Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0128 PEC • EN I k NG ANi~7 for development plan review t eonstruat Emptuyee Housin ~yi$ STEM MAY IMENTAL within the Hqusing zone D~stri AFFECT YOUR I$$ION and setting forth details In re pR4AERTY ,~ FETING pards thereto, located at the sit known as "Mountain Beu"/a PUBLIC NOTICE .DUCE ~ unplatted piece of property to d R~ t M F t ft OTICE IS HEREi3Y GIVEN 2ES,2002 rAYION ! -coma Ba e . ron age . p at 1 be platted as Lot t, Middle Crew hat the Planning and Envl- onmental Commission of neat Oept. Pu8• '•OQ pm 'N 5ubdluision. Applicant: Vail 6oeal Nous}n authorttry~~ represented by Ode he Town of Vail wRf hold a u61ic hearing in accord= vT arehltects nce with Section 12-3-6 of ~rn Planner: Aulsan Ochs he Municippal Code of the s - 292.E. Mead- TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY it p4Y0• of Vail On Fe6n.rary z0o2 5. A request fur a variance fro S d 11, 2002, at 2:00 P,M, in the own of Vail- Munici of A EC hearlnGa ex- p,m., the dtiard ectipn 12-6D-fi, Vali Town Co e to allow far a proposed new rest uilding. }n considerat~vn nner from 6:00 - il T C Bence to encroach into the Bas side setback, locaxed at 7794 5 Vail Villa Frpnta a Road/Lot 2 f: re 1Je5t for a final review awn - ounc m g , west I=11In~ No 2 f a text dmQndrnent to TI- rn.ext~ripraller- . . applicant: Philip E loceiyn Na le 12, Chapter 3, Adminis- .sr5,,~ ,,,~ cnr.,rr~~anr ~f Iflnner, George Ruther wlrMOaAwN of 7. m rep- 8. Ar- IFS Code Presentation - C of Signs and Commun er Ranner:6essrge Ruther - Ova! of January lA, 2C motion Update -Rea ants gGCations antl inforn .y Development January 25, 2A62 in a 11, ,,; . .. .. ~In -cant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruth- er eqnest far a Ma~pr tdment to Special Ge- iment District #35,: •4a Haus, to amend an irlg condition of appro- ~rohihrting the opera- of restaurants within Planner: George Ruth- er ~uest for a Conditional ermit to allow for an Learning Center and a. Est for development„ reuiew to Gons~~uct ~yee Housing within dousing Zane pistrict ig forth details in , rre- thereto, located' at !te kngwn as "Moun- ~B~ilr'fan ~u~~lavt~ed_y THISITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PR©PERTY PUBLIC N©TIGE ~~'~,~~` N©TIGE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and' Environmental Commission of the Town of ~,~,~ Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on January 28, 2DD2, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration af: A request for a variance from Section 12-~6D-6, Vail Town Gode, to allow for a proposed new residence to encroach into the east side setback, located at 1794 S. Frontage RoadlLot 2, Vail Village West Filing Na. 2. Applicant: Philip & Jocelyn Hagerman Planner: George Ruttier A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for zone changes to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vai! Planner: George Ruttier A request for a major exterior alteration in the GCI zone district to allow for an addition located at Units 301 and 303, 225 Wall Street /Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Eugene Fahey Planner: Allison Qchs The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner"s office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development 'Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign Language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Developmen# Department Published January 11, 2002 in the Vail Daily. ~~ 1 TOWS' OF V,4dL ~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~~ PUBLIC NOTICE ~,,., ~- a~ ~~, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accardance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on .fanuary 28, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for approval of an exterior alteration or modification in accardance with Section 12- 7A-12 {Exterior APterations or Modifications), Vail Tawn Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Fiaus, located at 292 E. Meadow DrivelLot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 15t Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department, Please call 479-2138 for information, Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired., far information. Community Development Department Published January 14, 2002 in the Vail Daily. • ~• •. ~. 16 TOWN 0~ VaIL ~Y • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CQMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, January 28, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept, PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive • Driver: Bill ~I i X~j ~ ~ ..r~ 12:Q~ pm 1:00 pm ~~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public H~:arinq ~ Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications}, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow DrivelLot S, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a final review of a text amendment. to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for zone district amendments to the ~Qffieial Town of Vaii Zoning Map and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vai! Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7B-7 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition located at Units 301 and 303, 226 Wail Street 1 Lot B, Block 5C, Vaii Village First Filing. Applicant: Eugene Fahey Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 2002 "~~''r ~,', ;~ MEMBERS ABSENT 4. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"lan unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.lty be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 2UU2 5. A request far a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Vail Tvwn Code, to allow for a proposed new residence to encroach into the east side se#back, located at 1794 S. Frontage Road/Lot 2, Vail Village West Filing No. ~. Applicant: Philip & Jocelyn Hagerman Planner George Ruther WITHDRAWN fi. Sign Code Presentation - Discussion of Signs and Community Character Planner: George Ruther 7. Appraval of January 14, 2602 minutes 8. lnforma#ion Update -Reappointments The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Tawn of Vaii Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department Published January 25, 2902 in the Vaii Daily. • 7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, January 2$, 2902 PROJECT ORIENTATIQN 1-Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brian Doyon John Schoffield Doug Cahill Erickson Shirley Site Visits Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive Driver: Bi[I 12:00 pm 1:00 pm ~~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break foe dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearir~q -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for an exterior