Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0612 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE ,# NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of ,~/~ Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the (r~ Town of Vail on June 12, 2000, at 2:40 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, In cansideratian of: • A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of wireless telecommunications rooftop antennas & a public service use within the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)/Lot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust Planner: Brent Wilson A request far a cor~ditianal use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Building}/Lot C, Black 2, Vail Village 15f Filing. Applicant: Remonov and Company Planner; Allison Ochs A worlcsession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendment to Section 12-7B-18 (Location of Business Activity), which would allow far mobile information dissemination within the CCI Zone District on public property. Applicant: VVTCB Planner: Allison Qchs A request to add a Type II Employee Housing Unit to an existing primary uni#, located at 375 Forest RoadlLot 3, Block 2, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Gary Vickers, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a building height variance from Section 12-6D-7, located at 1755 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 6, Vail Village West 2"d Filing. Applicant: Daniel and Karen B. Furey Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a Type l! Employee Housing Unit, located at 2490 Bald Mountain RaadJLot 17, Block 2, Vail Village 13'h Filing_ Applicants: Mary & Sonny Caster, represented by Ben Aguilar Planner: Ann Kjerulf The applications and information about the proposals are available fior 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 notifrcation_ Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community ®evelopment Department Published May 26, 2000 in the Vail Trail ~. TOWN OF YAIL ~~ • r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, June 12, 2008 PueusHEo PROJECT ORIENTATIC3N 1 ~-1PPRLCUI~I'IO\i Ll.'NGH -Community Qevelopment Dept. 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Caster - 2490 Bald Mountain Road 2. Tap Room - 333 Hanson Ranch 'Road 3. Vickers - 375 Forest Road 4. Brandess Building - 2077 N Frontage Rd. 5. Forey residence - 1755 West Gore Creek Drive Driver: George ~~ NOTE: if the FEC hearing extends until 6:Q0 p.rn., the board will break far dinner from fi:b0 - fi:3b p.m. Public Hearing -Town Gc~uncil Chambers 1. Swearing in of PEG member Tom Weber -Lorelei Donaldson, Town Glerk. 2:00 p. m. 1:00 pm 2. A request far a conditional use permit to construct a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 24901 Bald Mountain RaadlLot 17, Block 2, Vail Village 13'x' Filing. Applicants: Mary & Sonny Cas#er, represented by Ben Aguilar Planner: Ann Kjarulf 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of wireless telecommunications rooftop antennas & a public service use within the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)lLot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust Planner: Brent Wilson 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow far the establishment of ou#door patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Raad {Vista Bahn Building}/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Remonov and Company Planner; Allison Ochs • MEMBERS ABSENT ~. .~ ro~,~ aF vim, 5. A reques# for a conditional use permit, to add a Type II Employee Housing Unit to an existing primary unit, located at 375 Forest RoadlLot 3, Block 2: Vail Village 3`d Filing. ~~'~' Applicant: Greg Vickers, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schul#z Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a building height variance from Section 12-FD-7 Val! Town Code, located at 1755 West Gore Creek DrivelLot 6, Vail Village West ,~"d Filing, Applicant: Danie! and Karen B. Forey Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A worksession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendment to Section 12-78-18 (Location of Business Activity)„ which would allow for mobile information dissemination within the CCI done Qistrict on public property. Applicant: VVTCi3 Planner: Allison achs TABLED UNTEL JUNE 26, 2000 8. SELECTION Ol= PEC REFRESEi11TATIVE AT C3RB 1=+DR 2000 Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Diane Golden John Schofield 9. information fJpdate Jan-Apr. 5, '00 Apr 19, `40 May 3, `a0 May 17, 'OQ Jun 7, '00 Apr-Jun '00 Jul-Sep 'a0 act-Dec `00 10. Approval of May 8, 2[}i)Q mina#es. 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 informs#ion. Sign 4anguage interpretation available upvn request with 24 hour notsfication. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department. Published June 9, 20ga in the Vail Trail C7 r C7 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONIyfEN7AL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE • • Monday, June 12, 2000 PROJECT ORIENTATION 11LPPRF.C~~'110N Ll~~\~GII -Community Developmen# ©ept. MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits 1. Caster- 2490 Bald Mountain Road 2. Tap Roam - 333 Hanson Ranch Road 3. Brandess Building - 2077 N Frontage Rd. 4. Furey residence - 1755 West Gore Creek Drive Driver: George ~o~ NQT~: If the PEC hearing extends until x:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:40 -17:30 p. m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:08 p.m. 1. Swearing in of PEC member Tom Weber - Lorelei C7analdsan, Town Clerk. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to construct a Type f6 Er'nplayee Housing Unit, located at 2490 Bald Mountain RoadlLot 17, Black 2, Vail Viifage 13"` Filing, Applicants: Mary & Sonny caster, represented by Ben Aguilar Planner: Ann Kjerulf 3. A request far a conditional use permit, #o allow far the installation of wireless telecammunicatians rooftop antennas & a public service use within the Brandess Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Raad (Brandess Building}ILat 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust Planner: Brent Wilson 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the estabiishment of outdoor patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hannan Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Building)ILot C, Block 2, Vaii Village 15` Filing. 12:00 pm 1.00 pm Applicant: Remonov and Company Planner: Allison Ochs • ~. rawN aF k~~ ~'~ MEMBERS ABSENT I 5.. A request for a building height variance from Section 12-6D-7 Vail Town Cade, located at 1755 West Gore Creels DriuelLot 6, Vail Village West 2"d Filing. Applicant: Daniel and Karen 13. Furey Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to add a Type II Employee Housing Unit to an existing primary unit, fora#ed a# 375 Forest RoadlLo# 3, Block 2, Vail Village 3~d Filing. Applicant: Greg Vickers, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTiL JUNE 26, 20aQ 7. A worksession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendment to Section 12-7B-18 (Location of Business Actiuty), which would allow far mobile information dissemination within the CCI Zone District on public property. Applicant: VVTC13 Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 8. SELECTION 01= PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB FOR 20QQ- Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Diane Golden John Schofield 9. Information Update Jan-Apr. 5, 'OQ Apr 19, `©0 May 3, 'QO May 17, '00 Jun 7, `OQ Apr-Jun 'Ot) Jul-Sep '00 Oct-Dec `00 1®. Approval of May 8, 2i30D minutes. The applications and informs#ion 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 caA 479-2138 for information. Sign language intErpretation availatale upon request with 24 hour noti~Fcation Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community p@velopment Department • s PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION r~ PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, June 12, 200© PROJECT ORIENTATION ! APPRECIATfON LUNCH -Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Brian Dayon Tom Weber Doug Cahill Site Visits 1. Caster -- 2490 Bald Mountain Road 2. Tap Rvom - 333 Hanson Ranch Road 3, Brandess Building - 2077 N Frontage Rd. 4. Forey residence - ~ 755 West Gore Creek Drive Driver: George ~~ MOTE: !f the ! EC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board wilt break far dinner frarn 6:00 - 8:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 9. Swearing in ofi PEC member Tom Weber -Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2:00 p.m. 12:00 pm 1.00 pm 2, A request for a conditional use permit to construct a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 2490 Bald Mountain RoadlL.ot 17, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicants: Mary & Sonny Caster; represented by Ben Aguilar . Planner: Ann Kjerulf MOTION; Brian Dayon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDTIONS: ~. