILAR PAV I - I I p I ~ -----~- ~ -- -- --- - - -- - -- t • MEMC)RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 1=Rc~M: Community Development Department DATE: April 24, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-~, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Rowhause #2-C !Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1st.. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl Planner: Ann Kjerulf I. DESC~IpTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vicki Pearson, is proposing a remodel of Vail Rowhouse Unit #2-C. The proposal calls for the addition of gross residential floor area under the 250 ordinance, the creation of a turret feature at the rear of the building, the relocation of a staircase above an existing shed, and the construction of a deck at the northwest corner of the building adjacent to Gore Creek and Mill Creek. All improvements would occur above grade as the applicant owns the second and third stories of the building being remodeled. The first floor of the building is a separate unit with a different owner. The Vail Rowhouses were constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations and are legally non-conforming in many respects. Due to the existing non-conformity with regard to setbacks, the applicant's proposal requires three variances: 1, The applicant is requesting a (side setback) variance from section 12-6H-fi in order to relocate a staircase to the west side of the building and bring it into compliance with the uniform building code. The construc#ion of the staircase would further the existing encroachment of the building in#a the required 20 foot side se#back in the high-density multiple-family (HDMF) zone. The building is presently 15.5 feet from the property line on the west side of the property and the construction of the staircase above an existing shed would require the building envelope be shifted 2 feet closer tv the property line resulting in a setback of 13.5 feet, This would also further the existing encroachment of the building envelope into the Mill Greek stream setback from 5 feet to 7 feet, 2. The applicant is requesting a second (rear se#back) variance from section 12-6H_5 in order to construct a turret feature on the main and upper levels of the building as well as two bay windows on the upper level., These features would result in the addition of building mass. The construction of the turret would increase the existing non-conforming setback from 6,5 feet to 4.5 feet. 3. The applicant is also requesting a variance from section 12-14-~ of the supplementary regulations to allow an above-grade deck to encroach mare than 5 feet into both the 20 foot required side and rear setbacks in the high-density multiple-family zone. The deck, if built as ~;,~~ m~ra~va~l~' n proposed, would be located 5 feet from rear praperty line, a 15 foot encroachment into the rear it setback. It would be approximately 13 fee# from the property line on the west side and located ~ i carnpletely within the 30 foot Mill Greek stream setback. The proposal also involves raising the main roof ridge of the building from 30'6" to 39'. The turret feature would be 43'6" in height. The height limit for a sloped roof in the HDMF zone is 48' therefore this increase in building height would comply with the Town of Vail code. However, this alteration would significantly increasing the bulk and mass of the building and should as such be a consideration of the PEC. li. STAI`F RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request fora (side setback) variance from section 12-6H- 6 to reloca#e a stairway and bring it into compliance with the UBC. Staff also recommends approvaE of the request for a variance from section 12-14-6 for the construction of the deck. These recommendations are based on the fallowing findings: That the granting of the variance from sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6 does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the High- Density Multiple-Family Zone District. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not generally apply to other properties in the High-Density Multiple-Family Zone District. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ar materially injurious #o properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. With respect to the construction of a deck, that 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. Staff recommends denial of the request fora (rear setback) variance from section 12-6H-6 to add GRFA and building mass in the rear setback subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variance from sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6 would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsisten# with the limi#ations on other properties in the High-Density Multiple-Family Zone Distric#. 2. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficul#y or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Title. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve any or all of these variance requests, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall receive approval from all relevant utility authorities prior to any renovation activities in the 10 foot utility easement at the rear of the property. 2 III. ROLES OF THE REVfEWIIVG BpARDS Planning and Environmental Commission; Action: The PEC is responsible far final approvalldenial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal 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 withau# grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of tl~e 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. Design Review Board: Action: The DRi3 has IVQ review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings info landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. RemovallPreserva#ian of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage an-site fi, Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Prevision of outdoor lighting IV. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 13,.245 sq. ft. Zoning: High Density Multiple Family (HOME) Allowed/Required Existing Proposed GRFA_ 250 sq.ft. addition 25t7 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' no change Sides: 20' 15.5' 13.5' Rear: 20' 6.5' 4.5' Site Coverage: 8827.5 (5~af°) 6878 t;51.9°I°~ 694 (52.4°/4) Heigh# 43°l45' 3p'6" 43,6" 3 V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reaardinc~ the Site Coverage and Setback Variances: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and s#ructures in the vicinity. With the exception of the proposal to add building mass in the rear setback, staff believes that the proposed residential addition is compatible with the surrounding development. The Vaf Rowhouses have a variety of architectural styles and materials and are legally non-conforming structures. Recognizing the existing non-conformities, staff has supported variance requests in the past. For instance, a side setback variance was granted to lot 11 in 1984 and a variance was also granted to lot 13 in 1993 in order for a deck to encroach further into a rear setback than would normally be permitted in the H©NIF zone. Staff does not support the addition of GRFA and building mass in the rear setback as there are other locations in the applicant's residence where GRFA could be added wi#hout the need for a variance. 2. The degree to which relief €rom 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 ar #o attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The requested variances would allow the applicant to remodel an aged I, structure bringing it into compliance with the building code and improving its physical appearance which is highly visible from the Covered Bridge, a major pedestrian thoroughfare. However, the addition of the turret would increase the building envelope and encroachment into the rear setf3ack having an overall impact on bulk and mass and light and air into adjacent buildings. With respect to the proposed deck, under normal circumstances, a deck at a height of more than 5 feet would be allowed to project up to 5 feet or half way into a required setback. The applicant is proposing an above grade deck which projects 4 feet from the main level with no impact to the site below in the rear setback. In the side setback, the applicant has attempted to keep the deck in line with the existing shed to minimize the impact of the deck on overall rr~ass. Granting of the requested side setback variance for the relocation of the staircase and variance from the supplemental regulation for the construction of the deck would not constitute a grant of special privilege to the applicant. Granting of the requested rear setback variance for addition of bulk and mass in the rear of the property, adjacent to Gore Creek, would constitute a grant of special privilege. Frorn an overall perspective, there has been a strong effort to minimize site disturbance while improving the visual appearance of the building and allowing the applicant reasonable enjoyment of her property. 4 • 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and put~lic safety. With respect to the addition of GRFA in the rear setback, staff believes that the resulting bulk and mass would have a nega#ive impact on fight and air far adjacent properties. B. The Planning and Environmental ~nmmission shall make the follvwina_ findings before -- -- _ _ _ _ ~rantino 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 ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vlGlnlty, 3_ That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcemen# of the specified regula#ion would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ti#le. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances yr conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 5 Property Location Map MOUNTAIN HAUS CONDO - ~ ~- 1 ~! ~._ ~~ --- ~ ti ~ ti1- ~ __~` _ ~ .~ ~~_= _~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~1 f ? r r ~ -_~ 'f ~ f 7 $~ 9~1Q ~ 13 P 11 1 ~-__ GONE - ---~_ MILL CREEK ~~~EK CURT COND __ __-----~ - ~~_ ~~N_ f N -`' ~P ~ ~. `~ ,, cy . `~ CHRISTIANA ~Q ~ \, \ AT VAIL t Finn `, 1 ~ ~~ ,,15 14 HALLA /i ~ • Z c~ .~ M,C+ JS n.~"y fl b~T'.:7 ~ . vi~~ rat '' ~~ -. N~+r'+Du +.. rt~-;~..~ h1,foG-,.~~a. ,U~ l~- ~T!! y ~11~~ Ca ! `~. i t i 1 1' R I, ~' 1 ~ ~` "`- -- 1 L,~~ S^~!i0 a._.. _ .-...__~ ~~ ~ ~,..~ • i I ~ ~ -o u U F ~~ C w ~ I~ la ~»Y° .~t~~sn~ sr _._.. - L --- ._~--- --- a -_.~ _....---' -- __~` ~~ ~ ., 1I ie C r (~ "` .. 3 ~~ `" N It a w ~~ t« ~~ ~1 !f ~~ L ~~: ~~ ~~ ,F P `l ir. r .. i ~ _ I ~ y ~~_~ ~ ;~~~~II s f ~~ yy~~y 1 I I 1 ~~ ~. ~: r-- . Q M ~ ' N r _.~.~. .. i i ;'~.., ~i t L` t~ ~~-~ 'L._-~1 ~~-~° _ f ~~. ~- ~ ~* L S.° ~_ `~ 1 L '~ 1 } C ,s ~ N ~~ ~~ ~ U s ~ti (~ T` ~ ~~~} i 1° l\ 1 'R .+ ~" • ti~ ~~;. ~t~, ~• t ~ ~i ~ A /~ ~,P F- ~ '~~ i_ ~r _. ~-- u n + ICS I ~. \C I ~T 11 ~. ~~ - ~ I ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ i ~ ~~~ I~ I' .,_... ...-,-1.._. ~ ~y 4`II1I ~i I~ li . l ~ i ~ ~' - - -- / E•-' ~ I i ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ! ~ T i - Q ~~ ~'d ~ ~ ~~ I y ? . t1+ ~---~ I ~-}-~_-~ L ~; ~JI. III ~. it ~ I~ I ~ -.~. ~ ~ ~ S f .. ~ I I 04t ' 'T Iz-oI' 'i ' ~----- -It ~4 1 ~~ _. l l _ ` ~ I ~ f c- z1 - ~ ~ f= Im - ~ - ~~~ I I ~ rr Lt i i~-- ~ - --- -:~~ f Z -~~' I (n R I ~ I ~`~ 1_ _ _ - _ - - I ~ C .n ~ t ~Z a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ` ~a I ~.". ' ~1~ r ~c ~r -~ ~~` s r ~~ ~ ~* _~~ _ - U r ~' p r ~ ~ t« P -~ Z ~p 4 91 I~ I I _. r_:w._.x.., ! I I ~ 'I ~~ It V I ~ .. I --------~ f ----- -r ~ Ii } i ~~. -----~-~~I I ~ ~I ~ ~~ ~~ ~~! ,, ~o c ~ ~x i_ • I N ~ +~ i 11 iIB IQ nn ~I ~~ I~I,~ it i ~ -~ PW :, `'' __ _._--o---- r i i _~' I~i ~ ~ ~ ~ t I ~ ( ~ I ' ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ 1 J i ~ i ~ ~ ~ I i ~ ~ I~ i ~~ ~4 ~ I ~ i ~ ~__ _ i 1 ----_._ ~__- r---- _--_--- `- 4 7 I~ i i i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r ~~ f~ .4 ~, ro ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ • ~ ~~ M '.{~ aC,~~' r tl, j "",-,+~w,,M N :,+ IV ~: .0 {) .p p c~ ~ ° Z ~-~ try .