The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-1112 PEC• Public [Vntice NO7lGE IS WEREBY QIVFN that the Plan ring and Erryirotxnantal Commisstut s>t the Town of Veil will hold a public hearingg-in ecoordance with Srtction 12.3.5 at the MuniGpal Godo of the Ttmzt of Vall on NoYtmber 12, 2001,.at 2:0(i p.m. (n ttee Tr»art W Vall Munbipa! Bitikting. In crosl& eratiort af: A reques4 tot a work sesSbn to review pre- limrnnry aftemailvos tprthe tlavalpRmant plan of Middle Creek Village ler~tetl at the 3ita known as '- "Mpuntaln Bell'°!an unplatted pieco of property lo- sated at i6p North Frontage Road to be plafled de Lpf 1, Mlc~le Crea4 $ubdlvlslon. Applicant: Vail local Horsing Auihorfly rep- rason4ed try Odoh Arehltects Plannur: Allison Ueha A request for a.rrigl4r amendment rp'Speolal Devalopmant Disttlci (~o. 6 to allow fmr the con- version of acaommodntipn units .iris employee housing units and a request #w a tpndltlonal use permit 5o allow for Tyypp®. 111 empioyte hpusing units located at the Vall Uitlege Inn, 109 Eas9 Meadow Drpve,R-o1s t~l, N and O, 91ook SD, Vall 4illa}e tst Flling. pltcant: Daymer Cotporetbn P annex: Allison Oche A requesl for a vartanca cram Sactlon 42-7N• 10 ('Setbacks ), Vait Town Code, a! the Liarts Square 1. Petaled at 680 Wass Livnshelut placelf.pt 1, Vail LfanShaatl tat Filing. Appiicerce: LJOns Square Lodge Planner; Bifl Cilt>atrr A reruest for a varianco from ~:....::...... 42- 80-6 (Setbacks) and t2-bC-9 i5it® Goverega},~ . Vail Tawn Cede, to alkw+ fvr the constnrction of a . Type i Employee Noosingg Unit lcrcaTSd et 4168 Columbine Clrivwlol 4t3,8i hom 5ubdtWtcion. ApppSicant: TPmolhyy Parks Planner, s~eorge Bother A rer4+test ter a vartanca from 9aotlgns 12' 7A~g (Situ Coverage} arrd 42.7As8 (Setbagksy, Vail Town Coda, to aitow tar the oonatrtrctlon of a new front entr leatura et the Mountain Haus ia- sated at 2512 ~asl RAeadaw DrivelLa[ S, .Part of 7ratt 8, Vail Vptade 1 st 1=411ng. ARpllcani: Mountain eus represented by FrItzlEh Piarto Archltecis Rlanner~ BItI i3ipson A request for a variance from Section 12-6D- 6 (Lot Area and Slte [7lmanslrns}, a miner subdi- vrslon or Lots F and 3. Vail Village blast, FtiYir~ No, 2, io rolotato a common property Ilna and a racattkgp vt'Lot 3, VaA Vill a Wean, Fillnr~ Np. 2; From 'Irxp•grdnily Primary/eoltdary Zone Dis- hlct to Single-Family Zone District and satlin8 forth datatia In r~tar~tretq tpoaled at i7&4 errCpl~f U+ienh RrentairSe blond Weadl..ots 2 >Rrrd S, Vaii V111aga `M%e59. Piling No, 2, . Appliaprlt; Phli~c Na(~tmtrn Planner: Georna Rulther -" A request for a variance from Tula 44, Devai- apment Stardsrds, to auow for }ha.raplar~errrent of art exiagng retaining wall wdh a new waft that exceeds six feat in helghfi located at 1487 ©reen- hitl Courtll.pt 1 t], C,len Lyon 9ub~vision. Applicant Eltencre Jornt V©Mure/Rbhard end D are Cohan. planner- George Rulhor TOS^lN.OF VAIL DEPAIaTNrENT QF - ..~.. ~q ~,. CUMMUNRYDEVELOPMENT Putillshe+d In ins Val! Trai9 . on October 28, 217(]1 ~J Public NOfiCe .PLANNING ANU ENVIFiONMEN7AL C6Mi1lISSN7N PUBLIC MEETINQ SCHECULf: Monday, November 92, 2p01 Publlc Heating Town Counal Chambers - 2.^OD p.m. d, m+ormaavn upoaw TOWN OF VAIL DEPAFfI"MENT OF COMMUNITY ~EVELOPMSNT Published in The V811 Ttall on November 9, 2001 ~(_. ~` ". !ti '`~-. `- A . Vs}9 LoCe1 I~~ttp AWItxxNy ~ . , .. by gdell Archlf~seis Planner: RlAscur s THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE ~~ r, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Tow1 Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the ` ~'.:/~ Tawn of Vail on November 12, ,21)D1, at 2:Og P.M. in the Tawn of Vaii IVlunicipal Building. In ~'°~ consideration vf: A request for a vvorksession to review preliminary alternatives far the development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 1fi0 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs A request far a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 to allow for the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, 104 East Meadow DrivelLots M,N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-1g ("Setbacks"}, Vail Town Gode, at the Lion's Square Lodge located at 66Q West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vaii Lionshead 1S' Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bill Gibson A request far a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (Setbacks) & 12-6C-9 (site coverage), Vail Tawn Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine DrivelLot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner. George Rather A request for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage) and 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow DrivelLot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1~t Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-5 (Lot Area and Site Dimensions}, a minor subdivision of Lo#s 2 & 3, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, to relocate a common property line and a rezoning of Lat 3, Vail Village West, Filing No.2, from Twa-family PrimarylSecandary zone district to Single-family zone district and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 1784 & 1794 South Frontage Raad Wes#fLots 2 ~ ~ Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip Hagerman Planner: George Rather A request for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards, to allow for the replacement of an existing retaining with a new wall that exceeds six feet in height, located at 1467 Greenhill CourtlLot 10, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Ellenore Joint VenturelRichard & Diane Cohen 'r Planner: George Rather '• „ ,~ TaWN OF YAfL 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 orien#ation and the site visits tha# precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479-2138 far 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 C)ctober 26, 20[7'1 in the Vail Trail. • 2 ~~ PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, November 12, 20fl1 Pf~BC/c~~- PROJECT ORIENTATION ! -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Hagerman residence - 1784 & 1794 S. Frontage Rd. West 2. Cohen residence - 1467 Greenhill Court 3, Lions Square Lodge - fifi0 West Lionshead Place 4. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive 5. Parks residence - 416fi Columbine []rive Driver: Brent 12:00 pm 12:45 pm ~~ NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm i 1. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, to allow for the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units, located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow DrivelLots M,N and O, Block 5th, Vail Village 1ST Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner; Allison achs 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-1fl {Setbacks}, Vail Town Gode, at the Lion's Square Lodge, located at fi60 West Lionshead PlacelLot 1, Vail Lionshead 1S' Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bill Gibson 3, A request for a variance from Sec#ions 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage} and 12-7A-fi {Setbacks}, Vail Town Gode, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1ST Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ,. . ~, ,t TO~~`N OF f'AIl ~` PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-5 (Lot Area and Site Dimensions), Vail Town Code, a minor subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, Vail Village West, Filing Na. 2, to relocate a common property fine and a rezoning of Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No.2, from Twa- Family PrimarylSecondary Zone District to Single-Family Zane District and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 1784 & 1794 South Frontage Road WestlLots 2 & 3 Vai[ Village West, Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip HagermanlAllison ©chs Planner George Ruttier 6. A request for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards, to allow for the replacement of an existing retaining wall with a new wall that exceeds six feet in height, located at 1467 Greenhill GourtlLot 10, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Ellenore Joint Venture/Richard & Diane Cohen Planner. George RutherlAllison Ochs 6. A request for a worksessian io review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"Ian unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.lto be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vain Local Housing Authority, represented by Qdell Architec#s Planner: Allison Ochs 7, A request for a variance from Sections 12-6G6 (Setbacks) & 12-6C-9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to aAow far the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine DrivelLat 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George RutherlAllison Ochs $. Approval of October 22, 2001 minutes 9. .Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information- Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department Published November 9, 2001 in the Vail Trail. • r: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, November 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1-Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site Visits 1. Hagerman residence - 1784 & 1794 S. Frontage Rd. West 2. Cohen residence - 1467 Greenhill Court 3. Lions Square Lodge - 660 West Lionshead Place 4. Moun#an Haas - 292 E. Meadow Drive 5. Parks residence - 4166 Columbine Drive 12:00 pm 12:45 pm Driver: Brent i .~ NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Tawn Council Chambers 2:[}0 pm A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No, 6, to allow for the conversion of accommodation units in#o employee housing units and a request. for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee housing units, located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow DrivelLots M,N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1S' Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Allison Oehs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED MAJUR AMENDMENT TO SDD NO. 6 WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 shall not supercede any previous approvals for this special development district. 2. That the Fire Marshal completes an inspection of the site prior to second reading of ordinance to ensure compliance with all applicable fire codes and safety provisions. ,+ ~aw,v a~ v~u MEMBERS ABSENT APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH 2 CONDITIONS: That the conditional use permit to allow for Type III employee housing units shall expire on June 1, 2002. 2. That the applicant shall enter into written agreement with the Town of Vail in a form approved by the Town Attorney stating that these units shall be used for employee housing until such date that the conditional use permit expires. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-10 (Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, at the Lion's Square Lodge, located at 680 West Lionshead PlacelLot 1, Vail Lionshead 15~ Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 10, 2001 3. A reques# for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage} and 12-7A-8 (Se#backs}, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow DrivelLot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Dick Cleveland SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE:. 6-1 {Schofield opposed} TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 10, 2001 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-5 Lot Area and Site Dimensions}, Vail Town Code, a minor subdivision of Lots 2 ~ 3, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, to relocate a common property line and a rezoning of Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No.2, from Two- Family Primary/Secondary Zone District to Single-Family Zone District and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 1784 & 1794 South Frontage Road WesULats 2 & ~ Vail Village Wes#, Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip HagermanlAllison Ochs Planner; George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL TO CHANGE ZONING MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Dick Cleveland VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED MINC}R SUBDIVISION WITH 1 CONDITION: That the applicant submits a final plat of the resubdivision of Lots 2 & 3, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to recording the plat with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorders The final plat shall be recorded within one (1) year of the date of Planning & Environmental Commission approval. MOTION: Jahn Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED VARIANCE • 5. A request far a variance from Title 14, Development Standards, to allow far the replacement of an existing retaining wall with a new wall that exceeds six feet in height, located at 1467 Greenhill CourtlLot 10, Glen Lyon Subdivision, Applicant: Ellenore Josnt Venture/Richard & Diane Cohen Planner: George RutherlAllison Ochs MOT10N: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6-1 (Doyon opposed) APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: That the applicant installs asix-foot tall chain link construction fence with an attached erosion control mesh along the western limit of disturbance line to limit site disturbance and prevent encroachment upon Tvwn of Vail property. The applicant shall also install afour-foot tall plastic construction fence around the remainder of the construction area. The construction fences shall be erected prior to the issuance of a building permit for the retaining wall work and shall remain in place throughout the duration of the construction project. 2. That the applicant removes the temporary site access road and restores the site to its original grades and revegetates all areas of disturbance with native grasses, prior to a final landscape inspection. 3. That the applicant returns to the Town of Vail Design Review Board with a proposed final landscape plan for the site. The plan shall include provisions for surface drainage, the mitigation of twenty (20} aspen trees (180 caliper inches} and the screening of the ends of the wall with coniferous trees. The applicant shall return to the DRB for final approval by January 71, 20(JZ priaf-tc !c^~ay 1, ". 6. A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"!an unplatted piece of property, located at 16C} N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED IJNTIL DECEMBER 10, 2001 7. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (setbacks) & 12-6C-9 (Site Coverage}, Vail Town Code, to aflaw far the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine DrivelLot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George RutherlAllison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 10, 2001 8. Approval of actober 22, 24Q1 minutes 9. 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 1 ~, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District Na. 0 to allow far the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditianal use permit, to allow far Type III employee housing units located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Cats M, N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 S` Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: .Allison Ochs L BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Daymer Corporation, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, to allow for the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units, and a conditianal use permit to allow Type III employee housing units at the Vail Village Inn. This is a temporary request to allow the applicant to utilize the property for employee housing until construction can begin on the redevelopment of the property which was approved in 2000. The property is zoned Special Development District Na. 6, with an underlying zoning of Public Accommodation. According to Chapter 12-9A, a major amendment to a special development district is defined as: MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC AND,~t?R CC)UNClL REVIEW).• Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the Bomber of dwvelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this Section), except as provided under Sections i2-15-4, "Interior Conversions'; or 12-15-5, "Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Qrdinance)" of this Title. The elimination of accommodation units is considered a major amendment by this definition. In addition, Type fll employee housing units are a conditional use in the Public Accommodation zone district. The applicant has requested a major amendment to Special Development District No. 0 and a conditional use permit for Type III employee housing units. The applicant is proposing no exterior modifications. Project History The following is a summary of the existing phases and development with the Vail Village inn Special Development District: Phase I -This phase consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the District. Phase I includes one residential dwelling unit approximately 3,927 square feet in size and nine commercial/retail spaces. Phase II -This phase consists of three residentia! dwelling units totaling approximately 3,492 square feet in size and three commercial/retail spaces. Phase II is generally located in the center of the Qistrict. Phase III -This Phase consists of twenty-nine residential dwelling units totaling approximately 44,830 square feet in size and six commercial/retail spaces. Phase Ili is located at the northeast corner of the District. Phase IV -This is the original and oldest Phase in the District. This Phase consists of one residential dwelling unit approximately 5,000 square feet in size and seventy-two accommodation units comprising approximately 16,585 square feet of floor area. Phase IV is generally located in the northwest corner of the District, Phase V -This Phase consists of eleven residential dwelling units and three accommodation units totaling approximately 9,972 square feet of floor area and four commercial/retail spaces, Phase V is located in the southwes# corner of the District at the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. When originally considering deviations from the underlying zoning in 1976, the Town Council found that such deviations were acceptable, as the community was to realize a substantial increase in the hotel bed base. An increase in short-term accommodations has been along-standing objective of our resort community. In 2000, a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 was approved to allow far the redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn. The executive summary of this approval is attached far reference. II. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES A. Major Amendment to a Special Development District Qrder of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of use/development, then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Gouncil. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEG is advisory to the Town Gouncil. The PEC shall review the proposal far and make a recommendation to the Town Gouncil on the following: • Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses • Recommendation on development standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height,. density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking • Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2 B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compafib{e, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural andfat geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NQ review authority on a SDD proposal, but must review any accompanying DRB application The DRB review of an SDD prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the #echnicaf requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The s#aff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect #o the required criteria and findings, and ~ recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Gauncil is responsible for final approval/denial of an SDD. The Town Council shall review the proposal for the following: Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses 3 Approval of develapment standards including, lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 1©of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed far bath vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special develapment district. B. Conditional Use Permit Plannin^ and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The PEC is responsible far evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use an development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 4 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and' convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4, Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district • Lot area • Setbacks • Building Height • Density • GRFA • Site coverage • Landscape area • Parking and loading • Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Beard: Action: The DRB has NQ review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible far evaluating the QRB proposal far: • Architectural compatibility with ether structures, the land and surroundings • Fitting buildings into landscape • Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography • Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation • Adequate provision far snow storage an-site • Acceptability of building materials and colors • Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building farms • Provision of landscape and drainage • Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures • Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances • Location and design of satellite dishes • Provision of outdoor lighting • The design of parks 5 • Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. lil. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the applicant's request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council regarding a major amendment to Spec'sal Development District #6, to allow for the elimination of accommodation units and the addition of Type Ili employee housing units, subject to the following finding: That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. B, Vail Village lnn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-3A-8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying z©ning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated .that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved, Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the approval of this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6 shall not supersede any previous approvals for this special development district. 2. Thai the Fire Marshal completes an inspection of the site prior to second reading of ordinance to ensure compliance with alf applicable fire codes and safety provisions. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Community Development Department recommends approval of the appCicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for Type Ill employee housing units located at the Vail Village 9nn, 100 E_. Meadow Dr. 1 Lats M, N, and O, 131ock 5D, Vail Village 1St FiCCng, based on the following findings: 6 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning cads and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the prapased location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar welfare ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the prapased use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions be placed on the approval: 1. That the conditional use permit to allow for Type III employee housing units shall expire an June 1, 2~g2. 2. That the applicant shall enter into written agreement with the Town of Vail in a form approved by the Town Attorney stating that these units shall be used for employee housing until such date that the conditional use permit expires. 1V. ZONNNG F DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS Lot size: 3.45 acres ar 15{},282 sq. ft. (All Phases Development Public Accommodation 20DD SDD Major Standard Zaninq Amendment Annraval Amendment Lot Area: GRFA: Qwelling units per acre: Employee Units Site coverage: Setbacks: front: 51de5: rear: Parking: Commercial sq. footage: 10,000 sq.ft min, 150,2$2 sq. ft. up to 150%° or 225,423 sq. ft. 121 % or 181,719 sq. ft. 25 dulacre (AU/FFU/EHU unlimited) 13.0 dulacre unlimited 65°I° or 97,6$3 sq. ft. 20' 20' 20' per T.Q.V. Code Section 10% cat allowable GRFA or 22,542 sq. ft. 2 61% or 92,036 sq. ft. 16° 5' 29t parking spaces 2001 SDD Major Maior no change no change 12.75 dulacre 56 no change no change no change no change na change 25% of GRFA or 45,22$ sq. ft. no change 7 V. REVIEW CRITERIA F{3R A MAJOR AMENQMENT TO SDD Na. 6 Titlel2, Chapter 9 of the Town Code provides far the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is: To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order fo promote its mast appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan far a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of fhem is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the publl'c interest has beery achieved The elimination of the existing accommodation units at the Vail Village inn is considered a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6. As such, it is subject to the following review criteria. A. Design compatibiliity and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. There are no exterior changes prapased with this major amendment to Special Development District No. 6. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed use is to convert existing substandard accommodation units into Type lil employee housing units. The underlying zoning of the property is Public Accommodation. Type 111 employee housing units are a conditional use in this zone district. The applicant is proposing to eliminate 76 accommodation units. 54 of these units will be converted to Type III employee housing units. The use has been discussed in Section VI of this memorandum. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town Code. Based on a site analysis, there are currently 82 parking spaces for this phase of the building. Chapter 12-10 of the Town Code requires 75.6 parking spaces for the erployee housing units. fn addition, Craig's Market requires 3.7 spaces. The total number of parking spaces required is 80 spaces. As proposed, the project meets the parking requirement. 8 D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Rlan. Conformance with the Vail Land Use Plan and Vail Village Master Plan has been discussed in Section VI of this memorandum. Because there are no exterior modifications proposed with this application, the Urban Design Plan is not applicable. E. Identification and mitigation of na#ural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property an which the special development district is proposed. According to the Town of Vail's Official Hazard Maps, there are no natural or geologic hazards present an the subject property. F. Site plan, building design and Incation and open space provisions designed to produce a functional'. development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The existing approved site plan for the special development district would not be altered with this request. • G. A circulation system designed far both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. There is no change proposed to the existing approved circulation system for Special Development District No. ~. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. There is no change proposed to the existing landscapefopen space plan for Special Development District Igo. 6. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. This criterion is not applicable to this proposal. VI. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. CONSIDERATION O'F FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the . _ __ .. Town. Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the subject property as part of the Vail Village Master Plan. However, the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and objectives which staff believes to be applicable to this proposal. Staff believes this proposal would impact the following goals and policies identified in the Vail Land Use Plan: 9 1,1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.12 Vai! should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infil! areas). Staff Resoorase Staff believes the prQpQSed amendment world facilitate the location of employee housing units within the Town of Vail (a high Council priority} at an existing infill location. Staff believes affordable employee housing is essential for the provision of services that both residents and visitors expect, However, staff does not believe that this is an acceptable long-term use for this property. Staff believes that until the following goals of the Vail f.and Use Ilan outweigh the goals far the provision of employee housing at this location: 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, i therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate bath local and visitor needs. Staff Resoonse Although the conversion. of any accommodation unit within Vail's core areas should be highly discouraged, staff believes the subject property may be an appropriate location for employee housing far a temporary and defined time period. The applicant has an approval in place to redevelop the property. However, construction has been temporarily postponed due to a pending lawsuit. The conversion of these accommodation units to Type III employee housing units wil9 allow the property owner to use the property, to the benefit of the owner and the Town, until construction can commence. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards da not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housr`ng should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with market place demands for a full range of housing types. 1Q 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Staff Response Staff believes this propose! furthers the above-listed goals by providing additional opportunities far lacalslemployee housing within the town limits at an existing infill location. B.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. • Staff Response Staff believes the prevision of employee housing is vital if Vail is to provide services consistent with the demand created by residents and visitors. Vail Village Master' Plan The Vail Village Master Plan designates this properly as "Medium/High Density Residential'` and Mixed Use." According to the Vail Village Master Plan; Medium/High Density Residential: The overwhelming majority of the Village's lodge rooms and condominium units are located in this land use category. !t is a gaol of this Plan to maintain these areas as predominantly lodging oriented with retail development limited to small amounts of "accessory retail': Mixed Use: This category includes the "historic" Village core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail, and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. lNith nearly 270,000 sq, ft. of retail space and approximately 320 residential units, the mixed use character of these areas is a major factor in the appeal of Vail Village. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the following goals and objectives which staff believes are applicable to this proposal. Goal: To foster a sfrong Tourist industry and promote year-around economic health and viability for the Village and for The community as a whole. Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. • Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facr'lities as part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. t1 Staff Response Because this request is temporary in nature, staff believes that this proposal is not contrary to the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan, These accommodation units are currently substandard units and the staff believes that the use of these as employee housing is acceptable. The approved redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn is consistent with the above goals and objectives. C}bjective: Encourage fhe development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. Policy: Employee hauling units maybe required as part of any new of redevelopment prarect requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. Paficy: Employee housing shall 6e developed with appropriate restrictions sa as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Policy: The Town of Vail may facilitate in the development of affordable housing by providing limited assistance. Staff Response Staff believes that the utilization of the existing accommodation units as Type III employee housing units, even as a temporary use, will further the above-listed objective to encourage the development of affordable housing units. 2. The effect of the use an light and air. distribution of population. transportation facilities. utilities. schools. parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. As this request is temporary in nature, staff does not believe that there will be a permanent effect on the above-listed items. However, the change in use from accommodation units to employee housing units will significantly change the character of the property. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience. traffic flow and control access. maneuverahility. and rPmnval of snow from the street and oarkina areas. Traffic Flvw -According to 1TB caiculations, we should anticipate a 388% decrease in traffic generation based an the proposed uses. Additionally, staff anticipates a high percentage of pedestrian trips as opposed to vehicular trips. Staff believes this proposal would have a positive impact on traffic flow in the area. Parking -Based an a site analysis, there are currently 82 parking spaces for this phase of the building. Chapter t 2-t 0 of the Town Code requires 75.6 parking spaces far the employee housing units. In addition, Craig's Market requires 3.7 spaces. The total number of parking spaces required is 80 spaces. As proposed, the project meets the parking requirement. 4. 1=ffect ubon -the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be locatedi including the scale pnd bulk raf the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 12 • The applicant is not proposing any changes to fhe bulk, mass or location of the existing building. The adjacent uses include the existing Vail Village Inn Plaza, including commercial, lodging„ and residential uses; 9 Vail Road, multiple-family residential dwellings; and the Vail Gateway, commercial and residential uses. Staff believes that given the mixed-use and residential character of the neighborhood, the proposed use of employee housing is acceptable... However, staff believes that this use should be limited to one year. B. FINDINGS The Planning and' Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before __ granting a conditional use oermit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • 13 • VAIL VILLAGE INN Village Inn Plaza Condominiums Description: The Vail Village Inn is no longer operating as a hotel. Due to the pending lawsuit we are not able to move forward with the planned construction. Therefore we would like to put the property to some use. We would like to rent the rooms a monthly rental basis through the upcoming ski season. Should the lawsuit be settled and we are able to move forward with the planned construction we would discontinue the rentals. We are renting the rooms at a very reasonable rate of $300 to $600 dollars per month. 90% of the units fall in the $300 to $400 dollar range, The Landlord pays utilities.. Parkiung is provided. NO pets are allowed. The monthly rent is based on one (1) person per room Other Points: + We will. be providing very affordable housing within Vail Village. The VVI is made up of 76 hotel rooms. • 10 are out-of--order or NOT Rentable. + 54 units have been rented. (S 1 % of the 66 rentable units.) We have held back the balance of the units until we receive a variance in the zoning. Should we not receive a variance in the zoning we will. serve the current tenants with a 30-day cancellation of their lease notice. Residents are moving in from the first of October through the fast of December. Sincerely, Vail Village Inn Connie H, Dorsey General Manager I0© East Meadow Drive Vail, Col~raclo 81,057 (97Q) 476-SGZ2 FAX (970} 476-466I • pr4nl Stl Sn eacySfSd pSpSv U Executive Summary of Redeve{opment of the Vail Viltage Inn The applicant, Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson, has submitted two development review applications to the Town of Vai9 Community Development. The first application is a request for a final review and recommendation of a proposed a major amendment, pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Town of Vail honing Regulation, to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. The second request is for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club. The purpose of the major amendment is to amend the approved development plan to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel in Phase IV of the District. The applicant is proposing significant improvements to Phase IV of the Vail Village !nn Special Development District. The existing hotel and restaurant are proposed to be demolished to allow for the new construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The hotel is intended to be a mixed-use development including residential, commercial and recreational uses. The applicant is proposing to construct 99 new accommodation units (hotel rooms} ranging in size from approximately 350 sq. ft. to 370 sq. ft. per unit, 50 part-time fractional fee club units, 18 employee housing units (38 beds} and 1 free-market condominium. The fractional fee club units are considered part-time, since during the summer months the hotel will retain ownership at the units to rent as short-term accommodation units, and then during the winter months (approximately 24 weeks} the units will be sold as fractional fee club units. The Vail Plaza Hotel also includes two restaurants, 4,047 square feet of accessory retail located within the hotel and along the plaza., a 15,338 square foot conference facility, a 24,799 square foot full-service spa and health club facility and approximately 249 new underground parking spaces. The approximate total gross square footage of the new hotel is 379,$57 square feet. The following is an approximate square footage breakdown of the various uses within the hotel; • 62,816 sq. ft. - fractional fee club units •~• 5,499 sq. ft. -condominium • 35,818 sq. ft. -accommodation units • 6,332 sq. ft. - employee housing units • 8,375 sq. ft. - restaurant retail • 15,130 sq. ft. -conference/meeting rooms • 24,817 sq. f#. - spa health club •t• 221,070 sq. ft. -common area (mechanical, lobby, etc.} 379,857 sq. ft. gross building square footage maid closets, stairslhallways„ parking„ office, The second application submitted for review is for a cond`rtianal use permit to allow far the operation of a fractional fee club in the Public Accommodation zone district.. The granting of a conditional use permit by the Town of Vail would allow the applicant to operate 50 fractional fee club units within the Vail Plaza Hotel. The applicant is proposing that the club units be sold an an interval basis. The club units would be sold far 24 weeks during the winter months with the remaining 28 weeks awned by the hotel for use as short-term accommodations units. It is believed by the applicant that this sales structure will maximize the occupancy of the units and optimize the availability of the units for marketing the conference facility of the hotel during the summer months and shoulder seasons. To further improve occupancy potential of the fractional fee club, the 50 club units have been designed to include up to two "lock-off" spaces per unit. This design creates a total of 108 "keys" and 216 "pillows°' far the fractional fee club component of the hotel (1 key = 1 room). William P. ~ohnsan Attorney at Law 3Q3.628.9544 wj o h nson ~? ror~g[: rk~er, corn ROTHGERBER JC7HNSON €~ I,YQNS LLP Denver • Colorado Springs • Cheyenne November 6, 2001 Mr. Russell Forest Darector of Corninunity Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81G.~7 Re: Village Inn Plaza Condominium Association • Dear Mr. Forest: One Tabar Center, Suite 30{?E} 12QQ Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado ti(}2c}2-5855 Telephr~ne 3Q3.E~23.90{70 Fax 3Q3.623.9222 www.rothgerher.com The owners of units in the Village Inn Plaza Condominium Association received the attached Notice witlt respect to the use of the Vail Village Inn for Type 3 employee housing. I spoke with you yesterday, and you verified that the request was for employee housing usage only during the ski season commencing this month-November 2001. Our membership is concerned that the Vail Village Inn not be converted permanently to employee housing. I talked to Mr. Dorsey, who is the General Manager of the Vail Village Inn property, and he has confirmed that they intend to house no mare than approximately 60 people and that the rooms or L;,zits will be non-cooking units and cooking will nvt be ppr_mitted yn the rooms.. Subject to these conditions and limitations, the Association has no objection to this temporary use. If you have questions, please contact the undersigned. • 4VPJ:bc H.',D1W'P'.FrJ'J OFiNSOIJ. B',V itlagelnui',L-F©resLwpd Wiliam F. Johnson MEMORANaUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRDM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 12, 2091 SUBJECT: A request fear a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage) and 12-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, bcated at 292 East Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: Bill Gibson QESCRIPTIQN UrF THE REQUEST The applicant, Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects is requesting a variance from Section 12-7A-$ Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. The proposed new front entry feature will replace the existing canvas awning located on the north side of the Mountain Haus building slang Meadow Drive. The proposed new front entry feature will consist of a cantilevered timber canopy with gables and pitched roofs. A copy of the applicants written statement has been attached far reference. A copy of the proposed and existing site plans, proposed demolition plan, existing and proposed elevations, proposed roof/ceiling plans, and proposed sections have been attached for reference. The existing Mountain Haus building was constructed prior to the adoption of the Town of Vail's current Zoning Regulations and Development Standards, and is therefore legally non- conforming in regard to many of the Town's regulations. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the Mountain Haus is located within the Public Accommodation Zone District. In accordance with Section t2-7A-6, Vail Town Code, the minimum required front, side, and rear setbacks in the Public Accommodation Zone District are 2t? feet. Portions of the existing Mountain Haus building encroach into all four required setbacks, and 4n various locations the existing building extends past the limits of the property lines. The construction of the proposed new entry feature will slightly increase the non-conformity of the Mountain Haus building in regard to setbacks; therefore a variance from Section t 2-7A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, is required. The existing Mountain Haus building is also legally non-conforming in regard to site coverage as required by Section 12-7A-9, Vail Town Code. Section ~2-2-2, Vail Town Code, defines SITE COVERAGE as "...shah include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extend more than four feet (4) from the exterior face of the perimeter building wafts or supporting columns." Since the 1 N~ j TOWN 0>F VAIL iii portion of the proposed front entry feature that is defined as site coverage is located within the East Meadow Drive right-of-way and not within the limits of the Mountain Haus property, a site coverage variance is not required. A significant portion of the proposed front entry feature will be located within the Town of Nail's East Meadow Drive street right-of-way. If approved, the applicant will be required to execute an easement agreement with the Town of Vail. II. BACKGROUND In the fall. of 2000, the Mountain Haus proposed to construct a simlar front entry feature at their north entrance along East Meadow Drive. This proposal included discussions of a joint venture between the Mountain Haus and the Town of Vail to make streetscape improvements to East Meadow Drive. it was determined that streetscape improvement to East Meadow Drive would not be a high priority in the Town's Capital Improvements Program at that time, so the Mountain Haus has decided to proceed with a proposal for a new front entry feature and abandon proposals for joint effort streetscape improvements. Since the Mountain Haus is proposing to construct a significant portion of their new front entry feature on Town of Vail property (i.e, the East Meadow Drive right-of-way), Town Council permission is required. Upon hearing the applicant's previous request at its Tuesday, October 20, 2000 meeting, the Town Council granted the applicant permission to proceed through the planning process. At its ]November 7, 2001 public hearing, the Town of Vail Design Review Board approved, with conditions, the proposed new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus. The Design Review Board's approval is contingent upon the Planning and Environmental Gommission's approval of this setback variance request. if the Planning and Environmental Commission decides to deny this variance request, then the Design Review Board's approval of this proposed new front entry feature wi{l be null and void. III. STAFF RECONIMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variances subject to the following findings: That the granting of the setback variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the Public Accommodation Zone District. 2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulations results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Municipal Cade or the Public Accommodation Zone District. 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Public Accommodation Zone District, r1 2 Should the PEC choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition: 1. That the applicant execute an easement agreement with the Tnwn of Vail prior to the issuance of building permits. IV. REWIEWING BUQRD RULES The PEC its responsible for eval~uatina a arooosal 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 firom 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 an 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. Desian Review Board: Aaron: The DIPS has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessary structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting 3 W. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 21,614 sq,ft. (4.49E acres) Zoning: Public Accommodation Develaoment Standard Allowed/Required Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Site Coverage: VI. CRITERIA AND FINI]INGS Existing Proposed 20 ft. 0 ft. Infill i ft. 24 ft. ©ft. No Change 24 ft. 4 ft. No Change 14,047 sq.ft. (65%°) 17,909 sq.ft. f;83°t°) No Change A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested ~arianee to ether existing or pvtentia~l' uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal an the above-listed criteria. 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 ~riicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes the applicant has requested the minimum amount of relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulations necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity among sites in the vicinity of the Mountain Haus and within the Public Accommodation Zone ®istrict. Staff believes the additional encroachment into the required setback is warranted and will not result in a special privilege as the Mountain Haus was constructed prior to zoning. The relationship of the existing structure to the current development standards prohibits the applicant from ever constructing improvements to the building without a variance. Staff believes this to be an extraordinary circumstance or exceptional condition. Staff does not believe this proposal will constitute a grant of special privilege. Staff also does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal on the above-listed criteria • 4 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. The proposed new entry feature at the Mountain Haus wilt comply with all Town of Vail Public 1Norks Department standards to minimize any effects to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, snow removal, drainage, etc. within the East Meadow Drive right-of-way. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have negative impacts associated with the above-listed criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fallowing findings 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, ar 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. 5 Lvrzrt 'i ritzlen, AI~..:lrchitECt '.h'illiarn !-. F'i~ri:e, Arr~hiieci l'Feut7taa (Z, Ltr i~~sit; '1r~hit~rt S[;~rpl~iartic~ Lard-k:fm~s~?it, +4rcltiLCa' l?avid C3~~r~„~,rchiL~ct ii~rrty i-Iwsli€~~;g, E:usiness A~t;int~,`er ©CtD~er ~ ~, 2(}©~ Mountain Haus New Front Entry Site Coverage and Set Back Variance Mountain Haus Front Entry Property: 292 E. Meadow Drive FRITZLE~J PIERCE ARCHITECTS WAIL, COLQRADQ Lot 5, Part of Tract l3, Vail Village 1~` Filing Zoning: Public Accommodation District Site Coverage Variance {12-7A-9 and 1$.22.11 U) Nan conforming existing condition Required: Shall not exceed S5% of total site area Existing : 83% Proposed: 83% - Infill a 1' deep strip between the property line and the building Set Back Variance (12-7a-6 and 18.22.t}6@) Nan-conForming existing condition Required: Minimum front, side, and rear setback shall be 20'-4" Existing: Zero (The north elevation ranges from xxx' to xxx' off the property lines Proposed: Zero - lnfill 1" of between property line and existing north elevation. The majority of the proposed Entry Structure is on TC)V property Description of Request: Site Coverage and Ser Back Variance On the behalf of the Mountain Haus Condominium Association, we are requesting a site coverage and set back variance to construct a new front (Worthy entry along East Meadow Drive. The support columns and roof would be on TOV property. There is currently a canvas canopy in this location. The proposed structure would cantilever out approximately 20' from the face of the existing building. Additionally, two columns would be positioned approximately 2"out from the building face to support the new roof. Improvements to existing paving, landscaping beds, and landscaping walls are also proposed. See attached plans. As with the entry structure, the majority of these improvements are proposed on TC,~V land. FRfT2LEN i f;_y(E East Vail ti'~licy ~;rive^. "r;.tllric;yn k,~-1, P I E R C E V',lii, l"a?IZ:rac~l~ iii(~~' t.: ; ri 4q{CY.~Vctl I.; E'i:il l~.t't~tti. CD1Y] ^.•°"^•°F' Vt^Vthv.ViIIF: E'C: ~l lt~?t: w.^:C}1T7 • • FRITZEEN PIERCE ARCI--IITECTS V,'~IL, CCrLQRAQO Special CircumstanceslPhysicaf Hardship Relief From Strict and Literal Interpretation The facility was constructed in ~ 9~9 when the current codes and zoning requirements were not applicable. Due to the existing building and property lines, there is little room for the Mountain Haus to improve their entry way without extending out over the property line. Both the existing site coverage and set back requirements are existing non conforming conditions. Adjacent properties (Vail Athletic Club and the Austria Hans) have both pursued extensive exterior remodels andlor "tear-down/rebuilds" because the existing conditions did not provide opportunity to improve without extensive variances. The Mountain Haus is structurally sound and a "tear down/rebuild" would not be fiscally wise. However, improving function and aesthetic to bring the facility into the next decade is still a goal. Additionally, the Mountain Haus would like to match the quality of buildings that are along East Meadow Drive. The existing mass and height of the Mountain Haus is difficult to minimize without attaching scaled-dawn elements and building up to and extending out over the property line. Therefore, any renovation/improvement that the Mountain Haus proposes will most likely encroach on TOV land. This provides the TOV with an opportunity to encourage development that meets TC?V objectives and requirements. Compatibility with adjacent uses/Harmony Maintained The new entry structure is design to complement the 1Nest Entry structure that was completed with Slifer Plaza Renovation. The architecture ties into the Vail vernacular of heavy timber and stone structures. Additionally, the Mountain Haus, is proposing to improve the landscaping along East Meadow Drive, Snowmelting the sidewalk and paving the sidewalk is also proposed in a TC3V joint venture type of project. Effect of the variance The public safety is improved by providing clearer direction, lighting and snowmelt into the facility. The new entrance is an "open-air" structure and should not have any impact on light and air. Please note, the Mountain Haus would still be interested in pursuing options to address the traffic congestion problem that was identified a year ago. Compliance with Dail ~ Comprehensive Plan Goa! 7.2 -Upgrading buildings - Eneourage the continued upgrading one! enhancement of existing lodging acrd commercial facilities.. The Mountain Haus front Entry improves the aesthetic of the Mountain Haus by adding visual interest, detail, a variety of woad stone and metal materials, and by iFRITZLEht !65O east\~`aii Vallr:y f~rive, F~ztliriclg~ ~~::-'I, PIERCE 'ti!dl~.:.~.ili()f,3t.~i~ cy,i(i5~ E: ir3ic~~~~t~Zila.'~:~i~l,~; a,..r:!;izt FRCTZLEN PIERCE ARC'~-l1TECT5 VAfL, COLOR,A00 adding a more human scale to the Front Entry. The West Entry that was constructed with the TOV Slifer Plaza project has been welt received by both patrons and the publicl. The intent is to add the same quality of construction to East Meadow Drive. Goa! i.3 -Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in corporation with the Town Mountain Haus and the TOV worked very successfully on the West Entry at the Mountain Haus. The Vail Athletic Club is working on improving their property and some TOV property along East Meadow Drive. The Mountain Haus would again like to participate with improvements will there is already on-going construction proposed for the area. Goal 2.5 -Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better service the needs of our guests. The Mountain Haus has been working on their long term goals to improve guest comfort, safety, and aesthetics at the Mountain Haus. The West Entry was very successfully in those terms. The Front Entry and proposed site improvements are intended to provided the same benefits to the public and Mountain Haus patrons along East Meadow Drive • FR,ITZLEN 16U EsAal Vali v~iley~ C7rirc•. i=afiric~~;e ~ I . PIERCE Vesfl. C_uIC`r~ic~u 5: f.`,:' P: "71].4 "!,, Es-S'.i E:inlu dwailarchite^CL.•.';~oa~ -._...,•_,• v~tir,,v.v2ilarr_fz,tFrts.+:urn s ~cin+s73~0aa w ~ ;W l ~r. w ! ,F 3dAaa M()fJV3W 15Y7. COt ~ ~ ~ d' ~ ~s sn~~ NidlNnaw ~ ~' ~ ~~€ o ~~ s ~. • ~~° ~~ ~ ~ ; ~ rg e ' ~ ~_~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ak ~~ ~~ ~~g ° ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ a q t ;;; ~, a E~ ~~~~ ~. ~ ~p ~ ~t4 E 2~~ ~ r ~ ~ B e~~~ ~~ ~~ ;as4 ~~ P d~ ~ ~~Y ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 3 a t e J ; fi ~ ~~ ~ ¢ r 4 ~ r 3 e ~x 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ R ~~ ~ ~~~ , ~ "~rfi` Il~fl ~~~ II`il~ r C K K K'K K~C;G:S ~ ~I if I~ I I I~ I I~ I I I ~~ ~~i~'#'~3~'di t I I [ 111 eaaaa'aataaai E~ ~~~~r~aaisse~ll '' I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I 8 BI ~8 8 ~t ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ;fl;8~i ! I I i K K~ A I['A It A !( A~A 'Ai~'A ~~ I~'~~ ~~ r i r ~l, ~ t,l ~ ~~ ~~~ I N ,~ I ~ I ~, 1 11. I I I -1 ~I ~ ~~ ~ ; coo; ~ ~' a ~ i a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ear ~ I - 3 ~~ R~ ~ , ~ ~s ss ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ , ~ ~ 'ln cr~n. ui~ae e59LW OQvtlVSCtiI 'IIYM1 8 3M1MU MWV31Y 1541 [b[ r 5 ~3 I S~'d~ ~~~,~~~~•~ ~! -~; W }3 ~ ~~ ~'~ <a G? ~~ ~. r ~ _ 4 ALL' .~~ ~ JCL ~ et= ~~~ #'s ~ V ~~~ ~ = f _3 • ~~ ~~ ~, , i u~ ~ }~life'~~ 1 ~ ~~1~#~~a~fi I II:IWI;~ ~~ 'I ~~fijii#~ I ~ ~ ~ac~caDDC~a $m ~ ~ A ~, ~ ~ _ ~ ~ -§ I~:f _ g m 0 w ~ 6 4; 1~ Y '1~ ~~~ ~_ 1yQ °~~ Z~ 1a.y ~ W ~~' iIXitt 6~ 0 ~~ T _ >[ ~~ v ~F ~~ $~~ ~` '- ; 's Fc~a•~~~oxa hl ~ s ~ J W "' e cc~iu oara~w~'~rvn ~ I_ ;. ~ : ~ z ~~yy3~y iSl'3;.bF I ~ ~ ~. 4 aa~ ~ sndH N~dlr~no~ [I ~ ~~ .a ~~ i - ~ ~~ ~ s -~ ~ ~~ D ~l A 5~ ~' Y ~ o Y• a id _ ~d2 e~ q Q.. ; a p ~ ~i. i~, ~9 E~ 6(~ a a 817ta ~~~~ ~~ ~ _ f yy~~ 8 y is C Y .--"" ~y ~ ~ ' .. i D C h+ G fq t, Q S ~ ~/ + ~ ~+ ~ W ~' 0 ~r ~ + ~ ~ a ~ ~,.t I I, ~ o am c F~ f d ~ ~"; e ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ '~, 6 D ~ + ++! ~ + _ ~~y c ® ~I i J ~ r6 S ~ S V S 4 p ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~` e~g ~ yy~ k e ~~~~ ~j~ €~ ~~ ~~ of a~ u# a'~ o® ~!_ ~gvo6 ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~. ~.Zf q[ cY o~i ~~~ [£~Ur ll310bd 3Mp~J M(%lYiw .3N [fii Sf~'dH N1b'1N~1C7W D `Y O p a e B o p;_ e9 a C ~e ~~ r ~ / l ` f 2 ~~~~ i ~~ W z a ~y ~~ ~~ o ,~ r +- Q~ ~~ 6 a au ~a e~ r n 0 0 o°~ a 0 0 q9 "a° ,, & a ; I a ~~ r; ~. r ~~ r }" ~~~ •S 3 ~N7r1I, Si f/ ~~,[ a IL.I _~ 0 ~ W e.~ ~ v ' ~3 Z a ~~ ~ _ ~~ ~ d~~ JQ W f-w ~- _ /_~ x s ~ OJ Q ~ 3 ~ v'G a Cl ~ ~ 4 -;F i 9 •~ uJ x _ Gi'IGM 1Jlf(Ftld Jj~ 15YIY UC1YtlU Ip;J '1 rvh ~~ u •~ ~~ iAIW MCKIMIW 1543 F6i ~ ~ I~ d J Q g SnbH NI'diNf~C~W ~~ ~ ~~, w~ Q < _;~ o>r, b Y y ~~ ~ #~ YR ~~5~ ~pS ~y~ ~~ ~~ n oI ~E o y~~ ~~t~ Op a~6 ~~ ~~q ~~~° ~ ~gj~ pia ~~ 6~`~ "o s74 a~3 SEE .Z' _H ~ X z ~~ XJ ~~ • • lC10~ L731f1Ld Y';'+19 OOYiN]H'J3 'iIYA 3AitlO MfJtlY3W 15Y37f.L ~ ®®¢~ Sf~b'H N9b1N(~UW ~S t8 ~!9 ~~~g~ ~~~ ~~ ~~s~ ~~ ~~ ~tzt~ ~ ~t Y ~ ~ ~ ~ giti'~ ~e~ ~'~$ x'f~s x3 a~ ~~ t 3~ ~ ~~ g ~ ~i t: f~ i ti t a! e ~ ~; o ~- .~, ~O C C e v 0 ~ 0 4 ~ 6 ~ qOq ~ O ~~ ~ (5 4 ~ ~'Q ~ ,~_ ~.., O (~ d 6 ® 8 __.~_ _ ._ >---~ I I ~ .k ~! ~ ~ i i ; _,. i o i i ' O i ~ 0 ~ `• .r„E $ ~ O 3 - -- ~_ ._._...i .__ (- 'm e c e ~ Q 8 0 C °"y ~w ~ ^b~ ~ W ~~~ d J N ~ w CG - z ~ce u L ~ F _ 1.1_ ~ ` ~ x ~ '~ '~ _~ _ - ~4. ~ ~~ ~ p __ _ __._......._ _ o a -- --- i i I .~ I I ........F, ..L ................._... I fI i i ~~I~ J ~' _ ~ ~ 1 ~x`~` G/.O -4~ ~.! aw~xffi~F.t II II ~~ Ee: f 4 P ~~Sg~ a¢ ~;~ii ~~~~ ~F !t{ji ~~ ~t'i1t k~ kB' z~~~ ~ 6 ~~ c n d a ~~~~ Y~r ~~~ q`$~ ~~ 6 aP ~~~~ ~~• ~~ ~ ay ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ g~c ~~~ ~ ~~~ CC1dI L~3hied :4'110 CY7rtiVlCJ'IIVh 3h13K]M(]dv3W ISV3 L6L sn~l~ r•~I~.~Nnow ~~ ~ ~~~~~ iE a~: ~ Ec - a ~ i ~~t ~ ~~~ ~ a~ ~ ~ F ci~ C: ;J~ ; ti t~ ai i Zur ~ ~ ~~Y z ~ !~ J € w ~ O l3-~ _ ~ sgsg ~ ' ~c ~ :1 5=f ~ s~ z < =;;, w ~ i • • ~ p ~~I 1 I I~~ I~~,~ ~-n E~~r-- ~~ ~4~~~ ~ ~ ~ y~~Y~~ ~~t' y ~ ~ ~ y j w ~ ~° ~ ~ ~~ ~<« 1 14 ,. ~., I I ~: ~ y I I ~ 1 ~ .` J `~I~ I 3 1 r ~~~ e . ' i+ i ~ ~ a w ' A ' ` Y -- I I - I -.. 3 .. ~ .~ .a -~ uw. oca v .F«.. V r d Ilr Y ~~ ~-. ~ ~~ ~a !!! 22 ~t ~~LLLS+ :~~ .E~ ~jfk ~' ~ e~ 5~~k ~~~ ~~ e'~~ ~6 ~ ~~~. S~taY~~~~ ~$~~ ~~Y g~Y ~~~~ ~~ $ §~~ afi ~o. ~~aa~~ [s9 tY txm'o~o~'irvn 3AItl4 M.~xNT~:S'9 ifii sna~H ~~d1Nnc~w ~~ ~ g : s ~~~~ ~~~ ~ es~ E rp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~~ ; i~ ~ i~ i~ ~~ _§ '~ ~1 x W V A W § .f • i~ ~~0. ~~ ~ °~~ ACC r a ~° .aZ I- LL1 r ~ 'f _ y !L ~ ~' ~°~ °~ ~ s ;3 ]Q' _. ,. ~• ii ~ i i ~'v fib. ~ ~/G,YE. ~ ~ ,1 r ~ ' t .,..~ `~ $~ 'a DC • `"' ` ~ i ~ 8 ~ I~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ¢g ~b ~~~~ ~~ '~6 ~Y~ ~F g~ _ ~~~t~ e$r~ e~ a~~ ~ °9 ~a ~ a~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ a ~~ it ~ci Lakma ~syw as~aa»vJ'inn v`rau mz~rnnv isa esz sndti r~ialr~now r ~ ~ ~ Z °r Q G ~ ~ QY~ a ~P. s e 1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~k~ ~ ~~ ~ i H x .. -~ ~u K '~_ w;} a ;~~ d~ O ~- ~ 3=: x~ ~ C x ° c uJ < ~~y a ~, ~~ a~ ~~ • ~~ . ~~ °~ pE ~ j p t ~~ ep a~ ~ 4~ ~f o~°~ i~$ ~~6 p~~y ~p 8 ee iF~~ d~a aa~ t=rp ~~ p~ ~p~ ~;~ ~~~ pgp '~~~~~ 6 ~~ HFx ~3p ;@~ 9~~ g4~ a ~~ wt~ °!~ ~ ~ { ~: L[e1i11731CJd LS449 ..., ~......,. 'Irvh uu9,7 mgpr3vr15'.7 i9i snda~ r~~~lNnaw ~ r 2 r ~ # ar~ a ~f s 6 p p e ~ P ~i ~ ~ Y ¢~~ ~ ~k ~ ~s g ~ ~ ~dq ag 5Y~} ~ ~{~~[ ~ ~~ [1~ C: Cl~ ; CS t~ 5~ [ ~~ I' ~ f i °id ~~ I- W t ~".~ - d ~=~ LL.~ ~~ ~W 4 i f ~I ~ ~~ a ~ I { a 4 ~-- ~ [ ~~_.~,_ l11 ~ i 1 ~ I 4 4 ~ ' ~_ . J ~_ ~~ ~ ~ ~• A ~~ ~~ ~~ :e ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ _~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ' e ~( f~~ ~ k~ psaa ~~e .._ , ~ - __ - - _1'- 4 J - ~ ~a~ .~- i .. .. _.. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ..,~---~----- W Z a . ~ _-_ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ . q ~ ~; ~ __ _ ~ - ,~ ;~ .. 3 ~ , ~ _.__. 4 4 i _ - _ ~ 4 e i 4 i 4 i 4 i ~~ \ ,, ~:I _..~~.,p_ I~__L._ ~~ _ ..s ..w..__ 6._~. __ ~ _ . _ -- i t -z_~ ---------~ - ~ ~~ y ~ ~~ __ _ ~ ~, ~_ ~_._ _~~ . • • of ~nr ll3rorw iaa~a cx,vbmn?',nn 3M1Itlti MOCTJ3W liv3 252 a ~ sn~dH ~id.~Nnow Lu -s~ N~ ~ a~ fl0 LLl ~ ~ ~ ~_~ U ~ ~ z~ ,~` ~~ ,~ ~~ a 9~5 _~ Lam'=_ -r°S r , ,r - i s • i i i r L I-- _11„.S r~--- .fir i p '~ i' d~ ~f z V z 4 v ,u r~ u Memorandum TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FRAM: Community Development Department DATE: November 12, 2Q{)1 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-5 (Lot Area and Site Dimensions), a minor subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, to allow for the relocation the Gammon property line and a rezoning of Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No.2, from Two-family Primary/Secondary zone district to Single-family zone district and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 1784 & 1794 South Frontage Road West/Lots 2 & 3 Vaii Village West, Filing No. 2. Applicant: Phil Hagerman Planner George Ruther I. DESCRIPTIDM OF THE REQUESTS i The applicant, Phil Hagerman, has submitted three development review applications to '! the Town of Vail Community Development Department. AVI three applications are associated with Lots 2 & 3, Vail Village West, Filing No 2, which are located at 1784 & 1794 South Frontage Road. The purpose of the applications is to facilitate the future residential development of Lots 2 & 3. The three applications are: 1. Minor Subdivision The applicant is requesting an approval of a minor subdivision appCication for Lots 2 & 3, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. Pursuant to Section 13-2-2 of the Vail Town Code, a Minor Subdivision is defined as uany subdivision containing not mare than four (4) lots fronting an an existing street, not involving any new street ar read ar fhe extension of municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel ar adjoining property. " The applicant is proposing to vacant the existing common property line between Lots 2 & 3 and move it approximately 67' to the east. The net effect of vacating, and then replotting the common lot line, would be an increase in buildable area of Lot 2 and a reduction in buildable area of Lot 3. Please refer to the attachments for details. 2. Lvt Area and Site Dimension Variance The applicant is requesting an approval of a variance from the minimum lot area and site dimension requirements for Lot 2. Pursuant to Section 12-6D-5 of the Vail Town Code, "the minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have minimum fr©rrtage of thirty feet (3L?~. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80') on each side, within its boundaries." Lot 2 is currently non-conforming with regard to the minimum lot area and site dimension requirements. Specifically, the buildable area of Lot 2 is only 3,650 square feet when 15,000 square feet is required. The lot conforms to the size/shape and frontage requirements. According to Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code, buildable area is defined as, "any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof which does nut contain designated flood plain, red hazard avalanche area, or areas in excess of forty percent (~0ra) slopes. " The applicant is requesting a variance, in association with the minor subdivision request, to resubdivide Lots 2 & 3 to create a reconfigured Lot 2 with an increased amount of buildable area. However, the resulting lot would not have15,000 square feet of buildable area, and therefore, a variance approval is required. If approved as proposed, Lot 2 would have approximately x,000 square feet of additional buildable area bringing the total buiidable area of Lot 2 to approximately 7,fi50 square feet. Lot 3 would continue to be in conformance with the minimum lot area and site dimension requirements (12,500 square feet buildable area), provided the rezoning request is approved. 