Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-1211 PEC• C, A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE J, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the we Town of Vail on December 11, 2000, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the division of an unplatted tract of land into two lots, and a request for a rezoning from Residential Cluster District to Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District and a request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5, Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the required lot area and site dimensions, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle /SW '/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 811 West of the 6th Principle Meridian. Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a height variance from Section 12 -6D -7, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an elevator shaft to exceed the 33' height limitation, located at 87 Rockledge Road /Lot 2, Block 7, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: Mary Alice Malone, represented by Resort Design Associates Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the zoning regulations to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the "Housing Zone District. "° Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for grading in the flood plain, to allow for the placement of bridge abutments & grading, in accordance with Title 14, Town Code, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East/Ford Park Unplatted. Applicant; Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 24, 2000 in the Vail Trail. 1 a, TOWN OF PAIL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY' PUBLIC NOTICE F � NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of F Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the e� Town of Vail on December 25, 2000, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In p 9 consideration of: MEETING CANCELLED The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published December 8, 2000 in the Vail Trail. 1 A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION F/' PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, December 25, 2000 MEETING CANCELLED The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 4792138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 - 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published December 22, 2000 in the Vail Traii Id l� TOWN OF PALL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, December 11, 2000 obristmw LIMch PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1� Ford Park — 540 S. Frontage Road 2. Malone residence — 87 Rockledge Road 1 Hilb residence — 1552 Matterhorn Circle Driver: George A PUBLIC WELCOME 12.00 pm NOTE. If the PEC hearmg extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 630 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 1:00 prn 2:00 pm A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the division of an unplatted tract of land into two lots, and a request for a rezoning from Residential Cluster District to Two-Family Prima ry/Second ary Residential District and a request for a variance from Section 12-613-5, Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the required lot area and site dimensions, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle/SW 1/4of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 811 West of the 6,h Principle Meridian. Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson 2, A request for a height vadance from Section 12-6D-7, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an elevator shaft to exceed the 33' height limitation, located at 87 Rockledge Road/Lot 2, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant- Mary Alice Malone, represented by Resort Design Associates Planner: Allison Ochs TOWN OF VAIL 3. A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the zoning regulations to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the "Housing Zone District." Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 4. A request for grading in the flood plain, to allow for the placement of bridge abutments & grading, in accordance with Title 14, Town Code, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East /Ford Paris Unplatted. Applicant; Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Bill Gibson 5. Approval of November 27, 2004 minutes 6. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 473 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 475 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information_ Community Development Department Published December 8, 2000 in the Vail Trail • • C7 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING RESULTS Monday, December 11, 2000 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 lam MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Doug Cahill MEMBERS ABSENT Brian Doyon Tom Weber Site Visits : 1 :00 Pm Ford Park — 540 S. Frontage Road Malone residence — 87 Rockledge Road Hilb residence — 1552 Matterhorn Circle Driver: George rk�_ *-]I NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the division of an unplatted tract of land into two lots, and a request for a rezoning from Residential Cluster District to Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District and a request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5, Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the required lot area and site dimensions, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle /SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81/ West of the 6th Principle Meridian. Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield TABLED SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5 -0 TOWN O*YA1&L 2_ A request for a height variance from Section 12 -6D -7, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an elevator shaft to exceed the 33' height limitation, located at 87 Rockledge Road /Lot 2, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Mary Alice Malone, represented by Resort Design Associates Planner Allison Ochs 4P MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5 -0 APPROVED 3. A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the zoning regulations to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the "Housing Zone District." Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSiON — NO VOTE 4_ A request for grading in the flood plain, to allow for the placement of bridge abutments & grading, in accordance with Title 14, Town Code, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East/Ford Park Unplatted. Applicant; Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5 -0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 8, 2001 5. Approval of November 27, 2000 minutes 6. Information Update 0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2358, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 2 r� LJ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING RESULTS / MINUTES Monday, December 11, 2000 Cris=" Lunch PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept, MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Doug Cahill Site Visits: f� MEMBERS ABSENT Brian Doyon Tom Weber 1. Ford Park — 540 S. Frontage Road 2. Malone residence — 87 Rockledge Road 3. Hilb residence — 1552 Matterhorn Circle Driver: George PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm r(*3 NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 1:00 pm 2:00 pm A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the division of an unplatted tract of land into two lots, and a request for a rezoning from Residential Cluster District to Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District and a request for a variance from Section 12 -613-5, Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the required lot area and site dimensions, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle /SW'/ of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81/ West of the 6t h Principle Meridian. Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield TABLED 4 SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5 -0 W TOR a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Doug Cahill seconded. Motion passed 5 -0 3. A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the zoning regulations to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the "Housing Zone District." Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSION — NO VOTE The PEC agreed that the Housing ZOne District was the best way to proceed. They believed that eliminating free - market units was not the best way to proceed. Instead they supported the Aspen model which allows for a 70 -30 split, with deviations allowed for "exceptional" projects. They believed that having only master- leased products was not the best way to proceed. They supported a sliding -scale based on the size of project. 4. A request for grading in the flood plain, to allow for the placement of bridge abutments & 40 grading, in accordance with Title 14, Town Code, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East/Ford Park Unplatted. Applicant; Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5 -0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY S, 2001 Bill Gibson introduced the project_ Tom Kassmel and Greg Hall from the Town of Vail Public Works Department spoke as the applicant - The Commission asked the applicant why the existing bridge was being replaced. The applicant responded that the existing bridge needed to be replaced because of its structural condition. The Commission recommended that the applicant consider using an alternative bridge abutment to create less impact to wetlands and the creek and asked if the Design Review Board had reviewed this project. Staff responded that the Design Review Board approved this project at their Nov. 29, 2000 meeting. The Commission asked if the applicant was pursuing Army Corp approval and permits. The applicant responded that they were in process of applying for the required permits. The Commission asked the applicant when they anticipated to begin construction. The applicant indicated that construction would begin in Spring 2001, before the spring run -off. aThe Commission asked the applicant if the path between Vail Valley Drive and the bridge met ADA requirements. The applicant responded that the path met ADA requirements as a secondary access to Ford Park. The Commission requested that the applicant look at alternatives to make the bridge more accessible from Vail Valley Drive. Commissioner Schofield motioned that this item be tabled, so the applicant could examine alternative bridge abutment designs and consider alternatives to make the bridge more accessible to Vail Valley Drive. Second by Commissioner Bernhardt. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 -0. 5. Approval of November 27, 2000 minutes 6. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 0 M 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 11, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the division of an unplatted tract of land into two lots, and a request for a rezoning from Residential Cluster District to Two- Family Primary/Secondary Residential District and a request for a variance from Section 12- 6D- 5,Town Coder to allow for a deviation from the required lot area and site dimensions, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle /SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81/ West of the 60 Principle Meridian. Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson i. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The owner, David G. Hilb, is requesting a minor subdivision to allow for the subdivision of an unplatted parcel, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle, into two lots and a rezoning from Residential Cluster to Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential. The subdivision is proposed to subdivide the parcel into Lot 1 (0.4118 acres) and Lot 2 (0.4369 acres). The proposed plat has been attached for reference. 