~ N ~ j i ~_ ~~ ~ ~ R ~ ~~ `~ • I ~~ ~~ R M 4~~~~! ~ ~aa 1.y. ~~ Y w ~'~ ~ 4 i ~ ~;, ~ v ~ 4 O, ~~.. ~.~ tri tl! N (~ i SP N r --r. ~ tA ~ e ~ r. s ' ~ „~ '~ [~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ q~~ ~~ ~ __~• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION C7 MEME~ERS PRESENT John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Brian Doyon Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Public Hearing John Schofield called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m. ~~'~ ~ ,, STAFF PRESENT: Dominic Mauriello George Ruttier Brent Wilson Ann Kjerulf Judy Rodriguez 2:OD p.m. Swearing in of reappointed PEC members Diane Golden, and Brian Doyon. -Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 2000 Chair-Galen Aasland MOTION: Brian Doyon SEC©ND: Doug Cahill V©TE: 6-0 Election of 2000 Vice-Chair-Chas Bernhardt MOTION: Diane Golden SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6-0 3. A joint warksession with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master plan and a conditional use permit far a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of Vail ;` Vail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriella gave an overview of the staff memo. Ethan Moore gave an overview of the revisions. He said there was a limited amount of parking and they wanted to increase the size of the recreation space on the site. He explained the modifications at the west end of the site, the basketball court and the drop-off at the mouth of the piazza coming into the site. He said the total parking would include 151 parking spaces on the site, or an increase of 1 space #rom the previous version. He said there would only be trash at one location on the site. John Schofield asked about the trash generated on the other side of the site. Ethan Moore asked if PEC wanted two trash locations. Todd Oppenheimer said trash would be handled the same as the rest of the parks in the Town. Ethan Moore said they were paying attention to the shade for the children's area. Qoug Cahill asked about the bus-drop off and haw they would travel to the buildings. Ethan Moore explained the designated walkway to the front door. Planning and Environmental Commission 1 Minutes April 24, 2040 April 24, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS ABSENT: DRB PRESENT: Clark Briktain Bill Pierce John asked about the distance from the pedestrian bridge to the front door. Bthan Moore said it was about 200'. John Schofield stated his concern was how close it was to the existing bridge and he asked to have it on the final plan. Galen Aasland asked about the impacts on the existing path, such as the picnic tables and wanted it written up in the final plan. He asked if there would be a fence around the basketball court. Ethan Moore said it was a 3:1 slope down to the basketball court and there would be no enclosure around the court. Galen Aasland suggested a u-shaped enclosure to keep the balls in, with people sitting on the slope, like an amphitheater. John Schofield asked about the pedestrian traffic flow. Otis Odell explained the raised outdoor space with the pedestrian traffic flow taking advantage of a lot of the outdoor areas. Brian Doyon asked how to go from the Community Center to the soccer field. Otis Odell explained the route through the public space. Diane Johnson said the Children's Center would be ages 2yrs,-12yrs. and the gymnastics would be age 2 on up. She explained how the location would work well to the fields. Otis Odell explained the visual access to the front door and that it would be covered. Brian Doyon suggested adding boulders and to get rid of the grade in the soccer field area to create interest. He said he needed to see a landscape plan. He asked how far it was from the bus to the pavilion. f=than Moore said by taking the existing stream path, it was about 1200'. Otis Ode[l explained the net difference between the two bus locations was only 300' and the f'EC said they wanted it to keep the green area open. Galen Aasland said he was interested in seeing a lighting plan sa the neighborhood had some expectations. John Schofield asked far kayaker access to the stream. Diane Golden asked about the square footage of the Pavilion. Clark Brittain congratulated the applicant for not messing with the stream walk. Scott Smith explained how the buildings integrated with the site. He said the garden wall or outcropping organized the entire site and that parking was never visible until you came onto the site. He said the outcropping signaled a change in the grade of the site. He showed pictures of different types of walls and said they would have aboulder-like quality with the harvesting of boulders on the site. He said the transition between the walls and buildings would be continuous. He explained that the site sloped down to the stream through the buildings with a descending slope requiring no stairs and that the sun would always be coming into the site. He Planning and Environmental Commission 2 Minutes April 24, 2000 explained the terraces, pavilion and playground. He said the street was a long soft curve with one never seeing the end of it, but a connection at the end to the trail path. Jahn Schofield asked for the height of the walls. Otis Odell said 1 t78' to t 24' that rose with the grade of the road with a wide overlook of the site. John Schofield suggested a climbing wal! there. Galen Aasland suggested boulders to prevent cars from careening aver the edge along the wall. Brian Doyon asked how wide the street /plaza was. Otis Odell said it was between 35'-4Q'. Diane Golden said it was good to keep the pavilion away from the other areas. Brian Doyon asked if it as going to be a Seibert Circle I1 there. He said the stairs were extremely large and would like to see them moved over and broken up with plantings. Scott Smith said the stairs had 1 b"-1$ "risers and were very graceful. He said a heated surface had been brought up and explained the line~of-site to the door for parents dropping off kids. John Schofield asked about the required landscaping. Galen Aasland said he