aitera#ion or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations ar Modifications}, Vail Town Cade, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow DrivefLot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Brian Dayan VOTE: 6-1 (Schofield opposed) TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 21302 2. A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Tawn Code, to establish criteria for consideration for zone district amendments to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map and setting forth details in regard. thereto- Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Jahn Schofield VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 2002 • ~. T~W,1t OF U~I[L ~y MEMBERS ABSENT 3. A request for an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7B-7 (Exterior Alterations or Modificationsj, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition located at Units 301 and 303, 225 Wall Street E Lot B, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Eugene Fahey Planner: AI[ison Qchs MQTiON: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 7-{} TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 2002 4. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"lan unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.fto be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Qdell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTiON~ Chas Bernhardt SECOND° Brian Doyon VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 1.1, 2002 5. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Vail Town Code, to allow for a proposed new residence to encroach into the east side setback, located at 1794 S. Frontage RoadlLot 2, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip & Jocelyn Hagerman Planner: George Ruttier WITHDRAWN 6. Sign Code Presentation -Discussion of Signs and Community Character Planner: George Ruttier 7. Approval of January 14, 2002 minutes 8. Information Update -Reappointments 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 Eanguage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notifcation. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • 2 • MEMQRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 28, 2002. SUBJECT: A request for final review of an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications}, Vail Town Code,. to allow far the construction of a new front entry feature ' at the Moun#ain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/l~at 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: Bill Gibson • !. DESCRIPTIQN QF' THE REQUEST The applicant, Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen pierce Architects is requesting a final review of an "exterior alteration or modification" in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations ar Modifications}, Vail Tawn Code,. to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive. As part of this review, the applicant is requesting a variation from the setback standards of the Public Accommodation District in accordance with Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks}, Vail Town Code. The proposed new front entry feature will replace the existing canvas awning located on the north side of the Mountain Haus building along Meadow give. 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. As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the existing nonconforming parking/loading spaces located in front of this building along East Meadow Drive. The applicant contends that while the traffic situation along East Meadow Drive is not ideal, the existing Mountain Haus parking may not be creating as dangerous of a traffic situation as perceived. Attached far reference are recent Town of Vail Police Department accident records along East Meadow Drive. The applicant has noted that only one of these retards identifies an incident involving vehicles parked at the Mountain Haus. The proposed reconfiguration of the existing parking is intended to bring the Mountain Haus parking into conformance with the Tawn of Vail's minimum required engineering standards, improve vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow and traffic safety along East Meadow Drive. Drawings of the proposed parking reconfiguration have been attached for reference. Since the majority of the proposed entry canopy structure will be located on Town of Vail property, the applicant is proposing to provide public improvements as part of this project. The applicant is proposing to install 2,456 sq.ft. of heated brick pavers. The proposed pavers will replace the existing sidewalk along the narkh side of East Meadow Drive from the bus shelter to the parking structure tunnel, and pavers will replace a portion of the East Meadow Drive street between the Mountain Haus and the parking structure, Drawings of the proposed public improvements have been attached far reference. After further review of this proposal and the regulations of the Town Code, Staff has made a determination that this proposal meets the definition of a "major exterior alteration or modification" per the regulations of the Public Accommodation District. An "exterior alteration or modification" to any building in the Public Accommodation District requires Design Review Board review and approval. However, any project that adds dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, more than 1,000 sq.ft. of commercial or common floor area, or any project with significant off-site impacts is defined as a "major exterior alteration or modification" and requires the additional review and approval of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Due to the nature of work involved and the significant off-site impacts associated with this proposal, Staff has determined that this proposal requires Punning and Environmental Commission approval as a "major exterior alteration or modification." The regulations of the Public Accommodation District are unique in that Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, grants the Planning and Environmental Commission the discretion to approve variations to the setback standards during the review of an "exterior alteration or modification° without the approval of a variance. Therefore, Staff directed the applicant to revise their application from a request for a variance from Section 12-7A-6 (Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, #o a request for final review of an "exterior alteration or modification" in accordance with Section 12-7A-12 (Exterior Alterations ar Modifications}, Vail Town Code. ' ll. BAGKGROUNC7 In the fall of 2000, the Mountain Haus proposed to construct a similar front entry feature at their north entrance slang East Meadow Drive. This proposal