Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0814 PECM ~~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YC)UR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE A NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plannin and Environmental Commissio e g n of th Tawn of ~~ Vaii will hall a public hearing in accordance with Sec#ion 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 94, 2Q00; at 2:00 F.M. in the Tawn of Vaii Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a minor amendmen# to the approved development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Ease, to allow for a new snowmaking facility, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts F?anner: Brent Wilson Pursuant to Sectian 13-7-8, Vaii Town Code, a PEC review of the proposed unit safes prices for the Garmisch Loft employee housing units, located at 2211 North Frontage Road /Lots 1,2 & 3 and Tract C, Vail dos Schone Filing 1; Lat 1, Vail dos Schone Filing 3. Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson A request far a variance from Section 12-6A-813 {GRFA} and a minor subdivision, to allow for GRFA alcove the maximum amount allowable, located at 971 Spraddle Creek Road/Lot S, Spraddle Creek. Applicant: Franca D'Agostino Planner: Allison Ochs A request far a sign variance, from Sectian 1'l-4B-19 (B}(4}, to allow fior a third business identifccation sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant}ITract F, Vail Village 5tt' Filing. Applicant: 'Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson 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. The public is invited to attend project orientation and site visits which precede the public hearing in the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department. 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 July 28, 2000 in the Vail Trail. Zvi; `~, ~S/l+If V~ IllLll : • PRU~F CAF PUBLICATIGIN STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. C©UNTY CAF EAGLE ) I, ALLEN KNOX do solemnly swear that I am the PUBLISI-IER of THE VAIL TRAIL and THE DAILY TRAIL: that the same are newspapers printed, in whole or in part and pub- lished in the County of Eagle. State of Colorado, and have a general circulation there- in; that said newspapers have been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-twa consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement. That the annexed legal notice or advertisemenfi was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspapers far the period of I consecutive insertions; and that the first pub- lication of said public notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ~~'l~~ 1t , 20 t3~`J and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated ~~~Z ~l , 20 ~ . In witness where- of {have hereunto set my hand this ~ ~'~ day of +~U+~U~ , 20 v~ . _~ Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary publi~in and the C~nty of Eagle, State of Colorado, this _ G day of ~~~~ ,20 °''~' . + ~~~ ,....... o ,., i ~r ~ ~ ~ .~~.~w i I l ~~ ~ ~~ •~Q~ My commission expireune 23, 200A '~r$ti .• ~T ~'~ '•...... O~ ~~O • • PLANNING AND ENVIRC}NMENTAL CC3MMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, August 14, 2000 PROJECT URIENTATIaN 1- Commetnity Develvpmes~t Dep#, PUBLIC WELCOME 12:40 pm • GR Training Session -Non-Conforming Uses ILotsdStrucfures :30 min. IVIEMBERS PRESENT M1=MBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:15 pm 1. D'Agostino - 971 Spraddle Creek Road 2. Gallen Peak Ski Base - 458 Vail Valley Drive Driver: George ~~ MOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board w911 brea#c for dinner from Fi:00 - fi:30 p m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2_dd p.m. A request for a minor amendment to the approved development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base, to allow for a new snowmaking facility, located at 458 Vail Valley DrivelTract F, Vail Village 5~h Filing_ Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Brent Wilson 2. Pursuant to Section 13-7-fi, Vail Town Code, a PEC review of the proposed unit sales prices for the Garmisch Loft employee housing units, located a# 2211 North Frontage Road I Lots 1,2 & 3 and Tract C, Vail das Schone Filing 1; Lot 1, Vail das Schone Filing 3. Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-6A-SB (GRFA) and a minor subdivision, to allow for GRFA above the maximum amount allowable, located at 971 Spraddle Creek RoadlLot 8, Spraddle Creek. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino Planner: Allison Ochs • 4. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-48-19 (B)(4), to allow for a third business identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)ITract F, Vail Village 5'h Filing. Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson WITH[}RAWN ~~ ,,~+ ~~ TOWN OF YAL1. ~' 5. Information Update SELE~GT14N ~OF PEC REPRES>=NTATIVE AT DR6 FOR 20Q0- Doug Cahil! - Jan-Apr. 5, '00 Chas Bernhardt - Apr 19, `{lQ Galen Aasland - May 3, '00 Brian Doyon - May 17, '0(} - Jun 7, `00 Tom Weber - Jun 21, '00 Jahn Schofield - Jul 5, 'Oo Chas Bernhardt - Jul 19, 'l30 Doug cabin - Aug ~, 'ao Tom Weber - Aug 16, '00 - Sep 8, 'OQ Galen Aasland - Sep 20, `QQ John Schofield - Oct-Dec '00 5. Approval of July 24, 2aao minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspec#ion 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 tnrith 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community IJevefapment Department Published August 11, 2000 in the Uail Trail • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL C©tUiMISS1C)N MEETING RESULTS • • Monday, August 14, 2000 PRO.IECT URIENTATiQN 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC 'WELCQME 12:00 pm ~ GR Training Session -Non-Conforming Uses !Lots/Structures :~0 min. MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bemhardt Brian Doyon Doug Gahill lam Weber Site Visits 1. D'Agostino -~ 971 Spraddle Greek Road 2. Golden Peak Ski Base -- 458 Vail Valley Drive Driver; George NQTE; if the PEC hearing extends entii 6:DD p.m., the board may break far dinnerfram 6:DD - 6:30 p. m. 1;15 pm Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 p,m. 1. A request for a minor amendment to the approved development plan for the Golden Peak Ski. Base, to allow for a new snowmaking facility, located at 458 Vail Valley DrivelTract F, Vail Village 5ih Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Brent Wilson MOTIC3N: Brian Doyon SECOND: Ghas Bemhardt VOTE: 4-0-1 r;Qoug abstained) APPROVED `WITH 1 CQNDITION; 1. If any inconsistencies between this proposal and the Town's noise ordinance arise, the PEC reserves the righ# to re-review the plan to determine appropriate mi#igatian. 2. Pursuant to Section 13-7-J6, Vail Town Code, a PEC review of the proposed unit sales prices far the Garmisch Loft employee housing units, located at 2211 North Frontage Road I Lots 1,2 & 3 and Tract C, Vail dos Schone Filing 1; Lot 1, Vail dos Schone Filing 3. Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner; Brent Wilson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Chas Bemhardt VOTE: 5-(} APPROVED r~ u ~{~y~ /{p y ~ l1 J S/ R! R GP V111L~ MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield Diane Golden 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-6A-SB (GRFA} and a minor subdivision, to allow far GRFA above the maximum amount allowable, located at 971 Spraddle Creek RoadlLot 8, Spraddle Creek. Applicant: Franco D'Agostino Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Tom UVeber VQTE: 5-4 DENIED -GRFA VARIANCE WITHDRAWN -MINOR SUBDIVISION 4. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-48-19 ~B}(4), to allow for a third business identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurarit)/Tract F, Vail Village 5~' Filing. Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson WITHDRAWN 5. Information Update SELECTION OF PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB FOR 200fl- Doug Cahill Chas Bemhardt Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Tom Weber John Schofield Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Galen Aasland Tom Weber Brian Dayan John Schofield Jan-Apr, 5, '40 Apr 19, '44 May ~, `44 ~1ay 17, '40 Jun 7, `04 Jun 21, '04 Jui 5, '00 Jul 19, '00 Aug 2, '00 Aug 1fi, '00 Sep 6, '40 Sep 24, `40 Oct-Dec '04 6. Approval of July 24, 2040 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development. Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign taraguage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone forthe Hearing Impaired, far infgrmation. Dammunity Development Department • 2 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Rnud Vail, Cnlarad~ 81657 970-479-.2138 F4X 97(1-479-2452 www. ci. vail. cn. aes August 1, 20(]0 Dave Tucholke, Snowmaking Foreman Vail Resorts PCB Bax 7 Vail, CO 81058 And Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) Re: A request for a minor amendment to the approved development plan far the Golden Peak Ski Base, to allow for a ne-nr snowmaking facility, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5"' Filing. Dear Dave. Based upon the required findings contained in Chapter 12-8D, Vaii Tawn Code, the above- referenced amendment to the Golden Peak Ski Base development plan has been appr+avecl by staff. I. DESCRIRTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The request is far a minor amendment to the Gaiden Peak development plan to allow for the construction of a new snowmaking facility. Pursuant to Section 1~-9A-2, Vaii Tawn Cade, a "minor amendment" is defined as follows: MINOR AMEN~IVIENT (STAFF REVlEW).• Modifications to building plans, site ar landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development/ski base recreation district, and are consistent wifh the design criteria of this Chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet {5') to approved setbacks and/or building footpritlts; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor area (exclading residential uses) of Trot more than five percent (5°l) 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 (25~ Additional GRFA} of this Ttle. • ~~ RF,f.YC.LI:'17PAPER The proposal involves the demolition of the existing snowmaking facility (910 square feet) and the reconstruction of a new, larger facility Et,792. square feet)- Since the proposal invcives the addition of 1.5% (less than 5~'/a) of the approved non-residential ffaar area for the Golden Peak Ski Base, the appropriate procedure for review is a rriinor amendment (staff review}, subject to the criteria outlined in Section II of this letter. On July 21, 2000, the Town of Vail Design Review Board approved the design review portion of this request with the following conditions: 1) Three {3} 8-10' coniferous trees must be added to the northeast of the trans#ormers [to provide screening in accordance with Section 1 ~I-1-7(10)0)(3), Vail Town Cade]. 