would like to see spruce trees, even if it blocked some light, in order to have the green year-round. Bill Pierce suggested a wall layered for a grander point of arrival between the soccer field and the buildings. He said people could sit an the wall and watch the soccer game. Scott Smith said there was no roof expanse greater than f0'-70'. He said the roofs gave a lazy horizontal feeling and having sizeable overhangs casting shadows would give the feeling of shelters. He said the buildings terraced into the trees and that they were proposing 2.3 colors. He said they saw the stone taking on a variety of farms with wood as the second material to panelize the exterior. He said the wood would have a chunky quality similar to beams, but more finished than logs, He said since the roofs would have reflections from the sky, they were recommending zinc which is like capper. He said it would pickle over 2g-30 years offering a variety of color and eventually turning ablue-grey, ar the color of the sky, but nok reflective when viewed from above. He explained the flat horizontal seam laying flat. Chas Bernhardt suggested using some of the components from the Ford Amphitheater for some of the roof components. Jim Morter explained the Ford amphitheater remodel. Scott Smith explained the rising of the pavilion as it faces the creek with !og columns 22'-24' tall ar similar to the surrounding trees, He said he didn't want to put. in a steel space-#rame structure like the Amphitheater. Galen Aasland said he couldn't see breaking up the Amphitheater, unless they brought the whole building to the site. Brian Doyon asked about snow shedding. Planning and Environmental Commission 3 Minutes April 24, 2000 Scott Smith explained snow shedding and that aH sides of the building would have people beneath the roof. Brian Doyon said the shedding would fall into the plaza area, but said there were areas of less use in the winter. Diane Golden asked about the square footage to get a sense of the size. Otis ©dell said tg,Of)0 -2g,a00 sq. ft., with a footprint of 75©0 sq. ft. Diane Golden asked why the kitchen was so far away from the room in the pavilion. John Schofield asked haw many people would be seated. Otis ©defl said 15g people could be seated. Doug Cahill asked about the position of the Learning Center and the Pavilion. He asked about evening sun into the Pavilion. Scott Smith said there would be meetings in the daytime and evening. Lynn Fritzlen asked about the imagability of the building and that it had an ecclesiastic feeling without a feel of a public focus. She said the roof was going to dominate the building and maybe should have more penetrations and amamentations. Scutt Smith said the intent was not a church and said the roof had been lifted far more vertical. He said there would be other opportunities far breaking up the roof. He said the roof would be layered almost like origami. Galen Aasland said dropping the snow on the plazas would be a mistake and we need some alternatives suggested to us, as we need to shed over doors and not into the public plazas. Jim Morten suggested shedding onto another layered roof, or out past the walkway. Brian Doyan said the snow could shed into the landscaped areas. Bill Pierce said the real negative would be 2D' high banks of snow. He said he didn't like the trash pickup as the first thing you saw and from the public's perception there were big blank walls, rather than people walking around. John Schofield said he was concerned about the 16' rock wall being too large. He said the internal landscaping would have to break up the asphalt and with the parking this close to the stream, we need to have kayak access. He said the bathroom facilities access needs to be easier to find. He said he would like to see some foot and vehicular traffic generation figures. He said two soccer games, a gymnastic event and wedding could easily be going on at the same time on a Saturday afternoon. He said he would like to see alternatives on the pedestrian bridge, as it is so close to the existing bridge and he would like to see numbers on the amount of seating in the pavilion, as well as landscaping numbers. He said he assumed there would be an ice field on the soccer field. He would like snow storage or removal addressed. He said he agreed with E3iil on the trash enclosure, needing something mare centrally located. Diane Golden asked if the pavilion had privacy for a wedding. She said she agreed with John's comments, and would like a second sheet of ice and a larger kitchen. Chas Bernhardt said it should be able to be expanded on in the future. Planning and Environmental Commission 4 Minutes April 24, 2400 Clark Brittain said the DRB was concerned with the aesthetics and was favorably impressed with the presentation. He said the care taken to integrate the building into the site was impressive. He said the rock wall could be a thing of beauty and had to be there for the parking lot to exist, but he felt it was a pleasing backdrop. He said he liked the building undulating dawn on the site and had no problem with the building taking on an ecclesiastical air, or temple in the forest. Bil! Pierce sold the roofs could be stepped mare to break. up the massing and said he was also favorably disposed to the big wall, as it was a very nice creative to screen the autos. Fio Habenicht said the kitchen area shouldn't be stuck back in the corner. She compared the pavilion with the Eagle Vail Pavilion with its wonderful deck. She said she felt too much was being put in there, Doug Cahill said people would track the shortest distance between A and B and to make the streamside path mare attractive. He said the snow shed issue was a very big issue and there should be no areas snowshedding into the public areas. He asked if there was ample parking for families in the soccer field and play areas. Ethan Moore said there were 1 ~ parking spaces and compared to ether parks in Tawn. Doug Cahill said it was a safety issue to buffer the play area and he asked about phasing. Otis Odell said they