The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-1210 PEC~~ • ,.NyApplicanE~°hl~ouninin~"F~aus .,:.fed 13Y Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planrrer: Bill Gibson 2. A reqquest fora work session to review preliminary allvrnaltJea fvr the devalvpment plan of Middle Creek Village, locatali at the site knovYtl ao "Mauntaln Bell"tan unplatiad ,place 41 properly, bcat®d at 160 North Fcontagga aadria tea platted es Lot i, M4ddie Creek Sybdivlsivn, Applicant: Veit Lacal Housing Authmrtty rep• re59hted by OdaIl,Arohi[ects -~ Planner: Allison Ochs 3. A request far s variance from Sections 12•- 6C-6 (Setbacks} & 12•fiC-9;Site Coverage}, Vall Town Code, to albw fvr the cansirucdpn of a 3yps i Employyee Mvusfng unit, lacitted ~t 4186 G lumbliie OrfveROt i8, I horn SutsdiVislan. Appllcanr. Timothyy parks Planner: [3aorrgge.Rufhar 7ABl EIR UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2001. 4. A rtlquast tar a m"rrw~ subtlivisian_af ih@. F7kTlg Nc. , led;n the c ;lark and lir Bald Vail of CondominiumV M®p fvr ~a11 ~Qa#Caurse Town- homes Associafdon Phace l11, a"..,,.~Ci..g to the map thereof; (1) 56.14 feel along fire arc of a curve tv the right, having a radius t7t 253.L~1 feet, a aantral a la of 13 degrees 09'05", and a chard that t;edrg SBS .:- ::.:_.q3']1" E 58,62 feet; (2) 579 de9raes 08°~R' G 63.09 feet; (3) 16.63 feet ..,..".A "i.n u.n of a ro,n,n rn !fie 9aN IrRrinn n rarl''s v,~~u acres, morn z3r mas. Maps referenced In the above description are recorded In kha gffiaa of 1Ne Eagle COunly, Colorado, Clerk end Recor~r. Appldcant; Fall Ridge CandomlhWmAsgacla- tlan ' oln.,re"~ alYl PIF,ann iaDBlLrrr 1, VAll UanBneaa 'I ai.l"Il7rla. ~ ~ - Apppplicant: Llan's Square Lpdge Planners Bits Gibson - 7AgLEU UiV71L JANUARY 14, ¢eQ2 B. A rggqvest tvf a Gatiditional Uae Penult tb law far, a Betl and BraakPa3t L,.y.w.~., trt be la read st 1716 BuHehr Greek RaedlLat 2, Lfa ialmer 5ubdivlslvn, Apppplicant: Paul and Nancy Rarrdeau Planner: Attisan Ochs WRHL~ftAWN 7. Approval of Navsmtrer 12, 2001 minutes 8.. Infvrmadan Update - is mvlrea to arena prolecton, ;~. . visits that precede the pudic heatlng of Vafi Community pavelvpmarrt Lie, >Ibasa cell 47x}2136 fbr inf0.....:...,,... sge I : ; ::;.:_n availat~fe upon re- 24~f1oUr no1'rficativn. Please call 479- trona far the Hearing-Impaired, for in- TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT C1F CDMMLrNf'fYl3EVELOPMENT Publialred sn The Vak Trait • public Nct4ce NQT4CF IB HEREBY GNEN that the Plan- nongg and Envtronmantal Commlasion of the Town 9f Vakl will bald a pu~IC hearing }n aaosdanca wltlti SaClion 12.3-& of the Municipal Coda of the Town of Vail on December 24, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. in tltie Tipwn of Vail Municipal Buiid(ng. fn cansidaratltan ort~ ~~~r~NC cawc~~~n C~ rawN of vAt~. DEPARTMENT CF CptatMUNlTY QEVEI.pPM€NT Pu6i#ahad in The Vetl l'ralt on December T, 2001 ---r"_" _ _ ~ ~, F~~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUI3LIC MEETING SCHEDULE ~~' Monday, December 24, 2001 ~~ It ~'',~e- MEETING CANGE~LED t.. The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the project pCanner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please calf ~T9-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation availatale upon request Witt, 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published DECember 21, 2001 in the Vaii Trail • ,'~ TOWN Ole PAIL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE a NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town a~~', Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Cade of the ""~,~ Town of Vail on December 10, 20t]1, at 2:DO P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. fn consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-10 (Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, at the Lion's Square Lodge, located at fifi0 West Lionshead Placeft_ot 1, Vail Lionshead 1sr Filing.. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Wlanner; Bill Gibson 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 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Archi#ects Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a warksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as `°Mauntain Bell"!an unpla#ted piece of property, located at 1fi0 N. Frontage Rd./ta be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (Setbacks) & 12-fiC-9 {Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4156 Columbine DrivelLot 18, Bighorn Subdivision- Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Bother • A request for a Conditional Use Permit to a11ow for a Bed and Breakfast operation to be located at 1710 Buffehr Creek RoadlLot 2, Lia Zneimer Subdivision. Applicant: Paul & Nancy Bandeau Planner: Allison Ochs A reques# for a minor subdivison of the proposed "Fallridge Parcel," a Part. of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3 ! a portion of land adjacent to the Vail Goif Course Tawnhomes in the 1500 black of Golf Terrace. A complete metes and bounds legal description is as follows; That portion of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder., described as follows: Beginning at the northwest comer of Lot 2, Warren Pulls Subdivision, according to the map thereof; thence Sao°00'00"' E 109.62 feet along the west line of said Lot 2 to the northeast corner of Lot 1, Vail Valley Second Filing, according to the map thereof; thence N89°23'41" W 101.18 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 1 to the easterly line of Lot 11, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing, according to the map thereof; thence N00°36'17" E 114.75 feet along said easterly line; thence Nfi4°23'43" W 35.16 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 11 to the easterly right-of-way line„ of Vail Valley Drive; thence, along said easterly right-of-way line, ,~ ~~ ;y TQ>;~'N QF 4'AIL ~ 7.97 feet along the arc of curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central angle of 06°05'17", and a chord that bears N08°33'46"E 7.97 feet; thence, departing said easterly right- of-way line, the following four courses along the southerly line of Condominium Map for Vail Golfcourse Townhomes Association Phase Ilf, according to the map thereof; (1} 58.14 feet along the are of a curve to the right, having a radius of 253.31 feet, a central angle of 13°09'05", and a chord that bears S85°43'11'" E 58.02 fee#; (2) S79°08'38" E 63,09 feet; (3) 10.83 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 310.00 feet, a central angle of 02°00'07" and a chord that bears S80°09'15"E 10.82 feet; (4) S00°00'00" E 11.20 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.310 acres, more or Tess. Maps rEferenced in the above description are recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder. Applicant: Fall Ridge Condominium Association Planner Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the projec# planners office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please caH 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 23, 2001 in the Vail Trail. • r: 2 Pq~,VS~FO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUB~.IC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, December~l0, 2001 ~,~+Lt 1,S~AS ~+Li.12C, j~ • PROJECT ORIENTATION l -Community Development Dept, PUBLIC WELCOME 12:[10 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:30 pm 1. Mtn. Haus - 292 E_ Meadow Drive Driver: Bill ~a NOTE: If the PEC 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 variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage} and 12-~A-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, io 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$' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Friizlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives far the development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Bel!"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant; Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs ~~ rows o~ vA.~ ~' 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 {Setbacks) & 12-6C-9 (Site Coverage}, Vail Town 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 Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2001 4. A request for a minor subdivison of the proposed "Fallridge Parcel," a Part of Lat 1, Sunburst Piling No. 3 1 a portion of land adjacent to the Vail Golf Course Townhomes in the 1600 black of Goff Terrace. A complete metes and bounds legal description is as follows: That portion of Lat 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the map thereof retarded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Loi 2, Warren Pulls Subdivision, according to the map thereof; thence S00°00'00" E 109.62 feet along the west line of said Lot 2 to the northeast tamer of Lo# 1, Vail Valley Second Filing, according to the map thereof; thence N89°23'41" W 101.18 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 1 to the easterly line of Lot 11, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing, according to the map thereof; thence N00°36'17" E 114.75 feet along said easterly line; thence N64°23'43" W 35,16 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 11 to the easterly right-of-way line, of Vail Valley Drive; thence, along said easterly right-of-way fine, 7.97 feet along the arc of curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central angle of 06°05'37", and a chord that bears NOS°33'46"E 7.97 feet; thence, departing said easterly right-of-way line, the following four courses along the southerly line of Condominium Map for Vail Galfcourse Townhomes Association Phase III, according to the map thereof; {1) 58.14 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 253.31 feet, a central angle of 13°09'05", and a chord that bears S85°43'11" E 55.02 feet; {2} S79°08'38" E 63.09 feet; {3) 10.83 feet along the arc of a curve io the left, having a radius of 310.00 feet, a central angle of 02°00'07", and a chord that bears S80°09'15"E 10.52 feet; (4} S00°00'00" E 11.20 feet to the point of beginning, can#aining 0.310 acres, mare or less. Maps referenced in the above description are recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder. Applicant: Fall Ridge Condominium Association Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2002 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-10 {Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, at the Lion's Square Lodge, located at 660 West Lionshead PlacelLot 1, Vail Lionshead 15` Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2002 6. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast operation to be located at 1710 Buffeter Creek RoadlLot 2, Lia Zneimer Subdivision. Applicant: Paul & Nancy Rondeau Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 2 7. Approval of November November 12, 2001 minutes 8. Infomnation 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, ~~ South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request wi#h 24 hour notification. Please call 479-236, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Comrunity Development Department Published i7ecember 7, 2D01 in the Vail Trail. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, December 14, 2441 G~i~trrras Lu~,~ PROJECT ORIENTATION f -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:08 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Diane Golden Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Brian Doyon Erickson Shirley MEMBERS ABSENT John Schaffield Daug Cahill Site Visits : 1;30 pm 1. Mtn. Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive Driver: Bill ~~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until G:44 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:44 - 6:34 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:0(1 pm ~ . Swearing in of new PEC member, Erickson Shirley -Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. A request for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Si#e Coverage) and 12-7A-S (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, 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 E3, Vail Village 1~' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND:. Diane Golden VOTE: 5-4 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2002 ,~l ~. Tf1WN OF YA,lL ~ 1 3. A request for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Moon#ain Bell"!an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.lto be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSI(~N - N(~ VOTE 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (Setbacks} & 12-6C-9 (Site Coverage}, Vail Town Cade, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Qrive/Lot 113, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Trnathy Parks Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5-D TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2001 4. A request far a minor subdivisan of the proposed "Fallridge Parcel," a Part of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3 / a portion of land adjacent to the Vail Golf Course Townhomes in the 1fi0D block of Golf Terrace. A complete metes and bounds legal description is as follows: That portion of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 2, Warren Pulls Subdivision, according to the map thereof;. thence SDD°DD'DD" E 109.62 feet along the west line of said Lot 2 to the northeast comer of Lot 1, Vail Valley Second Filing, according to the map thereof; thence N89°23'41" W 101.18 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 1 to the easterly line of Lot 11, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing, according to the map thereof; thence N00°36'17" E 114.75 feet along said easterly line; thence N64°23'43" W 35.10 feet along the northery line of said Lot 11 to the easterly right-of--way line, of Vail Valley Drive; thence, along said easterly right-of-way line, 7.97 feet along the arc of curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central angle of 06°05'17", and a chord that bears ND8°33'46"E 7,97 feet, thence, departing said easterly right-of-way line, the following four courses along the southerly fine of Condominium Map for Vail Golfcourse Townhomes Association Phase III, according to the map thereof; (1) 513.14 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 253.31 feet, a cen#ral angle of 13°D9'D5", and a chord that bears 585'043'11" E 58.02 feet; (2} 579°08'38" E 63.D9 feet; (3) 10.83 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 310.00 feet, a central angle of 02°00'07", and a chord that bears 58D°09'15"E 10.82 feet; (4} SDD°00'00" E 11.20 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.31 D acres, more or less_ Maps referenced in the above description are recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder. Applicant; Faii Ridge Condominium Association Planner; BiCI Gibson MOTION; Brian Doyon SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2002 5. A request for a variance from Sec#ion 12-7H-10 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, at the Lion's Square Lodge, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 15~ Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Brian Doyon SEC©ND: Diane Golden VOTI=: 5-Q • TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 1d, 2002 6. A request far a Conditional Use Permit to allow far a Bed and Breakfast operation to be located at 1710 Buffeter Creek RoadfLot 2, Lia Zneimer Subdivision. Appfcant: Paul & Nancy Rondeau Planner: Allison Ochs W€THDRAWN C 7. Approval of November 12, 2DQ1 minutes 8, Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hear notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • TH1S ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~ '~ PUBLIC NOTICE ~~' ~ ~~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of E~ +~ `~ ~~ Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the ~ Tawn of Vail on December 24, 2p01, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: ~ MEETING CANCELLED The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please caH 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published December 7, 2001 in the Vail Trail, . ~- ~: ~. TUWN 0~' YAb I'v'ovember 27, 2001 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado $16.7 Re: Application filed by Paul 8c Nancy Rondeau for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Bed and Breakfast Operation to be located at 1710 Buffehr Creek Raad (Lot 2, Lia Zneimer Subdivision), Vail Colorado Dear Commission Members: We are the current owners of 17141'~uffehr Creels Road (Lot 3, Lia Zneimer Subdivision}, Vail, Colorado, which residence is located im_trlediately adjacent to the property which is the subject of a pending application filed by Psrul c4r. Nancy Rondeau for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a commercial bed and breskfast establishment. We are strongly opposed [o the application and respectfully request that the Planning and Environmental Comn~.ssion deny the request for a number of reasons. In order for the Commission to evaluate and out on this Application, we believe that an understanding of the physical layout of the subdivision and the nature of the governing restrictive uovenants and private roadway is helpful. L. The seven lots which. comprise the Lia Zneimer Subdivision are located along the south of Buffehr Creek Road and were developed and zoned as single family residential lots as part of a covenanC- controlled community. Protective Covenants govern the use and development of these lots. 2, The Protective Covenants for the Lia Gnermer Subdivision uonsist of the following: (a) Covenants, October 5, 1992, recorded in Book X90, Page 722; (b) First Amendment and Supplement, June 6, 1994, recorded in Book 642, Page 116; (c) Second Amendment and Supplement, October 6, 1995, recorded in Book 677, page 744; {d) Third Amendment and Supplement, July I2, 1996, recorded in Book 699, Page 5$6; {e) Fourth Amendment and Supplement, July 30, 1999, recorded at Reception No. ?0415I; and (f} Fifth Amendment and Supplement, October 22, 1999,. reuorded at Reception No. 713f)ZU. 3. The Protective Covenants prohibits the s><tbiect nrotaerty from be%n~ used for anv cvnunercial or business nttrposes, including motel or hotel use, lodging, ar multiple-family residential purposes, and limits the use to that of a "Residential Lot". A Residential Lot is defined as one upon which .only asingle- family residence may be constructed (although one guest apartment may be incorporated into the structure so long as the character mf a sinsrle-family dwelling is maintained). A single fanvly dwelling is defined in Title 12, "Zoning Regulations" of the Town Code of Vail, as a building designed for yr used as a dwelling F:1vr~pctatalCb 1SullivanVailYlnnningt.trl.doc Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 1`3ovember 27, 2001 Page 2 of 2 exclusively by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. The Zoning Regulations in Title 12 of the Town Gode further define a "bed and breakfast" as "a business which accommodates guests..." and one for which a business license is required. Clearly, the operation of a business, such as a "bed and breakfast" is prohibited by the Protective Covenants. 4. Title 12 of the Town Code also provides, at Section 12-14-18 (B)(5), that "If a bed and breakfast operation shall use nronerty or facilities owned in common or iointly with other nronerty owners such as parking spaces or a driveway in duplex, by way of example and not limitation, the written angroval of the other property owner. owners. or aaplicable owner's association shall be recruited to be submitted with the application for a conditional use permit.°' S. The Protective Covenants provides that the road serving and providing access for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and S from Buffeter Creek Etoad is a private road, with each lot owner owning an undivided 115 interest therein and being responsible for 115 of the road costs. Since such private road is jointly owned in common with all of the other neighboring lot owners, including ourselves as owners of Lot 3, our written approval for the conditional use petTnit is required, but has not been obtained, 6. We originally made the decision to purchase this residence based on the residential nature and quality of the subdivision, and have enjoyed the quite beauty of the area. As our children grew older and grandchildren entered the picture, we realized that we needed a larger home. Although we are still the record owners of the property, we have recently entered into escrow in connection with a sale of our home at 1714 l3uffehr Creek Road to Mr. V. James Andretta who concurs with our thoughts and position on this matter, is opposed to the proposed commercial use and who we believe will be separately submitting a ]otter to the Commission in opposition to the Application. Based on all of the foregoing, we believe that the application far a conditional use permit for operation of a bed and breakfast business at 1710 Buffeter Creek Road. should be denied as such application does not satisfy the requirements of the Town Code and the proposed use is prohibited by the Protective Covenants. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. if there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us ;~t -534-0900. 1 ~,i„t~eer~ely, 4 0 w. P 4^ p / James~M. Sullivan Lynne M. Sullivan cc: Allison Ochs/Planner • F:lwpdatalcgrl.S ulliuan V ailPlan¢ingLir I .doe • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 10, 2001 SkJBJECT: A request for a variance from Sections ~f2-7A-9 (Site Cauerage) 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 East Meadow DrivelLot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: Biil Gibson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Frit~len Pierce Architects is requesting a variance from Section 12-7A-G (Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow DrivelLot 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 along Meadow Drive. The proposed new front entry feature will consist of a cantilevered timber canopy with gables and pitched roofs. A significant portion of the proposed front entry feature will be Located within the Town of Vail'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. The applicant and Staff are recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission treat today's discussion of this proposal as a worksession. The applicant wishes to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission possible revisions to their application to address the comments and concerns they have heard from the Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, Town Council, and Staff. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission review the applicant's proposed revisions, give the applicant comments and direction, and then table this item for further review at the January 7 4, 2002 Punning and Environmental Commission public hearing. • II. BACKGROUND In the fall of 2000, the Mountain Haus proposed to construct a similar 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 Tawn 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 point effort streetscape improvements. ~~ T41i`N OF VAII iii 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 Commission'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 praposed new front entry feature will be null and void. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the setback variance request for the proposed front entry feature at its November 12, 2001 public hearing. The majority of the Commissioners were not supportive of the setback variance request. Some of the Commissioner's concerns including the following: that construction of the proposed entry feature would worsen an already dangerous traffic situation an East Meadow Drive, that approval of this variance would be a grant of special privilege, that the praposed entry feature needs to be part of a comprehensive development plan far the site, and that the Town should receive same public benefits for allowing the Mountain Haus the use ^f public property. At the applicant's request, this item was tabled for further discussion to the December 10, 2001 Planning and Environmental Commission's public. hearing. Since the November 12, 2001 Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing, the '~ Mountain Haus and their representatives have met with Town Staff to discuss revisions to their proposal. The Mountain Haus and their representatives are in the process of revising their proposal to address the Design Review Board's required design modifications and the Planning and Environmental Commission's concerns about traffic flow and public benefits. The Mountain Haus is proposing to relocate their existing loading area from its current location at the front of their building entrance doors to the east of the existing entrance. The existing loading area does not meet the Town's minimum engineering standards fora 3-point turnaround, however, by relocating the loading area to the east these minimum engineering standards can be met. The Mountain Haus has also indicated that they are willing to make improvements to the pedestrian path along the north side of Meadow Drive. These improvements would include replacing the existing concrete sidewalk with asnow-melted brick paver walk from the bus stop east to the eastern property boundary of the Mountain Haus or the tunnel entrance of the parking structure. At the applicant's request, the Town Council held a worksession at their Tuesday December 4, 2OOt afternoon hearing to discuss the applicants front entry feature proposal. The purpose of the worksession was for the Council, as the property owner of the Meadow Drive right-of- way, to give the applicant general feedback and direction about the concept and design of the proposed entry feature. The Council did not review the applicant's setback variance request and the Council took no formal' actions pertaining to this proposal. A copy of the Town Council staff memorandum has been attached for reference. • 2 A majority of the Town Council members were generally supportive of the concept of the Mountain Haus making improvements to their north entry. A majority of the Council members were also generally supportive of the concept of allowing the Mountain Haus to encroach onto public property to accommodate improvements to their building. As the East Meadow Drive right-of-way property owner, some Council members were comfortable with the project as presented, some Council members were apposed to the project as presented, and other Council members stated that they would be comfortable with the project if certain changes were made to the entry feature design. Some of Council's recommendations for improving this proposal included: reducing the size and scale of the proposed canopy, expanding the proposed snow-melted areas, examining options for eliminating or reconfiguring existing interior building space to accommodate the entry feature, and examining options for redesigning the East Meadow Drive street alignment. III. STAFF RECOINMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission review the applicant's proposed revisions to their application, give the applicant further direction on this matter, and then table this item for further review at the January 14, 2002 PEC public hearing. Should the PEC choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. That the applicant executes an easement. agreement with the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a building permit, 2. That all Town Stafif conditions are met prior to the issuance of a building permit. IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES The PEC is resaonsible for evaluating a gronosal for: 1. The re9ationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3, The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. n LJ 3 Cesian Review Board: Action: The DR8 has IVO revie~r authority on a variance, but must review any accanapanying f1RB application. The DRB is responsible far evaluating the DRB proposal far: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topagraphy - 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 • V. ~C?NING STATISTICS Lot Size: 21,610 sq.ft. (0.496 acres) Zoning: Public Accommodation Develat~ment Standard Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear:. Site Coverage: AllowedlReauired Fxistina Praaased 20 ft. 0 ft. Infill 1 ft. 20 ft. 0 ft_ No Change 20 ft. 0 ft. No Change 14,047 sq.ft. (65%) 17,909 sq.ft. (83%} No Change U 4 Vl. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A, Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 1, The relationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal on 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 vicinity 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 District. 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 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic faciilities, public facilities and uti[iities, and public safety. The proposed new entry feature at the Mountain Haus must comply with all Town of Vail Public Works Department standards to minimize any effects to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, snow removal, drainage, etc. within the East Meadow Drive right~of-way. ie Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before anting 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- 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 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 ar enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 6 Mernorandurn '~ To: Vail Town Council From: Bill Gibson, Community Development Department Date: December 4, 2001 Re: Mountain Haus proposed front entry feature REQUEST The Mountain Haus and their representatives are requesting this worksession with the Town Gouncil to ask if the Council, as the property owner of the East Meadow Drive right-of-way, is receptive to the concept of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus encroaching onto Town property. If the Council is favorable to the concept of this proposal, the applicant is requesting direction from the Council for any design changes or public improvements that will be required. If the Council is opposed to the concept of this proposal, then the applicant will withdraw their pending Variance Request application. The purpose of this worksession is not for the Council to review or discuss the applicant's Variance Request, but to discuss the concept of their proposal as the property owner of the Meadow Drive right-of-way. BACKGROUND RATIONALE In the fall of 2000, the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Lot ~, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 15~ Filing, proposed to construct a new front entry feature at their north entrance along East Meadow Drive. This proposal included discussions with Town Staff about a Joint venture between the Mountain Haus and the Town of Vail to make streetscape improvements to East Meadow Drive. ]t was determined that the streetscape improvements at this location would not be a high priority in the Tawn°s Capital Improvements Program at that #ime, so the Mountain Haus 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-wayl, Town Council permission is required. At its Tuesday, October 20, 2000 meeting, the Town Council granted the applicant permission to proceed through the development review 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 contingen# upon the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of a setback variance. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the setback variance request for the proposed front entry feature at its November 12, 2001 public hearing. The majority of the Commissioners were not supportive of the se#back variance request. Some of the Commissioner's concerns including the following: that construction of the proposed entry feature would worsen an already dangerous traffic situation on East Meadow Drive, that approval of this variance would be a grant of special privilege, that the proposed entry feature needs to be part of a comprehensive development plan for the site, and that the Tawn should receive same public benefits for allowing the Mountain Haus the use of public property. At the applicant°s request, this item was tabled for further discussion to the December 10, 2001 Planning and Environmental Commission's public hearing. Since the November 12, 2401 Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing,. the Mountain Haus and their representatives have met with Town Staff to discuss revisions to their proposal. The Mountain Haus and their representatives are in the process of revising their proposal to address the Design Review Board's required design modifications and the Planning and Environmental Commission's concerns about traffic flow and public benefits. The Mountain Haus is proposing to relocate their existing loading area from its current location at the front of their building entrance doors to the east of the existing entrance. The existing loading area does not meet the Town's min°rmum engineering standards far a 3-point turnaround, however, by relocating the loading area to the east these minimum engineering standards can be met. The Mountain Haus has also indicated that they are willing to make improvements to the pedestrian path along the north side of Meadow Drive. These improvements would include replacing the existing concrete sidewalk with asnow-melted brick paver walk from the bus stop east to the eastern property boundary of the Mountain Haus or the tunnel entrance of the parking structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council give the Mountain Haus and their representatives further direction on this matter. ATTACHMENTS A copy of the November 12, 2401 Plann%ng and Environmental Commission staff memorandum and meeting minutes have been attached for reference. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRaM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 12, 2001 SUBJECT: 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 East Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1$` Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: Bill Gibson DESCRIPTION C1F THE REQUEST The applicant, Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Frit~len Pierce Architects is requesting a variance from Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks}, Vail Town Cade, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the i4lountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow DriveJLot 5, Part of Tract B, 11ai1 Village 1 ~` Filing. The proposed new front entry feature will replace the existing canvas awning located on the north side of the Mountain Haus building along Meadow Drive. The proposed new front entry feature will consist of a cantilevered timber canopy with gables and pitched roofs. A copy of the applicant's written statement has been attached for 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 12-7A-6, Vail Town Code, the minimum required front, side, and rear setbacks in the Public Accommodation Zone District are 20 feet. Portions of the existing Mountain Haus building encroach into all four required setbacks, and in 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 12-7A-~6 (Setbacks}, Vaii 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 Cede. Section 12-2-2, Vail Town Code, defines S1TE OVERAGE as "...shall include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, orcovered 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 walls ar supporting columns.