Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-1113 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-~ of the Municipal Code of the ~~~ Town of Vaii on November 33, 2g~0, at 2:©0 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration ofi: A request for a variance from Section 12-8A-5 of the Vail Town Code ("Lot Area and Site Dimensions"} and a request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two legally platted "Agricul#ure & Open Space" zoned tracts of land, located at 615 Forest Raad 1 a currently unplatted tract ofi land located in the North "/z of Section 7, Township 5 South; Range S0 West of the ~'h P. M. Applican#: The Vail Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson A request far a minor subdivision to allow for the relocation of the common lo# line, located a# 363 and 383 Beaver Dam Road, Lots 2 & 3, Block ~, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: John L Tyler Jr., represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Ann Kjerulf A request for a final review for a minor subdivision, to allow for the reconfiguration and replotting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lots 15 & 16 from Agriculture Open Space and PrimaryfSecondary Residential to Natural Area Preservation and PrimarylSecondary Residential, located at 3886/3896 Lupine DrivefLots 35 ~ 16, Bighorn 2"d Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust,. represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Developmen#, LLC Planner: George Rather A request for a minor amendment to an approved developmen# plan (SDD #35), to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces (and the conversion of these spaces into common storage} at the Austria Haus parking garage, located at 242 East Meadow ^rivelA park of Tract C, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association Planner. George Ruttier A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two tracts, located at 3778 Vail Valley drive 1 a currently unplatted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 Sou#h, Range 84 West of the 6"' P.M, direc#1y north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 within the Vail Go6f Course. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Bren# Wilson A request for a minor subdivision, to allow far the vacation of lot lines, Located at Lots 1-4, Block H, Vail dos Schone Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the division of a #ract of land into two lots, and a reques# for a rezoning from Residential Cluster District to Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle/SW '/a of Section 12, Township 5 `South, Range 81, Wes# of the 6'h Principle Meridian. Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson ;~T iA ~a~~,~ ~~ ~~~ ~1~ A request for a site coverage variance {Section 12-7A-9) and setback variance {12-7A-6), Vail Town Code, to allow for a new front entry to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow DriveJLot ~, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1s° Filing. Appfrcant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a recommendation to the Tawn Council far the adoption of two view corridors within Lianshead, as identified. within the Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift sine. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A snore specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file a# the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a worksession to amend the zoning reputations to atlaw far the creation of a new zone district, the Hauling Zone District. Applicant: Tawn of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request far a work session to discuss the establishment of a Special Development District and a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a new conference faciiitylhotel/fractional fee unit club and Type III employee housing units at 13 Vail Raad I Lat A, B, C, 81ock 2, Vail Village Filing 2. Applicant: Loramar Hotels, represented by the Daymer Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson The applications and infarma#ion about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular affce hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town ofi Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign Eanguage interprets#ion available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published ©ctober 27, 2fld0 in the Vail Trail. • • 2 i • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSI+DN PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, November 13, 2000 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1-Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits ; 1. Austria Haas - 242 E. Meadow Drive 2. Tyler residence - 383 Beaver Dam 3. Hilt residence - 1552 Matterhorn Circle 4, Lionshead View CarridQrs Driver: George ~~ NOTE: ff the PEC hearing extends until 6:D0 p.m., the board may break far dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 12:45 pm 2:00 prn A request for a variance from Section 12-8A-5 of the Vail Town Code ("Lot Area and Site Dimensions") and a request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two legally platted "Agriculture & Qpen Space" zoned tracts of land, loco#ed at 615 Farest Road / a currently unplatted tract of land located in the North lz of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6~h P.M. Applicant: The Vaii Corporation Planner; Brent Wilson r~.J 2~ A request for a minor subdivision to allow for the relocation of the common lot line, located a# 363 and 383 Beaver Dam Road, Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: John L. Tyler Jr., represented by Braun and Associates Planner. Ann Kjeruif 3. A request for a final review of a minar subdivision, to allow far the reconfiguration and replotting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lots 15 & 16 from Agriculture Qpen Space and PrimarylSecondary Residential to Natural Area Preservation and PrimarylSecondary Residential, lava#ed at 388613896 Lupine DrivelLots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2"~ Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trus#, represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC Planner: George Rather L. .ti ~. ,~ 1'OW,~ OF PAIL MEMBERS ABSENT Galen Aasland ~G~l/~yFO PUBLIC WELC[?ME 11:30 am 4. A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan (SDD #35J, to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces (and the conversion of these spaces in#o common storage) of the Austria Haus parking garage, located at 242 East Meadow Drive/A part of Tract C, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association Planner: George Ruther 5. A request far a minor subdivision, to allow for the division of a tract of land into two lots, and a request for a rezoning from Residential Cluster District to Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residen#ial District, located at 1552 Matterhorn CircIelSW'/ of Section 12, Township ~ South, Range 81! West of the 6cn Principle Meridian. Applicant; David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson ~. A request for a warksessian to amend the zoning regulations to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the Housing Zone District. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. Amore specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 8. A request far a minor subdivision„ to allow for the vacation of lot lines, located at 2475 Garmisch/Lots 1-4, Block H, Vail dos 5chone Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs 9. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow far the creation of two tracts„ located at 1778 Vail Valley ^rive ! a Curren#ly unpla#ted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 89 West of the fi`" P.M. directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 within the Vail Goif Course. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 27, 2U17t) 1Q. A request far a site coverage variance Section 12-7A-9) Vail Town Cade and setback variance (1-7A-6), Vail Town Code, to allow for a new front entry to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow DrivelLot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED 11. Approval of October 23, 20Q0 minutes 12. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office loca#ed at the Tcuvn of Vail Community Qevelopment Qepartment, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for informatian. Sign language interpretation available upan request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, far infarmatian. Gommurnty Development Department Published 1Vovember 1(l, 2(}bi) in the Vatl Trail • r 1 ~J • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING RESULTS Monday, November 13, 2000 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 _ Community Development I]ept. PUBLIC WELCOME '! 1:30 am MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Jahn Schofield Diane Golden Brian Doyan Doug Cahill Tom Weber Site Visits : X2;45 pm 1. Austria Haus - 242 E. Meadow Drive 2. Tyler residence - 383 Beaver Dam 3. Hilb residence _ 1552 Mat#erharn Circle 4. Lionshead View Corridors Driver: George ~~ NOTE: 9f the PEC hearing exiends until 8:00 p.m., the board may break far dinner Isom 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a variance from Section 12-8A-5 of the Vaii Town Cade ("La# Area and Site Dimensions") and a request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two legally platted "Agriculture & Open Space" zoned tracts of land, located at 615 Forest Road f a currently unplatted tract of land located in the North "/~ of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the bin P, M. Applicant: The Vail Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson WITHDRAWN 2. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for the relocation of the common lot line, located at 363 and 383 Beaver Dam Road, Lots 2 i~ 3, Block 3, Vaii Village 3`~ Filing. Applicant: John L. Tyler Jr., represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Ann 14jerulf M4TIQN: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyan VC7TE: 5-0 APPROVED ~~ . ~. ,i TOWN OR Y,4,~ ~' R 3, A request for a minor amendment to ar. approved development plan (SDD #35), to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces (and the canversian of these spaces into common storage! a: the Austria Haus parking garage, located at 242 East Meadow DrivelA part of Tract C, 'veil Village 151 Filing. Applicant: Austria Haas Condo Association Planner: George Ruttier MOT10N: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 4-1 (Schofield opposed) APPROVED WITH 1 CQNDITI©N: 1. That the applicant submits a revised parking level plan to the Community Oewelopment Department illustrating the removal of the nineteen (19} spaces and the creation of the common storage area, prior to the application for a building permit. 4, A request for a minor subdivision, to ailaw for the division of a tract of farad into two lots, and a request for a rezoning from Resides#iai Cluster District to Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential District, located at 1552 Matterhorn GircIelSW'1 of Section 12, Township 5 Sou#h, Range 811 `,Nest ofi the ~« Principle Meridian. Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Citrsor? TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 11, 20flt} A request for a worksession to amend the zoning regulations to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the Housing Zone District. Applicant: Town of Vaii Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSION - NO VOTE f~. A request for a recommendation #o the Tawn Council for the adop#ion of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identifed within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located appraxima#ely at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthause Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. Amore specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Tawn of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-0 RECQMMENDATIbN OF APPROVAL TO TOWN GOUNCIL WITH 7 CONDITION: That consideration be given to Lionshead Center on the east side of View Corridor #2 with regards to future development ~. A request for a minor subdivision; to allow for the vacation of lot lines, located at 2475 GarmischlLots 1-4, Block H, Vail des Schone Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 27, 2UOQ 2 A request far a minor subdivision., to allow for the creation of two tracts, located at 1778 Vail ;Talley Grive l a 4urrently unpigtted tract of land within Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the ~`h F.M. directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 within the Vail Golf Course. Applicant: Vail Junior Lackey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson TABLELD UNTIL NOVEi'111BER 27, 2000 9. A, request fior a final review of a minor subdivision, to allow for the reconfiguration and replotting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lots 15 & 16 from Agriculture Open Space and PrimarylSecondary Residential to Natural Area Preservation and Rrimary/Secondary Residential; lacatea at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive/Cats 15 & 16, Bigham 2"d Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschimer, First Land Development, LLD Planner: George Ruttier TABLE4] UNTIL N4VEhtIBEI~ 27, 2000 aD. A request for a site coverage variance (Section 12-7A-9} Vail Town Cade and setback variance (12-7A-6}, Vail Town Code, to allow `or a new front entry to the Mountain f-faun, located at 292 E. Meadow DrivefLot 5, Part of Tract 8, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant; Mountain Haus, represented by Fritz6en Pierce Architects Planner: Biif Gibson TABLEt] UNTIL. N©VEMBER 27', 2000 11. Approval of October 23, 2000 minutes 12. Information l~pdate 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 Tawn of Vail Community Development Department, 75 youth Frontage Raad. Please call 479-2"138 fvr information.. Sign language interpretation mailable upon request with 24 hour noti~icatian. Please call 479-2356, "felephone for the Hearing Impaired, For infiormation. Community De+reiopment Department • MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 13, 2QOQ SUB,~ECT: A request for a variance from Section 1 ~-8A-5 of the Vail Town Code ("Lot Area and Site Dimensions"} and a request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two 'egally platted "Agriculture & Open Space" coned tracts of land, located at 61 ~ Forest Road 1 a currently unplatted tract of land located in the North '/z of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6`"' P M Applicant: The Vail Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson • 1. QESCRIFTIC}N OF REQUEST This request does not involve any change in zoning; nor is it in conjunction with any request for development review. There would be no grant of additional development rights in association with request. The application is for the processing and recording of a plat for a tract of land that has been unplatted for years. MINOR SUBDIVISION This request involves the platting of a previously unplatted tract of "Agriculture and Open Space" land along Forest Road. Since the Tawn of Vail does not have an exemption or single lot platting process established in the Subdivision Regulations, it is necessary for the applicant to plat two tracts of land in order to comply with our definition of "subdivision." Pursuant to the Vail Town Code, a minor subdivision is defined as: "lVlinc~r subdivision" shall mean any subdivision containing net more than four (4} lots frranting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of Municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development ©# the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property. Since this request does not involve any proposed development of the property, the Department of Community Development has waived the requirement for an environmental impact report. The applicant is proposing a plat restriction so that the two tracts created under this subdivision will continue to be treated as one tract for zoning purposes. Therefore, there will be no gain of additional development potential as a result of this proposed subdivision. The plat restriction language comes directly from the Town's Subdivision Regulations and would read as follows: `YFor so long as the subject ~~f property is zoned Agriculture ~ open Space dlstrlct, the two fats createc' by this su~~Yvision are to be treated as one entity with no more than one single-,`amity residence alfc wed on the combined area of the two fats. " VARIANGE The Town`s "Agriculture and Gpen Space" zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 35 ~.cres. Since the proposed site area of the two tracts is less than 35 acres, a variance is required for the platting of the two tracts. II. STAFF RECQMMf=NDATIQN MINOR SUSDIVlSQN The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed miner subdivision subject to the following findings: 1, Ti1at the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning ~}rdinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating fo 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, and effects on the ae: ~hetics of the Town. The Cam~munity Development Department also recommends the following conditions of approval: The applicant will record the approved and signed prat with the Eagle County Cleric and Recorder's iDffice by no later than November 13, 2Q{?1, or prior to the submittal of any applications for development review on the property, which ever comes first. 2. Pursuant to Section t3-3-$, Vail Town Colo, the applicant shall grant an easement for seasonal public access along Forest Road where no public right-of- way exists. A detailed access agreement will be executed by Town staff and Vail Resorts prior to plat recording. VARIANCE Thr community Development Department recommends approval of the variance from Section 12-8A-5, Vail Town Code, subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Agriculture and Open Space District. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety ar wet#are, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3, That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: 2 I 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 the Subdivision Regufatians. 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 Single l=amity Residen#ial Zane District. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the ^wners of other properties in the same district. ill. Z{}NING ANALYSIS The applicant is not proposing to change the existing zoning on the property. The fallowing is a synapsis of development standards under the prescribed zoning. PERMITTED USES. Plant and tree nurseries; Public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces; Single-family residential dwellings. CONC7ITIONAL USES: P.ny use within public parks, recreation areas, and open s;~aces wrich involves assembly of more than two hundred (200} persons together in cne building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility; Cemeteries; Churches., rectories, and related structures; Low power subscription radio facilities; Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fshing lodges; Public and private schools and colleges; Semi-public and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats; Ski lifts and tows; Type Il employee housing units. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Standard Existing Proposed Lot Size 6.996 acres 2.604 acres (Tract A) 4.392 acres (Tract Q} Density one dwelling unit one dwelling unit (total} ~Qne Type II EHU* One Type II ENU~ total} GRFA 2,000 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. (500 sq. ft. EHU)* (500 sq, ft. EHU}"` *subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit 3 IV'. ~,tlNpFs SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA Qne basin premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards far the creation of a new lot must be met. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC far a minor subdivision application is as follows: A. Lot Area The minimum lot size requirement in the Agriculture and Qpen Space zone district is 3~ acres. However, there is not a single Agriculture and ©pen Space lot in Vail that meets this requirement. It is not physically possible for the applicant to comely with this requirement, therefore a variance application has been submitted in association with this subdivision request. The proposed lot sizes are 2.OD4 acres (Tract A} and 4.392 acres (Tract B}. B. Frontage Although there is no minimum frontage requirement in the Agriculture and Qpen Space zone district, the applicant is proposing a combined frontage of approximately 60© linear feet for the two tracts of land. C. Site Dimensions Although there are no prescribed site dimensions in this zone district, the Town Code does require that each site contain at least one acre of '°buildable" (excluding flood plain and red hazard avalanche zones) land. This proposal complies with this requirement. Site-specific surveys delineating the 1(}Q-year flood plai.~ or wetlar;ds will be required ifJwhen ~n application far development review has been received far the property. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Title 13, Chapter 4, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects an the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses. The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: ~ . Ta inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Resoonse: Qne purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. This application has been submitted according to the requirements of Chapter t 3, Subdivision Regulations. 4 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent property. Staff Response: The proposed plat does not create any conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. Ta protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Since there are no changes to land conditions or development standards proposed, staff believes this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of land in the irrmmeaiate area. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Qrdinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient. workable relationship among land uses, consistent with s~unicipal development objectives. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed plat will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order fa provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: This aspect of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large-scale subdivisions of property. as opposed to this particular minor subdivision proposal. Staff believes the granting of a seasonal public access easement will help facilitate mare efficient transportation along Forest Road in the fiuture. Staff does not believe this proposal will have any negative impacts on any of the other above-listed public facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: This goal of the subdivision regulations wilt not be impacted by the proposed plat. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: Since this proposal does not involve any construction or development, it will have no impact an these issues. 5 v. vA131aNCl= CRITERIA A. Consideration of Factors Reoardina the Variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This proposal ~~uill nc~t change land conditions or development potential for the property. Therefore, staff does not believe there would be any negative impacts to existing ar potential uses or 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 ofi treatment among sites iin the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of speciial privilege. As mentioned previously, there wren"t any lots in the "Agriculture and Gpen Space" zone district that comply with the minimum lot size requirement. Staff believes it is impossible for the applicant to plat this property without a variance. Therefore, staff believes some relief from the strict or literal interpretation of the regulations 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 effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal on the above-fisted criteria. B. The Plannino and environmental Commission shall make the following findings before orantina a variance; That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicini#y. 3. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty 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. 6 • The strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation wauld deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 7 ti [' 7 ~ ~ 1 .., w ~ti >; ~ p !~ `~ r+ ~r~ v ~'~`~I ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ... +-] T ~ +~ .y ~ c '4 C :~~j~~~, _ ~ .~~. ~` ~_ ~' ~:.1 -'~.. ^ ~7 l^_ ~x}~~~ t It ~ :t. ~~~~ (~ "-, r T U .., ~: qtr i, ~ mo ~ f i E~j ~e ~y ~~ y ~~j~ ~- ~ I ~ ' ~ ~ ~ P~ ~ c P ~ +II r. ~ ~~ 31 n ~ IF~ d f. I I F s i g H 4 p~p~C ~9a` $~9 Y;0 y ~~4 ~M1 ~v3 ~yh ,'z ~~gY ~4 x a $ 8 ~ r 7p ~.