2} The cooling equipment (shown to the south of the proposed building on the site plan} shall be painted oxford brown (pursuant to Section 14-1-7(10)(fJ)(4), Vail Town Code). 3) The proposed lighting for the building will be reviewed by staff to ensure compliance with the Town's outdoor lighting standards- 4} Approval of the minor amendment to the Golden Peak Ski Base development plan is required at the PEC and staff level. II. CRITERIA AND FIN[31NGS A. Section 12-8D-6D: Arnendrnents to the approved development plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-9A-10 of this Title. Section 12-9A-10 is addressed below. B. Section 12-~A-2: Minor Amendment (staff review}: Madifieatiions 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 tc~ landscape or site plans that do not adversely irr~pact pedestrian or vehicular circulation. The approved Golden Peak development plan includes the Golden Peak buildings, parking and ski runs. This proposal would consolidate the existing snowmaking "outbuildings" into one uniform structure. A landscape plan for the new building has been approved (with conditions) by the Town of Vail f3esign Review Board- The proposed use has already been approved as part of the original Golden Peak Ski Base development plan and staff believes this proposal provides a more e#ficient, aesthetically/environmentally sensitive solution to the ski area's snowmaking needs. Proposed building height is 205' ridge / i 5' eaves. 2 C. Section 12-9A-1©: 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 ofi 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 brie# 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 July 28, 20010. This approval will be reported to the Planning and Environmental Commission on August 14, 2000, and a report will be provided to the adjacent property owners within five days of today's date. You should be aware that this approval could be called up for additional review by the Planning & Environmental Commission on August, 14th. If you have any questions, please contact me at 479-2140. Sincerely, E3rent Wilson, AICP Planner II Attachments F:IEVERYONEIPECIMEMOS'~,o01GaldPeak • - • _-~,_~ --/ ~~1 ~ ti NORTH ELEVAiIt]N (. ~ V._ __ ~--~ T ,~ ~ -- - gr g # i t ~ s ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ t i ~ WESf E:lEYAl10N ~.. PftE~.1MiIMARY __ --~- ~ scrrAUEgEFT QORDOM hEYER RIG. rr'~I ~ p7~+ /{~jr~ __ . _ n"~ - me W. am 8dw1, euY. sa0 Y~ i~1Js~lii l ~ rtw av µ{/ R I FOR JC ml.nwona sprig., cob~.ao abai I Ik7c + ro~rn ew ~ r_: ~N[ re~oa aaa-aaa~ ~- @- I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GON57RlJCi`ION ,~,°°''~~ ~ A.p.ry caw, ffa room axa e~s~ CQLD37Y PFAa CL1,~1•JW1.hR $UILI?ING { ~' (~ .w -• sauni. _~r+~nar~ ~~ ~~~''~i ~~ _. IIIIIIG1111IIU111!li~'~Illill ~~} r~vAnaN PRELIMINARY , s~IM~U' E9Aa aOHDa9 IuErEFr rie, NOt ~~ re w. enr emaa em zeo Cilsnwriad CalarAdm 91Bnr FOR -- - M i~~m a+s°~a ¢nx raw wa ewea AONBTRUCTION ~ -~^'® A!w~c ~.m4i~roi a:s-erva vary ~~soRT cor.~.~ P.aar carrnxsso~t gr~nnvc • • n BUII.QINC._ SEGT10iV (LC1~7K~NG~SOUTH} 7~v _c~ __. ~/ ~ 1~ I '/~ i~c+r°1J 1 1 M Ot 9 `fI 1 l' f ~~.: __ ~> .~ _ .~ - as~a Wr 16a ~ . ®I ~w » ,.~.. ,~,, ,.. ~; ~,~ . ~..~..,~..~.,~Mwa1.,,~ .~ ~. 6. m ms w+r641 swl K.w.+dr.1o in +~.w vfl. >~ro urwl c uou+m Im+~a usa near ~ a ar.~ ,o w corn wa ~wwac w6 e rwrnas s ra.ua ti ew.alo. m .wls . o o n< m.ow. I.wrore w1e..x ow wu.n m1vw~ rmo rr a6+.lma 1u. rw.~6rc u~aaf n•re6n ~ q rcros'a, o o.w.r~: wwa . ~a,d~ ,.e ~1 sw.sv.x w.1sc.~ar w r ua ~n w.o ~n.av m r mocm..x a.~crx wmew ~n1mx. wrm wu arex w ~., acr .rua ~1 aaw~ ~~'mc x~cc+a .'co"i' wa c.,mo.a .. n 6a.6 roc ~~ acr,.a ~ w wrr wal mm , .n~a.ro a.n.. s+or. m awa awn rw .. ~ ~ mason x a mn. S. Lq Im1.q. Ma w1U iwl rR IM6M WOI b ~C1 Yia~6 a In~P®W 1M1S 11ORQ. A l9fU' ILR MVL At N .. +6111 lni urs o i ~ ~ a3 fllan rtwq~y /r ~ NrDw OWA R.~-6.~ wJlw R Berta "=„ YA • Wm tow. wY u ofoLi f(oR ~ VIr'6 !wl t s.•T R ti4< CHIC fYw-~ ~. N4 rww ~ as yy a 41Gtlwly 1v¢ n~ u awl +rr..::w6 ~ awa wwc a 1rran lvrrc fm-va PAELIMlf~ARY ~ ~,R g~ ~ ,~,a. - MO7 ~-r~ ne wtaoa eellga, aolwaao eromi a rnrae,ret~ ~-n.m ~.~111..., ~ ~~- : , ~ ~ R ~r ~ Nc. i'AIL RR.SORT '°I ~.»r ~ _ _el,. ~ R 77~,~c~ s eke-aw sex laia us-aa~s~ GTN.~',1?~~,' 11 CE7H87RUCTK7N ~'*~ - caool.en sera aam-e~tr GO~GDBN P.~JS COYP~OR BLaAlNG --~_ _ -_ - - ~~ J(ISC: Ili p' ~ _ ~ ~- - ti ~ z.s ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - - l - - ~ ` \` ~ I ~ r ~~ 2, 2 2.6 ~ eaic.t, _ ~ ~`` ~~ EDCE OF C,CINCRETE ~,~..~ NSFORl~RS .. .. _ . - _._ _-... ~ i _ a ;; r Z.0~\ ~1 1lI weirs:?' `\ _ - t = ~~ I/ i ~ ~- ~ , y . , f /' 7 ~ ~ ~ I i ,I/ ~~ I SNON AiAK1NC ~ y ~ f ~ ELECTRICAL NEETEfi ~` 4 I. H7CRANT ~ ®,,,.~ A -~•~ ~ ~ 3.0 ~! J i i ~' - i r' 2,0 i~ ! i I sf 1 ~ '~~ F . ,~ ~~' 14 ; ~ I I ,:Y ~. ~1 ~ ~~ ~I i ~ i i ~~ ', y ' I B~~~ ~~ • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Depar#ment DATE: August t 4, 2000 SUBJECT: Pursuant to Section t 3-7-6, Vail Town Code, a PEC review of the proposed unit sales prices for the Garmisch Loft employee housing units, located at 221 t North Frontage Road f Lots 1,2 & 3 and Tract C, Vail das Schone Filing t ;Lot 1, Vail das Schone Filing 3. Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson I. BACKGRC3UND AND I~ESCRIPTIUN OF THE RE4UEST When the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2000 (to provide for conversion of accommodation units Onto employee housing units), they added a requirement that the developer must submit a list ofi unit sales prices for review by the PEC during the conditional use permit process. The intent behind this provision was to ensure the units were sold at an affordable rate. The applicant, the Recut Corporation, is working through the Town of Vail's Housing Division with a lottery process for qualified buyers. This gives the town the ability to ensure the units are being sold to eligible recipients in accordance with town ordinances and deed restrictions. Additionally, the Town of Vail receives a 2% commission in exchange for administrative cos#s. The Town anticipates many units will be under contract by late August. Any future resales of these units will be facilitated by the Town of Vail to ensure the integrity of the deed restrictions remain intact. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATIQN The Department ofi Community Development recommends approval of the applicant's proposed unit sales prices for the Garmisch Loft employee housing units pursuant to Section 13-7-6, Vail Town Code, subject to the following. finding: That the proposed maximum sales prices for the units are consistent with the provisions of Section t 3-7-6, Vail Town Code. Yom, I ~~~~ ~_` i4 ro>~a~~ArL ~ F :Icdevl P E C1M E M OS1001 W V L©DG E 5. dac IlI. CRITERIA F(]R REVIEW The proposed sales prices for the units are indicated on the following page. Prices range from $113,313 to $167,DD3 depending on square footage. The condominium association dues listed include ail utilities except telephone and cable television and are based on square footage calculations. Additionally, a 3°,% annual appreciation cap has been placed on each unit in order to ensure the units will remain affordable in the future, For a point of reference, the Vai! Town Council authorizes the "buy-down" of one bedroom units priced $14D,DDD or less and two bedroom units priced $175,DDD or less. The median unit price for the Garmisch Lofts units is $13D;413,D0 (requiring a monthly mortgage payment of about $945.00}. This price would represent approximately 85% of the median mortgage payment paid in Eagle County (Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 1999). • • F:IcdevIPECIMEMOStoo1W V LODGES.doc • • Unit Number Square Feet Sales Price Monthly Dues 202 772 $159,051 $342.37 203 550 $113,313 $200.30 204 560 $i 15,539 $203.83 205 560 $115.539 $203.83 206 560 $115.,539 $203.83 207 560 $115,539 $203.$3 208 560 $115,539 $203.83 209 560 $115,539 $203.83 210 560 $115,539 $203.83 211 560 $115,538 $203.83 212 634 $130,619 $230.31 213 633 $130,413 $230.31 214 633 $130,413 $230.31 215 633 $130,413 $230.31 216 633 $f30,413 $230.31 217 633 $130,413 $230.31 218 633 $130,413 $230.31 21'8 633 $130,413 $230.31 220 633 $130,413 $230.31 221 633 $130,413 $230.31 301 772 $167,003 $342.37 302 550 $118,979 $200.30 303 560 $i 21,142 $203.83 304 560 $121,142 '$203,83 305 560 $121,142 $203.83 306 560 $121,142 $203.83 307 560 $121,142 $203.83 308 560 $121,142 $203.83 309 560 $121,142 $203.83 310 560 $121,142 $203.$3 311 634 '$137,150 $230.31 312 633 $136,934 $230.31 313 633 $136,934 $230.31 314 633 $136,934 $230.31 315 633 $136,934 $23fl.31 316 633 $136,934 $230.31 317 633 $136,934 $230.31 318 634 $137,150 $230.31 319 634 $i 37,150 $230.31 320 634 $137,150 $230.31 Ga>imidch Lo~.ta - Aug~.a.t l4, 2000 • MEM~?RANCUIVI TO. Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 14, 2000 SUB,~ECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-6A-8B (GRFA) and a minor subdivision, to allow for GRFA above the maximum amount allowable, located at 971 Spraddle Creek Road/Let $, Spraddle Creek. Applicant: Franco ['Agostino, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Allison Ochs OESCRIPTI~N OF THE REQUESTS A. GRFA VARIANCE The applicant, Franco ©'Agostino, represented by Zehren and Associates, is requesting a variance from Section 12-6A-$B and a minor subdivision to allow for Grass Residential Floor Area in excess of the maximum amount allowable.. In • Spraddle Creek, GRFA is controlled not only by the Hillside Residential Zone District, but also by a plat restriction. Any change to the allowable GRFA requires both a variance and a minor subdivision to change the plat note, The Tawn Code defines GRFA as "The total square footage of all levels of a building,. as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls ~i.e., oat including furring, sheetrock, plaster and ether similar wall finishes)." The purpose of GRFA, as stated in Chapter 1$ of the Zoning Regulations is: ...Ta control and limit the size, bulk, and rrrass ref residential structures within the Town, Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size ref residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and Tight in residential areas and districts. The applicant is arguing that due to the steepness of the lot, the pause when originally constructed was designed to be more linear in nature, requiring a greater amount of floor area to be used for circulation. The applicant is requesting approximately 133 sq, ft. of additional GRFA. The applicant's entire statement has been attached for reference. In addition, the applicant has provided a slope analysis to illustrate the extreme slopes on the lot. Because the residence received a Final Certificate of Occupancy in 1999, it is not eligible for additional GRFA as provided for within the Zoning Regulations through the Interior Conversion Ordinance or the "250°' Ordinance. The proposed addition has no effect on site coverage or setbacks. 