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type Il EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. This document. shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. 2. That the curb cut located at the driveway entrance kv the property shall be brought into conformity with the Development Standards- • MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield Diane Golden ~~; ~~ ~~ T0i~,4 ~F VAIL ~~ 3. That no application for a building permi#, grading permit, or subdivision shall be approved until asite-specifiic geologic investigation, conducted by a professional geologist or registered professional engineer, is completed (per section 12-21-15 (B.1.). 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of wireless telecommunications rooftop antennas & a public service use within the Brandess Building, located a# 2Q77 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)/Lot 3.9, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: ^oug Cahill VOTE: 5-f] ARpRc]VED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: Adequate provisions to screen the equpmen# from public view are required. These provisions will be reviewed during the design review process. 2. That the dumpster be enclosed and approved by the DRB. 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor patio dining and seating, loco#ed at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Buiiding)ILot C; Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Remonov and Company Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-1 (E]oyon opposed) TABLED UNTIL JUNE 26, 2400 5.. A request for a building height variance from Section 12-6D-7 Vaii Town Code, located at 1755 West Gore Creek DrivelLo# 6, Vail Village West 2"d Filing. Applicant: Daniel and Karen B. Furey Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to add a Type II Employee Housing Unit to an existing primary unit, located at 375 Forest RoadlLat 3, Block 2, Vail Village 3`~ Filing. Applicant: Greg Vickers, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL JUNE 26, 2000 7. A worksession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendment to Section 12-78-18 (Location of Business Activity), which would allow for mobile information dissemination within the CCl Zone District on public property. Applicant: VVTCB Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN • 8. SELECTION OF PEC REPRESENT/aTIVE AT DRB FOR 2flDD- dc~ug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Brian Doyon No f~ep Tom Weber Diane Golden John Schotleld 9. Information Update Jan-Apr. 5, '~0 , Apr 19, `OCl May 3, `DO May 1?, 'f}0 Jun 7, '00 Jun 21, `pt} Jul-Sep 'QO pct-Dec '00 ~ d. Approval of May 8, 20QQ minutes. The applications and 'rnformatian about the proposals are available fc~r public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Communi#y Developmen# ©epartment, 75 South Frontage Road. 'Please call 479-2138 foe information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-235fi, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Deve€oprnent Department • MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 12, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type I! employee housinq~ unit located at 2494 Bald Mountain Road 1 ~.ot 17, Block 2, Vail Village 13~ Filing. Applicants: Sonny and Mary Caster,. represented by Ben Aguilar Planner: Ann Kjeruif i. [7ESCR1laTI0iV OF THE PROROSED U5E In September and December of 1992, the Town Gpuncil passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 13 (Employee Housing} which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHIJs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. In April of 2004, the Town Council passed Ordinance 6, Series of 2C}04, to repeal and reenact this chapter and provide additional incentives for the creation of employee housing in Vail. In Section 12-2-2, an Employee Hflusing Unit is defined as fellows: Section 12-2-2 Employee Housing Unit (EfIU): A dwelling unit which shall nat be leased or rented for any period Tess than thirty (3t3) consecutive days, and shall be rented anly to tenants whd are full-tirrre employees of Eagle County. EHUs shall be allowed in certain zone districts as set fdrth in this Title (Section 12-13). C7evelopment standards for EHUs shall be as provided in Chapter 93, "Employee ,Housing" of this Title. Far the purposes of this definition, a "full-time'' employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30} hours per week. There steal! he five (5) categories of EHUs: Type /, Type Il, Type lll, Type I V, and Type w. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Chapter 13, "Employee Housing" of this Title. The applicant is proposing a Type PI employee housing unit above a proposed three-car garage. The employee housing unit will be approximately 984 square feet in size and. will include twro bathrooms, a full kitchen, a living room, and two bedrooms. One enclosed parking space will also be provided for the EHU. The applicant is proposing to utilize the 5a4 square foot GRFA credit. • rr' :. rowxar~n~ ll. STAFE f~ECOIVf MEf~©ATfON The Community Development Department recommends approval of this application for a Type fl Employee Dousing Unit. based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of Section 12-13 (Employee Housing) and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Section 12-1fi (Conditional Use Permits} of the Vail Municipal Code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this application, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Type II EHU deed restriction to the Town of Vail Department of Community Developmen#. This document shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted far employee housing. 2. Tha# the curb cut located at the driveway entrance to the property shall be brought into conformity with the Development Standards. 3. That no application for a building permit. grading permit, or subdivision shall be approved until asite-specific geologic investigation, conducted by a profiessional geologist or registered professional engineer, is completed (per section 12-21- 15 (13.1.}. Please note that under Section 12-16 of the Vaii Town Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit Is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. • III. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 15,663 s.f. Zoning: Twa-Family Residential Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Total GRFR 4,666 s.f. (+5p0 s.f.-EFiU) 2.956 s.f. 4,533 s.f. Unit A 1,478 s.f. 2,071 S. f. Unit B 1,478 s.f. 1,478 s.f. EHU 300-120(1 s, f. U s. f . 984 S. f. (incL 500 s. f.) Site Coverage 3,133 s.f. 1,164 s.f. 2,741 s. f. Parking 5 spaces required far main units 5 spaces (4 covered) 2 spaces required for EHU 2 spaces (1 covered) 7 spaces total Setbacks 2Qf15I15 no change Landscaping 9398 s.f. (required) shall comply with code Outdoor Lighting shall comply with code IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Considers#ion of Factors; Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Gomrnission shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 2a, 199(3; it recognized a need to increase the supply of localslemployee housing units. The Town encourages EHIJs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents. The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town°s rental housing needs. 2. Tr:e effect of the use on light and air. distribution of booulation. transportation facilities. utilities. schools, narks and recreation facilitiest __ _ -- - -- and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there +Nill be little impact from the proposed Type 11 • 3 EHU on light, air, population, transporkation, utilities, schools or parks. 