focused on the outdoor area and future expansion would reduce outdoor space . Brian Doyan said the path system needed to work without crisscrossing. He said he would like to see more boulder terrace walls bringing in seating areas for intimate spaces. He too agreed with John to break up the asphalt areas and said this was a great opportunity to use the creek as a water park, since the natural features were already in place. He said he would like the roof forms broken up as they are large expanses with no character. He said he would like to see a landscape plan and an the 2:1 slopes from the basketball court, need boulders to create a seating amphitheater. He said they needed to focus people into areas with landscaping and a snow storage plan far final review would be required. Galen Aasland agreed with Brian. He suggested smaller dormers aver the roofs and agreed with BiE1 regarding the blank walls. He said he would like to see a landscaping plan and wonderful bridge. Jim Mortar said conceptually, this was quite strong, but the materials, though wonderful, would be vastly. 4. A minor GC1 exterior alteration, to allow for a residential addition, located at 223 Gore Greek Drive #3JGreekside Condominiums, Block 56, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Phil & Kay Talalai, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 5. West Vail Lodge - A worksession to discuss a proposed height variance (Section 12-7D- B, Tawn of Vail Cade), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof ridge, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)ITract C, Vaii dos Schane #1;Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail dos 5chone #3. Applicant: l~eaui Corporation Planner Brent Wilson Planning and Environmen#al CammissiQn 5 f~/IinUt25 April 24, 200 Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Lynne Fritzlen said she convinced the client of doing something better. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. Brian Doyon said it was a great improvement but the two towers should be lower by stepping down, especially the one over the entry. He said the entry should be more massive to give the entry more of an entry feeling. Doug Cahill said Brian's idea was great and that this was a better improvement than the last one. He said breaking up the building was great and was captured in the front of the building, but to keep the bulk down as far as possible. Lynn Fritzlen said the entry could be pulled up. Chas Bernhardt said this was a great improvement. Diane Golden said this didn't hurt the views on Chamonix, John Schofield said the zoning created a hardship and this fits and looks good. Galen Aasland said he would like to see an option for shed dormers and to bring them down as low as possible, so that they didn't encroach at all. Lynn Fritzlen said the height was 38' because the grade dropped. She mentioned that none of this could be done, if this had to be in compliance with the height. Galen Aasland said the PEC has always asked for the smallest encroachment. Lynn Fritzlen said it was a G:12 roof so to get a shed dormer we would have to have something 2:12 and would have to start with the ridge, She said they tried for ornamentation on the roof. Galen Aasland said he would like direction from the staff and didn't want to equate this with Crossroads. He said they created their own hardship. Ghas Bernhardt said it doesn't make sense to put in dormers and not use the space. He said it was a hardship due to fire, zoning and annexation. Lynne Fritzlen said Brent would look into the 250 and asked for any other information. Brent Wilson said we need to get a history, as the special privilege was the issue. Brian I~oyon said that if the height was held' to a minimum, then you are holding the standard to a minimum. 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the pavilion roof replacement , additional covered seating areas, addition to "stage left" buildings and a new service area addition to the "stage right" building, located at 54Q Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7`h Filing Ford Park Amphitheater). Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation, represented by Mortar Aker Architects Planner: George Ruther Planning and Environmental Commission 6 Minutes _ April 24, 2000 George Ruttier gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasiand asked if the applicant had anything to add. Jim Mortar introduced Kurt Krieg and summarized the proposal. He explained the new security lighting. Galen Aasiand asked if the bighting would be on all the time. Kurt Krieg said the security lights would be on before the performance, when people try to jump the fence and that step lighting was a safety issue. Jim Morten explained that the east entry was for taking tickets only. John Schofield asked about the bike racks. Jim Mortar explained the replacement of the raised lawn seating with wheelchair seating and 196 fixed seats, Galen Aasiand asked if there was wheelchair access to the new beverage area. Jim Mortar said yes, but there would be no lawn seating for wheelchairs, as we were not required to provide lawn seating for wheelchairs, however, there will be complete visual access to the stage for wheelchairs. He said all 4 seating roofs will be torn down and fabric will be used to plug some of the holes. He said the trusses will be ail taken away and there wiEl be only 7 columns that will not obstruct any views. He said by lowering the stage roof, the violinists will not have the setting sun in their eyes and the new roofs go to the back edge of the walkway, offering much more protection. He said it would still be an outdoor facility and not a foolproof solution, just a $7milGon solution. George Ruttier said now trucks were being used for temporary storage, but if there was storage on site, the trucks could completely unload and leave the site. Kurt Krieg said having trucks on site had been more of a preference for orchestras and it hadn't been a problem for leaving trucks in the back of the house. He said the office