~ ~~~zt,e r b ~ _~ is~ g:~~~ arY 8 u~a ge,w~ ~^~s ' r3~ ~y9~i SR~ n i~ ~~~ g~~yl~ deg 6 ~~ g ~ q~ s '6 .s a s ~ ,~~ ~~ b z 3I ~~ a Vie ~ ~ ~ ~~~ fe gE R 9 z F Y F x t~~ `~' a e~ ~~ ~~ 4 F' ~ _ 3 #~ A ~f~ $ys ~§t ~p~r _3 i~ ~ ~p~ ~R~3 ~R t~.a e~. ~w._;w~ ~ `=u:. ~7 u~~~~~ =~n~a ._~~ ~ i '`a~ {~$.i i e y y M 3i° -v s~~F~ ~ M ~= g ~~ r f ~§ ~~ e` ~~~ae Y PZ ~ ~~ ~. ~}~#a_ ~' gv.$i ±s g F 9~ ~'~ A ~~~ ~ is ~~_~ ~~~ `' a 1 r 3 ~nL pq$ ~~S ~/ ~ ~ ppp3 ~~h ~ ~~,Y ads.' ~ "e ~4 I r ~xs E s~ f~°~ ~~~ ;n$ ~b3o ~. j i ~ 1 ~ e~ G ~ ~F3A ~ ~~ ~~be '1~5~ ~~gn r+~rgggg~ + j 1 a ~~2G ' L _ .. ~I ~ j`~.. r} R ~ e cr g ~~ I ~'I ~ s~ ~ ~ 4 ~_ z gR ~ i ca f~ l ~ ~ ~~ , ~, _~ ~ :, ~I ~ N~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;#m 6 - 3 a V r-~. ~ M z ~ I§ 3 ~. ~ t~ ~ ~9 v ~e ~~ ~ P £ ', I IC I I 1 l &_ f~ ` 6 Xo E I I I `e°~ ~ r rt ~ ~ ~ c I£ ~a .~ - . 4~f j ~ : I 7 r _ ~ y ~ o ~ A } } a ~ r ~ / J+^~ I f 0 9 ~, Q n m t 1 ~ ~'~~i > I I~ ~~~ n o r 4 ~ ~~ ~ ,~~ ~ o ~ ~ l ~ ~ 11 ~ `~ ~# S~ ~`~ 1 ~, ~ '~ ~ 1 `~ ~ Y. ! 1 m ~ 7 ~ s + .~ 1 <4f I ~`` r~~y~ I II ,~ ~~~ ~ I Y I I II ~ ~ t s ti~ ~ ~; ~\ j; ~ I •* 9 i ,~. I ~ . _{1 ~__~__ II il_ ~_~ ,`' I'` i r~ ~ `l~yy' ~ L o ~ t a n` ~ '~ ti ~ Lr y'v a ~`~- !f ~` it .` ~~. ~~. n ~A ~ o i "~. 1 ~~ ~ ~ 1 w ~ [, ,J ~a `v^ ; ! 7 !- o ! !~~ ~ ~ !~ ! li J !f '~ ~ ~!! J '~~ /Iae •,m / fy 1 ! {~ ..,~ `y / 1. ~ . F".~ ~ C !j .l_.8k"~ l ~ / `~ "`8. ~_ ~ ~ '~~~h. \~ '_ a e[ ~ ' ~ f p. ~ ~R~ N ~ F ~ ,:C:: JJJ ~n~ 4 ~v d*a ;' , ~i$ ~~ `,~jt ~ ~# ~ ti ~~,, _ a K L~ s~. ~ ; i ~ - ~ .~_ r i ~ ~~ ~i' ~, ter' i~C~ E -.~".. 1 Q~ ~~ 4t ~ t , ~~~""`" ~ ~ s',5 ~ ,_~ ~ ! . g' ~ a e.,~ .s; ~:,, ~ ~, o~'' °~ ~ ~ '~ ~~ ~• *.., ~ ~ ~`* ~ ~ i ~~ ~•o ly ~• ~ tF ~,. ~,' ` ~~ ~-©f~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t? `ti ~' ~ `~ . ~< ~ t ~ 1 V .~y ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ r ~ ~ r'<, Vi . ~ x ~ J ~ ~ ~ 1 J \ ,t, ~" d~~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ / .~. w ti~ a 1 ~~-~ . Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .= ~ ~ ~ ..o (rte `~ '4~ ~~ g ~ 7~ T'^1 ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q }jf u ` bye; ~ r'. ,~Y, Y <z d'~~,~.. Jerard F. Maher 251 Fowler Road Fay riills, New Je~°sey 07931 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 'youth Frootage Raad Vail, Colorado 8167 Re: Application of the Vail Corporation far variance and minor subdivision of Promises at (15 Forest Road, Town of Vail Dear (.:commission i'/Iembers: My wife, Joan, and [are the owners of the premises at 62~ Forest Road, the lot that adjoins the subject p opert;.~ to the Vl'cst. We will. not be in town on the intended date for the hearing of this application. Accordingly, tivc respectfully offer Eor your cc~sideration our comments on this application in letter form, !#t the outset it should be :Doted that we do oat oppose the application and are in agreement with Memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development dated Qctober 23, 2f10Q. We feel, however, there :zre two issues concerning the present use of this property with which this application should deal. In reviewing the application material, we do not find the issues raised and we urge your commission to do so. `I'lre First issue {s the delineation of the impact zones resulting from the operation of the Gondola and Chair 8 on and over the subject property, The Tramway Act of Colorado requires a1x impact zone for the safe operation of averh~d tram devices, the definition of which includes bath the Gondola and Chair 8. We believe the Cottunission should require this delin~stion and, as to the subject property at least, at the applicant's request far a subdivision, is an opportune time. In this connection, we strongly urge the Commission to require the entire impact .:one co lie within proposed Tract B. The rationale here is obvious. Why encourage the potential c>f the impact of a tram an a lot (proposed Tract A) which could be developed for other than ski ar tram use, The second issue is the Location ofthe dividing line between 't'racts A and B. As proposed by the applicant, this line :s superimposed by the ropes marking the westerly boundary line of the skiway rtatout approachin~~ the skier bridge. To permit a lot line along this skier b~~undary line is unsound. The skier boundary line needs same margin for error. We have often observed skiers slide through the boundary rapes, usually for quite a distance. The applicant's proposed Tract A under current zoning would permit a residential structure within 15 leer of the skiway, and would permit porches and the like even closer. We believe a marlin tar :;rrar (in this ease not a fall from grace, rather a graceful fall (or ungraceful, as the case may bej) should be cleated between thy; dividing line for Tracts A and B and the westerly boundary line of the sk{wav. The last commen# we wish to make is in re~~ard to the fence around the former tennis courts. if the courts are not planned to be used in the fixture, wa would request that the applicant he asked its intention regarding the removal of the fence and if the plans for the courts are uncertain, its intention regarding maintaining the fence. As it stands now, and in regard to the fence we use; the term "stands" loosely, it's a bit of an eyesore. Thank you far thoughtful consideration and your efforts on behalf of the Tawn. Maher • REC'D'®~ ~ ~ ~OUC~ MEMORANDUM '~ TC?: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 13, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to allow for the relocation of the common lot line, located at 363 and 383 Beaver Dam Road, Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3"d Filing. Applicant: John L. Tyler Jr., represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Ann Kjerulf DESC~tIPTI~N ©F RB{~UEST This request involves the minor subdivision or resubdivisian afi Lots 2 and 3, Bleak 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing to allow fflr the relocation of a common lot line. In addition, the applicant is requesting that a note establishing a "no build" zone an the existing (1994) plat be removed. Pursuant to the Vail Town Code, 13-2-2 (E), a minor subdivision is defined as follows: '~ "Minor subdivision" steal! ,mean any subdivision canfaining oat mare than four (4) Juts fronting an an existing street, not in~/alving any new street ar read ar the extension of Municipal facilifies and oat adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel ar adjoining property. „ Currently, Lot 3 is .548 acres (23,570 s.f.) in size and Lot 2 is .4084 acres (17,790 s.f.). The relocation of the common lot line approximately 60 feet to the west would result in the area of Lot 3 being reduced to 15,950 s.f., a difference of -7920 s.f., and the area of Lat 2 being increased to 25,710 s.f., a difference of +7820. The proposed ,plat is compliant with current zoning and subdivision regulations concerning lot area, frontage, and site dimensions and would not result in any non-conformities with respect to the existing buildings on each lot. The second component of the applicant's request involves the removal of a "NCB BUILD" zone and corresponding plat note. Correspondingly, the applicant has proposed that the existing plat note be replaced with the following text: "Prior to construction an these properties, all applicable development permits shaft be obtained from the Town of flail and if applicable, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers". The applicant believes that further development of Lots 2 and 3 should be allowed to occur through cooperation with both the Town of Vail and the Army Carps of Engineers as has been the case with neighboring properties. ., il. BACKGROUND Lots 2 and 3 were originally patted in Eagle County in 1965 and were incorporated into the Town of Vail in 1966. In 1977; the lots came under the designation of the "Primary Secondary" zone district. In 1994, the PEC approved a request for a minor subdivision by the owner of Lots 2 and 3 to relocate the Gammon lot line 3d feet to the east thereby red~.:cing the size of Lot 2 and increasing the size of Lot 3. Upon the recommends#ion of Town of Vail staff, the PEC approved a "NO BUILD" zone designation on the plat: "The `NO BUILp' zone defines the limits of jurisdictional wetlands with a 1 Q foot buffer. This zone is a resulf of a wetlands analysis by Dames & MQdre dated may 2Z, 1994, file: 2817-(?(11-05D. No development is allowed in this zone. " The imposition of such a restriction is unusual because the Town of l/ail has na codifiied regulations concerning wetlands. Coincidentally, this type of plat restriction has not been required on any neighboring properties. The protection of wetlands and regulation of development impacts upon wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In fact, where development has occurred on neighboring properties, the U.S. Army Corps has allowed wetlands to be impacted to varying degrees. The existing plat note does not allow the owner of Lots 2 and 3 to work with the Army Corps during the development process and as such, does nat give him the same Opportunity that has been afforded to neighboring property owners. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approual of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following findings: That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applioable_ 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating 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, and effects an she aesthetics of the Town. Y • 2 IV. ZQNING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary Secondary (No change in zoning is proposed). Standard Currently Allowable Existing Proposed Allowable Lot Size Lot 2 17,790 s.f. 25,719 s.f. (+7,920 sf} Lot 3 23,$70 s.f. 15,950 s.f. ~-7,920 sf) Density Lot 2 2 dwelling units 1 dwelling unit 2 dwelling units 1 type II EHU* 1 type II EHU' Lot 3 2 dwelling units 1 dwelling unit 2 dwelling units 1 type II EHU* 1 type 11 EHU' GRFA Lot 2 4,879 s.f. 2,597 s.f. 5,671 s.f. Lot 3 5,487 s.f. 1,750 s.f. 4,695 s.f. Site Coverage Lot 2 3,558 s.f. 1,393 s.f. 5,142 s.f. Lot 3 4,774 s.f. 1,183 s.f. 3,190 s.f. *not included` as a dwelling unit for the purpose of calculating density and a conditional ` LfSe su,~JJect t0 c`dpprOV~'f ,try tl ?e ~~iLi v. r~l>NOr~ ~uBDIVISIaN REVr~w eRIrERIA Qne basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards far the creation of a new lot must be met. The first set of review criteria to be corrsidered pertain to lot area and site ~dirnensions as specified in the Zoning Regulations, 12- 6D-5: A. Lot Area The Town of Vail Municipal Gode requires that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the PrimarylSecondary Residential zone district be 15,000 square feet of buildable area. The Municipal Cade defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodpiain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40% slope. Both proposed Lots 2 and 3 meet the minimum lot size requirements. B. Frontage The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any lot in the PrimaryfSecondary Residential zone district have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Both Lot 2 and lot 3, as proposed, would meet the minimum lot frontage requirement of 34 feet. C. Site Dimensions The Town of Vaii Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. 3 The applicant's proposed resubdivision will create lots of a size and shape that satisfy this requirement. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13-3-4, and is as (allows: "The .burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intern and purpQSes of this Chapter, the zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable.... The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to T©wn policies relating to subdivision ct~ntrol, 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 purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare a# the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13-1-2 (C} are as (allows: 1. "To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria 6y which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required.,' Staff Resp©nse: C-ne purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. This application has been submitted according to the requirements of Chapter 13, Subdivision Regulations. 