°' Since the 1 ";+ TDWN Ol< 4'AfL ~` 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 Vail's East Meadow Drive street right-of-way. If approved, the applicant wil[ 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 similar 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 Vai9 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 tune, 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, Qctober 20, 2000 meeting, the Town Gouncil 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 Commission'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 will be null and void. Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the reguested setback variances subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the setback variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the (imitations 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 Gode 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 Zane District. 2 Should the PEC choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the following c©nditi[~n: 1. That the applicant execute an easement agreement with the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of building permits. IV. REVIEWING BQARD RdLES The PEC is ressonsible for evaluatina a nroc~asal for: t .The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popuiation, 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: Action: The DNB has 1V0 review au#hority on a variance, but must review any accompanying L7RB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DAB 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 - RemovaVPreservation 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 accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting V. ZQNING STATISTICS Lot Size: 21,610 sq.ft. (©.496 acres) Zoning: Public Accommodation DeveloQrnent Standard AllvwedfReauired Existing Prooosed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 0 ft. Infill 1 ft. Sides: 2'0 ft. 0 ft. No Change Rear: 20 ft. 0 ft. No Change Site Coverage: 14,047 sq.ft. (65°/a) 17,909 sq,ft. (83%} No Change VL CRfTER1A AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal on the above-listed criteria. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation i5 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 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 Maus and within the Public Accommodation Zone District. Staff believes the additional encroachment iota 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 an the above-listed criteria to 4 3. The affect 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 wil! comply with all Town of Vail Public Works 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 critersa. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on o#her 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 ane or mare 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 excep#ions 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. 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 i-wnn Fritzlen, .ILIA, .Anhitecr l~'ilPiarrt F. F'icr~ce. Architect Tl;tirnas I~. d~u Bois. ,''vr°~hitect Sli~~l~ani,~ I_r,rd-i~::hr~s~:at, ArCl~itet~t' David Baum. Architect 1~;1Yhy Hitsfir~;it, r i.isirtess i's~to~na~;er October 12, 20f~1 Mountain Haus New Front Entry Site Coverage and Set 8aek Variance Mountain Haus Front Entry FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCF-fI~E~TS VAIL, COLORADO Property: 292 E. Meadow Drive Eot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 ~ Filing Zoning: Public Accommodation District Site Coverage Variance (12-7A-9 and' 18.22.110 Nan conforming existing condition Required: Shall not exceed 55/0 of total site area Existing : $3% Proposed: 83% - Infill a 1' deep strip between the property line and the building Set Back Variance (12-7a-6 and 18.22.06Q) Non-conforming existing condition Required: Minimum front, side, and rear setback shall be 20°-0" Existing; Zero (The north elevation ranges from xxx' to xxx' off the property lines Proposed: Zero - lnfill 1" of between property fine and existing north elevation. The majority of the proposed Entry Structure is on TOV property description of Request: Site Coverage and Set Back Variance ©n the behalf of the Mountain Haus Condominium Association, we are requesting a site coverage and set back variance to construct a new front (north} 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 (ace of the existing building. Additionallyt 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 TOV land. FRITZLEE*t ifiifl Easi4'ail Vallcv i~rivE•. 1°aliric;yv C-I, PIERCE 1i+ail, Callr,rndi, U1 b5? Fr 97(i.~, f.~i91:'tl E: i n(~+~c~.~vaila rc:hitet:ts.cv.v: _.~„._.~_. wu~+n.v.iilarCi7irrrts.r,Cir/t • • ~R~TZ~L~N PIERCE ARCHdTECTS VAII, CC<I_ORAC)O Special Circumstances/Physical Hardship Relief From Strict anti N_iteral Interpretation The facility was constructed in i 9~9 when the current codes and zoning requirements were not applicable. Que 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 canr'orming conditions. Adjacent properties (Vail Athletic Club and the Austria Haus? have both pursued extensive exterior remodels and/ar `"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 dawn/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 Qrive. The existing mass and height of the Mountain Haus is difficult to minimize without attaching sealed-down elements and building up to and extending out over the property Ilne. Therefore, any renovation/improvement that the Mauntain Haus proposes will most likely encroach on TQV land. This provides the TC)V with an opportunity to encourage development that meets TOV objectives and requirements. Compatibility with ad;acent usesfHarmony 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 Mauntain Haus is proposing to improve the landscaping clang East Meadow Drive. Snowmelting the sidewalk and paving the sidewalk is also proposed in a TOV joint venture type of project. Effect +af 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 an 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 Vail ~ Comprehensive Plan Goal 7.2 -Upgrading buildings - Encourage the continuer upgrading ar~d enhancernent of existing lodging and commercial facilities. The Mountain Haus Front Entry improves the aesthetic of the Mountain Haus by adding visual interest, detail,. a variety of wood stone and metal materials, and by FRITZLEJV I EySQ ~aaY y~diE Valli t !ir`svw~, F:alric':~ 4:=[, P I E R C E 1:'aiC, C~~icar~rdo $iC=,57 r. u7f3.~4'L.6S=' f:infs.a:clr;<?ii~~~ta~ii::+,.t:,_~:n~r .,. ~.. ~r. c-. ,.art".1'.. 11I,",:r.!1i1C ...~.I.U~fll FRITZ~EhJ PiER~E ARCHiT~CTS VAIL, c©LDRADQ adding a more human scale to the Front Entry. The West Entry that was constructed with the TUV Slifer Plaza project has been well received by both patrons and the pubGcl. The intent is to add the same quality of construction to East Meadow Drive. Goat 7.3 _ Enhance new development and redevelopment through public rmproverrrents done by private developers working in corporation with the Town Mountain Haus and the TOV worked very successfully on the West Entry at the Mountain Haus. The Vail Athletic Club is working on improving their propr~rty and some TOV property along East Meadow Drive. The Mountain Haus would again like to participate with improvements will there is already on-g;aing construction proposed for the area. Goal z.5 -Encourage the continued upgrading renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilr'ties to better service the needs of our guests.. The Mountain Haus has been working on their long term goals to improve quest comfort, safety, and aesthetics at the Mountain Haus. The West Entry was very successfully in those terms, The Front Entry and proposed site improvements are intended to provided the same benefits to the ;public and Mountain Haus patrons along East Meadow Drive IFRITZLEIVI iEiSL~ East Va~f Vallcrr i:)iive, Fai6ri~s~e ~-°i. RIERCE E: a°0.~a~6.~ui1"I E i n fuf~wai is rchiLEx'Ls.i :.pan .,.~a._•GT• ,,,n~+n,~.v~,~ila~:_hitz~cts.~:~irt r • LLJ z ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ee rOr 193Y(>nd ~ W ~ a 3'.YIO r1K3f]Y7w 1SY3 e6Z (v ~ ~- d ~ ~ ~$ t Sflb'H N1'd1Nl~C~W ~ w ~ ~a~ W ~ ~~ < ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ s'~~ s~ ~ ~ 1 s ~~ 9 ~ x i ~ ~ \..J ~~~ ¢~~ ~~ lC~~ ~~ rQ~ ye~ I 66 a q ~ ! ~ ~ si~e ~~~ ~t~ C~~~ YS ~ E ~ l3.qp ~ A;I '~ ti t ~ 4~ 3 d8 dI i ~~1 ~ ~~ Isg~~ 6'~ 6~~ t•'a~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ s~~ i ~~~ g9 = ~§i6 ~~~ ~~~ s~~ ~ a ~~~ ~~~ ~~ c~~ ~ c~ r~ ~~ ~ z 1L 8 ~`~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~€ ~~ ~~ ~ f ~ s q3 ~R3y;.^ ~ ~, g3y;~~ ~ ~~s g~g ~x 45 ~ 3sr~~ ,t,y3 gg Z Y :p iGi .i>~5~ ~ 3iiR~' a ~Ai.~ JL~ O ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ aaaas•ase~eia, I j l ~ i s la a e;a s'a'e alals;s i h '~ e aRaEa a dig a a e;ai ~ .~ i i i i C i ~.fli~~. ~ C ilk ~,, ~ f I '~I~~ ~I~~! ~~ ~ `~ ~ it I ~ ~ p ~~~ ~~1i3 ~ ~i I ~ ~ ~ s>~~~~ :~ .. $,..,, -'.v.4rru'~:. `~s ,`, --~ i fig} ,~ e r ~ i ! ~~ fg II m y 5pp~~C~~ry7{{ r .,~oA 5'~€- ~~~ Y`~i sI~S~~ I •2.. ~ ~ i~ ~ `d~ CJ ~~ ~'1 ~~ ...lei ~~ _`~ N 1d 1~ (1C?'~ ~~~1 N ~~~ 1 .~ `i ~~ ~~~ ~~~~s~~,, ! ~~ ~~ l~~~~~~1 t ~ ~~ ~t~©~~~~b ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ s -~ v ~ t~ ~~ ~ ~a~,~sti{ ~1 ~ T '~ Ea t } ~ ~ ~~~ i ~i t3~ s~.~~:~iLz1 ~y 11 '~ IR 6 ~ (~ ~ ~~ 4,r~ ~~ (J,}~ a;~ ,,~, 'a'y'e aa~,e „ . .a k ~. 9 '!/ ~ ~~ i G Q 2 ly~'~. 4:J/~' ~ tJ • ~`..1 ~ ~.. y R `~ ~~ ~ ;~ C i ry:.:. ~ i a 8 9 4'.~g a~~ O ~~7~ ~ + G C O o ", ~y#y7 ~ u k S ~ ~~ ~~ 0 e4 $ c°y '1 _ r.1~ 4~ ~ o c `~ ~- ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ o~ Y O~ s ~ ~. O $'~`~ d~ ~ ~ °c O F e s g ~~ ~ i ~ ~~,~ II `i ~~~". ~' ~ ~'`~ Y t 1 iii y } A ~ ~., '3 6 k4 i a~ ~,~ ,~ i i ~. ~ ~ p~+ ~- ' '~ ~~, ~ , s~ CA9 Cf ~ 4 d ~ ~o a ,~~ OA ~ a~a~ Q a ~ ~~S ~ 1 ~3~ 3, ~~ ~. ~{ h '. ,r eye ! ~ J ~~~~ ~~ ~~ L# ' $~ ~ 4 ~*. ~~~ P L£LO• t]#IpHd 9 ~ +II as9su [~ovuoim inn ~ 1NMll tt4dY!/~liY3{dt ~ ~ ~~ ~ sndH ~~~iNnc~w rte ~~ r~~ ~~ °~~ ~~~~ ~~ yyy~~ ~~ ~e ~ ~ $~a~ ~ ~~~ g3~ ~~Y ~e~ d ~ "n o7 'o~,~ S~n r 4 `~' D G a 4 as ~-;~ a ate: ~~ w z ~ v~ z `~ O ~ ~ ~ d ~ i U 0 ~ ~ u tY z d ~ ~ i F n w C ~ o a e 9 ~ e ffp 4 q° ~~D a ~~ ~ M e ~ eo ~ a ^~. ~wfN?p ~' 4 ;'~[ ~y U " a f '~ . ~ ~@ • \ '~ • ~~. a ~~~ ~ ~~ m ~~,/ zw ~ ~~~ o ' ~;; a ti ~ ~ ~ _ < ~~9 ~ d -. ~^"' i, ~ ~ O ~~ ~. ~ °~` s • • LS IOY A73fOl~ ' ' w W ~ 4 { ~ ~ Q~ ~ LSA lO pUY tl(]Ypl l1VR tYOMWVfW Y [ f ~ ~ ^ a . 5 1S 9 Sf~b'H N1'd ~ F Q ~ J~ ~ ~N~IOW ~~ ~ ~~ W~ ~~ Q ~ ~~ pw a ~ 0 r~~ ~~ _~ es a ~~~ ~r ~~~ ~~ ~~~ 9~ky a~ o~ `a 9tyy~ ~~ ~ ~8 E~~ ~~ ~~y o~ ~ ~~ a.;~ a[ sn~ a~~` ~ Z 0 a ~~ ~- ~a zz ~~ x~ ~w • • yi n S? ?a~ # ~ d ~ 3 i~ ~~ d~ ~~ ~~ d t~x ~~ 'r~G S ~~ r- ~ ~e~ aa~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ n~~S kZ ~~ eY ;` b~~ b~Y ddb ~;°'~ 6b ~ 6t i~ ~ ~~' ~d ~ ~~~ ~Q~ ~~ g~~ ~~~ g~~ a .~~ Lq we u3+otl~ L591i q]vtl01G'7'ilv~ H~tlO MWYA'~ 15Y3 [6i sndH r~idl~now ~ ~~ ~ cY§ a Er ~ q ~ ~a~ ~ ~~~ ~ °~ ~ s ~~~ ~ ~~~ P ~~ ~ 3 ~ . ~~ ~ ~i~ Y ~~ t ~f ~q~ ~~ ~Z3~ ~ :k s~ .~ -~ zu ~ '~~ V ~~ ~ #~~ ~ ' f J ~ d ~ g - ~ 4 ~~ 3 1 I 0 ~ Q r f e v O p ® CO ..„_- _-__ --- mo ~ ` I ~33 ~~ ~ ~ e - ~ .,,.~ '9q.~i...:.y a o 0 8 e3 o c o ~ o a d ~ 4 a 0 i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ . ...... .Q G ..._. e q ... O S 1 0 g p ° ~~ o ° O O ($ p r S 0 0 4§ Q 0 c o a e O o° Q O ~~ e 0 o_ ~_ _ ~ ~ ~ . ~_E - .~ a _.._ - ~ ~ ~ Q ~~ r~_` -~ $ ~' I I i i I i 0 i i I l .~ . !__ I I -~g~~ ~I ~_v.~ i ~,.~"% a •i • ~~ ~'. G f ~ ~~ E p ¢ t a[J~ d0 T ~7 ~ 4'~~ S' ` q@ i ~ ii 4 S~ a!~ ~ ~ ag 6s ~ 6 ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~~~ .