will move to right behind the box office and then explained all the office space. He said the improvements were for May to September only. Jim Morten said the plan was not to have any down time for the amphitheater. Brian Doyon asked if you could still see from the top of the grass seating area. Jim Mortar said ail sight lines would be as good or better then they were before. Brian Doyon suggested mimicking the shape of the amphitheater in the beverage area building. Jim Mortar explained that fifteen years ago, the idea was for an abstract building to fit into nature and the flavor will be very much the same. Galen Aasiand asked about ADA parking. Kurt Grieg said shuttle service its provided before and after the performance. Galen Aasiand asked for any public comment. "here was no public comment. Planning and i=nvironmental Commission 7 Minutes April 24, 2000 Jahn Schofield said to get it built. Diane Golden said thank you for enlarging the ladies restroom, but she was not comfortable wish the dumpster being so far away. George Ruttier said it was found during the management plan process, that competing uses with between people and vehicles forced people off the path. He said with a centralized trash facility, it would eliminate paying four times what they could pay for once. He said that was one of the approved capital expenses. Chas Bernhardt said he had. no further comments. Doug Cahill asked if there would be glass sections on the roofs far the horizontal rain. ,Jim Morter said, yes. Doug Cahill asked about the bike paths being traveled with trash haul. Brian ®oyon said he would like to create a niche for bikes that is not so congested, but he said this was a great idea and great plan. Galen Aasland agreed with the dumpster and bike storage and asked how to incorporate art with AIPI'. Jim Morter thought that was a great idea. Galen Aasland said art should be integrated here and the will-call ticket area should be larger as it was a weak point. He suggested landscaping improvements from where you pass the schoolhouse, across the bridge coming from the south. George Ruttier said with same of `he major redevelopments in Town, this might be art opportunity to take the "moved" evergreens from the VAC and Antlers. Galen Aasland asked for a motion. John Schofield made a motion to approve the conditional use permit , n accordance with the sta#f memo and findings and Condition on page 2, with the additional condition that bike storage be addressed and consideration of the suggestions mentioned by the PEC members. Doug Cahill seconded the motion, The motion passed with a vote of $-I~. Galen Aasland suggested forwarding to the DRB, benches for the disabled. 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of I_ot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`x' Flling. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson Brian Doyan recused himself. John Schofield disclosed for the record that his wife was a member of the Board of the Mountain School, but he had no financial interest in this application. Planning and Environmental Commission 8 Minutes April 24, 20{}U Brent VViison gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add, Ned Gwa#hmey summarized the proposal adding the additional classrooms would offer a better environment, He said they would now comply with ADA requirements , He said they were adding a berm, a front entry that defined the school in a better way, straightening out the bike path and offering an easement to the Town for the bus stop. Scott Lindail explained the berm and said they were building the foundations #or Phase I this summer, as the goal was not to have heavy construction during the school year. He said the berm was on a 2:1 slope. Ned Gwathmey explained the auditorium, faculty housing and the master plan. He said they would like to get started on the grading this summer. George Ruther asked what assurance the Town would have that the building would be built after the grading and foundation went in. Ned Gwathmey said in order to do the wall, we would have to have a building permit, so we would probably just grade right now. George Ruther said that Council inquires any time a developer talks about phasing. Ned Gwathmey said by putting in the foundation, the process could be upped by a month. Doug Cahill said he was concerned with the removal of the berm and no construction. Brent Wilson said the Town Engineer would require it be up to safety standards, and asked if the applicant would agree to a bond. Ned Gwathmey said putting in the foundation would lock them into a time frame. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. John Schofield said he was comfortable with the proposal and that a bond would not give us anything more than what we have right now. Diane Golden said she was concemed the drive up to the building, as it was very difficult for people living in that building. Scott t_indall explained the parking and said they tried to avoid parking directly off the road. Ned Gwathmey said they would address that. Chas Bernhardt said he was concerned about the parking. He said Ned brought up the Fire Dept. issues and that the PEC would have to wait on that. He said he wouldn"t have any problem with putting in the retaining wall because it was a safety issue. Doug Cahill said that fire was a concern. He suggested a retaining wall as a landscaping #eature, to be incorporated later, to stabilize the sail when the berm comes out. He asked about the landscaping plan. • Planning and Environmental Commission 9 Minutes April 24, 2000 Galen Aasland said that Condition No 3 needed to be modified. He said after 5 years, two employee housing units would need to be put in, to be treated the same as any other developer. He would like to see the trash concerns be addressed and Diane's concern about the delivery drive-up was right on . Brent Wilson said that all the projections were for 3flfl students as the maximum buildout. He said if the PEC wanted a cap. then that number should be 315 to allow for overflow. He said when we