3. Effect upan traffic with particular reference tv conaestian. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and contras. access, maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parkins areas. Two additions! vehicles are anticipated in association with this EHU. One enclosed parking space and one surface parking space are proposed. Staff feels that this ~n~ould be an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. Snow storage will be accommodated on the property. The driveway area and entrance will be reduced to conform to development standards. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the oroaosed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The scale and buck of this proposed s#ructure is very similar to those in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that the proposal will not significantly impact the scale and bulk pf this project in relation to surrounding uses. The proposal is also consistent with the development standards applicable to this property. Staff is not aware of any other EHUs in the vicinity. However, the existence of a Type II EHU should in no way after the residential character of the neighborhood. 5. Employee Housing Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Section 12-13 of the 1Jaii Municipal Gale. Emplavee Noosing and shall tae subiect to the following requirements: a. Zaninq districts permitted by right or by conditional use. __ Type !i EHUs are a conditional use in the Single-Family Residential, Two Family Residential, Primary/Secondary Residential, and Agriculture & Open Space zone districts. The subject property is zoned Two-Family Residential. b. Ownership/Transference. The EHU shall not be scld or tr~ynsferred separately from the unit it is associated with. The applicants are not proposing to sell or transfer the EHU separately firom the free-market dwelling units. c. Additional GRF.4. The EHU is entitled to an additional 540 s.f. GRFA credit which the applicant is proposing to utilize. • ~4 Garaae CreditfStora4e Requirement A 300 s.f. garage credit is allowed for the EHU- All units not constructed with a garage shall be required a minimum 75 s.f. of storage area in addition to normal closet space. This 75 s.f. shall be a credit for storage only- The applican#s are proposing to utilize the 3t]0 s.f. garage credit to accommodate one of two required parking spaces far the EHU. Parking Parking requirements for EHUs are per Chapter 12-'10. The proposed EHU will be 9t34 s.f. in size and requires two parking spaces. The applicants are proposing wa parking spaces for the EHU: one enclosed ar;d one surface. Minimum/Maximum GRFA of an EHU The minimum square footage for a Type II EHU is 300 s.f_ and the maximum square footage is 1,200 s.f. The proposed EHU will be 984 square feet in size D~:nsity The EHU is ailowed as the third unit an property and does not count as density. f3. Findina~s: The Planning and Environmental Commission shelf make the following findings before gr~n:ing a conditional use permit for an Employee Housing Unit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of Section 12-13 Employee HausPng) 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 ar materially injurious to properties or in-~;ro~ements in the vicinity. 3. That 'che proposed use would comply with each of the applicable previsions of Section 12-16 (Condrtior~al Use Permits) of the Vail Municipal Cade. f aeve rya n elpe c! m e m o s! 0 OICa ste r • ~J ~, ~`1 f ~'P ~ ~ ~,~ <'~'~! ~ `'~ ` S ~ ~ ., ` jj/ 4 s M ~ ~ t + ~' ~' - i' .t +~ ~ I`''`'`ti~ l . e tj~~~ ~~' ` ~.~~ ~~I 8 9 ~ ~~ i ~ } ''~, ' 'l _.._- ,~. a/t .. i~----,,.~,,. ~ o ~~~ ~. ~ ~ i i~ a ~ I 4 ~,~ s 1 `s ~E ;~; ~ o I i\ e' ~ . ; f ~l~!! s ~,~. _ L ~r ` ~ ~ \\\ 4 •~~ 1 ~~"~~ .L. { " ~ ~. 1 ~ !~ 1 4\ ~ t ~ ' + ~~ 1~ d ~ ~ .~~ ~~ i i ~;, s ~~ ~, ii _', :~ ~. ~ ;'1 .a. •s"' ~~ I 7 `~` I`~~I F ~" ~i\ r ..~ • 1~Q~ •K4i~~_ F^ ~ ~~. ~~ x ~ ~ ~~ ' ~, - ~ , ~. a '~ 3; r i .~, ~~' i r, i /. r I~ ,'J~.1 V ` ~ '\ -i' ~IYa \ r ~~ „ ~ ,f a' ~t r x, ~± ` ~ F ~ ,~ `' ~~ v, :r ~i, ~ I ~ ~~ l~ ~'~~ ~~ ~ ;` -r !! '4 V. ry 1 _ / ~ iii ~. ~~~ f n+~ .. ;' lv ~~ ~ ~- ~ .IJ,cY .. /1 ~_ ~~ ~y~ ~ ._~ u~ r`~ ~ ~` _ ~~, ~ 4 ~ f ~`. , ~ ~,__;1~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ,r,, ~ }~ ~~ ~ '~\y`~a N!' ~ i rs ~ Y t~ a;' C i t u K ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~~ ` , ~> ,;; '; ~ c~ : e ~~ ~ ~ a-` ~' 1~, . , `r„r ~ ~ `~ ~ ti ^~.~ ,... ,+,_ _tv -s ~+: c~ t. ' ~(4 4 il: R: ~ i'+ ,n ~} •'7 3 ~ ..~ ~ ."s aN ~9N~RPti l~~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ _. a a,~__~~ r#~-6-9 r. f`Y0441h3,? t ~llll' ~an4•ruauanx~r~nena '~a G'~ r11ti ~ I-I ~~rq~^I t.'ld~ Ci~iy r^, /'~Z `LL~ . 4rJY MOltl 3~l 3laYA _.t-~ ~l ~~,I r~ ~--per :'J ~ LY ~' ~ ~ YJ f S Cl Y .l . t'. ~ I ^, !~ V o. ...n.... `t°~ ~ ~ -xe~.J..__I~,Ir--,~-I'~c~:G~-! ~~.ro-;elm ! In I ~. i `- --- r` --- = i ~ .1 ~. Sn! ( ®1al N h ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ .. -0 _ a_~ ~M~fl~ ~ ~ ~ 2~~ - I I -~-- .~ ~ Y 1~ Ca-.nsJ ~r enc 1 QI a I ~I , - ~ r,_-__ ~ .~ ~ ~~ ~ . A J _~} ~ { yYIk P~'x4"tY ~~ } <. 4~ ~s Q 4- ~~a ~~ ~ I ~~m ~ ~ '~ g~~ ~ ~ d r 0.S _~f.Y 1 ~~~ _a I ~~~1 ~ , G d i ~ _.. "~' ~ ~ I? c+ o i' ~ +~ 1 f I :z c ~,, t t .nmi ~~ ~ (l:. W ° ~ ~= ~~ ~, ~ }- _w; ,-, ,.___. N~. i~ i„ ~~ -,~~-,~ - . 111 ~~^~/r 1 - i ~ i a I : ~ : _-• I . ~" ~ i L ' Ij I _ {~~~ I a. ..- rnr.vno rLl z.z ,zz ~,w~~ro - - - - -- V >_ ~~ ~~ vg ~I .~ n ; j z ~~~~ ~~ =~1~ 1 al ~~~ t • • • ~ ,~ ~~~. ,,oL"rye i ~ ]ioeef ,,.,. s I+ a I ~ ~; ~~ s ~_ 1 ~- C -- z a f° ^_7- N" .~~ f _. _ _... -. AI '__~~ya ' I ~`='~ _.A.,.~ _ . _~ I ~- J ~~, v, c~~ - ~~~ -I ~1 _ ~ ~ ~°• I ~~ , i a i __. ... --.i.r ~ ~ I. i i, _F. ~ ~-F& / '`~ Sir •~• ~ h 5 ~ t j i, L h ~ ., s '' n~ ~~ii i ~ ~ ~<,~ ~~ik~ a .,j~ ~' ~ .~ I Irr ~ ~ I i~~ f i ~L? '~ I I~ ,c,,~SS ~ M ~~ y {I ~I I''i ~1 I i _ ~; ~N 1 ` ~ j l ~~i d ~ t I ',. ' ~ j v '~ 1 ~ _,~ dl i 11 t 3i { Iu~ ~ ~ y I VI i ~ i i -~ di y ~ '~~ ~~. ~ I ~ °~'~ ,,~ ~_ :~ s .,~ ~~~ ~~ .n ~~ { ~ 5" ~ V ~. ~ ~ ! ,. '-:~ :a .' - r `I` ~ _ 1 I ~ ~` ~ ~a !I ss~~y{ J~-!, $ I' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ A~ u ~, F 1 ~ '~ ~~ ~ ~!.~ s- 5 I ~ q ~~ ~~ lii 7;~ '}}~ s~y ~~ ~: ~~ I ?I ~,, n ,. y ~ 't ql \- :~iti~ V wll'~ .1 ~~~; r ONE N'J~i]O 31~~ ~-- _~ ~~;~ ._, ,;~~----- f: ,~ ~ ~ o~' ~ Ir` __._ ~~ ~, ~~ ~_ 1 y~ ~~~ ,, I i a, , ~. -~- +i . ~ " b L 4 ~_ ~ ~,'ir ~~ ~~~~ '~ 5, { P~ ~ni tW ~ ~ ~ ~~„I r 1 'i ~ ' ~~ ~ ~? ~ ~'. ~~ ~. ~ ~e ~; ~~~~: `\ 1 - .! 1 F 7 n ~~ ~: ~~ ~~ o~ ,~ _ ~ : ~.~ ~, ~, `1 P 1 t 4 II ~ ~ i t ~ i ~ a` ~~, ~',', i ~°' ~~ ~ ~ -~~ i, ~., ~ ~ M , ~ ~~ ti ~ A ~~ ~~ y ~ .~ ~~~`+~ ~~,~-- ~ ~ ~~ ~"1 '_ , , ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~' .~ ~~ :~ ~~d, ~~ ~. ~~~ ~.- ~.. ~~. r ---- ~~~~~'~, X14 << `~ !~~ ~~ a ~ .~ GI 2 ^~ ~i w~ j 4~ _ ~~ :; w T, ~ 111 ~~1, ,~ _~ _- I y, ~ t l 7; 11 ~1 5~~ ,, ~L~ `;~ ~I ,r ~ , .-~,~, //~ /j h .ti i . C ~, ~ , /~ ~`, ~/ s ~ ': ' / , ,~ -- 1 ~ Y 11 1 ~~ ~ _~ ,~ 1~~ _.: ~ " ~~ ~~ $~~m '- ~ `~,~ a '~ ~y~W $ 'Q aNr. V'• a~ _ S 4 '~ r r ~= ", z.:d ~, ~~,VA ti oe, ~ ,~ ,~ R P~ ~ h" l' n i~ I ~ II -r ~ :~ } ~, ~ . II • • lINV e191GJU i ~~ p.~. f.9 - ^'. ` }~ V \l~_ '_~ ' ' ~ ' .~~ 9 ~ ~ ~r _-. /, ~ ~ ~. i 1} ~ ,I ,r J „' ~~ d .w ~. _ ___ I ~ ¢ / ~I ~;, J ' ~ 4 i JJ r~,~ lid ~ - I -~~= I }\, Y f ~~ 1; N ~ y L~ ~. ~ ~ Vry~~i ~ ~ ~ (i ~ . ~~ l I °~. ti .~ i~ ~ s~ .~ ~yQ~ l t ~I_y n~ I ~~ y~ 1 ; V i B l+ I _. :S e G I~ ~ s ~+. ~ r - I -~ ~~~ I .i.. ~ j ' ~~ f ~ I. ,w ~s ,TT~I~II{IY~~. r~ 4 ~~ .I~ ~~,~ r.. E~ ~ C_ :~ ~, us ~! _~_cr~ ~9 ~?? C7 Vi z T~r~ ~ 1 I' v W } +~ V k ~ _~„ '; _. ~ -`~ ; x z -~ t~ ~- = `~ H •I I: It ~ ,, ~.~ ._ __ _ ~ i• '? i ~ ~ .. ' Imo. _ l ~ ,~ II i, i -__ ~ ..~. // a ~ ~ , 4 N T i ~ T -~.tl' ~ ~r'~~ ~1 ~~E~~j ~ y ~~I -_ _. ~_~ I ~..,.t.l ~ I 1 `~ Y ~~;;~~~Y , _ .. ~- ~\ yS l ~ ~ i ~I1 1! yl rl ~. „k s ~ f ~I y' ~1 1~ s 5~ P ~11 I V ~1 . ~ ~~ U ~~ ~ '' ~ '~~'~ n ~ e 3 ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ m g 1 ~ j C ~ ~ ~ s A 8g, a p a / ~ ~ ~ _.~_ ~-' i ~. I ~~~. l "~ z ~ ~ ~ J g a ~ ~ ,3~~ ~ ../-~ -. ~ . ~ II "~ ~ `` ~ '~, ,. 1 ~: llY~~~~~ {J~ ~ 1 ~ i ~_ . ~ ~ ~ `~ „,, ~t ~}i . f L `r~~., ~ ±yl _. ~~l LAl r ~ h ~ ~)t ~~. b +zz .,_ , [r j +P 4 r Yi ``. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` s-~` ~~ ~ 111 s11' ~ ~ ~ I ~ s .~ .. J 1 ~ 1 f r 9~ ~ ` ~ .. w ~~o S {aw ]] ~ ~ ~° ~ 1 ~ ] v# 6 8 ~t `f ~. ~ s ~ ~Y P ~ ~ ~~ ~z a ~ u a~ ~ U~ ", ~ .-. fl ( ~ f~ ~ a \, i _ ~ 7. ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ N4 4 ~ °x, ~~ 5 ~, I -0, fa j ~8' ~[ ~r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC)M: Department of Community Development DATE: June ~ 2, 20a(i SUBJECT: A request far a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of rooftop telecommunications antennas at the Branders Building, located at 2077 N_ Frontage Road (Branders Building}fLot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust Planner Brent ~Ison I. BACKGROUND AfJD DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This proposal involves the placement of 8 telecommunications antenna panels upon the existing roof at the Brandess Building. Additional telecommunications equipment would be stored wi#hin the existing Brandess Building ]n the vacant Suite A (please refer to attachments for details). Only the rooftop antennas would be visible from the exterior. • II. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PFC far acceptability of Use and then by the Df?~' for compliance of proposed b~rildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible far appravaUdenial of CUP. The PEG is responsible for evaluating a proposal for; Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transpor#ation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas, • 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the M" proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district - I_at area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRI=A - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Actian.• The DRB has nr~ review aufhority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. IIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the installation of telecamrnunications rooftop antennas, 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 district in which the site is located. 2 That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated ar maintained would no# be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare ar materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. If the Planning and Environmental Gommission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following condition of approval: ,4dequate provisions to screen the equipment from public view are required. These provisions will be reviewed during the design review process. 2 IV. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. The subject property is zoned "Commercial Care III," This zone district allows "public utility and public service uses," subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Staff believes this proposed use is a compatible accessory to the established use on the site.. Staff believes this use is consistent with the Town's development objectives, 2. The effect of the use on light and air. distribution of cooulatian, transportation facilities, utilities, schools. Darks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities needs- Staff believes this use would have a positive impact upon the above-listed facilities by providing additional telecommunications services in the Vail area. 1=ederal law (Telecommunications Act of 1996} prohibits local zoning authorities from regulation of environmental effects of telecommunication facilities based on radio frequency (RF} emissions. Staff does pat anticipate any negative impacts on the above-listed facilities from this proposal. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control. access. maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff does not believe this use would have any negative impacts upon the above-listed facilities. Staff believes the proposed use of Suite A would generate significantly less demand for traffic or parking than other permitted uses on the property. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses The applicant is not proposing any changes to the bulk, mass or location of the existing building. B. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make- t_he fn_ Mowing findincas before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is lacy#ed. 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. 3 Description and Proposal AT&T Wireless Services in an effort to improve wireless telephone coverage in the Vail area has entered into a lease agreement with the owners of the Brandess Building. This building location is ideal and will enhance the coverage and capacity for wireless telephones.. A major effort to locate the facility where the antennas could be attached to an existing structure was undertaken. The Brandess Building allows AT&T to attach the antennas to the existing building and to screen them from view. The design will make it very difficult to detect the antennas. Since the equipment is located in the building, it will not require any additional building construction. This installation also enhances a tight parking situation since the equipment room will be unmanned and not require parking. This adds additional parking spaces for other tenants. • The antennas and equipment wi11 have negligible effect on air, population, transportation facilities, utilities, parks and recreation facilities .and other public facilities. Traffic will actually decrease in the area since the office space will not be manned, but rather visited monthly by technical visits with two or three employees. The facility should have no effect on the character of the neighborhood since it will be hidden from view. • ~~ r' • • ~J I ~ f I I W ~ z ,I I i I 1 I 11 ~ I -Q fl '~ J I I n '~ I Il I 1 N la I I I I :r >, r= z I ` :7 f 1 Z 1 i 3 I // s l -~ I ~ i I ~ I l ~ P > > _' __.I __ _ ~ ~ ..---- ~ r,-- 1 I ~ ~ I i I I' l --- ~ ~ ~ I --- ~ ! I I II' ~ I I, ~ i i ~-- ~ ~~ ~~ i~~ w I ~ , III I , I ~~ ~ c ~I III I I, ~ w ' ; 1 _ _ ~'`• ~I ~ a~ I~ ICI `1 7 ~ i!~ I ~ I Iii ° g ~ I y I ~ - - - i ~ i - I -~- ~ I ~ !I ~ k ~i~ i I . I !II 1 1 _ T - ~ (/~ C ~ ~x~ I 4 ~I~: ~, i I i I i - - - - - - - L - - - - - - - ~ I I .a~ ~n I i ~ ~ , , ~ ____ ~ 1 I ii ~ , ~Q ¢~ ~ i ~z ~ I ~ ~ i I I { f ! i I i I i I I ~ ~ l ''~. ,9 I M I •~ J r in m w ~ in d! ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ in~ ~ m k' eti ~ r'~~ 2 ~ r ~ I ---- - - -- ~ - - - --- ~ f~-- i • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Rlanning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 12, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Building}ILot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Remanov and Company Planner: Allison Ochs -.J I. DESCRIPTION QF THE. REQUEST The Vistsa Bahn Building is proposing an outdoor dining deck to lae located at 333 Hanson Ranch Rd. I Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15~. The establishment of outdoor patio dining is a conditional use in the CCI Zone District. The deck addition will allow for outdoor seating for the Tap Room Restaurant. The deck addition will l,e reviewed by the Design Review Board far compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit to allow for fibs establishment of an outdoor patio dining deck, based on the following findings and the criteria outlined in this memo: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated ar maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinrty_ 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 1~~~ 4 ;a T4W~1' OF }~,~ILV • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit, staff recommends the following condition: That the proposed deck encroachment is entirely removed from the Town of Vail Stream Tract ar resolved with the Town Attorney prior to Design Review Board approval. 111. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Envir©nmentat Commission is responsible for' evaluating this conditional use permit application fora 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on Sight and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs, 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference ~o 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 i~n relation #o surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact repast is required by Chapter 1~ of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Review Board: The Design Review Board is responsible far evaluating the Design Review application fora 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. RemovalfPreservation of trees and native vegeta#ion 5. Adequate provision far snow storage an-site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building farms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 1 Q. 