The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-0508 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the T6ttrof+.�.D Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on May 8, 2000, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a side setback variance from Section 12 -6d -6 of the Town Code and a site coverage variance from Section 12 -6D -9 of the Town Code, to allow for a residential addition within setbacks and in excess of allowable site coverage, located at 1007 Eagles Nest Circle /Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7" Filing, Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a front setback variance from Section 12 -6D -6 of the Town Code, to allow for an additon, located at 2865 Snowberry Drive /Lot 2, Block 9, A resub of Lots 2 & 3 B, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Clive Reeman and Louise Randall, represented by Railton McEvoy Architects Planner: Allison Ochs A worksession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendement to Section 12 -7B -18 (Location of Business Activity), which would allow for mobile information dissemination within the CCI Zone District on public property. Applicant: VVTCB Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the creation of a community garden, to be located at 2450 S. Frontage Road /Unplatted, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 124 E. Meadow Drive/Village Center Condominiums Building B /Lot 5E, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Burt Nordstrand Planner: Ann KJerulf A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #2, to allow for the addition of common area between Buildings D &E, located at Buildings D &E, 600 Vail Valley Drive /A part of Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Northwoods, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6D -9 (Site Coverage), 12 -6D -8 (Density) and 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Town Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower Drive /Lot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TOWN OFVA& � 1 West Vail Lodge — A request for a 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 Schone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail das Schone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson Final review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I & A, Block 513, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau Planner: Brent Wilson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 - 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published April 21, 2000 in the Vail Trail. • .0 1 r 1 U • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, May 8, 2000 AGENDA Project Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Reeman /Randall -- 2865 Snowberry Drive 2. Community Garden — 2450 S. Frontage Rd. 3. Ferry —1007 Eagles Nest Circle 4. Whitewater Park —Gore Creek Promenade Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers p*FO 11:30 p.m. 12:30 p.m. 2 :00 p.m. A request for a side setback variance from Section 12 -6D -6 of the Town Code and a site coverage variance from Section 12 -6D -9 of the Town Code, to allow for a residential addition within setbacks and in excess of allowable site coverage, located at 1007 Eagles Nest Circle /Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson 2. A request for a front setback variance from Section 12 -6D -6 of the Town Code, to allow for an additon, located at 2865 Snowberry Drive /Lot 2, Block 9, A resub of Lots 2 & 3 B, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Clive Reeman and Louise Randall, represented by Railton McEvoy Architects Planner: Allison Ochs 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 124 E. Meadow Drive /Village Center Condominiums Building B /Lot 5E, Vail Village it Filing. Applicant: Burt Nordstrand Planner: Ann Kjerulf 41 149, OF PAIL '011 4. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #2, to allow for the addition of common area between Buildings D &E, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive /A part of Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Northwoods„ represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Planner: Allison Ochs 5. A request for a height variance (Section 12 -7D -6, Town of Vail Code), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof, located at 2211 N_ Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)/Tract C, Vail das Schone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail das Schone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the creation of a community garden, to be located at 2450 S. Frontage Road /Unplatted, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A final review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts 1 & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau & Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 8. A worksession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendment to Section 12 -7B -18 (Location of Business Activity), which would allow for mobile information dissemination within the CCI Zone District on public property. Applicant: VVTCB Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 22, 2000 9. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6D -9 (Site Coverage), 12 -6D -8 (Density) and 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Town Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower Drive /Lot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 22, 2000 10. Information Update One two -year term PEC vacancy —(Tom Weber). 11. Approval of April 24, 2000 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public Inspection during regular office hours in the project planners office 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 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community development Department Published May 5, 2000 in the Vail Trail 2 is C PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Is PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, May 8, 2000 MEETING RESULTS Proiiect Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Diane Golden Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Site Visits : 12:30 p.m. 1. Reeman /Randall — 2865 Snowberry Drive 2. Community Garden — 2450 S. Frontage Rd. 3. Ferry -1007 Eagles Nest Circle 4. Whitewater Park —Gore Creek Promenade Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6 :00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a side setback variance from Section 12 -6D -6 of the Town Code and a site coverage variance from Section 12 -6D -9 of the Town Code, to allow for a residential addition within setbacks and in excess of allowable site coverage, located at 1007 Eagles Nest Circle /Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon APPROVED — SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon DENIED —SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE • VOTE: 5 -0 (Aasland recused) VOTE: 5 -0 (Aasland recused) *L- TOWN 4 a • ,7 2. A request for a front setback variance from Section 12 -6D -6 of the Town Code, to allow for an additon, located at 2865 Snowberry Drive /Lot 2, Block 9, A resub of Lots 2 & 3 B, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Clive Reeman and Louise Randall, represented by Railton McEvoy Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 4 -2 (Bern hardt/CahilI opposed) DENIED 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 124 E. Meadow Drive /Village Center Condominiums Building B /Lot 5E, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Burt Nordstrand Planner: Ann Kjerulf MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED 4. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #2, to allow for the addition of common area between Buildings D &E, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive /A part of Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing Applicant: Northwoods, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED 5. A request for a height variance (Section 12 -7D -6, Town of Vail Code), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)/Tract C, Vail das Schone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail das Schone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 1 RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the DRB in their final review look at the dormer and tower elements. 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the creation of a community garden, to be located at 2450 S. Frontage Road /Unplatted, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5 -0 (Bernhardt recused) TABLED UNTIL MAY 22, 2000 2 0 40 7. A final review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade /Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau & Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5 -1 (Doyon opposed) APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant will coordinate the timing of construction of the project with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to ensure trout spawning activities will not be negatively impacted. 2. That proper signage, benches, picnic tables, trash, kayak carriers on bus transportation be addressed. 8. A worksession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendment to Section 12 -7B -18 (Location of Business Activity), which would allow for mobile information dissemination within the CCI Zone District on public property. Applicant: VVTCB Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 22, 2000 9, A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6D -9 (Site Coverage), 12 -6D -8 (Density) and 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Town Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower Drive /Lot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 22, 2000 10. Information Update One two -year term PEC vacancy— (Tom Weber). 11. Approval of April 24, 2000 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planners office 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 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance (Section 12 -6D -6, Vail Town Code) and a site coverage variance (Section 12 -6D -9, Vail Town Code), to allow for a residential addition within setbacks and in excess of allowable site coverage, located at 1007 Eagles Best Circle /Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7`h Filing. Applicant: Kaye Ferry. represented by RKD, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Kathleen Ferry, is requesting a variance to allow for a residential addition with site coverage in excess (349 square feet) of what is allowed under the Town's Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential zoning regulations. The zoning for the above- referenced property allows a site coverage of 20% of total site area (3,188 square feet). The applicant is proposing a site coverage of 22.2% of total site area (3,537 square feet). Site coverage requirements for lots in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District are described in Section 12 -6D -9, Town of Vail Code. The applicant's representative has expressed the reasoning for the variance request under Exhibit A (attached). The applicant is proposing an addition to the southeast portion of the residence and the addition of a two --car garage and office space to the north of the existing unit. The applicant's unit (constructed in the late 1960's) currently has no formally designated off - street parking. On June 24t° of last year, staff granted the applicant an approval for a temporary unpaved off - street parking area. Ms. Ferry's unit is currently required to provide three on -site parking spaces but there is no requirement that any of these spaces be enclosed. 213 square feet of site coverage is currently available on site (enough for one 11' x 19' garage space) and the applicant is proposing to construct a 477 square foot two -car garage and additional second -level office space. (totaling 487 square feet of site coverage). Available site coverage under code provisions = 213 square feet Minimum one-car garage size (9' x 18') = 162 square feet Site coverage proposed for addition and two -car garage = 487 square feet f`O4YN OF VAIL % On October 11, 1999, the PEC voted unanimously (Doug Cahill absent, Galen Aasland abstaining) to deny a previous similar request on this property based on the following findings: 1. That the granting of the site coverage variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, 2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that Planning and Environmental Commission deny the applicant's site coverage variance request subject to the following findings: That the granting of the site coverage variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. The Community Development Department staff recommends that Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's side setback variance request subject to the following findings: That the granting of the site coverage variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary setback circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. • The difference between the two staff recommendations is due to the fact that the setback encroachment is a pre - existing condition while the site coverage variance is requested due to new construction and not an outstanding site hardship, non - conformity, or adverse condition. III. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES - VARIANCE Order of Review; Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of the proposed variance and then by the DRB for compliance of proposes' buildings and site planning.. Planning and Environmental Commission: ACTION: THE PEC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL APPROVAL/DENIAL 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 necessar/ to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: ACTION: THE DRB HAS NO REVIEW AUTHORITY ON A VARIANCE, BUT MUST REVIEW ANY ACCOMPANYING DRB APPLICATION- The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRIB 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 - Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on -site Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, 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 IV. V. 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. 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 DRS erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. ZONING AND SITE STATISTICS Zoning District: Primary/Secondary Residential District Lot Size_ 15,942 square feet (.366 acres) Minimum Required Lot Size: 15,000 square feet Standard_ _ Allowed /Required _ _ Proposed Site Coverage Setbacks Front (Ferry) Side Front (Repetti) Parking (Ferry) 3,188 sq. ft. (20 %) 20 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 3 spaces 3,537 SCI. ft. (22.2 %) 20 ft. (per ILC) 13.3 ft. ** (per ILC) / 26 ft. no change 3 spaces * Includes a credit of 250 square feet for the Ferry Residence. * Existing setback encroachment CRITERIA AND FINDINGS — SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Site Coverage Variance: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the proposed garage is excessive and deviates from the zone district regulations more than is reasonable or necessary. There is no requirement for enclosed parking on this site — it is simply an amenity requested by the applicant. With the major structural changes proposed in conjunction with this project, staff believes some of the proposed GRFA could be reduced to accommodate a larger garage. Additionally, the transfer of existing basement GRFA to a new exterior addition above the proposed garage further exacerbates the site coverage non - conformity. Staff believes any hardship created with this proposal is self- imposed. There is enough site coverage available to the applicant to construct a modest garage. 4 • LJ The proposed residential addition impacts a number of mature trees on the property which serve as a buffer to adjacent properties. At their July 21, 1999 meeting, the Town's Design Review Board gave the applicant direction to preserve the mature trees and to pursue parking options on other portions of the site. Staff believes this request for additional site coverage further expands impacts on existing vegetation. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes an approval of the requested site coverage variance would result in a grant of special privilege. Variance requests for garage additions on adjacent properties have been denied in the past. Staff believes there are no unique circumstances, nor any extraordinary conditions (such as wetlands/Water features, excessive slopes, etc.) which impact the applicant's lot. The maximum site coverage allowed on the applicant's lot is 20 %_ All required off - street parking could be provided on the site without a variance. Since this neighborhood was subdivided in the 1960's under Eagle County jurisdiction, 68% of all lots in this area are non- conforming with regard to lot size. However, all structures built in this neighborhood (since the adoption of zoning regulations) are in compliance with site coverage provisions. The two exceptions (Lots 1 & 3, Vail Village Filing 8) were constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations on non- conforming lots (lots less than 15,000 st). The applicant's lot is conforming (with a lot size of 15,942 sf). A site coverage variance request for Lot 3 (the applicant's neighbor) was denied on 9122197. In their denial of this request, the PEC stated "the granting of a site coverage variance at this location would constitute a grant of special privilege." The following table summarizes site coverage allocations for the applicant's lot and 24 other properties within the adjacent subdivisions. • Table 4. f —Site Coverage Allocations for adjacent properties Lot Block Subdivision Site Coverage Site Coverage Variances / Lot Size 1 6 Vail Village Filing 7 22.2 %* current Ferry variance request / conforming lot (15,942 sf) Tract C Vail Village Filing 7 17.80% none/ conforming lot (19,602 sf) 2 6 Vail Village Filing 7 19.20% none / conforming lot (19,480 sf) 3 6 Vail Village Filing 7 data not available none 1 non - conforming lot (14,087 sf) 4 6 Vail Village Filing 7 19.90'% none / non - conforming lot (11,717 sf) 5 6 Vail Village Filing 7 12.60% none / non- conforming lot (11,986 sf) 6 6 Vail Village Filing 7 data not available none/ conforming lot (17,425 sf) 7 6 Vail Village Filing 7 19.60% none / nonconforming lot (11,962 sf) 8 6 Vail Village Filing 7 19.600% none 1 non - conforming lot (11,962 sf) 9 6 Vail Village Filing 7 data not available none/ non - conforming iot (13,622 sf) 10 6 Vail Village Filing 7 data not available none I non - conforming lot (13,530 sf) 11 6 Vail Village Filing 7 data not available none / conforming lot (22,259 sf) 12 6 Vail Village Filing 7 15.90% none / conforming lot (16,045 sf) 13 6 Vail Village Filing 7 13.10%4 none f non - conforming lot (12,824 sf) 14 6 Vail Village Filing 7 19.90% none I conforming lot (23,479 sf) 1 1 Vail Village Filing 8 23.70% *yes, pre- existing / non - conforming lot (91,322 sf) 2 1 Vail Village Filing 8 17% none / non - conforming lot (9,808 sf) 3 1 Vail Village Filing 8 21'°% *pre - existing; add'I site coverage variance denied (9/22/97) / non - conforming lot (11,535 sf) 4 1 Vail Village Filing 8 19.30 %a none f non- conforming lot (11,494 sf) 5 1 Vail Village Filing 8 18,80 %, none I non- conforming lot (7,880 sf) 6 1 Vail Village Filing 8 data not available none/ non- conforming lot (13,147 sf) 7 1 Vail Village Filing 8 20 % none / non- conforming lot (8,969 sf) 8 1 1 Vail Village Filing 8 19.60 %m none I non - conforming lot (8,934 sf) 9 1 Vail Village Filing 8 data not available none / non - conforming lot (10,637 sf) 10 1 Vail Village Filing 8 19.50% none / conforming lot (18,097 sf) Lots listed in bold type indicate deviations from site coverage regulations. "data not available" indicates structures built prior to planning /zoning regulation. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe there would be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above - referenced criteria. B. The Pla_nninq and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before chanting a site coverage variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6 0 • • • 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS -- SETBACK VARIANCE A_ Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variance: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant proposes to add additional gross residential floor area to the second level of the existing unit. The footprint of the addition would match the existing first -level floor below. Since the existing exterior wall currently encroaches (1.7') into the side setback, an identical addition to the floor above will require a setback variance. One could argue that with the proposed scope of redevelopment it might be feasible to remove the existing setback encroachment. Given the configuration of the house as a whole, however, staff believes this request is reasonable and would provide the applicant with a structure that is consistent and compatible with adjacent uses and structures. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The subject property was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations in the Town of Vail. The structure became non - conforming only after the Town applied Primary /Secondary zoning in 1977. The minor setback encroachment at this corner of the property has existed since the building's inception (unlike the proposed garage /office addition) and staff believes the request for a second -level addition above the existing footprint is reasonable. 3. The effect of the requested population, transportation utilities, and public safety. 7 variance on light and air, distribution of and traffic facilities, public facilities and Staff does not believe there would be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above - referenced criteria. • B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following_ findings before ctranting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 0 9 0 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP, SUITE 3 -17 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • April 10, 2000 Town of Vail Department of Community Development Planning and Environmental Commission 111 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Brent Wilson Re: 1007 Eagles Nest Circle, Parcel B Brent, We are submitting this project to the PEC for consideration of a side setback variance and a site coverage variance for a 2 -car garage. We are also applying for an additional 250 sf as granted by the Town code. In consideration for the two variances listed above, I believe that an approval is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The side setback is an existing legal non omforming condition that occurred once the parcel was annexed into the town and the zoning regulations applied. The proposed addition will not encroach any more than the existing house and is important to maintain the character and compatibility with the existing house. 2. The site coverage variance is to aflow for a 2 -car garage. The hardship to add a garage is that the original house was designed and built without the current site coverage regulations and did not include a garage. The subsequent county zoning also did not require off- street parking, which still does not exist today. Currently there is 213 sf site coverage available, we are adding 562 sf, which leaves 349 sf that will need a variance. We believe that the strict literal interpretation of the code would deprive this owner of the privilege enjoyed by other owners in the neighborhood. Furthermore, we believe that an approval for both variances would not constitute a grant of special privilege simply because the house existed before the Town of Vail and was not allowed to conform to the current regulation as currently written. The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to public safety; in fact, this proposal will alleviate the serious problem of on- street parking that exists today. Please call me if you have any questions or require adc: Tonal material. IVAAJ Thomas Weber Architect RKD, Inc. PHONE: (970) 476 -9228 FAX: (970) 476 -9023 EMAIL: RKD@RKDARCH'.COM 03/29/1995 15:39 7138771759 S RUTHERF ❑RD PAGE 01 Susan Repettl Rutherford 34M Ella Lee Lane Houston. Texas 77027 May 1, 2000 Town Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81+637 Re: Application of Kaye Ferry - May 8, 2000 hearing Dear Commimioners: I am the owner of 100 1 Vail Valley Drive (Parcel A), the other half of the duplex owned by Kaye Ferry (parcel 3). The lot is also divided into a third area known as Parcel C which is jointly owned by both Ms. Ferry and myself. Parcel C consists of the open space around the current building. The requested site coverage variance involves Farrel C though the Ferry application does not indicate this. For the record, i have told Ms. Ferry that 1 am not opposed to making permanent, her four temporary parking spaces that she applied for and received last summer_ I oppose this variance request for the same reason l opposed the last three variance requests_ Her most recent request is merely a slightly modified version of the previous site coverage requests that Ms. Ferry has submitted and that have already been unanimously rejected on three occasions. In June, 1999, Ms. Ferry submitted plans calling for a 413 square foot site coverage variance but those plans were- rejected and the application was tabled by the PEC at the July 26, 1999 hearing. She then modified her plans but the modified version still called for a 415 square foot site coverage variance and the modified plans — being reduced by only 3 square feet -- were again rejected by the PEC on October 11, 1999, Ms. Ferry appealed the PFC's findings and the Town Council upheld the PEC's decision at a hearing oa November 2, 1999. Ms. Ferry's third set of plans currently under consideration, while reducing the square footage of the variance requested, still asks for an additional 349 square Forst site coverage variance, In verbal communication with 'rown planning personnel just last year, I mentioned the possibility of a 14 square foot site coverage variance in connection with my side of the building. I was informed that such a variance would not he approved. Consequently, 1 did not request such a variance, The F'EC committee member's comments from the July 26, 1999 and Oct. 11, 1999, hearings in connection with Ms. Fcrry's prior requests, still apply today. I quote from the minutes of these hearings: "This is clearly a grant ofspecial privilege." "__.still doesn't see how the house is a hardship, as the other homes in the neighborhood were built in the 60's," "... this was a grant of special privilege and said the applicant was making it hard for themselves by putting the garage where it is now_" ... this was a self inflicted hardship." "... this was a grant of special privilege, since nothing had been presented that the lot had any unique problems or hardships and the other two requests in the last couple ofyears had been denied." W • 03/29/1995 15:39 7138771759 S RUTHERFORD PAGE 82 Your PIEC committee member's comments still apply to this latest version of the site coverage variance. We have all gone over this before, I ask you to stop the recycling of this same site coverage variance request. This is a waste of the Town's time and money. In conclusion, it is iimporiant for the committee to remember that I am a tenant in common with Ms_ Ferry of a portion of the property at issue, specifically Parcel C -- the land surrounding the present duplex structure. The site coverage variance that M&_ Ferry is requesting is on property in which 1 own a one half undivided interest —yet Ms. Ferry is cont(nuing to ignore me. I did not co -sign the variance application nor did I give my approval to Ms. Ferry for these plans. 1 do not want this 349 square foot site coverage variance to be granted which would result in overbuilding of the lot. Thank you once again for your consideration. cc: Mrs. Ann Repetti Mr. Art Abplwwlp • • r Very Truly 7 ours, '0412412000 12.13 9419491812 CHANDELLE VEq URES I PAGE 82/03 9415481012 Chandelle "Ventures Inc. April 24, 200a Mr. Brent Wilson Town of Vail, Colorado Department of Community Dcvaloprnent 75 South Frontage koad Fail, CO 81657 ... VIA- FA,CSINME: (9170) 479 -2452 Dear Mr. Wilson: I xenain totally opposed to the gjrmting of the variances rMumted by Kay Ferry on her property that borders my home at 967 Vail Valley Drive. Such varianc¢s will adversely aff=t the privacy of =d views frorxr my property. Cozusequen*, approval of her requested variances will reduce: the valrnc of my proPertY- 1 Enclose a copy of my prcvi.ous opposition to hcz variance west. X was unsucccssful in obtaiuiug a variance that was unopposed and would have provided more green space on the common border with the Ferry property. To now be subj ccted to encroaclvo =t on the limited space between the properties as a result of it special privileged variance for her would be grossly nn to =. 0, w _ I P I, I $ 4 . —odd . DBA/an Enclosure 24311 Warn Center Drive •Bonita Springs, F. 34134 (941) 948 -1010 -Fax: (941) 948 - 1012 -e -mail: den a[�waldenrmn 2 /T'd T90ofJ OSTW_T22ZE+ dIaO1SH _OiOH GT:ET 00Q2'?AU"Su I, • • • • -,"4 Oerober 05, 1999 ALE VENTURLS I 9419401012 Chandeue Ventures Inc. Ms. Brent Wilson Town of Vail, Colorado Department of Cornmunity Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ivir. Wilson: I am writing to object t4 the variance rcauest dated October 1, 1999 regarding the following: KAY FERRY RESTD):NCE, LOT 1, PARCEL B, BU LDLNG 6, VAIL VILLAGE FILING 7,1007 EAGLES NEST CICRCLE,'VAII., COLORADO, $16570 FAGS M /0:3 I am the owner of an adjacent lot to the west of the subicct property, Before 1 const[ucted my home at 967 Vail Valley Drive I requested, a set back valiance to provide mare separation for ray mouse fmm the cart path and the subject two party building. In spite of my neighbors support of ' this request and no adverse affect on any patty I was denied a variance on the Basis that this would be "special privilege." Tae Present variance request iner ses the aoverW beyond that allowable and increases the GfiFA by 250 square fret, variances far more significant than my simple request for set back relief. Y obi ect to this special privilege request for additional building on the subj cct Iot which I believe will detract from my views and the value of my home. Sincerely, on E. fakerman President DEA/an 24311 Walden Ceatrr Drive - Boiuta Springs6 1?L 34134 ('941) 948 - 1010 -Puz (941) 948-1012 - a -m2si: dea@wWdestu.edu ---- 2i2'd- .— T905M - -- OSTTZi222E+ UIaO15H `1310H 6i:Et 0002'�JAWS2 Is 01/0211994 20:05 9704769023 RKD PAGE 02 , � r • • 4 01/02/1994 20:05 9704769023 f RKA RAGE 03 lead IL S as t- • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance from Section 12 -6D -6 of the Town Code, to allow for an addition, located at 2865 Snowberry Drive /Lot 2, - Block 9, A Resubdivision of Lots 2 & 3 B, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Clive Reeman and Louise Randall, represented by Railton McEvoy Architects Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RE UEST The applicants, Clive Reeman and Louise Randall, are requesting a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Town Code, to allow for a residential addition into the front setback. The Reeman /Randall residence received final Design Review Board approval in December of 1995. It is built on a lot with steep slopes, and is therefore subject to Chapter 12 -21 (Hazard Regulations) of the Town Code. The restrictions on lots with excessive slopes (over 30 %) include allowing 15% site coves0p and allowing garages in the front sz0bPck. The proposal includes the following: 32 sq. ft. of GRFA addition to the library 37.1 sq. ft. addition to the garage 31.5 sq. ft. of GRFA addition to the exercise room The variance is required only for the addition to the exercise room. As proposed, approximately 4 sq. ft. of site coverage is added within the front setback, reducing the front setback to approximately 18.7 ft. According to the applicant's application, two hardships exist which make this variance necessary: "The snow accumulation and associated danger and inconvenience for guests entering the house would be considerably improved The house could have a small addition to the habitable area built in the only economic location on the site. Other locations at the sides or rear would be very expensive to construct, destructive of the existing landscape, and aesthetically less harmonious with the architectural design of the house." The applicant's entire letter describing the request has been attached for reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested setback variance subject to the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the following, 1F l� TOWN OF PAIL findings: 1. That the granting of the setback variances does constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulations does not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town Code or the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. There are no exceptions nor extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, 4. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. III. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES The Planning and Environmental Commission 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 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, Action: The ORB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying ORB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on -site 6_ Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 2 0 9. Provision of fencing, wails, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances fa 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting IV. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 17,028 sq. ft. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Standard Allowed GRFA: 4803 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. (garage allowed in setback) Sides: 15 ft. /15 ft. Rear: 15 ft. Site Coverage: 2554 ft. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: Proposed 3301 sq. ft. 18.7 ft. existing is 20 ft. 22 ft)19.5 ft. 60+ ft. 2169 sq. ft. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Because of the nature of the request, staff does not believe that the variance request will have any detrimental effects on other uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff feels that this request qualifies as a grant of special privilege. The 20 ft. minimum setback requirement is uniformly applied to all properties in the Primary /Secondary Zone district . Any deviation, regardless of size, must meet the variance criteria outlined in this memo. The house was built under current zoning regulations which allowed for the garage to be built in the front setback without receiving a variance (Section 12- 21 -14K). However, no GRFA is allowed in the front setback. According to the applicant's letter of variance request, this variance is necessary because of snow accumulation at the entrance to the house. Staff believes this to be a self- imposed hardship and that many solutions exist which would not require a variance from code. For example, roof overhangs are allowed to project into a setback up to 4 ft. An extension of the roof overhang without the addition of GRFA would alleviate the snow shedding problem. 3 f ZZ cr (1), 4 Noma omme i C2 Ej a m 1 co CD d$ _ co �Q \ � N\ N \ a q . and \ i'ppi gg m i`T t > Go Ln Q Z - N nnO W cn �M1 I I y �_ + I j ' i I i- � i '' � � j f �, � I a � I ,.j I i.� � � i a � 1 � t � 1 I REEMAN RANDALL RESIDENCE LOT C a resub of LOTS 2& 3 BLOCK 9 VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION 2865 SNOWBERRY DRIVE VARIANCE REQUEST This request is for an addition to a single family residence built in 1996. The variance is for an intrusion of 4 sq.ft of habitable area into the front setback. The variance is necessary for the following reasons: • The roof is redesigned over an existing front portion of the house to shed snow to the rear of the house and eliminate snow falling and collecting at the entrance to the house. • The redesign includes an extension to the existing house to expand the home office /library and to convert the existing library into an expanded exercise room, The roof design is necessary to provide ceiling height for these additions. • This addition provides an expanded porch area below the habitable area. The porch provides improved snow protection at the bottom of the entrance stairway. • The existing entrance stairway, tree locations, and extensive landscape do not provide a practical alternative location for this addition and the porch below. • The additions to the habitable spaces result in a roof form that can only slope to the rear. This provides a tall front wall which aesthetically requires a roofed projecting addition to repeat the gable roof design of other elevations of the building. • The steepness of the lot and the existing location of the building on the lot do not provide easy to build options for expanding the habitable area of this building. This is a single family residence built on a duplex lot and with the proposed additio,i provides for the following. • Allowable GRFA 4803 sq.ft • Provided GRFA 3265 sq.ft It is an underdevelopment of the lot. Two hardships exist which would be eliminated by granting this variance: • The snow accumulation and associated danger and inconvenience for guests entering the house would be considerable improved. • The house could have a small addition to the habitable area (which is considerably less than the allowable GRFA) built in the only economic location on the site. Other locations at the sides or rear would be very expensive to construct, destructive of the existing landscape, and aesthetically less harmonious with the architectural design of the house. The variance does not relate to other existing uses or structures in the vicinity. It does not effect the view, light or sunlight for adjacent structures. • We do not believe special privilege is involved. The Town of Vail grants front setback variances for habitable area to be built within the front setback. We are requesting a minor but very necessary habitable area intruding into the setback. This request is imposed upon the lot because a rectangular building touches a curved setback line at one point, This is not granting a special privilege when other requests for habitable area within the front setback have been granted. 40 0 There are no issues of light, air, population, transportation, traffic, utilities, or public safety in this request. The request complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan which permits and grants similar variance requests. • 0 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. is w cr (D i m r1 ,n co ti Y 4 " cq CN CD d� 2 N_ ED LO m m 1 Z-E!�! a nnL l- VJ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2.000 SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 124 East Meadow Drive 1 Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village 151 Filing Applicant: Burt Nordstrand, represented by Bill Pierce of Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Architects Planner: Ann Kjerulf DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Burt Nordstrand, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit located in the Village Center Condominiums at 124 East Meadow Dr. The applicant is proposing to eliminate Unit 3E in the Village Center Condominiums. The elimination will be accomplished by connecting Unit 2E with the unit above. The proposed connection will be accommodated by constructing an interior stairway connecting the two units. According to Section 12 -7C -3 (Permitted and Conditional Uses), in the CC2 District, permitted and conditional uses for specific floors shall be the same as those permitted in the Commercial Core 1 District- Pursuant to Section 12 -7113-5 (Permitted and conditional uses; above 2nd floor): the following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the 2nd floor above grade subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: Any permitted or conditional use which eliminates any existing dwelling or accommodation unit, or any portion thereof, shall require a conditional use permit. it. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of one dwelling unit through the connection of two dwelling units at the Village Center Condominiums. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon our review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following findings: That the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit is in accordance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core 2 Zane District, 2. That the proposed location of the dwelling unit to be eliminated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Village Center Condominiums. 3. That the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit complies with each of I 64'a 1 fl{9N DF the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. III. BACKGROUND In reviewing this conditional use permit request, staff relied upon the goals. policies and objectives outlined in the various Town of Vail planning documents, While the purpose statement of the Commercial Core 2 Zone District specifically references the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan, staff feels that due to the location of this property within the Vail Village Master Plan Boundary, it is more appropriate to consider the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village ;'blaster Plan. The following is a summary of staff's review of the Town's planning documents: Municipal Code According to Section 12 -7C -1, the purpose of the Commercial Core 2 Zone District is intended to: Provide sites for a mixture of multiple- dwe#lings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development, Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, as adopted in Section 12 -7C -15 of this Article, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards Vail Land Use Plan 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan, 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Vail Village Master Plan Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 2 • • 0 IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONSIDERATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS In accordance with Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code, an application for a conditional use permit within Commercial Core 2; the following development factors shall be applicable: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Staff believes the applicant's request to eliminate a dwelling unit in the Village Center Condominiums will have minimal negative impacts on the development objectives of the Town. However, staff believes that the proposal will reduce the effective occupancy rate of the two units, which when compounded throughout the Town, could reduce the bed base 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. Staff believes the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit will have minimal negative impacts on the above described criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 0 Staff believes the proposed elimination of the dwelling unit will have ro negative impacts on the above described criteria. 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. No exterior changes are proposed with this request. Therefore, staff believes there will be no negative impacts on the above described criteria. 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 accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. Nordstrand Residence Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Eliminate a Dwelling Unit rANDARD STA GATEWAY 9A 12 28 N ` LOT O INTERSTATE 70 1OL11)AY p VRIL ;i 143 HOUSE W- VILLAGE VNN !_ 143 CROSSROADS OF VW L LOT P 9B I 1 I 100 CONDOMINIUM 13 18T HANK G 17 TRACT.! :HAPEL 19 ARCADE LOT P LOT P EASTM 141 �,aaOW DR SONNENALP 82 TALISMAN 1' - CONDOS SWISS CHALET TRACT K 8 L VILLAGE CENTER 15� TRACT K,% L 12 I 1217 LOT K tlllll 62 { � 128 r 1171- BA HS , � H8 � � 1111 RIVERHOUSE / 3 Ell ELWJFI`f Z TRAN D j TIQN CENTER 241 F TRACT 1 PREEKSIEIE J CONDO � 223 1� TRACTI�GOREMILLIN ER S,.RK LOTA PLAZA , 193 ` 193 �� 22 EA: AUSTRIA HAUS 242 ! f �1 D A � F E B 8 ji C G T 1 H [ 1 May 8, 2000 • • � • • 10 0 0A5+C-r, LINE IND!rAT6 LIMITS OF PEFWCLJTION; e4LUMN TO WRIHAdN FM Fa Pm4avr. KiTcHEN 4 Re- I-0-lAT-E TO NEY4 LOCA-1-12)N DA51,ft!7 LINE LIMITS OF PaMOUTION I Fk 0 02 30 0 FIRST LEEVEL DES' OL ITIOil FLAN OA ISl 28�2' If I VAZ*W LINE! INDICATES LIMITS OF DEMOLITIOW HAT<�HIED AIQEA IN -A= Ole LIM17S OP FLOOR it FOR NE34 STAIRS WCR�IKATE KI riilN■E ■iEEEf!! ■filL� rd 5TIeLL--TuK�-L5 it .41 voan lama "or Immilm a". W, ,.a 0 ■ EfliEEriR COLUMN 7U REMAIN Pli J DASHED UNE INCICATE5 LIMIT'& OF PEMCLITION. li 4t, - = =l l _I REMOVE rJTC-4EN 4 RE- LOr,ATE TO NEH LOCGArqN (D (D 05 0 W 01 SECONZ� LEVEL 1�)E�/IOL1710N FLAN • 0 0 0 *FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN I i I I I 2 3 4 SEr-.,CND LEVEL FLOOR FLAN Imo= 0/+4• x �'..✓a° O • u • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #2, to allow for the addition of common area between Buildings D &E, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive /A part of Tract B, Vail Village 7 t Filing. Applicant: Northwoods, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Planner: Allison Ochs Based on the findings contained in this memorandum, the above referenced amendment to Special Development District #2 has been approved by staff. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND 40 The request is for a minor amendment to Special Development District #2, the Northwoods development plan, to allow for the addition of common area between buildings D and E to allow for an improved shared entrance_ MINOR AMENDMENT (STAFF REVIEW): Modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to ... changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses) of not more than five percent (5 %) of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and other nonresidential floor area, except as provided under Sections 12 -15 -4 (Interior Conversions) or 12 -15 -5 (250 Additional GRFA) of this Title. in addition to buildings D and E new shared common entrance, the ORB has approved landscaping improvements, exiting improvements, building identification improvements, and improvements to the garages at buildings B, D, and E. Because this addition is less than 5% of the total common area within Special Development District #2 and because the Design Review Board felt that these improvements did not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, staff has "staff approved" this minor amendment. TOWN OF DAILY II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 0 A. Section 12 -9A -2: Minor Amendment (staff review): Modifications to site plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved district and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter, may include changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses) not more than 5% of the approved square footage of retail, office, common area, and other non- residential area. Because there was approval for an additional building at Northwoods, the project remains well -under the approved square footage. Both staff and the Design Review Board found that this addition does not alter the basic intent and character of the approved district and is consistent with the design criteria of this chapter. The addition of common area, however, triggers the Building Code requirement that Buildings D and E be sprinklered. The applicant has agreed to this requirement. B. Section 12- 9A -10: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12 -9A -2 may be approved by the Department of Community Development. Notification of a proposed minor amendment and a report of staff action shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the district that may be affected by the amendment. Notification shall be postmarked no later than 5 days following staff action on the amendment and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time and date of when the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. As noted above, staff believes the amendment is consistent with the design criteria under subsection 12 -9A -2. Notification of the proposal was provided to all adjacent property owners on April 24, 2000, with the statement that the staff approval would be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission on May 9, 2000, • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance (Section 12 -7D -6, Town of Vail Code), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd_ (West Vail Lodge)ITract C, Vail das Schone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail das Schone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Smith Planner Brent Wilson 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF 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) to 41 employee housing units. Additionally, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 5, Series of 2000 to allow for the condominiumization of employee housing units created from accommodation units. This request involves a proposed remodel of the existing free - market units (and additional floor area for certain EHU's) along the exterior of the existing building. The applicant proposes to add dormer and tower elements to the building (utilizing the "250" bonus credit and the interior conversion process) in order to provide an upgraded architectural product and increased marketability of the units. The applicable "Commercial Core III" zoning allows a maximum building height of 38 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 "]. Since the proposal as a whole brings the project closer into compliance with applicable zoning (with the exception of building height), staff did not advise the applicant to pursue the establishment of a special development district for this purpose. 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 ( "Version 2 "). 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 III zoning. This zoning designation does not allow dwelling units or accommodation units as a use and the property has been rendered non - conforming since its annexation into the town. \\VAIL1DATAI EVERYONE %PECIMEMOS1oo1WVLODGE4.doc 1 ;ai 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. 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. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval the applicant's request for a height variance (Section 12 -7D -6, Town of Vail Code), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof, subject to the following findings: Since the building height has already been established, the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the zone district. 0 2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the height regulations results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Vail Town Code, the Commercial Core Iii Zone District and the Vail Master Plan, with specific reference to Goal Statements 1.3, 5.3, and 5.5 of the Vail Land Use Plan. 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions (structural non - conformities) applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Commercial Core III Zone District. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Since the property was developed under Eagle County jurisdiction, the existing building has been granted a legal non - conforming ( "g rand fathered ") status. Allowable Building Height: 38 feet Existing Building Height: 58.5 feet Proposed Building Height: no change; dormer /tower additions = 57.2 feet max. • %XVAI LIDATAIEVERYONEIPECIME MOS\00\W VLODG E4.doc 3 • • • 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. 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. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development approval the applicant's request for a height variance (Section 12 -7D -6, Town of Vail Code), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof, subject to the following findings: Since the building height has already been established, the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the zone district. 2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the height regulations results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Vail Town Code, the Commercial Core III Zone District and the Vail Master Plan, with specific reference to Goal Statements 1.3, 5.3, and 5.5 of the Vail Land Use Plan. 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions (structural non - conformities) applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Commercial Core III Zane District IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Since the property was developed under Eagle County jurisdiction, the existing building has been granted a legal non - conforming ("grand fathered") status. Allowable Building Height: 38 feet Existing Building Height: 58.5 feet Proposed Building Height: no change; dormer /tower additions = 57.2 feet max. I\VA1 LIDATAIEVERYONE\PECIMEM OS1001W VLODGE4.doc 3 V. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS -VARIANCE • A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Variance Requests: 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. Staff believes this proposal ('Version 2," as submitted) will help to break up the existing linear bulk and mass of the building. Additionally, staff believes the deviation requested is not excessive or unreasonable. Pursuant to Section 12 -15 -3 (Interior Conversions), Vail Town Code, dormers are an example of an exterior modification that is "not considered to increase building bulk and mass." Given the configuration of the existing building (north /south on a south- facing lot), staff does not anticipate any negative sun /shade impacts. Can April 24th, the PEC conducted a site inspection to determine the potential impacts to views from adjacent properties. Staff believes the additional dormer and tower elements will not impact views from other properties as the height of the building has already been established. Adjacent building heights include McDonald's at approximately 36 feet in height is (via an architectural projection) and the West Vail Mall property with approximately 32 feet of building height. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The "Special Privilege" and "Hardship" Issues - Most of the West Vail commercial area was developed under Eagle County jurisdiction and annexed into the Town 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. The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that non - conforming properties constructed in the county experience a hardship due to the application of more stringent zoning after annexation (Maynor 1/10/00 variance, for example). • 11VAI LIDATA%EVERYONEIPEC%MEMOS1a0IW VLODGE4.doc 4 a 4 T Precedents - The Town has approved previous height variances at the following locations: Lot 6, Block 9, Intermountain — (8/13190) Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn 5h Addition — (2114183) Lot 6, Forest Glen — (12112194) The Town has approved similar requests (GRFA above allowable building height) through the SDD process at the following locations: SDD #7 (revised) — the Marriot SDD #14 -- Doubletree Hotel SDD #21 — Vail Gateway SDD #30 -- Vail Athletic Club The "250" additions — The intent of the Town's "250" ordinance, as drafted, is as follows: ...to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units which have been in existence within the Town for a period of at least five (5) years by permitting the addition of up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) to such dwelling units, provided the criteria set forth in this Section are met. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards_ If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of this Title before an application is made in accordance with this Section. The applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final Planning and Environmental Commission approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided. The Vail Town Code acknowledges certain existing dwelling units will not be able to meet all development standards with the utilization of the "250" credit. Therefore, the code allows variances for 250 additions, subject to approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Although the utilization of the "250" bonus credit is not given as of right and the utilization of the credit in this instance furthers the existing non - conformity, staff believes this proposal meets the criteria outlined for variances and would result in a better housing product for both the EHU's and the free- market units. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe 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. \%VAIL1DATA\EVEaYO N EiPEC%MEMOS1001W V LODGE4.doc 5 Vr B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: 0 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • • 11VA1L\DATAIEV ERYO N EIPECIMEMOS1001WVLODG E4.doc 6,. fl+. r !�' �t .�� s' �' �� 1qM ��"� x .�� - �t"w: �y � �� ...... Y S( 0 0 0 9- ... ........ - - - - - - - ---------- 0 • Ar r� �J MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May S, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the creation of a community garden, to be located at 2450 S. Frontage RoadlUnplatted, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is proposing a community garden to be located at 2450 S. Frontage Rd. The proposal includes the installation of 25 4 ft. by 24 ft. garden plots. A cedar. - sided shed, donated by a neighbor, will be located on the lot, and 3 compost bins will be provided. A 10 -space parking lot will be constructed. The water source for the garden will be the Stephen's Park irrigation system water tap. A volunteer board of directors to be appointed by the Town Council will operate and manage 'fie community garden. According to Section 12 -8B -3, public parks and active public recreation areas and uses are a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. The Town defines active outdoor recreation as: Outdoor recreational activities which involve organizid or structured recreation that is associated with recreational facilities, excluding buildings. For example, active outdoor recreation would include, but not be limited to: athletic fields, playgrounds, outdoor basketball and tennis courts, outdoor swimming pools, sledding and skiing areas, fitness trails with exercise stations, etc. While "community garden" is not specifically listed as a use, because the garden will require facilities similar to those listed above, a community garden will require a conditional use permit in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 15 of the Town Code. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. aAlt TOWN 4FVAIL � 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schcois, parks and recreation facilities, and other public 49 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 environmtintal impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required bbl Chapter 12 of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Desirm Review Board: The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review application for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other str,.ictures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on -site 6 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 cf fencing, walls, and "ccessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting 13. The design of parks STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval: of the conditional use permit for the Vail Community Carden, subject to the following 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 Outdoor Recreation Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the counditional use permit for the community garden, staff recommends the following conditions: • is 1. The existing, non- conforming chain -link fence is to be removed. Any proposed fence will be required to meet the Design Guidelines as stated in Title 12, Chapter 11 of the Town Code. 2. All easement holders must sign off on the project. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Code. The Community Garden is located within the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. The proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 16. For the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, the conditional use ,permit purpose statement indicates that: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or prope�,Jes. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. A. Consideration of Factors; 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes that the proposal follows the development objectives of the Town of Vail, as these objectives are stated in the Land Use Plan: 1.1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial, and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 3 B. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation 40 facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff feels that this will be a positive recreational amenity for the community. Staff does not feel there will be any negative effects on the other above - mentioned criteria. I 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. The parking lot will be an improved, paved surface and the Town of Vail Public Works Department will be responsible for maintenance. As the garden will not be in use during the winter months, the parking lot will not be maintained during the winter. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff feels this will positively affect the character of the neighborhood by providing and aesthetically pleasing recreational amenity. Findings to 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 th,a 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 it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 4 • 9 • • 1] N 'a CD V 1 i g Cft":�3 Y � l Memorandum To: Allison Ochs, Community Development Froth: Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works Date: April 13, 2000 RE: Vail Community Garden Following are the adjacent Property owners for the Community Garden area. 1. Chaz 13etxthart, 2645 South Frontage Road West, Vail, CO 81658 2. Ann Howenstine, 2754 south Frontage Rand West, Vail, CO 81658 3_ Meadow Creek Condominium Association, 2570 Kinnickinnick Road, Vail, CO 81658 Attached is the Topographic Map of Government Lots 13, 23, and 24, T. 5 S., R. 81 W., 6'h P.M. The map includes a description of all the utility easements which run with the property. I was previously determined, when Stephens Park-was developed in 1490, that the easements are not exclusive in nature. This easement description is submitted in -lieu of the title report requested. Project Description: The proposal includes the installation of 25 4'x24' garden plots, surrounded by 2x6 lumber. The plots are spaced 5 feet apart. The rows between the line of beds are 10 feet in width. All rows and walkways will be covered with a laver of wood chip mulch. An 8'x 16' garden shed has been donated to the Community Garden by a property owner in the neighborhood. The shed is sided with horizontal cedar lap siding. It will be located as close the existing willows as practical. A set of 3 6'x6' x3' high compost bins will be constructed adjacent to the shed. Compost bins will be constructed from rough sawn cdar lumber. A 10 car parking lot Mll be provided, It will be accessed from Kinnickinnick Road as indicated on the plan. The parking lot will be surfaced with compacted asphalt milling chips (a surface very similar to a double pin chip seal). The asphalt milling chip surface will receive a fog coat cif asphalt emulsion. An identification sign will be located adjacent to the first parking space on the north side. The sign will face Kinnickinnick Road and will be approximately 1.5 feet in height and 3 feet in width. The top of the sign face will not exceed 5 feet in height. The existing chain link fence will remain. The Community Garden is a seasonal use and will he un- maintained in the winter months. The water source for the garden will be the Stephens Park irrigation system water tap. The Community Garden will be operated and managed by a volunteer board of directors to be appointed by the Council. All future submittals for improvements or modifications to the garden will be submitted by the board. �� ttECYCLEDPAPER fill a 0 • %/ f / 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 8, 2000 SUBJECT: Final PEC review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade / Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village tst Filing. Applicant: The Town of Vail and the VVTCB Planner: Brent Wilson I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST' P_EC Update: Pursuant to concerns expressed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Town has eliminated the use of grouted concrete from this plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has granted the Town a permit for the project and our floodplain analysis consultant has determined the project will not negatively impact floodplain elevations along Gore Creek. This is a request for final review of this proposal. The Town anticipates construction of the project this fall at the earliest. The Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau (VVTCB) and the Town of Vail are proposing to enhance the amenities currently available to boaters on Gore Creek adjacent to the Gore Creek Promenade. Each year; the VVTCB organizes the Jeep Whitewater Festival and hosts events at the Gore Creek Promenade area where spectators gather along the International and pedestrian bridges to observe the competition and support boaters. This proposal is an effort to create better kayaker /rafter features in the area as well as promote Vail as a water sports destination. On February 29`h, the Vail Town Council approved the expenditure of RETT funds for this project. The proposal calls for the placement of 3 "drop structures" in Gore Creek between the International Bridge and the Creekside building and additional restoration of the stream bank in areas of need. The drop structures consist of a semi - circle series of natural boulders and below -grade anchors. The hydraulics /waves created by the structures will serve as a whitewater amenity while the deepened pools created are intended to provide additional trout habitat. In association with this project, the Town will implement its approved landscape plan for Gore Creek Promenade. 1 • t .ti TO, OF YAIL Pursuant to Section 12- 21 -10, Town of Vail Code, the Town of Vail and VVTCB are requesting PEC review of the proposed modifications within the Gore Creek flood plain. The completed environmental impact study includes approvals from the US Army Corps of Engineers and Colorado Division of Wildlife to ensure compliance with federal and state regulations concerning wetlands, water quality, trout habitat and flood plain modifications. A complete floodplain study has been conducted by the Town's flood plain consultant. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District holds water rights along this portion of Gore Creek and their board of directors voted to grant the town subordinate water rights to ensure adequate flow to make the "whitewater park" feasible during low -flow periods. Construction of the project will not commence until fall of this year. Recreation Engineering and Planning (consultant) estimates the project will take less than 2 weeks to construct. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Tne Community Development Department ;ecommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade / Tracts I & A, Block 58, Vail Village 151 Filing, subject to the following findings: That the proposed location of the flood plain modification and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. A complete floodplain analysis conducted by a qualified consultant indicates floodplain elevations will not be adversely impacted by this proposal. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this proposal, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition: The applicant will coordinate the timing of construction of the project with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to ensure trout spawning activities will not be negatively impacted. III. REVIEWING BOARD ROLE The PEC will is being asked to render an approval or denial of this request to modify the Gore Creek flood plain based on the following objective: That the proposed location of the flood plain modification and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 0 0 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS In accordance with Chapter 12 -12, Town of Vail Code, staff and the project consultant have completed an environmental impact analysis. The following criteria have been evaluated for impacts from this proposal: 1. Hydrologic conditions, such as surface drainage and watershed characteristics, ground water and soil permeability characteristics, natural water features and characteristics, and any potential changes or impacts. A complete floodplain impact analysis has been prepared by J.F. Sato Engineering. The floodplain study (attached) concludes floodplain elevations along Gore Creek will not be adversely impacted by this proposal. 2. Atmospheric conditions, such as airshed characteristics, potential emissions, and any potential changes or impacts. This proposal will not impact any atmospheric conditions in the area of Vail Village. 3. Geologic conditions, such as land forms, slope, soil characteristics, potential hazards, and any potential changes or impacts. This proposal is not located in any of the Town's identified geologically hazardous areas. No changes to existing landforms (other than limited grading and the placement of boulders within the stream tract) are proposed. 4. Biotic conditions, such as vegetative characteristics, wildlife habitats, and any potential changes or impacts. This project has received approval from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (via the USACE letter of permission permit) for in- stream habitat improvements. Based on information from DOW and a consulting fishery biologist, staff anticipates a substantial benefit to trout habitat along this portion of Gore Creek from this proposal. In an effort to enhance the presence of invertebrate habitat between the boulders, the use of grouted concrete has been removed from this proposal. 5. Other environmental conditions, such as noise levels and odor characteristics, and any potential changes or impacts. Staff believes potential impacts to the existing noise level of the creek are minimal when compared to the noise generated by nearby uses /activities. These include loading and delivery at adjacent retail properties, snowmaking operations on Vail Mountain and special events along Gore Creek Promenade, Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. Staff does not anticipate any "nuisance" impacts from this proposal. 6. Visual conditions, such as views and scenic values, and any potential changes, impacts, or marked contrasts. 9 Town staff will be working very closely with the contractor to ensure aesthetics of the project are the largest priority. All materials used in this project will be natural and consistent with materials occurring naturally within the Gore Creek stream tract. 7. Land use conditions, such as characteristics of uses, compatibility with officially approved land use and open space policies and objectives, and potential changes or impacts. This portion of the Gore Creek stream tract has long been established as an area for recreational uses. This stretch of creek was previously dammed and used as an ice skating area and the grassy knoll portion of Gore Greek Promenade is currently used for concerts, parties and special events. Staff believes the intensity of the proposed use is compatible with both the historic use of the site and the intensity of adjacent uses. Adjacent uses include high - density residential (up to 25 units /acre), lodging and commercial. S. Circulation and transportation conditions, such as volumes and traffic flow patterns, transit service needs, alternative transit systems, and potential changes or impacts. Staff does not believe this proposal will impact vehicular traffic flaw or transit service needs in the area. Please refer to the attached pedestrian circulation plan for information regarding pedestrian traffic flow. 9. Population characteristics, such as residential densities, neighborhood patterns, potential displacement of residents or businesses, and potential changes or impacts. This proposal will not impact or displace any of the existing densities, residents or businesses within Vail Village. is 4 1 z � 4- , ,_O W �v q •L �7• r a OL Z d U A ' ec W 7 n r `r s � c� 2 fl � 6 J 7 Y O e � a S 1,0 C N LZI ••�}�d 'PE o n � oa �� ' M. 19 1 Mp -IFM 7 � O0 � o r VW.l 4 � a m •tea- �Y$ � wt fl � 6 J 7 Y O e � a S 1,0 C N LZI ••�}�d 'PE o n � oa �� ' M. 19 1 Mp -IFM 7 � O0 � o r VW.l 4 � a wt It ts fl � 6 J 7 Y O e � a S 1,0 C N LZI ••�}�d 'PE o n � oa �� ' M. 19 1 Mp -IFM 7 � O0 � o r VW.l 4 � 7. 'Plwngc Pbol" '' R fie PLAN VJ'EV�,' (NTS) D,3 m & I ,i:-Brush bundles FLOW- L Enh3n cc C) 0 Boulders wif�l'n Var. Ri ff 'rh M*�. channcl to be pjacecf, bou)d I- e ''rel at or'below bury)/2 boulder dia. H = Re I a tivc_ H iq h L = Rcldfivc Low ST RENA AN K VE%5ETATiVF_ '71RC^TMENT NCyr SKOWW V Darn.. P1 y' e_:R00J'-& Riffle PPOFILZ kAF-VV (NTS) 31 L ldc O-),Uldc r Foundation, 05 n cc c-s-sa ry. Pool 13,11Dut 3.:1 Slopc PL U NG1 E P OOL N OTE : Adjust rIffl c ejC\, a[ion to main in 4J pool A dd A at lovy flow instrum ccq,c r after �cavjbon ADD.- STFZE,,kME5ANK COVER VEGETA-rION v= variable FIGURE .-Plan and profile view of a boulder V-d'am. • • • c 0 xF I CL to j s �� RCA rj CL to j C Wk. A s �� ;7- LU z � 3 ti C Wk. A APR -26 -Oe WED 11:23 AM RECREATIONIENGINEERING 303 545 50€33 P_02 itiE 5 Fri "S AR1�f ��Q ES ��aGR FAX .4Q, 8M958E!" �"• DEPARTMENT OFTNE ARMY Q.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WRAMEM CORPS UP ENGINEERS »i smE'r REPLYYt] WFIAMENTS, CAUFOPMA 05814-2M AnEn t OF April 2$, 2000 Regulatory Branch (200075145) Ms. Pamela A_ Brandmeyer Assistant Town Manager Town of Vail 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Ms . A randrneyer You are hereby authorized by Letter of Permission to discharge approximately 470 cubic 'yards of fill material (large natural stone boulders) for bank stabilization and whitewater beating improvements in Gore Greek at Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. All work must be completed in accordance with the enclosed four drawings. You also mugr comply with the enclosed general and special conditions. Please read the conditions of this authorization carefully. Please sign a copy of this gezmit below and return it to this office. Your signature will mean that you accept the terms and conditions and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this pe2miit. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions please write to Mr. Grady L_ KCNUre, Chief, Northwestern CoIOYr , do Regulatory office, 402 Road Avenue, Room 142, Grand Junction, Colorado 61501 -2563 or telephone (970) 243 -- 1199, extension 11. BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY of THE ARMY:. Brooks Carter Chief, Intermountain Regulatory Section Enclosures Copy Furnished: Mr. Gary Lacy, Recreation Enc :peering and Planning, 485 Arapahoe Avenue, Boulder, Colorado '60302 Is GORE CREEK WHITEWATER PARK GORE CREEK PROMENADE VAIL VILLAGE CIRCULATION AND ACCESS PLAN NARRATIVE April 19, 2000 Introduction: Whitewater sports, such as rafting and kayaking, through Vail have been a popular summer activity on Gore Creek for many years. The Jeep Whitewater Festival, held each Memorial Day weekend, has been a successful special event in the community for the past 6 yearn. The constriction of the Gore Creek Whitewater Park will enhance these existing uses and activities, increase the number of users, and enhance the spectator aspects of whitewater boating. The Gore Creek Whitewater Park will not add any additional new uses to the site_ The whitewater boating season varies from year to year depending on winter snow accumulations and spring weather. Generally, whitewater boating is most popular in the months of May, .Tune and July. Construction of the three proposed structures in the Gore Creek Promenade reach of Gore Creek will increase the season by up to a month on each end, The Gore Creek Promenade and the Whitewater Park itself will be most impacted by the increased use. Generally, the increase of use is viewed as a positive occurrence in the Village core area by town staff and Council. Existing Use Patterns: Whitewater boating on Gore Creek, being primarily an individual or small group activity, does not fallow a clearly defined use pattern. There are several factors, such as boater skill level, preferences on creek section, time availability, and creek flows, which influence where and when boaters access and leave Gore Creek_ Discussions with local boaters, kayak shops and the Vail Police Department indicate that put -in and take- out points are generally informal and currently do not create significant access and parking problems. That is not to say that whitewater boaters are never ticketed for illegal parking, but rather that the Police Department has not established them as a particular group of violators. The Vail Interfaith Chapel has had concerns over unauthorized parking west or behind the chapel and has installed traffic gates to control access to that area_ Discussions with the local boaters and kayak shops have identified the following areas and popular put -in and take -out points. This is not to be considered an exhaustive list, but rather a general list of the most popular points. Kayaks are very light and easy to transport by hand, making it easy to park some distance from the put -in or take -out point. Popular Put-in/Take-out Points along Gore Creek • Fast Vaii I -70 exit, parking in the rec -trail parking lot or at the gravel area on Bridge Road. • South Frontage Road at Aspen Lane, parking near the intersection on Aspen Lane. • South Frontage Road along the golf course, parking in one of several locations where the shoulder is wider. • Covered Bridge or Vail Athletic Club, parking at the Vail Village Parking Structure. • Vail Interfaith Chapel, parking behind the chapel or in the ls` Bank lot after hours. • Vail Sewer Plant on Forest Road, parking in VA's West Day Lot. • Stephens Park, parking in the existing lot. • Dowd Junction Chute, parking in locations along Highway 6 between the Forest Service office and the rec -trail bridge. Commercial raft companies do run guided raft trips on Gore Creek during a one or two week period during peak runoff. These users follow the same use patterns as private boaters with the addition of a put -in point at the Ford Park parking lot. Proposed Whitewater Park Access: The Gore Creek Whitewater Park will be used by in two ways. "Float- through" users will put in at some point upstream and float down to the park. They will use the various holes and waves, in sequence, and float past the park to some take -out point downstream. This type of user will follow the existing informal use patterns previously discussed. Construction of the park will not change the existing use patterns for this type of user but may increase the number of overall whitewater boaters on Gore Creek. In the future, as user numbers increase, it may become necessary to formalize some of the use patterns and create additional put-in/take-out points, while eliminating others. It will be necessary to allow any new use patterns to develop over time and address the overall issue at a later date. The "Park- only" users are the boaters who may visit the park on their lunch hour, as part of a class or club activity, or to practice various moves and tricks in a specific type of wave. These users will want to park as close to the Whitewater Park as possible and access as easily as possible. The current situation regarding close -in, drop -off, and loading zone parking in the Village Core area will not allow Whitewater Park users to park, or drop -off in the immediate vicinity of the park area. The designated parking area for Park -only users, as well as other boaters who are putting in or taking out in the village area, will be the top deck of the Village Parking Structure. All parking will be by availabilty, with no spaces reserved specifically for Whitewater Park users. Users attempting to access the park by vehicle through Check Point Charlie will be directed to the Parking Structure. Vehicles illegally parked will be subject to all Town parking fines and penalties. From the Village Parking Structure, users will be directed to carry their boats to designated creek access points on creek left, either above or below the Covered Bridge. Appropriate signage to creek access points will be incorporated into the Wayfinding Plan currently entering the implementation stage. Signage will include the wording "CREEK ACCESS" followed by a kayaker icon. Minor site improvements in the way of access paths will be made to facilitate access and user safety at the designated points. A similar take out point will be designated just below the international Bridge on creek right. The parcel of land is owned by the Town of Vail. User education is a key component of the Access and Circulation Plan, Town Staff will work with the Tourism and Convention Bureau, and local kayak shops to create an informational brochure to explain access points and other rules and points of courtesy regarding the use of the park. This brochure will be distributed through local kayak shops, the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau, the Vail Transportation Center, and Check Point Charlie. Alpine Kayaks, Mike Duffy, Owner, has volunteered to organize a group of local boaters to staff the park during its first month of operation to help orient users to the rules, procedures, and courtesies of the park. Proposed Whitewater Park Circulation: A minor internal park circulation pattern is anticipated to develop in the use of the Whitewater Park. Some users, desiring to tun the section more than once, will circulate between the bottom and top structures. This is not anticipated as a primary use pattern due to the fact that the park is not designed as a course, but rather as series of three separate waves or holes that are used individually. The park is intentionally designed so waves or holes created by the structures allow for reentry without being washed down over the next structure or out of the park. The majority of users will use the three waves or holes in succession and exit the park, carrying their boats back to the parking structure via East Meadow Drive. Users exiting the bottom structure and wishing to return to the top structure will follow the proposed access path from just below International Bridge, on creek right, to Willow Bridge Road and will follow the existing pedestrian ways back through the Gore Creek promenade park area. Spectator circulation patterns are expected to change with the construction of the Whitewater Park. Spectators will tend to congregate below each of the structures, where they tend to be more spread out with the current creek configuration. In the proximity of the first 2 waves or holes spectators will watch from existing grass and bank boulder areas on creek left. No significant bank modifications are proposed in this area. The flagstone paving will be extended to the stair area and to connect to the concrete unit pavers to accommodate the increased foot traffic. The turf grass area of Gore Creek Promenade will be improved through overseeding and enhanced maintenance techniques. The third wavc,,bole is designed as a "rodeo hole ", and will attract a large number of spectators. Significant bank modifications are planned on both sides of the creek between the pedestrian bridge and the International Bridge. On creek right an informal stone amphitheater is planned for spectator seating. The amphitheater area will be accessed from the walkway to the pedestrian bridge. On creek left the existing boulder walls will be re- stacked to a slightly more vertical configuration. This configuration will allow for expanded paving area, with a railing, 6 to 8 feet in width, adjacent to the existing