included discussions of a joint venture between the Mountain Haus and the Town of Vail to make streetscape improvements to East Meadow Drive. It was determined that streetscape improvement to East Meadow Drive would not be a high priority in the Town's Capital Improvements Program at that time, so the Moun#ain Haus has decided to proceed with a proposal for a new franc entry feature and abandon proposals forjoint effort streetscape improvements. Since the Mountain Haus is proposing to construct a significant portion of their new front entry feature on Town of Vail property (i.e. the East Meadow Drive right-of-way), Town Council permission is required. Upon hearing the applicant's previous request at its Tuesday, October 20, 2000, meeting, the Town Council granted the applicant permission to proceed through the planning process. At its November 7, 2001, public hearing, the Town of Vail Design Review Board approved, with conditions, the proposed new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus. The Design Review Board's approval is contingent upon the Planning and Environmental 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 thus proposed 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 Commissioners' concerns included 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 some 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, After the November 12, 2001, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing, the Mountain Haus and their representatives met with Town Staff to discuss revisions to their proposal. The Mountain Haul 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, 2001, afternoon hearing to discuss the applicant's 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 perEaining to this proposal, A copy of the Town Council staff memorandum has been attached for reference. 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 opposed 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 far eliminating or reconfiguring existing interior building space to accommodate the entry feature, and examining options for redesigning the East Meadow Drive street alignment. At its December 10, 2001, public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss this proposal with the applicant and their representatives. The Commission was generally supportive of the proposal; however, several Commissioners expressed continued concerns about the affects of this proposal on traffic flow, pedestrian circulation, and public safety. Also stated by the Commission. were concerns that. this proposal may be considered a grant of special privilege. Staff does not believe that this proposal is a grant of special privilege since the Mountain Haus was constructed prior to zoning and current development standards prohibit the applicant from ever constructing improvements to the building without avariance. /fit the applicant's and staff s request, this item was tabled for further discussion to the January 14, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission's public hearing. A copy of the December 10, 2001, Planning and Environmental staff memorandum has been attached for reference. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variations to the setback standards subject to the fallowing findings: 1. That the proposal provides necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. 2. That the proposal complies with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 3. That the proposal will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space.. 4. That the proposal will provide a comps#ible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. 5. That the proposal will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested exterior alteration subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposal is in compliance with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District. 2. That the proposal is consistent with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan. 3. That the proposal substantially complies with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 4. That the proposal does not otherwise have significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, Should the PEC choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. That all Town Staff conditions be met. prior to the issuance of a building permit. That the applicant executes an easement agreement, or a similar encraachrnent agreement as determined by Town Staff, with the Tawn of Vail prior to the issuance of a building permit. IV. APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN A. Vail Land Use Plan Goal 9.1 Vail should canfinue fo grew in a controlled environmer7f, maintaining a Balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve Bath the visitor and ff3e permanenf residence. Goal 7.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Goa! 4.7 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. Goa! 4.3 The ambience of the Village is important to the identity crf Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small fown feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopofitan feeling, environmental quality). The applicant's proposal far the remodel of its entry reflects a high quality redevelopment proposal that should enhance the viability and aesthetics of the Mountain Haus without adversely impacting other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity of the project. This proposal is in harmony with Goals 1.1 and 1.3. This proposal is also in harmony with Goals 4.1 and 4.3, Goal 4.1 states in part, that "future commercial development in the core needs fo be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery." This proposal is intended to improve both vehicular and pedestrian access and traffic flaw at this location abng East Meadow Drive. 8. Vail Village Master Plan The goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. Each major goal focuses on a particular aspect of the Village community. "Goal ~ Encourage-high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain a sense of community and identity." This proposal involves design details similar in architectural scale and identity as those of the west-side of the Mountain Haus building in Slifer Square. "Goal 2 To foster a tourist industry and promote year-round economic health. and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole." The proposed new entry canopy will enhance the economic vitality of the Mountain Haus, and along with the proposed streetscape improvements will improve the aesthetics, functionality, and safety of East Meadow Drive. "Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." As discussed in Goal 2 above, this proposal will improve the aesthetics, functionality, and safety of East Meadow Drive for pedestrians and vehicles. "Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities." This proposal will not affect any open space or green space areas. "Goal 5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transpar#ation and circulation system throughout the Village," As mentioned,. the proposed canopy, streetscape improvements, and loading reconfiguration will substantially improve the existing problematic conditions along East Meadow Drive. "Goal 6 To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village." This proposal will benefit bath access and loading./delivery activities in the vicinity of the project. The proposal will provide snow melted walkways and improved storm water drainage for a safer environment for delivery personnel and pedestrians. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DISTRICT According to Section 18.24.010 of the Municipal Code, the Public Accommodation District is intended. to, The Public Accommodation Disfricf is intended to provide sites for lodges and residenfial accommodations for visitors, fogether with such public and semipublic facilities and limited professions! offices, medical facilities, private recreation, commercial/retail and related uisitor-oriented uses as may appropriately be located wr`thin the same districf and compatible with adjacent land uses. The Public Accommodation District is intended fo ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain fhe desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance fhe nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. The proposed entry canopy, along with the implementation of streetscape improvements, will improve the desired resort quality of the Mountain Haas and East Meadow Drive. The remodeled improves the quality and aesthetic appearance at this location without interfering with the light, air and open space enjoyed by surrounding buildings and uses. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN The streetscape Master Plan does not include specific recommendations for this portion of East Meadow Drive. However, the proposed installation of heated decorative pavers, proposed storm water drainage and proposed street construction improvements all conform to the intent and recarnmendations of the streetscape Master Plan, • Vll. COMPLIANCIe VIIITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE Vail Vbllaae Design Considerations The following is a discussion of the application's compliance with the Urban Design Considerations and the architecturaUlaridscape considerations expressed in the Vail Village Design Considerations planning document. Urban Design Considerations A. Pedestrianization: This proposal will improve circulation, safety, and the aesthetic experience for pedestrians at this location with the proposed canopy, heated pavers, and street improvements. B. Vehicular Penetration. This proposal will improve traffic circulation and safety for vehicular traffic in this area with the reconfiguration of loading areas in this area. C. Streetscape Framework: This proposal will improve the walking experience along East Meadow Drive and to give continuity to the pedestrian experience on the north and west sides of the Mountain Haus, D. Street Enclosure: The proposed canopy will give the Mountain Haus and East Meadow Drive a more pedestrian scale. E. Street )edge: The proposed canopy and streetscape improvements will add visual interest and aesthetic duality along East Meadow Drive_ F. Building Height; The application does not impact this consideration. G. Views and l=ocal Points: The applica#ion does not impact this consideration. H. Service and Delivery: This proposal will improve the efficiency and safety of loadingldelivery at this location. I. Sun/Shade: The application does not impact this consideration. Architecture/Landscape Considerations A. Roofs The proposed canopy will add a new roof area at a pedestrian scale to East Meadow Drive. 13. Facades This proposal will improve the aesthetic quality of the Mountain Haus fia~ade, and bring continuity be#ween the north and west sides of the building. C. Decks and patios IVa decks or patios are proposed by the applicant. D. Balconies Na balconies are proposed by the applicant. E & I'. Accent Elements and Landscape Elements The colors and materials proposed are consistent with colors and materials used elsewhere on the building. • VIII.. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES The PEC is resaansible fflr e~aluatir~a a proposal for: 1. Compliance with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District. 2. Consistency with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines, Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. The effect of the requested proposal on the character of the neighborhood. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed . variance. I~ Design Review Board: Acfion ~ The DRB has review aufhorify on fhe consfructian of a new building or the alferafion of an exisfing building in fhe Public Accommodation Disfricf. The DRB is responsible far evaluating the DRB proposal for. - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings rota landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision far snow storage on-site - Accep#ability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building farms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting IV. ZONING STATISTICS Lat Size: 21,610 sq.ft. (0.496 acres) Zoning: Public Accommodation Development Standard AllowediReauired Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Site Coverage: 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 sct.ft. (83%) No Change 9 V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Exterior Alteration or Modification° B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variation to the setback standards: 1'. That the proposal provides necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. 2. That the proposal complies with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 3. That the proposal will provide adequate availability. of light, air and open space. 4, That the proposal will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. 5. That the proposal will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. C. The Plannina .and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before approvina an exterior alteration or modification: 1. That the proposal is in compliance with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District. 2. That the proposal is consistent with the applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan. 3 . That the proposal substantially complies with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. ~ . That the proposal does not otherwise have significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. 