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 multiple - family dwellings at a density not exceeding six (5) 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 for each dwelling, commensurate with residential occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from Residential Cluster to Two- Family Primary/Secondary Residential. The purpose of Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential is as follows: The Two - Family PrimarylSecondary Residential District is intended to provide sites for low density single- family or two - family residential uses together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district The Two - Family PrimarylSecondary Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 1 r. yi TOWN OF PAIL I� _ The applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 12- 6D- 5,Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the required lot area and site dimensions in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District. This property is located between the lower and middle benches of the future Donovan Parr, The Town has approached Mr. Hilb about acquiring a twenty -foot (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. The applicant has expressed an interest in constructing two duplex buildings on this property. To achieve this development objective, the applicant has submitted these requests for a minor subdivision, rezoning, and variance for this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request to subdivide a tract of land located in the SW '/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian (also know as 1552 Matterhorn Circle). 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 denial is subject to the following finding: That the proposed minor subdivision plat does not comply with the review criteria and requirements of Chapter 13 of the Town Code and development standards as outlined in 12- 6D (Two- ,Family Primary /Secondary District) of the Town Code. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request to rezone a tract of land located in the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian (also know as 1552 Matterhorn Circle) from Residential Cluster to Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI 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 Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and appropriate for the area. The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request for a variance from Section 12- 6D- 5,Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the required lot area and site dimensions for a tract of land located in the SW 7/4 of Sectionl2, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian (also know as 1552 Matterhorn Circle). Staff's recommendation for denial is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum. Specifically, staff's recommendation of denial is subject to the following finding: 1. That the applicant is requesting a variance from the lot area and site dimension requirements for reasons created by his proposed subdivision and rezoning requests for this property, rather than for reasons such as practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardship_ 2. That the approval of this lot area and site dimension variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. • N • • • III. ZONING 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 Vail Subdivision. Minor Subdivision of an unplatted parcel into Lots 1 and 2, Timber Vail Subdivision EXISTING Zoning: Residential Cluster Hazards: Slopes of 40% or greater Lot Size: 0.8487 acres / 36,969.52 sq. ft 25,533 sq. ft. buildable area Permitted Uses: Multi - family residential dwellings, Single- family residential dwellings, and Two - family residential dwellings Development Minimum lot size: Standards: 15,000 sq. ft. and 8,000 sq. ft. buildable area Density: 6 dwelling units per buildable acre (this site max. of 3 units) Maximum Allowable GRFA: 6,383 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. per unit Maximum Site Coverage: 25% of total site area Setbacks: Front 20 ft., Side 15 ft., Rear 15 ft. Maximum Building Height: 30 ft. / 33 ft. for sloping roofs Minimum Landscaping: 60 of site V. MINOR SUBDIVISION - CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION PROPOSED (both lots) Two - Family Primary/Secondary Slopes of 40% or greater Lot 1: 0.4118 acres / 17,938.08 sq. ft. Lot 2: 0.4369 acres / 19,031.44 sq. ft. Single- family residential dwellings, Two - family residential dwellings Minimum lot size: 15,000 sq. ft. buildable area Density: 2 dwelling units per lot Maximum Allowable GRFA: 5,598 sq. ft. + 850 sq. ft. = 6,448 sq. ft. Maximum Site Coverage: 20 %8 of total site area Setbacks: Front 20 ft., Side 15 ft., Rear 15 ft. Maximum Building Height: 30 ft. / 33 ft. for sloping roofs Minimum Landscaping: 60% of site A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot(s) must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: 3 Lot Area: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area. Frontage: Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). 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 - Family Primary /Secondary District as specified by 12 -6D -5 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the Two - Family Primary/Secondary 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: BUILDABLE AREA: Any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof which does not contain designated flood plain, red avalanche area, or areas in excess of forty percent (44 %) slope. The entire unplatted parcel consists of approximately 36,971 square feet. The areas of this parcel with 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 25,533 square feet of buildable area. A minimum buildable area of 30,000 square feet is required to plat two lots in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary 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 Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13 -3 -30. The Planning and Environmental Commission 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, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. The Specific Purpose of the Subdivision Regulations is as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider 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 for compliance with the applicable evaluation criteria. Upon the completion of our review the staff finds that the proposed subdivision does not comply with the subdivision criteria. • 4 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response: Adjacent land uses include residential uses and the future Donovan Park. Adjacent zoning includes Residential Cluster, Two - Family Primary/Secondary, General Use, and Agriculture and Open Space Districts. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies this property as "Low 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 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. Institutional/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Staff believes that the Two - Family 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, Staff does not believe that the proposed subdivision will have any negative impacts on the development of adjacent lands. I 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 on the value of land in the Town of Vail. 49 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 - f=amily Primary/Secondary 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. 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: Staff does not believe that the subdivision will have any effect on the provision of public services. To 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. E 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 request does comply with the above - described criteria. VI. REZONING REQUEST - 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 Primary/Secondary, General Use, and Agriculture and Open Space Districts_ Staff believes that both the Residential Cluster and Two - Family Primary/Secondary zoning districts are suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses. 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? Staff Response: Through the Town's development review process, the Town can ensure that any future proposals are consistent with municipal objectives. 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? 0 Staff Response: In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Vail's Master Plan Elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. 4. Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? Staff Response: The Vail Land Use Plan identifies this property as "Low 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 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. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Staff believes that the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Zoning District more closely meets the intent of the Land Use Plan's Low - Density Residential designation than the current Residentiai Cluster zoning of this parcel. Therefore, Staff believes this rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan. 0 40 VII. VARIANCE REQUEST - CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION AND FINDINGS Consideration of Factors Regarding the Lot Area and Site Dimensions Variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed lot area and site dimensions variance request is compatible with and comparable to the surrounding development in the area. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff Response: This site has steep slopes that constrain development, however, staff believes that the site constraints do not present a significant hardship for improvements on this property. This is currently a developable property, however, the applicant's rezoning request and subdivision request create a self- imposed need for a lot area and site dimensions variance. Staff does not believe that the requested lot area and site dimensions variance is warranted and that relief from the lot area and site dimensions regulations is not necessary for the applicant to make improvements to this property. The applicant has several alternatives available to develop this property without the approval of a variance while achieving compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vacinity: 1. The applicant has the ability to develop this property under its current Residential Cluster zoning as a single lot or as two lots with the configuration shown in his proposed minor subdivision. 2. The applicant has the ability to request a rezoning of this property to a Two - Family Residential District and develop the property as a single lot. The applicant has the ability to request a rezoning of this property to a Single - Family Residential District and develop the property as a single lot or as two lots with the configuration shown in his proposed minor subdivision. Staff believes that the approval of this lot area and site dimension variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the requested variance will have any negative impacts on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 7 B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findin s before _Qrantip_Q a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title_ b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. qP Is • Town Of Vail October 12, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission I 1 I South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Request for Down Zoning a tract of land in West Vail: SW A/< of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6`h Principle Meridian, Eagle County. Otherwise Known As: 1552 Matterhorn Circle, Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: I would like to request a change in zoning from residential cluster to two Primary/Secondary lots for the above referenced property. The topography of the site is relatively flat at the base, and the slope increases steeply toward the middle of the lot. Current zoning demands that the cluster dwellings be built close together at the front of the lot because no part of the structure is allowed in the hillside. With Primary /Secondary zoning, the homes could be designed to integrate into the hillside with less mass and more curb appeal. The surrounding neighborhood already has primary /secondary zoning, and is the best use for this site. Best regards, David Hilb 1970A Chamonix Lane Vail, Colorado 81657 476 -7051 • Town Of Vail November 21, 2404 Planning and Zoning Commission 11 I South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Request for Down Zoning Variance on a tract of land in West Vail: SW `/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6`h Principle Meridian, Eagle County. Otherwise Known As: 1552 Matterhorn Circle, Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: I would like to request a change in zoning from residential cluster to two Primary /Secondary lots for the above referenced property. I had a pre- qualification meeting with George Ruther prior to submitting my zoning application. It seemed that the primary/secondary zoning was consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and that no variance would be necessary. Then, at the last minute, the Community Development Staff denied the application. The topography of the site is relatively flat at the base, and the slope increases steeply toward the middle of the lot. Current zoning demands that the cluster dwellings be built close together at the front of the lot because no part of the structure is allowed in the hillside. With Primary /Secondary zoning, the Domes could be designed to integrate into the hillside with less mass and more curb appeal. The surrounding neighborhood already has primary /secondary zoning, and is the best use for this site. Best regards, David Hilb 1970A Chamonix Lane Vail, Colorado 81657 476-7051 4 � r 0 • 0 Town of Vail Community Development November 27, 2000 Application for Variance by David Hilb Rezoning of a Tract of Land: AKA 1552 Matterhorn Circle From Residential Cluster to Primary/ Secondary zoning The subject property is bordered by primary/ secondary zoned lots. The proposed primary/ secondary zone change would be consistent with the neighboring homes to the West. I feel that smaller P/S units would fit in better with the neighborhood, than two large single families. I understand that a zone change to single family would not require a variance, but I do not believe it fits with the neighborhood because there is no single family zoning in this area. Also, with either P/S or single - family zoning, the size and mass of any proposed structures would be the same. They are both allowed the same GRFA and site coverage. Therefore, this is not a grant of special privilege because I am requesting the same zoning as the rest of the neighborhood, not an increase in the allowable square footage. There are times when the TGV codes are outdated or do not relate directly to a situation such as in -fill development. It seem that the Town code of "buildable area" was written to discourage development of steep hillsides and creating unnecessary "road scars." This subject property is in a developed neighborhood with road access and the lower portion of the property is gently sloping for easy driveway access. During my mandatory pre - application conference, the term, "buildable area" was not covered and it appeared that a change in zoning to primary/ secondary would be no problem. Following the meeting, I designed a primary/ secondary unit that naturally fit the west half of the site very well with no difficult grading problems. The proposed lot split down the center of the property makes the most sense and is similar to adjacent properties. This is a rectangular shaped lot; to separate "buildable area" to the code creates an uneven, diagonal split that is not consistent with the neighborhood and could create unnecessary driveway easements, strange building envelopes, and unclear set- backs. There would not be a negative effect on light, air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic or safety. The change to Primary/ Secondary zoning is more in compliance to Vail's comprehensive plan than the existing residential cluster or single family zoning option. Thank you, David Hilb L 1 °� ou -w r 5S a a WT 28 ra>• --q VICINITY MAP Yi+ i�itY b- 4NAlf Y. 2k" L- ft)W Qx� M,lT err FINAL PLAT TIMBER YAIL SUBDIVISION A PART OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP ,RANGE 81 WEST OF T119 SIXTH PRINCIPAL MER TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO e aww i YILLiC`. sw'rcr vxFm ru � aooMmn �� r ouir FaNS iroa r�u.n.o. rNaxa iar x nuu rwtx oyea .w�Nraxs.. wac wOY IIL M W la weal aw .M, NdY NM(IW..11[ .uiN Nauao. r.t[miG m�.Y w�oiru�ur ua aw�'�ir wm u..c a..n°1o�ao�ss aw.s. w+.�'cre .ur.ri wwM. Mwnnn. w �Q � eolarvu w. w.a..o.rr+c �+N .eR M2WYr�a.r.ssr w.. °..`a r'wsFOaMOe a.xawrw.NO� nr�ww w�v�.w ROa rw•rw.ora re arwwasar.0 wrt. we oMn.w.�. �..w »oar ra..� W .oNN au a. a4 r u000 Fr w..w rr..R rw. Noc ..w.s ems. a wrr� io.'N xwr a �rr..MC a. � o .Derr .N rawwsarrawr wMrw.a » � w.. Nss.. r axraww w wxrw wRwrrrrrr r � �as� aw ��ww;arr N[ uc r e[ w� nc ee r� a.s war N� 1RawrR r wea 1aRw1r wr rrx�ffi .:wm. w �w.ra.NSmw�.oi � nnor..r:va.a rR. a rin w.r � N.EIN M1' MFR Fp rNG4 WL r ..rw o vq+ a u. ®Mec.n Ma .rwg Faws re �[awr 1II�re' W' R Yl �L w Or[V Yti (ai[ a�tF yM�.1.�lIF p1MM�6lGi. ~��M � W�j}�,�Ill �a rw w.mN. Mw.�r:ar�.�.i►w�ra:�siw?Q r u�i>sr e°�rr rrr'6`r rira rim v® • r 1 • UNPL.ATTEE {BOOK 278, PAGE 7E O.41tB 5554 NIAi RNORN CIRCLE •. Rr� �1^V_ -4i4 _ yi7':Nrs 5 F"AR -YNiH f C AL�iI: CAP L Sk Na 3401 x0 X01 Vi }r � bra ��a lb ..r 'F FOUND No. 5 REBAR WTH j - ALUM. f CAP L.S. No. 5447 UNPL.ATTEE {BOOK 278, PAGE 7E Memo to: Tawas of Vail, Planning and Zoning Commission 4 December 2000 111 South Frontage Road West, Vail, CQ 81657 From: Wm. M. Brown :.,•- " Subject: Zoning Variance for tract at 155 ° atterhom Circle My wife (Norma) and I (We) are interested `third parties' in the request by the owner, Mr. David Hilb, that said lot be divided into two sub -lots to permit construction of two - family residential dwellings (our interest is in such use on the western sub -lot). On 10 August 2000 Mr. Hilb and We entered into an Agreement with earnest money to acquire the secondary side of a duplex that he was to build at 1552 Matterhorn Circle (the Tract). The objective of this memo is to request that you approve the Zoning Variance—which action we see as appropriate on several grounds. As We understand the situation, prior to Hilb's perfecting the purchase of the Tract, Hilb had discussions with the Town of Vail, Community Development Department (Department) and these discussions indicated that his planned/intended use of the Tract was acceptable to Vail; i. e., the needed rezoning would be accommodated. Also, we understand that the acceptability of such use was confirmed at the pre - qualification meeting Hilb had with the Department prior to formal submission of his request. Subsequently, Hilb's rezoning request was turned down in that the Department carne to see the need for a Zoning Variance. In this memo We encourage the requested Variance in terms of the following: 1. The desirability of Vail supporting the original, good faith understanding between the Department and Hilb- -which Hilb and We relied upon. 2. The substantive reasonableness of the requested Variance. 3. The extraordinary health risks— because of Norma's unusual medical conditions —which `denial of the Variance' would cause. In general all high quality (worthy) organizations are committed to standing by the business understandings they mutually develop with clients and other parties with whom they work. The applicable rule is: stand by /carry out/support the impressions, understandings, or agreements mutually agreed to (or arrived at) unless there is a compelling reason1 not to. In the case at hand, the requested land use is entirely reasonable and consistent with developmental intentions of the Town of Vail, but `in form' it is at odds with a `development standard' established to prevent (excessive) development on very steep terrain. The Tract is in fact not steep overall nor in any way less than well suited for `two family dwellings'. Even here in the mid -west the Tract would not be considered excessively hilly; in fact such a tract with a gradual slop (and same vertical drop) might be terraced to accommodate interesting home designs. The terrace on the Tract can be viewed as made to order by eons of erosion by Gore Creek; and the resulting geology does not involve any unstable or otherwise flawed terrain. 1 This is especially required of government since government sets the regulations, codes, laws etc. within which all other business dealings are conducted. If government reneges on an understanding (say, for its own convenience), innocent parties may be damaged. 1 No doubt Mr. Hilb and others (probably including Department Staff) can better make the case that on rational grounds the requested Variance should be approved. We do wish to reinforce Hilb's case on the grounds that it behooves Vail to stand by the understanding first developed with Hilb since there are no compelling reasons not to. The reason not to would be to support the `letter of the code'; the requested Variance is not at odds with the intent of the zoning code, The development planned by Hilb, to which We are a participant and interested party, will provide reasonable (in fact laudable) high quality development --- totally compatible and supportive of the neighborhood and the rest of Vail Valley. Health risk- For the past five years We have been trying to find a retirement home in Vail which Norma could feel good about and be proud of Of course nice homes well located in Vail, at anything other than ultra -high prices, are hard to find. This problem is not specific to us; however, in Norma's case there are extenuating circumstances. The enclosed letters, one from Norma's psychiatrist and the other from her internist, describe aspects of her serious, complex medical conditions. Most of us have negative emotions when confronted with disappointments and/or injustices. In Norma's case such negative emotions have caused her (and may in the future cause her) to lapse back into major depression. The likelihood of this reaction—that she and I fear, but she can not prevent –is partly a question of how effective her medications are at any particular time. Except for the high price (reasonable in Vail's market), the new home covered in the agreement between Hilb and us is the only home to Norma's liking in all respects which she has ever seen in the Vail Valley — during twenty years of casually looking at properties there. Since 10 August when we `signed up' with Mr. Hilb; Norma has totally put her energy, heart, and mind into planning and anticipating the future home and new life we are developing in Vail. I encouraged and fully joined with her in this. It was very satisfying for me to help her find fulfillment in this endeavor; and until we learned about the zoning blockage, it was a totally positive, therapeutic experience for Norma. Neither she nor I had any reservations about the situation, and even now we think it is incongruous that the requested Variance might be turned down. Of course the point of these observations is that We have a crucial health interest in Hilb's Variance request --in addition to the usual financial concerns which attend the purchase of a new home. Conclusion -We understand that Mr. Hilb has a hearing with the Commission on 11 December. We most earnestly encourage you to act favorably on his request. In the (unlikely) event the Commission is reluctant to grant the requested Variance, We ask that you defer judgement until We have an opportunity to meet with you to present our interests directly. We will be on our usual winter ski trip there from 16 to 30 December. The thought, attention, and consideration you provide to this memo, and more importantly to Mr. Hilb's requested Variance, are greatly appreciated. Address: 182 Shelford Way, Dayton, OH 45440. Phones: H: 937- 427 -4733, O: 255 -3627 Enclosures: 2 Copies to: Mr. David G. Hilb, Mr. Bill Gibson, Commissioner Doug Cahill AMITA R. PATEL, M.D., INC. Adolescent, Adult, and Geriatric Psvch.iatry AMITA R_ PATEL, M.D. OTiO R. DUENO. M.D. AMARIEET S. BIRDI. M.D. MERRY A. DE LEON. M.D. 12 September 2000 To Whom It May Concern I am Norma Brown's psychiatrist and at her request this memo provides information on her medical condition in relation to where she lives when it becomes feasible for her to relocate from Dayton, OH, Mrs. Brown has a long history of chronic major depression. Her depression was brought on as an after effect of cancer and the drugs used in her treatment; she received chemical and radiation therapy for lymphoma from October '86 through March '87.. Various antidepressants have been effective in-treating her depression for varying lengths of time. When these medications cease to be effective, we resott to Electro Convulsive Therapy, ECT. She received six ECT treatments in 1997, and she was on the brink of returning to ECT when I added a third antidepressant to her current medication protocol. 