2. "To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land." Staff Resconse: The proposed plat does not create any conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. "To protect and conserve the value offend throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land." Staff Response: Since there are na changes tc land conditions or development standards proposed, staff believes this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of Land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value ©fi land 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 1=teseonse; Staff believes the proposed plat will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with the Town's development objectives. 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: This purpose statement is intended primarily to address large-scale subdivisions as opposed to this particular proposal. Staff does not believe that this proposal will impact any of the aforementioned facilities. 6. "Ta provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. " Staff Response: This goal of the subdivision regulations will not be impacted by the proposed plat. 7. "To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and try encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to presence the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land." Staff Response: Since this proposal does not involve any construction or development, it wil! have na immediate impact on these issues. In the event that development is to occur in the #uture on either Lot 2 or Lot 3, the D.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers would be consulted with respect to the impacts and mitigation of existing. wetlands. 5 ``~ • • ~I 1r.~ 1-•d ~_ x ~'^ ~ [¢~¢]r ~ [~ ~ D .~ ~ ~~ ~_ ~ ~" ~ d ~ ~ L~c7 ~ ~~v ~~~ a~ a~ a~ z~ ~ 3 HI O ~ ~.' ~_ Q ~i d 3 ~. 9 ~~ f ;~ i F i i i 3 .~ Z s ~ F 4e } ?~ [ S +I t f ~ ~ ' ~~ j{{~ 6f a~ '~ E 2 t P t i I _ ` ~ S ~ ~ r j t ~ f ~ ` I ~ i ~ ~z # ~, I ~i ~ ~~ i 3. ~ ~ ~ a : ~~ _~ s€~ L } ~„~ amv~ra w:v I ~ ~ } ; i r ~ h .~ E 2 } ~ 7~~ ~'' $G;t~ R ~z ~ !I ~- xx4 ~~ ~ ~i~ 4 ~ .~'•t IS ~4 ~ i ~ + ~ , ~~ t ~ yJ `,~~ 4 ~ ~ 6- ~ .R )~ ~j{ ti S : t ~ 1 rY` nY.~r. , ~ C a ~ L ~, _~ '_ B ; H.~ ~ ~~ ff ~~ ` ~~~, ~- t 1 ii ,~ a7 T.+ ~ ; } a ~ ~,~-~--~ 3 ~ ( R r y r a ! ~ }l i ~ l ~~ } S~ `~~ ~ -~ `h ~_ ~ir rf` _. ~ q ~R~ ^l1 ~~ ~ ~ j{k ~~ ' ~ ~ ~_ 1 ~ ! ! t ' ~~, ; 3 . ' j ~ F ! ~ ~ ~~ d@@f ~@@ ' d d~i~dG? t~@ ~ 6 ~ 0~ !µ f ~~ ~e ~ ~~ s~ v _ s e ~$ ~# !III x o I i ° }} A f II • ` 1 }rte U ; + Sy ~~ s b E ~ F pF i! i !i t s } ~ _~ ._. [;}ti 1, i i' ~11Ff+;' s ~ ~ s €7i,r -j~~ r. ~~~'E'~~ ~ I ~~I ~ it ~ ! I ~~ x~, ~~ s~f~~`~ ~ a ~ ~ i a ~~ ~~~r~j~[jFjf~ ~ ~ ~ t~ .t ~ ~E ~ ii~y4 il~ ~`J ~}{ ~ z ' #}~s'~~~~~~ ~ 4 t~`~i j ~'~,E~I€; ~ e ~~is~~tE~ ~ i ~ I I ~ ~ 3L5~ 9~5@~ 6 i E Z E g~ S~ ,_ ~j S~I~JI~QSSk~ NlladB ~ 4~I0~'d Z~ ~ SZ @@@?-6@-(1SN MEMORANDUM T©: Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 25, 2000 SUBJECT: A notification and request for the confirmation of a minor amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, allowing for the conversion of nineteen {19) parking spaces to common storage area, located at 242 East Meadow Drive, a part of Tract C, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing. I. DESCRfIPTION OE TI-!I; REQUEST The applicant, Johannes Faessler, representing the Austria Haus Condominium Association, has submit#ed an application for a minor amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The purpose of the amendment is to convert nineteen {99) parking spaces (approximately 3,249 square feet of floor area) to common storage area. The area to be converted is located on the lower level of the Austria Haus in the parking structure. The existing parking spaces that are to be converted are na longer required spaces pursuant to ordinance #9, Series of 2004. The new parking requirement based upon the amended standards is forty-four (44) spaces. BACKGROUND Special ^evetopment District #35, Austria Maus, was approved by the Town ofi Vail pursuant to Ordinance #12, Series of 1997. According to Section 5 (G), Development Standards, the minimum number of required parking spaces is sixty-three (63). The required number of parking spaces was derived from the existing parking and loading requirements as prescribed by the Zoning Regulations. The required number of parking spaces is determined based upon the tats! square footage of the differing types of uses {retail, lodging, residential) in the building. Ordinance #9, Series of 2000, amended the off-street parking requirements far properties within Vail's commercial care areas. In amending the off-street parking requirements, certain types of land uses resulted in a reduced parking requirement based upon square footage of use or numbers of units. According to Vail Core Parking Map i, the Austria Haus is located within an area affected by the amended off-street parking requirements. MINOR AMENDMENT The procedure for a minor amendment to an existing Special Development District is outlined in subsection 12-9A-10 of the Zoning Regulations. According to subsection 12- 9A-10, minor maditircatians consistent vvifh the design criteria outlined in subsection 12- 9,4-2 of the Zoning Regulations, maybe approved by the Departmenf of community Development. Al! minor moditrcations shall be indicated on a revised development plan Approved changes shall be Hated, signed, dated and fried by the Department of community Develcapment. " Further, according to subsection 12-9A-2, a "minor amendment" #o a special development district is defined as, "modifications to budding plans, site or landscape plans that do not after the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of the Zoning Regulatiarts. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than fve feet (6) to approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the specie! development district; or changes to gross floor area of not more than Prue percent (59a) of the approved square footage of retail, affrce, common areas and other non-residential floor area. 111. STAFF ACTION The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission that an September 25, 2044, the Community Development Department staff approved the minor amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to allow for the conversion of nineteen (t 9} parking spaces to common storage area. Staff's approval carries wifh it the condition that, • the applicant sut3mits a revised parking level plan to the Community Development Department ilfus#rating the removal of the nineteen (19} spaces and the crea#ian of the cornman storage area, prior to the application for a building permit. The revised plan shall became a document of record in the Approved Development Plan for Special Development District #35, Austria Haus ant! the new minimum an-site parking requirement far the i~fstrict shall be 44 parking spaces. fn approving the minor amendment request, staff finds that the amendment complies with the criteria outlined in subsection. 12-9A-2 as the amendment does not after the basic intent or character of Special Development District #35 and is consistent wifh the design criteria afthe Zoning Regulations. Furthermore, the creation of approximafely 3,254 square of common area is a change to less than 5% of the approved to#af square footage of the Austria Haus. • MEIMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC7M: Community Development Department DATE: November 13, 2aao SUBJECT: A request far a minor subdivision to allow for the division of a tract of land into two lots, and a request for a rezoning #rom Residential Cluster District to Two-Family PrimaryiSecandary Residential District, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle/ SW '/4 of Section? 2, Township 5 South, Range 81, West of the fit'' Principle Meridian. Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson DESCRIPTIQN AND BACKGROUND OF THE REflU~ST The owner, David G_ Hilb, is requesting a minor subdivision to allaw for the subdivision of an unplatted parcel, located at 1552 Matterhorn G`rrcle, into two lots and a rezoning frcrn Residential Gloster to Two-Family PrimaryiSecandary Residential. The subdivision is proposed to subdivide the parcel into Lot 1 (Q.4t t$ acres) and Lat 2 (0.4369 acres}. The tract is currently zoned Residential Cluster. The purpose of the Residential Zone District is as follows: The Residential Cluster District is intended to provide sites for single-family: two-family, and multipleryfamilydwcllings at a density not exceeding six (6J dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Residential Cluster District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space far each dwelling, commensurate with residential occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. The owner is proposing to rezone the property from Residential Cluster to Twa-1=amity PrimaryiSecondary Residential. The purpose of Two-Family PrimarylSecandary Residential is as follows: The Twa-Family Primary/,secondary Residential District is !r?tended to provide sites for low density single-family or two-fam!!y residential uses together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space far each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and Iwo-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. ~i 1 `'~~ li ~~ti~,~~dr<>•r~i~, ~ This property is located between the lower and mic',dle benches of the future Donovan Park. The Town has approached IV]r. Hilb about acquiring a Twenty-foci {20') pedestrian access easement across this. property to provide a connection between the two park areas; however, Mr. Hilb has expressed no interest in providing such an easement. STAFF REC©MMENDATEC7N The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request to subdivide a tract of land located in the 5W '/4 of Sectionl2, Townsi~ip 5 South: Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian (also k~ ow as 1552 Matterhorn Circlej. Staff's recommendation for denial is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum. Specifically, staff's recommendation of den'sal is subject to the foifawing finding: Twat the proposed minor' subdivision plat does not comply with the review criteria and requirements of Chapter 13 of the Tawrr Gode and development standards as outlined in i2- 6D {Two-Family Primary/Secondary District) of the Tawn Cade. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request to rezone a tract of land located in the SW 1fa of Sectionl2, Township 5 South, flange 81 Uliest ~mf the Sixth Principal Meridian (also know as 1552 Matterhorn Circle) from Residential Giuster to Two-Family Prsmary/Secondary Residential. Staff's recommendation far approvaf is based upon the review of the cri#eria outlined in Section Vf of this memorandum. if the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this rezoning,. the following finding must be made: 1. That the proposed zone district is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, consistent with the Town's Land LJse Plan and Zoning Regulations, and appropriate for the area. ZC7NIN~G ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Analysis is to provide a written comparison of the existing development rights of the parcel in comparison to the proposed development rights of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Timber VaT Subdivision. Minor Subdivision of an unplatted parcel into Lots 7 and 2, Timber Vail Subdivision Zoning: Hazards: Lot Size: Permitted Uses EISTIhIG Residential Cluster Slopes of 40°l0 or greater 0.8487 acres f 36,969.52 sq. ft. 25,533 5q. ft. buifdable area Multi-family residential dwellings, Single-family residential dwellings, and Two-family residential dwellings PROPOSED (both lotsl Twa-Family Primary/Secondary Slopes of 40% or greater Lot 1:0.411$ acres / 17,938.0$ sq. ft. Lat 2: 0.4369 acres / 19,031.44 sq_ ft. Single-family residential dweilings, Two-family residential dwellings • • • 2 Development Minimum lot size: Standards: ~ 5,000 sq. ft. and 8,000 sq. ft. buildable area Density: 6 dwelling units per buildable acre 2 dwelling units per lot Maximum Allowable GRFA: 6,383 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. per unit Maximum Site Coverage: 25°f° of total site area Setbacks: Fron# 20 ft., Side 15 ft., Rear 15 ft. Maximum Building Height: 30 ft. ,' 33 ft. for sloping roots Minimum Landscaping: 60°% of site Minimum iat size: 15,QOtl sq. ft. buildable area Density: Maximum Allowable GRFA: 5,598 sq. ft. + 850 sq. ft. = 6,448 sq. ft. Maximum Site Coverage: 20°0 of total site area Setbacks: Front 20 ft., Side 15 ft., Rear 15 ft. Maximum Suilding Height: 30 ft. / 33 ft. far sloping roofs Minimum Landscaping: 60% of site V. MINOR SU13f31VISION -CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lots} must be met. This subdivision will be review~:d under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Cade. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision applicatian is: Lot Area: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area. Frantaae: Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet X30'}. Dimension: Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80') on each side, within its boundaries. Staff Response; Staff believes that the proposed subdivision does not meet the minimum lot standards of the Two-f=amily PrimarylSecondary District as specified by 12-6D-5 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary District, the minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area. While the proposed Lots 1 and 2 both exceed 15,000 square feet of total area, they do not each consist of 15,000 square feet of buildable area. The Zoning Ordinance defines "buildable area" as follows: BUILQABLE AREA: Any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof whr"ch does not contain desfr~nated (load plain, red avalanche area, or areas in excess of forty percent (4~1 °!°) slope. • 3 The entire unplatted parcel consists of approximately 36,971 square feet. The areas of this parcel ~,vith 40% or greater slope consist of approximately 11,438 square feet. Based upon the definition of "buildable area", the entire unplatted parcel consists of approximately 25,33 square feet of buildable area. A minimum buildable area of UO,ObO square feet is required to plat two lots in the Two-i=amity PrimarylSecondary Residential District without a variance. B. The second set of criteria to be considered with a Minor 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 honing Ordinance and other pertinent regGiatlons that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 73-3-3C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application acrd consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental r'ntegrity 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. Ta inform eacfr subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the minor subdivision far compliance with she applicable evaluation criteria. Upon the completion of our review the staff finds that the proposed subdivision does not comply with the subdivision criteria. ~. To provide for the subdi~rision of property in the future without conflict with development on ad}`scent land. Staff Response: Adjacent land uses include residential uses and the future Donovan Park. Adjacent zoning includes Residential Cluster, Two-Family Primaryl5econdary, General Use, and Agriculture and Open Space Districts. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies this property as "Law Density Residential", which is described as: This category includes single-family detached homes and two-family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also wr'fhin this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Scoff believes that the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Zoning District more closely meets the intent of the Land Use Plan's Low-Density Residential designation than the current Residential Cluster zoning of this parcel. Staff does not believe that the proposed subdivision will have any negative impacts on the development of adjacent lands. • 4 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 proposed subdivision will have any negative impacts nn the value of land in the Town of Vail, 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: As previously discussed. staff has completed an analysis of the minor subdivision proposal and finds that the application does not comply with the Town's ordinances. The current Residential Cluster zoning designation insures that a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among existing and potential land uses will be achieved. A rezoning of this property to Two-Family PrimaryrSecondary Residential would also insure that a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among existing and potential land uses will be achieved, but only if the development standards of that district are met. ~. 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 pubCic facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the subdivision will have any effect on the provision of public services. 6. Ta provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures... Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision plat has not been prepared in accordance with the standards prescribed in the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of 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 believes the minor subdivision rectuest does comply with the above-described criteria. Vl. REZONCNG RE{~UEST -CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 1. is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? Staff Response: This parcel is currently undeveloped. The adjacent land uses include residential uses and the future Donovan Park. Adjacent zoning includes Residential Cluster, Two-Family PrimarylSecandary, General Use, and Agriculture and Open Space Districts. Staff believes that bo#h the Residential Cluster and Two-Family Primary/Secondary zoning districts are suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses. • 5 2) Is the amendment presenting a convenient workabfe relationship with land uses consistent with municpa{ objectives? Staff Response: Through the Tewn's development review process, the Town can ensure that any future proposals are consistent with municipal objectives. 3) Does the rezoning provide far the growth of an orderly viable community? Staff Response: In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Fegulations and Vail's Mosier Flan Elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth Qf an orderly viable community. 4) {s the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? Staff f~esponse: The Vail Land Use Plan identifies this property as "Lew Density Residential", which is described as This category includes single-family detached homes and tvv©-family dwelling units, !density of deve?t~pment within this category would typically not exceed ~ structures per buildable acre. also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Irastitutiona!/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Staff believes that the Two-f=amiy Primary/Secondary Zoning District more closely meets the intent of the Land Use Plan's Low-Density Residential designation than the current Residential Cluster zoning of this parcel. Therefore, Staff believes this rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan. 6 MEMf.3F~ANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC3N1: Department or' Community Deveioprnent LATE; IVavember 13, 20g0 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit of the Lionshead parking structure looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end ofi the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift fine. A full legal description of the view corridors is attached. Applicant; Tc~vr; of Vail Planner; Allison Ochs L DESCFtIPTIQN +OF THE FtE~UEST Gin May 20, 1 J97, recognizing the importance of visual cannectians, the Town Council approved the use of the existing Town of Vail view corridor ordinance to designate the first protected publ°sc view corridors in Lionshead. In order to qualify for protection under the Town's ordinance, a view corridor must meet the following criteria: t . Is the view corridor critical to the identity, civic pride, and sense of place in Lionshead? 2. Is the view seen from a widely used, publicly aocessible viewpoint, 3. Is the view threatened' is there a possibility that development on nearby property would block the view? According to the Town Code, the purpose statement of Chapter 22. View Corridors is: The Town believes that preserving certain vr`stas is in the interest of the To~rn's residents and guests. Specifically, the Town believes that: A. The protection and perpetuatit~n of certain ,mountain views and other significant views from various pedestrian public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the Town. B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment for the residents and guests of the Town. C. The preservation or` such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and atfributes. ~,~ ~,_ /7~,{~ ~`~1ci TSl7Tl~rl/P F~~d~~s'~i c. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of ;he Town. E. The preservation ar such views is intended to promote design which is compatible with the surrounding natural and taunt environment, and is intended to provide for natural light to buildings and in public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors, r'= Tne preservation of such viewws watt include certain fooal points such as the Glock Tower and J~ucksack Tower, which serve as prominent landmarks wrthrn Vail Village and contribute fo the community's unique sense cf place. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies five ~Jiew Corridors. however, it recommends that only two legally protected view corridars be established. The remaining three views are to be established as critical design parameters, not as benchmarked and surve;aed corridors. These other three view corridors are contigent on future development, and parameters of these views are to be considered at the Time of development. Lionshead View corridor ~ is seen from the west end of the Lionshead parking structure, standing at street level at the main pedestrian exit and looking southwest toward the gondola lift line. A full legal description and photo is attached for reference. Lionshead View C,~rridor 2 is seen from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifithouse Lodge, looking south directly up the gondola lift line.. I~. STAFF EsECt7MI1tIENDATIC)i~ '~ As it is the Planning and Environmental Commission's role to make a recommendation to the Town Council for adoption of a new View Corridor,. staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the twa Lionshead View Corridors subject to the following findings: a. That the proposed view corridors protect and perpetuate views from public pedestrian areas, public ways, or public spaces within the Town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest for the Town. b. That the proposed view corridors protect and enhance the Town's attraction to residents, guests and property owners. c. That the proposed view corridors protect views which are commonly recogniLed and '--ave inherent qualities which make them more valuable to the Town than other more common views. d. That the proposed view corridors are consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment lvtaster Plan and Title ~ 2, Zoning, of the Town Code, and furthers a legitimate Town interest. II1. R®LES {3F THE REVIEVIIING BUARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. 2 The PEC shall roview the proposed view corridor and make a recommendation to the Town Councii on the compatibility of the prcpcsed 5~~iew corridor with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan, Tov~rn policies, and urban desian guide plans and other adopted master plans. Desian Review Board: Action: The DRS has i~1G review authority on view corridar adcaptian. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEG and Town Council on view corridor adoption, Town Council: Action: The Town Councii is responsible for final approvalldenial an view corridor adoption. The Town Councii shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed view corridor for consistency with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town.. policies, and urban desian guide plans and other adopted master plans. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA F!~13 VIEW Ct,~RRID()RS A. Lionshead View Corridor ~ Genera! Description Tanis view corridar is seen from the west end of the Lionshead parking structure, standing at street level at the main pedestrian exit and looking southwest toward the gondola 4ift line. The fallowing criteria must be met far the Planning and Environmental Commission to recommend approval of Lionshead View Corridor 1: That the proposed view corridor protects and perpetuates views frorrz public pedestrian areas: public ways, or p~rblic spaces within the Town which fester civic pride and are in the public interest for the Town. Staff believes that the proposed view corridor protects and perpetuates a primary view from this very important public area. Many visitors park at the Lionshead structure and enter Lionshead from the west end of the parking structure. This proposed view corridor protects the view up the gondola lift line. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this view: a. Fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead, b. Is taken from a commonly used, publicly accessible viewpoint. This area is the primary point of entry for pedestrian traffic from the parking structure and is aEso the primary Lionshead transit stop. 2. That the proposed view corridor protects and enhances the Town's attraction to residents, guests and property owners. As stated above, this proposed view corridor is from a primary point of entry for many cf Lionshead guests and residents. fs protects a view of Vail Mountain up the gondola liftline. The Lionshead Redevelopment h~laster Plan identifies this area as the East Lionshead pedestrian portal, and encourages improvements to this entire pedestrian piaza area,. including improved transit stops. 3. That the proposed view corridor protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities whic,'~ make it more valuable to the Town than other more common views. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this view corridor is potentially threatened by redevelopment in the foreground of the view. As the primary pedestrian portal to Lionshead, it is more valuable to the Town than other common views. B. Lionshead View Corridor 2 General Cescriation This view corridor is seen from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge, looking south directly up the gondola lift line. The following criteria must be met for the Planning and Environmental Commission to recommend approval of Lionshead View Corridor 2: That the proposed view corridor protects and perpetuates views from public pedestrian areas, ;public ways, or public spaces within the Town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest for the Town. Staff believes that the proposed view corridor protects and perpetuates a primary view from an important public area. This is a primary public plaza and popular public space. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. this view; a. Fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead. b. Is taken from a commonly used, publicly accessible viewpoint. 2. That the proposed view corridor protects and enhances the Town's attraction to residents, guests and property owners. As stated above:. this is a primary public plaza. According to the .onshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this plaza area is identified as the resort retail and commercial hub of Lionshead. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommends improvements to this piaza area and encourages more pedestrian connections through Lionshead. 3. That the proposed view corridor protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities which make Them more valuable to the Town than other more common views. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this view corridor is potentially threatened by redevelopra~~;nt in the foreground of the view, specifically, the Vail Associates core site. In addition; as a primary pedestrian piaza, this view is more valuable than other views. 4 Ja~,nsQl~, Kunkel & Associates,lrlc. C'141L ENGINEERING L:~i~JD PLANNtlVG • SURVEYING P"1P.PPk~NG ~'~ t;/ r~~ of > :-~ ~,~ r~l~~~~ co~eR~vc~xs .~,. View Paint :=1: A ~-ie~.;~ from the'vvest end o1`the 1_ic~nsh~:ad parl:in~r str7icture. standinYT at street ler.~el at the front of the entrance to the Subtiti~a~' restaurant {~9~ L. Lionshead Circler and lookin~~ sot~thd~~:st inward the ~.~ondola lift lint. 1. Purpose: To protect the ti~ic~rv~ cif 1~'ail ~-1ot~nt?in Fc4n] the Li~n5lrcad area. 2. 5urti~e~- control: Based can published material tram town ot'4'ail GP5 control map. Points 5praddle and I76b ti~~ere used for this sur'ti•ev. Bea~•ir~~=s reported below° are tied to this control. - ~. Instrument at Viet~• Point ~ l : A 2 inch diameter 1?raSS monument. 17us11 in briclti pa~~ers, stamped Vle~ti" 1. ~. Backsi~Tht: ~. 2 inch diameter aluminum ,lohnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc.. monument Ww~hich bears 511°47'-1?"4L' ~?7.9~ #eet distant. Located at the north ed~e of a concrete rind, for a ~.vater m;.~nhole approrimatc.ly 1 ~ feet north of the north edY~e t the bike path. ~. Height Uf Surz•z~~ Instrument above 4'ie~~ Point ~1: 5.2fi ftc.t. 6. Table: I3earin« Zenith An<Tle Foresight Point.. Can ?hato ~s Of October `?~. 2fl00 S0~° 1=1`~~.'4`,. ~'~°09' 1~" A -intersection of the horizon ti~-ith a ~•~rtical line defined by the south4vest corner rootlinc on the Treetops Condominium building. 4~2, E. Lianshead Circle. SCE;°''`?' 13"W $4° i l' ~ ] .. B - intersection o 1` the roof overhang at the crest end of the Treetops Condominium buiidin4 and the south~~°est corner of said building, ~5?y E. Lionsh~:~id Circle. L 5(7~°~8'~~"'44' 3Q° I7'tiS'' B1 - 4~•esterly' upper corner of the roof overhand at the ~~-~est end ol` the Treetops Condominium building. ~~~'. 1/. Lionshead Circle. P.O. Bc~x 409 1286 Chambers Ave. • Suite 200 Eagle, Coiorado 8163 I Phone {470} 328-63b8 Fax: (970) 328-1035 P.O. Lox 77I 196 • 3 120 50. Lincoln Ave. • Suite 202 5taam'QCat ,~r:r,gs, CC 8047? P'hor.e: (970j 879-4676 • Fax: (970) 879-4870 L ~;arin{~ Ze:x th An~~2~ Eoresi4zht 1?nitxt ~~n Photo As C}f C)ctober 2~. 2000 50~° , g- ~ 8"~~' ~ 1 °4~ ` ~~•• B2 - westerly lover corner of tl~le roo#' i~~ erhan~~ at tlxc west i~nd of the Treetops Condonxitxiutx~ y 1)Lllldli74~, 452. F. Lionslead Circle, S0~°22'2S"W 8' °~ ~' l~>'' 13 ~ -intersection i.>l~the roof~~~erhan~ at the west end caf tlxe Treetops Cnndominiunx bl.Eildin~ and the soRltlnvcst corner of said building:. 4~2. L, Lionsltctlcl Circlc_ S2° 11-(~~"~~' $~°40'7'` C -intersection of thl~ Iloriznn ~~itlx a vet~tical line dcttned b~~ the southeast corner rnotline on tlxry ti~'ail Lionshead C"entre C«ndotniniums. X20. Lionshead Circle. B. ~%i~~~ Poitxt ~2; ~ ti~ie~v from the pedestrian piara at the east end of the Lifthouse Lode ~~~~ E.Liotxshead Circle) ]ookin~ south directly r.tp tlxe ~~otxdola lift line. 1. Purpose: "ra protect the vietivs of Vail 1'~lottntain from the core of tlxe Liorzsixead area. ~. Survev control: Based on published material ti•om to~~-n of Vail GPI control nxap. 1?oints Spraddle and 1766 were used for this surrey. Bearin~?s reported beloti~ are tied to this control. ;. Ilxstrutxxent; ~~'ie~v Anint ~1: A 2 inch diameter brass motninxent. flush in brick pa~°crs. stanxped View ?. ~. Backsi4~ht: .~ 2 inch dianeter aluminum Joluxson. f~unkel c'~C-. Associates. Inc.., monument «;hich bears X02°47'02"Vv ?9.06 feet. Located ?~ feet north ii•om the Vista ]3ahn. 1 ~ feet south of a ~a font by 4 foot steel drain and 2 inches south of the of the bike path. ~. Nci~~lxt of Surve4- It:strEUnent above View Point ~?: x.20 feet. b. Table: Bearing Zenith Ankle Foresight Point ~n Photo As fJf(~etober ?>. 2l)00 S()7°18°22"E 79°09'49'" A intersection of the horizon «~ith a vertical line defined by the southerly ronfiline on the Vail Lionshead Centre C'olxdotxxiniunxs, X20, L. Lionshead Circle. Buarin~~ zenith ,~1n~~le 1~~}resi~~ht T'oitlt [~)n Photc} .as C)f t:.)ct~~ber ~. ~(:)D() St~7°~(~. ~~1`'F lei°1~~50"` [~ - intersecti~>n o1 a I~~dvel" rc?pf at the ~vesterl~~ end ~~1~ the ti'ail ~~.iunshe~Id Centre Condolr~irtiun7s and the westerly built#in~~ u~~all of said building, ~`'(). E_ Lions~lctld Circle. L S06°1 C~'~~7'~E ~~~~11 `()U" C - westerly end of the loti~er roof on tl°te ~~~esterfv cnd ot'tht ti~'ail Lionsllead t;:entl"e Condpminiun~s, ~?0, F. Lipnshertd Circle. SC~~°1 1'>9'"E ~±3°~0'j?" 1) - intersection pfth~: ~vesterl~ lover ~-vall pfthe Vail Lic~nslt~:ac[ Centre Condominiitn-ts ~tnd a wood deck at said builclin~~_ ?`_'(). [~. Li4~I~shead Circle. SC_YD"~~.-1r)..~ 79°()9`~9`" E - intzrs~:cti~n of t3~.e horizon v~~ith a vertical line defined bti the soutlSw•est corner roofline on the Lail Llpnshead ~.entre CondpmilllLLrr1S ~lnd the treehIie fpr the wvestcrly side of Bv~~a11a rt:11 on ti'ail 'vloutain running under the lift to~v~el-s fir the Born 1=r#~e L~l~ress Litt and the Ea~~le Bann Ftl~ress C'~c~ndol~.. • • • • MEMOF~ANOUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November t3, 2QQQ SUBJECT: A request for a warksession to amend the zoning regulations to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the HoUSing bane District. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST (Dn June 15, 1993 the Community Development Department presented to the flown Council a proposal to create a new Housing zone district, which would be a district similar to the GU zone district in that the development standards would be prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposal at a warksession an August 23, 1999 and gave the general direction that the new district was needed. One Planning and Environmental Commission member suggested. that the district depart from the General Use district farrnat and have specific development standards created. Staff has drafted a proposal far a new zone district targeted at employee housing. The proposal would be to establish a zone district that could be applied to properties ensuring that ante developed: they remain as employee housing in perpetuity. This could be applied to existing projects as well as future projects. The proposed district was modeled after the General Use zone district, listing most uses as conditional uses and requiring the Planning and Environmental Commission to set the development standards far the project. The proposal deviates slightly from the GU district format by establishing setback requirements (2Q'), a site coverage limitation (55°/oa, and a landscape area minimum (30%}, which are consistent with the High Density Multiple Family Residential zone district. All projects would be subject to review and approval through a Planning and Environmental Commission review process. Additionally, free-market dwelling units have been added as a conditional use in the zone district subject to criteria. The criteria include previsions that free-market units are provided only to help subsidize the creation of employee housing units, that they are secondary to the employee housing, and that they are developed in conjunction with employee housing. Secondary commercial uses are also listed as a conditional use. II. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. Page l of 2 ~'~~ ~~~ "t T04V;4 ©k krtlL ~ y The PEC s,naii review the pr~cosal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring than all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Council: .4cticn: 7-he Town Council is responsible far final approval/denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of he proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: ~cticn: The DRB has NQ revieVr authority an cede amendments. Ill. PR(~RUSE?~ TEXT OF THI HOUSING Zd,3NE DISTRICT Category of district`: Should it be a s~eciai/misc. district? Should it be a residential district? ARTICLE D. HCIUSING ~H) DISTRICT SECTION: t2-9D-1: Purpose t2-9D-2: Permitted Uses 12-9D-3: Conditional Uses 12-9D-4: Accessory Uses 12-9D-5: Setbacks 12-9D-G: Site Coverage 12-9D-7: Landscaping and Siie Development 12-9D-8: Other Development Standards 12-9D-1: PURROSE: The Housing District s intended to provide adequate sites for affordable and employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of affordable and employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section ' 2-1-2 of this Title and to provide far the public welfare. The Housing District is intended to ensure that affordable and employee housing permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vaii, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces; and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. Pale 2 of r 12-9D-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the H District: Is it appropriate to include deed Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. Restricted and Type IIt Pedestrian and bike paths. and hype VI Ernptayee Deed restricted employee housing, housing as a Type II[ employee housing unit as provided in Section t2-13-6 of permitted use? this Title, Type VI employee housing unit as provided in Section t2-13-7 of this Title. 