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 IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 1~OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit request to allow for the establishment of the outdoor dining deck at the Vista Bahn Building based on the following factors: 2 A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Staff believes the applicant's proposal is in concert with the Town's development objectives and will have minimal impacts on existing or potential uses in the surrounding area. The foklowing development objectives of the Town are listed in the Vail Village Master Plan and staff believes are relevant to #his proposal: 2. ~ Recognize the variety of land uses found throughout the Village and allow fdr developmenf that Is compatible with these established land use patterns. 3.3 encourage a wide variety of activities, evenfs, and street life along pedesfrian ways and plazas 3.3.2 Uufdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. Z. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that the proposal will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above-described criteria. 3. Effect upon traffc with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes there will be minimal, if any, 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. Staff believes that the proposal has many positive aspects and that the character of the area will be enhanced as a result of the proposed improvements. Los Amigos has an outdoor dining deck similar to the proposed Tap Room deck. As this site is adjacent to the ski yard, staff believes this will be an amenity to the public. However, staff recognizes that there are residential uses adjacent to the- proposed outdoor dining deck. All Town of Vail noise ordinances are applicable to this site. As a conditional use permit, the Planning and Environmental Commission has the ability to revisit the conditions imposed upon it, should any conflicts arise between adjacent uses. 3 B. FIN®INGS The Planning and Environ_ mental Commission shall make the following findings before ;granting a conditional use oermit: 7. 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 ofi the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location ofi the would be operated or maintained health, safety, or welfare or improvements in the vicinity. use and the conditions under which it would not be detrimental to the public materially injurious to properties or 3. That the proposed use would comply with each afi the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code, Irk • • 4 • Description & Compatibility The proposed project consists of an exterior deck extension on the south side of the second floor ofthe Vista Bahn Building_ The purpose is to provide outside seating for the Tap Room Restaurant. This addition meets development objectives of the Town of Vail by providing outside restaurant and bar area thereby increasing existing commercial use in properly zoned areas. The design of the deck has been carefully done to be compatible with features of the existing building. For example the deck rail will be identical to that which currently exists on the building. Also the deck is designed to respect the existing stairways, walkways and first float patio. Landscape materials consisting of two trees and some small shrubs will be relocated on site. In addition to the physical compatibility efforts, the compatibility of the proposed use will be assured. There are some residential uses adjacent to and above the proposed deck. flat team is contacting owners to resolve any issues. Positive impacts are anticipated... An increase in food and beverage service at the base of the ski mountain will be a public benefit. As this is limited to outside space, increase in the times of use will be limited. Rao additional parking will be needed. Also pedestrian and vehicular traffic will not be impacted.. • L_J • THE VA1L VILLAC;E CLUB '~ ~ ~ g~ ~ ~ SEGONI~ ~E~L DECK PI~A~E ~~ __ ;~„~.~,~..._. I ~/ i F ~ (l ~~, ~, ~ j~G~f. +"' ~ I....__....~+ . r ~ _ -~ _ ~ ~. - 1 ~ +; `i ~~ ~'_ L~ -_ • _ .. _J ~ ]]~`.. ~ R ~ J ~ r ~I ~ ..~ • '~ ~ ~~ i. ~~~~'~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~~ ~c sri ~= Vii,,-11: ~'h'iIF I • ~n ~ Iwto RAN ~u lvl TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE; June 12, 2t300 SUBJECT: A request for a building height variance from Section 12-8D-7 Vai] Town Code, located at 1755 West Gare Creek Drive/Lot 6, Vail Village West 2"~ Filing.. Applicant: Daniel and Karen Foray, represented by Ireland, Stapleton, Pryor, and Pascoe, PG P#anner: Allison Ochs U I. f3ACFCGROUN~D OF THEE REQUEST On October 26, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission granted front and side setback variances to allow for an addition to an existing single-family residence, located at 1755 West Gore Creek Drive !Lot f, Vail Village West 2"~. The remodel and addition were subsequently staff approved. A building permit was issued on May 21, 1999. Construction commenced and in November of 1999 an 1LC was submitted to the Community Development Department. This ILC indicated that the raaf was approximately 9 ft. higher than the approved building permit set of plans. Staff determined that the building, as a result, was approximately 3.5 ft. aver the allowable height limit. of 33 ft. Following numerous discussions as to haw this occurred, staff believes that an error was made between the surveyor and the architect regarding the first floor elevation. To determine height, staff compares the ILC to the original survey. As long as the original sunray and ILC are based an the same basis of elevation, height can be determined. Because height is relative, this comparison is the only way to determine exact building height Pram pre-construction conditions. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-7, to allow far a building in excess of the allowable 33 ft. height limit. Building Fleight is defined as: The distance measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof or eaves to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive located directly below said point of the roof or eaves, Within any 6c~ilding footprint, height shall be measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof to the existing grade directly below said point on a proposed or existing roof. ~~ ~~~. !i l~ ~o>~tv v~ v~ ~' 4 The applicants have submitted an altered survey, arguing that this is the survey they would now like to base existing grade an. They have created a new site plan, which they fee! corrects the height situation. However, existing grade is based an the pre- construction survey. According to the original survey and ILC, the main roof ridge is at 36.5 ft. and the rear dormer elevation is at 35.3 ft. The appfacants have been unwilling to provide a new site plan, based an the original survey which would show their proposal to correct the roof. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance. The exact variance canno# be calculated, as the applicants wilE not submit a new site plan based on the existing elevations shown an the pre-construction sun+ey. The variance would be approximately a 2 ft. height variance based an the original, pre-construction survey. III. RCILES ©F THE REVIEWING BC7ARDS Planning and Environmental Commission; Action: The PEC is responsible far final appravalldenial of a variance. The PEC is responsible far 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 saes in the vkc~nEty, 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 hoard: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal far: • Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings • 1=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 far snow storage on-site Acceptability of building materials and calory • 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 2 J • IV. STAFF REC©MMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the applicant's request for a height variance (12-6D-7, Town of Vail Code), to allow for a building in excess of the 33 ft height limitation based on the following findings: That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 3. There are no exceptions nor extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable tv the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. ~. 