0 A significant factor in the prognosis for Ms. Brown is the climate in which she lives; specifically, sunshine is therapeutic to her mental condition. Also, environmental conditions which contribute to her physical well being are a plus with respect to her mental well being as well. I. am familiar with the Browns' intention to move to Colorado as soon as it is feasible for them to do so. Such a dry, sunny environment will improve her medical prognosis both physically and mentally. Considering the seriousness of her condition; it is imperative for the Browns to do everything possible, as soon as possible, with respect to Norma's health. With her very complex medical history and medical condition, it is difficult to predict her condition in the years to come; however, the quality of her environment could be a life or death matter - -at least a natter of having or not having a life felt to be worth living. Dr. Amita Pa , MD 7707 Paragon Road, Suite 10I Centerville, OH 45459 Phone: 937 - 832 -8883 WITH OI ICES AT 9000 N. Main St. Suite 222 Dayton. OH 45415 (937) 832 -8883 FAX 832 -7323 7707 Paragon Rd. Suite 101 Centerville. OH 45459 (937) 208 -6933 Ll • 12 September 2000 To Whom it May Concern I am Norma Brown's internist and family physician; at her request I am providing information on her medical condition in relation to where she lives when it becomes feasible for her to relocate from Dayton, OH. mfrs. Brown has very serious health problems; she had cancer (lymphoma — which was treated in `86 -'87), she has chronic bronciectasis, tuberculosis (in remission), and chronic major depression. With respect to her respiratory problems; I have advised her that a dryer, less lxumid climate would be .,capful. 5,.4 tested living in Colorado d is summer and reports that her breathing and physical stamina were much improved compared to her experience during hot, humid days here in the mid -west. It is important for the Browns to do anything feasible in support of Mrs. Brown's physical and mental well being. Even small changes in her environment which effect her physical or emotional state oan have major impacts on the prognosis for her future. From time -to -time over the past 13 years her medications have ceased to be effective; with major depression this leads to despair and suicidal thoughts or tendencies. Mrs. Brown has found that sunshine improves her mental state (which is usual for her condition), and that the dry climate as found in Colorado improves her physical condition. It is medically important, perhaps essential, for the Browns to move to a dry, sunny climate as soon as it is feasible for them to do so. • Dr. Tony Vasiliu, MD Valley Medical Center 2190 Hewitt Ave. Kettering, OH 45440 937 - 291 -3888 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 11, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance from Section 12 -6D -7, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an elevator shaft to exceed the 33' height limitation, located at 87 Rockledge Road /Lot 2, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Mary Alice Malone, represented by Resort Design Associates Planner: Allison Ochs BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The residence at 87 Rockledge Rd. I Lot 2, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing was originally constructed in 1963. It was constructed prior to Town of Vail zoning and was built higher than the current 33 ft. height limitation. It is therefore non - conforming with regards to height. In the late 1980's an addition was completed which required a setback variance. In May of 2000, the applicant, Mary Alice Malone, represented by Resort Design Associates, submitted a Design Review Board application for an addition and remodel_ The design Review Board was extremely supportive of the efforts made by the applicants to preserve the existing home. In addition, they reviewed the proposed access off of Forest Rd. Again in October of 2000, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the application, restated their support for preserving the existing home, and supported the access from Forest Rd. As part of the Design Review Board application, the garage will be removed from the Rockledge Rd. access and a new garage is proposed to be located off of Forest Rd. The 1988 addition will be removed, and a new addition which conforms to the setback requirements will be located on the western portion of the building. There will also be an addition above the garage. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 12 -6D -7, Town Code, to allow for building height in excess of 33 ft., located at 87 Rockledge Rd. The portion of the building that is over on height is an elevator. Typically, an elevator shaft is considered an architectural projection, which is allowed by code to exceed the 33 ft. height limitation. However, no GRFA is allowed to project beyond the 33 ft. limit. A portion of the elevator cab itself will exceed the 33 ft. height limit. The encroachment is a maximum of 36.5 ft. and diminishes to 33 ft. in height, which is a deviation of 3.5 ft. The applicants are requesting a variance from Section 12 -6D -7, to allow for a building in excess of the allowable 33 ft, height limit. Building Height is defined as: The distance measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof or eaves to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly below said point of the roof or eaves. Within any building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from any point on a proposed or existing roof to the existing grade directly below said point on a proposed or existing roof. 0 The top of the elevator cab is at elevation 8308 ft. The grade below is at 8271.5 ft. The variance requested is a variance from the maximum height limitation of 15 ft at its most extreme. The applicant's letter, summarizing the need for the variance request is attached, as are reductions of the plans. Ill. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval /denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air. distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance. but must review any accompanying DRB application The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on -site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting 13. The design of parks 1V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the applicant's request for a height variance (12 -6D -7, Town of Vail Code), to allow for a building in excess of the 23 ft height limitation, based on the fol!o� .Ajing findings: 2 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 1 The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Variance Requests: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the requested variance will have no detrimental effect on existing or potential structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The purpose statement of the Zoning Code states that the intent of zoning regulations is "to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality' and "to encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives." In addition, the purpose statement of the Chapter 17 (Variances) of the Zoning Code states that: a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. Staff recognizes that the existing structure's location on the lot does result in a practical difficulty. The current house is constructed on a rock ledge; making this site unique. However, staff believes that the approval of this variance would be a grant of special privilege and inconsistent with the purpose statements of both the Zoning Code and the variance chapter. Staff believes that there may be alternative designs of the elevator which would not require a height variance. 3 The Town has approved residential height variances at the following locations: Lot 6, Block 9, Intermountain (8113190) — due to swage 49 Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition (2114183) — building error Lot 6, Forest Glen (12/12/94) — change in base elevation of manhole 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes there will be not effects on the above- mentioned criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following find_ ings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a_ The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district_ 0 IE n e Heimght n mance Re P VA L Ll ONSHEAD Fl Ll NG 2 44 6 '332.V, CU 41 4-)B 35 -AG 37 w 75 193 ---'-VPJ L M LLAGEFU NG- 23 2B 10 19 20A. 254 154 354 1" 11 - 84 324 274 31 L 6A 20 21 245 1w _4 22 f 255 EAST FOREST ROAD .15 12 7RACTA 168 17B 226 17 '1 2' 146 16, 13 10 GA 7 338 227? 13 2140 217 '4' 5 147 127 ./ IT: 1 1 107 ! k I ROCKLECG Bldg Height of 32.5' Bing Height of zt Bldg Height of 31.51 AD Bldg H t n RFSORT DESIGN ASSOCIATES MALONE RESIDENCE 0057 Rockledge Road Project # 23045.00 November 9, 2000 Variance Request Description: We are requesting a height variance for a portion of the interior of the elevator shaft in the remodel to the existing home at 00$7 Rockledge. The existing site is very unique because of the steep slope (in excess of 30 %) and the existing rock ledge. The rock ledge varies in height from approximately 6 to 23 feet tall. The existing home design incorporates the rock ledge and spans across it at its tallest point. The rock ledge is preserved both inside and outside of the house. After examining the site and taking into consideration our client's program, we decided to retain the existing home in lieu of demolishing it. We felt this was the best way to preserve the rock ledge and the existing mature vegetation. Our design intent is to keep the well - designed parts of the existing house and improve the design through the new addition. The existing access and garage off of Rockledge Road will be removed. A new garage and recreation room will be added below the existing home, accessed off of Forest Road. Vertical circulation is critical to making a vertical house like this work. The existing house is five stories tall and currently does not include an elevator. After studying several different options for vertical circulation, we have concluded that the best solution for this house is to add two elevators. One that brings people from the new garage to the lowest level of the existing house and a second one that brings people from there up to the fourth floor of the existing house. By using two elevators, we are able to step the building massing to follow the hill and reduce the height of the new addition. The second elevator shaft is considered an architectural projection and the exterior conforms to the 41.25 foot height limit. However, a small portion of the elevator cab does exceed the 33 foot height limit on the interior of the shaft. Please refer to the elevations attached. l:' %.pr \ 23(148x '\lalune\2.31)48Doc.i\23048 -DRB Correspondence \23U48Ler- UD11Ur- hyt- v�iiance. toc Page 1 of 2 0 Responses to the submittal requirements: • 49 A. This variance request does not affect any potential uses of the home or nearby structures. The elevator shaft conforms to the Town of Vail height limits on the exterior, so it does not affect the surrounding properties. B. The variance in height limit requested is very minor (approximately 24" on one portion of the inside of the elevator shaft to allow for the cab to reach the main living level of the existing home). The variance is necessary to preserve the existing home, rock ledge and large evergreen and aspen trees. C. This variance request does not affect light, air, population distribution, transportation, traffic, utilities nor public safety. D. The Vail Comprehensive Plan is not applicable. %F prj'` 230484 \lakanc'\2304813(�cs 123048- DRB- Correspcandence' 230431,tr- UU1107- kagr- vanance.doc Page 2 of 2 .1. SW CLIMT� CA* MP OW f. T.O.RIDGEOIL 8315' -6" T.O.RIDGE 4 83131-011T W -6" CLEAR OVERWEAD HEIGHT "l'-O" ELEVATOR CAB WE IGWT 6' -8" OPENING:$ WEIGHT • AREA OVER HEIGHT LIMIT LINE OF: 33' HEIGHT LIMIT Ed s LJ E=) ELEVATOR CAB F-} 0 �l Al S ff t�� 47 ff t�� � .,.I �lm r-7 r �.4,�.. _. ''"t i 9 f.. .::� � � > « ) 0 � 1-101 L 0 � .... >.�:��y:. ©}\ . .. . g.. .> }�� : : Wo .d �. . . .. . \ .. m� � � > « ) 0 � 1-101 L 0 � yak � r�� • TAM Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Rd., Vail, CO 81657 970.479.2138 Project Name: Malone Height Variance PEC Number: PECO00005 Project Description: Height variance for small portion of elevator Participants: OWNER INTERFIRST BANK DALLAS NA T11/14/2000 Phone: LAMONT, MARY NOEL MURCHINSON PO BOX 831500 ASSET 999119407 DALLAS TX 75283 -1500 APPLICANT Gordon Pierce 11/14/2000 Phone: 303 - 449 -4433 Resort Design 1434 Spruce Street Ste 110 Boulder, Co 80302 Project Address: 87 ROCKLEDGE RD VAIL Location: 0 Legal Description: Lot: 2 Block: 7 Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Parcel Number: 210107115001 Comments: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: John Schofield Second By: Doug Cahill Vote: 5 -0 Conditions: Cond: 8 No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the Design Review Board.. Planner: Allison Ochs • Action: Date of Approval: 12/28/2000 PEC Fee Paid: $250.00 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 11, 2000 SUBJECT: 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 Vail Planner: Allison Ochs I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST As part of the Town of Vail's objective to encourage affordable employee housing, the Town Council directed staff to create a zone district with the primary purpose of providing for adequate sites for employee housing. The standards of this zone district would be prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of a development plan, similar to the General Use zone district. On June 15, 1999, the Community Development Department presented to the Town Council a proposal to create a new Housing zone district. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposal at a worksession on 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 format and have specific development standards created. On November 13, 2000, the Community Development Department again presented the proposed Housing Zone District. The Planning and Environmental Commission gave specific direction regarding the new proposed zone district. On November 14, the Housing Zone District was presented to the Town Council, who also gave direction to staff. II. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action. The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEG shall review the proposal 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 that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff is advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. TOW*VAIL 4 Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal_ 0 Town Council: Action. The Town Council is responsible for final approval /denial on code amendments, The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the ,proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. III. ADDITIONAL OPTIONS The Town Council has directed staff to eliminate free - market dwelling units as a conditional use. As a result of this change, staff believes that there are additional options which would accomplish similar goals as the creation of the Housing Zone District. A. Amendments to the General Use Zone District The General Use Zone District is "intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts_ .. " With the elimination of free - market dwelling units as a conditional use in the Housing ,Zone District, a slightly modified General Use Zone District may be applicable for the type of projects the Town Council is envisioning_ Deed restricted employee housing is a conditional use in the General Use Zone District. Minor amendments to the General Use Zone District could include the following: 12 -9C -3: Conditional Uses: Proximity to deed restricted employee housing required: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in accordance with the issuance of a conditional use permit, provided such use is secondary to deed restricted employee housing: Banks and Financlal Institutions Eating and drinking establishments Health Clubs Personal services Professional offices, business offices and studios Retail stores and establishments This would allow for secondary commercial uses in conjunction with employee housing. In addition, the purpose statement of the General Use Zone District could be modified to include employee housing as a purpose of the zone district. The General Use Zone District has been attached for reference. Pros: • With the elimination of free market dwelling units, the GU zone district has similar parameters and review processes of the proposed Housing zone district. Cons: 0 • Would require modifications to the GU zone district which would then be applicable to all properties zoned GU. • Lack of compatibility with the Vail Land Use Plan designations B. Creation of Special Development Districts for Affordable Housing Projects Special Development Districts allow deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning, which are based on the finding that such deviations provide benefits to the Town which outweigh the adverse effects of the deviation. Staff believes that the flexibility of the Special Development District would allow a similar flexibility that the Housing Zone District would allow. Pros: • SDD's are reviewed on a case by case basis. • Compatibility with existing zoning and the Vail Land Use Plan Cons • Cannot zone properties as "SDD" without an approved development plan C. Creation of Housing Zone District Staff has reviewed the comments and concerns of both the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the proposed Housing Zone District_ The following are some discussion issues that staff believes need to be examined: is Regulating Ownership through Zoning The Town Council suggested that the product of the Affordable Housing Zone District should be master - leased rental units. Generally, regulating ownership through zoning regulations is not appropriate. However, the zoning regulations do have certain ownership requirements for the existing types of EHUs. Type II and Type V EHUs cannot be sold separately from the free - market unit they are associated with. (Type II and Type V are EHUs which are attached to single - family and duplex residences). All other types of EHUs can be sold separately. If the Town Council believes that the only use permitted within the Housing Zone District should be master - leased, deed restricted employee housing, staff would recommend that a new type of EHU be created which would not allow the units to be sold separately. However, staff does not believe that this an appropriate action. The existing Type III EHU allows for a unit to be 300 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft. and allows for a dormitory type of arrangement. It does not count towards density or GRFA and is a permitted or conditional use in all of the multiple - family residential, commercial, and special and miscellaneous zone districts. Staff believes that the requirements of the existing Type III E H U are appropriate for the Housing Zone District. Eliminating Free - Market Dwelling Units The Town council recommended that free - market dwelling units be eliminated as a conditional use. Generally, meeting the need for affordable housing in other 40 communities has been accomplished through inclusionary zoning or incentive zoning. Inclusionary zoning is a planning technique which encourages or forces the private sector to provide housing which is deemed "affordable ". Typically this is done by: (1) providing bonuses, often in the fora of affordable housing; (2) pay in lieu fees or; (3) to require a developer to set aside a certain percentage of the units as affordable housing. The Aspen/Pitkin County "Affordable Housing / Planned Unit Development" zone district is attached for reference. The Aspen model requires that 70% of the total bedrooms of a project within this zone district meet their Affordable Housing Guidelines. This can be reduced to 60% of an "exceptional project." Staff continues to believe that to make the Housing Zone District both financially feasible and successful for the residents, a mix of deed - restricted units and free market units should be allowed as a conditional use. IV. PROPOSED TEXT OF THE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT ARTICLE D. HOUSING (H) DISTRICT SECTION: 12 -9D -1: Purpose Both boards recommended 12 -9D -2: Permitted Uses 12 -9D -3: Conditional Uses Hauling Zone District as a 12 -9D -4: Accessory Uses residential district. 12 -9D -5: Setbacks 12 -9D -6: Site Coverage 12 -9D -7: Landscaping and Site Development 12 -9D -8: Other Development Standards 12 -9D -1: PURPOSE: The Housing District is 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 12 -1 -2 of this Title and to provide for 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 Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. 12 -913-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the H District: Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space Pedestrian and bike paths. Deed restricted employee housing. Type III and Type VI EHU's have been removed as a permitted use. • • 12 -9D -3: CONDITIONAL USES: 0 Free market dwelling Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H units have been is District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in removed as a accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: conditional use. Public buildings and grounds. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. Public parks. Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission ) to the use of deed rests serving the needs of the residents, and developed in conjunction with deed restricted employee housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit: Banks and financial institutions. ana The Town Council believed that secondary commercial uses should be considered incidental and primarily to serve the residents of the project itself. Eating and drinking establishments. Health clubs. Personal services, including but not limited to, laundry mats, beauty and barber shops, tailor shops, and similar services. Retail stores and establishments. 12 -913-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the H District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of 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. 12 -9D -5: SETBACKS: The setbacks in this district shall be 2(Y from the perimeter of the zone district. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of a conditional use permit subject to the applicant 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 adequate availability of light, air and open space. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. 12 -9D -6: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent (55 %) of the total site area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, site coverage may be increased if 75% of the required parking is underground or enclosed, thus reducing the "Substantially" has been changed to 75% of the parking must be enclosed to increase the site coverage requirement. impacts of surface paving provided within a development. 12 -9113-7: 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 shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12 -9D -8: 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. 3. Density control (including gross residential floor area). 4. Off- Street Parking and Loading. Pitkin Creek: According to the original SDU for Pitkin Creek, CRFA was not to exceed 126,500 sq. ft. Commercial square footage was not to exceed 9,000 sq. ft. Site coverage was limited to 35%. Total site area is 8.29 acres. B. Reviewed By Planning and Environmental Commission: Development standards 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 Title and as established on the approved development plan. In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall the development standards for compatibility with adjacent land uses, compliance with relevant master plans, and suitability for the site. Minor changes to the development plan or development standards (by not more than 5% to any development standard unless reducing a standard's impact in which case the 5% limitation shall not apply) which do not increase bulk and mass shall be approved by the administrator or by the Design Review Board. • • kol��415 Section 26.710.110 Affordable Housing /Planned UnitVIK-�l Development (AH /PUD). A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing /Planned Unit Development (AH /PUD) zone district is to provide for the use of land for the production of Category affordable housing and resident occupied lots and units. The zone district also permits a limited component of free market lots/units to off -set the cost of developing affordable housing. It is contemplated that land may also be subdivided in connection with a development plan. The AH /PUD zone district is intended for residential use primarily by permanent residents of the community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the AH /PUD zone district should be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its working residents; at the same time the AH /PUD zone district can protect the City's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non - community oriented zone districts may produce. Further, lands in the AHIPUD zone district should be located within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit routes. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the AHIPUD zone district: 1. Residential uses restricted to Category affordable housing guidelines and resident occupied units which comply with the following requirements: a. Minimum Bedroom Mix. A minimum of seventy percent (70 %) of the project' s total bedrooms shall be deed restricted affordable housing consistent with the Affordable Housing Guidelines. The mix between categories of housing shall be consistent with the Affordable Housing Guidelines. The remaining bedrooms that are not deed restricted to affordable housing may be free market residential units. b. Permissible reduction in bedroom mix for exemplary projects. A project may be eligible for a reduction of the minimum affordable housing bedroom mix requirement to a level of sixty percent (60 %) of the project' s total bedrooms if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the project meets the requirements for an exceptional project as set forth in the Affordable Housing Guidelines. 2. Home occupations; 0. Accessory buildings and uses; and 4. Accessory dwelling units meeting the provisions of Section 26.520. C. Conditional uses. The followings uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Park and open use recreation situ 2. Child care center; 3. Satellite dish antennae; 4. Dormitory; and 5. Transit facilities. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Affordable Housing (AHfPUD) zone district: 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): a. Subdivided lots from a parcel of 27,000 square feet or larger: 3,000 square feet. b. Subdivided lots from a parcel less than 27,000 square feet: 1,500 square feet. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): a_ Subdivided lots from a parcel of 27,000 square feet or larger: Detached residential dwelling: 3,000 square feet. Duplex: 1,500 square feet. b. Subdivided lots from a parcel less than 27,000 square feet: (1) Detached: 1,500 square feet. (2) Duplex: 1,500 square feet. (3) Multi- family dwellings on a lot that was subdivided from a parcel of 27,000 square feet or less or for lots that were subdivided from a parcel of 43,560 square feet or less when approved by the special review pursuant to Chapter 26.430: Studio: 300_ 1 bedroom: 400. • 2 bedroom: 800. 3 bedroom: 1,200. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area. (4) Multi - family dwellings on a lot that was subdivided from a parcel of more than 27,000 square feet (except when varied by special review): Studio: 1.000. 1 bedroom: 1,250. 2 bedroom: 2,100. 3 bedroom: 3,630. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 1.000 square feet of lot area. 3. Minimum lot width (feet): To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section 26.445.040 including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations. 4. Minimum front yard (feet): To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section 26.445.040 including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations. 5. Minimum side yard setback (feet): To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section 26.445.040 including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations. Multi- family dwellings: To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section 26.445.040 including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations. 6. Minimum rear yard setback (feet): To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section 26.445.040 including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations. 7. Maximum height (feet): To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section 26.445.040 including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations. 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot: To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section 26.445.040 including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district • regulations. 9. Percent of open space required for building site: To be determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in Section 26.445.040 including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations. 10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record). The allowable floor area permitted in this zone is determined by the following table and shall be applied to the proposed fathering parcel. Floor area allocations on newly proposed subdivided lots shall be determined as part of the Planned Unit Development review, but in no case shall they cumulatively exceed the provisions of this Section. Sites may be developed up to eighty -five (85) percent of the allowed floor area. Up to one hundred (100) percent of the floor area may be permitted by special review, pursuant to Chapter 26.430, Lot Size (Square Feet) Allowable Square Feet 0--15,000 square feet 1.1:1 15,001 -- 25,000 square feet 1:1 25,001 -- 43,560 square feet .8:1 >1 acre - -3 acres .6 :1 >3 acres - -6 acres .36:1 >6 acres .3:1 • f� • Al 12 -9C -1 SECTION: 12 -9C -1: 12 -9C -2: 12 -9C -3: 12 -9C -4: 12 -9C -5: 12 -9C -6: CHAPTER 9 SPECIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS ARTICLE C. GENERAL USE (GU) DISTRICT Purpose Permitted Uses Conditional Uses Accessory Uses Development Standards Additional Development Standards 12 -90-1: PURPOSE: The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteris- tics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which devel- opment standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the pur- poses prescribed in Section 12 -1 -2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi - public uses per- mitted in the District are appropriately locat- ed and designed to meet the needs of resi- dents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of build- ings and other structures, to ensure ade- quate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 21 (1994) § 10) 12 -9C-3 12 -9C -2: PERMITTED USES: The follow- ing uses shall be permitted in the GU District: Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. Pedestrian and bike paths. (Ord. 21 (1994) § 1 a) 12 -9C -3: CONDITIONAL USES. A. Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GU District, subject to issuance of a con - ditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Town of Vail Churches. Equestrian trails. Golf courses. Helipad for emergency and/or commu- nity use. Hospitals, medical and dental facili- ties, clinics, rehabilitation centers, clinical pharmacies, and ambulance facilities. Major arcade. Plant and tree nurseries, and associ- ated structures, excluding the sale of 12 -9C -3 trees or other nursery products, grown, produced or made on the pre- mises. Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities and uses. Public and private schools and educa- tional institutions. Public and quasi - public indoor com- munity facility. Public buildings and grounds. Public parking facilities and structures. Public theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities. Public tourist/guest service related facilities. Public transportation terminals. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. Seasonal structures or uses to accom- modate educational, recreational or cultural activities. Ski lifts, tows and runs. Type III employee housing unit as provided in Section 12 -13 -6 of this Title. Type IV employee housing unit as provided in Section 12 -13 -7 of this Title. Water and sewage treatment plants. 12 -9C -5 B. Proximity To Parking Required: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in accordance with the issu- ance of a conditional use permit, pro- vided such use is accessory io a park- ing structure: Offices. Restaurants. Ski and bike storage facilities. Sundries shops. Tourist/guest service related facilities. Transit /shuttle services. (Ord. 21(1 994) § 10) 12 -9C -4: ACCESSORY USES- The foliow- ing accessory uses shall be permitted in the GU District: Minor arcade. Other uses customarily incidental and ac- cessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. (Ord. 21 (1994) § 1 0) 12 -9C -5; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Prescribed By Planning And Environ- mental Commission: In the General Use District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: Town of Vail 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. • "A 12 -9C -5 49. 3. Building height, 4. Density control. 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. B. Reviewed By Planning And Environ- mental Commission: Development standards 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 Envi- ronmental Commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) -J 12 -9C -6: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Additional regula- tions pertaining to site development stan- dards and the development of land in the General Use District are found in Chapter 14 of this Title. (Ord. 21(19:94) § 10) Town of Vail 12 -9C -6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 11, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for grading in the flood plain, to allow for the placement of bridge abutments & grading, in accordance with Title 14, Town Code, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East/Ford Park Unplatted. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Prompted by recent improvements to the Ford Amphitheater and proposed improvements to the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, the Town of Vail has examined the physical condition and aesthetics of the existing pedestrian bridge located on the south side of Ford Park near the Nature Center. The Town has determined that the existing bridge condition and design warrants its replacement with a new structure. This request for grading in the flood plain will allow the Town to make the necessary site improvements to install the new bridge. A site plan has been attached for reference. The Design Review Board approved the design of the new pedestrian bridge at their December 6, 2000 meeting. !I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the proposed modifications to the Gore Creek flood plain, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East/Ford Park Unplatted, subject to the following findings: That the proposed location of the flood plain modification and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. A complete floodplain analysis conducted by the Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator indicates floodplain elevations will not be adversely impacted by this proposal. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this proposal, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: Approval from the Army Corp of Engineers must be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Upon completion of construction, an "as- built" grading plan shall be submitted to verify the impacts of the new bridge on the Gore Creek flood plain. III. REVIEWING BOARD ROLE The PEC is being asked to render an approval or denial of this request to modify the Gore Creek flood plain based on the following objective: 1. That the proposed location of the flood plain modification and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.. 1V. ENVIRON'MENTA'L IMPACT ANALYSIS In accordance with Chapter 12 -12, Town of Vail Code, staff has evaluated the applicability of requiring an environmental impact report for this proposal in the following respects: 1. Alters an ecological unit or land form, such as a ridgeline, saddle, draw, ravine, hillside, cliff, slope, creek, marsh, watercourse, or other natural land farm feature. This proposal will have an insignificant impact on this criteria. 2. Directly or indirectly affects a wildlife 'habitat, feeding, or nesting ground. This proposal will have an insignificant impact on this criteria. 3. Alters or removes native grasses, trees, shrubs, or other vegetative cover. This proposal will have an insignificant impact on this criteria. 0 4. Affects the appearance or character of a significant scenic area or resource, or involves buildings or other structures that are of a size, bulk, or scale that would be in marked contrast to natural or existing urban features. This proposal will have no negative impact on this criteria. 5. Potentially results in avalanche, landslide, siltation, settlement, flood, or other land form change or hazard to health and safety. This proposal will have no negative impact on this criteria. 8. Discharges toxic or thermally abnormal substances, or involves use of herbicides or pesticides, or emits smoke, gas, steam, dust, or other particulate matter. This is not applicable to this proposal. 7. Involves any process which results in odor that may be objectionable or damaging. This is not applicable to this proposal. 8. Requires any waste treatment, cooling, or settlement pond, or requires transportation of solid or liquid wastes to a treatment or disposal site. This is not applicable to this proposai. 