1~ C Zw ~' ~~~" :c~o~n~e u~U ~ a~` p :s7rtC ]pvNp~J'~nn ~ $_ ?nieu .~«.x~.~rv:sv~rar nJ ~ ~ ale = sn~H Nir~iNnow ~, ~,2 II< `y ~ I ~ c~ ~ `k} ~ ~, I ~ ~ s ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I II , q qq \! y I ~ I y ~ E 8 ~ ~ 0 i o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' i ~ ~ ' ~ Q . °. ~ p° ; ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~~- q a ~ i ' °' '~ ;=' I~ ~ ~~ i i } i i ~ 1~4 i I a ~ ; ~ ~, ~ ~ ' ~ , , , ~, , I ` i ~ o ~ ~ ' i r E + i s ~ ~ i ~ I l i 1 1 d ~ ~ ~ .. ~,v 8 ~ II 1 I I ! I i 1 ~ , q~ ~' V ~ ' ~ iY j ~ 1 ~ I 4V11 f I ~ ~ ' 1 i ~ Y ~~ ~ /T,: i + Q s O I / f' i I + /f I l ~ f ` ~ " 3l ~ ~ r~~ - ~ ~ r .~' i ~~ ~~j 1 I ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~{~~ jrh_ !/ _ li i 4 r 1 Y " ' i ~I A ~ © !ll i ~ ~ l` ~ fI 4l ~ / +~ V @ G ~. ~ J ' Y 8 ~ ~ i ~-' ~'Y r i ~ " ~~ ! ry • ~i _ _ - _ i -- ~ i ~ ~ F ~ }~ys'!~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I q O ~ ' y. P.e, r v v ~; ~ ~ ter; _.._J O ~ ~ `' ~ ~ ~ ` I ~ v ~ I ~ O ~ I I I~ © / ~ / I ~ ~ ~` >~ Q ~ ~~ O ob W ~Z~/ `!L 1-1--t J Q LL ~~a 1J 3~Uild 25918 ....~ ~,.. v. 'lrcA 3~1U0 MOO+3s~'L5+3 [a[ Sf lb'H NI`d1Nf10V'~1 w v -~~ Z W ~' ~~ ~ e~~. L].J k _ $ 11.0. ` x~~ • 4 ~ d p000 o O O O 9 0 e Q d O D ~ O b p Z ~ V ~ O '~ s O z Q Q ~ r- ~~ a o u 4 W ~~ 1 ~. i- V ' [ 11 0 fV z~ w Cd l~ J m Q W 0 a ,L • • • w ai U U tJ ~~ ~~~ H ~, ~ W~ N u U ~~o ro d '~ ~°z~ m C .,~ t~ U ~t rl V .,~ N 0 i~ O~ ri ~~~ 11 H H 'yp C7~ C ~ ~+ •~ o d Q air aca~ >. ~ roroa $ ~ H ~ .s rnrne •.~ •.~ d ~~~ w ~ b ~, v m~ ~b v •.~ ..~ ~ ro > > ro a c~ •~+ •~ o A'~H Ci t7 W ~~~ E YH-l ~ ~~~ [-a ~'~ X33 H~z aoo rl ~ H H 7 F CF1 t11 41 iJ U H H ~~ waa uw 7aa xw poa w H Q H H H Q p: a~ ~ ~ o00 ~~~ :~ww u] £t'~ ~k NNN i.J SR (lv tT [!] M N O E~E o fi U ~, Sa cnmw ~ ~ mma~ u ro ~ ~a c r~ G?fl ~~N N '~\~ N '-1 N r ~ +~ N r~ ~k m N N .r M o3 r ~ mrm ~ a c ~n ~ ns o © c7 o ~ o00 ~ •a r v mmm N U O~ 6~ O1 i !.~ i P N r! r1 rl ri a i E+ a 0 4s~ a W Sa z w a f u w ~ ran H ?a u m u tr~C z~ .7U p s~ m u 0 bi q .,~ 'C ~G ntl H 0 q act W I-1 W a~ s7 [~ 'p Pd .~ i U Q± ~ cc~~1 6L a .~ ~ rl ~ H U w .i~ ~~ a ~~~~ i{ H O ? a~ H cs~ m ors a ~~ P; E F G) E ~ ~ .u m ~ ~ 1 d + ~ ~ H ED R~ E E ~ ~ 4~ q 4 U ,7+ al P+ 7Ny a1 W U~ ~ ~ U n6 rl k~ Oq N c~ ~ W ri t4 O N rl ~tk ri q ~ L1 Q °.l. ~ Q r-i N o W o b o ~ •.~ r u a~ ~ n, u rn ~. ry i a ~ ~ • I++ Qy ~ U U U ~~ ~ [~ O G H E ~ WW i ~ ~ ro ` ~Z~Zo w ~ aoz zz~ a W ,~cxw ~~a ~-I 1-I '43 ~ H H I I.7 +7 .~. ~ - Q d ~ aU caACa ro rn -.~ ~ ~. H rtfb 3 3 w ~ •[7 wR~f la O O O a x IQ ap [xri [ I 1 ~~C ~p0 W.7 a .~ ~ z ~~ b ~a •.~ u U -.i z~ i7 Q Hzw a ~ ~noQ E cry va U W ~ CJ H ~'7 ~ q WaK a xw oUw 7..I d H H 3 7 L.1 O M H O ca a ~~ N ,~ N ~F .7 FOF E ~ ~ ~ 2s q0q q6 q0q ~ rj ~ rZ 1+ WWW w E E E ~ fi N N N iJ 1!1 0~ O~ UO Ucnm + GF- i~~ . aE + x z F W I-I C dC"~d E ~~ H.7~ ~ a O ~Z ~~ C4 u aoo W am o00 u u iis. cq U b tP H lf7 tv O q O p ri yl iii Ga lp G] N m ~ a 6 ~k N r-I a0 (~ ri rry N H J.1 n'7 W ~P z cj O00 ,~ ay O p O W p ~ 6 O O i ter{ I o 0 r- U 0 + N J 0 0 O a ry I , I i ~ ~~~ H r a N .~ U U d N U _~ A 7 N Q 1~ O +~ 0 v ~..~ ~~ a~oo ~~ wmxa H ~. F W , W la ~a~+N u 03+~~+~ 3 ~~~ q b '~3 G3 0 O FUU pC H t7 [n Cn ~ H C d ~ro a~c~i ,onq ~~.rnrn a~ acaaa A C1 N H ~ ~ fd ~L ~ ~ $ 05 W 'd 'Ci ~ ~. rtro~~ oa ro xa~ab x°Q o~a°x° ~ .... ~ . w K„ a . .. E V 11 l7 14i G F,' [.L d Vyyl r~.IW~W q ri N rf .-I W r-1 Hew W }~d SyyU Ri CJ~N ~W WGaOSx H W W ~ ,7 A ~H7i H H P ~ p W WW ~~~~ o ~ ~~~ oo©o a~ WWW ~~~~ ~L N N N N .L.1 4!~ 05 v1 lL1 V1 ~'1Nrlm a a z z H OH d ~H ~ ~~ a ~O 0 r N .a ~ ~a{ a: U2 ? E~ O a H ,~ I~ ,~ ~ W ^~ dt 4PG0 u +~ -~~a~ x uN muamco ~ m .-~ N ~~ O rl ~E lv O W w rl ra CI 40 N yJ O N ~1 iD {„i" C O6O r~l d} C3 O O O O '~ 0000 -'{ I 1 1 [~ [} rf rl 1"! ri ca V 0040 1 ] I A N W r-1 r-1 ri ri A ~i !~ • • ET~TE OF CQLGRADa TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPOR MAILT°: SIaI~°rG°kxatl° ~~ Mot°r Vehicle Division ~ /~s 7r-affie Records 'W ' ^ AM~NDEDISUPP~.EMENTAL REPORT ^ UND~A $9,OQ0 ACGIDE Dsnver, Go 8026f-DDi I r/ DR 447 REV 1197 SHEE7~ OF SHEETS 2 AGENCY GODS DOFtDCtD~ E AGENCY CO"II~TY ~_ [l,l~ll L ~ R~IjR~ L C~ ~i G ~. 4 ~F~~ ~~ OFFICER NAME AT]S~tE~ ~~ ~ I DETAIL ~k~ ~ N L y J~ l~. OCATION ROUTE, STREET, ROAD l~+IILES -FEET V M d E D S ~] W I ~x ~ ~~~ 8 Az .~ 4 a ~ . M~F.~4'DU~ fi~~~ J ~ IUTAL ~ iCLES CNSiRiCL NUMBER I ~~O EEOPE~~YY r PHpTO6'; pKEN ~AAILR~CIAp CRQSSING I CONSY. ~Q.NE f ON 9RICGE ~ IM~~~ ~ gEPOIiT K ~K f ~ ~ VEH ~DR~, BIGYCLr il~ PEDESTRIAN li_ PARKED- EH #2 ~ BICYCLE S_ PEDESTRIAN tl__ PARKED If FIRST- MI AME FPR5f MI is i~~ J s r `~,~r~~ ~ r I~~I°s~ ~os~ FN Cam= ~MI ETA DRE RES.P~pNE ST E E RES. PHONE P STATE ZlP~e.~ B~S. PHOME TY STATE Z]P / ~ BU'S, P/ ~i ~I RS IC. NUMB ST 5 "X d ~ D "VERB LI UMBER StA''E S` D 1R~ VIOLATION iT![1N GODS I CITATION NUMBER MAKE MODEL ~'~ ~ ~T~~ C~rCar~'~ LATE NO. STATE 1' Q '~~~.~ ~ G ILE ID NO. LE OWNER LAST NAME FIRST 51!4n1 ~. Fib ~R"_ci~ ?SS CITY TOWED DUE TO DAFAAGE U 8YR0: ;s per ~>r - -- ---_~ ~.____~ PRIMARY VIOLATION ,~ ~e~ COMMON GODS VIOLATION ~ ~ E I CITATION NUMBER COMMON GODS ~ ~ P: BODY TYPE YEAH MAKE MO©EL BODY TYPE ~ ,~,~ GT~ F: L LI PL ~(3 1 l' ISV G . ~jy~ J COLOR ~.. ! ~ Ipk'- GI~t~'i vEFIIGL Ipj~ ,h / ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ / {v ,~ a Mi V HIGL.E OWNER LAST NAME FIRST MI ~ STATE ZIP ADDRESS C~Y STATE ZIP TOWED DUE TO DAMAGE U r i R BYliO: N © E 1 • SLIGHT 1 -SLIGHT f 2-MODERATE 2-MODERATE R 3•EXTREME 9 ~4 ~S ,~ .? ~ • 3-EXTREME t ~ _ iiip rtii.. .~ fs~•' ~._ s __ _ 1 ~ >to .- ~ I s 1 ` ~: ~.~ J t 11 ~F3 Ali CIS 19 ~ i - _ 2D UN/ERCAHRIAGi" ~X~/ V>=}Hp POS. I RESTR. E3EvT. R T TJ FIRST ' CITY in.I. AGE s~v: +~~ MI STATE ZI P 2D UNDERCARRIAGE ANCE CO. EXP: DATE IYlJY11 1 r1~,SLLK~d?G~~iE'>Q~~I1G• ~~~~"~~ Y NO. _ R DAMA~LI PR~S~NAME FIRST MI ~T T ESS CITY STATE ZIP SEX NAME"ADDRESS ' ~ "Tu5 7--1J R. • ~.,I~,~~ Nsk'1 ~ ,~~~1 S>a,~,~anl r.~1~~r~T 7]~. ~ESCASa~ nacioe~ur . ~r ~ ~ i,c.L~.. ~ ~ ~-~ . Rc-~~ ~ .~-r . ~~',~~;es ~ . ~.wa~r~.--~.. ~~-~~ ~r~,~1 . c~T _ 13 ~ts-~r~s~ .. r~' ..... . 1~is~v~?~~__.~l~m_~rE.•.._~N~1~~..TT.~~7..%~0~...s'~~-,•,s' _~1~~~='f~t~'.~,!._..~A~ `~~c~n~,,~ss'~.;~cY.. ~1~~~G~~_ ~~ ~ ../~.~~~.~16N.T,..Tu~,N s(~h/Al~ ff~D .~d~~,,~31-~ ~,r~?...C .~1.~4-TAP-CJc~I, ..1~~1.- .. _ ._.j /' ~ y ., _-,~~~lCL~~(_ ,.:.:_ffDt?tSF~7 1`f~.~~.~ .6cl.r~~ ... ..L-3 .M f?f•,/~ . ,~`~.c.i7..~~..~~-.~~ ."~.~.. („~~~4 c. Lam. `i~?,~~~-t%~r~ ~ an ~Y. k_~ 5 C~!rfrc ~£~ _ ~-~F. f ~ €a.. tics.. IJ~.S?~ '€ . . C~'n7,~1•g~~.~f. ~.....[~~~^-.!fit .F~F:A....~~`~... c~.~flC~.~'. ........ _....., ............... ..... . .. .... .. .. • • a.~" ~' 1 ~+ V,AIL POLICE QEPAR7ME~1T TI7WNDF~AIL MINOR ACCIC~ENT REPORT Departmcat of po7rcc _ 73 S. ProIItsga Roadr• Pall, CD 82457 (cR M a~ ~ ~, ~ 7 ~ DATE af~ACC~~`? ~,~ Tlu~ f~+ l,y"' ~...