1~-9D-3: CQNDITIQNAL US€S: Generally: The following conditional uses shat! be permitted in the H District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Public buildings and grounds. Public utilities installations including transmission fines and appurtenant equipment. Public ;parks. Commercial uses which are secondary (as determined by the Planning and Enviranrnental Commission) to the use of deed restricted employee housing and developed in conjunction with deed restricted employee housing, in which case the Hpw should "Secondary" be following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use defined? permit: Banks and financial institutions. Eating and drinking establishments. Health clubs. Personal services. Professional offices, business offices, and studios. F~etail stores and establishments. Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission: What is an acceptable subsidy? A Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose How do we measure this subsidy? of subsidizing employee housing on the property. B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property and the number of dwelling units are a limited percentage of the overall development on the site. C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with deed restricted employee housing. Should this be limited by GREA? ~-9D-4: ACCESSARY USES: %~ at the number of The following accessary uses shall be permitted in the H District. units? Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions afi Section 12-14-12 of this Title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. Yag~ 3 0l Z ti i2-9D-5: SE7BAGKS: The setbacks sn this district shall be 20' from the perimeter of the zone district. ;fit the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission,. variations to the setback standarr5 outlined above may be approved during the review of a conditional use permit subject to she app~icant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. Proposed building setbacks will provide aaequate availability of light, air and open space. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a cornpatibie relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solo#ions cr~cther public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards 12-~D-6; SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shah not exceed fifty five percent (55°/p) of the total sit Planning and Environmental Commission, site coverage may be increased if parking is provided substantially underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts of surface paving provided within a develt~pmen#. e area. At the discretion of the is 55% an appr©priate site coverage allowance? 12-9D-7: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping steal! be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet.. 12-9D-$: OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:. A. Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: 1, Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Building height. Should parking 3. Density control including gross residential float area). requirements be based an 4. Off-Street Parking and Loading. fit-~~ for EHU's and DU's? B. Reviewed By Planning and Environmental Commission: Development sta:~dards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Titl@. Minor changes to the development plan or development standards (by not more than 5%© to any development standard Should these unless reducing a standard's impact in which case the 5% limitation changes be allowed shalt not apply) shall be approved by the administrator or by the for height, density, Design Review Board. i and parking"? Paec d of IV. ITEMS 1=0R DISCUSSION Staff has identified some key discussion items and issues for discussion on the proposed Housing Zone District. • Should the Housing Zone District be considered a "Residential District" or a "Special and Miscellaneous District"? • Originally deed restricted units were listed as a conditional use. As housing is the primary purpose of the zone district, is it appropriate to include deed restricted units as a permitted use? • Commercial lases which are secondary would be considered a conditional use. How should secondary be defined and measured? • Dwelling units (not dEed restricted units} would be conditional uses, ~s long as they are to subsidize employee housing. What is an acceptable subsidy? How is this subsidy measured? • Should the number of dwelling units (not deed restricted units) be limited by GAFA? Is there a ration of GRFA, such as the 70-30 split in the PA Zone district, that would be acceptable? 1s there an acceptable ratio of dwelling units to deed restricted units? • Is 5~% an appropriate site coverage allowance? With 3Q% landscape area. ~5°f° site coverage, this allows 15% for circulation and surface panting. Wi[I this encourage underground or enclosed parking? Should there be a maximum allowable site coverage amount? • Should the parking requirements be based an 12-10; Qff-Street Parking and Loading, for deed restricted units and dwelling units rather than determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission? With the changes made to the EHIJ Chapter, parking requirements for EHU's are now the same as dwelling units. Should parking far dwelling units and deed restricted units in the Housing Zone District be prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission? Should the requirements of the Off-Strut Parking and Loading section be a minimum requirement far parking? • Should a 5% change to the development plan be allowed at the staff level wi#h regards to height, density, and parking? • Is there a measure of affordability that needs to be considered, in addition to deed restricting? • Should the waiver of fees be considered with regards to deed-restricted housing? • C21LB $ 6f~~ r*~ PLANNING AND ENVIRQNMENTAL COMMISSION • November 13, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS I~RESENT: Chas Bernhardt Jahn Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Tom Weber PuialiG Hearing MEMBERS ABSENT: Galen Aasland Diane Golden Chas Bernhardt called the meeting to order a# 2:00. 2:00 p. rnr. A request for a variance from Section 12-8A-5 of the Vail Town Code ('"Lot Area and Site Dimensions"} and a request far a minor subdivision, to allow for the creation of two legally platted "Agriculture & Qpen Space" zoned tracts of land, located at 615 Forest Road / a currently unpiatted tract of land located in the North "/~ of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6ln P.M. Applicant: The Vail Corporation Planner: Brent Wilson • • Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Doug Cahill recused himself. Chas Bernhardt asked if there was any applicant comment. Alex lskenderian said there was no development proposal at this time. He said they were just trying to converk it into two platted portions. Chas Bernhardt asked if there was any public comment. Ark Abplanalp, representing 5 adjacent property owners, said this was not a simple subdivision into two tracts, but rather dividing this properky into three tracts. He then passed out a map from the Assessor's office and two other documents. He said subdivisions must comply with the Land Use Regulations in the Town of Vai!_ He then explained the exhibits. He said the Town of Vail Zoning Map recognized the 13-acre tract of land as one parcel of land. He said the Vail Corporation was trying to divide this 13-acre tract into 3 parcels. Me said by legalizing two parcels, the third parcel would then be legal, which was. a super special privilege. He said there was a road across this parcel which they want a seasonal easement. He said that was not good planning and if we were creating a road, then it was not a minor subdivision. He said this was not entitled to a variance as it didn't meet the criteria. Brent Wilson explained that the Town of Vail was the owner of the third parcel and they were not proposing to subdivide at this time and it was not unusual to transfer ownership of an unpiatted parcel in the Town of Vail via a deed and legal description. He said the temporary right-of-way was necessary in order not to jeopardize the Barn Free ski run. John Schofield asked if there was no easement at this time. STAFF PRESENT: George Ruttier Brent Wilson Ann Kjeruif Allison Ochs Judy 'Rodriguez Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ~©vember 13, ZOdO Brent tirViison said that'3 c :greet and mentioned that the Tawn of Vai! paved it. John Schofield said it was just getting technically cleaned up. Tom Weber asked if the original met the minimum lot size. Brent VViison said, no. Alex Iskenderian disagreed with Art and explained why Vail Resorts made the application to the Town. He said Vail Resorts 5~ranted to voluntarily withdraw the application. Chas Bernhardt asked if the applicant wanted it tabled, John Schofield explained the tabling process. Alex Iskenderian said the plat needed #o be approved because of the ballot issues last week, sa the application had changed. He said this was not supposed to be controversial and rectuested to withdraw the application. Brent Wilson said we might be coming forward in the future with an amendment to the subdivision regulations. 2. A request for a miner subdivision to allow far the relocation of the common lot line, located at 363 and 383 Beaver Qam goad, Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3`~ Piling. Applicant: Jahn L. Tyler Jr., represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt asked if the applicant had anything to add. The legal attorney for some adjacent property owners said the zoning rights were based an lot sizes that previously existed. Doug Cahill asked if there were lets in the neighborhood that were the same size. Dominic Maurielly said there were lots larger in the neighborhood. Chas Bemhardt asked if #here were any public camrnents. poug Cahill asked if the wetland delineations were on record. Dominic Mauriello responded. John Schofeld said bath lots met the current subdivision criteria and noted for the record that the PEC had approved similar subdivisions in the past and so he had no objection, He said essentially we were doing what we had done in the past and that staff had overstepped their bounds by adding a plat note. Tom Weber agreed with Doug and said the Tawn had never restricted development an a wetlands issue alone. Brian ©oyon had na comments Chas Bernhardt agreed with John's comments and said it met the criteria. Planning and Environrnent~l Commission 2 Ntinutes November 13, 2000 John Schofield made a motion for approval„ in accordance with the staff memo, and agreed that the plat note should ae eliminated. Brian Doyen seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0 3. A reques# far a minor amendment to an approved development plan (SDD #~~}, to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces {and the conversion of these spaces into common storage) at the Austria Haus parking garage, located at 242 Fast Meadow Drive/A part of Tract C, Vail Village 15` Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association Planner: George Ruttier George Ruttier gave an overview of the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt asked if the applicant had anything to add. Johannes Faessler said he was here to answer any questions. He said the Austria Haus has operated for two winter and two summer seasons and so he had a good feeling for what the parking requirements were. He said that 63 parking spaces were not all needed. John Schofield asked when the project was completely sold out. Johannes Faessler said, regarding the original inventory, May or June of this year. He said they had been operating as sold out from the beginning. Tam Weber asked if on-site parking was included in the membership. Johannes Faessler said, yes, but 100% of the parking per unit was not going to happen. He said that member's storage was needed. Tom Weber asked how many parking spaces were being used for storage right now and he asked about the valet spaces. George Ruttier said this application was requesting to reduce the parking from 63 to 44 spaces and we hadn't seen a plan for the configuration. Tom Weber said the tandem spaces would put the applicant over the 25% mark. Johannes Faessler requested some guidelines. George Ruttier said that the parking requirements were amended. He said the Austria Haus now has a surplus of 19 spaces and the surplus was a result of the reduction in the parking requirements for FFU's. Tom Weber said it met the criteria. Brian Doyen said Johannes would take responsibility to t'Ind spaces and so he was in favor of it. ;-ie said that thae FFPJ parking requirement should be lowered. John Schofield said there were a lot of tradeoffs in the SDD process. He said the direction at the time was to keep records with definitive numbers with hard data and said the PEC didn't have information today to make that decision. He said he felt uncomfortable going ahead without occupancy rates, numbers, etc_ Manning and Environmental Commissi°n Minutes November 13, 2000 Doug Cahill said it met the criteria and to keep the parking structures less °ull would be appreciated. Johannes Faessler said he would not take away the convenience cf parking on-site to park in the structure. Brian Doyon asked if it was the applicant's parking was ever full. Johannes Faessler said it was never full where they had to park off-site- Ghas Bernhardt suggested a several year trial, with the applicant bringing back data in two years and they could decide if it would go from storage back to parking. He said the other option could be to work with the planning staff to address the 25%. George Ruther said that it was a given- Jahannes Faessler said if the owners of the building don't have enough parking, they would reduce the storage space. Jahn Schofield moved that the staff's decision be placed an hold to review the plat. Chas Bernhardt stated that since there was na second to the motion, the motion died. Brian Doyon made a motion far approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-1, ~~ith John Schofield opposing . 4. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the division of a tract of land into two lots, and i a request far a rezoning from Residential Cluster District #o Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District, located at 1552 Matterham CircIelSW ~/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 511 West of fhe 6'h Principle Meridian. Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson Chas Bernhardt said this was tabled until the first meeting in December. 5. A request far a worksession to amend the zoning regulations to allow for the creation of a new ?one district, the Housing Zone Dis#rict. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Qchs gave an overview of the staff memo.. Brian Doyon said we were trying to create residences and not a commercial core and so it should be in a residential zone district. George Ruther said the commercial aspects would be supparked by the residential units. Chas Bernhardt said it should be a mix of residential and cornmerciale He asked if the current landowner would have any input whether this would go into this district. Allison Ochs said, yes. Planning and Envirflnmental Commission Minutes November i3, 200 Chas Bernhardt said he was looking at personal property rights. He asked if the current owner could abject. Tom Weber said the only time he saw zoning enforced was for Lionshead. George Ruttier said the point was to have a discussion on the uses. He said there should be a benefit, so developers would want to build these types of projects. Tom Weber asked haw to make comparisons with HDI'+lli"' regarding density or ether things to encourage development. Allison Ochs summarized the items €or discussions Tom Weber said he thought this should be in a residential zone district, issuing the "deed restricted housing" as a permitted use in and taking the Types out entirely, believing that "deed restricted housing" included Type !i9 and VI. George Ruttier said it would have to be defined somewhere else Tam Weber said to tie secondary commercial uses to occupant lead rather than square footage. He said you can't measure subsidizing and to give advised giving a maximum standard that would be acceptable with dwelling unit based. He said if it was tied to dwelling units, you'!I find they'll build larger units. He said that site coverage and landscaping were restrictive enough. He agreed with the 5% change regarding parking and Loading. He thought not only the measure of affordability should be considered, but a measure of appropriate housing standards. He said open and green spaces say a lot. He said if this happened a lot, he could see reducing the fee, but not waiving the fee. Brian ^ayan said it should be a residential zone district with an EHU definition with the secondary left up to a board. He thought subsidizing projects was great. He agreed with greater than 55°!0 site coverage and to use Pitkin or Timber Ridge as a comparison. George Ruttier said we talked about 65°I°. He said while density was important for affordabili#y, open space was important so we'd appreciate mare thought on behalf of the Commission. Brian Dayon suggested looking at Northridge or the similarity to Diver Oaks in Avon. He said he would like the numbers to go up to B5% with enclosed parking and landscaping dropping dawn to 25%. He said the parking credits should be far enclosed parking or storage. He said there needed to be a discussion an storage. Tom Weber said to not taunt storage as GRFA, ar put a cap on it. Allison Ochs asked haw much the Town should defsne, ar should it be defined by the market. Brian Dayon said 100 sq. ft. should be a minimum for storage, Tom Weber said if covered parking was provided, then storage should be required. Nina Timm said communal garages work with storage closets, such as in Vail Commons. Brian Dayon said he didn't like the 5% landscape. George Ruttier said it was seen with GR~A during the design phase. He said none of the other development standards would be affected to take into the reality the construction process. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November t3, 20fl0 Lrian Doyon said, regarding GRFA, that 5arp played a big role in affordability for these projects, 2s they were tied to the economics of the people trying to live here based on their salary. Jonrt Schofield said to have a residential zone district being General Use and let people get creative, as putting in all the other parameters would kill it. He said a permitted use would be employee housing without definition and any other use should be a conditional use. He questioned how to legislate the long term use and maintenance, so it wouldn't become a Vail slum. He said to get away from GRFA and stay with setbacks, etc. He said to set the guidelines for parking and !et people get creative and that Council should set the guidelines for affordability. George Bother staid the parameters were there for the neighborhood's concerns on .now it would look. He asked if it was important to paint a picture through these regulations. Tom Weber asked how you could ensure vested development rights. John Schofield said to get gutsy and get some#hing done by using the Genera! lJse concept. Doug Cahill said he agreed with all the comments. He said yes to a residential district and conditional use. George Ruther said the question here was what picture would the developer and applicant get. Allison C)chs said Type III EHU's did not count as density or GRFA and asked if a 5015Q split for free market & EHU's was acceptable. Doug Cahill suggested throwing a number in there based on dwelling units and that 55% site coverage was good as a baseline. He said affordability was a tough one and agreed to waive the fees. Chas Bernhardt said this should be residential district and agreed with Tom regarding the EHU. He said to get rid of the types and that secondary should be defined. He said regarding the subsidy, that the size of the project would have a lot to do with it. He said by sticking to 50% would be absurd,. as in Timber Ridge. He said accessory uses should be limited by GRFA and he agreed that the storage unit should be 1D% and be required. John Schofield said storage rooms turn into bedrooms. Chas Bernhardt said there was a need for the storage. Tam Weber suggested that storage not be directly accessible by the unit. Chas Bernhardt said ifi there was twice the square footage we would then have twice the inhabitants if it was employee housing, so there would be a need for four times the number of storage units. Nina Timm suggested "sport specific" locker space for each bedroom, rather than 10Q sg. ft. and market driven. Chas Bernhardt said that was a real good option. He said successful housing projects have more green space. He said yes to parking and 5 % was minimal. He said affordability was definite. He said he would like to see a new affordable housing screening process, as the current one was unfair. He said a lot of "trustfunders" were getting into these projects. He agreed with waiving fees, but not 100%. Allison Ochs said the original intent was not. affordability, but long term employees in affordable business. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Novemder 13, 2D00 Nina Timm said that 75°,~0 of the income must be derived from the income from a job in Eagle County. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Town Council for the adop#ion of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pfan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. Amore specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Doug Cahill asked if there was anything in there to address overgrown trees into view corridors. Allison Ochs explained the view corridor being up the mountain and mentioned that keeping the entire area open was in the Master Plan. John Schofield asked if adjacent property owners had been notified. Allison Ochs said notification was given and it was above and beyond the requirements of the code. John Schofield asked if a variance was required to build within the view corridors. Allison Ochs said this was an amendment to a ~~view corridor and that any development in a view corridor would need to come before the PEC. She then explained the build to lines as identified in the Lionshead Master Plan. John Schofield said he was concerned with the view corridor by Garfinkeis. He said he thought it would impact their building and take away property rights. Allison Ochs went through the criteria again from the staff memo and said that the VA core site would be governed by the view corridor at the time of redevelopment and said that VA had been notified. Chas Bernhardt asked for any public comment. Doug Cahill said he liked the corridors. Jahn Schofield said his only concern was regarding redevelopment on Garfinkels. Tom Weber said it gave them an avenue for amending this for redevelopment. Brian Doyon had no comments. John Schofield made a motion for a recommendation of approval to the Town Council, in accordance with the staff memo and that consideration be given to Lionshead Center on the east side of View Corridor #2 with regards to future redevelopment. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 13, 2ooQ 7. A request #or a mince subdivision, to allow for the vacation of lot lines, located at 247~~ Garmisch/Lots 1-4, Block H; Vail dos Schone Filing 2. Applicant: Tnwn of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL N{?VEIVIBER 27, 20QQ 8. A request for a minor subdivision; to allow for the creation of two tracts, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive / a currently un{afatted tract of land within Section 9, Tflwnship 5 South, Range 8© West of the 6f" P.lV1. directly north of Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 within the Vail Golf Coursa. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Erent Wilson TABLED UNTIL NQVEINBER 27, 2(lOt} 9. A request for a final review of a minor subdivision, to allow for the reconfiguration and replotting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lots 15 & 16 from Agriculture Open Space and Primary/Secondary Residential to Natural Area Preservation and PrimarylSecondary Residential, located at 3886J3896 Lupine Drive/Lots 15 8~ 16, Bigham 2'~~ Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschimer, First Land laevelopment, LLC Planner: George Ruttier TABLED UNTIL NQVEl4+iBER 27, 2000 1Q. A request for a site coverage variance (Section 12-7A-9} Vail Town Code and setback variance (12-7A-6}; Vail Town Gcde, to allow for a new front entry to the Mountain Haul, located at 292 E. Meadow Driveri_ot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1~' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzien Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED John Schofield made a motion to table items 4,7,6,9 and 10. Tam Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-Q. 11. Approval of October 23, 2660 minutes Brian Dayon made a motion to approve the minutes as read. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-D. 12. Information Update 'Brian Doyon made a motion to adjourn. Tom Weber seconded the motion. • • • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 13, 2404