did our staff evaluation, the real trigger for the EHtJ came with the larger scale stuff; the auditorium and the classrooms. Ned Gwathmey said there were 246 students right now. Galen Aasiand said the PEC had to be fair like everyone else. Ned Gwathmey said what you're asking is not unfair. He then suggested within 5 years of the TCO far Phase 1, a minimum of 2 units. Chas Bernhardt asked if it would work for along-term lease. John Schofield made motion in accordance with the findings on page 4 of the staff memo with a modification to Condition No. 4 that at least one Type I!I employee housing unit must be constructed within 5 years of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy (T'GO) for "Phase I" improvements and that if enrollment exceeded 330 students they would have to come back before the PEC. Doug Gahill seconded the motion. Scott Lindail asked if the easement could be reverted' back to the TOV if it was not used by the Mountain School. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 8. A request for a variance from Sections 12-fiH-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 3fl3 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-C/Lot 2, Block 5, Vaii Village 1 s` Riling. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo. She mentioned some corrections under the zoning portion of the memo, that the lot size should be 13, 245 sq. ft., the existing site coverage should be 51.9%, and the proposed site coverage is 52.4 %. She stated that on page 2 of the memo, the condition that the applicant receive approva! from al! relevant utility authorities had been satisfied. She stated that the Condominium Association approval had been received, but needed to be verified and suggested that this be a condition of approval Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Vicki Pearson said she appreciated the efifort that has gone into this. She said it was a benefit to the Town of Vail, as it was the first thing visitors see when crossing the bridge. She said that they pulled in the northeast corner of the turret since the last meeting and the turret would not affect anyone's view corridor. • Planning and Environmental Commission 1fl Minutes April 24, 2440 Ron Diehl, the architect, said #hat since the previous application, the turret had been changed by being bumped out to 1'9" and pulled in 4" to flush it out to the corner so it wouldn't look awkward. Galen Aasland asked if the floor height on the upper level was being taken out. Trion Diehl said, yes. Jahn Schofield asked if the floor plates were equal Vicki Pearson said, yes. Jahn Schofield read the demo/rebuild section of the code. He thought it appeared that this was coming under ademo/rebuild and so it would not be eligible fora 250. Vicki Pearson asked if using the existing shell, would it still be a demo/rebuild. John Schofield said the floor was the key for a demolrebuild. Vicki Pearson said Vail was very important to her and she felt this a creative solution to make it more interesting, Galen Aasland asked far any public comment. Barbara `Welles, a member of the Vail Townhouse Association since 1 X54, said she was representing herself today- She stated there were 12 units in the building, with low turnover. She said the homeowners had operated on a friendly basis, with no disagreements and they don't want to create one now. She said she was concerned with the height and they hadn't seen a floor plan, exterior facade, ar all of the plans. She stated that Vicki, in her letter, claimed she had 50% ownership, but she really had only 40°./° . Galen Aasland asked if native had been provided. Ann Kjeruff said notice was provided to the homeowners, per the Town Code. She then distributed the letter that Vicki wrote to the PEC. Galen Aasland said the PEG's .purview was not to get between the different members of the homeowner's Board. He stated that homeowner board members could write in, or Shaw up at the PEG meeting, but the PEC is not judging nn a percentage basis. Vicki Pearson said that everyone understood the scope. Greta Parks, the owner of unit 6A, stated that this was the first candaminiurn in the state of Colorado and that they had been very careful regarding their strict control of all the bumpauts. She said to have such a departure from the original which would change the whole block would require careful consideration. She said there should be restrictions regarding the mass and materials and she felt the turret had more of a Beaver Greek look. Vicki Pearson said the interior of the unit was not required to be approved by the homeowners and that the DRS would direct us appropriately, as to materials and whatever the DRB tells me to do, I am going to do. She said all the homeowner's decks were designed to look dawn the river east and sa there was no impac# by the turret. She said she was not asking for a variance for height. Ann Kjerulf said the mass in the rear setback needed to be considered. Planning and Environmental Commission 11 Minutes April 24, 2000 Ron Diehl stated the turret was on the west side. Galen Aasland said that mass was part of the PEC purview. Ann Kjeruif clarified that Lot 1 was common space and the request for the side setback would extend the building into the common area 2' beyond the existing shed. She said that all six Pots were considered one lot for zoning purposes. Galen Aasland said the common area was an issue among the Association John Schofield said that the Tvwn of Vail was not a party to this and cannot enforce or deny. Ron Diehl said they could maintain the 8' plate height to resolve the condo percentage issue and mass issue. 