1 ~, T~44'N OF Till ~~ B. MINOR SUBDfVISION The plat for 5praddle Creek Estates also prescribes the maximum allowable GRFA through a plat note. Any change to the plat, including altering plat notes, requires a Minor Subdivision. The platted allowable GRFA is more restrictive than would be allowed under Hillside Residential Zoning in some cases- However, on Lot 8, the platted GRFA and allowable GRFA by zoning are the same. IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. GRFA VARIANCE The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested GRFA variance subject to the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the following findings: That the granting of the GRFA variances constitutes a grant of special privilege inc©nsistent with the limitations an other properties in the 'Hillside Residential Zone District. 2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the GRFA regulations does not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town Code ar the Hillside 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 Hillside Residential Zone District. 4. That the strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation would Trot deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. B. MINOR SLIBa1VISION The Gammunity Development Department recommends denial of the minor subdivision request, based on the recommendation of denial for the GRFA variance. However, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the GRFA variance for the D'Agostino Residence, the minor subdivision must be approved to allow the addition. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission. apprc~~e the proposed minor subdivision, the Planning and Environmental Commission must make the following finding: That the proposed minor subdivision pla# complies with the review criteria and requirements of Chapter 13 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and development standards as outlined in the Hillside Residential Zone District. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the minor subdivision, the Community Development Department recommends the following 2 • • • fV. condition; That the applicant shall submit a revised finale plat, showing the increase in CRFA, and with all required signatures prior to applying for a building permit. The final amended plat shall be recorded with the l=agle County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. R~VII=W1NG BUARD RQL~S 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 fight 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. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB applioation_ The C?RB 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. RemovallPreservation 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 $. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 1 fl, Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 31,873 sq. ft. Zoning: Hillside Residential 3 Standard Allowed Proaased Chanoe GRFA: 5,711 sq. ft. 5,$44 sq. ft. increase t33 sq. ft. Site Coverage: no change Setbacks: no change V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR GRFA VARIANCE A. Consideration of Factors Reaardino the GRFA Variance: 1. 1`he 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 detriments) effects an 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. The purpose for variances is stated as follows. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and i unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of fhis Title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations maybe granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon,° from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity Gast or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for grarrtirrg a variance. Staff believes that the requested GRFA variance constitutes a grant of special privilege. The applicant's argument is that the steep slopes of the lot forced the original design to be more linear in nature and therefore requiring more flpor area for circulation. However, many lots within the Town of Vail, and Specifically within Spraddle Creek, are situated on steep lots and this situation is not unique. In addition, many lots within Spraddle Creek were allowed less GRFA than would be allowed by zoning. No other lots have been granted GRFA variances. In general, GRFA within Spraddle Creek is based on the Hillside Residential done Districi_ In all other cases, GRFA is less than would be allowed per zoning. The following table summarizes the allowable GRFA for the 4 Spraddie Groek Subdivision: t_ot i~ot Area GRFA Allowed How Calculated 1 87499 7333 based on iat size prior to relocation of road* 2 48146 6524 based an zoning 3 $8619 8548 based on zoning 4 85250 7016 based an lot size --hazard area 5 61082 6827 based on lot size -hazard area" 6 82050 8220 based on zoning 7 43833 6309 based on zoning 8 31873 511 based on zoning 9 63044 7269 based on zoning 10 32296 5732 based on zoning 11 71419 7688 based on zoning 12 96213 8928 based on zoning 14 27750Q 13904 based on agreement with owner` 15 34118 5$23 based on zoning Total GRFA for Spraddle Creek: 105,842 total allowable GRFA less than allowed per straight Hillside Residential Zoning. The applicant is arguing that due to the steepness of the tot, much of the useable floor area was used on circulation and stairways. Staff does not feel that this constitutes a practical difficulty for the applicant. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safe#y. Staff does not believe Chat there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal on the above-listed criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shaft make the following findings before grantinq a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege 'inconsistent with the (imitations 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 ar 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. MINOR SUB1[]lVISION CRITERIA A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. This suiadiv%sion wilt be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: The required lot size in the Hillside Residential Zane District is 21,750 sq_ ft. Staff Response: As proposed, there are no changes to the lot area. Frontage: The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum Street Frontage of 3Q'. Staff Response: As proposed,. there are no changes to the street frontage. B. The second set of criteria to be considered with a IVlinor Subdivision application, as outlined in the subdivision regulations, is: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the ~orxing Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, ufility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies refacing to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. The Specific Purpose of the Subdivision Regulations is as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider ofi the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. s • Staff Response; The review of this request has followed` the regulations prescribed for mirror subdivision in the Municipal Code. 2. To provide for the subdivision of preperty in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response: Staff believes that this resubdivision will not conflict with development on adjacent properties. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the request will have a negative impact of the value of land in the Town of Vail generally, nor in the immediate area. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. Staff Response; The resubdivision meets the minimum zoning requirements. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The resubdivision will have no additional effects an the above criterian. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The resubdivision is necessary to change the plat mote which restricts the GRFA. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy ofi drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the resubdivision will have any adverse effects an the above criterian. • • Written statement of the precise nature of the uariance requested and the specific regulation inuaiued. Mr. Franco D'Agostino requests, for his personal residence on Lot 8 in the Spraddle Creek development, a variance of 120 square feet. This additional square footage will be used far an extension to the kitchen area and will be located below an existing roof structure and constructed on an existing terrace. This extension will not alter, in any way, the current roof form ar foundation. Due to the extension's loco#ion there will not be any impact to the adjacent lots or the surrounding environment. The change to the elevation will be negligible and would not to noticeable to the casual observer. This variance is being requested due to the ]ot configuration and the hardship of the site. This hardship is caused by the lot configuration and the excessive site slope. The lot configuration is linear in nature and is perpendicular to the site slope. 45.5% of the site has a slope of 40% or higher and 31.4% of the site has a slope of 40°/©-30%. Therefore, more that'/4 of the site has a slope of 30% or greater. Due to these restraints, the design that most comfortably fit onto the site was a linear house. This type of design uses an inordinate amount of space for circulation and in- turn reducing the usable square footage. Also due to the linear design of the house, there needed to be two areas for vertical circulation, thus reducing the usable area even further. The above difficulties refer to regulation of CHAPTER 17, VARIANCES, 12-17-1:PURPQSE: • A written statement addressing the fallowing: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinify, Since the proposed expansion would occur under an already existing roof structure, and due to the extreme slope of the Spraddle Creek development, any impact upon the existing structures, potential structures or potential uses in the vicinity would be deficient. 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 vicinify or to attain the objects of the title without grant of special privilege. The relief from the specified allowable square footage on Spraddle Creek, l_ot S, derives from the hardship of the site. This hardship is caused by the lot configuration and the excessive site slope. The lot configuration is linear in nature and is perpendicular to the site slope. 