~ •"-' ~ nnr cr~~~ J / 1 TOTAL M VEHIOIES INVDL~ ~ PHO~ ~ ~ ZCNETWLIGTIONI? l 4lMAE +~"'~ PAOPERTy ~O pAOE N ~ OF l LOCATION ~? L- ~ I~t:'bE~.t,J EAaLEWC•oy)t~~ V E H i C L E 1 QR v N c •r E 2 OR REVIE OFFIC "' `w,~LrL/ L 2 f dr ~~ t Y. f3FgYEA (Lsu, Fwsl. MIl +}~` -: -1'0P4l.1J4' ~"~ f e ~ A ~ ~ ! ~ppgE ~Lr HOME PHONE Q~~ ~ M~.14'L-~ fro NW !I ~U ~jtif? ,r-- CITY /i ~~_ GQSTATE AP COOk BU ~ SS PH ~rE Z 7 '~ DRIVER'S EN5ElSTAT€ 4 ~ f~ ~lS~733.~oV 410 ~(r~L aT N~ w1oLAnoNs _ E~/Tw ~b ~ ~ 9 ~ OWNER'S NAME ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ OJ~Y~7~V ~ owNEa•s AD[7REs ~- 0, IGS a d- SAD INSURANCE COr<fPAI4Y ~`I1L~1d e1 PCILICY fJUMBE ~K-C~ ~~ D +~ ~ O ~~ PgIVER lLa FYst, a~u ~q: ~hf~lfE ~¢S~EL+~A~DI sTwv r ~~~ ~ I N~~L~IN4# IX~RESS ,R 1' ~ le ~ ct, r t7gtllER'g EIST VIQLATIONS ~ i, f ER'S NAME l1 ~~~''~~++~ ~~- aWN~R's ADDRESS an' INSURANCE CQMi'ANY , POLICY NUIt1BE~i Z 1 f ~ bS7 t ,OWNER OF DAMAGEA PROPF..FITY a A8DRE53 /' WITNE5~AfJDRE WRNE551 iJESS £lfl~~i clTv Vi4~Cf P?fO1VE PHONE PHONE kARRATIVE ~'~ HLL.~~ ~ ~ (M1,1l~S' fM`~1 ~~- G} f~ rT~l h fv v-~rLgA/a ~4 ~~j DATE OE REPORT q~~ NAME ~ SI TllgE , ~r ~~FICERNUM~ER 6,!,(~~ t'I Whits: OFFICE Yellow! Pink; Citizen Gc3hTe ZJ~, i°~s.~' BUSINESS PHONE D/V-Z Ea_'~~ CITATION STATE GATE pP roD~ r~ -,~~ ~t VAIL POLICE DEPARTMENT TOWNQFYAIL MINDR ACCIDENT REPQRT Department of Palace T5 S. Frontage Raad • Vail, COS 1657 DATE OF ACCIDENT ~ ~~~ ,r-r. 7 _TIME ~ ~ ~~ ~ pAY ~ W~E~EK~ ~-_ MODEL ~~ ~5 ~~ 707AL N YEHIG ~ INVOLVED I PHOTO ~,T i ONETRUC~~ ~ I GAME / .'` 4.f I PROPERTY _ _ _ ~4ti,( ~ PAGE # DF LOCATION ~,/' I DRIVER (Last, First, MI} ~ ~, F ~,,, V STREET ADDRESS. ~~+' 7 MAILING ADDRESS ~ CITY STA ZIP CODE ~ DRIVER'S LI~`~ISElSTATE / ~. VIOLATIONS E VEHICLE l1CENSElST{aA~,~(E TM~ YEAFNdAIfE { MDdF~ OWNER'S NAME OWNER'S ADO ~..-. ~ CITY t INSURANCE COMPANY r' POLICY HUMBER _,.~ 1. ~ r-,, .,.,, __ EXPIRATION DRIVER tLsst, First, ~P V STREET ADDRESS ~ MAILING ADDRESS E M CITY STATE ZtP GpDE oRlvER's uGENS~srarE E I VIOLATIONS VEHICLE LICENSElSTATE ~ + YEARfMAK bwNER'S NAME -- ~,~ OWNER"S ADDRESS ^.~} F' T .y-~- _ _ •~ .,.CITY ._i .__',1 ~s , '7' f~„r~~i.} ll1~f~ ~`^ is + INSURANCE COMPANY J '~ POLICY NUMBER _ OWNER OF DAMAGED FROPERTY ADDRESS ~.~i'~~( r r CR M Y,?y. -.. I EAGLE COUNTY OFFICER HOME PHONE _! BUSlNE ~ HONE DATE OF BIRTH S ; +~( ~~s~~~ ~ CITATION NO. COLOR / STATE ZIF CODE ~-t°~~_cj~7 HOME PHONE BUSINESS PHONE DATE CF BIRTH CITATION NO. COLOR r~ } ~,r~ STATE 21P GODS EXPIRATION DATE VYITNESSlADDRESS ~ PHONE WITNESSlADDRESS PHONE NARRATFVE ~9 p ~r' llY'.'E"1 . ~" i .f-. ~i~~~ ,~'~t - It"-h`~s~ ~.` la ~~ ~I ~41X!ys~~f+~~t'•j 1~:.~.'d`,'•'1. . ~~.2.~~~.~ %".] 1~,'. ~% ~:` t1 .:~;11 lw" _ ,x.~/.';'s3,_'1 #'~~ i °~ F _ ~•! T , ..... I r'-~..- ! ...., ..~ f.,,:.. ,; ~.Iw~ ~F ,s;,, ~..: ~'.f'l•J: ;~ # i"'! ~.~..:T'~ l~~'I:Ai..r,r~~,~,t` ,r~, ~-•., .._ r.-_..y. ,.~,...._ ~,.~_ .~.~ ~~.._ r..s.P~~ ~ ~~... A.ja:"4`~~~'.F.:~x; ,1 e~'l~i~d.;~l~;I~.LC.d~~7'ii ~mj t.~5:,,. j,J~~"! ~,.-~s. ~ n.; .J':b.~C";1..,:1.~ ,~~'r,,. ~I' *~~7 -i r:.-,l~~~u..~~~'` P,~f..~:;F ~f S~,F~;d ti Q,,,t7 ,r ~I~'fri aiY r`.~~'.,. r'.p i~l.r ~1 ,. ...) f~,~t e:., }:l a::;' .a~ ~,. ~L...... x, ~_.y d ~ ._, E _.. f 'S ~ P L~~ DATE F REPORT ~ NAME 5IGNA7URE OFFICER NUMBER White: QFFICE Yellow J Pink: Citizen ~T.ATE QF COL{~RADC} TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPf)RT ,.. M~AiLTD: M°tOrV ~°~i°~`owiSiQ~ C7 AMENDEDISUPP~EMENTAL REPpRT ~. UNDER $1,000 ACCIDENT *' Trafflo Rec°rds - ~ Denver, CO 80261-001 4 L_r~ 447 (REV i!]71 SHEETJLOF ~~-SHEET _ S AC,ENCY CODE OOf~ CUDE:.;;; , _ _. DATE OF RGCIDENT CITY AGENCY ~(} GOUN fi' ~~,? r O{;1 ~ ~~c''l ~ ~ i~G1 i I _ I- 1~ '~o~ ~ ~ ~ TIM %~7~ (OFFICER NUMBA,~ OFFfCrE~1~JAME ~ SIGNAT RE / -~ lI DE ~ f NUMBER,~iILLED NUMBE ~NJURED LOCATION ROUTE, STREET, ROA -MILES „FEET ^ N ^ E C] S ^ W OF: DATE OF REPt~ ~~ ~~'~, ~ ,L?~~ ~.1I ]`I~, ^ AT: 1 SCENE ~TU ~ TflTAI ~ HICLES ~ DISTRICT h'VMBER I EMPLOYEEO l,J ~ ~ PH~TO$ TAKEN ~AILRQAp CR055iNP~ + CONST. ZO~EF ~ON BRIQGE~ I INCOMPLETE REPf5P;7 EH #1 R_ 61CYCLE #_ PEDESTRIAN #_ J PARKED J_r,•/ VEH #2 OR~ BICYCLE # /y_C ? PEDE/SVTRIAN 111 PARKED T NA FIRST MI LAST~ r~~yaaM FIRST MI ST~tE~r-TADDRESS ~ RE . PHONE STREETADDRESSr ' RES PHONE ~v"1 ! ~~~~'n ~ i {~'7ca) ~'~7~f '23'~l~ ?~~a'~i ~ S. ,~d~~7'-z%i4- ir41~r ((~~J +5~+~~f~ CIT~yY,,, STATE ~y 21P BUS. PHONE CITY f ,, S A ~ E 21P BUS. PHONE • ~ 7 ~l'1 ~"~7 CCU tJ ~~ ~,~ { ~ ~+~/~'T ~/l~ ~-(! ~~ ~'3 ~ ~ 7 DR ERS LIC. NUMBr=R STATE SEX DOB DR EfiS LIG. NUMBER ST~4'i E SEX pOB Ri ARY VIO A lON ~ RAIMARY VIOLATION Jlgl-gTEQN CUOE I GITATION NUMB=R ~ COMMON CODE VIOLATION CODE I CITATION NUMBER I COMMON CODE q MA E + MODELS / I BODY T~PS YEAR I MAKE MODEL BODY TYPE .IrC~. PSAT~ t~ ~ ~ STATE ~~ ~~ COL~~ LIC. PLATE NO. STATE I COLOR I~I~~~fi~ I_~ty~~D~~~ ~~ VEFiICLEIDNO. 'EHIGLE OWNER`?, kT NIA/~1C1E FIRST MI VEHICLE OWNER LAST NAME FIRST MI /~ V~ V ~ I CITY STATE IP ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP l s. ~~ 5~ ~d ~~I ~ ~~ ~t ~S3 OL+l~b DUE TD DAMAGE U TOWED DUE TO DAMAGE u BY/T0: BV/TO: 3 4 •S ,6 ~7 , Y ~~~'^ ~_ ~ X17 i : i! - ;i~4 ~ `- ~--- ~ i0 . ' ~e -~ ,'--~~ = ii X15 X14 IJ i12 , e NCppE O. i` cESt~l~~~~z VEH# ~ PUS. l N RESTR., EJECT. I MSC AROT. ~ ~ ~ i -SLIGHT 2=MODERATE 3•EXTREME ; 1:6 --•k ~-_- ~ h i i CIS X14 X17 ilk ; r INSURANCE CO. POLICY NO. OWNER DAMAGELI PROP. LAST NAME FIRST 20 UNDERCARRIAGE EXP. DATE ~vuur, ~a~ I FIRST v ~ Y~+ CITY STATE ZIP INJ. SE V: t AC,E SEX Y s"''r CITY 1 -SLIGHT 2-MODERATE 3-EXTr~EME K ~~ K I~ L L M t Y y F, +~~ OI R~ R St s ~~ 20 UNDERCAAR4AGE EXP. DATE T~ MI f 7 STATE ZIP ! NAMElADpRESS ~~~~v~ L. S~Y~ 3t~ ~, ~ ,~~.~~~~ ~~. s; ~~~y~ Pa ., DESCRIBE ACCIDENT -. ~id os ~,r~.~,.. ~ +- !~'-`~ +~u~ i k ~~uj ..~iisf . 'f~r~ M.~f .. ~, _. ~ u~5 + .?~!~ ~-~_ ~v.. _1)r~~.~-c, a. ~+ _ ~'•'' ~ 5,~'~-+.~-4.1I~ , _ _. v~~'-rZ.t~.~"_!__t~~~pi._.__~~!'bml~,~[_t~,..__:.:~~'_f~~arf+~ .F7Yr?-~.__tr.h~.r....._~pe[.(._~f~+-iw.?.r~-.S,`t~e ------.__ __ _s'yr%r+bv__.S't?rvfi_~__..I.~?-r~._~'.~__d~'r '~Yu~._IQiSM~"..~~wat~+~rrF--.fl-._~p<'S'~y-i~+~+s.,_~_1..______ ------ !r, Wr~• r~ ~Ur4GGr +_ - I~'l~rt y.~~r#5.. ~''1~. ~~i!'!tt~C~G--~-~~'.~~+~._..~_~_.-=------------~------- --.-_.. • • . STATF QF ~C?L{~RA~O TRAFFIC A-C -a-E~~'~R~EORT -~ ^ AMEIVDEDISUPPLEMEN7AL REPORT ~ UNDER $7,{l~0 ACCIDENT DR 4q7 (REV 1197) MAIL TO: State of CalDrarlo ~~ ~yJ Molar Vehicle division Tragic Aecarcfs ~~~"'t~1 Denver, CO 802E1-Qdi6 SH€ET I OF r SHEETS uu I wur= ~ AGENCY CODE T~ `q DAR caoE s ~ r •- u ~ ~ ,; ~ ,r'yI ~ ATE OF ACCIDENT CITlI AGENCY ..? - (COUNTY TdME 4 O FIL ~^UMBER /~ OFFpfGErRNAME ~~I~N ~` - I]ETAIL 7 ~/ 1'41` ~ I~ I !?G1Pi~ ~J f~ ~ ~• NUMBER KILLED NUMBER INJURED r ~ / .