walkway. Spectators will also be able to view the rodeo hole from the existing International Bridge overlooks and the pedestrian bridge. There is a concern over the load bearing capacity of the pedestrian bridge. There is no information on the design of the concrete twin tee available. An opinion regarding the load bearing capacity of the bridge was requested from Boyle Engineering, Inc. Timothy Boyle, PE recommends in a letter dated April 6, 2000, that the number of people on the bridge be limited to a maximum of 50 people at any one time. This will be primarily a concern during special events staged at the park. Event organizers will need to be required to plan their events to limit the use of the bridge by closing it off or locating announcer booths at that location. Additional in -depth engineering studies are being considered to further identify the exact load bearing capacity of the bridge. Private property concerns have been considered and addressed with this plan and the design of the park. The stream tract along the north bank (creek right) of the Whitewater Park abuts the private property of the Village Center Condominiums. The property manager has voiced concern over park users accessing the private property from the public stream tract. This concern has been addressed in two ways. First, no improvements, other than tying the boulder structures into the bank, some minor bank stabilization and riparian plantings are planned for this area of stream tract, Second, signs will be placed at 3 locations along the property line and beginning of the existing walk path indicating private property beyond. The owner of the Gastof Gramshammer has expressed a similar concern over access across private property between the Gore Creek Promenade and the Covered Bridge Pocket Park. There is a break in the continuity of the stream tract with this property. Two additional signs indicating private property beyond will be placed at the east and west property lines. One additional sign indicating private property beyond will be located at he property line of Summers Lodge just down stream of the International Bridge on bank left. Summary Construction of the Gore Creek White water Park will increase the number of whitewater boaters on Gore Creek throughout the town and will extend the season of use by approximately 60 days. The area most heavily impacted by the increased use will be the Gore Creek Promenade and the Whitewater Park itself: Generally the increased use is seen as a positive occurrence for the Village Core area. Potential problems associated with the increased use include the following areas of concern: • Parking and creek access • Internal circulation by users and spectators • Encroachment on to private property • The load bearing capacity of the pedestrian bridge Potential problems have been mitigated through the design by the following considerations: Designating parking and access points for the park 0 Directional signs as part of the Wayfutding Plan • An educational program including brochures and one -on -one contacts • Minor bank improvements to accommodate increased foot traffic • A park design which discourages use near private property and appropriate signage of those areas • Load restrictions on the pedestrian bridge during special events • APR -24 -00 MON of :39 PM REGREATIONiENGINEERING 303 545 5883 P.02 J.F. SATO AND ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers Project Mana$ers, Planners & 5utveyur3 5898 So. Rapp St. a L ttieton, CO 80120 a (303) 797 -12001 Fax (303) 797 -1187 . Email ifsato @jfsato_com April 17, 2000 Mr. Gary M. Lacy Recreational Engineering & Planning 485 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 RE: Floodplain Analysis of Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Vail Colorado Dear 'fir. Lacy_ Per you request, J.F. Sato and Associates (JFSA) has reviewed the potential impacts that the proposed Whitewater Park may have on the Base Flood Elevations (BFE's) of Gore Creek, Vail Colorado. The baseline for our analysis was the recently completed flood insurance restudy for the town of Vail, Colorado. The Town of Vail has concurred that this floodptain model is representative of the conditions expected to occur along Gore Creek and its tributaries. This inodel is currently under review by Michael Baker Jr., Inc, and is expected to be adopted by F'EMA as the official f]vodplain model for the Valley in the near future. The proposed WNtewa €er Park is located between the International Bridge and the Covered Bridge, downstream and upstireatn respectively. The existing model did not have sufficient cross - sections in the vicinity of the proposed project to fully represent the effects that the Wmtewater Park may have on the BFE's. To increase the density of the cross- sections in this area, the automatic cross - section interpolation feature within HEC -RAS was utilized. Cross - sections were interpolated between existing cross - sections at an interval of approximately 35 feet. The model was rerun and the water surface elevations at these interpolated cross- sections were adopted as the baseline for comparison. The conceptual design of the Wltitewater Park, last revised on March 19, 2000 was used as the basis for determining the changes to the geometry of Gore Creek that may effect BFE's. Locations of the interpolated cross- sections, relative to the Whitewater Park, were identified and plotted on the conceptual design plans. Widths of top banks and channel bottorns were compared to the interpolated cross - sections. No significant changes to the cross - section geometry were identified at any of the interpolated cross - sections. It was identified that the intent of the Whitewater Park was not to significantly change the geometry of the Gore Creels but to remove existing channel material and replace it with larger boulders that will provide a more conducive environment for kayakers. • APR -24 -00 MON 01:39 PM RECREATION,-ENGINEERING 303 545 59e3 P.03 Without detailed cross - sections of the proposed Wlutewater Park, it was difficult to identify any geometric impacts that the proposed Mutewater Park may have on the BFE's. However, it was recognized that turbulence will increase as a result of the "at- grade' drop structures and random boulders that will be placed in the Creek. To account for this increase in turbulence the Manning's n value, in the vicinity of the Whitewater Park, was increased from 0.04 to 0.05 in the main channel. The resulting increase in water surface elevations is summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Water Surface Elevation Ch r. River Sta. ( Total Min Ch El 158.5 12100 1 8154 00 15$.25 Covered Bridge ;es at Changed Manuuirlg's n value Existing; W.S. Proposed W.S, 130a W.S. Elev Elev Elev 8160.16 8160.16 0.00 158 157.964* 15 7.928* 21(}0 2100 8154.00 81.53.52 $158.89 8158.44 8158.90 8158.47 0.01 0.03 2100 8153.04 8157.94 8158.08 4.09 157.892* 2100 8152,56 8152.04 8157.56 8157.72 0.16 157.857* 2100 2100 8157.10 8157.39 0.29 157.$21* 8151.61 8156.66 8156.22 8155.83 8155.47 8157.11 0.45 157.785* 2100 $151.13 8156.88 0.61 157.75* 157.714* 2100 2100 8150.65 8150.17 8149.69 8149.21 8148.74 8148.26 8147.78 814 ?.30 8156.58 8156.19 0.72 157.678* 157.642* 157.607* 157.571* 157.535* 157.5 I K-7 �e 2100 2100 2100 2100 8155.14 8154.85 8154.59 8154.37 8155.83 8155.48 8155.15 8154.85 0.69 0.63 0.56 0.48 2100 2100 8154.18 8154.02 8154,56 8154.29 0.38 0.27 _... -- uiau S; 157 2100 _ 8147-30 8153.65 -T8-15-3,8-0---T-0J 5 156.75 International Bridge 1 56.5 2100 8146.00 8151.93 S 151.93 0.00 * Indicate Interpolated Cross - Sections As indicated in Table 1, the proposed Whitewater Park is anticipated to have a slight impact on the BFE's in the project area, yet these changes in water surface elevations are generally localized to the project location. If the project is constructed as proposed, with an equal balance of removal and replacement, BFE's should not change significantly. Yours truly, Peter Kozinski, 1FSA • 0 0 Apr 03 00 10:21a AWC 3038572455 p.2 AQUATIC AND WETLAND COMPANY Consulting - Construction • Nurseries March 29, 2000 Mr. Brent Wilson Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) consideration of the combined in- stream habitat improvements and kayak course on Gore Creek Dear Brent: The following information is offered to aid the PEC consideration of (tie combined imtrearn fish habitat improvements and kayak course on Gore Creek. (qualifications and Experience I am a trained Limnologist/Ecologist and dhe American Fisheries Society certified me as a Fisheries Scientist in 1970. I retired in 1992 after teaching Stream, Riparian and Wetland Biology at the University of Colorado (Boulder) for 27 years where I am now a Professor Emeritus. Prior to ray retirement from the University I founded the Aquatic and Wetland Company that was incorporated in 1986. The company has evolved into a design, build, grow, plant, maintenance and monitoring structure divided into six divisions with over 100 employees that specialize in stream, riparian, wetland and pond habitat restoration/reclamation. The company has completed a total of 45 stream habitat improvement projects on about 57 miles of waterways in Colorado and surrounding states including Montana. 1 am especially proud. that I was involved in either design construction and supervision of projects that combine aspects of fish habitat improvement and boating (i.e., kayak, rafting, tubing) in Boulder Colorado (Boulder Creek), Golden Colorado (Clear Creek) and Farmington, New Mexico (San ,Yuan River), Other projects are currently in various planning stages. In keeping with my career objectives, I am a Charter Life Member of Trout Unlimited and winner of the Silver Trout Award for fish habitat development. Habitat Suitability Careful inspection of Gore Creek over many years revealed to me that the creek has been highly manipulated and channelized. Long -term development has resulted in significant changes in the physical and biological habitat to the point where the historic functional naturalness of the system has been severely inhibited. For example, prior to 1900 beaver inhabited approximately 70 percent of Gyre Creek with an untold number of dams, ponds D E S I G N 0 BUILD - GROW 9999 weld County Rd. 25 • Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621 - (303) 442 -4766 /(303) 857 -2455 FAX Apr 03 00 10_21a AWC 3038572455 and pool habitat. Near extirpation of beaver by 1900 and Iater negative development impacts resulted in loss of pool habitat and the consequent degrease in fish production. Implementing a combination kayak and fish habitat improvement project is one step toward restoration of habitat that was once prevalent in Gore Creek. Please be advised that restoring habitat to a more historic condition May result in a slightly elevated "white noise ", but only during the highest snownmelt runoff flows. People everywhere hunger for the pleasant sound of white noise versus distracting and unacceptable levels of black noise produced by autos, trucks, roads, machinery, railroads, etc. it is "Onceivable that project opponents could raise noise as an issue. Certainly it has not been an issue at one of our previous 45 projects. Please call me at 303- 442 -4766 if I can be of help during your deliberation process. Yours truly, (AQMP John T. Windeli, Ph.D. (Jay) Chairman of the 13oard, Aquatic and Wetland Company CC: Jim Daulton, President: Aquatic and Wetland Company Joel Heath, Vice President, Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau Todd Oppenheimer, Park Superintendent, Dept, of Public Works/Transportation, Town of Vail P.3 • • I I I ,t i i I r a 5OC4 f 'STAG,c. AItIL iv 1 1 m a StA (f "-A" f I-,4r1 ,AL-AGE CENTER NORTH 2 vII LACE CENTER �yy SOUTH PARKING v O Y VILCACE CE.47.4 ' T SOUTH �-1T NTERNATIONAL. I � 9RIGCE I I L SUMME=S LCCGE 4 G G R APR_ 19-00 SUN 1 8 :05 R. 0 1 Edelweiss Condominium Association 103 Willow'.. Place Vail, Colorado 81657 April 9, 2000 'own of Vail Comm iu nity Development 75 S th Frontage Road West 'Vail, CO 01657 Attn; Brent Dear Brent, The Edelweiss Condominum Association has two concerns regarding the proposed Whitewater Park on Gore Greek. First, several homeowners reel- strongly that the proposed area should be left as a multi -use area rather than catering to the deeds bf the special interests of kayakers and fly fishermen. Second, our greatest concern is regarding the possible pull -out across the creek from the Edelweiss. Permanent steps .up .: from . the . creek also provide acre &s doyn to: the water and the adjacent pocket park. In other words, this pristine area in,Vail Village will be pristine no more. And if this 'pull-out is created, how will the Town accomodate parks g for kayakers in what'is currently a no parking zone? And .11 the Town maintain this area year round so It will be free of litter as it is now? Will kayakers even want a pull. out at this location? Thanks for your help in keeping me informed. And feel fret to Cali if you need any ciarification. S' nce�rely, stick 0altermann Managing Agent i Managing Agent: Burkc Managemcnt Works, Ltd. (970) 926 -2877 0 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, May 8, 2000 MEETING RESULTS Project Orientation f PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Diane Golden Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Site Visits : 12:30 p.m. 1. Reeman /Randall — 2865 Snowberry Drive 2. Community Garden — 2450 S. Frontage Rd. 3. Ferry —1 007 Eagles Nest Circle 4. Whitewater Park -- Gore Creek Promenade Driver: George �a NOTE. If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6.30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a side setback variance from Section 12 -6D -6 of the Town Code and a site coverage variance from Section 12 -6D -9 of the Town Code, to allow for a residential addition within setbacks and in excess of allowable site coverage, located at 1007 Eagles Nest Circle /Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7'h Filing. Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon APPROVED — SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon DENIED —SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE 1 VOTE: 5 -0 (Aasland recused) VOTE: 5 -0 (Aasland recused) yY TOW1V OF PAIL'' 2. A request for a front setback variance from Section 12 -60-6 of the Town Code, to allow for an additon, located at 2865 Snowberry Drive /Lot 2, Block 9, A resub of Lots 2 & 3 B, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Clive Reeman and Louise Randall, represented by Railton McEvoy Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 4 -2 (Bern h ardt/Cahi 11 opposed) DENIED 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 124 E. Meadow Drive/Village Center Condominiums Building B /Lot 5E, Vail Village 16' Filing. Applicant: Burt Nordstrand Planner: Ann Kjerulf MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED 4. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDO #2, to allow for the addition of common area between Buildings D &E, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive /A part of Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Northwoods, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED 5. A request for a height variance (Section 12 -7D -6, Town of Vail Code), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)/Tract C, Vail das Schone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail das Sehone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 1 RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the DRB in their final review look at the dormer and tower elements. 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the creation of a community garden, to be located at 2450 S. Frontage Road/Unplatted, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 5 -0 (Bernhardt recused) TABLED UNTIL MAY 22, 2000 2 0) is • • • 7. A final review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade,"Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 15t Filing, Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau & Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND. Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5 -1 (Doyon opposed) APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant will coordinate the timing of construction of the project with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to ensure trout spawning activities will not be negatively impacted. 2. That proper signage, benches, picnic tables, trash. kayak carriers on bus transportation be addressed. 8. A worksession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendment to Section 12 -713-18 (Location of Business Activity), which would allow for mobile information dissemination within the CC] Zone District on public property. Applicant: VVTCB Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 22, 2000 9. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6D -9 (Site Coverage), 12 -6D -8 (Density) and 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Town Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower Drive!Lot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 22, 2000 10. Information Update One two -year term PEC vacancy -- (Tom Weber). 11. Approval of April 24, 2000 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planners office 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 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • • MEMBERS PRESENT: Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Diane Golden Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Public _Hearing PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 8, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS ABSENT Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Approved 6/12/00 STAFF PRESENT: George Ruther Brent Wilson Allison Ochs Ann Kjerulf Judy Rodriguez Todd Oppenheimer 2:00 p.m. A request for a side setback variance from Section 12 -6D -6 of the Town Code and a site coverage variance from Section 12 -6D -9 of the Town Code, to allow for a residential addition within setbacks and in excess of allowable site coverage, located at 1007 Eagles Nest Circle]Lot 1. Block 6, Vail Village 7`h Filing. Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD. Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson Galen Aasland recused himself. Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt asked if the applicant had anything to add. Sally Brainerd, the architect, stated the differences between the previous proposals. She said the previous application was for a demo and this was not and that previous applications involved the addition of GRFA and this was for the exact amount of GRFA. She stated the hardship was that this was an older home with underlying zoning and a bad parking situation. She felt it was desirable for the neighborhood to have the parking enclosed. She said every home in that neighborhood had a garage. She also pointed out the physical constraint of very large trees on the site. John Schofield asked if the garage was built in the allowable site coverage and how much of a side setback variance would the applicant need. Sally Brainerd said 8.8 sq. ft. would take it into the setback. Brent Wilson said the setback encroachment was a preexisting condition and the new construction was not a preexisting condition. Chas Bernhardt asked for any public input. Susan Rutherford, co -owner of Parcel C, read a letter saying that she had not joined in the variance request. She said that the setback variance was within Kaye Ferry's property; but the site coverage variance needed approval from the party-wall parties. She said in the past she had asked for variances and had been told no, as well as neighbors who had asked for and been denied variances in the past, so to approve this would not be fair. 1 Planning and Environmental Commission 7vlinuies Mav 8. 2000 Approved 6/12100 Diane Golden asked where Parcel C was, Brent Wilson said it was the whole lot not built upon at that moment. Doug Cahill said, with regard to the site coverage variance, that there was no special privilege is and there was room for a two -car garage. He said, regarding the side setback. that he had no problem and there was no grant of special privilege, as this could be done within the limits of the code. John Schofield said there was no special privilege with a one -car garage. He said there were some homes that had no garages . He said he had no problems with the setback. Diane Golden said enclosed parking was a special privilege, but she was ok with the side setback. Brian Doyon said he agreed with his fellow Commissioners and had not been shown any hardship. He said there were ways to work around this without having to grant a special privilege variance, however he said he was in favor of the side setback. Chas Bernhardt said that everything else in the area had been denied and so he was against the site coverage variance. He said a two -car garage could be enclosed within the site,, but he was in favor of the side setback request. John Schofield made a motion for approval of the side setback variance, in accordance with the staff memo. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -6. John Schofield made a motion for denial of the site coverage variance. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0, 2. A request for a front setback variance from Section 12 -6D -6 of the Town Code, to allow for an addition. located at 2865 Snowberry Drive /Lot 2, Block 9, A resub of Lots 2 & 3 B, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Clive Reeman and Louise Randall, represented by Railton McEvoy Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Doug Cahill disclosed, for the record.. that he was a neighbor, but that he had no financial gain from this application and therefore saw no conflict. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. John Railton, the Architect, said he was here with Clive Reeman and Louise Randall. He said there were snow issues, but they also to expand some rooms in the house. He said the only way to get to the two rooms in the house was to put the addition in this area; not to the rear of the house. He stated that larger square footage front setback variances had been approved in the 2 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 8. 2000 Approved 6112/00 past. He explained how the design guidelines allowed a bay window to protrude into the front setback, but the difficulty was the definition of the word projection. He handed out diagrams that explained what he meant and explained them. He said the word projection should mean over the setback line, not the whole area. He said the hardship was that there was too much snow falling in the front of the building. He said the existing plan of the house didn't allow for them to add more rooms to the house without this projection and that the real hardship was the definition. Clive Reeman, owner, said they wouldn't have designed the house had they known the snow problem and said that it was a dangerous situation. He said that they weren't trying to get extra square footage in the setback; that it was just a consequence of the application. He said the front of the house was 40' from the front of the road. He mentioned that the lot lines run all over the place in this neighborhood, so the visual appearance was not that bad. John R20ton said there were 6 neighbors that were notified and 4 of the 6 were in support of this application with a verbal approval from the 5"' and no reply from the 6 "'. Brian Doyon asked where the eaveline was . John Railton said the roofline was resloped and the entire roof on the front side was being removed. Brian Doyon stated that snow would shed off the garage. Louise Randall explained that the photos were taken three weeks ago with very low snow, but there were days with normal snowfall that the entrance became unusable. Brian Doyon said we have had snowshedding since we have had buildings. He said he didn't see that this solved the problem yet and snowshedding was a hardship the applicant created. He stated there were ways to pull back the addition so it wasn't in the setback and therefore, saw no reason to grant this variance. Allison Ochs explained that setbacks were measured from the property lines, not from the roads.. Chas Bernhardt said the snowshedding was a design problem. He said as far as encroaching into the setback. that he had once been denied even though he was 140' off the street. He applied for the position on the PEC, because this was common sense. He said he would approve it because it made sense. Doug Cahill asked for the definition of a bay window. Allison Ochs gave the definition. Doug Cahill said this was a self - inflicted hardship, but it was a safety issue and so he knew the applicant's concerns. He then asked about the eaves. John Railton said the suggestion was to build the bay window at a funny angle that was not compatible with the design of the building. He said Allison was still interpreting this definition and that they might need to get an attorney involved. Galen Aasland said Allison said that John Railton's diagram was not accurate. Brian Doyon said this did not qualify as a bay window. Doug Cahil; said that this was a hardship area and he didn't see this projection projecting out any more than what was already there and that it was very much a common sense issue. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutcs M "v 8.3000 Approved 6/12/00 John Schofield stated that the code didn't allow for common sense and advised the applicant to go to Council for that. He stated that snow shedding`off a roof was not a hardship. He said, as far as the design, he could think of several ways to redo it. He said with a house this new, it should have been designed properly and therefore, this was a special privilege. Diane Golden said the hardest part of being on this Commission was when common sense didn't agree with the Zoning Code. She said that we just can't do it and apologized that common sense —cpuId not be a part of this. Galen Aasland said that he had a fair amount of empathy. He said that this was a special privilege and there were a variety of ways to solve this. such as taking the bay and folding both parts back. He said the PEC had to look at this with everyone having a level playing field. John Railton said there were ways to resolve this, but the reality was what stood in the way of common sense. He said he felt the interpretation of a bay window could be clearer and so he requested that that be looked into. Galen Aasland said John's suggestion was excellent. Clive Reeman said we were going to try and make the Town a friendlier place for locals. He asked, ''why have a real board and why not have a computer, if you could not use common sense." He said this cost a lot of money to bring this application to the PEC. He said they were asking for less then they could have had legally and yet they were being denied. He said that the new Town Council has been selling common sense and now we are being denied. Chas Bernhardt said he agreed with Allison. Brian Doyon explained setbacks within that piece of property. 0 Chas Bernhardt said Galen, with two strokes of his pen, made this fit into the setback. He explained that if the applicant got denied, the Town Council can use common sense and maybe he should appeal. Allison Ochs stated that the Council had to make the exact same findings as the PEC. Doug Cahill said there was hardship with the slope and existing building. John Schofield made a motion for denial with the findings stated in the staff memo. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. George Ruther pointed out that a tie vote was a motion for denial with the possibility of appealing to Council. Clive Reeman said the Town Council had to make the same findings and yet you said to appeal to the Town Council. John Schofield said the Town Council had to uphold, overturn, or modify. Galen Aasland said the criteria would be the same. He then said this motion on the floor was for the variance and an appeal to what the definition of a bay window was would be another appeal. John Railton asked for the Town's attorney to provide a written definition of projection. 49 4 Planniro. and Environmental Commission Minutes May. 8- 2000 Approved SM2f00 John Schofield said that that would not be part of this application and if there was a disagreement with the Town Code, it could be appealed to the PEC . He then said the applicant had the ability to table this, pending the interpretation. • Allison Ochs said, regardless of the interpretation of a bay window, the PEC would have to take action on the variance. John Schofield made a motion for denial. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 -2, with Chas Bernhardt and Doug Cahill opposing. Galen Aasfand asked for the bay window definition to be made clearer. George Ruther said an attorney had already been consulted regarding the staff interpretation of the definition. 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to eliminate a dwelling unit, located at 124 E. Meadow Drive /Village Center Condominiums Building BJLot 5E, Vail Village 1' Filing_ Applicant: Burt Nordstrand Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasfand asked if the applicant had anything to add. ! Bill Pierce, the architect., had nothing to add. Doug Cahill said he was in favor of upgrading units, which would be good for the Town. John Schofield asked if the building needed to be in compliance with all the codes and just for the record, he mentioned that the path and the pool encroached into the Town right -of -way. George Ruther stated that the improvements would take the walkways off and that the existing situation was being worked on. John Schofield said he supported this. Diane Gciden had no comments- Brian Doyon said he was in favor of this. Chas Bernhardt asked if the fireplaces were wood burning. Bill Pierce said that people were piping for gas and if it became available they would convert, but they now would have electric fireplaces. Galen A.asland said he was in favor of this, as it was in conformance with the Town guidelines. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the findings on IS page 3 of the staff memo. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. 5 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 8. 2000 Approved 8112100 The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 4. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #2, to allow for the addition of common area between Buildings D &E, located at 600 Vail Valley Drive /A part of Tract B, Vail Village 7 I Filing. 0 Applicant: Northwoods, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs stated this application wouldn't require any action by the PEC and advised the PEC to just ask for any public comments. Galen Aasland asked for any Public or Commissioner's comments. John Schofield made a motion to ratify the staff approval. Diane Golden seconded the motion. Galen Aasland, stated, for the record, that the PEC reviewed this at the pre - meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 5. A request for a height variance (Section 12 -7D -6, Town of Vail Code), to allow for the addition of dormers and tower elements to an existing roof, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)/Tract C, Vail das Schone #1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Vail das Schone #3. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo and said, for the record, that the DRB recommended approval of this. Galen Aasland asked for any applicant comment. Stephanie Lord, the Architect; said that they did a study looking at shed dormers. She then passed out an elevation study versus the gable dormer showing how it helped reduce the effect of more mass. Brent Wilson said they reviewed this at the pre - meeting. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Brian Doyon said lowering the two towers was a great improvement , but this was the same as last time. He said he felt the dormers were no problem but the towers cold be lower and broken up- Chas Bernhardt agreed with Brent's findings and analysis. Doug Cahili said he agreed with the staff memo and said it had a positive effect on the nearby neighboring community. John Schofield stated that oricr government regulations created a hardship when something now comes under different zoning and then it is rezoned. He said he had no problem with the dormers. He said he could be convinced either way regarding the towers and suggested a motion to have the DRB review the bulk and mass and coordinate the whole project. 6 Pfannincg and Environmental Commission Minutes MayS. 2000 Approved 6/12/00 Diane Golden agreed that DRB had already gone over this and agreed with their findings. Galen Aasiand asked Bill Fierce about the application for Crossroads; if this was a similar application. Bill Pierce said the Crossroads issue was expanding the loft space above the 41" floor that extended east and west of the ridgeiine. He said a formal application was never pursued. He said it descended a lot on the south end with 4 stories and adding a 5`". He then explained the different levels Galen Aasland said when Crossroads came through, he was very much against the proposal. He said he agreed with John. since this was done under County zoning. He said he saw Brian's point about the Towers, but not enough to vote against this. He said he didn't want to see this used to bring Crossroads back. John Schofield made a motion. in accordance wiih the staff memo including the findings on page 6 of the staff memo, with the recommendation that the DRB. in their final review, look at the dormer elements and tower elements. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the creation of a community garden, to be located at 2450 S. Frontage Road /Unplatted, `,rail Intermountain Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs. Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Todd Oppenheimer said there would be a parking area and 25 plots, 3 plots which would be accessiDie oy gardeners in wheelchairs. He said the shed was being donated by a property owner uo the street_ He said the eXisting willows would be protected and the garden board has talked about enhancement. John Schofield asked if there was really a demand for this and how much water would this use in comparison with other uses. Todd Oppenheimer said following the article in the paper, he received 19 phone calls and stated that all 25 plots may not be built. He said that part of the agreement on renting a plot was that people hac to agree to soend 5 yours a week to maintain the plot. He said people put down a $20 deposit that would not be refundea and the rent would oe $30 -$35 per season. Doug Cahill asked for a drainage plan Todd Oppenheimer said rccks would be removed to allow drainage towards the creek Galen �,as,and asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. 0 Doug Cahi i asked about the size of the composting bins and who would be regulating deposits and put.ing :he wiots to bera oefore winter. 7 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Mav S. 2000 Approved 6/12100 Todd Oppenheimer said the plots would be 4' square and the board would regulate the renters to spend some time working in the compost plies. He said that information sheets would be posted to notify renters to not throw animal based waste in there, etc. Doug Cahill suggested beefing up the down payments and donations. Todd Oppenheimer said CDOT will give material for the parking lot and the lumber has been donated. He said 3 -4 local residents wanted to pay for a plot for someone else to use and the feeling about it has been real positive. John Schofield said it's a lousy use for the land and he would prefer a cemetery. Diane Golden said it sounds like an interesting idea, but would require a lot of management. She then asked if the neighbors were ok with this. Allison Ochs said if it was not maintained, the PEG wouid have the ability to call it up. She stated that neighbors had been notified and as of yet they had not received any objections. Diane Golden asked wno would meow between the plots. Todd Oppenheimer said it was part of the contract to move between the plots, as well as the plot rented. He stated that the board consisted of 5 people from the Master Gardener's Program. Diane Colden asked for a larger Deposit. Brian Doyon asked who would monitor the water and he said he assumed it wold be irrigated. Todd Oppenheimer said there would be no irrigation. He then said that the rental money would take care of the water and the upgrades. He said he would monitor the water being put out by the master valve and the valve would shut down if water was running where it shouldn't be. He said they would write a program to shut the whole system down from 9pm until Gam. Brian Doyon asked who would monitor the plant material we don't want. Todd Cpoenheimer said that would be :3 police matter. Brian Doyon suggested making it more attractive by incorporating a path. He said in Europe these gardens were more of a walking area wiih more of a flow. Todd Oppenheimer said it was easier to maintain with the plots being rectangular Chas Bernhardt recused himself, as he was an easement holder on the property. Galen Aasiand disclosed for the record. that he worked for Lorraine ? and then asked about the driveway; He asked about the la,-ge, pa.-kJng lot for only 25 plots. He said a written policy was needed for fertilizers, since this runs into the stream path. Todd Oppenheimer said we could ;ncorporate this into the rules and our Code stated that the parking had to be paved to meet code. Allison Ochs said the PEC could decide the number of parking spaces. Todd Oppenheimer said that's how much parking that would fit, but he would be more than happy to make it smaller. 0 Allison Ochs said if it was not paved, it would have to come back to the PEG for a variance. 8 i= is ^ning and Fmiroimenta' Commission Min ti tes May f, 2000 Approved 6112100 Diane Golden suggested a basketball court as another use and asked if a parking lot with 10 spaces was big enough for a basketball court. Doug Cahill said the number of parking spaces was high and he too was concerned about the runoff into the creek. George Ruther said his chemical use was a good consideration. Brian Doyon said he could see 25 cars there. George Ruther said Todd's methodology was pretty sound. He then asked Todd how difficult it would be to add parking spaces- Todd Oppenheimer said one or two spaces could be added. Galen Assfand asked how many spaces were in Stephens Park. Todd Oppenheimer said there were 14 spaces that only fill up with special events. He then mentioned that it was about 100 yards to Stephens Park. Galen Aaslanc said he would like to see no parking. Todd Oppenheimer said people would start parking on the road. Doug Canill made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the additional condition that a list of approved fertilizers on the garden beds be included in the motion. Diane Golden seconded the motion, but said she still had a lot of unanswered questions. Doug Cahill withdrew his motion. John Scnofield said it was a half -baked idea and we don't have enough information. He said we needed a real concrete plan. George Ruther asked if the site Wan was ok, as it sounded like the operational needed work. John Schofield said his personal opinion was that it was a crummy idea and a bad use of the land. Brian Doyon said the layout of the lots was crummy and he would like to see where the overflow parkins would go. He said he wou dn't want to see asphalt on the parking lot and he mentioned that if t? -i!s went belly -up, the taxpayer would pay. He asked what the plots were made of and if topsoil would have to be brought in. He said he would like to see a drainage plan and the hours of opera-`ion being policed. He said with more information, he could support this, if it had less hardscape. Diane Golc!en said there were lots of uranswered questions. She suggested making the plots a little more interesting design. John Schofield asked if we were going to allow a rototiller or was it to be strictly manual. Doug Cahill said he would like to see it move forward, but he agreed he needed to have more information. He suggested having a spokesman from the gardening board to get us excited. g Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Approved 6/12/00 Galen Aasland said he liked this idea, but he agreed with everybody that questions were missed. He said he would like to have a temporary use permit to find out if it's popular before it gets paved, He said the enormous parking lot was out of scale. Doug Cahill suggested getting a variance Allison Ochs said a variance would take 4 weeks. Todd Oppenheimer said the PEC had killed it for this year. He asked how the PEC would him to figure cut the parking. He said he took his best shot at 10 spaces; as there were no parking standards for a community garden. Galen Aasland suggested calling a couple of community gardens and see how they came up with their number of spaces. Todd Oppenheimer said there was no lighting proposed; only streetlights. He said that all draining flowed toward the creek and they were taking out the high spots and low spots. Allison Ochs said the PEA, would have to prove a hardship to not have the parking paved. Galen Aasland suggested bondi,,ig with a larger deposit. Todd Oppenheimer explained he didn't want to go through the variance process. Galen Aasland said he would like to see a gravel parking lot for two years and have the Town bond the:,. Todd Copenheixer said We can take the project out of the RETT account so we have funds and he was more than happy to review it on a year to year basis. 0 George Ruther stated that. regardiess of the success of the project. it was only one step above loose grsvei. Todd Oppenheimer said to meet the requirements of paving, the seal coat would be necessary. He said :Ia would require a list of approved fertilizers and pesticides for the PEC to review as we move forward with this. Brian Devon asked about a manaoement .plan. George Ruther as''ked if the applicant could come back with management plan information. Tcdd Oopenheimv,- as' 'ked the PEC to approve tike land use without the management plan. Brian Dk-jycn said it was not the best idea to drain fertilizers into the creek. He suggested a settling pond. Diane Golden aske=d wha! if there were only 5 people who wanted to do this after spending so much money. George :Butner asked if they wanted a study done. Brian Doyon said one of the biggest mistakes Eagle had with their community garden was with timber -otting out, no seating area, no sense cf anythinq, that it might as well be a cemetery. He stated Ihat. the PEC was the final approval on a conditional use permit. Brent Wilson said staff could provide a report in two months. 10 Planning and Environrnentai Commission i�ti7utcs May S. 2000 Approved 6112/00 Galen Aasiand summarized it was the aopiicant's responsibility to provide a management plan and a parking plan; both of which were lacking. 0 John Schofield stated that if this was a ,private applicant they would be gone. John Schofield made a motion to deny the request, but :hat the PEC would consider such a plan if adequate information was provided. Todd Oppenheimer asked to table this in lieu of a vote. Brian Dovcn made a motion to table this. John Schofield seconded the motion and it was amended to table until the next meeting The motor gassed by a vote of 5 -0 -1, wiih Chas Fernhardt recusing himself. 7. A final review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek PrcmenadelTracts I & A, Block 513, Vail Village 1s` Filing. Applicant_ `Jail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau & Town of Vaii Planner: Brent Wilson Brant W lson gave an overview of the staff memo. Torn Kassmel cc.- imented on the findings from the fiocdplain study from J. F Sado who does work for FEMA. He said the floodplain would be more controlled than it is now. He said there was one 8" impact in the elevated flood plain, but said it would not impact any of the buildings. Doug C' &,,N;; asked if it ,rvou ".d affect plan` life or vegetation and asked about the duration. Tom Kassmel said it would impact the grassy area by Up the Creek, but remain on Town of Vail property Brian Doyon asked to see a t000 Tout Ka smel showed the existing enforceable flood plain. John Schofield said that the Aus r, is Harts and Pepi's were required to be cut of the floodplain with cheer redeve:opment. He said '.�e additional impact would be all on the Town of Vail property Todd C,; �•enheimer said the circulation. access clan, traffic control and the construction access plan were included in the packet. Galen Aas!and as,;ed for any public comment. Nikki Viars, from S;ifer Management representing the Village Center Homeowner's Association, staled t! -. sir biggast concern vvas tie pedestrian traffic that would exit out of the river at the International Bridge. She said the temporary fencing doesn't stop it and the association would have tc -eto landscaping, therefore, it vlas :materially in;urious to properties in the vicinities. She said that sianage didn't do any good and construction damage was another worry. She asked if funds were included in the $240.000 prcposai for additional traffic control and a better sitting area. She said the noise from the creek would be continuous and on going . She said the streamtract development would be an issue and suggested relocating it to where it allows for 11 Planning and Ervironmental Commission Mir rtes Mav 8.30:10 Approved 6M2/00 expansion. She asked what if the flood plain was affected and where was the written release liability for the Homeowner's Association. She; asked who was going to accept liability and who was going to maintain the improvements. Brent Wi!son stated that none of the improvements were on private property. George Ruther said this would make the stream tract available to the public for access and we needed to maintain the consistency for removing improvements in the public right -of -way. Joel Heath, Vice President of the VVTCB said from a marketing approach, that the Town would have business %vhen we need it the most and he said he was not just talking about mud season. Gary Lacey said he was working on the design on this project. He stated that this would be white noise. He said the maintenance would be identical as to what it is today. He said the stream would be left in a natural state. He saia regarding liability, the boater assumes that risk. Brent Wilson stated that he had discussed this in detail with the Town Attorney. Brian Doyon said he was glad to see this slowed down and glad to see the environmental statement. He said he was not going to suppc•,rt this, but it was a lot better. He said the circulation could flow out from the Swiss Hau:.;, which would open it up to for some seating such as pica c benches. etc. He suggested a gravel path with steps by Russell's. He said this was much better, even though 10 months out of the year it would not be worth anything to us. Chas Bernhardt said kayakers were not offensive at all and he liked this plan a lot better. • Doug Cahill said This only concern etas tine flood plain; as long as they know where the water will go_ He said since trash would be a major concern with the people and spectators, that area would need to be ooliced daily. 0 Todd Oppenheimer said it was policed daily, as part of the maintenance routine. Doug Cahill suggested to make it as easy as possible and real accessible so that it would get used. Johr± Sc'- ,ofield f:�id the bculders would ;'t make a difference and it was appropriate on Town of Vail property, but we would need some kind of signage plan. Todd Oppenheimer said it woulc be included. cn the Town directional maps. John Sr.•hofield said this %Alas the finest opportunity to get the streamtract incorporated on the Town of Vail property. He said trash containers would be mandatory. He said he could see tying this into the bus system and it would make sense to put kayaks on the bus like the bike racks. Diane Golden said she was naive about kayaking, but assume the put -ins and take -outs were whara trey were supposed to � a. She agreed with Joel that this was great for May and June. Galen Aasland stated that this was a public forum with the intent to treat everyone fairly. He said he was accountable to try to chair an even - handed meeting and invited anyone to speak to him about ti�at. He said this was a very complete environmental analysis that wouldn't affect any private oroverty. He suqqested adding a take -out on the north side of the international bridge, which wcu d make a wonder-`ul soot to see a small pati , where people could picnic. He said he was in favor of this. Join rr ade a motion for ripraroval ir ac ,.crdance with the staff memo. • 12 41F ^nir,a and. Envir ^ -imQnte" :;ommission Mimite,? May 8. 200 Approved 6x92 /00 Chas Eernhardt seconded the rr.ot!on. Galen Aasland a:tded a condition tnat proper .signage, benches, picnic tables, trash and kayak carriers on bus transportation be addressed. The vote passed by a vote of 5 -1, with Brian Doyon opposed. 8. A worksession to discuss a propc:sed zoning code amendment to Section 12 -7B -18 (Location of Business Activity), which would allow for mobile information dissemination within the CCI Zona District on publiy orooerty. Applicant: 1 /VTC6 Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL MAY 22, 2000 9. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -613-9 'Site Coverage), 12 -613 -8 (Density) and 12 -6D-6 (Setbacks), Tomin Code, to allow for a garage a.nd residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower Drive/Lot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner; All :son Ochs - TABLED UNTIL KPAY 22, 2000 Diane Golden made a motion to table items #8 & #9. John Scho`feld seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0. 10. Information Update Russ Fcrrest gave a heads up that the Town Council wanted to touch base on the process with the PEC. He also gave an update on the hub site saying that throughout May, they would be defining the design and revenue potential with more work needed on the architectural end. He said that an aiternative would be approved in June. George Ruther said that May 16th v,iould be a discussion on the hub site. One two -dear tens PEC vacancy — (Tom Weber). 11. Appro -.zl of Acril 24, 2000 minutes. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval as read. Doug Cahill seconded tl he motion. The rnotion pas.sea by a vc e cf F -C. Jchn Schofield made a motion to adjourn, Chas Bernhard seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vole of 6 -4. 13 Rl,,,sning and Environmental Commission MIRl1iC5 X14.v i`. ?OOU