3. Rezoning The applicant is proposing to rezone Lot 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. According to the Official Town of Vai! Zoning Map, Lot 3 is zoned Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential. The applicant is requesting an approval to rezone Lot 3 from Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential zone district to Single-Family Residential zone district. The intent of the rezoning is to facilitate the residential development of Lot 2, Vail Village West Filing No. 2, and to maintain compliance with the applicable development standards for Lot 3. The main reason behind the rezoning proposal is that the buildable area requirement far lots zoned Single-Family Residential is 12,500 square rather than the 15,{}00 square feet required for the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential zone district. II. STAFF RECOh~MENDATIQN MINOR SUBDIVISON The Community t7evelopment Department recommends approval of the proposed minor subdivision request based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and subject to the following findings: 1. That the application complies with the intent and. purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning & Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate with regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. VARIANCE The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed variance from Section 12-6D-5, Vail Town Code, and is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special ,privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. 2. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. 3. 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 Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. 4. 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. 5. 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. REZONING The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the request to rezone of Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, from Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to Single-Family Residential zone district. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Town of Vail's development objectives. 2. That the proposed rezoning is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the area. 3. That the proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to grant the minor subdivision, variance and rezoning request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. That the applicant submits a final plat of the resubdivision of Lots 2 & ~, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department far review and approval prior to recording the plat with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder. The final plat shall be recorded within one (1) year of the date of Planning & Environmental Commission approval. III. 13ACKGRQUND The final plat of the Vail Village West Subdivision, Filing No. 2 was approved by the Eagle County Planning Commission on April 22, 1985. In September of 1978, the Town of Vail annexed the Vail Village West Subdivision. Upon annexation of the area, Lot 3 was zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space, and Lot 2 was zoned PrimarylSecondary Two-Family Residential In May of 1984, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission recommended approval of a request to rezone Lot 3 from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space to Primary/Secondary Residential. The rezoning was approved on two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council on July 3, 1984 (Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1984). Lot 3 has been developed with asingle-family dwelling unit. The single-family dwelling unit has not used up all the development potential. Approximately 5,418 sq. ft. of GRFA is permitted on Lot 3 presently. Since its original creation as a lot, Lot 2 has been intended to be used as a residential lot. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS LOT 2 .LOT 3 ~xistina Pr os Existinq Pronasecf Zoning: PIS PIS Ply 5FR Total Lat Area: 17,.167 sq. tt. 23,532 sq. it. 23,183 sq. ft. 16,816 sq. ft. Street Frontage: 335 ft. 402 ft. 344 it. 277 ft. Minimum Lot Size (15,1100 sq. ft. of Buildable Area): 3,650 sq. ft. 7,819 sq. ft. 17,795 sq. ft. 13,626 sq. ft. Does the lot meet the size/shape requirement ofi 80' x 8Q'? na yes yes yes Allowable GFtFA: 4,$i 7 sq. it. 5,453 sq. ft. 5,418 sq. ft. 3,9$2 sq. ft. V. MIMOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this proposal is not truly creating two new lots, instead, it is reconfiguring two existing lots. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the Minor Subdivision Criteria, pursuant to Titlel3, of the Vail Town Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Cornmission for a Minor Subdivision Application areas follows: A. Lot Area -The Vail Town Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, shall be 15,000 sq. ft. X0.344 acre) of buildable area. The Code defines buildable area as arty site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red harard avalanche, or areas in excess of 4lJ%. The existing Lat 2 does not currently meet the minimum lot area requirement set forth above. Currently,. the buildable area of Lot 2, as indicated in the Zoning Analysis above, is approximately 3,650 sq. ft. The proposed property line modification would increase the buildable area of Lot 2 to approximately 7,819 sq. ft. The existing Lot 3, howeuer, does currently meet the minimum lot area requirements for a lot zoned Two-Family PrimaryfSecondary Residential. The buildable area of Lot 3 is currently 17,7'95 sq. ft. With the proposed property line modification, the buildable area of Lot 3 would be reduced to 13,626 sq. ft. B. Frontage -The Vail Town Code requires that lots in the Two-Family PrirnarylSecondary Residential Zone District have a minimum frontage of 35'. Both Lots 2 & 3 currently have a street frontage in excess of 35' and the proposed minas subdivision will not have a negative effect on the fr©ntage of either lot. C, Site Dimensions -The Vail Town Code requires that each lot be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 8Q feet on each side, within its boundaries. Lot 2 currently does not meet the size anal shape requirement for lots in the PrimarylSecondary Residential Zone District. The proposed minor subdivision would create a lot of the size and shape necessary to enclose a square area, 80' on each side, within its new boundaries. Additionally, Lot 3 currently meets the size and shape requirement and would continue to meet the requirement with the proposed minor subdivision. The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the subdivision regulations, and are as follows: `The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to shave that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Title, the Zoning Qrdinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Que consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted. The PEC shah review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulafr"ons, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects an the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." The subdivision purpose statements are as follows; 1. Ta inform each subdivider of the standard's and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Resoonse: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules by which the staff, the PEC, applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of two new lots, it is the appropriate process to amend the existing configuration of two existing lots. 2. To provide far the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. Stiff Resoonse: Staff does not believe that the proposed minor subdivision would have any negative impacts or create any conflicts, presently ar in the future, with development on adjacent properties. These lots were originally platted and approved for development. The proposed minor subdivision will result in a more convenient and workable situation with regard to development potential. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the proposed minor subdivision would have any negative effects upon the value of land throughout the municipality or upon the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Tawn Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response: Staff has worked with the applicant in developing a proposal that we believe insures the general intent and specific compliance with the Town's Zoning Ordinances are met. The minor subdivision, if approved, requires a variance approval as welt as to maintain compliance with minimum buildable area requirements. While a variance is necessary to achieve the objectives of the applicant, staff believes that the resulting subdivision is consistent with the municipal objectives with regard to land development as Lot 2 is already non- conforming and Lot 3 will continue to conform with all applicable regulations. If approved, Lot 2 comes into greater compliance with the zoning regulations and will have no negative impacts upon the workable relationship of land uses. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: Staff does not believe the proposed minor subdivision wiBl have any negative impacts on the above described criteria. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: If approved, the applicant will be required to have a final plat prepared in accordance with the Town's adopted subdivision regulations and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land, Staff Response; The applicant will be required to comply with land development prescribed by the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Staff believes that the proposal meets the above-described criteria. VI. VARIANCE CRITERIA A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Variance: The relationship of the requested variance to other existiing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant is requesting a variance Pram the minimum buildable area requirement far Lat 2, Vail Vil6age West, Filing No.2, to facilitate the residential development of the site. The lot was platted in Eagle County and subsequently annexed into the Town of Vail municipal limits. Upon annexation the property was zoned Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential and immediately rendered legally, non-conforming. This zoning designation rendered the property non-conforming with regard to minimum buildable area. The applicant's proposal is to increase the amount of buildable area for Lot 2. While the applicant's proposal does not bring the property into full compliance with the minimum requirements, it does decrease the degree of non-conformity. Staff believes that this reduction 'rn non-conformity meets the intent of the zoning regulation far buildable area and the intent of the non-conforming provisions of the Vail Town Code. Staff believes that there would be na negative or adverse impacts resulting from the requested variance upon existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of Lot ~, Vail Village West, Filing Na.2. Staff does not believe that it is the intent of the zoning regulations to render this lot unbuildable as a result of the original platting and subsequent annexation into the Town of Vaii. 2, The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the applicant has requested minimum amoun# of relief possible from the specified regulation. to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity of Lot 2 and to attain the objectives of the Zoning f~egulatfons and Subdivision Regulations without resulting in a grant of special privilege. While it is true that the applicant could propose even more buildable area for Lot 2 by simply increasing the lot size,. such a proposal would only cause the need for additional variances that would be associated with Lot 3. The degree to which the common lot line was moved to the east was limited by the existing location of the residential structure on Lot 3. To move the common lot line further east would have resulted in the need for a side setback variance for Lot 3. Staff believes it is best to reduce the amount of non- conformity on Lot 2 to the degree possible without creating additional non-conformities on adjacent properties. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that the requested variance will have any negative impacts on the above referenced criteria. Though staff would point out that the applicant is required to obtain approval for a South 1=rontage f~oad access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any future development of the site. B. The f'lannincr and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before araniino a variance: That the granting of the variance wilt 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 ar 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 carne district. VII. REZONING ZONING OVERVIEW According to the C?fficial Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing hfo. 2, is zoned Two-Family Primaryl5econdary Residential. The applicant is proposing to rezone this property to Single-Family Residential. The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations are intended 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. „ The purpose of the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential zone district is, "intended to provide sites for single-family residentia! uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be lncated in the same district. The Two- Family Primary/Secondary 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 approprr`ate site development standards." In contrast, the purpose of the Single-Family Residential zone district is, 9 intended to provide sites for low density single-family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The Single-Family Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. " REZONING CRITERIA ~) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use vn the site and adjacent land uses? Staff believes the existing zoning designation is suitable with the existing and adjacent land uses, but given the inability to reasonably develop Lot 2 due to the significant site constraints of the lot, the zoning is inappropriate for the subject properly given the Town`s identified development objectives. Staff does not believe that. it is the intent of the lawn's Zoning Regulations to render a legally platted lot undevelopable. Staff believes that the applicant has identified a reasonable and appropriate means of addressing the significant site constraints associated with Lot 2 by rezoning Lat 3 to Single-Family Residential, and thereby, creating two, mare-conforming properties. 2) Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal abjectives? The proposed rezoning would bring the two lots into greater conformance with the Town's stated goals for residential development. By rezoning L©t 3 tc~ Single- Family Residential the applicant has effectively created two more conforming lots with regard to buildable area. If approved, Lot 3 will continue to conform to the prescribed development standards for the Single-Family Residential zone district. The proposed zoning designation would bring one currently non-confirming lot into greater conformity with the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and eliminate the need for variances from adapted regulations. 3) ©ves the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? . In accordance with the previsions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Veil's Comprehensive Plan elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. Staff believes any development under existing zoning would circumvent the Town's desire for the growth of an orderly, viable community. 4) is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies and all other elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Specific Land Use Plan goals that are relevant to this proposal include: la i.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows.. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, is designated as "Medium Density Residential". The purpose of the medium density residential designation is to provide sites for residential development with densities in this category that would range from 3 -14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Given the significant physical constraints of Lots 2 & 3, staff believes that Single-Family Residential zone district would be an appropriate land use for the site. Single-Family Residential would permit up to two dwelling units on the site. One of the dwelling units would be a free-market unit and the second would be adeed-restricted employee housing unit. Currently, one free-market dwelling unit exists on Lot 3. L~ ~ i'' - ~ r li O ~ ~ 7 a O !,I O J>" A ~ U ~ ~ Q Z i '~ ,; ~ - - afld~~ ~~k,F. fr 1 s ~= a Q J~ 0 . .~ -_- ~ `~yl y I Y7 ~§ / ~ ~ 1~4 a s i~ ~~ ~ / ,~~' ~ f ~'~ ~ ` ~ it V 1 n~o :: ~ y ~ o `~ i ~ ^' 1 '; ~ ~ ! 1 r~ s'~ ~, ~ i I , rW It ~ ~ \ c~ „_ . r. _, ,. a~ ~~.\ \*` .et. \ : [[~~` \ ~~ l ~` a~ iii ~ ~~ ~ ~ i , l \ ~ . ti xw~ \ N~ I r~ ~ .~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L o{ ~ J ~ ~\ `~ r ~ ~ \ ~. ~, ~ 3 `t I ~~~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ 0 43 n •,`"~~`'•,,~ ~~~,. \` a 1' ~ ~ ~~9; .~ ~ \ y ~ ~ ~ ~ A\~ '-\\ N U6 o ~~ y~ ~~ ~~ \ ~- c lc '`~ R , p G, ~t, ifs ,: ~ N~ Z J ~, _ '~V rte-. ~, •p a 11. ~ ~ ~ ~'~~~ 4 ', ~ , ~)4 1y ~ of ~4 ~ : u 5 i f r=? ~ ~ '~o = g `~1 o ~~ 11 o ~ ~ ,~ ` o y ~ ' ; 1 1 L ~ ~ F'I z ~ ~ ;~~• ~ ~ ~~±.. A ~~ .} ,~ ~ ,3 ~ ~ ~, try ~ `. ~.n.>, ~, l~ r ^"~ ~ s,'i y ~~ `~t,~ J -y T` .'~~r".)~ ~ \ `,,~ \` 111 ~~~ ` ~~~.~ ~ J ~l1! ~ ~~ <.~ w~ '~ ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~ w ~~ r~ ~ ~ ~- ~.. s ~ ~4 , ese77e2eei es: a~ s~e~5ei~sz ~~RM~ ~aGE es dctaber fi, 2001 Dep~.~.ent of Community Dev+~lopment Vail, Colorado We are requesting rezoning of our property at 1784 S. Frontage Road (Vail Village West Iat 3) from. primarylsecondary to single family. This rezoning request is also Iinlced to the minor subdivision request to move the property Line between tot 2 and Iot 3 approximately 67 feet to the east. The new lot Iuxe would be on the west side set back line of the home on. lut 3, 15 ft. frann the west corner a~the home.. This written statement encompasses both requests.. Lets 2 and 3 of Vail Village West are both plaited as buildable lots on Frarttage Rd. in West Vail. However, because ofthe shape of the land and the set backs and flood plains it is currently not possible to build a h©rne on Lot 2 that would even meet. the minimum standards of the Vail comznuniry. By changing the zcming of lot 3 to single family the required buildable space for the lot would be reduced il~,xa. 15,000 sq. ft. To 12,500 sq. ft. Moving the lot line 67 feet to the east will keep lot 3 in full compliance with all zoning requirements and setbacks. Lot 3 wzll still be larger than many lots m the area, ~r~aximately 1?,30(1 sq. ft. it will have a buildable area of apprv,~.iu~ately 13,200 sq, ft., well above the minimum of 12,500 sq, ft. required for single family zoning. Moving the lot line will also g~atly impr+a~+e compliance of lot Z by increasing ~e buildable area by over 4,000 sq. ft. The rezoning and lot line move will allow a building site on lot 2 that can then meet all set back and flood plain limitations as weU as the Spx 80 minimum square area The lot will be large ~+ith appr4xunately 23,050 sq.ft. and have a buildable area of approximately 7,240 sq.ft. This is the largest ~nvunt of buildable space possa`b1e on lot 2 while still keeping lot 3 in full @9/2712~0i X3:45 Si07502732 HAGERMAt~ compliance. phis change wi11 take these 21ats tv he highest level. of compliance possible in this l~ocatian. The single family zoning is a mare ~Cestrictive zoning far lot 3 but we are requesting it because it is the best choice for this property. The existing lsorns on lot 3 wHS built aver 35 years ago in 1965 and its tot location and layout is not conducive to any attached additional dwelling. An attempt to build mare uztits on this lot under the primary secondary zoning could result in art overbuilt project that could be detrimental to Ilse area, especially with the high visibility :h'om I-70, Frontage road and the new Donovan Pack Moving the lot line mill create an exceprional building site on lot 2 and will allow for a horns to be built that xs more fitting with the location anal existing homes in the area. It will also improve compliance with Van's building stgndnrds while stall ma;intnining the intent of the original zoning. It will also have a positave envir,r.u~.ental effect by allowing for more strategic placement of the home is save existing trees and will not require any requests to build within the river set backs ar flood plans. Please consider our request to help mare the building cif our home in Va17 a reality. yuu, //~} J 'lip .Hagerman Jocelyn K. Hag,~a.~~an PACE 64 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 12, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards, to allow for the replacement of an existing retaiining wall with a new wall that exceeds six feet in height, located at 1467 Greenhill CourtlLot 10, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Ellenore Joint VenturelRichard ,~ Diane Cohen Planner: George RutherlAllison. Ochs f~J I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant's, Richard & Diane Cohen and Eric Joss, are requesting a variance from Title 14, Town of Vail Development Standards, to allow far the replacement of a failing retaining wall with a new engineered retaining wall that exceeds the six-foot height limitation, located at 1467 Greenhill CourG'Lot 10, Gien Lyon Subdivision. The existing timber crib wall was constructed at the time of the original home construction. The existing wall is a two-tiered wall with a maximum height of twenty-one (21') feet. Since its original construction, the exterior timbers and internal deadman timbers have rotted causing the force of the retained earth to create several bugles in the wall. The wall must be replaced to protect the residence from potential damage. The applicants are proposing to reconstruct a single wall with a maximum height of twenty (20') feet. The wall will be relocated to the south a distance of twenty (20') feet from the back of the building. The twenty X20') foot distance is needed to accommodate ground nailing and drilling equipment. The exterior surface of the new wall will be earth- tone colored shat-Crete. !I. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • ~. 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 withau# 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. B. The DRB has NU review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application.The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: ~. 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. RemovalJPreservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site fi. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building fiorms 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 ~ 1. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting STAFF RECQMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends appr©~al of the requested retaining wall height variance to allow far the construction of the new retaining wall. The recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. This recommendation is subject to the following findings: ~ . That the granting of the retaining wall height variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. 2. That. the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the wall height regulations results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Municipal Code or the Primary/Secondary Zone District. 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the requested variance, staff recommends that the following conditions be made part of the approval: C7 • • 2 1, That the applicant installs asix-foot tall chain link. construction fence with an attached erosion control mesh along the western limit of disturbance line to limit site disturbance and prevent encroachment upon Town of Vail property. The applicant shall also install afour-foot tall plastic construction fence around the remainder of the construction area, The construction fences shall be erected prior to the issuance of a building permit for the retaining wall work and shall remain in place throughout the duration of the construction project. 2. That the applicant removes the temporary site access road and restores the site to its original grades and revegetates all areas of disturbance with native grasses, prior to a final landscape inspection. 3. That the applicant returns to the Town of Vail Design Review Board with a proposed final landscape plan far the site. The plan shall include provisions for surface drainage, the mitigation of twenty (20) aspen trees (180 caliper inches) and the screening of the ends of the wall with coniferous trees. The applicant shall return to the DRB for final approval prior to January 1, 2002. 1V. BACKGROUND Title 14 of the Vail Town Code regulates the heights of retaining walls. Pursuant to the regulations, no walls shall exceed six (fi') feet. in height. Title 1 ~ does allow for the continuation of non-conforming sites and site improvements and would allow for maintenance of non- conforming site improvements. This would allow for the replacement of any retaining wall exceeding 6 feet in height, provided the wall was reconstructed in the same location as the original, non-conforming wall. However, a variance is required when the nonconformity is increased. Title 14 states: "To encourage redevelopment, there shall ,be some flexibility granted io nonconforming sites and structures. ,However, whenever possible, compliance with the Development Standards shall be achieved." On November 7, 2Ofl1, the applicant appeared before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for a final review of the proposed wall design. Upon taking testimony from the applicant and discussing alternative design solutions, the Board voted 4-fl to approve the applicants' request with conditions. The four conditions are as follows; That the approval of the applicant's Design Review Board is conditioned upon an approval of a pending application for a retaining wall height variance currently scheduled for final consideration of the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on Monday, November 12, 2flQ1. Should the variance request be denied by the PEC, the DRB approval of November 7, 20fl1, shall become null and void. 2. That the applicant installs asix-foot tall chain link construction fence with an attached erosion control mesh along the western limit of disturbance line to limit site disturbance and prevent encroachment upon Town of Vail property. The applicant shall also install afour-foot tall plastic construction fence around the remainder of the construction area. The construction fences shall be erected prior to the issuance of 3 a building permit for the retaining wall work and shall remain in place throughout the duration of the construction project. 3. That the applicant removes the temporary site access road and restores the site to its original grades and revegetates all areas of disturbance with native grasses, prior to a final landscape inspection. 4. That the applicant returns to the Town of Vail Design Review Board with a proposed final landscape plan for the site. The plan shall include provisions for surface drainage, the mitigation of twenty (20) aspen trees (180 caliper inches) and the screening of the ends of the wall with coniferous trees. The applicant shall return to the DRB for final approval prior to January 1, 2002. W. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Retaining Wall Heioht Variance: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff does not believe that the requested wall height variance will have any negative impacts on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The new wall will be of the same height as the existing wall, only it will be thirteen (13'} feet further south. Staff believes that the applicant is essentially repairing and maintaining an existing non-conforming wall. Technically, pursuant to the non-conforming structures section of the Zoning Regulations, the applicant could have repaired and replaced the wall without variances, however, in order to ensure the longevity of the wall, a new design including ground nailing is proposed. The need to get equipment behind the residence causes the need to relocate the wall to the south. The applicant has moved the wall the minimum distance necessary to gain access for the construction equipment. 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 applicant has proposed the minimum deviation necessary to receive relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the retaining wall height regulation. Following discussions with the applicants' representatives, staff would recommend that the applicant regrade the area at the base of the wall to reduce the apparent height of the wall The contractor will be removing a substantial amount of fill dirt and staff believes chat the fill dirt could be used at the base of the wall to bring the grade up. While the wall would be constructed with a maximum height ofi twenty (20'} feet, the first four or five feet of wall could be buried below grade. The area could then be replanted with the trees required as part of the Design Review Board's condition requiring. tree mitigation. lfi the fill 4 dirt and regrading were done, maximum height of the wall above finish grade would be reduced to fifteen or sixteen feet. Staff believes that this option. is superior to constructing a second wall, as a second wall, while creating a tier for 6andscaping, still results in twenty feet of wall face. 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 wil! be minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the follaw'rna findings before granting a variance: ~ . That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or mare of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances ar 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. • 5 ,~- , LAW OFFICES DUNK & ABPI~ANA'LP, P.C. a PdiOK'GSSIOHaL CWIOORAT~Or. J7HN 5h'. QLINN ARTHUR A. AB ^LANALP, JR. INCA h1AAGENSON GAUSEY OK GOU NSE.~ JERRY W. HANNAH WESTSTAp DANK BUILDING IOB SOUTH SRO N7AGC ROAD WEST `.-s' UITE 300 VAIL~ f.OLOp ADO elsr~-soe~ 17 October 20D1 TELEPHONE: fB70) 476-d3Ad FACSIMILE' (970) 476-4765 hi~hcournryleW.com email: vaillawC~vail.net [ENTIFIE~ LE GAi t55t5TANT KAREN M. D~k1NN CLAS Mr. George Bother Town of Vail Department of Community Development 111 South Frontage Road West Vail CO $165 7 Re: Retaining Wall Repair, 1467 Greenhill Court, Vail, Colorado Dear George: Our Firm represents Ellenore Joint Venture, one of the owners of the duplex located at the above property in Vail, who has been given authority to act on behalf of the other otirners, Richard W. Cohen and Dianne H. Cohen. Our clients have asked that we request of the Town of Vail permission to repair the retaining wall which Ties above and to the south of this property through its replacement by a concrete retaining wall, secured by soil nails, to be located approximately 15-20 feet south of the existing residence. This letter is being pro~~ided in the hope of obtaining the approval of the Depal L~~.ent of Carnmunit~F Development for repair of the wall through its reconstruction with more suitable design and construction mate£ial. As you are aware, the retaining wall in question was constructed of timbers intended to protect the two residences on the property against movement of the mountain toward the duplex building. The to>all is failing, and the verbal reports vti?hich our clients have received from the engineers with ~n~hom they are working indicates that the property is threatened by the current situation, If the situation is not corrected before winter, the likelihood of total. failure of the wall and destruction of the residence increases significantly. Because of this situation, an emergency exists which requires immediate attention and correction. Our clients recognize that the repairs to the wall in question will result in a retaining wall higher than that normally permitted under the Municipal Cade. However, the existing v~fall is already higher than normally permitted, and, as such, it is anon-conforming use. • • The repair of the wall. caused by movement of Vail Mountain toward the residences on the above property appears to be permitted under the Municipal Code. Section 12-18-9 provides as follows: RESTORATION: Whenever a nonconforming use which does not conforan with the regulations for the district in which it is located, or a nonconforming structure or site improvement which does not conform with the requirements for setbacks, height, density caritrol, building bulk control or site coverage is destroyed by fire or other calamiiy, by act of God or by the public enemy, its use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided the restoration is commenced `n~ithin one year and diligently pursuant to completion. All new construction must conform to the applicable Uniform Building Cade, Uniform Fire Code and other relevant codes regarding safety and construction which are in effect at the time rebuilding is proposed. The earth movement is properly characterized as both a calamit}T and an act of God. Neither our clients nor anyone else has control over that actiti~ity. The new wall will be constructed in a manner consistent with. applicable codes relating to safety and construction. V~~ith reference to safety, reconstruction of a wall identical to the failing wall would not provide safety, and the proposed design is necessary in order to achieve a safe situation while minimizing impacts, and while maintaining consistency with the Town's goals. The height of the proposed repair is necessitated by a combination of (a) the need to have, sufficient room to secure the wall to the slope (through soil nails), (b) the height of the slope to be retained, and [c) the fact that a staged or tiered wall would result in the destruction of many more trees; which would be counterproductive for both the Town and the property owners. Vlrhile our clients recognize that they might apply for a variance in this situation, a variance does not appear to be required, and insufficient time exists for the variance process if the work which is required to protect the hawse against damage and destruction through the required repair of the wall is to occur prior to winter. VVe hope to have an engineering report to you v~~thin the next two days, more specifically setting forth the history of the problem, the efforts to repair the wall with a less aggxessive approach, the requirement for the repair of the wall through replacement; the current threat to the residence, the likelihood of damage to the residences if no action taken; and the requirement for action. If you feel that you are able to act on this request based upon the contents of this letter, that would be ideal. If you require the engineering report, then action maybe deferred until we have that to you. If you require additional information; please ad~.~ise me of that fact. xc: Ellenore Joint Venture Dr. and Mrs. Richard Cohen Proposal for Replacing the Timber Crib Wail At 1467 Greenhill Court, Vail, Colorado ^r~^^~^^^^^^~^^^^~^^^~r^^^^~ • Prepared for: Arthur Abp{analp WestStar Bank Building 108 South Frontage Road West Vail, GU 81fi57-5012 November 8, 20111 ~.~ ,~~~: Yenter Companies, inc. 20300 West Highway 72 Arvada, Colorado 800077 PROPOSAL F(3R REPLACING THE TII`UIBER CRIB 1NALL AT '14fi7 GREENHILL CT VAIL, CaLQRADO Prepared far. Arthur Abplanalp 108 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657-5012 Designed by Bill Zietlow • Paul R. MaciCGn Reviewed by Albert C. Ruckman, P.E. November B, 2(?01 • • 1.D Limitations The findings and recommendations given in this proposal report are site-specific, end are valid fog a proposed regaining wall system to replace a failing timber crib wall at 1467 Greenhill Court in Vail, Colorado, only. The design proposal is based upon information provided to Yenter Companies, Inc., such as the recent topographic survey, visits to the site and an understanding of the previously constructed timber crib wall as depicted in the 1981 site grading plan from Charier Gathers €~ Associates. Yenter Companies' has n©t undertaken an independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the factual information and data, or the suitability of the required design parameters, set forth and implicated in these documents. 2.0 Introduction The existing timber crib wall was built sometime in the early 1980's and is showing significant distress. The wall extends along the back of the residence • where it attains a maximum overall height of approximately 18 fee# near the southeast corner, The wall gradually diminishes in height along the east side of the house eventually terminating into aboulder-landscaping wall The wall is comprised of two tiers. The main, lower tier wall extends full length and reaches a height of approximately 14 feet. The smaller upper tier is offset approximately 6 feet fram the lower tier and attains a height of approximately 4 feet. A 6 foot walkway separates the residence from the timber crib wall. Portions of the facing in the main wall have buckled and spilled onto the concrete walkway at the back . of the residence. Differential movement in the slope above the timber crib wall delineates the extent of the wall failure. The degree of distress in the main wall at the back of the residence suggests that the wail is in a state of pending failure with further collapse likely within the next couple of years, 3.0 Wall Selection: The access to the crib wall is restricted by the public open space Donavan Park) bordering the residence on the west and a neighbors lot to the east. The overall natural slope is approximately 2H:1 V and is well treed with mature aspens and same evergreens. Any wall option that disturbs the existing timber crib wall will require excavation support i<u ensure a safe working environment.. Options considered for mitigating the failing timber crib wall will negatively impact one ar more of the following issues: 1) Disturb the existing timber crib wall thereby requiring excavation support, 2} After emergency egress via the walkway at the back of residence, 3) Qestroy trees on the slope. 4} Eliminate maintenance access to the exterior wall of the residence. For example, removing the timber crib wall and laying back the slope will destroy the most trees and create a very large scar above the house. Constructing a concrete cantilever wall in front of the timber crib wall will disturb the timber crib wall Ito construct the concrete foundation), alter emergency egress, eliminate maintenance access etc. We believe that the most viable wall option for mitigating the failing timber crib wall is a ground nail wall system. A short section of micropile wall may be necessary along the east side of the residence because of easement restrictions. 4.0 Ground Nail (Nall System: A ground nail wall system is constructed from the top down. The excavation proceeds in incremental lifts of approximately 4 tv 6 feet. After each lift, near horizontal holes are drilled back into the slope to a specifed length on a regular pattern. A steel bar is placed in each, hole and encapsulated with grout to create the "ground nail." The grout bands the steel to the ground. After a lift of ground nails is instaEled, steel reinforcement welded wire mesh, and geocomposite strip drains are placed against the excavation and concrete is sprayed (shotcrete) onto the excavation, thereby creating a reinforced concrete panel connected to the heads of the ground nails. This process is extended to the bottom of the excavation where the strip drains are mani#olded into a open graded backfill, french drain that is graded to transfer water to the side of the residence. During installation of the ground nail system, horizontal drains may be installed to dissipate pore water pressure in the slope as needed. 7~ie horizontal drains daylight in the excavation and are then covered by a strip drain. 5.O Micropile Wall System: A micropile wall system consists of row(s) of closely spaced grouted steel bars or pipes installed vertical or near vertical (rather Phan near horizontal). The micropiles are then integrally connected into a single rigid reinforced concrete grade beam. The excavation proceeds after the installation of the micropiles and the reinforced shotcrete is installed onto the exposed micropile row creating the same shotcrete finish as that of the ground nail wall. The method of installation is similar to that far the ground nail wall. 6.4 Method of Enstallation 6.1 Equipment 6.1.1 Anchor Drill. Yenter Companies, inc. maintains a fleet of over 30 drills. A Furakawa hydraulic drill rig will be used to install the ground nails. The specifications of these rigs are included in Appendix A. 6.12 shotcrete Pum{~. The shotcrete for the rack anchor wall will be placed using a wet mix process. The pump is capable of delivering shotcrete in a continuous manner to the excavation face 6.1.3 Grout Pump. The grouting equipment used is a positive displacement pump that produces a grout, free of lumps and undispersed cement. The grouting equipment is of adequate size to enable the grout to be pumped in one continuous operation. The mixer is capable of continuously agitating the grant. Pending on- site ground conditions, grout may be placed after yr during insertion of the ground nail. 6.2 Construction Sequence The ground nail walls will be constructed from the top, down. The initial cut will be excavated to a depth of approximately 6 feet, pending on-site ground conditions. poring construction, the stability of the excavation will be evaluated and the depth of the unreinf©rced cut may be modifed t© speed the installation of the anchors. After completion of the stabilization, the next bench or tier will be excavated. The wall will be installed in the following sequence: 1. Excavate wa11 location. 2. Drill hole for ground nails. 3. Install and grout ground nails, ` 4. Place strip drains. 5. Place welded wire mesh. 6. Place shatcrete and install nail head bearing plates. 7. Repeat steps 1 to 8 as necessary to final grade of ground nail wall 8. Complete shotcrete drainage system. • APPENQIX EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS • r: 1 DRILLING COVERAGE H~R12-U • boom lift angle 0° Boo m lilt angle 38.3° {uPl w Boom lilt angle 55° {uPF ~ _ m • h ~ m ° `~ " ~ \ I I m m D ~~~ ~ - . ~, ' - _ 4 Center r- - ~ ~ •~ i of body [3 ' , O Center pf Q l l ,boom sw,ng w o v m r~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I r-, m cv p , l 4.75 f7.4 ) ° oRZtss {7.1 756 5'7" 8 m f~R2671 i8'b') 5 l Q 83039 I9't7" 1 Cemer of shalt Boom left angle 45° lup) Boom glide: 4 1 ,~ 6~wm lift angle 0° doom slide: 7200 mm {3" 77"} Boom leve iv iv 0 0 ~ h .-. f"1 M Irl N1 c-, z37o Irr 1 154515") i70-} Ita50 {a'9' Z60 ` I Osc{Ilatian angle 7.5° tupl C~ ter of boom lift 12'6° ~ ` O n p~ O N ! ~©t 1 ~ ~~~ N r' ~ ~ 240017'70"1 j Oscellauon angle t4<0 l4'8" 111050 43"5" ) I 7.5° Idownl 7950 f6"G') I ~ zaso 7s~7a- I HORiZC)flJTAL DRILLING COVERAGE HCR12-Ell ~,» .~~ un° I t \ 9,7, I d `. r ~ /~ ~ z~l ti _._J.~ ^ ~ t ~- ~ ~ L - -~ I I ' VERTICAL DRILLING COVERAGE {The 5ide1 D1N1rNS1QNS ~~ ~°l ~ .. a ems--„ ~_ ~O~ 7 ~- p ~+ ~~ i I a~L NYC wry ~ ,nm7 ~ ~ _ ~ G k Lr i~;n I ~= ,~ j - I i - s ~1~- ----- ~ ~nr~ ' i ~ .~ - , 7I~-tt - ~ - ' 7-Ill Vm i n~° ~rnD}q £ >sam 411 !G `LL ~~ `. ~~ .~~~. 805 Lake Street, P.4. Box 807, Kent, 4hia 4424p-8017 Manulacrured by iFUf~UlUaWfa ~Q..L7D. Phonf=: 276673-9416 Fax:1i8 613 85(34 _ ~~-;~ .~ f F [~ I ~ ,~ Boam lift angle 77.8° (up) Boam sl:,de: 7220 mm i3' 17' 1 a~ --~:;~~,,, .