~ B 1/J} (.-r/7 fLOCATIDN ROUTE, STREET, ROAD MILES FEET N Q E D S O W QF; ~l DATE OFd~EPORT ~_ III `F 1, } 7 _ ! ~ ~ L7 ' Y~Qt -^7 ~ -7 ~f . /'"l r~~ ~'~ , ,J /i _ 7@ AT: r..t tl.J~.~ i+-~ 7~-1.~. ~ _ 3' INVEBTiGATED [3a • ~ TQTAL VEHICLES ~ DISTRICT NUMF3ER PUBLIC PROPERTY PHOTOS TAKEN RAILROAD CRQ$SING G6NST ~p1aE pN BRIDGE INQpMPLETE R€PQRT _ - SCENE ~ l ..'7 ~ EMP40Y€E +~ _` 4~'V] L N „~ 1v ~f VEH #t OR_ BICYCLE #_ PEDESTAEAN #_ PARKED- VEH #2 OR BICYCLE #_ PECESTRIAN # PARKED .. LR5T NAME a FIRST `MI LAST NAME ~ ~ C~RST --.- MI STREE//TA/D/~F7ES~`~~~ r RES. PHONE I~ STREET ADDRESS f~~S. PHONE. CITY i'1 -i C C ~'~ ~S~~a L 1.6[J ~C.1 I .. ~,ryr ~7I ~J ~ ~ l: !-` ~~ I~i.'t•+.13I7,c ~`~ ~~D ~ ~ r ' ~~{'C.~ l ~ ``~ S~w~E ZIP BUS. PHLIWE GITy ESTATE 21P Bt15. PHONE ~~~4 e r 1 (cJ G.>•- f ~ Z rf ) 3y~~•/ t_~.4 ~ -'~/v--~ ~ J ~i ~~+~ Ft 70) ~i79-2t ~ . dRIVERS LtC. NUMBER - STA~TE SE% DOB ~ DRIVERS Ltfi. NUMBER ST 7E SF~;( DOB _ ,~ ~- ara'~ C-...L1_'°! ~ C•+~ ,mot ~! -~`5 -~1~ ~ ~ ~ LI -1 Z~v I ~~ f I f 17 7 -5 '~7 PRIMARY VIO~AT~~ /~~ ~~ ~ `L~~ ..PRIMARY VIOU~,T14~ VIOLATCON GETATf MBJE,R COMMON CODE VIOI.AiIONCODE CITATION NUMBER COMMONCgp` YEAR ~ ~ + MAKE ~~~ d - I MODEL ~~ ~~~ BODY TYPE- YEAR Y ~ ~ M~ ~~ ~ I MODEL,s BOD~ PE ` ~ L€C.~~`i0(~Ii~IJ !'~ ISTATEy;,~ COLO~S~1~~ UC.PLGi~EI~O.~ .A~~ ~STAT/Ef °~(~ CO~~~ ~~ f r 14~y1 ~,j Z7 VEHfCLE D~~~ I /y ~ q. ~7 r~,/,~ ~ l ~ VEHICLE ID NO. _ i t' f ~ ~ ~ ~ f.....11 4 ~F7 1~7 ~v ";Y'~7 r/ ~ it.i ~ I J~ ~-~; Ja, ~i !~(~ f ~ f ~i . LE OWNER LAST NAME ~ FIRST M6 VEHICLE OWNER LAST NAHtE FIRST MI ~ } ~i~t4, ~ - ,n..Ll w~~ ~ .ICI-~ t - 7f.r.'!^`~ ()~ ~/A L' ~.. 1 ADD ~~ ~" C TY STATE 21P ",fJL t ~ ADDRESS r ~ CITY STATE 21P ~~ ~SL~~ - S`: ~hc,i ~~ I?n ~ V+~~ . '~1 ~ ~~ ~ '~ 5 s. !-v~~~i ~G~`i~ ,~4 v`.R~~ ~ Sr TO ED UE 70 AMAGE !~ I TOWED DUE TO DAMAGE U / BYlTO' BYVT6: s . sLIw;HT 2~MODERAT 3 4 • S , i , 7 , t 3~ EXTREME a--- :i~-. ~IBI- if4-; 4 ~_.. ---~~ ----_.. .- 1~_ 'I .. 16 ~ IT y13 ~Td X13 X73 ____ 24L1NDERCAR . INSURANCE CD. EXP. {DATE ' 7 ~POLf~YNO. " ~ - - - -. - DWNER AMAGED PRDP LAST NAME ~ FIRST ~ NCI L;jAD[3RE55 CITY' STATE Z1P 'VEH# ROS. RESTR. ~ E,lECT, 1 ~ L ~ ~ i x I I ~ I I I M1C IiJJ. PP.OT. SEv ~ ~ ~ ~ AGE ~ SEX ~~ ~ ~ D -SLIGHT 2•MODERATE 3 • 4 • S , i ~ 7 al 3• EXTREME. - -_ ~17a~ ~ IH f4•' 4'` ~. 1 iy _ jQ-.. 1 ~ -" I is `_ `~I ~. ~ ~ -~ ~ - j ~i5 ~1~ 17 X17 , i1 , 2D UNpERCARRIAGE INSURAN EGO. EMP PATE// f POLICY tdD. UWNER DAMACiEd PROP. LAS NAME FIRST MI ADDRESS ~ CITY SATE EfP ;~ i NAMFrADDRE55 f rL 1 L R~ RI S BSI r'/~ r I i DESCRIBE ACCIDENT .,,,: ., a r6'~C~.-:~-~e_.. roc ~, f ~ . -- w ~ ~ P-` q s - .c? °'%_~. _Jr.__/a-3C~.q~Jr~v. _ ..~~~o,S7.~ __. ~!o'_"'ti._ -'t"'{~[i~.-~~..._.-..~ .mot r~s .___~_..__.._G`"~ / L,i/+ ~v~[r --~r~J-...!5/G-~r-+_- -j~~G1C3n~C~.... 6~.-..._.._.-C9-'"~~ '__--- -~. _°K..~r_~r7G7~~..-...._-_ - ...W~'~ ~---- .r?'`) -_,...~~: ,^^~!`~~%t'-`-!'..._ __~~~~1~ ..-., _,`~P~' ILO 7~. _ _., _ .._IU-. tS ~-~^-d'~kl-. •_ _.. _._11,~i±~ .,.~ ... _ _ -- -rx:rc,G~J... _ ...~'-!iv . _. _ _.lv'~f-~ , r4`2 ._ ~_.,_r~n~ : L~-:5.. ._.. ,1~~s~_ __ 't"'~`,.~I'~r"f - _.~-~,~a '"'?-~'7~c~,~ ~- ." - ~J~?-~.a~r~_ ,"t`'Sp ..4.~ t.c~ lea. ~ ~ ~-'~ - -L.tiTty ~Li.:r=-S , t=/~j+[ 1~' ~r~.5_c.-..--.- ~~.__-__~, - - -_ _.-.._._... _. _. .. ~~ ' ~ e - - -- - - -~ -~ ` ~C~~ ~. ~ -,ova.: __ ~ ,~ ,,~~ ., MG 5 ~~~ _ ~ ~ 1 ~ ; I 1 ~ <<~ ` ~'~ ~ ~ 1 . ` I ~ ~ v . I 1 i ' ~ t f _ __._~ -__.-_~-_-_. ._-.._ -__.~____ __ ^. ~ ` ~ ~ ~){ ~ ~ ~ i I {JY ~ ~ !rf ' -- s r(r h ~ i ~~ ~1r ' -- -----_ _____._ .._ - I~+''~-- i C ~ ~ .- ..--. _ _. .. r..___.__ .__.-- -- ..- ------~ ~ ~ ` 1 l ___..... _,.--- 4~ ._, c __._~_ _- - - -.._ ,_ _.__ - " ~.~•. ".: JYV.e:~~iidi~5.!iUr3+Ee~~e<iNSie oiie~ifr~r~~:ar:dr~~. _~ .-y L:'•-•~ 1=~e~uf'!~iVE t:dOiF!9PJ~(Ifil:lt.&etFWowaW~. "~••.•.•,,,, •u1WY61l IU ke'...."~.,:."":5~ ~,flm{SIlI'I~~W YIB iJd udo~:A: S.. ILL Jgi.J~T111-. .N &1`~StF ~'~ ao Se#~E3 ~'°~' ~5~~~935:"Fa443`~.`?:`3t'Y3kn~'~,.1~ ~ •~... 4.. "~":; ! _. ~ -_ 1. _ ,. -.... _ ~~- ~~~ ~~ C~~,C~R~~~?C~ T~;~F~~C A~~1~~~1~ ~3~~~~~ ~~~~~.E€UIENT~L :1=i 947A (Tr'.37} SHEET OF SHEETS CE ~7 GOGE AGENCY CODE DGR CODE. .. 7A~.ACCIDENT CITY AGENCY f~'J I COUNT r fltdE j~j OFFiGcA NUMBER OFFICER NAME ///// SIfiNAI ~ ~.f DETAIL ?ATE OF REPd T ~ - ~ 1 ~l ~ ~/_'' >~ ~ ~ ~ ~-s`<~ ~~ LOCA710N ROUTE. STREET, ROAD MILES FEET Q N~E /00'~ S ] W d~. ._ /i. /EHICLE : (AS LISTED ON DA am7j IRIVERS IASt NAME ~ ~ F! ~~T ~~~ .. -M7~~• ~ ~_ --+--=` - ~[/-~~/_a' >> ft~/~ - ~~ c/mss GARRIEAS IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS ;ARRIERS NAME ,. / US DOT NUMBER TREET ADDRESS ICG MD NUMBER // ITY STATE ZIP CODE STATE ID NUMBER STATE SOURCE C?F NAME SIDE OF VEHICLE SHIPPING PAPERS, TRUCK, BUS GR TRIP MANIFEST DRIVER - . LOGBOOK ~J TOTAL NUMBER Or= AXLES INCLUDING TRUCK AND 7RAILEA(S) TRUCK COMBINATIONS 20 7K, SELF-CONTAINED P1 TK, SELF•CONTAINED,TLA ~2 TK, SELF-CONTAINEblTLR/TLA 23 TK, TRACTOR ONLY 2a TK, TAACTOR/iNK 25 TK, TRAGTORffN7GTNK Z6 TK, TRACTORlTNK?NK,+TNK 27 TK, TRACTORFSEMI-TAL 28 TK, TRACTCR;SEMI-7RLTRL 29 TK, -RACTORYSEMI-TAL/TRLfCRL iAZARDOUS MAT)RlAL AND PLACARDlNG ID VEHICLE HAVE A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL PLACARD J YES ~ NQ YES JJE 4-OIG1T PLACARD NUMBER OA NAME TAKEN FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE DtAMGNO OR FROM THE RE{,TANGULAR BOX: 1-01GIT PLACARD NUMBER TAKEN FRGM 6Cl-TOM CF DIAMOND: AS HAZARDOUS CA'AGO FROM THE PLACARD TRUCK RELEASED? ~G NOT COUN7 FiJEL FROM THE VEHICLE FUEL TANK) OYES D NO RQ SS VEHICLE WEIGhIT 4TING ~GJWR) ~L~J ~j(C~ ~QUENGE ®F EVENTS IF@RSTFOURFOF§THISYEH3CLE RAd+1 bFF RQALi JACKKNIFE OVERTURNYROLLOVER) bOWNHILL. RUNAWAY CARGO LOSS OR SHIFT EXPLOSION OR FIRE SEPARATION OF UNITS -LISiON IM'VOL!/ING PEDESTRIAN MATER VEHfGLE IN7RANSPDRT n.4RKED M4TEA VEHICLE TRAIN PEDALCYCLE ANIMAL F!XEO OBJECT OTHE•CT '?THE=: ~lT: ~~ CARGO BODY TYPE 1 VAN;ENCLOSED BOX 2 CARGOTANK 3 FLATBED a DUMP 5 CGNCRETE MIXER 6 AUTO TRANSPORTER T GAR@AGl=1REFUSE B BUS SEATING >75 PASSENGERS (Indudir7g dtn+er) 3 SCHOOL BUS >! 5 PASSENGERS (Including driver) 70 OTHER (i.e., multiple-body types) COMC~INATION VEHICLE C7IMENSIONS ~2~ ~I _ ~~) 1 . ~ ~ TOTAL LENGTH ~ ~~^ f I i TRAILER NIfDTH 11I ~(k.~ ~ ~, f TRAILER LENGTH (#71 ~~ j u `RAILER LENGTH fiR21 I i -RAILER LENGTH f#31 ~ I Y r~.;..T, ~. AIL TO: State of Colorado~^~_ " ~~'ATE C)F Ct~L®R~ADQ TR-~FF1C ACCa~DE~1T REPC)R ~: -- ~ ~„may ~ ~+' ~ Motor Vehicle Division ~" G" Ar~fENDED/SUPPLEPI~ENTAL REPORT ^ UlVQEi~ $7 [700 ACCiDL~NT TratlicHecnrds -aGa . ~ Dsaver,CD BQ26i-!p016 DR 447 JREV V~71 SHEET t OF_"_9_S~tE TS L.DOT CODE ~ AGENCY CODE ~ DORCQOE t - r 5 rv - ,` ~ 1 `° ~ ~l ~ K DATE OF ACC;DFNT . ~' CITY ~ ~ ~ AGENCY ~ ~ ~ ~~ GOUNTY .