0 0 9. Discharges significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes. This is not applicable to this proposal. 10. Has the potential to strain the capacity of existing or planned sewage disposal, storm drainage, or other utility systems. This proposal will have no negative impact on this criteria. 11. Involves any process which generates noise that may be offensive or damaging. This proposal will have no negative impact on this criteria. 12. Either displaces significant numbers of people or results in a significant Increase in population. This is not applicable to this proposal. 13. Preempts a site with potential recreational or open space value. This is not applicable to this proposal. 14. Alters local traffic patterns or causes a significant increase in traffic volume or transit service needs. This is not applicable to this proposal. 15. Is a part of a larger project which, at any future stage, may involve any of the impacts listed in this Section. (ford. 8(1973) § 16.200). This is not applicable to this proposal. In accordance with Section 12 -12 -2, Town of Vail Code, staff has determined that this project is exempt from the requirement for an environmental impact analysis based upon the following: 1. This proposal involves the 'alteration, repair and maintenance of existing structures and site improvements. " 2. Based upon a preliminary review of this proposal covering each of the factors prescribed in Section 12 -12 -3, staff has determined that this proposal "is found to have an insignificant impact on the environment." The Town of Vail Floodplain Coordinator has analyzed this project and made the following determination: "... there will be little to no impact to the 100 -year floodplain as per the plans developed by Loris Associates dated 12!1/00. The minimal grading that will occur in the floodplain should lower the 100 -year floodwater elevation in the immediate area by approximately 0.02 feet (1/4 "). This slight drop in the floodplain is due to the widening of the floodway by lessening the grade of the existing banks." 0 TOWN OF DAILY Department of Public Works & Transportation 1349 Elkhorn Drive !ail, Colorado 81657 974- 479 -2158 Fax: 974 -479 -2166 www. ci. vail. co. us To: Bill Gibson, Planner From: Tom Kassmel, Project Engineer, Floodplain Coordinator Re: Proposed Bridge at the Ford Amphitheater Date: December 7, 2000 As requested I have reviewed the plans for the proposed bridge at the Ford Amphitheater and how it pertains to the Gore Creek Floodplain. In my review I have found that there will be little to no impact to the I00 -year floodplain as per the plans developed by Loris & Associates dated 12/1/00. The minimal grading that will occur in the floodplain should lower the 100 -year floodwater elevation in the immediate area by approximately 0.02 feet (1/4 "). This slight drop in the floodplain is due to the widening of the floodway by lessening the grade of the existing banks. 0 Please find attached a basic HEC -RAS analysis of both the existing conditions and the proposed conditions. You will find that the existing conditions result in a 100 -year floodwater elevation of 8184.54' at the bridge 40 cross section (river station 182), and the proposed conditions result in a 100 -year floodwater elevation of 8184.52'. Please note that the elevations do not correspond to the elevations shown on the drawings submitted by Loris & Associates. This is due to a difference in survey benchmark elevations of approximately 4.84 feet. However the results remain same in either case. Equating to Loris & Associates base elevations will result in a proposed floodplain elevation of 8179.68 feet. If you have any further questions please give me a call. • �4M RECYMED PAPER HEC-RAS Plan: Plan-Super Rlver. Gore Creek Reach: Nature Bridge HEC-RAS Plan: Proposed-Sup River- Gore Creek Reach: Nature Bridge 0 ToW M Ain G-.EJB [,--,,:E_G_.Sl �Eta! En el 6 2.'J� nt7,- 2100,001 8180.601 8185.351 8185.35f 8187.10 0.0034701 11.601 205-19i NrSredr 2100.001 2100.001 8177.001 8184.541 8 1 8479•l 8186.98 0.0031281 12.831 174.991 lacscui ?8 2100.001 8176.601 8180-541 8182,161 8186.14. 0-0192541 19.341 115.55, HEC-RAS Plan: Proposed-Sup River- Gore Creek Reach: Nature Bridge 0 0 J-11 2100.001 8180.601 8185.35� 8185.351 8167.101 0.0 034701 Duf 206.9 9 lacscui ?8 2100MI Al-77 8184.5ZI .98 8186 1- 0.0031601 12.85 174.431 2400.00 8176.601 8180.54 81$2.1$ 8i 86.141 0.019281 _19.351 115,501 0 0 mm'.l OABR'MF REGIS, 1IYJILI, 1, II 'y e Rd'/GP AND IOPSWL _ EXISTING BRIOGE '•� SE REMOVED t� I• i�=•� .l '` rPROPOSEO EROOGE (jt t` 1• �0. �1 AL 7WBFA FOR RMWC 10 BE PAUGN S`MN LW41ER a �.� 10PSOIL T-10--k Nx UVT17B.i ° -- PROPOSED GROUND UN€ 1 4 � E%ISfINp GRgLIxD LINE SECTM KDOXING WESJT s ah G IRd11AL {TAKEN AT FACIGE PGQ •.vnli,l4FkC! r ua unu.mutwn C,ut'- oiI.: Et-20 -o0 lw*i REB C� � JY1eet Kevislons lit CONSTEuII,nI1NG ■ �',N,i ■ INC. Loss ModRkdW Ode: E2 -1_Q0 MRio1d: SRF Pull i'dI1: /cod VCM dilt4 Shown Uni13: En risk - i SPpxI Ua Sx1NE FACIA TO W1GN ALKNE EARK&S w sm 15' SEAT. VWL PAYING SPINES TD wrGx ALPINE i.ARE][x5 nprCAL 0 Pede R Gei ud Sheet Su6sn1� 0 7RNl 1 , sEU7 TWBER FEWE ° w \ \ iyy +A ltlEtL�N05 IWACT 1 ARE . ova Sr 1 � s {SIUpE� AREA} UttOtt OF 14GaCNG Y • 1 y✓ �� YI t 3 140 YR WUL tM YR wSEL 1 s 1 C a2 b I 4 4 +, IT P N. to s to �v 2 1 '� C><fEyT �4WG C= l� 0 �� f` Sheet Revisions i �� J� 1. J CONSitMTING III o'w -j ENGA+ FM ■EAR LOIP% D �cenrt Wi4� o'er A5.l... t INC ]p]��r -ia7'] lav ]91- aid -p6i1 :.c „yvnw,n�ai...�o,. �1 Ilk t IT P N. to s to �v 2 Computer File Information C= l� 0 �� Sheet Revisions �� J� 1. J CONSitMTING III o'w -j ENGA+ FM ■EAR LOIP% D �cenrt Wi4� o'er A5.l... t INC ]p]��r -ia7'] lav ]91- aid -p6i1 :.c „yvnw,n�ai...�o,. AWYAL rdeslipn DM. 9 -12 -00 Irlilials sRF Lw vwilkation ma 12 -1--00 Wft;plx S No Rewlsions: FLO Folic - R pYlsed: issued hy. Steel Suhsal. a,a4 q Ge Name: Fcod vsr R14 Sale As sho.n 0nils: En fish Wid: .1 AkL - _1 rsam MV ftpjcT 1 `fit ' !n. �_ �`�.. � n � r. 'r. _ /1� 5." • t � y �� A_� -'-� y a,-.41sp si Dam 111��OoG PECCOW m= l�1 n 1 c"•t � c'i?�I I� ' + IOP 171 MSIL ((. -r• - ;i ` Wk led m \ I P puler Fie InPorn a ion Q Shee► Revisic.is o! � � i ; CAP On FA$I �IDAIM= � PE 4_12 -Co Inl+dt ESF eutec 72 -1 -4C Siigs MF (� j 40 MWASG -t D I 1 ie•bPz r• 0 0 V OWIVOF VAIL W. Department gJ'Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970- 479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 www ci_ vail. Co. us is December 8, 2000 Tim Losa, AIA Zehren and Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Lot 9 A -C, Vail Village Filing 2 / The Vail Plaza Hotel West Dear Tim: At its December 6" meeting, the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) conceptually reviewed the above- referenced application. The following is a synopsis of their comments from this meeting: Bulk and Mass - The project should read as a fragmented assemblage of structures. The linear, unbroken wall planes along the South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive are too massive and should be broken up to help reduce the apparent mass of the project. There should be points in the project where light and air penetrate through to allow for more transparency. The current proposal is not sympathetic to the design and scale of adjacent buildings. Layout/Footprint - The inward focus of the project should be turned outward. The current proposal is reminiscent of the Vail Gateway project. It needs to be more inviting to the public from the outside. The large internal atrium could be reduced in size: this would allow more flexibility in breaking up the layout of the proposal. Articulation — On a small scale, the dormer elements work well to articulate the roof forms. However, the gables need a better hierarchy and the roof massing needs additional breaks to reduce the visual scale of the proposal. Streetscaping — the current streetscape concept plan along West Meadow Drive works well. However, the pedestrian level entry along West Meadow Drive should be more inviting and should be defined better as a major arrival point for the hotel. RECYCLED PAPER I think it would be beneficial to see the project in a three - dimensional format (either in digital format or as a basic massing model) at the next DRB hearing. If you would like to discuss these items in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 479- 2140. Sincerely, Brent Wilson, AICP Planner 11 cc: Design Review Board Vail Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission U J 4 December 2000 Memo to: Town of Vail, Planning and Zoning Commission 111 South Frontage Load West, Vail, CQ 81657 From: Wm. M. Brown Subject: Zoning ariance ffo'r tract at 1552"` atterhorn Circle g My wife (Norma) and I (We) are interested `third parties' in the request by the owner, Mr. David Hilb, that said lot be divided into two sub -lots to permit construction of two - family residential dwellings (our interest is in such use on the western sub -lot). On 10 August 2000 Mr. Hilb and We entered into an Agreement with earnest money to acquire the secondary side of a duplex that he was to build at 1552 Matterhorn Circle (the Tract). 'The objective of this memo is to request that you approve the Zoning Variance —which action we see as appropriate on several grounds. As We understand the situation, prior to Hilb's perfecting the purchase of the Tract, Hilb had discussions with the Town of Vail, Community Development Department (Department) and these discussions indicated that his planned/intended use of the Tract was acceptable to Vail; i. e., the needed rezoning would be accommodated. Also, we understand that the acceptability of such use was confirmed at the pre - qualification meeting Hilb had with the Department prior to formal submission of his request. Subsequently, Hilb's rezoning request was turned down inn that the Department carne to see the need for a Zoning Variance. In this memo We encourage the requested Variance in terms of the following: 1. The desirability of Vail supporting the original, good faith understanding between the Department and Hilb —which Hilb and We relied upon. 2. The substantive reasonableness of the requested Variance. 3. The extraordinary health risks— because of Norma's unusual medical conditions —which `denial of the Variance' would cause. In general all high quality (worthy) organizations are committed to standing by the business understandings they mutually develop with clients and other parties with whom they work. The applicable rule is: stand by /carry out/support the impressions, understandings, or agreements mutually agreed to (or arrived at) unless there is a compelling reasons not to. In the case at hand, the requested land use is entirely reasonable and consistent with developmental intentions of the Town of Vail, but `in form' it is at odds with a `development standard' established to prevent (excessive) development on very steep terrain. The Tract is in fact not steep overall nor in any way less than well suited for `two family dwellings'. Even here in the mid -west the Tract would not be considered excessively hilly; in fact such a tract with a gradual slop (and same vertical drop) might be terraced to accommodate interesting home designs. The terrace on the Tract can be viewed as made to order by eons of erosion by Gore Creek; and the resulting geology does not involve any unstable or otherwise flawed terrain. ° This is especially required of government since government sets the regulations, codes, laws etc. within which all other business dealings are conducted. If government reneges on an understanding (say, for its own convenience), innocent parties may be damaged. J • No doubt Mr. Hilb and others (probably including Department Staff) can better make the case that on rational grounds the requested. Variance should be approved. We do wish to reinforce Hilb's case on the grounds that it behooves Vail to stand by the understanding first developed with Hilb since there are no compelling reasons not to. The reason not to would be to support the 'letter of the code'; the requested Variance is not at odds with the intent of the zoning code. The development planned by Hilb, to which We are a participant and interested party, will provide reasonable (in fact laudable) high quality development — totally compatible and supportive of the neighborhood and the rest of Vail Valley. Health risk- For the past five years We have been trying to find a retirement home in Vail which Norma could feel good about and be proud of Of course nice homes