~ IlCR12•D GFfrfRA[ SPFClFlCAT1DN5 HCR9-D HC133-E t'Je'rghz 9,iG0 kg 120,064 Ibsi 9,D00 kg i19,B4016s1 pverall length 8,5011 mm C25` 11"I 8:900 mm 129' 2"I Overall width 2,400_mm l7' 10"~ 2,40Q mm I7' 10"I . Overall height 2,750 mm 19'1 2,500 mm i8' Z"C nr}rFrFr? l47odel H0609 Weigh 165 kg 1363 Ihsl Blow output 12 kyJ Number ai blows 2,300 - 2,800 hpm Number of revplutions 0 - 250 rpm r~Ah~MrrrG , Length of around ~ntad 2,155 mm C7'I Z,4Z5 mm l7`lt"I psc'sllating angle 20° 2fl° Tramming speed 0.3.5 kmlh 10.2.] mphl p - 3.5 kmlh IQ • 2.1 mphl Gradea4ility 30° 3fl° f1rfSE! Fh'ClNE Model Isu2u 6Bp1 Pki-0I, water waled, 6 cyf~nder in sure, d€reer injectipn type Rated output 98 kW 1125 hpl 12.60D rpm Allpwable tih'~ng angle 3p ° in all direttiprn Fuel tank capacity ZOp 1153 gall fuel tvnsumpticn 22. ] I C6 gaA per how riY'DRAULICSYSrEFrr Variable displacement pump Axial-piston pump Fixed displacement pump Gear pump Oil tank capacity 1Ip 1145 gal} Bf1GN, Model JF325-20 fixed boom JE326-20 extension boom 6ppm length 2,fOp mm 15'6 "I 3,330 mm 110"11 "1 Rppm extenswpn length No boom extension 1,500 mm 15'i GU1L7E SHEL[ Model GH83f1-20 GH83p-Zp Overall length 7,24(1 mm C23'9"I 7.226 mm 123'8"I Guide suvirtg angle right 3p° left 90° raga 40° leh 4p° Feed I~gth A,550 mm 1]4'11"I 4,554 mm Ci4'11 "1 CRNPRESSDR Model AIRMAN POS175, screx type Free air delivery 5.0 m3lmin 1175 cimP Working pressure 10.5 kglcm21150 pti9 Dusr~DttECrDR Model A884.20 Suction capacity 15A m3rmin 1565 ciml Number of filters 3 pre~cCeatier Optipnal Suction cap fixed type FtfCTRlC SYSTEf,? Source uoltagelBanery 0[x4V 112 Y, l lm AH 1 Z0 H I? Baneriesl Lighting 24 V, 70 W X3 halogen tramps RDD CHANGER Number pf tads 5 Rod Cengih 3,454 mm Il0 Ul, 3,660 rrxn I1Z fil Rod shape 738, 745 RDD RACK Number pi mds 3 Rod length 3,450 mm I101t1, 3,560 mm C12 ii1 CAB Standard acc~ries Air conditioner, radio BIT & RDD Bit diameter 065.90 mm 12•lr2" - 3-112"I Rod ~engthlsl T_ _- _ - 3,054 mm Il01tl, 3.,660 mm 112 fi) -e_ .__. _ z- - - ~~;; 1 . (T'r~^'- i SPECIFICATIONS Of HCR9 SERIES • D1;1LL1NG CQYERAGE H'Cf~9•E ~b~1sao-.ro mpe ~l.s~ wvl man sloe : a 1 ~7 ! .6can M7 tl@Ie 45~ lw! man s+oe : O ~, i _ ~Gnra 5}~ II a~tl `3~ 9~~ , .' Yemn W 4eun sw.gl „°,~ s ~ 1~ 1 ?Stl 11'1"1 .' t Ceme, of 60Pen YR M1if1e 12 4'" man lfde : 1200 ma [3"11°{ '$Ofl+n kt F4K! 0° 6nan aldrt :1200 rtsn [3'11" 1 {f~~~i t1B~' ^~4 Vi 7 n' i _ iti `'~A2i9117'9"I f 3i 76 110'9'1 ~~ 3151 11Q'4"! 1,70 14' 1 // f~ ,~ O~ • ~i~/F' _~I:v, 72514' _i `~ - ~ ~ // ~ ~i 742$ 1T17•! G. , ~- g. // ~;~ ~..i ~ig• j~f ,~,~ - ~- ~ ~T 3'?t9 X12'11°~ 5396 n7'e' ~ VfRTiCAL ORILLlNCi CQVERAGE fThe S~del D11NEN51(1NS ~111l~} "" ~` e ,~®,-, ~~ nx :-~ ~ I ~.an .~ m~.-~ ~,1.n o,_ HCR9"E 5 ~--~, - 1 Manufactured by CO_UU. Sfl5 Lake 5treea, P,O. Box 607, Kent, Ohio Q4240-0017 nl........ ole coo o~,n r_... ^l,~ r~~ oznr' SPfGIFIGATIONS DF HCR1Z SERIES FdCRJ7-O NCR ]7 fD VJFIGHT ~ D]fi,FNSlONS Weight kg {Ibsl 11,600 125,5701 12,15D 126,166} Overa3! length mm fit} 9.pfl0129' 6"} 9,35(] 130'6"I pverall width mm lltl 2,40017'10"'I 2,4001]'1D"I Overall height mm [h} 2,8D3 [9'2"I 2,80019'2"1 Track length mmlhl 3,100110'2"I 8,255110'8"I Length of ground contact 2,325 f7'0"{ 2 46018'2"1 YVidth of grousers mm Ritl 33011'1"I 33fl {1'1011 ~~~ ~~~ 1 CRAW! FR Ground pressure kglccna (psrl 0.76 f10.81 D-14110.61 r„~ ' " Ground deararrce mm iftl 42011'5"I 42011 5 1 (y~~14~ ~j~ Oscillating angle t5 ° 15 ° fl IZI ~ + TRAVf~dNG Traueling speed kmlh imphl 0-3,1 ffl-1,9} 0.3.1 10-1.91 Gradeattihty 30 ° 30° DlFSEL EIJGIfJF Model iSOZf166G1TPJwrhocharged,waterenaled,Sc~ylinderinlinewithdirectinjection Rated output HP Ikwlhpm 17 i 1127.51 ! 250[1 171 {127.511250fl Allowable tilting angle 3D ° in all direcUans 3D° in all directions Fuel tank I Igall 275 {731 2151]31 Fuel consumption I lgall 26.5179 per hour 2b.51]I per hour DRIFTER Mode6 Number o1 blows bpm HD612 22fl0 - 2800 HO612 ?20fl - 28DD Weight kg Rbsl 22815001 ?28 iSDDI Number of revolutions irpml 0200 0-2DD Blow output. kw 11 17 NYDRAU1dC S}'SFFfr, Variable displacement pump ax+a1-paton pump axizl-piston pump Fixed displacement pump gear pump gear pump Dil teak rapacity I !gall 2001531 2001531 EOOrJ Model ,}F325 30 Uxed boom 1E326-8D extension boom Donor length mm Iit1 2,20017'2"I 3,250110'8''1 Boom lilt up 55 ° down 20 ° up 45,° driven 15 ° Bourn swing right 45° lest 15° right 45° left 15° Bourn extensioa length mrn lid none 1.2D0 f3'11 "I UUlOF SNFi! Model GH830 30 GH830~30 Overall lengtfi mm ihl 7,SDD 124'11 "I 7,6DD 124'11"} Guide slide length mm lftl 1.50014'11 "} L20013'ii"I Guide swing tight 30,° tell 90° right 3D° lob 90° Guide tilt t DO ° S8fl ° Feed length mm lit} 4,5D0114'9"1 4,500114'9"I COMPRESSOR Model Air Man PDS2S5 screw type Air Man POS265 screw type Free air delivery molmin ldml 6.612401 6.8 f?401 Vdorking pressure kglmz lpsil 10.5115fl] 10.517501 DUST COICECTOR Memel AfiE34-31) Rf384.30 Suction capacity malmin lclml 24 18411} 2418401 Number of filters 4 4 ROD CHANGER Model GR801-20 GR9D1-20 Rod shape T38, T45, T51 T38, T45, T51 Number of rods 514 rods with i511 514 tads with T51} Rod length mm lftl 3,050 I10'I, 3,fi60112'1 3,05D f109, 3,650112'1 R]T $ RDDS Rod sae T38, T45, T51 T3B, T45, T51 Dit diameter mm lint 75.100 I3 "• 4"I 75-125 t3"- 5"E FiFC7'R]C SYSTEM Source voltage~attery Lighting DC24V ! DC12V,1DI11#H ! 20H l2 Datteriesl 24V, ]OW x 3 Halogen Lamps OPTIONAL: FOUlPA4ENT FMMS Optional Optional Cab Standard Standard - Air conditioner Standard Standard Pre leaner Standard Standard LiltaSte suction hood Standard Standard • MEMORANDUM TO: Punning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 12, 2©01 SUBJECT: A request fior a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creels Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"fan unplatted piece of property, located at 16a N. Frontage RdJ to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Qdeil Architects Planner: Allison Qchs DESCRIPTION ©F THE REQUEST C7 The applicant has requested this worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission to consider alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village. The applicant will be formally applying to the Department of Community Development at a later date and will be scheduled for review at such time. Adjacent property owners have been notified of today's meeting. The purpose of today's worksession is to consider various site puns, identify potential issues, and clarify the direction of the design of Middle Creek Village. C7n September 24, 2gp1, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the major subdivision, rezoning, and land use plan amendment for the site. The Planning and Environmental Commission requested that the applicant provide multiple alternative site plans for consideration of the development plan for Middle Creek Village. The applicant has provided one alternative which is attached far reference. Staff has identified potential issues and provided recommendations regarding the design of the site. These discussion items are listed in Section V of this memorandum. II. RULES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS FUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW tDrder of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission far impacts of useldevelopment and then by the Design Review Board far compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approvalldenial of a development plan in the H district. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for prescribing the following development standards: • 1. Setbacks ~. Site Goverage 3. landscaping and Site Development ~; ~ n~ TOWNOF YRIL ~ 4. Parking and Loading 5. Lot area and site dimensions. 6. Building height. 7. Density control (including grass residential floor area). In addition, the Planning and Environmental Gammissian is responsible for reviewing the application for compliance with the following: A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are both. functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and' enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient. and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F, Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans. Desian Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a development plan in the H district, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the proposal for: Architectura! compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site topography 4. RemovaUPreservatian of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage an-site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, farms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures which respects the and other building • • 2 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting 13. The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation an approval, approval. with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board'. or Planning and Environmenta[ Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council Evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can upheld, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. III. STAFF RECaMMENDATIDN As this is a worksession, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. The applicant has requested this worksession to receive input from the Planning and Environmental Commission prior to submitting the development plan for Middle Creek Village. IV. SITE ANAR~YSIS Lot Area: 6.673 acres / 290,676 sq. ft. Buildable Area: 4.573 ac. 1 199,200 sq. ft. Hazards: Moderate Debris Flaw, Medium Severity Rockfall, Stapes in excess of 40% Proposed lJse: Employee Housing, Early Learning Center Development Standard H zone district Proposed Density (du/builable acre) GFti=A ~apprax.) Setbacks* North South East West Parking (12-10) prescribed by PEC prescribed by PEC 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 257 spaces required 32 dulbuildable acre 88,816 sq. ft. aft. 0 ft. 5 ft. 48 ft. 236 spaces proposed 'Deviations are allowed to the 20 ft. setback with PEC review 3 V. DISCUSSION ISSUES The Planning and Environmental Commission requested that the applicant provide various alternative site plans for consideration of the development plan at the September 24, 2[}01, meeting. The applicant has provided staff with one alternative to the original design. Staff has identified the following discussion items: 1. Density The applicant is currently proposing 148 units. The proposal includes 61 studio units, 18one-bedroom units, 24 two-bedroom units, and 45 three-bedroflm units. The Land Use Designation far this site is "High Density Residential" which is defined as: The hausr'ng in this category would typicafly consist of mufti-floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and f~nstitutional/public uses such as churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities. In the Housing zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission prescribes allowable density. Staff has provided density comparisons of other projects: Development Zoning Number of Units Timber Ridge SDD 198 Pitkin Creek SDD 156 Vail Commons CC3 71 Rivers Edge not in TC7V 101 The Tarnes not in TOV 130 Timber Ridge, located at Timber Ridge Village, 1280 N. Frontage Rd West /Lots C-1 through C-5, Lion's Ridge Filing IVo. 1: In 1979 the Town rezoned Lats C-1 through C-5 from Residential Cluster to Special Development District No. 10. Timber Ridge was developed as a rental employee housing project and received deviations from the design guidelines and density requirements. The density for the site is 19.6 dwelling units per acre, Zoning: 5DD No. 10 ono underlying zoning LUD: High Density Residential Lot Size; 10.08 acres 1439,084.8 sq. ft Units: 198 dwelling units Density: 19.8 dulacre Pitkin Greek Park, located at 397f Bighorn Rd. /Pitkin Creek Park: Special Development District No. 3, Pitkin Creek Park, was adopted in 1974. The underlying zoning is Medium Density Multiple Family. Pitkin Creek Park was developed as an affordable housing project, with commercial elements, and received deviations to the design guidelines and density requirements. The affordability provisions expired after 7 years, and the units are now sold at market rate. 4 Lot Size: 8.20 acres / 361,112 sq. ft. LUD: Medium Density Residential Units: 156 dwelling units Density: 18.8 du/acre Vail Commons, located at 2 f 09 N. Frontage Rd. West / Vail Commons: Vail Commons was developed under Commercial Core 3 zoning and was approved in 1995. It is a mixed-use project, with major commercial uses and deed-restricted employee housing including 53 for-sale units and 18 rental units. Lot Size: 8.568 acres 1286,082 SF LUD: Community Commercial Units: 71 dwelling units Density: 10.8 dufacre 2. Parking According to the Housing zone district, the parking requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 must be met. However, the Housing zone district does allow for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, subject to Planning and Environmental Commission review of a parking management plan. Section 12- fil-8: Parking and Loading, states: C)f~ street parking shall be provided r'n accordance with Chapter I0 of this Title. No parking or loading area shall be focated within any required setback area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmenfal Commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in Chapter 10 may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to a Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be appr©ved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and shall provide far a reduction in the parking requirements based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than Chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need fnr a reduction in the required parking could include: A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of franspartatlon including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. S. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. Parking spaces are allocated based on size of the units. Chapter 12-10 requires 1.5 parking spaces for units less than 500 sq. ft.; 2 parking spaces for units 500 to 2000 sq. fit.; and 2.5 parking spaces for units over 2000 sq. ft. As proposed, the parking requirement would be as fiollows: 5 Number and Tvoe of Unit Parking ratio Total Soaces 61 studio units 1.5 91.5 18one-bedroom units 1.5 27 24 two-bedroom units 2 48 45 three-bedroom units 2 9Q Total 257 The applicant is propvsing 236 parking spaces, a deviation of 21 parking spaces or 3%. The applicant is proposing a parking management plan which would allocate parking according to the following; Unit Tvoe Number of Assigned Soaces Total Sgaoes Studio 1 61 One-bedroom i 18 Two-bedroom 2 48 Three-bedroom 2 99 Excess t9 Total 236 "Available for short-term parking, monthly rental to tenants, guests, etc. Staff has concerns regarding the limited number ofi visitarlshort term parking spaces. The applicant has stated that the site will be designed to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. However, staff has concerns regarding the accommodation of "parked" oars, even with the use of alternative transportation modes. The applicant has provided a parking management plan, which has been included for reference. In addition, staff has concerns regarding the parking for the early learning center. There are approximately 19 spaces proposed. Prior to determining if this is an adequate parking provision, additional information will be required regarding the program of the early learning center. In addition, the drop off and loading for this use should be considered. Parking for this use is prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 3. Design ofi Barking Surface parking area must be minimized and screened. Parking must be incorporated into the buildings (example: Vail Commons}. This will minimize surface parking, making snow storage and snow removal mare efficient. A parking structure, as indicated in the preliminary design of the site, is not an efficient use of land, and incorporating parking into the buildings will likely not significantly increase cost. It will also free up additional land for green spaces or additional building sites. Staff is recommending that Middle Creek Village enclose at least 75% of the required parking within the main building or buildings of the site. All remaining surface parking shall be screened by a landscape berm or landscaping. Currently, the applicant is proposing to enclose 84 parking spaces, or 36% of the proposed parking. Approximately 13 parking spaces, dedicated to the housing component, are located adjacent to the early learning center parking. Approximately 27 parking spaces are located along the existing Mountain Bell access road and will be directly adjacent to the property boundary. 6 4. Grading and Retainage Grading and retainage must be minimized to the extent possible. Staff recognizes that the grades on the site will require some retainage. However, staff is recommending that the buildings be used for a large portion of the needed retainage. This will minimize site disturbance, eliminate the need for extensive retaining walls, and provide for a better design for the site. According to the Design Guidelines of the Town of Vail: The location and configuration of structures and access ways shall be responsive to the existing topography of the site upon which they are to be located. Grading requirements resulting from development shall be designed to blend into the existing or natural landscape. Any cuts or fills shall be sculptural in form and contoured to blend with the existing natural undisturbed Terrain within the property boundary. 5. Building Design Buildings must be designed with sensitivity to the site. Specifically, staff believes that there are a variety of shapes (t-shaped or horseshoe-shaped} which could provide for differing orientations, more relief in the fagade, a less linear appearance, vertical variation in the roof forms, etc. Staff believes that the buildings should be mare staggered, and more articulation should be found in each building. G. Height Height in the Housing zone district is prescribed by the Planning and environmental Commission. With the introduction of enclosed parking, the buildings have increased to 4 stories. Staff believes this is an acceptable height. 7. Setbacks The setbacks in the Housing zone district shat! be 20 ft. According to Section 12- 61-5: Setbacks: The setbacks in this district shall be 20' Pram fhe perimeter of the zone disfrict. At fhe discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the setback standards may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criferia: 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 thaf could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. varlatians to the ~0 ft. setback shall not be allowed an property lines adjacent fa HR, SFf#, R, PS, and ,RC zoned properties, unless a variance 7 is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter i 7 of this Title. Building setbacks are proposed as follows: Setback Proaased North 70 ft. South 0 ft. East 110 ft. West 70 ft. However, the Housing Zone District does not allow for parking to encroach into any setback. Parking on the Werth and east of the properly would be within 1 ft. of the property line. Parking on the west is located within 45 ft. of the property fine. 8. Pro~isidn of Open Space Development must include useable Open space for the residents of the site. Staff believes that with any high-density development, adequate, useable open space must be provided. This includes, but is not limited to, flat green areas for recreation, common gathering spaces, and more formal recreational amenities. 9. Hazard Mitigation Staff continues to have concerns about the hazard mitigation required for the site. Staff is recommending that plans which indicate how the hazards will be mitigated be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as early as possible, and that a site specific analysis be provided far the alternatives. The analysis shall be prepared in accordance with Chapter 12-21 of the Town Code. Staff believes that this criterion should weigh heavily in the decision making process and review of the development plan. 10, Pedestrian Connection The pedestrian connections to the Village and Lionshead are important design considerations far the development of this site, A pedestrian connection to the east, into the roundabout, has been indicated. 1n addition, a pedestrian connection to the pedestrian overpass to the west should also be a design consideration. 11. Early Learning Center Additional infiarmation is required regarding the early learning center. The early learning center is a relocation of the ABC/Learning Tree use currently on the site. Information regarding the number of students, number of teachers, etc.. must be provided far staff to analyze the use. The fire department has expressed a concern regarding access to the early learning center. Specifically, the proposed turnaround is not adequate for fire truck turnaround. In addition, staff has concerns regarding the number of parking spaces (19 spaces) and the drop- off/turnaround for the early learning center. f~J 8 Vl. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE H ZONE DISTRICT 12-61-13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDSfCRITERIA FOR EVAL~IATION: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall. be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria: A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C, Open space and landscaping are bath functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. ©. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan. and other applicable plans. 9 . ~; ~~ .~~. 1 ~ ~ s .~_-' ~. F \]~ ~~ . ~~ ~~ ' ~ i ~ ~ ! ?, ~ i ~~~ ~ ' ' ~ ' w, ~`~ ~ a . ~ I ~~~ ~. '1 .~ '` ~~ o p ~ ~ ~ i , ~ o CA tl. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 w ~ ;;, N ~. t~ ,aka s~ e y td ~ ~ 4 i~ ~ ~ ~` ,~+ I ~ ', / 4 ~ J'. w ~ A ~ ! ~ ~. ~ ~~ -.a r~",~4 Q ~~ ~ + j ~'~ _ ~! q~ V~, 7 ,r ~. .~'~ ~ .~~, /~ ~ 9 ! 1 + +_ 1 ( ~ t ~ ). `~' ~. ~~ ~ ~- .~ ,~~ ~ . 4 .,~A+~ ~ -"1 .. ~.. ~~ ~ ~ ` ~ 3 -rr i C ~~ `~~ ~ ~o cs, u~ ~ ~ ~*° .