~e~ ,~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ a ~~~ • r ~ ~r t YF _, [f IOY 1]2H]tla 2S95Y pC r11010]~IfVM1 1Vtl[I ,MOaV3W 15J3' 262 sndH ~~~~Nnaw 4 F ~~ ~ ~~~~ a~~ ~ d£ ~ ~ p ~ ~ i~' ~ ~~~ ~ r~ ~ ~ a ~~~ ~ 5~~ ~ ~~ q ~ ~ ~~s :~ e~s i r~ t~ s~ . Z~ a b$ z f _ wU W ~ S d J f1 •- W ~ ~ 2 h :~: i ~~ ~ "sg0 z 3af w r-----' r I i I~ V~{ ^ .. ~~~ r--~ 't» `~€~~a I ~ ~iilil ~ ~.9 ~ ~~ ~ ~ 7 pp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro~~C~ 7~~-ii 2 gI ~ '~T~~A ~g ~ y ~ I ~ 7 7 ~ ^f ~ `~. ~' 3 I <~~#:~ i ~_______L_ ___,__ 3 _~ ~_ ~~~ ____ ~ I I I \' ~ ~ I ~ I I 4 I __ y f ` ~ I I I I I ~ ~ ~~ I I I } eZ W I : a e " I " ~ I I w ~ I ~~~ I I I I M f 9 T , I I ~ ~5~ ~ ~ I I C ~- --~.~ h ~ ..-~ ~ .w ~rw. awe a .1.+ z W ,`~ iy~ i~ I i S 3 ^ Q ~ Ls w. Libw G tL9tY p)vy~]p]'IIV~ 7 i111U MUWTV 15Y3 Z6l ~Yl~ snd~ Nib~.~vnow 4~~~~~~~ g 3 ~~ ~ ~~~~ a ta' E ~ ~ o~~~ ~~,~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ $$ ~g~ ~ fir} ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gg~~o- ~ ~~}m3~ E~- ~~- ~ ~~~ ~q; ~ reap ~ :a ~-~- ~ ~ q~~ ~~ ~ ~° 1 ~ ~ ~ w (~ ~ ~ u ~ ~~ N ~ Z ¢ F- W ~ r ~ Y. J a ~~~ G. '[~ ' J ~ ~~ Cfi 'Cf~' z ~C J z v ~ ~ ~~ s~ ~I' _~Y 0 o~ ~. _,.. , t J ~I ~~ 1' .! S ~ ~ 3 ~~~~` ~~3 ~r ~E~~ 6@ i4 ~~~_~~ ~~~ ~a ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ 4 e~tS ~s3' a~~ ia5; ~a s~ ~~~~ ~~ §~~ s~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ a .~~ [L cos 1]3W1tld tiY l9 {]t]VNC)lp7'llvn Y~MO MdOYTV 1Sf3 26l snaH N~dlr~r~ow # ;~ e ~ x s ~ ~~~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~~I? ~ e2 ~ ~ a ~ ~ &° ~ ~ ~~ r Y ~ ~ r ~~ s ~ P g ~pp~aa ~ c1F +: pp za ~~;~3~~9 i~ 1 ti xG' a~ ~ ~w ~ ~~ u ~ ~ = _ (y NQ' ~ a" ~4`Q Q ~~ ~~ W Z Q J Z [[A9M L33N7Yd dSYly UUYMOICJ7 'LYn g YNYO,YUxrv~rY Alva rsr ~ Sf~~/H NId1Nf1QW ~d~t ~~ ~ $ ~ S ~~ ~ ~ ~ as ~$ pd~ S~ ~rd~ ~~ ~~ xe i b ~ ~ ~ ~ i? ~~~ ~6E Jk~ 4~~3 ~ a~ SY~ ~a~ ! ~ ~ ~ YE ~ ~ ~! ~ ~~; y~y ~~ ~ Y~ 2 :~~j £~~ ~~S ~~~P ~f ~ B2 ~%~ 3 SEar~£3~ q ~~ ~ 3 ~7 6g~t EEY 6E6 tfiy'1 6~ -~ 6~0 ~ ~~~ 3 i ~ ~ ~ P ~~4x ~~~ ~~~ 333 §~~ 8 ~3 ~p6p ~~ °~p ~ ~pE ~ ~3~3 ei~ C. tYl t ti t~ of a nl~ et~ __Ji I L 4 I/~'_~~ w , ;t~ .I~ ~E ~~ i L~ r ~ ~-__ €_.._-_ s nJ jjjjfl~jll P J 4 _ f ti 1 5 . ti-i- ~" ~ K i I I r~ I ,.. ,_ . -r - ~ ;~ .. . ~, ~-~- ~. l_J J 9 ~, ~~ ~] ~~ 5 ~ e 1;~ ~ _ ~~ ~~l zl° N ~ N ~ ~ a ~ e ~ ~ _ ~; ~ `? L/ ~ V . L:.. ~ R u W J _±~" W _S ~~Y ~ 1 ~~~ i I E '"'~" .~ 3 y ~~I f t II_ ``L ~ ~ II ~ I~ i ~ ~~ I~ ~ ~I ~ ., Fr ~F !~ iiiiii9 •C I~ .~ I'~--^ ~~~~ _O au~z °a H ~~35 ~~S ~? ~ ~E~t E#t Jf ~ ~~ w .. II _~..r,._._-.Z I I c . . . 0 . . 11 " z .. I ;I . . . . I I I I I i a I 4 i i I i I I _i ~ -~ eJ ..~. • ~~ ' ecw~,u3lnea w V I r f ~ ~d~ If1 @ E ~ ~s~lo oaraoio~ vvn 3M1Ibp M[k7V3Y# 15Y3 Cfit N ~ F d 99. $ 4 O ~ ~ ~ SnbN N11~1NnOW ~~ ~ fit ~N ~ '~s • --f--y ..~_ __~.e' I I I I n __-__L R' ~ I I .____~ ~ 91 I ._~_ 61 L~~ ~ 1 I 1 I I I __~- I ~.l ~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~ I ~ I ~ I I 1 I I I I 1 Y 1 1 I I t I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I ~ L..I__ _lr _~ I I I I ;__ ' -~ - ~~ ~~ I~ ~,4 ^~'R•. V Z fl ~ E-- • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • • PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, November 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WIIEIWCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site Visits 1. Hagerman residence -17$4 & 1794 S. Frontage Rd. West 2. Cohen residence -1467 Greenhill Court 3. Lions Square Lodge - 660 West Lionshead Place 4. Mountain Haul - 292 E. Meadow Drive 5. Parks residence - 4166 Columbine Drive Driver: Brent 12:00 pm '12:45 pm ~~ NOTE: If the PEC 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 housing units, located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow DrivelLats M,N and O, Block 5D, Vail Village 15` Filing. Applicant: Daymer Corporation Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Connie Dorsey 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 beds}, since some rooms will consist of joint rooms for a single tenant. He also indicated that there are 50 exterior and 42 interior parking spaces available. Allison Qchs indicated that sufficient parking is available. MEMBERS ABSENT JA roe}~,~v of 4'AIL ~ Connie Dorsey clarified that the parking spaces specifically reserved for Craig's Market are not counted as part of the available spaces. Doug Cahil9 questioned if any of the rooms will be used for common areas or facilities. Connie Dorsey indicated that no Gammon 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 1978. He indicated that he is a property owner in each phase of the project and that the owners agreed a filled building is better than a vacant building. Dick Gleveland 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 ~6 units, but wants to be sure that the Type II1 EHU standards are being met and if the square footage 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 l=ire 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 concern about parking in front of Craig's Market. Connie Dorsey indicated that this will be controlled by the 6ease agreement and that approximately 80% 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 staff memo. The motion was seconded by Chas Bernhardt. The motion passed by a vote of 7-D. John Schofield motioned to approve the conditional use permit, in accordance with the staff memo. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-7H-10 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, at the Lion"s Square Lodge, located at 6G0 West Lionshead PlacelLot i, Vail Lionshead 1~' Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 2fi, 2001 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverages and 12-7A-6 {Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Maus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract 8, Vail Village 1 S' Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects 2 • • Planner: Bill Gibson Bip Gibson gave a staff presentation and stated that the purpose of the project is to create an entrance statement on the front of the building and conditions included that an easement, ar a revocable right away be created. Tom Debois, an architect from Fritlzen Pierce Architects, represented the applicant and there was no presentation by the applicant. Doug Cahill asked about the relationship of pasts to support the awning in relationship to the right-of-way and whether there would be heated pavers. Tom Debais said there would be heated pavers. The PEC then discussed, with the applicant, how guests currently park to check in and how loading and delivery works an the site. Doug Gahill 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 an 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 afraid 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 Doyon agreed with Dick Cleveland, but was concerned with how the Mountain House is piecing the project together. He also agreed that this needs to be part of a comprehensive plan for the site. Ghas Bernhardt asked what Greg Hali comments were on the site. Bill Gibson reviewed Greg Hall comments. Chas 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 an the site. Stephanie Lord Johnson staled that she believed she was headed towards a denial. She asked if the PEG would consider tabling the application until same of these 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 so close to the property, this is a difficult site. Brian Doyon stated that this problem has arisen because this project is so coaxed out on the site and stated that his primary concern is the safety. Galen Aasland stated that if they would Pike 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 io 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 f Lot Area and Site Dimensions), Vail Town Code, a minor subdivision of Lots 2 & ~, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, to relocate a common property line and a rezoning ofi Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No.2, from Two- Family PrimarylSecondary Zone District to Single-Family Zone District and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 1784 & 1794 South Frontage Road West/1_ots 2 & 3 Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip HagermanlAllison Ochs Planner: George Ruther Allison Ochs gave a presentation of the requests and reviewed the criteria for the requests. The applicant, Phil Hagerman, thanked staff fior 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 30-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 proposal is to Create a bigger borne. Mr. Haggerman said he would like to create a house that is consistent with Vail. Dick Cleveland said he was Concerned about adding additional floor 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. 4 MEMORANDtJM TO: Planning and Environmental Commsssion FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 10, 2001 SUBJECT: A recfuest for a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan ofi Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain 8e11"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.! to be platted as L©t 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs I. 13ESCRiPTION OF THE RE(~UEST 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. The purpose of today's worksession is to continue. discussions regarding the direction the applicant is moving since the previous worksession, identify potential issues, and clarify the direction of the design of Middle Creek Village. On September 24, 2001, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the major subdivision, rezoning, and land use plan arnendment for the site. On November 12, 2001, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposed development plan for the site in a worksession format. The Planning and Environmental Commission gave specific direction which the applicant has attempted to address. The applicant has requested this worksession today to receive additional Planning and Environmental Commission input of the development plan before formally applying. 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. !I. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of useldevelopment and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Plannino and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approvalfdenal of a development plan in the H district. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for prescribing the following development standards: • a, ~4 Ti7~'h' OF 4'A!L 1. Setbacks 2. Site Coverage 3. Landscaping and Site Development 4. Parking and Loading 5. Lot area and site dimensions. 6. Building height. 7. Density control including gross residential floor areal. In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission 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 nat 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. Design 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: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site topography 4. RemovalfPreservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors which respects the • • • 2 U 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and' accessory structures i 0, Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 1 ~ . 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 on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process, Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appeaied to the Town Council ar by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmen#al Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, ar overturn the board's decision. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. The applicant has requested this worksessian to receive input from the Planning anal Environmental Commission prior to submitting the development plan for Middle Creek pillage, IV. SITE ANALYSIS Lot Area: 6.673 acres 1290,676 sq. ft, Buildable Area: 4.573 ac. / 199,200 sq. ft. Hazards: Moderate Debris Flow, Medium Severity Rockfall, Slopes in excess of 4oQra Proposed tJse: Employee Housing, Early Learning Cenfer • Development Standard H zone district Density {du/builable acre} prescribed by PEC ~GRFA prescribed by PEC Setbacks" North 20 ft. South 20 ft. East 20 ft. West 20 ft. Parking {12-1 Q} 243 spaces required Full Size 182 allowed Compact 61 allowed 'Leviations are allowed to the 20 ft. setback with PEC review Proposed 21,3 dulbuild. Aore 81,376 sq. ft. D ft. 0 ft. 5 ft. 48 ft. 243 spaces proposed 134 spaces 1©9 spaces 3 V. DISCUSSION 1SSUES According to Section 12-6-1 of the Town Code, the purpose of the Housing zone district is: The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential ,zoning districts, It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 1~-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the District. The Noosing District is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the District is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. The intent of the Housing zone district is three-fold: 1. To provide sites for employee housing, 2. To provide for flexibility in the development standards, 3, To ensure that these sites are sensitively designed and compatible with the Town's objectives. Staff has identified the following discussion items. 1. Density The applicant is currently proposing 142 units. The proposal includes 64 studio units, 18one-bedroom units, 1$two-bedroom units, and 42 three-bedroom units. The Land Use Designation far this site is "High Density Residential" which is defined as: The housing in this category would typically consist of multi-floored structures with densr`ties exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities. For Middle Creek, the current density proposed is 21.3 dwel[ing units per buildable acre_ At the last Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, the applicant was proposing 148 units. In the Housing zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission prescribes allowable density. Staff has provided density comparisons of other projects: Development ~onino Number of Units Timber Ridge SDD 198 Pitkin Creek SDD 156 Vail Commons Rivers Edge CC3 not in TQV 71 101 The Tarries not in TOV 130 4 Timber Rr`dge, located at Timber Ridge Village, 1280 N. Frontage Rd. West /Lots C- i through G-5, Lion's Ridge Filing No. 1: In 1979 the Town rezoned Lots 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: SDD Flo. 10 ono underlying zoning} LUD; High Density Residential Lot Size: 10.08 acres / 439,(784.8 sq. ft Units: 198 dwelling units Density: 19.6 du/acre Pitkin Creek Park, located at 3971 Bighorn Rd. /Pitkin Greek 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. Lot Size: 8.29 acres ! 361,112 sq. ft. LUD: Medium Density Residential Units: 156 dwelling units Density: 18.8 du/acre Vail Commons, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. West/ Vail Gommans: 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. L.ot Size: 6.568 acres 1286,082 SF LUD: Community Commercial Units: 71 dwelling units Density; 10.8 du/acre 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- 61-8: Parking and Loading, states: Off-street parking steal! be provided in accordance with Chapter x0 of this Title. No parking or loading area shall be Located within any required setback area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental C©mmission, 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 approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and shall provide for a reduction in the parking requirements based on a demonstrated creed far fewer parking spaces than 5 Chapter 10 of this tifle would require. For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in fhe required parking could include: A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. B. A limifation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars far each unit. C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, ar 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 sg. ft.; 2 parking spaces for units 500 to 2000 sq. ft.; and 2.5 parking spaces fior units aver 2000 sq. ft. As proposed, the parking requirement would be as follows: Number and Tvoe of Unit Parkina ratio Total Spaces 64 studio units 1.5 96 18one-bedroom units i .5 27 18two-bedroom units 2 36 42 three-bedroom units 2 84 Total 243 The applicant is prapasing 243 parking spaces, meeting the parking requirement, as prescribed by Ghapter 12-10 of the Town Gode. However, a deviation to the parking requirement is required for the type and configuration of the parking spaces. As currently proposed, the spaces are configured as fallaws: 128 tandem spaces {53%) 115 single spaces (47%) 109 compact spaces (45%) 134 full-size spaces (55%) 153 covered spaces {63%) 90 surface spaces {37°1°) 3. Design of Parking The applicant has increased the percentage of enclosed and covered parking. Previously, the applicant was proposing to enclose 36% of the proposed parking. With this current submittal, the applicant is proposing to enclose 83% of the parking. The applicant is proposing to provide tuck-under parking, a 26-car open garage, and approximately 8 2-car freestanding garages. Staff believes that this is an appropriate percentage of enclosed parking for this site. The remaining surface parking must be screened with site walls, berms, or landscaping. Staff believes that combining some of the freestanding garages would be beneficial. 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; 6 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 far a better design far 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 fa blend into the existing or natural landscape. Any cuts ar fills shall be sculptural in farm and contoured to blend with the existing natural undisturbed terrain within the property boundary. No retaining walls over 6 ft. in height are allowed without a variance. The current proposal indicates some walls exceeding 0 ft. Staff believes that it is important to keep retaining walls under 6 ft. in height. 5. Setbacks The setbacks in the Housing zone district Shall be 20 ft. According to Section 12- 61-5: Setbacks: The setbacks in this district shall be 2Q' from the perimeter of the zone distrr`ct. Af the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the setback standards maybe approved during the review of a development plan subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks prow"de necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. 8. Proposed buildr"ng 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 ar other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. Variations to the 20 ft. setback shall not be allowed on property lines adjacent to HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC coned properties, unless a variance is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant fo Chapter 17 of this Title. Building setbacks are proposed as follows: Setback Prat~osed North 70 ft. South 0 ft. East 110 ft. West 70 ft. However,.. the Housing Zone Qistrct does not allow tar parking to encroach into any setback. Parking an the north and east of the property would be within 1 ft. 7 of the property fine. Parking on the west is located within 45 ft, of the property Line. 6. Provision 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. 7. 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 for 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. 8. Pedestrian Connection The pedestrian connections to the ViR1age and Lionshead are important design considerations far the development of this site. A pedestrian connection to the east, into the roundabout, has been indicated. In addition, a pedestrian connection to the pedestrian overpass to the west should also be a design consideration. 9. Early Learning Center Additional information 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 for staff to analyze the use. 10. Snow Storage The Tawn Code states: Ai! required parking and access areas shall be designed tQ accommodate on-site snow storage. A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved area and designed to accommodate snow storage. Turf areas and afher areas without trees may be utliizerl for this purpose. if driveways are heafed, them the minimum snow storage area may be reduced to 10% of the required parking and access areas. The applicant has not yet indicated snow storage on the site plan, but staff has concerns regarding this requirement. If 30% snow storage area cannot be achieved, a variance will be required. VI, REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A QEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE H ZONE DISTRICT 12-61-13: QEVELOPMENT STANQARQSICRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: 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: 8 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 pion 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 presence and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities far 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. • 9 ~' Q O N CS1 N N OT } t] • r~ f ills/ , '! !i + t !~'ij ,,++%// ~~i;~~ ~!j !r ~ l ~~~i f 1 \y ~/ 1 1 i~r , f _ 1,~ 1 k l ',} ~I 111 ' ;F i ,~ ! ~~r I ~ I !!( + I ~'~ ' 1 1 ~ ~I ? E r 1 J ~ ~ f J ~~ ~•+1~~ i ~ i r ~' ! ~ + ! 1 ~'~rf r~I r il~~ ,~f~rr '~~~! ip !I ~~iPt ~f±t .i,, ;i ~~o i ~~; ~ '~~ ~~ ~ I~ ~ I rl~~ 1 I I r'+~+I f r .~~i ~, i ~ ~~? if+! ~ ~ ~~~ ifs a I ' l+Ir jai ~~ f - ~ MemQrandurn To: Planning and Environmental Commission From; Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator Date: 12110,01 Subject: Housing Zone District 12-6I-1: PURPOSE: The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for deed restricted employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing,.cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the District. The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the District is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open. spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. With the adoption of the Housing District the Town of Vail acknowledges the need far additional employee housing within the Town boundaries. With over 47% of Vail households being renters the need for maintaining and creating additional rental housing within the Town of Vail is only exacerbated. Additionally, according to the Eagle County Housing I~Teeds Assessment, 2000 Update renters are more likey to be "cost-burdened" (pay more than 30% of their household income for housing) than owners. Compounding the issue is the State's estimate that Eagle County consistently has the lowest vacancy rate in Colorado. • O D E L L A R C H I T E C T S P C. Date : December 7, 2001 From : Bridget Venne, Odell Architects, P.C. R e : Middle Creek Project- unit and parking counts T o : Allison Ochs, Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Here are the current unit and parking counts for the Middle Creek project: 64 Studios in two configurations, some perfectly stacked, some under 2 bedroom units. 18 One Bedrooms, perfectly stacked 18 Two Bedrooms, some stacked over studio units. 42 Three Bedrooms in two configurations, perfectly stacked.. 142 Total Units The parking count breaks down as follows: 243 total spaces 14 child care spaces 128 tandem spaces 115 single spaces 109 compact spaces {45%° compact) 17 single-ear garage spaces 28 tandem open garage spaces 100 tandem tuck-under spaces 8 single-car tuck-under spaces 153 covered spaces {fi3% covered) ap parking memo 12-7 ARTIGIrE I. HOUSING ~H) DISTRICT SECTION: 12-61-1: Purpose 12-61-2: Permitted Uses 12-61-3: Conditional Uses 12-61-4: Accessory Uses 12-61-5: Setbacks 12-61-6: Site Coverage 12-61-7: Landscaping and Site Development 12-61-8: Parking and Loading 12-61-~: Location of Business Activity 12-61-1 d: ether Development Standards 12-fit-11: Development Plan Required 12-f I-12: Development Plan Contents 12-BI-13: Development StandardslCriteriafnr Evaluation 12-61-1;PURPOSE: The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed far each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12-1-2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare, Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the District. The Housing District is intended t© ensure that employee housing permitted in the District is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. 