45.5% of the site has a slope of 40% or higher and 31.4% of the site has a slope of 40%- 30%.. Therefore, more that 3/4 of the site has a slope of 30% or greater. Due to these restraints, the design that must comfortable fit onto the site was a linear house. This type of design uses an inordinate amount of space for circulation and in-turn reducing the usable square footage. Also due to the linear design of the house, there needed to be two areas for vertical circulation, thus reducing the usable area even further. 3. The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety. This small addition will occur under an already existing roof structure. Therefore, this extension should not have any effect on light or air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, or public safety. 4. How your request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan This negligible extension will not alter the buildings massing, farm or footprint and therefore will continue to comply with Vail's Gomprehensive Plan. • ~° ., L ~ iF fyl ~' ~_I 4~ N !I~ ~~I~ ~iSi:C'-..41 ~5. INC. p rt ,~ A ay; ~a ~~ $~ ~' ~~ n~.~*~ ~ 4 3 ~~ i;I~ ~'III~I~I~~~J',,I~',iji~ a'AGQST'INC- RESlI]i;NCE ~ ; Spradd~e Creek, Variance ' Lfl~. VAIL, COLC)IUDO , ,~ti4~ . ~~~ ~~~~e ~~ ~. -~ ~ ~ c ~ i F.~_ ~~ D'AG~STlN~ RESIDENCE Spraddle Creek, Variance VAIL, COLCIRA[3D ~ ~ Z E ANf7 SII[q~ a ~"~ ~?~d i ~~ } ~: ~ ~~ ~ ~ 9i • Iii ~ i'~ ~I~ll~il r,l'II'I~I D'AGaST1l,JC~ R~ESID~NC~ 5praddie Creek, Lot 8, Variance VAIL, COl4RAp0 • G ~ ~ ~~ ~~ c.a. ~ >> aH~ ~rc~ ~cr ~a.~ • • i- j ~ ~ r_ 6 ~. ~ ~ ~~`~~ ~ I ~ ~ b'AG(~STIN~CJ RESIbENCE ~ z P.q. ;~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Spraddle Creek, dot 8, lJar~anee _ 9 ~ V.AIL, CQLC3RAD[3 ~b~ s~us~e~. ~` Approved August Z$, 200ra PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • August 14, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Galen Aasland Diane Golden Russ Forrest Chas Bernhardt George Rather John Schofield Brent Wilson Doug Cahill Allison Qchs Tom Weber Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing. 2:00 p.m. Gaien Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. A request for a minor amendment to the approved development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base, to allow for a new snowmaking facility, located at 45S Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail VAllage 5'" Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Brent UVilson • • Galen Aasland stated that there would be no overview of the staff memo, as this was a staff approval. Brent Wilson asked the PEC for any noise issues. Doug Cahill abstained from this item. Galen Aasland asked for any applicant comments, Dave Tucholke explained that the caalers would riot have any discharge outside of the building and that the fans were fairly quiet. Galen Aasland asked if this could be called-up if noise became an issue. Brent Wilson said, yes. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Brian Doyon asked far some mitigation by the creek. Dave Tucholke explained' the disturbance on the creek and the revegetation process. Brian Doyon made a matian to approve the staff approval, in accordance with the staff approval, with the added condition that if any inconsis#encies between this proposal and theTown's noise ordinance arise, the PEC reserves the right to re-review the plan. to determine appropriate mitigation (if necessary}. Chas Bernhardt seconded the rnotian. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0-1, with Daug abstaining. 2. Pursuant to Section 13-7-6, Vail Town Code, a PEC review of the proposed unit safes prices for the Garmisch Loft employee housing units, located at 2211 North Frontage Road 1 Lots 1,2 & 3 and Tract C, Vail das Schone Filing 1; Lot 1, Vail das Schone Filing 3. 1 Punning and Environmental Commission Ivlinutes ,~u~usc i ~. zn~~o Approved Augus# 28, 20~Q ~ Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff enema. Tom Weber asked how the 21°/© was arrived at and if it was arbitrary. Brent Wilson said the developer based it on what it cast to build the project. Ooug Cahill asked if the figures were based off the household income and he asked who qualified for the number of bedrooms. Brent Wilson said the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment had determined that 1-bedrooms were the most desirable„ with 1 person ownership, or a couple being the frequent scenario. Doug CahiN asked if i# was based on household income, or individual income. Brent Wilson explained the mean household income and said the survey was based on households. Brian Doyon asked about per square foot cost, as compared to the Vail Commons. Brent Wilson said these units priced out a little bit higher with a 3°f° cap once sold, given appreciation and inflation. He then explained the amenities, which allowed some flexibiii#y for the sales price to go up. Tom Weber said a cap discourages people to fix up their units. +Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. • Doug Cahill said this would be $2d© per square foot and was higher than past affordable housing, but it was still affordable. He said he would like it be#ter if it were lower priced. He thought if the price were lower, there would be more interest in the lottery. Tom Weber said he was concerned about the price, as it was on the fringe of affordability. Brian Doyon agreed with Doug and Tom. He said we would see in time if it's affordable for the product offered. Chas Bernhardt agreed that the price was high, but it had met the criteria and said that if they don't sell„ the price would go down. Galen Aasland stated that the Town was not selling the units; the React Corporation was. Russ Forrest said the Town was acting as a real estate agent. Galen Aasland agreed with Chas that the market would determine if they were too much and the PEC was asked to determine if this was a reasonable price. Doug Cahill made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, subject to the finding on page 1. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-g. 3. A request far a variance from Section 12-6A-8B ~GRFA) and a minor subdivision, to allow for GRFA above the maximum amount allowable, located a# 971 Spraddle Creek Road/Lot 8, Spraddle Creek 2 Planning and Environmental Commission Nlinutcs Au,~ust 14.2UUU Approved August 28, 2000 Applicant: Franco ©'Agostino Planner: Allison Ochs Allison rJchs gave an overview of the staff memo. George Ruther said the GRFA variance would generate the minor subdivision part of this memo Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Jack Zehren, the architect, said the issue was GRFA and the minor subdivision was a technological follow-up. He said, in essence, the applicant jus# wanted to enclose an outdoor pa#io outside the kitchen, which represen#ed less than 2% of the floor area. He stated that this was the smallest lot in Spraddle Creek and the lot was in excess of a 40% slaps. ids said the addition was within the building envelope, therefore there was a higher amount of unusable space, which gave a degree of hardship. He then mentioned that the neighborhood had no difficulty with this. Frank D'Agosfino, the applicant, said that this was the smallest lot and he had been living there for 6 months. He said his family spent the majori#y of their time in the kitchen and ai! they Headed was to move the wall to the other side. He said they were just moving two walls; one 8' and one 16'. Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. There was no public comment. Tom Weber asked how steep slopes affected GRFA. Allison Ochs said GRFA was only based on Cot area. Tom Weber stated that even though there would be no effect. on the neighbors, he couldn't get beyond the special privilege and so he was not in favor of the variance request. Brian Doyon said he agreed with Tom and to grant this was a grant of specia! privilege with nothing to overcome that grant of special privilege. He said if our Code changes, the PEC could grant this in the future. Chas Bernhardt stated that the GRFA code was an old code that needed revision,. bu# as the code was written now; the PEC can't grant this. Doug Cahill agreed with his fellow commissioners, but said he was trying to think haw to get around this. He asked if a minor subdivision would affect this. Allison Ochs said it would reduce the GRFA on other lots. Galen Aasland agreed with his fellow Commissioners. He then gave examples of how the Forest Road neighborhood could benefit. He then said GRFA and height variances were hard variances to grant and said the zoning in the Town would need to be changed. He then stated that this was clearly a special privilege, which was Hat supporked by the Town Ordinances. Doug Cahil! made a motion far denial for GRFA , in accordance with the staffi memo with the finding that it would be a grant of special privilege. Tom Weber seconded the motion, The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Jack Zehren asked to withdraw the minor subdivision request. 4. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-4B-19 (B)(4), to allow far a third business identification sign, located at 458 Val{ Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)/Tract F, Vail I/illage 5th Filing. 3 Planning and Environmental Gommissian Minutes August f~1.30Q0 Approved August 28, 2fl00 '"~ Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Plannere Brent Wilson WITHDRAWN 5. Information Update George Ruther mentioned the IG8O Wildi'3re Symposium, which included a barbecue. Russ F©rrest said the Town Council would like to have lunch with the PEC on Tuesday, Sept. 19th at noon. He said the purpose of the discussion wauld be to see how things were g©ing and to talk aioaut some projec#s tha# were in the pipeline and generally, just to talk about the process and philosophy and how to coordina#e large projects. SELECTIf7N 01= PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB FDR 2000- Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Brian Doyon Tom Weber John Schofield Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Galen Aasland Tom Weber Brian Doyon Jahn Schofield Jan-Apr. 5, 'flfl Apr 19, `flfl May 3, `flfl May 17, '00 Jun 7, `OQ Jun 21, 'fl0 Juf 5, '00 Juf 19, '(JO Aug 2, 'fl0 Aug 16; 'flfl Sep 6, 'flfl Sep 20, 'flfl Oct-Dec 'a0 Tom Weber said he could nat be at Aug 16th meeting.. George Ruther explained the ordinance written as of October and the PEC would never again have to attend DRB mee#ings. 6. Approval of July 24, 2DOfl minutes. Chas Bernhardt made a motion for approval. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0, as Brian Doyon was not present. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to adjourn. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-Q. The meeting adjourned at 3_flQ pm. 4 • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Au~uSt 14, 2QOQ