~ ~.. Ri c~ n Q r ~'! '~ 97 uo C ~ ~ C © r.. ~ 'G 'v 0.1 CJ ' :~ ~ ~! ~ C ~j ~ id UI ~ ~ Q3 U __ m ~_ ~ O N O RS N t~r~ C *p ~ ~ ~_ ~` U ~ G. W o N S3 q"p ~ i11 ttl ~ ~ ~ t_~d ~ 'y~~! y ~ ts3 '"" ~ 7 0 L ~ ~ N ~ 't3 ~ ~ dy ~ ~ 'ts z3y C6 ~ '~ rC ~ ~ ~ ~ tip ~ ~ ~] ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ C ,~ v ~ O Gry ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ fO N ~ ~ , ~ ~ fl. ~ t11 v.. q) N O _ ''~ c~ ~ ~ -c3 ~ N ~ F- ~ +~ C Q N C? ~ iC6 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ td Ql ~' 'T3 ~ ~ ~ ~ x S] ~ ~ ~ Z3 ~ ~''~ ~ ~ 'C] N 4} ~ ~"' ~ ~ LSS tU ~ 41 ~ ~ a cu ~ cu ~, ~ O _ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ can ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ c' rt~ ~' ~ ~ c 'L ~ ~ °;~ ~ ~ °z3 v's ~ ~ ~~-~ "~ ~ ~ ens ~ o ~~ ~ a~ = t7 ~ '~' m a c? -~ ~ - C ~ ~ ai ~ L cU a~ L a> .~ +n ~ }~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ t]. ~ 4) -C ~ ~ ffl ~ ~ to 47 " U ~ ~, C tom] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'sj R5 t6 v N ~ ~ C31 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x,' ~*y ~ ~ ~ Q7 ~ ` ~ tCES ~ p N ~ U ~ C1 N G ~ Q ~ p C , Qi m - _' ~ cu .~ 3 m a~ ~ q c~ c3 a~ ~ ~ ~ tC ~- ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ L ' K Ry ~ s.. ~ ~_ .fl F-- O S]. ~ 40 "~ Q. "[3 ~ ~ L ~ 'i"' fly ~' ~ W -~ ~ m U .-% tp ~ s.. ~ ~ tom? ~ ~ ~ (C¢ 7 A ~ N ~ `~ +'~.. C6 G U N CO C 47 Q ~ t11 ~ .` O ~ ~ N .a Q N ~ ~ RS ~ ~, ~ eS3 N ~ {`` ~ ~ . tU .~ N a° C t6 ~ ~1 ~ C7 ~ G7 y.,, ~- Vf C ~ . a'te' ~ = `' w-~.. ~. RS "= +~ (U -D .~' "C7 -~ ~ v~ =" ~ ,Ri ~ ~ o cdra o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s g -~ ~ ~ to ~ C _ _ ~ .~ rs. ~ :o cu ~ ~ ~ tS7 ~. ~" ~ o~,--ate ~,n °''~~~ ~'~im ~°° a~ ~ =~~~n„ ~'n- a~ ~ G) ~ D ~1 O 'LS C ~ cA mG ~ C fiA "CS fi U C ~ ~ ~ ~ Q1 ~ ~ RS `fl '~- O ql ~*- ~ tv ~ ~ ' a !- N ~ U XN ~ C @ ~ fi •,._ Q. O ~ ro ~ tVC i Q 'L7 .-~ td iC >ca ~~ ~~cn ,~~,.-~ ~cu cai ~ W~ u Q. ~ ~ ~ C C ,4 b p ~ SG O ~ ~ ~ ~+~-' ~ ~ ~ C ~, "t3 q) ~~-+ O '~' tU c `may ~ ~ ~ ~°~ ~9 N R' O tJ ~.~. 'f3 ~ g. ? r~ N G~ t!7 .,r ~+ ~ CO O O O tJ~ C6 p. t0 {7 ~ ~ ~ d `t' ORS N a ~ ~ ~ C? ~ N ~ -DLw ~ .~- U CGS4 ? O O' ~..- G N ?r CJ {4 x77 G Tj'7 ~ 47 O- 'C3 ~ C6 -O ~ ~ ~y ~. ~ • U1 'tR tly ~ ~ ^00_ qOj ~ ?i td ~ ~ ~_ ,00 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ tJ tU ~ ~t ~ N V .? .m" i ? O ~ N tS} ~' N ~ r N rn O ~'' Q ./ m' a? +' O N G G ~ 4 ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N <Ojy 'C3 tP ~ ~ `^ C v- ~ 4 RS 7~ ~ N 47 y- .7 N C ~ ~ to .t3 L += W N ~ ~ ~} {1 ~ r G r ~ G LD ~ ~ '~y7 ~ ~'~ ~ t17 ~ ~ U ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ 4` ~ U ~ Q ~ O _ y ~ ~ ~ ~ t7 O N O ~ ~_ N U ~ fl. t4 ` ~ t4 ~r t~ ..- N Q Rf ~ t~ ~ N O ~_ ~ N ~ N y m .O ~ 4' t~ v :7 ' C6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl N ~ tOb ~ CU7 ~ ~ '.aL r. W G O t`7 ~ 85 ~ N ~ [A v ~ ~ q) RS 503-, CSC ~ sA ~ ~ N ~ uy N R5 ~ »~ ~ u en ~ 0 3n y `~ ,.. p- ~ ~ O ~ cb 0 O .0 N O ~ RS O ~ r.- ,~ 4l ~ N ~ ~ t33 ~ ty.7 ~ ~ O .~ q} ~ ~]. ~~ d O ~ ~ 'p c= N V ~ N VI ;~ U9 O '~ 'G "~ ?^ U RS m RS q5 N ~ ~ '~''~ ~ ~ ~ ..r QS ~ ~ tt> l03 ~ dJ ~ ~ -~ d G ~ ~ ~ 0- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q,y Q U 0 E ~ O ~ c15 „~ tb ,O ~ 7 ``? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,f ~ ~ ~ 'r3 ~ ORS ~ a ~ ~ ~ v ~ en N ir+ ~ ~ ~ +r C sh ~ ~ O ~ N G m ~- G- ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ M ~ t3 O ~ ~ ~ tl? to ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ as ~ c~v a3 c ~ a~ ~ o '~ ~ c ui a~ a~NL v U U .~ C N ~ d? C ,a 'p t~3 U U R1 O L, i~ t3} 9S ~ .C7 O C U ~ ~ N ~ a~~~ ~ ~~a ~~4; ~o ~ L r.+ F- ~ U ~... fl ~ d ~ ~ q7 N O O 'd uh pt ~ L d U ~ Qf C ~ d N 93 :~ p) C 'T3 y i0 ~ !J3 'C3 ~' L L /~ ~ ~~ ~N+ d- ~ d} EII ~ O C fl d = C it ~ ~ C ~ +~ Q ~ n L r3 ~ "a ~ c a ~ w c~ ca °7a ao o a~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ cu ~. d ~ o m o Rl ~ a. N ++ C/) f6 tp „G Q) C ~ Q,t RS N Q7 "''"' ~ O U -c7 O ? R1 C ',V ~ N d ~ ~ ,~ ~ r11 [A N •:~ L ~ ~ ~ a a ~ N ~ t/> ~ ai o m cNts ~ a~i ~ ~` ~~ O d N Y ~ C U Q- ~ ~ w ~ t N U ~ fl, ~ ~ C U ~? C ~ Qy ~ O ~ ro '~ c cn d cs~ U ca g a E c m 'y a~ m ,,° o ~ ~ -~ a 47 ~~ O d ~ O ,N a_ ~ U a - ~ o a E ~ dQ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ m c ~ V ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ t ~ C Oh d O CY .~ O ~ ~. G 7 ~ ~ tA' ~ ~. ~ m O ~ ~ d1 y ~ G W a"~ ~ 0. ~-o ~ aa~ ~ m cu a~ "~ aD a E '~ .~ a' O d to ~ rn ~ c~ ~ ~ .«.. +-." d1 m d U C 'C3 U O '` l17 C d ~ ~ O ~ Z3 C N N _G .-~ C ~fL7 ~ ~ V7 ~` ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~~3 N ~ C t0 ad...r~ m as ~ a •~ m p u~ o.~ m ~ o N c~ ~-v v~ cd~N a~~~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ai N a ~ ~ o ~ ~' v ;a v N ~ U .j ~ ~ ~ -~ c fl. u~ ~9 N ~ N L d p i ~ Q C ~ Q tl} " N U d C d N~ A N~ RS ~ ads ~ ~ 3 ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ 3 _ ~ ~ i~ t~ L d N O ~ ? v ? ~ ~ .~ U ~ O ~ ~ u, ~: o d .E ~ °~ ® a~i . c ~C? f6 ~ ~ (0 O N °ri ~ N yL... ~ N N a ~ = c"s m ~ ~ rn ~ u~ ~ c"~+i o ~ ~+ d :~. ~] q~ T3 U U Q~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Rf = w C ~ V1 G 1Oj ~ ~ U ~ C ~ •L d ~ d ~ ` ~ N ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~, ~ o m m m ~ } ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a U VaJ ~1 O X S1 w ~ .~ d N C31L 'p_ C t4 C ~, ~ ~ U [6 ~ 4I] O ~ ~ d O O U? a~ ~ ©- '~ c "~ cai ~.~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~5 ~ ~ rtn '~ m m ~ a ~ ._ ash ~ ~ ~ ~ U a o ~ N N ~ ci] "O 'Z7 ~ ~ ~ O a7 '~ ~ C fi} ~_ 0 ~ .~ ~ o i c~ d [A ~' ~ ~: ~ 'Cs u~ ~ a c a as C ~ N SQ E? ~ N ~ ~ N ~ a, ~ ~ ~ a c~ .` ~ tU +~ q ~ O] D. .mod-. ~ '~ d oa °~ ~~a c '~ .s N a U ~ d U N N O ~ G O ~ [C t9 •~ :~ ~ ..N.~ W N R!1 ~ ~? C = -d ~ ~ V ~ d ~ d "d -p ~ Q C ~{A Cl. - ~r~ ~.: -cq ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ d -~ d 'a c ~ ~ ~ U ~ O fCS Sv Q .-~ (} ~ ~ L ~ w.. ~ ~ O (U N 4 i ~ "C] it ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ d ~ rn .cn N .r.J Q ~ C U N Q. [.} ~ +, iD ..-. C O d C ~ o ~ ~ ~ o N ~ a 'O o~ Q.a~ c ~ o N ~ d n3 ~ U d ~ ~ O ~ L ~ ~ ~~ m ¢ N N~ C E d ~ U L m d o 0 0 0 U m ~. a a m a a m .v c a 6 a s~ ~c 4 1 1 1 I I 1 1 r i ~, I° 4 O c` U ~' ~~^ • .~ +~'~ W ~i.r y ~ m m ~ y, t71 ~ ~ m ~ ~ ° f!/ ~ a a- ~ N dom.. lp m C B ~ ~ ~ N ~ al ~ V ~ -~ ~ rn m ]K ~ ~ ~ ~ m m ~ y ~+ .JQ ~ 3 ° in' C m N t ~ °s ~ ' QOM nl N - O~ Jf 'O ~.. . C '." 4 N ~ m Z3 O Ql G OY O ~,' ~ ~ G ~ O 6J ~ 7 ~ 41 D ti'7 y w ~_ m~ p~ _ C m C m a C~ O TJ 'C7 ~ m m x y A m y N m ~® m ~ c Q e [D ~ O c '~, W N N rn ~ o 0 o m m q/ m o m C r 3 ° v ~ ~ to m a~ a o ~ m al c m }' m m ~ m r W ,~ ~~~ ~ ~ m3 mai R . -~ N ~ _ ~~ N - o,~N:° ~ C m ¢ ~ mw~ U O ~ «: Q7 'O N .~ j/l ~ 7 N .D m . N Y6 N m ~ 7 m C U C m .. . O O~ p~ m m O 0J m m N - m ~ w,~o O m3~ ~ Lo o o ~ 1 =e °~ F-- rn~ ~ N 0 .cm~ i- N p ~ y m~Em N m ~ N ~ ~ n m 0 ~ C w • Z m w m m m m • m n • m G r+l • ~ G ~~ E 4~ ~o~ n ~ 1 U ill V 0. w a Ol O o c S 0 U O ~n ~~o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~. X1'1' 1 ` f i1~1~;11 f'J/il~ l 11 + (~~13~}i~l l i~,~~~il ! ! 111(!111114 ~f'~~Ili(191(1lI1j111! ~i'~jf ll fl 111l11411i I ~ i ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~i ft t (! (i/!!i~ 1 ,~ J Ji J~1/jllti~ 41114 If J /, °~j~h! . ~i/f f t111 1111 I i (lJ~f J''J/,~i~; J/f} /!(((1( 11!11!( i !I/f// ~'tf Jfiil .1 i f } }1}}1 ft/ // !}}'`1}ri"'iii'i'lii~'fri~i'~"llr}~''1~}}''i''~i'+rit(1 f'l~'~i~ca~l'r ~ 1~~' lr+';'~~~ I 'I ,!/il/ll ii if ft //1 iii iit ii( litlf iii}il 1}}ll/ fi}1,~t} I! ~ ,I It~~1 : ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~, ~~ ,,lili' llI I fj!/j t 1 i i i i i i 1 i }! /il j/i iliitiiilrii r1}iij,tr,/ N~rti /iliitii !t ~~i¢~ ~~~~.. ~. ,,~~k, 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ p ~ ~ i 1 f i d l I Z it IJ f~ ilia till irl ilill'lljill 111 i il~ ii1lff ri j~ ~~~ S~~p'1 ~~ ~+ 1 ~i ~ ~ , + p ( t (111 ~ ! I !! '~11 1 i! li/% ~fi ~//Jf ~/ i~~~l1;lf~l~llilllj/ 1j1J1 ~~+i(~ 1Jf~l f11; ~ ~ , , ~~~,r ~ ~ 1 i ~ +I'r~,~ ! I f I 1 11 j 11 1 I / ~~ ~i ~ i ~ 1 i l }/ t# ~ l ~, I%f y ~~ 'r'~~ ~ ~i~ll ~'. r l ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I 11 14 I 1 ~~f1 111x11 ~~~ ~~~r~r! ~/'~j///'~/~I' i1 f 10%i 1 ~ ~ 1 ,r'~~'r ~ ~;~^~l' ~ ' ~~ ~ ~~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I ,ti 11111111 ~'~,. ~~~ ~ /~l ~i~ ~f f ~~t / / i//1 ~f /A~r~ 1 ~ i l l i ~ ~ ~r ~(,r, 1 i ~~ ~ ~ i I ~ ~ E/ iljr ; ~~~ % r/rtrry, ~l/ l1 ~ if , , If f Iliit ' ~ ~ (, .11~11~1111l111fi1~`r j1f/~1'r~ifrffi~`/r/J~'ii c;~~ ~,I~ ; t /l/ ,,~ ~ ~~11~~''tljll~ ~f~I ' ( I II9I l 11! ll li I i ~'1}l lll,'~i %ii~t!// '~~IIJ~~I~ ~ J} (. 1 . -ai ~ ~ ~ ( I l ~ i Il l f ( /1! 1 ii 1 f~'l ' t /// ~ lr ~ ~~'~'' ! ~ ~4 J~ (~ , zol , ! I I E iii it t ~ II f!l , 1, ~ f/// / f 1 /l ~ - ~~~11 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~--- " ~ i i ( 111i1t (fii Ii IIi } 1i 1 i jt+ tf( J/// /!I, 111'j t ~ ~~~` I l ill i t i- I I '1111(111!1 f f i i!!t} .1 f t 1~1 ~ ,,~~'~"~ ~, ~, ~~ ~ I ! ~ it 1J1!}fir}1ii11!(Ii IIiI ((1)l ~l1~liIII Il iliiir tl~,f~ I %~`/ Lll~~rji,'!~ i ~ I~ y I ~ ~`~-~;-' ~ I f/ l r i iii lfillpljirl!/J/i~(`III III{ltl~il~i~ljlll ~jj~l//~/ ~i} ~i},'I ir~i fl,. ' ~~ i ~`~~i~ 1~~ 1~~~~~~,~~~ r ; ~ a j l}}}i1i~(!ii)~,,/fjtj~jf~r iI~I!llillill)I !it///////l~if1 , i '3e 4,~- ~.r~~.~i~ ~~IIi r1, ~ I li 1 ii !j f l 4 P d9 11111! ~ I !! ///J// i~} ~l f~~ ~~~'~ ~~i.~,_ ~~~ ~'Il ~~d f 1 r I ~i I f if~1 !Iii ti }ill f1ti11 1 t`Illiiiil P 111 1~ildli /~il ~r !-~,'P/ ~ ~~ *~. --~ ~ "1 } ~ l " ~p 1 f/I/ i iil }i 111111x1 I! ~ r~i it i ? (lilt I!i ii ~~ 1ll/j l ' P ~ ~ +~ ~. ``'~ l y ~ i + 1 ///Ill ifii 11!111!11 }li!(!!llll'~Il lifii~iiililtEb~~JI ~/~///tl~'I ~; ~ ~~ ~` I (~~^+ ''~;~~ 1 `'~~' ~~'; ti ~ ~~' ~If l Ire ~ I i ~~I (1~. ~ I }} iii i)1 i 1 Ill tl !!If}tll~t~ll~ll/,~!}/Il (1/ (S ~, ~ `~ ~~ V ~ ti l rl I ~ I a 1, (I 1 ~ l I! ll i1l }l ~' I}llil l/I /a I//~ ll/, j f} /1 ~,~ 1 x ~, 1 1 ~ 1 I i r_ r~ l Jj///j/~jlll/!jl/lllltrII~//l~~flllf~jl~Otlllliiili ! I ~,~j~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~li r ~I~ ld~a 1 1 ~ h, ~, ~ ~ ( ( ~ `~ f,,/f f,~Ifl~%iI / ~~~ I !lull l 111111 1 " ~ ~~~ ~lt C-1 ~' }~~I~~ , r / ft !1! 1111 } ~~.,1 ~,~"1 ) -~~:~ [. r~ ~ ~ ~~ I'f , I, .~ ~~ ~ ~f iii I/Ill ~~rll fil/rlli/f i (iI /i 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~, `~ , ~ 1 (11 ~~ ~ ( ( ~ i Il~r~ ~/I 1f~11%111}rrliU; 11111}}! 1 1'1ti~~,, 's~= 4"f;~'(~~i ~~~~~, ;,,~ ~ ~ (1 ~ ~! r ~ ~~ 'iJ ! 1 } }ll '} !rr ~ I iri i i i 1 41 1 \ ~~"~'~~~ }~~ 77 1'~t~, ~r ,~~~/,'j~ I I ! r 1 I I ff'f%,/ ~~i !}/1}li}1rr1 i ii "~'\ 1 !~~ "~Y ~~1~~i5~4 ~~I ~ I 11 11 I ///fif JfJ~il~~~tlllij~l~~Jjll)lili~41 i f{ 1 >~~ lh~~~~,,.1 1S f 1)~ i 1 .1~rr''~r*~'~'"i~~11~~11~f , r 1 ~ I ail ~~ ~,, ,~r ~ ~ ,~ ill, 1, ! ! 1 } `~ ~ ~,"~.~~, r ~ , ~ ~ "'?1 i , , x f>~~1~~1,"~!f//fIIII~/jlllfll 11~a''~'~)1i;j~~ ~ ~,~,~;r'~~~~~~;~~l~l~(r ,1111E 1 f ~~~ ~~ll/f/ /„II1}1111 i /1 1 ti ~ ~;,,~,~1 tll~~"tl ' ,;;%~i ~`'r~ J~'i( ; I+ ~ ='-~ ~ ~i ~J~l ~~~II/ !!1 II -" \ ~ ( ~',~ 1 ~~~`~- II ~1°~~ r'~~~I+Ii ~ I ~ 1 r ~~~-~ r~~ll~''Ii~~~'-;~,~~ ~" ~ ~ li ~7t~_~~~,'.y~j ,,,, _ 'l~ ~3 Nr~~i~i~{~ i +~lf,~ ~ r1 I I '~/~ =~~= ~,~~~ C ~\"~.~\ ~ 1llilt ~ r ;~~~ ~}t fl+f?IG;`~1+~1I+~~(31(l+~ r 1 t (( ! /fir, ~ ~~ r ~~ ~ i t /~/s ,~ 1 ~ ~ -t ~ }: ~~~+~1 ~ it I '~<\\ r- `~~1 j // f i'I/ r r- a ~i v i~ I~ ~ I t ( I ~~`~~ ~~ `` f~~~.- J/ ! / l~ T -} ~.~~ ~ ~_ 1 d /~~ f ~ ~ 1 1-;~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~dllll ; ff ~ i 1( ~ ~~,~~,~»~,~lt cf rte- ~- - / ~ / /I ~ ~`~~ ~~`'-- , `--t"~ '; j ~ 1,--~ ~~~+ll I~ ~ ~ t , f 1 f i i ti~~~~~1~111i1~~11~llltf~~ ~ ~ ~ ,/rll 1 / ~ i i ~ ~~ ~~ ~:;~1 t J (~~j T~~itrl~~ ~ 1 ~ +~~ i l i 111~,,4~11114~ ~1~11111i ~ ~-~~/f 1~ ~ ~.~ ~ r~~~ -~ ! i~~~ /~;,.~l~l~ii r I ~ Ill I ~~ i 1111 1111~111111~1111 ~ ~ 9-- / ~ ~~ ~ (f ~ ; n- .- ~~t I :-- i ~+, ~ , 1' + ~ r 1 11~11l11 ~ 1111111 lrl ~~-,~ / ~ /r ~, .~ t , ~~,>.r! : J ~,~' ° i 1111~1111~r1~~~~~11".`~1,~1s ~ ~a~, ~ ~`T~ r' ~i` ~ ~ : f~ ~~i ~ i t c 111111ti111~ ti~~ti~\,~~'~'~~~'"1~~11~ -- ~~',~, // t 9 ~~ ~, 1 i ; ~ r ( 1 ~ 1 r i 11111'"1111~111~~1\\~~,11R~ ~ r !' ( - I, ~ ~ .-~~`/ I ~ ~~ f111.1~ 1r , ~ iI i , ~ 1 111'11 1111 4~ V~ ~~ ~ ~ //j/ r` ,~~ r a/n I ~'! ~~f ~ 1 r J l~ ll ~ a 1 i 1 i I } ~ 111 1) 1//1111111 111111~ ~\ J `,,~ ~ ~.~ ~ } ,~, ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ 1/ / 111 i , r ( 1111 II 1j(Q 9 ~~`1111 1\\ 1tiw~ ~, `:~ ~~ /r` 1 ti Il ' '~~ ~ Ii ~ (' ~ ~ ~ii~ I } ~ 1 II ( 111lf1 t 11111 11 ~,~ ~ l~r ]t ~ ~ ~ f I i ~ r 1 111 (! l11~(l i 11111111 ll~l~l~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ 1 ! ~,I • ( `~ ! ~ / ~~P 1 r i t ~ ii I ! ~ 11!11 li((111111111 1 ~11111 II]llr'rl i ~ ~.~ ( ~li ~~ r ~~ ~` ~ r,' til t i r, ~ ~ I 1 11 i I iI I II V14 IIII 1 ~•, ~ II ~ ( ~ i ; ~} f 't~ii i } f 1111 1!I I iII IlI111 I III(1! 11111H f ~ .:•~',~-r,~J~ ! ,~~ ~ 1 ~ i+ ~ii ~ ~ r 1f f 9 7 iI 111 Iflll I9 ~ i f ~ ~r~ / _ ft ~ 1 ~ ii ~(~ 1 fa ~ 1~ i ! ~ t tC 1111111 III 11111 if11-4 i 1llgl 111111111 ~ ~ -~ r~~ ' i 1 c i i ! '- ~ 111411 141111111111](11111 119! 111111111 ~~ ~ti' ~ /~ r ~~ " ~' ,~~~ ~~~~ I+~ ~~~ it 1 1 1 1 C~ 1 11111 I l 1 III !( 9 I ~ ~ { y" ~',,~f, }, A~,'I ~} ( ! } ! it ~''~ ~``~ 111111 1111441111411111111 fllll((1111,1i! / ~~~ / / ~~- ~~ ~ 1, 1111 111114141 111111111 1fllllfll // fIj ~ f f ~• f ~ , .~,1 + i~ 1?~~~ ~~ ~ i ~~ ! } t !! Cll 1 1111111111 N111111141 lfll~ ,II IIf l i l l 1 f ~r J ~ ~ 'r _ ll ~ ~ i~ ~~ ~~ ` ~' /i ~ i ` ~~I~ ! i ! !}i m N 111 11111 111411 ~11{1~ (r,i ~r ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ I' , i d-- 4 1 1111 111 I i 1191411 ti 11D~'~ ~`~~ ~~, t { f I ( ( ~ ! ! l ! C~ 111 1 1 II 4 X14 ~ ~~'~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~- ' ,~ .~.,, ~ :~ ~ ; i } 14 1,11111;! 4914141111 1414111~~~~ ~ ~~>''li 1 ~ ~ i~~ ''~ ~~~,~~~'-~'-~ it 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 !r 1 i `~ ~ 11 ,, 4 4111111 X11111, 1i ~ !/l 4 --- r ~ ~. t1i i ~ , , i ! f ~ ,1411"1 41 11~ 11.1112{! ii} 1 ( (~ ~ ~ s~ ~, ~(~ ~" ~"•.~ ! 1 + r f;1 ti 1 ~ ~ 1 1 111 11 1 11 11 r ~ ~, ! 11 r r ; ! i 1 •~ 11 1 1/111111 111 11 Ill -~'>~ ~+ 1.1 11 i ! t i 1 i ~ ~ 4141 11111111 1 1/111111 1111111 111111,1r11~ 4141 ~ - ~ .~ ~~ ~.l ~~ ,` r ~' 1 } 1 1111~ 1111111 111 11~ ,11 ,~ =-1 ~,~ 1 1, (~ .~ i ~ > I d11ti1,,1':11111,1411141t1~~111 11111,1. 1111\~~~~ 1~ 11`' • ,~~(1!{ ~ '~ ~-- i` ( -i 1 r' ~l 1 } ! 1 O C~ 1 414111 ~, ~~r,, \ 11 --r, ~ ~ .- ., ' ~ 1111111,1\1'r~ ti~~\\\~,~ ~ ~\V ^, 1 ~ ~- .. --~ . ~ , 11111111111 ~ ~\~. ~ \~ RV'~4~~ ~~-~=- -~- 1 ~ ~ ~i 1 ! l t 1 1\1 \\\ 1111 " ~.~..~ 7 ~ `'-"-~,- i , Illl`111~1\\1111111 ~111~~\~~`~'~ 1 ~\11`1`11 }.~~1 r ~=`-~; ~ ~,~,~"`~, 1 ,i' 1~ i , . . 11111~,11111111111k11 ~11111111~~;~,~y4Lrl~~t :- ~~~ ~ G ~ i I + 1 - ~ i ~ } ` t ,y t~ ~~ h~rxr t ~~+ `~ ~ v • ~ _ _ R ~~ A A A A A A .~__ . A A 9 A A 3 A A ~ ~ e ri A A A A A A p +~ ' is I ~~ sa -. A a ~ ~ _ F... } Irz] n ~ `n ~ .n In.xl ~eea~ r y.. ~~ .; +- ~ - ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ 1~ ~ N 01 cd Q U7 • • z"1_ M~c[c[le creek Parking Management Plan Overview Middle Creek is a to-be-built affordable rental housing project located at the Mountain Bell site in the Town of Vail. The development is subject to a Master Deed restriction which will give priority to residents who are employed by businesses located in the Town of Vail. As such, most or all of the tenants will be traveling short distances to work, and are expected to be able to reach many of their destinations by foot, bicycle, or bus. addition to providing parking for automobiles on site, the Middle Creek development has been designed to encourage and accommodate the use of public transportation. Located within the Middle Creek site will be a new Town of Vail bus stop. This bus stop will accommodate both eastbound and westbound buses and will be located immediately in front of Middle Creek's. managernent/leasing affice. The leasing office is the site of the central mail boxes for the project, a cyber cafe, laundry facility, and common area. As such, it is intended to be a convenient and attractive place for tenants to wait for the bus. A bike path pedestrian path will also be constructed along the southern boundary of the property which will integrate with and feed into the existing bike path. The current roundabout on the north side of the highway at the main Town of Vail exit is already designed for pedestrian and bike use and it only crosses traffic at this roundabout at the westbound on-ramp to the 1-70. ~u#omabile Parkina Middle Creek proposes to implement a plan that combines assigned parking for each resident unit with financial incentives to tenants who do not use their assigned space{s). The current site plan reflects a to#ai of 236 parking spaces, of which $4 (or 36°fo of the totall are intended to be covered tuck-under spaces in both a single and tandem configuration. All buildings on the site that. have a general east/west orientation will have tuck-under parking. The overall site plan reflects a parking ratio of approximately 1~6 parking spaces per unit. Each unit will have an allocation of assigned spaces, at no charge, which space(s) will be in close proximity to the tenant's unit, All tenant vehicles will have a parking tag or sticker that must be displayed on the vehicle at all times to allow for appropriate monitoring. This allocation of free spaces shall be according to the following schedule: Numher of lEaree L,~nit Tvne Assigned Spaces Comments Studio 1.0 . 1 Bedroom 1.0 2 Bedroom 2.0 (1} 3 Bedroom 2.0 Tandem configuration (1) Each 2 bedroom unit wiik have l assigned space, at no charge, and access to a 2~ assigned space for $2SAU* per month. Financial Incentive Plan Any tenant who elects NOT to use its assigned parking space will have $75.00* per month deducted for its unit rental rate, or $900.00* per year. This is intended to provide a significant financial incentive for tenants to use public transportation in lieu of automobiles. The spaces w=ill then be made available to other residents, at a minimum charge of $75.00* per space per month. VisitorlGuest Parking In addition to the parking provided pursuant to the assigned parking schedule above, Middle Creek will have 19 additional parking spaces, Some of these will be limited to short term parking, some will be available as short term rental spaces for visitors to residents at Middle Creek, and some will be available for monthly rental to tenants at Middle Creek. Use of any of these spaces (except those dedicated to short term parking} will be limited to individuals who have registered their vehicle with the Middle Creek leasinglrnanagement office and made whatever appropriate payments are required. Parking Reduction Request The Town of Vail parking requirement for the proposed unit configuration is 257 spaces. The site design at Middle Creek allows for 236 spaces, or 1.6 spaces per unit. This represents an S% reduction in the required number of parking spaces versus the cu~~o~~t Town of Vail requirement. * A!1 charges indicated leereiee are subject to adjust»ienf o>>er thee, based an market conditions rend demand. ~, ~t~~E „~ ~~•ti1'' y:~E~ ti 1'~ !l~'F ! f " " r l i , t d i ,ri,i ~ er r . t r 1 f rl r r 'r ~ I ! f ~ 1 Ij~ I! i r ~ ; ] r ~ ! ~ ~~J 1 1„' r ~ i~ 11 i ' ~ _ F r P ~'" f f ~ i~ r~ , ! ~ f f i ~ 1 i f ~ ~ 1' , ?~~ ,~ J ~~ ~1'r Iij il~ ~' ~~ v: i , , ~ , , ,;, ~~ ~ > iC'1 ; . > O.' ~~ .~~ r le~ i~ ~ 1; ~ ,JAI ,r~fj~ ~ ~ I~ ~~ ~(~g ';1f ~ ril~e p ;I ~i~ I„ ~i ~~ I F rft, pr !,! t' #f~ ;~ j"! r a , f ~ r ~' ,~rk ~ f ' ~i ; f ~I ,i~ :~F ~f "+~ 1 ''j~ rjf ~ f r f j' i jlf rr !1~ ~ r fr fri ;'1 i ~ ,rf f i' r, • r I I I f' I i rr ~.~;; iI~ 1 ! 'I t r 1~%f 1 ! r I rf ~, rr i~;,~ • ~ f ,ir 1r~' r ~. ~ r r ~' 1 / r J f ~ ~; ; r, f~'lr~r, r,r ~~ ~ ~ r ~' ~~ r,+r f 1 ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ Q (~'., E WO~ ~,~~ ~~ g ~ W Q ._l S ~ ~ ~ ~ D F Approved i2/itl/~Oi PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUSLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, November 12, 2(}01 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1-Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Qiane Golden John 5chafield Brian Dayan Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site Visits 1. Hagerman residence - 1784 & '1794 S. Frontage Rd, Vilest 2. Cohen residence - 1467 Greenhill Court 3. Lions Square Lodge - 660 West Lionshead Place 4. Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive 5. Parks residence - 4166 Columbine Drive 12:D0 pm 12:45 pm Driver: Brent Imo NOTE: if the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, to allow for the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type III employee hauling units, located at the VaiP Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M,N and O, Slock 5D, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Connie Qorsey indicated that the existing building does not have a sprinkler system, only smoke detectors. He also indicated that the units will have microwaves for cooking and that 62 rooms are available for rent. He said that there will be 56 units 4beds), since some rooms will consist of joint roams for a single tenant. He also indicated that there are 50 exterior and 42 interior parking spaces available. Allison Ochs indicated that sufficient parking is available. C~ ~,.` ? 1Y MEMBERS ABSENT Approved 12110/fl1 2 3 Connie Dorsey clarified that the parking spaces specifically reserved for Craig"s Market are not counted as part of the available spaces. Doug Cahill questioned if any of the roams will be used for common areas or facilities. Connie Dorsey indicated that no common areas are being proposed. Galen Aasland expressed concern about the electrical system and fire safety of the building. Joe Stauffer replied that the entire building was rewired as part of an addition in 197B. He indicated that he is a property owner in each phase of the project and that the owners agreed a filled building is better #han a vacant building. Dick Cleveland agreed that people should be in the units, rather than having the building be empty. He said he would like to see a 56-unit maximum placed on the proposal. Bryan Doyon agreed to a maximum of 56 units, but wants to be sure that the Type III EHU standards are being met and if the square floatage for units does not meet the minimum sizes„ a dormitory design should be used. Chas Bernhardt had no additional comments. Doug Cahill recommended a one-year limit with follow-up Fire Department inspection. Diane Golden asked what assurances are being taken to ensure that parts of rooms are not going to be sublet. She also indicated a cancem about parking in front of Craig's Market. Connie Dorsey indicated that this will be controlled by the lease agreement and that approximately 30% of the tenants don't have cars. Galen Aasland indicated that his greatest concern is for life safety. John Schofield motioned to approve the amendment to the SDD, in accordance with the stafif memo- The motion was seconded by Chas Bernhardt. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. John Schofield motioned to approve the conditional use permit, in accordance with the staff memo. A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-10 (Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, at the Lion's Square Lodge, located at 660 1Nest Lionshead PlacelLot 1, Vail Lionshead 1~' Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: BiA Gibson TABLED UNTIL N©VEMBER 2fi, 2001 A request for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage} and 12-7A-fi (Se#backs}, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow DrivelLot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson Approved 12/10/01 Bill Gibson gave a staff presentatian and stated that the purpose of the project is to create an entrance statement on the front of the building and conditions included tha# an easement, or a revocable right away be created. Tom ©ebois, an architect from Fritlzen Pierce Architects, represented the applicant and there was no presentatian by the applicant. Doug Cahill asked, about the relationship of posts to support the awning in relationship to the right-of-way and whether there would be heated pavers. Tom Debois said there would be heated pavers. The PEC then discussed, with the applicant, haw guests currently park to check in and haw loading and delivery works on the site. Doug Cahill stated that the overhang will further reduce parking and loading and delivery on the site. Stephanie Lord Johnson, also of Fritzlen Pierce, stated the applicant wanted to do an entrance in conjunction with other public road improvements to improve vehicular and pedestrian access. John Schofield stated he was opposed to the use of public land to resolve the Mt. Bell problem and felt that the proposal would reduce safety on the site. John thought this would be a grant of special privilege. Diane Golden said that the entrance on the west side looks great, but was a#raid that the proposal would create an unsafe condition. Dick Cleveland stated that the proposal would be detrimental to the safety of the site and believes that this should not move forward. until the Town and the Vail Mountain Lodge move forward. Brian Dayon agreed with Dick Cleveland, but was concerned with haw the Mountain House is piecing the project together.. He also agreed that this needs to be par# of a comprehensive plan far the site. Chas Bernhardt asked what Greg Hall comments were on the site. Bill Gibson reviewed Greg Hall comments. Ghas Bernhardt is opposed until Greg is completely satisfied with the proposal and recommended tabling the project until all safety issues can be resolved with Public Works. Galen Aasland agreed with Brian's comments that the project is piece-mealed. He said he liked the idea of a cantilevered cover, but he was concerned that there would be increased safety issues on the site. Stephanie Lord Johnson s#ated that she believed she was headed towards a denial. She asked if the PEC would consider tabbing the application until some of #hese issues have been resolved with Greg Hall. She stated that there is no overall master plan for the site, that the Mountain Haus has approached improvements in a different way. She stated that Public Works has stated that the public improvements they originally proposed were not acceptable by Public Works. She believed that they are in a Catch-22. John Schofield stated that they are in a Catch-22 and that because the building is located sa close to the property, this is a difficult site.. Approved 1211 X101 Brian Doyon stated that this problem has arisen because this project is sa coaxed out on the site and stated that his primary concern is the safety. Galen Aasland stated that 'rf they would like to table the item, they would reconsider the project. Dick Cleveland stated that this is a tough circumstance and there may not be an easy solution. He then made a motion to table this to the first meeting in December. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with John Schofield opposed. 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-5 (Lot Area and Site Dimensions), Vail Town Code, a minor subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, Vail ViAage West, Filing IVa. 2, to relocate a common properly line and a rezoning of Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing F~lo.2, from Two- Family Primary/Secondary Zone District to Single-Family Zone District and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 1784 & 1794 South Frontage Road WestlLots 2 ~ 3 Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip Hagerman/Allison Ochs Planner: George Ruttier Allison Ochs gave a presentation of the requests and reviewed the criteria for the requests. The applicant, Phil Hagerman, thanked staff for their help. He commented that the site has challenges with the floodplain. There was no public comments. Dick Cleveland had concerns about changing the size of the lot in relationship to the bike path. Mr. Hagerman believes that he can safely create a 31]-foot buffer from the bike path- He believes that the site distance is fine and will allow safe egress onto the Frontage Rd and across the bike road and also that the driveway would also be flat to improve safety. Dick Cleveland asked if the reason for the proposa6 is to create a bigger home. Mr. Haggerman said he would like to create a house that is consistent with Vail. Dick Cleveland said he was concerned about adding additional Hoar area, but overall said he feels that this application would increase the conformance of the lot and would also reduce the density of the site. Brian Doyon asked Allison about the development potential today, versus the proposal. Chas Bernhardt generally supported the proposal, Doug Cahill also supported the proposal, but had questions regarding the bike path. Mr. Hagerman said that they will work with Public Works on the bike path crossing. • Jahn Schofield said that the PEC has approved similar variances in the neighborhood and was generally comfortable with the application. Diane Golden wan#ed to clarify that the applicant would not be able to back out onto the bike path. 4 Approved 12110/Q1 Mr. Hagerman assured the PEC that they would be able to turn around and do head out parking. Galen Aasland asked again about the grade of the bike path, in relationship to the driveway. Jahn Schofield made a motion to forward a recommendation to the Town Council to change the zoning. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 7- 0. John Schofield maned that the PEC grant approval for a minor subdivision, in accordance with the condition in the staff memo. Dick Cleveland seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. John Schofield moved that the PI=C grant approval for the variance as requested. Diane Golden seconded the motion.. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request for a variance from Title 14, Development S#andards, to allow for the replacement of an existing retaining wall with a new wall that exceeds six feet in height, located at 1467 Greenhill CourtlLat 10, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Ellenore Jolnt Venture/Richard ~ Diane Cohen Planner: George RutherlAllison Qchs Allison Ochs gave the staff presentation Art Abplanalp complimented staff and described why they needed to crew#e the wall as proposed, Paul Macklin, from Yenter, emphasized that the current wall will fail in the very near future and he also explained how the wall would be consiructed. There was no pubic comment Doug Cahill asked what alternatives were examined. Paul Macklin said that they looked at regrading and other wall materials and further explained the details of the proposed design, Jahn Schofield recommended that the applicant and the DRB examine the use of a stone veneer on the proposed wall. Dick Cleveland said he supports the request, however, he expressed a concern that the wall be mitigated from the view of the neighbors. Brian Doyon supports the request, however, he expressed concerns for the disturbance from the access road and the elimination of trees. He would like to see all trees and shrubs replaced on an inch-per-inch caliper basis. He would also like to see the disturbance to vegetation and grading as part of the survey. Approved 12110/D1 Ghas Bernhardt is satisfied with the application as proposed. John Schofield moved to approve the proposed variance request, in accordance with the staff memorandum and amended to change the required DRB resubmit#al date to January 14, 2002. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion for approval was passed by a vote of 6-1, with Brian Dayon opposed. 6. A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of Middle Greek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Beli"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.lta be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant. Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Galen Aasland asked staff to provide the P>=G with GRFA calculations for other housing projects. Russ Forest indicated that to achieve a covered parking rate. of 75°/°, it would require 93 additional parking spaces, costing approximately $2 million. Mike Coughlin indicated that they have met several times with staff to discuss revisions to the proposed design, prior to this re-issuance. dtis O'Dell presented an overview of their site analysis and the most recent proposed design • for Middle Creek. Clark Atkinson spoke regarding the cut and fill required an the site, including the significant reduction with the current site plan. Otis Odell presented the other major points of the current plan, including snow storage, landscape area, etc. Clark Atkinson, with Shaw Construction, stated that they have built over 5,000 units of housing. He presented an overview of housing projects. He sta#ed that Middle Creek is considered gland-constrained housing. He stated that Lake Greek provided covered parking due to the lot area availability and that the enclosed parking at Lake Creek is covered within freestanding garages. He also s#ated that a pausing project in Aspen is subsidizing the enclosed parking on the site with $25,00{} per unit. He also discussed the cast of surface parking ($1 B00-2200 per space) versus structured parking and that tuck- under parking is approximately $12,500, takes away a unit, increases the cast of the building and increases the cost of housing. He stated teat they are trying to strike a balance regarding affordable housing and good planning. He continued to talk about the difficulty of making the project anorth-south orientation. Brian doyon asked about cut-fill. Glark Atkinson staled that they are estimating a cut of 27,000 sq. ft, Galen Aasland requested teat Otis Odell bring out various site plans that have been considered in the past. John Schofield asked about fhe access agreement with Mountain BeIL G Approved 1211 oJ01 ' Jim Eflerbraok, Peak Engineering, clarified the communications that have occurred with Mountain Bell, He stated that they have been generally open io some changes to the Mountain Bell site. Brian Doyon said he doesn't like the tuck-under parking on the front building, that too many doors are visible right off the roadway, but he really likes the tuck-under parking on the back buildings. Galen Aasland said he sees merit in the site plan presented today, because some of the older versions lack more like Timber Ridge. Brian Doyon asked about why the early learning center had to be located on the eastern portion of the site, instead of the flag area of the site. He asked about the parking lot being on fill. He then continued to ask about relocating the early learning center to the western portion of the lot. John Schofield presented an alternative to the site plan, which included the learning center on the west portion of the site. Chas Bernhardt discussed his primary concern, regarding parking on the site. He stated that we should eliminate all of the surface parking, which would allow for more lot area far housing. He then s#ated that he wanted a Town parking structure in that Ivcation. Nina Timm, representing the Housing Authority, stated that parking is not the purview of the VLHA. Allison Ochs clarified the enclosed parking requirement. Doug Cahill stated he did like the clustering of the buildings, but is supportive of the density. He said he still has concerns regarding the building on the western portion of the site, specifically breaking up the building which could eliminate same units. He stated that we need to maximize the density on the project. He said he liked the bus stop location and use of the site. He expressed concern regarding snow storage and that underground parking would eliminate that need, He stated that he would like to see the best plan possible, with no money considerations, then work down-ward from there to cut budgetary items. He said he likes the minimizing of grading and retainage. He said he likes the idea of clustering the buildings to get rid of the linear look of the western building. He said he wanted more information regarding bulk and mass and he had no comments on the setbacks. He said he had a huge concern about walking through the roundabouts for the pedestrian connection. He said he liked the Early Learning Center an the eastern end and the separation of the uses and he appreciates the hard work. that has gone into the project. John Schofield stated that he would like to start fresh. He stated that maximizing the site for density is the direction to go, as long as parking is considered. He said to ga up as high as you want and that parking must be aesthetically pleasing and well screened. He further stated that. the life-cycle cost of the project need to be considered, instead of just up-front costs. He is okay with deviations to the setbacks, but we need to look at the noise on those adjacent to the Frontage Rd. He said that once the design is finalized, open space will fall into place. He said he had concerns about the pedestrian connection use through the roundabout or interstate and suggested possibly a shuttle service to the transportation system.. He said he was not concerned about which end the Early Learning Center goes on, as he believes that it is acceptable at either location. Diane Golden stated that she appreciated all that the applicant has done what they've asked them to do. She expressed a concern that they have not given fhe parking situation more consideration. She suggested possibly a parking structure on the site, instead of just housing. 7 Approved 12/10101 Dick Cleveland stated that he was happy that he is on this side of the table. Dick stated that he does have concerns regarding the density on the site. He stated that with the parking trouble, locating buildings an there, etc, he believes density should be reduced. He was pleased to see the reduction to 148 units, but believes that we need to take another look at density- He stated that less density would mean less parking and he said he would be ak with rnore surface parking if density and total parking numbers are reduced. He said he likes Chas's idea regarding a parking structure, but realized that won' be happening any time soon. He said he will not accept hazard mitigation if it is visible across the Valley. He said the Early Leaming Censer can go wherever. He said that the HDMF Zone District has a maximum height of 48 ft. and he wants the height at 36 to 40 ft He said the setbacks are not a big issue. He said regarding the pedestrian connection, tha# the roundabouts are not pedestrian friendly, and they are charged with getting them to the roundabout. Brian Doyon stated that he believed Odell is doing a good jab on this project and thaf the PEC is looking far quality. He skated that the location of the school is a concern of his. He is also concerned about the building on the west, specifically the line of garage doors along the Frontage Rd. He said he wants mare density, but it has to fit with the site, He said we have lots of toys, and so covered parking is hugely beneficial. He said even earth covered parking #hat is open to the exterior, will hold class to the 75%. He said that site disturbance is of a cancem to him. He said to go as high as we can, or 48 ft, and he is okay with the retaining walls being taller. He said that open space depends on density and if you can see hazard mitigation it is wrong. He said regarding the pedestrian connection, that we have to get them. to the roundabout and to the pedestrian bridge. He said he wants to .see the Early Learning Center on the west side, but is ok with it on the east and wants to see a turnaround/drop-off. Chas Bernhardt stated that he would like to maximize the use of the property. He stated that he believes the leadership of the Tawn needs to step out of the box and to consider maximizing the use of the site. He said he wan#s as much density as possible and wants to , see the majority of parking underground. He said he likes the tuck-under parking, and said there cannot be a sea of parking, as it is a waste of space and could be used more efficiently. He said he was also okay with taller walls and wants the height 48 ft. or higher. He had no issue with the se#backs and since they were surrounded by open space, #here is na need for a park. He doesn't want to see hazard mitigation at all. He said, regarding the pedestrian connection, to get them to the roundabout, or provide mare public transit. He said he would like the Early Leaming Center moved to the west side. Galen Aasland stated that we've come sa far, but we've gat sa far to go. He said he was okay with lots of density on this site. He said the western building is too 6inear and you can't fine up 36 doors in a row, so same number may need to be eliminated and if you can see an ocean of parking, that is wrong. He said regarding the grading and retainage, #hat you can't just level the site, that you must work within a set of guidelines- He said the building design merits to the Early Learning Center on both sides, and so is up to the applicant. He said he thinks that the design turns its back on the Mountain Bell fewer. He said he is fine with 48 ft. height and setbacks and that the hazard mitigation should not be seen. He said he needs to see more about the pedestrian connection. Allison Ochs asked about the provision of parking an the site and whether or not a reduction would be allowed for the project. Mike Goughlin presen#ed an overview of the parking management plan and the reasons for a reduction an the site. Jahn Schofield said no to a parking a reduction, and there is a need for visitor parking. Doug Cahill said he was ak with a reduction, but wants to see a plan get as close as passible and would recommend designing it to meet the requirement. 8 Approved 12/10/01 Diane Golden said no io a reduction in parking. Dick Cleveland said an 8% deviation in parking was too much, but if he could be shown how similar projects work, he may be open to about a 5% reduction with a stringent parking plan. Brian Doyon said he would hold this to the letter of the law and there was a need for all the parking required, specifically guest parking. Ghas Bernhardt said he does not support a reduction in parking. Galen Aasland said he could support a 5% reduction in parking and grass pavers would be acceptable. Kay Ferry suggested that the discussion today is in the wrong location. She said she believes that more should be given to fhe developer to build affordable, i.e., more height, more density, and less parking. Ghuck Ogilby asked for clarification regarding the height requirement. Doug Cahill, Diane Golden, John Schofield, Brian Doyon, Chas Bernhardt, and Galen Aasland were amiable to additional height, but they said it must be sensitive to the site and the design of the building. Dick Cleveland said he is not willing tv concede to too much height. Mike Coughlin asked abou# the parking structure and the direction that Council would take regarding structured parking for the entire Town and if they said no, if this issue could be put to bed. • The Planning and Environmental Commission stated that they would be willing to drop that issue if the Council chose not to move that direction. John Schofield made a motion to table this until December 10, 2001. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of ~-0. 7. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (Setbacks) & 12-6G-9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type !Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine DrivelLat 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Ruther/Allison C7ohs Jahn Schofield made a motion to table this until December 10, 2{}01. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 8. Approval of October 22, 2001 minutes Diane Golden made a motion to approve as read. Ghas Bernhardt seconded fhe motion, 9 Approved 12/101ot The motion passed by a vote of 5-0, with John Schofield' and Srian Doyon abstaining. 9. 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 cal! 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the bearing impaired, for information. Community Development Department 10