12-61-2; PEFiMITTEID USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the H District: Deed restricted employee housing units as further described in Chapter 12-13 of this Title. Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. Pedestrian and bike paths. 12-fit-3: GONaITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental has determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission) to the use of employee housing and specifically serving the needs of the residents, and developed in conjunction with employee housing, in which case the fallowing uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit: Qanks and financial institutions. Eating and drinking establishments. Health clubs. Personal services, including but not limited to, laundromats, beauty and barbershops, tailor shops, and similar services. Retail stores and establishments. Dwelling units (not employee housing unitsy subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Gommission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose ofi subsidizing employee housing an the property and; B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRPA for dwelling units shall not exceed 30% of the total GRFA constructed an the property and; C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing and; D. dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Outdoor patios Public and private schools and educational institutions, including day-care facilities. Public buildings and grounds. Public parks. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant ettuipment. Type Vl employee housing units, as further regulated by Ghapter 12-13 ofi this Title.. 12-61-4: ACCESSARY USES: The fallowing accessory uses shall be permitted in the H District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-t4-12 of this Title. Minor arcades Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-61-5: SETBACKS: The setbacks in this district shall be 2d' from the perimeter of the zone district. At the 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 criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas, B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. G. Proposed building setbacks will provide a campy#ible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. Variations to the 20 ft. setback shall not be allowed on property lines adjacent to HR, SFFt, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of this Title. 12-fit-fi: SITE Cf7VERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty-five percent X55°/m) of the total site area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, site coverage may be increased if 75% of the required parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts of surface paving provided within a development, and'. that the minimum landscape area requirement is met. 12-61-7: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPI'~ENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length. of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15') with a minimum area not less than three hundred (30©} square feet. 12-61-8: PARKINC# AND LOADING Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 1 d of this Title. ~!o parking ar loading area shall be located within any required setback area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in Chapter 1 D may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to a Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and shall provide for 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 for a reduction in the required parking could include: A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. B. 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. 12-61-9: L©CATIQN OF BUSINESS ACTNII"Y: A, Limitation; Exception: All conditional uses by 12-61-3 of this Article, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods. B. Outdoor Display Areas: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 12-61-14: OTHER DEVELQPMENT STANDARDS: Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan: A. Lot area and site dimensions. B. Building height. C. Density control (including gross residential floor area). 12-fi{-i i : DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED: A. Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the Housing District will meet the intent of the District, a development plan sha11 be required. B. Plan Process And Procedures: The proposed development plan shall be in accordance with Section 12-61-12 of this Article and shall be submitted by the developer to the Administrator, who shall refer it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. G. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 12-3-3 of this Title. D. Plan As Guide: The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development within the Housing Ctistrict. E. Amendment Process: Amendments to the approved development plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-9A-10 of this Title. 1=. Design Review Board Approval Required: The development plan and any subsequent amendments thereto shall require the approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of this Title prior to the commencement of site preparation. 12-61-12: DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS: A. Submit With Application: The following information and materials shall be submitted with an application for a proposed development plan. Gerfain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator if it is demonstrated that the material to be waived or modifiied is not applicable to the review criteria, or that other practical solutions have been reached. 1. Application form and filing fee. 2. A written statement describing the project including information on the nature of the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans. 3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of the property to be included in the development plan, including the location of improvements, existing contours, natural features, existing vegetation, watercourses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel. 4. A title report, including Schedules A and B4. 5. Plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans, elevations, etc.7, if applicable. 6. A complete zoning analysis of the existing and proposed development including a square footage analysis of all proposed uses, parking spaces, etc. 7. A site plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1 " = 20'}, showing the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all principal site development features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems and proposed contours and drainage plans. $. Building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smaller than one- . eighth inch equals one foot (118" = 1 "), in sufficient detail to determine floor area, circulation, location of uses and scale and appearance of the proposed development. 9. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty feet (1" _ 50'). 10. Photo overlays andlor other acceptable visual techniques far demonstrating the visual impact of the proposed development on public and private property in the vicinity of the proposed development plan. 11, An architectural ar massing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed development in relationship to existing development on the site and on adjacent parcels.. 12. A landscape plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'), showing existing landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and other site development features such as recreation facilities, paths and trails, plazas, walkways and water features. 13. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title unless waived by Section 12-12-3 of this Title. 14. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by Administrator. B. Copies Required; Model: With the exception of the model, four (4) complete copies of the above information shall be submitted at the time of the application. When a model is required, it shall be submitted a minimum of two (2) weeks prior to the first formal review of the Planning and Environmental Commission. At the discretion of the Administrator, reduced copies in eight and one-half inches by eleven inches ($ 1 f2" x 11 ") format of all of the above information and additional copies for distribution to the Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and Tawn Council may be required. 12-01-13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARD5ICRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: The following criteria shall be used as the princFpal means far 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 t© the site,. the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are both fiunctional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features ofi 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. • ~ ~, T~~~' ~~ ~~~~~~: ~~ • Planning and Env-irvnmental COmmi~sion ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Raad, Vail, Colorado $1657 te1:970.479.2139 fax:970.474.2452 web: www.ci.vail.eo.us Project Name: PEC Number: PEC010474 Project Description: Antlers Conaminium Townhouse Plat Review Participants: OWNER ANTLERS CONDO ASSOC 12/13/2001 Phone: 945-5365 License: APPLICANT ANTLERS CONDO ASSOC 1'2/13/2001 Phone: 476-2471 680 W Lionshcad Place Vail, CO 81657 License: CONTRACTOR CA550N BUILDING CORPORATION 12/13/Z001 Phane: 1563D E. HINSDALE DRIVE ENGLEVIIOOD, CO 80112 License: 15D-A Project Address: 6$0 LIONSHEAD PL VAIL Location: 680 LIONSHEAD PL Legal Description: Lot: 3 Block: 1 Subdivision: Vail Lianshead 3rd Parcel Number: 210107206000 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: APPROVED Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 12/20/2001 Conditions: Cand: 8 {PLAN}: Na changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/ar the appropriate review committee{s). Planner: George Ruttier PEC Fee Paid: X0.00 1- ~ U 1 ~ y ~~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL. COMMISSIION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTPS Monday, December 10, 2001 ~hristinas Lt~ri~, PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 -Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESEhJT MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden John Schoffeld Galen Aasland Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt Brian Doyon Erickson Shirley Approved 1114102 PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm Site Visits : 1:30 pm 1. Mtn. Haus e 292 E. Meadow Drive Driver: Bill ®o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearin~a -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm Swearing in of new PEC member, Erickson Shirley -Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. A request far a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage} and 12-7A-6 (Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, to a11ow 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 15t Filing. Applicant: Moun#ain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson presented an overview of the staff memorandum, including the staff recommendation to table this tem to the January 14, 2002, PEC meeting. The applicant is requesting a worksession today to further discuss the concerns from the previous hearing. ti,. ~_ ''+i ~nw~~ aF v~ri ~' Approved 1114!02 Stephanie Lord and Torn Dubois, Fritzien Pierce Architects, presented an overview of the proposal Diane Golden stated that she supports the project. Chas Bernhart stated that he is generally in support of the proposal. Brian Doyon stated that he was generally in favor of the project, but had concerns about overcoming special privilege. He also stated that he felt parallel parking should be considered as an option and that the two existing parking spaces should not be replaced with three spaces. Erickson Shirley expressed a concern regarding cars and pedestrians. Galen Aasland echoed Brian Doyon's concerns. He stated that there are multiple concerns with the current proposal. He stated that there is riot adequate room on the Town property to meet the needs of the public. He stated that the improvements should also be at least partially located on private property. He also stated concerns about overcoming special privilege. Steve Hawkin stated that there was not adequate space within the building to accommodate the proposed improvements. Stephanie Lord stated that she believed that the proposed improvements would be a benefit to the Town. Russ Forrest stated that he believed that the safety concerns were getting better and that they are heating the walkway, which could be considered a public benefit. r Brian Doyon stated that he did not believe that the fact that the Mountain Haus is paying for heat qualifies it as overcoming special privilege, Bill Gibson stated that the variance which was granted on the west side of the building, was granted based on the fact that the building was constructed prior to zoning. Brian Doyon stated that he did not. believe tha# the proposal improved the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. Erickson Shirley asked about the staffing levels with the proposal. Steve Hawkins clarified the staffing levels and concerns of the Mountain Haus. Stephanie Lord asked for more direction. Diane Golden stated that she is comfortable with the proposal. Chas Berhardt stated that he does not see special privilege as a concern. He stated that he believed that this is making a bad situation better. Brian Doyon stated that it would be a benefit to creating an entry feature, but that he had too many concerns regarding the safety of the area, with specific regards to bus traffic. He stated that he did not believe that this was the best solution for the problems here. Erickson Shirley stated #hat he believes the problem is a circulation issue. Galen Aasland stated that he believed that the third parking space was creating same of the problems. He stated that when they return to the PEC, they need to prove that they are improving the circulation pattern in this area, Approved 1114102 Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until .lanuary 14, 2002. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 3. A request far a worksession to review preliminary alternatives for the development plan of Middle Creek Village, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"fan unplatted piece of property, located at 100 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vaii Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Mayor Ludwig Kurtz indicated that the construction of a parking structure at this location is not financially feasible. Mike Coglin indicated that the ABC and Learning Tree are requesting the minimum necessary to operate their businesses. Otis Odell, Odell Architects, presented an overview the proposed revisions to their plans. One of the revisions included eliminating a building and related parking in the sauthwes# portion of the property, He said that covered parking on the south side of the western buildings has been relocated to the north side of the buildings and that small one-story covered parking garages have been added to the site and that visual corridors through the site are also being proposed. He said pedestrian paths will provide ABC and Learning Tree access to open areas adjacent to the site and that pedestrian connections from the entire site to the existing Vai! infrastructure will be provided. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Home Owners, asked if elevation drawings are available. Otis Odell indicated that elevations have not been finalized, but displayed the section drawings. Jim Lamont distributed a letter expressing design considerations requested by the Vail Village Homeowner°s Association. He also indicated an interest in integrated parking infrastructure issues related to this project. He expressed concerns about this project meeting minimum stream-setbacks and minimum open space requirements. He expressed an interest in looking at new building technologies to reduce costs for the project and he indicated that other housing projects in town need to hoe considered with the design of this project. Diane Golden applauded the efforts of the applicant in addressing the PEC's concerns. She asked about the location of the proposed tandem parking spaces. Bridget, with Odell Architects identified the location of the spaces on the plans. Diane recommended relocated the housing parking away from the daycare facilities. Chas Bernhardt indicated that this plan is an improvement over previous plans. He expressed concerns about not constructing a parking structure at this time. He will vote against the project with a concern that the site is not being maximized to the greatest public benefit. Brian Doyon thanked the applicants for the improvements they have made to their plans. He agreed with Chas's comments about maximizing the site, however, he also expressed a strong concern about over maximizing a site and spending an extraordinary amount of a project budget just for grading. He expressed concern about the feasibility of landscaping on a 2:1 slopes. He also expressed concerns that creating separate circulation should be considered, as well as continuing the use of the existing access drive should be considered. He applauded the revisions make to the provisions of parking. He expressed concern about the impacts of the hazard mitigation. He also recommended that the housing parking located at the learning center should be relocated. He also recommended that parking spaces be revised to meet the standard/compact parking space 3 Approved 1f14102 requirements. He also recommended eliminating the landscape islands in the northern parking lot to expand the potential area for parking and expressed a concern that the landscaping may not survive in the proposed islands. Erickson Shirley indicated he supports the concept of the project, but if not familiar enough with many of the project details to make further comment. Galen Aasiand generally supports the project. He would like to see a parking structure constructed on the site, but he will not vote against the project on this issue. He also recommended relocating same of the garages and potentially constructing individual housing units about the garages. He also recommended making the proposal recognize the Qwest building and Middle Creek drainage. He also expressed concerns abau# how residents of this site will travel to Lianshead. Allison Ochs indicated that the Open Space Master Plans considered the entire 26-acre site, so at least half of the area will remain open space. Jim Lamont recommended that public access to the site and any amenities on the site should be open to the public. He also questioned the use of tandem parking on the site. Allison Ochs indicated that tandom parking is permitted for spaces dedicated to individual units. Mike Coglen indicated that the tandem spaces correlate to the number of three and four bedroom parking spaces. Many compact parking spaces will be revised to be standard sized spaces. The hazard mitigation above the Qwest building will be a wall bermed on the downhill slaps. He also indicated that GDOT is very reluctant to afiowing multiple curb cuts to the site. 3. A request far a variance from Sections 12-6C-6 (Setbacks) & 12-6C-9 (Site Coverage}; Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Drive/Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 94, 2001 Brian Doyon made a motion to table this until January 14, 20D1. The motion was second Diane Golden. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. 4. A request for a minor subdivison of the proposed "Fallridge Parcel," a Part of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3 / a portion of land adjacent to the Vail Golf Course Townhomes in the 1600 block of Golf Terraces A complete metes and bounds legal description is as follows: That portion of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing No. 3, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Golarado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 2, Warren Pulls Subdivision, according to the map thereof; thence S00°40'0©" E 109.62 feet along the west line of said Lot 2 to the northeast corner of Lot 1, Vail Valley Second Filing, according to the map thereof; thence N89°23'41" W 101.18 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 1 to the easterly line of Lot 11, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing, according to the map thereof; thence 1y00°36'17" E 114.75 feet along said easterly line; thence N64°23'43" W 35.16 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 11 to the easterly right-of-way line, of Vail Valley Drive; thence, along said easterly right-of-way line, 4 Approved 11141Q2 ` 7.97 feet along the arc of curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central angle of 06°05'17", and a chord that bears NO$°33'46"E 7.97 feet; thence, departing said easterly right-of-way line, the following four courses along the southerly line of Condominium Map for Vail Galfcaurse Townhomes Association Phase III, according to the map thereof; (1) 58.14 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 253.31 fast, a central angle of 13°09'05", and a chard that bears S85°43'11" E 58.02 feet; t2} S79°08'38" E 63.09 felt; (3} 10.83 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 310.00 feet, a central angle of 02°00'07", and a chard that bears S80°'09'15"E 10.82 feet; (4) S00°00'00" E 11.20 feet to the paint of beginning, containing 0.310 acres, mare or less.. Maps referenced in the above description ors rscorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder.. Applicant: Fall Ridge Condominium Assacialian Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 14, 2002 Brian Dayon made a motion to table this until January 14, 2001. The m©tion was second Diane Golden. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. 5. A request for a variance from Ssction 12-7H-10 (Setbacks), Vail Town Cade, at the Lion's Square Lodge, located at 660 West Lionshead PlacelLot 1, Vail Lionshead 15~ Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bi11 Gibson TABLED UNT1L JANUARY '14, 2002 Brian Doyon made a motion to table this until January 14, 2001. The motion was second Diane Golden. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. 6. A requsst for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast operation to be located at 1710 Buffehr Greek RoadlLot 2, Lia Zneimer Subdivision. Applican#: Paul & Nancy Rondeau Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 7. Approval of November 12, 2001 minutes Diane Golden made a motion to approve the minutes. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0 (Erickson Shirley abstained) 8. Information Update Erikson Shirley made a motion to ad}ourn. Approved 11141Q2 Diane Golden seconded the motion. It passed by a vote of 5-0. The applications and informatian about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification, Please call 479- 235fi, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information Community Development Department • • C 6