well located in Vail, at anything other than ultra -high prices, are hard to find. This problem is not specific to us; however, in Norma's case there are extenuating circumstances. The enclosed letters, one from Norma's psychiatrist and the other from her internist, describe aspects of her serious, complex medical conditions. Most of us have negative emotions when confronted with disappointments and/or injustices. In Norma's case such negative emotions have caused her (and may in the future cause her) to lapse back into major depression. The likelihood of this reaction —that she and I fear, but she can not prevent —is partly a question of how effective her medications are at any particular time. Except for the high price (reasonable in Vail's market), the new home covered in the agreement between Hilb and us is the only home to Norma's liking in all respects which she has ever seen in the Vail Valley -- during twenty years of casually looking at properties there. Since 10 August when we `signed up' with Mr. Hilb; Norma has totally put her energy, heart, and mind into planning and anticipating the future home and new life we are developing in Vail. I encouraged and fully joined with her in this. It was very satisfying for me to help her find fulfillment in this endeavor; and until we learned about the zoning blockage, it was a totally positive, therapeutic experience for Norma. Neither she nor I had any reservations about the situation, and even now we think it is incongruous that the requested Variance might be turned down. Of course the point of these observations is that We have a crucial health interest in Hilb's Variance request —in addition to the usual financial concerns which attend the purchase of a new home. Conclusion -We understand that Mr. Hilb has a hearing with the Commission on 11 December. We most earnestly encourage you to act favorably on his request. In the (unlikely) event the Commission is reluctant to grant the requested Variance, We ask that you defer judgement until We have an opportunity to meet with you to present our interests directly. We will be on our usual winter ski trip there from 16 to 30 December. The thought, attention, and consideration you provide to this memo, and more importantly to Mr. Hilb's requested Variance, are greatly appreciated. Address: 182 Shelford Way, Dayton, OH 45440, Enclosures: 2 Copies to: Mr. David G. Hilb, Mr. Bill Gibson, Phones: H: 937 - 427 -4733, 0: 255 -3527 Commissioner Doug Cahill 2 AMITA R. PATEL, M.D., INC. Adolescent. Adult, and Geriatric Psych.iatrY AMITA R. PATEL. M.D. ()TrO R. DUENU. M.D. AMARJEET S. BIRD]. M.D. MERRY A. DE LEON. M.D. 12 September 2000 To Whom it May Concern I am Norma Brown's psychiatrist and at her request this memo provides information on her medical condition in relation to where she lives when it becomes feasible for her to relocate from Dayton, OH. Mrs. Brown has a long history of chronic major depression. Her depression was brought on as an after effect of cancer and the drugs used in her treatment; she received chemical and radiation therapy for lymphoma from October '86 through March '87. Various antidepressants have been effective in`treating her depression for varying lengths of time. When these medications cease to be effective, we resort to Electra Convulsive Therapy, ECT. She received six ECT treatments in 1997, and she was on the brink of returning to ECT when I added a third antidepressant to her current medication protocol. A significant factor in the prognosis for Ms. Brown is the climate in which she lives; specifically, sunshine is therapeutic to her mental condition. Also, environmental conditions which contribute to her physical well being are a plus with respect to her mental well being as well. I am familiar with the Browns' intention to move to Colorado as soon as it is feasible for them to do so. Such a dry, sunny environment will improve her medical prognosis both physically and mentally. Considering the seriousnbss of her condition; it is imperative for the Browns to do everything possible, as soon as possible, with respect to Norma's health. With her very complex medical history and medical condition, it is difficult to predict her condition in the years to come; however, the quality of her environment could be a lire or death matter. -at least a riatter of having or not having a life felt to be worth living. Dr. Atnita Pa , MD 7707 Paragon Road, Suite 101 Centerville, OH.45459 Phone: 937-832-8883 Wfi ] UFFICES AT 900011. Main St. Suite 222 Dayton. OH 45415 (937) 832 -8883 832 -7323 Trii7 Paragon Rd. Suite 101 Centerville. OH 45459 {.937) 208 -69.31 0 12 September 2000 To Whom it May Concern 1 am Norma Brown's internist and family physician; at her request I am providing information on her medical condition in relation to where she lives when it becomes feasible for her to relocate from Dayton, OR Mrs, Brown has very serious health problems; she had cancer (lymphoma- - which was treated in `86 -'87), she has chronic bronciectasis, tuberculosis (in remission), and chronic major depression. With respect to her respiratory problems; I have advised her that a dryer, Iess Humid climate would be 'aclpful. She tested living in Colorado this summer and reports that her breathing and physical stamina were much improved compared to her experience during hot, humid days here in the mid -west. It is important for the Browns to do anything feasible in support of Mrs. Brown's physical and mental well being. Even small changes in her environment which effect her physical or emotional state can have major impacts on the prognosis for her future. From time -to -time over the past 13 years her medications have ceased to be effective; with major depression this leads to despair and suicidal thoughts or tendencies. Mrs. Brown has found that sunshine improves her mental state (which is usual for her condition), and that the dry climate as found in Colorado improves her physical condition. It is medically important, perhaps essential, for the Browns to move to a dry, sunny climate as soon as it is feasible for them to do so. Dr. Tony Vasiliu, MD Valley Medical Center 2190 Hewitt Ave. Kettering, OH 45440 937 - 291 -3888 • El PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING RESULTS / MINUTES Monday, December 11, 2000 Cbris#mSs Lunch PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Doug Cahill Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT Brian Doyon Tom Weber 1. Ford Park — 540 S. Frontage Road 2. Malone residence — 87 Rockledge Road 3. Hilb residence — 1552 Matterhorn Circle Approved 918/01 PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm Driver: George !a NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 1:00 pm 2:00 pm A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the division of an unplatted tract of land into two lots, and a request for a rezoning from Residential Cluster District to Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District and a request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -5, Town Code, to allow for a deviation from the required lot area and site dimensions, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle /SW' /4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81f West of the 6th Principle Meridian, Applicant: David G. Hilb Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield TABLED SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5 -0 f. TOWN ©F YAIL Approved 1/8101 Bill Gibson introduced the project. Dave Hilb spoke as the applicant. The Commission recommended that the applicant consider the possibility of rezoning this property as one lot to Single Family, or as one lot Single Family and the other Residential Cluster, or as one lot Primary /Secondary and the other Residential Cluster. These options would not require a variance. The Commission recommended that Mr. Hilb request to table this item and reconsider his options for developing this property. The Commission indicated that they would not be supportive of granting a variance when other options, not requiring a variance, are available. The Commission also indicated that they would not support subdividing a potentially conforming lot into two non- conforming lots. Mr. Hilb requested that this item be tabled. Commissioner Schofield motioned that this item be tabled until such time as proper notification can be made for the applicants amended request. Second by Commissioner Cahill. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 -0. 2. A request for a height variance from Section 12 -6D -7, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an elevator shaft to exceed the 33' height limitation, located at 87 Rockledge Road /Lot 2, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing_ Applicant: Mary Alice Malone, represented by Resort Design Associates Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE; 5 -0 APPROVED Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, noted the historical significance of the house, the steep slopes, and the existing non - conformity. John Schofield questioned Jay about architectural alternatives. Galen Aasland suggested code clarifications which would allow GRFA in elevators above 33'. Chas Bernhardt stated that he believed that this met the criteria for a variance. John Schofield agreed with Chas. Diane Golden noted the historical significance of the house. John Schofield made a motion to approve the variance, specifically citing that the structure was built prior to zoning which the PEC has found as a hardship in many variances cases, that the site had special circumstances, citing that the existing structure is situated on the rockledge and made 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 same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 2 It Approved 1/8/01 a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Doug Cahill seconded. Motion passed 5 -0 3. A request for a worksession to discuss amendments to the zoning regulations to allow for the creation of a new zone district, the "Housing Zone District." Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSION — NO VOTE The PEC agreed that the Housing Zone District was the best way to proceed. They believed that eliminating free - market units was not the best way to proceed. Instead they supported the Aspen model which allows for a 70 -30 split, with deviations allowed for "exceptional" projects. They believed that having only master - leased products was not the best way to proceed. They supported a sliding -scale based on the size of project. 4. A request for grading in the flood plain, to allow for the placement of bridge abutments & grading, in accordance with Title 14, Town Code, located at 540 S. Frontage Rd. East/Ford Park Unplatted, Applicant; Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bemhardt VOTE: 5 -0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 8, 2001 Bill Gibson introduced the project. Tom Kassmel and Greg Hall from the Town of Vail Public Works Department spoke as the applicant. The Commission asked the applicant why the existing bridge was being replaced_ The applicant responded that the existing bridge needed to be replaced because of its structural condition. The Commission recommended that the applicant consider using an alternative bridge abutment to create less impact to wetlands and the creek and asked if the Design Review Board had reviewed this project. Staff responded that the Design Review Board approved this project at their Nov. 29, 2000 meeting, The Commission asked if the applicant was pursuing Army Corp approval and permits. 40 The applicant responded that they were in process of applying for the required permits. 3 Approved 1/8/01 The Commission asked the applicant when they anticipated to begin construction. The applicant indicated that construction would begin in Spring 2001, before the spring run -off. The Commission asked the applicant if the path between Vail Valley Drive and the bridge met ADA requirements_ The applicant responded that the path met ADA requirements as a secondary access to Ford Park. The Commission requested that the applicant look at alternatives to make the bridge more accessible from Vail Valley Drive. Commissioner Schofield motioned that this item be tabled, so the applicant could examine alternative bridge abutment designs and consider alternatives to make the bridge more accessible to Vail Valley Drive. Second by Commissioner Bernhardt. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 -0. 5. Approval of November 27, 2000 minutes 6. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • 0