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. r~ V. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A, Consideration of Factors Reaardina Variance Requests: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the viciinity. Staff believes that the requested variance will have no detrimental effect on existing or potential structures in the vicinity. The property is adjacent to the creek, an empty lot, and other residential uses. 2. The degree to which relief frorre 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 purpose statement of the Zoning Code states that the intent of zoning regulations is "fo promote fhe coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential cammunify of high qualr`ty'' and "to encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent w~°th Municipal development objectives." 1n addition, the purpose statement of the Chapter 17 (Variances) of the Zoning Code states that: a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from fhe size, shape, ar dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic ar physical conditions an the site ar in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, sfreef locations or 3 conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cosf or inconvenience fo the applicant Qf strict or literal compliance with a regufatior~ shall not be a reason for granting a variar~ca. Staff believes that the approval of this variance would be a grant of special privilege and inconsistent with the purpose statements of both the Zoning Code and the variance chapter. There are no extraordinary circums#ances or physical site constraints that would make this height variance necessary. The applicant did not build the residence according to the approved set of plans. The approved plans were well below the 33 ft. height limitation. The applicants are not arguing that there is some sort of physical hardship warranting a variance. The original survey was submitted, reviewed, and accepted by both the applicant and the Community Development Department. The building was designed to meet the 33 ft. height requirement. The Town has approved previous height variances at the fallowing locations; Lot 6, Block 9, Intermountain (811319(}) -- due to Swale Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn 5~" Addition 0/14183) -building error Lot 6, Forest Glen {12112194) -change in base elevation of manhole 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 believes there will be not effects on the above-mentioned criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvemen#s 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. 4 ~~~d rLC P LOT 2 ~-~ ' '-~ `.`~' ' i LOT .~ '~, ~ ~ ~ - __ ___ ~ ;~ ~, _~ __ _ __ -_ I~ o~ e l~ ~ ~'~~`~`~ II r ~_ ~~ ~ g. 1~ _ ----_ _--.. - S, s, 11 '~ RCIf1F PEAK - I ,~ r ~ ELF 7983 8 ~_ LoT ~ ~~ ~r ~ ~ ~ i .2 ~,~~ s~ra~ r ~" a' + w ~ ~EL- 7985.5 ~.~ S' ~ C?r _ _ L. ;!=~ ! 00°~,, Z ~ ,~e-~^~`~rr~ ,~ 5 ~~ :y„Lr !cli~l - 70 - ~~ . ~~ I ~o J f'~ .~L~~~urrs f~ I t11 1 ¢ J~`~ ~7 ~~! ~/ I v~ ~1 If I :r_ .,~,arnr~~.,- 1 ~ ~ 1.9~ ,f%'-:~ r `-= ;.[~' ~I ~~ir 1 ? ! I~ I ~ 1 J I I I I ~ ___. 1 n ~` ~.,... ..r 38. r _ ~. ~ ~ i S46 ~4'3~'"W 7C15.OG?' ~ ~I C eQ~~ ~~~~k aR. ~.~r~' ,~. o. w~ NC1TlCE: According to Colorado law you must comr'nence any legal action teased upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. 1n no event, may any action based upon any defect in th':s survey be cornmenc~~ more that te~~ years from the date of cer~ilscation shown hereon. ~~ ~j~.r~\1r r~. ~, ~ ~` ~ ~ o. ~. v,~~ ~ „ I~1 g" PINF ~~ / LOT ~ - - / ll,Q}°s1 3Q• ~'T• ~ 12 H PINE f ~.~ AC1~E / ~~ 1~ '1'3~~ / ' . '~~ ! U ~g / ~ ~ / 1 Ly''' PINE ~~ ~ ~ ; ~/PIN~~ ~ ~ ~ / .~ ~~~~ ~o f~ ,~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~- ~ f ~. r r ~ ~ ~. ~` -~~` ~' / , ~, ~~ /~ ~ " ~ ~ / ~ ,~' ~ o ~~ . ~ / / ~~ w cry _~-~` ~ ---.~' ~ o ~~ ~~ o ~.• , ~~ /" `~g . ~cISTI ~ LtvE `. .~ , ~~~ --~_ ~ ',, PL,4N7~1~, ~ ,,I'' ~ LA1~3GAP41~ ~/~, ~ j j, ~ • D~ q ro7 ~ .3" PIN[ ~ 4 1 d " SPEN ,t© 8E ~A ~ 1 PC3351 ~ r \ . \\ ,3" PIN£~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ,3 ~ s ,3 " PINES .. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council,. Planning and Environmental Commission, and Design Review Baard. FROM; Allison Ochs, Community Development Department DATE: May 10, 2000 SUBJECT: Architectural Projections and Bay Windows At the May 9, 2000, Town Council worksession, Cauncil members requested additional information and clarification of "architectural projections", as described by the Town Code. In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission, at their May 8, 2400, meeting requested additional clarification of "bay windows," as described by the Town Code. i2-14-9: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS ABOVE HEIGHT LIMIT: Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpokes, and similar architectural features not useable as habitable floor area may extend above the height limit a distance of net mare than twenty five percent (25°!°} of the height limit nor mare than fi#teen feet (15'}. (Ord. 8(1973} § 17.200 12-14-$: BAY WINDOWS: Bay windows and similar #eatures extending the in#erior enclosed space of a structure may project not mace than three feet (3°} into a required setback area ar a required distance between buildings, provided that the total of all such projection does not exceed more than one-tenth (ift 0} the area of the wail surface from which it projects ar extends. (Ord. 8(1973} § i 7205) The above cede sections were formerly located in the supplemental regulations of the Town Code, but as part a# the adoption of the Development Standards, they were incorporated into the Development Standards. ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS: Staff has typically deferred to the Design Review Baard on discussions of "architectural projections". The code allows for "towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features" to be above the allowable height timid. Chimneys are by far the most common architecture! projec#ions, and staff reviews these to ensure that they conform to the height requirement (25% above the height limit)- In few instances are spires ar cupolas proposed on new development, Towers are slightly mare common, and in all cases, staff will bring these to the DRB's attention for interpretation. Generally, as tang as na GRFA is proposed within the projection, the DRB will approve the projection. BAY WINDOWS: Bay windows and similar features are allowed to project into the setback up to 3 feet. The definition of bay window has caused same confusion with the use of the term "all such projection". "All such projection does net exceed more than 1110 the area of the wall surface from which it projects ar extends." Staff has consistently applied the 1110 requirement to refer to the total projection of the entire bay window in relation to the entire area of the wall from which it extends, not as the ratio of the projection into the setback. The 1.110 requirement is intended to limit the size of the bay window in relationship to the wall plane to which it projects from, similar to the 50% requirement for dormers in relation to the length of the roof plane with regards t© interior conversions, Without this 1110 requirement, any cantilevered spaces could be considered "bay windows or similar features" and allowed to project into the setback. This is no# the intent of this code section. • JUN 08 ' L~ ~7S = c~PM HUGHES PF20PERT IES .lUne $, 2OQ(1 • Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail 1 'I 1 S. Frontage Rd. W Vail, CQ 81 X57 P. 2/3 Re: Request for Conditional Use Permit at 333 Hanson Ranch Road {testa Kahn Building} Ladies and Gentlemen: The Bridge Street Lodge Residential Condominium AssQCiatian the "Association") as the duly authorized representative of the owners of residential units in ~ - the Bridge Street Lodge Condominium, is adamantly apposed and wishes to convey its most strenuous apposition and objection to the pending request by the Vista Bohn Building for a conditional use permit to permit outdoor dining {the "Permit Request") sc~ieduled for public hearing on June 12, 2000 before tlae Vail Planning and ~~ Environmental Commission {"commission"). As the Commission is aware, the Vista Bahn Building is situated immediately adjacent to Bridge Street Lodge. The Vsta Bahn Building was originally permitted and 1 appnaved by all appGvahle authorities without outside dining. If the current Permit Request had been part of Vista Bahn's original approval request, we most certainly would have opposed it at that time and feel confident such a request would never have been approved. It cannot be disputed that the introduction of outdoor dining and service of alcoholic Beverages would necessarily adversely impact the harmony and serenity of our property and our experience here. leach of our owners now enjoys a degree of firanqulity which would be destroyed be permi#ing outside dining as requested. 