6rent Wilson stated the way this had been handled in the past was the requirement of a demo plan and this could be taken care of at the DRB and staff level. Barbara Wailes, the owner of GB, stated the proposal from staff and the applicant were different. John Schofield asked if any variance had been granted before. Ann Kjeruif said staff had reviewed uses in adjacent areas and that Lot 11 and Lot 13 were granted variances in the past . She gave the rationalization of approving variances because the overlying zoning made the structure non-conforming. Brian Doyon said it was tough to grant this without it being a grant of special privilege. He said he had na problem with the height or mass, but as far as the bumpouts in the setbacks, he did have a problem, since the applicant was asking fora 250. Ann Kjeruif explained the demo0rebuild would be considered new construction and that the applicant would need to conform which would not be possible under current development standards. Brian Doyon said the bumpouts were a big problem because the adjacent property owners had a problem with the turret. He said the creek corridor setback was serious and sv he was not in favor of the of the bumpouts in the rear setback. He said he had no problem with the deck in the side setback, but he would not be in favor of it going into the rear setback. Ann Kjeruif stated that Lot 13 already had been granted a variance for a deck in the rear setback. Brian Doyon said he would then be in favor of it. Doug Gahill said he was in favor of the side setback, but would he not like to see it going into the rear setback. He fait the rear deck was ok, as people should enjoy it as it was gorgeous. ('-le said the willows and wetlands should be delineated with proper fencing proper during construction. Again, he said he was not in favor of the rear setback, but everything else was fine. Chas Bernhardt said the back setback didn't infringe into the 50' creek setback. He said the setback doesn't infringe upon anything and he didn't see this as an infringement and the benefits outweighed the negatives. Diane Golden abstained from commenting due to her absence during this discussion, She felt comfortable in agreeing with her fellow Commissioners comments. Planning and Environmental Commission 12 klllinutes April 2#, 2000 John Schofield asked if the Lot lines 1-6 were deeded and filed.. Ann Kjerulf stated that Lots 1-G were deeded as one and Lots 7-13~ were deeded separately. John Schofield said there was no easy answer. He said from a purely technical standpoint that this was not a grant of special privilege, since other variances had been granted in the area and a variance was warranted as a hardship, since this was built under prior zoning and rezoned. He said he had no problem with the side setback. He said the applicant would lose some GRFA, but by pulling it back in, they could get the turret. He said he was not in favor of the rear bumpouts, but he had no problem with. the deck in the rear setback. He said the 50% rule was in effect which would limit it and he encouraged a good architect to be creative. He ti-Sen suggested tabling this to take a hard soak at this. Galen Aasland said he agreed with John_ He said he really felt that the applicant could do this tower by pushing it back and fiat roofs inside. He said the 1'G" that you're asking for was self- created and a special privilege. He summarized the majority of the PEG were going to support this, but the tower will be iffy. Ron Diehl asked if a#ter pulling the Tower back, could they keep the bumpout on the third level in the rear. Vicki Pearson asked if they pull in the turret and not have the two bay windows, could the last GRFA then be added on the streetside. Galen Aasland said you would not be asking for anything additional. Ann Kjerulf said the tower would be adding bulk in the setback and needed a variance. Ron Diehl asked to put a window dormer in the back which wouldn't exceed the shell. Galen Aasland took a straw poll: Brian Doyon, yes; Doug Cahill, yes; Chas Bernhardt, yes; Diane Golden abstained; John Schofield, yes; Galen Aasland, yes. Barbara 1Nelfes summarized that it was obvious that the turret was not objectionable,. but she said it was inappropriate. John Schofield said the look and finish would be a DRB issue and the PEG was concerned only with the bulk and mass. Brian Doyon said the PEC would not be passing judgement on the look. ` Daug Cahill asked that a study be conducted to delineate the wetlands and that the Corp of Engineers determine how to protect the wetlands, if necessary. Jahn Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memorandum with the findings on page b of the staff memo with the following conditions; 1. That no GRFA may be added horizontally beyond the building envelope into the rear setback. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant have a wetlands study conducted and most receive approval from the Army Carps of Engineers for renovation activities in the rear setback, if necessary. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-a-1 with Diane Golden abstaining. Ptlanning and Environmental Commission 13 Minutes April 24, 20p0 9. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6D-9 (Site Coverage), 12-6D-8 (Density} and 12-6D_5 Setbacks), Town Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower Drive/Lot 6, 131ock 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant; Alan & Francine Peters Planner; Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY It, 2000 1 a. Information Update Town Council joint worksession with the PEC on May 2"d in the Town Council Chambers, at 1 p.m. The purpose of the meeting its to discuss philosophy related to development review projects and how to coordinate between the two boards. One two-year term PEC vacancy-jTom Weber). PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB EQR 2000- Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Diane Golden John Schofield Jan-Apr. 5, 'aa Apr 19, 'aa May 3 May 19 Apr-Jun '00 Jul-Sep 'aa Oct-Dec `aa 11. Approve! of April 10, 2Od0 minutes. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to approve the minutes as read. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0-2, with Diane Golden and Doug Cahill abstaining. John Schofield made a motion to adjourn. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-a. The meeting adjourned at a:aa p.m. ~J • Planning and Environmental Gomrnissipn 14 Minutes April 24, 2Qt70