4utdaor dining and liquor service would bring noise and commotion fo the immediate residential area where none existed before. The adverse effect of the service and consumption of 1 alcoholic beverages in an outdoor setting needs no further documentation. To the extent of music, dancing or other forms of entertainment are now being sought or would be requested and permitted in the future, an irrevocably poor decision made now would be made far worse. We urge the Commission to establish a clear, firm and unequivocal pri©rity placing the peace and tranquility of residents and cit~ens hrst. Clearly, this is first and foremast aquality-of-fife issue. Alot only would granting the Permit Request result in a direct and immediate deterioration of that quality of life, it would mast :.~., lainiy result in an ongoing adverse impact on property values of our members. As mentioned abate, we urge the Commission not to pemnit now a request which we believe would never 1 ,IUN 08 '00 0c~z5P~'I 4-IUG~iES PRI~PERTIES P.~~S haws been approved if originally requested - to do so would encourage further pvlitigi gamesmanship and further erode the basis an which cur owners decided to invest and iiue here in the first place, Again, we wish the Commission to understand our full and complete opposition t® this request on the strongest possible terms. We would not and do not accept ar approve of outdcaor dining at the Vista 8ahn Building in any fiorrn ar fashion or with limitations yr othennrise. The best interests of our citizens and of the public at large require the Permit Request be denied. Thank you for your atten~on to our concerns. Respectfully Submitted, THE 8RlDGE STREET L()dGE RESIDENTIAL COND~QII~iNIUM sy. Ronald L.. its: Rresident • • Approved June 2~. Z000 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 12, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Galen Aasland John Schofield George Ru#her Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brent Wilson Brian Doyan Allison Ochs Doug Cahill Ann Kjeruif Tom Weber Judy Rodriguez Todd Oppenheimer F~ublic Hearing 2:00 p.m. Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Swearing in of PEC member Tom Weber - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Cleric. Galen Aasland mentioned that item #5 had been withdrawn. 2. A request for a condi#ionai use permit to construct a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 2490 Bald Mountain RoadlLot 17, Block 2, Vail Village 13`h Filing. Applicants: Mary & Sonny Caster, represented by Ben Aguilar Planner: Ann KjeruEf Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant had nothing to add. Galen Aasland asked if the public had any comments. There were no public comments. Doug Cahill asked it there was an exit door from the garage to the EHU. Kerr Aguilar said you would have to exit the garage and go outside to get #o the EHU. Doug Cahill suggested an access door from the garage to the EHU. Tom Weber had no comments. Brian Doyon said he was concerned with condi#ion #2, reducing the curbcut. Ben Aguilar explained that the cut was reduced by 20'. Ann Kjerulf said the DRB made the condition part of their approval . Chas Bernhardt had no further comments. Galen Aasland asked if rents would be removed from the deed restriction, Brent Wilson said the Town of Vail has no cap on rents. Planning and Environmental Commission 1 Minutes June 12, 2{}00 Approved June 26. 20[11} Brian Doyon made a motion for appravai, in accordance with the staff memo. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-d, 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of wireless telecommunications rooftop antennas & a public service use within the Brandess Building, located at 2877 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)lLot 39, Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff mem©. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant was not present- He then asked if there were any public comments. Gharlie Clark, a resident. of 29 Zermatt Lane, Unit H, stated that he didn't want the antennas to be huge. Brent Wilson explained the antennas and said they were 4' tall and quite small. He said the Design Review Board would address the aesthetics. Tam Weber said his only concern was that they should be concealed behind a louver and it should be part of the PEC approval. Galen Aasland asked how past applications were required to screen. '~ Brent Wilson said we would have to be consistent with the Design Guidelines anal we could forward that as a suggestion or condition- Brian Doyon agreed with enclosing the dumpster and the cupola, but said he was not in favor of bumping out and suggested re-angling with brackets painted to match, Chas Bernhardt asked staff who the applicant was. Brent Wilson said the applicant was the Brandess Building. Doug Cahil! said he agreed an the screening and dumpster enclosure, Galen Aasland said the application was appropriate and complies with Town Zoning. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The matian passed by a vote of 5-Q. Ghas Bernhardt asked if we shouldn't recommend the wingwall change to the DRB. Brian Doyon said we don't need more bulk and mass. Planning and )=nvironmental Commission 2 Minutes June 12, 2000 Approved June 26, 2000 Brent Wilson said the PEC should suggest the bulk and mass be minimal and we should. leave the screening to the DRB. , 4. A request for a condi#ional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Building)fl_ot C, Block 2, Uail Village 1yt Filing. Applicant: Remonov and Company Planner: Allison Ochs Galen Aasland mentioned receiving a lefter from Mr. Hughes that had been fedexed to the Town. He the disclosed, for the record, that while on a site visit,. the applicant just showed him directions without influencing him. Allison Ochs gave an overview of the sfaff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Tom Bonnie, from Knight Planning Services, said he became aware of the encroachment of the deck on some land and wanted to work out with the Town Attorney on an easement agreement. He then explained a rendering of the deck and the importance of the deck expansion. He said he was pleased with the interaction with the Town of Vail staff. Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. There were no public comments Tom Moorhead said he was prepared to answer any questions about stream tract land. He said that the land was given to the Town of Vail within the last 3-4 years and was very restrictive. He said there was a provision for any improvements saying that Vail Resorts had to be a party to those improvements or they would take back the land and so Vail Resorts would decide the appropriafenecs . He said dining decks were an appropriate amenity and there were dining decks adjacent to private residences, but there were sound ordinances in place if it became disruptive. He then said anyone why owns residential property in CC1 should anticipate this activity. George Ruther gave the list of planning documents that encouraged the mix of lodges, commercial uses, etc. Tom Moorhead said various dining decks in the Town do have residential in the building or adjacent to them. Brian Doyon asked if a decision on the conditions! use would affect the agreement with Vail Resorts. Tom Moorhead said the applicant was willing to work with Vail Resorts. Doug Cahill said that there was an issue with a neighbor, having a privy#e deck next to this adjoining deck. He said he would like the deck to be pulled back and suggested a solid screen. Tom Bonnie said he would like to put up a screen between the decks, Doug Cahill asked about the Tap Roorn bar activities. Planning and Environments! Commission Minutes June 12, 2000 Approved June 26, 2000 ' Tom Bonnie said the Tap Room was moving into lunches everyday outside and hor's deurves into the evening until it was too cold putside. Doug Cahill said he could see the adjacent's concern with an overflow of a noisy bar, but not with dining. He said the stairs could be moved to the door on the west end. Tom Bonnie said they had tried to maximize the deck and still be within cads and said they would love to move to the east closer to the residential unit on that side. Doug Cahill said to move the stair to 6ne up with the door to the west making the existing deck come out to the property line. Tom Bonnie said there were main gas lines coming through and mentioned that the rise #o run gets steeper and there would not be enough horizontal distance for the rise. Tom Weber said it was an appropriate spat for a deck. He said he was concerned with covering up the entrance grad said, from an architectural standpoint, that he would ra#her see that deck move over than have a screen there. He said if there could be an agreement with the Town on Tract H, given that that tract was for recreational purposes, there would be an argument that this was the bes# place for the deck. He then suggested that the deck be pulled in a couple of feet frarm the neighboring deck. Brian Doyon said this was an appropriate use. He would like the pine trees to the east cut down for more sun. Chas Bernhardt said it was appropriate for the zone district. He said the adjacents were stuck with the use and he liked the idea of moving the deck away, but since it would cut the size of the deck down, he liked the idea of moving the staircase, which would give mare usable space on the deck. He suggested set hours of 7'a.m. to 7p.m., so there would not be late-night drinking hours. Tom Bonnie asked if it would be possible to extend the hours until 9:317 p.m. Chas Bernhardt said the applicant would need something to appease the neighbors and would like to see the deck moved with the stairway investigated. Tom Bonnie said he would like to figure out how to be good neighbors. Galen Aasland said this met the intent of the Town, but he recognized the conflict between the adjacent neighbor. He said he would like to see a reasonable buffer and as part of the condition of approval, there should be a reasonable separation. He stated that residential properties in the CG1 should recognize that a conditional use deck might go in. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. The motion failed for lack of a second. Tom Weber said he would like to set a minimum distance between decks. Discussion ensued between Brian Doyon and Tom Weber, Galen Aasland said we needed to set some kind of reasonable separation and the PEC was anti#led to ask for a reasonable buffer, Blanning and Envir©nmental Commission `t Minutes June 12, 20100 Approved June 26, 2(}a0 Tom Bonnie asked if there were any guidelines for this separation, rather than being arbitrary. . Galen Aasland said this was a conditions! use permit, with conflicting interests. Tom Moorhead said Galen correctly defined it.. Allison Ochs said the PEG could table this and propose a separation distance, or the PEC could set a separation distance. Brian Doyon said the DRB should take care of this and that the applicant should provide this to the DRB. Tom Weber said That one of the criteria for the PEC to address was light and air. Chas Bernhardt said the width of the staircase might be an adequate buffer, Doug Cahil) agreed that i# would be a substantial buffer. Rick Mueller said tabling this would not be advantageous to the applicant, as they wanted to catch some of the summer traffic. Tom Weber said it was the responsibility of the applicant to come up with a buffer. He said he would be more comfortable with tabling this, to let the applicant come up with a separation suggestion. George Ruttier suggested tabling this and have the applicant propose some sound and visual design alternatives. He said the applicant could then ga fo the DRB meeting for a conceptual review and then come back to the PEG. Galen Aasland suggested tabling this and coming back in two weeks. Tam Bonnie explained the site with the gas lines, power lines, etc. He said he didn't want a $30,0{30 deck to become a $100,OOOdeck. Chas Bernhardt said tabling would only set the process back one week, Galen Aasland said the use was appropriate, but the buffer was important. George Ruttier summarized the PECs comments. He said the PEG was agreeable to the use, but the PEC needed some alternatives to the buffering. Tom Weber said there were other ways to do this wiith a screen, rather than pulling the deck back. Brian []oyon said he supported this the way it was. Doug Cahill said he supported it with conditions of numbers and operating hours. Tom Moorhead said it was within the PEC's authority to require operation times, when considering adjacent properties and said this was not unusual for operational-type issues. Galen Aasland asked far this to be tabled, so staff could research other properties to treat everyone fairly. 'Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes June 12, 2Q00 Approved June 26. 2000 Doug Cahill made a motion to table this to the June 2fi. 2i]QO meeting. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-1, with Brian Doyon opposed. A request for a building height variance from Section 12-6D-7 Vail Town Code, located at 1755 West Gore Creek Drivell_ot 6, Vail Village West 2"~ Filing. Applicant: Daniel anal Karen 13. Forey Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to add a Type II Employee Housing Unit to an existing primary unit, located at 375 Forest Road/Lot 3, Block Z, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Greg Vickers, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL JUNE 2B, 20fl[} 7~ A worksession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendment to Section 12-713- 13 (Location of Business Activity), which would allow far mobile information dissemination within the CCI Zone District on public property. Applicant: VVTCB Planner: Allison Ochs WITH1<]RAWN 8. SELECTION OF PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT ©RB FOR. 200©- Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Tam Weber Diane Golden John Schofield Jan-Apr. 5, 'QO Apr 19, `QD May 3, `00 May 1 i , 'QQ Jun 7, 'QQ June 21, Q4 Jul-Sep 'QO Oct-Dec 'd0 George Ruther suggested reducing the impact by scheduling PEC reps for two months. at a time and that he had tried to get Council to do away with this altogether. Brian Doyon said it was not up to the PEC to make quorum. Tom Weber said he was in favor of 1 month intervals. 9. information Update • Planning and Environmental Commission 6 Minutes June 12, 2004 Approved June 26, 2flflfl Russ Forrest mentioned the Wednesday night CamFac mee#ing at Red Sandsfane at 5p.m. He mentioned the next step would be reviewing the 4 alternative concep#s and on the 18°h they would be asking Council to narrow dawn the alternatives. He then gave a Donavan Park update and said the VF~E3 would operate. but no# pay for recreational updates. Galen Aasland said he felt that. PEC warksessivns should be in a public forum and thought the pre-meeting should be held in the Council Chambers. 10. Approval of May 8, 20fl0 minutes. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to approve the amended minutes. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4_p with Tom Weber abstaining. Chas Bemhard# made a motion to adjourn. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. ThE mativn passed by a vote ^f 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:4Q p.m. • • Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes June 12, 2flflQ