~ ~=~~~z~~~ ~~~~L f u~~~ QuLTZL ~4_s',anfr~~::-~ ~ L~G~.L ~ K TIME - ~ OFFICER NUMBER ~ QFF4r'-R NAME. ~ I SIGN RED i DETAfL NUMBER KILLED NUMBER INJ URED ,ry+" i~/ 1 ~ (LOCATION ROUTE, STREET, ROAD ~MfLES FEET ^ N ^ E ^ 5 ^ W OF: s ~ DATE OF REPgRT~rS V a'~~Z1:L'1 ~ ^'~ ~ ~ ~ ,(*~ /~ L~~ Z L ~S~ ~L' ~hf.l.c.~-% 'Ji s ^ AT. _ 1NVESTIGATcO ~l I TOTAL VEkfC ! {71STRIC NUM~ER I PUBLIC PRQPERTY f PHOTGS TAKEN +RAILR6RQ CROSSING fANS7. ZONE ION 9FcI^GE INGOMPL RERflRT ~ ` SCENE ,~[/,~ If I+ ~ fI EMPLOYEE I I ~ ~ JI VEH #T OR_ BICYCLE #a __e PEDESTRIAN #_ PARKED VEH 112 C3R^ BICYCLE #~ PEDESTRIAN #_ PARKED- LAST NAME pp ,,~~ }} ~~~ ~ 1•'y~ FIRST MI LAST NAME F1R5T Mi STREETADDQESS RES. PHONE STREET ADDRESS __ (RES. PHONE CITY STATE ZIP BUS. RHONE CITY STATE ZIP BUS. PHONE } f DRP'JERS LIC. NUh7f$ER (STATE 5EX IOQB ~DFYIVERS LIC. NUMBER I$7ATE SEX (DOB PRIMARY VIOLATION PRIMARY VIOLATION VIOLATION CODE I CITATION NUMBER COMMON CODEVIOLATION CODE I CPTATION NUMBER COMMON CO4E YEAR MAKE fE MODE( .BODY TYPE YEAR MAKE ! MODEL 'BODY TYPE I LIC. PLR~~ ~ (STATE ~ COLOR LIC. PL~~~ Y w ~i~ j~TATE ~~ +COLO'~R VEHICLE ID NO. VEHICLE~~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ '+r//r bG.~~~~ VEHICLE OWNER LAST NAME FIRST MI VEHICLE OWNER LAST NAME t"` V~FIRST MI ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP TOWED DUE TO DAMAGE U TOWED DUE TO DAMAGE L1 $Y/FO: BY1T0: 1 • SLIGHT 7 -SLIGHT 2-MODERATE 2-MODERATE 3 1 q . S , i , T a 3 • EXTREh4E ~ , q . ; , p , > ® 3 -EXTREME 2 IP :jj~ ~ ~/ X14-- 4-_ ~ ---~j':~Pj' 'li -~~ , li9-i Y-- X13 oia 13 X72 45~ ~]C B r93 ht~ ; 29 UNDERCARRIAGE 20 UNDERCARRIAGE INSURANCE CO. EXP. DATE INSURANCE CO. EXP. DATE ~ `POLICY NO. ~OLICj~Nq. OWNER .DAMAGED PROP. LAST NAME FIRST Ml OWNER D.QMFCGED ROP LAST NAME FIRST MI '~ ADDRESS CITY SPATE ZIP ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP ~ VEH# Pq5, ~ RESTR. EJECT. MrC PRAT. i L L M M ~~ a A~ RI sl S ~ 1 T N.. r ~, lraa. I P.GE + SEX I NAME7ADDRE55 SEV. Towrt o{Pail Development Standards Handbook 5. Parking ~,of and Parking Structure Design Standards For Al! Uses This section (Table 4) specifies the parking Xot stalldal-ds for all uses excluding residential uses under 3 units and including, but not limited to, commercial, retail, office, restaurant, institutional, hotel, accommodation, and multiple-family development. These standards are subject to alI conditions and exceptions described herein. These standards shall be considered the minimum Standards. When two or more standards conflict the more restrictive standard shall apply. i Table 4: Angle of parkia~~space 4° (parallel) 4r3° 64° 75° 94° Crass-over drive aisle 1]rive aisle with no garkin~ Min. opening for a parking structure entrance Parking Lot Design Standards Minimum One-wav drive aisle 12' 12" 1 C' z~' 24' 18' 12' 12' Minimum Minimum Two-wav drive aisle Parkist~ stall size and clearance 22` 4' x 24' 22' 9' x 19° surface 9' x 1$' enclosed. $' x 16' compact (up to 25% oaf required parking in lots with more than 1 S parking spaces and clearly marked as such} _ 7' height clearance for enclosed parking 24' 9° x 19' surface 9' x 1$' enclosed 8' x 1 b' compact (up to 25%a of required parking in lots with more than 15 parking spaces and cleariy.p~arked as such} 7' hcitrpt clearance for enclosed parking 24' ~1' x 19' surface 9' x 18' enclosed 8' x 16' compact (up to 2S% of required parking in lots with more than 15 parking spaces and - clearly marked as such} 7' heie~ht clearance for enclosed parkin ~4' 9' x 1 ~' surface 9° x 18' enclosed $" x 1 b' ~ornpact (up to 25% of required parking in lots urith mare than 15 parking spaces and clearly markod as such} 7' height clearance for enclosed parking 24' n/a 22' n/a 20' n/a 15 Parking Space Dimensions 1 ~ call car dimensions should be used only in RECOfNi•'IENDED RANG_ E OF STALL WIDTHS f5W1 Ited for small cars or with entrance controls wtOTH (ft) 8 9 10 i 1 12 only small cars. Placing small car stalls into Small car use car layout is not recommended. Standard I dimensions will accommodate akl normal All day parker use ehicles. Large car parking dimensions make Standard car use Bier and faster and are recommended for igh turnover, and use by the elderly. When Luxury and elderly use l i 6D° ang e s or less, it may 6e .,~..~....ary to Supermarket and camper use ' ft to the hay width to provide aisle space rians walking to and from their parked Flandieapped use' ~ ~ S rl zoning laws should be reviewed be#ore 'Minimum requirements r 1 or 2 per 100 stalls or as specified by local, state, or federal l aw• place convenient to r SINE 6 Zab ; ~, .~ R _ 16'-4' WI 1GLE LOADED l-L TO wALL TH BUMPERSI destination. 1 2'-6" 13"-6'• ~I VARIES wITH ANGLE ~ ~1NALK~ 10'-O" PREF. ~~i I I{ i5._Q.. ~ ~ T~_O.~ MIN. f SINGLE o" LINE DOUBLE 4" LINE' 9 j ~/l i r~ ~ ' ' s ~ / ~ `• ~ ~ r ~ / / `~ i ` r ~` r i l ~ '~ ~' / ~ `~ / ` I fJ w 2 w~ wa'~ \ DOUBLE LOADED wALL ~ ~ DOUBLE l.C3ADED WALL DOU@LE LOADED {~ pF @AY CJR T-Q WALL Iw17H CON- II TO ~ SwITH SAWTOOTH _ C(_ TO ~ [OR EDGE OF WALK TiNU0U6 CONCRETE CUR9l CONCr2ETE CURBI TQ WALK 'EDGE I' I4" PARKINCs TWO SIDES B'-O"~ ~ ^ ~ 1 1 1 k L L 1; -. 0 W ~ 0 ~ m 0 ~ (V (Y l7 al i T Y Y I Z -~ ~ X - 1' 4 -~• ll £ND I -a I DETAIL "T'° MARKER TYPIGAL~ J STALL r STALL 4'-d" G EaIMENSIONS IN FEET AND INCHES SW W 45° 8'-0" ] 25.9" 2 40'-10" ~ 3 36'•9" j 4 36'-8" 8' 6" ~ 1 32'-0" "5 I 2 49,-1D•' 3- 47'-8.' 4 45'-2" 9'-0" ~ 1 32'-0" ~ 2 49:4" ~ 3 46' 4" 4 44' 8°' 9'$" ~ 1 32,•0" 2 49'-2" 3 47.•0.' 4 44'-8" ' ' ~ 2 50'-2" , 4.;., i 3 4T-9" 4 45'-5" w ~ 2 49'-11" ~: ~ 3 47,•7.• ~~;~ I 4. 45' 3'. .r" ~` 10'•0" II 1 32' 4" ~: ; . ~ 4 45'-3" gles greater than 70° have aisle widths wide 50° 55° 2fi'-6" 27'-2" 42.•0., 43'•1" 40"-2" ~ 41'-5" 38'-3" ~ 39'-9'• 32'-11" ~ 34'-2" 51'-9" 53' 10" 49' 4" 51'-6" 46'-10" 49'-0" 32'-9" 34'-0" 51'0" 53'-2" 48'-10" 51'-4"" 46'-6" 49'•0" 32,•8„ 34'0" 50'-6" 51'-10" 48,-2" 49;-10" 45'-1 Q" 47' 6" _33,-0„ 34' 0'" 51'-2" 53'-3" 49'-1" 52'-3" 46'•11'° 49' 0" 32'-8.. 33'-~ ~.: 50'11„ 52'2" 48' 9" 50'-2.' 46'-8" 48'-5" 32'•8" 33'-10" 50'-11" 52'-2" 48'-9" 50'-2" 46'-8" 48'-5" enough #or two-way [ravel PARALLEL PARKING STALLS AND "T" MARKER B ANGLE OF PA! sD° 29' 4" 45'-8" 44'-2" 42' 9" 36'-2" ss'-D° 54'-0" - 51'-8" 3~~ 4~~' 55'-6" iK 65° 31'-9" 48'-2" 47' 0" 45; g;, --- 38'-5" 58'-d" 5fi'•S" 54'-6" 37'•6" 57'-10" 51.'-6" ~ 54'•0'. ' 35' 0" 3fi'-10" - 53'-6•' 55.4" 51'-6" 53'-11 " 49'-10" 52'-6" 35'-i 1 " 38'-3" 55,-4" 58'-0" 53'-8" 56.•2•, 51'-8,. 54' g`. 34'-11" 37'-2" 54'-0" 56'-6" 50'-8° -_ 53'•®'. 34'-11 " 37'-2" 54'-0" 56'-6" 52'-4" 55' 1" 50'-8" I DETAIL 7D° 75° $0° 85° 90° 34,•0„ 36'-2" 38'-2" 40' 0" 41' 9" 50"-6" 52'-7" 54.•4•• 55'-11" 57' 2" 49'-6" 51'-10" 53'•10" 55'-8" 5T-2" ..48'-6•' S1' 1" 53'-4" 55' S" 57'-2"- 41'-0., 43'-6'• 45'-6•• 46'•11"' 48'-0" 6D'-2" 62'•0" 63'-6" 64'-9" 66'-0° 59'•D" 61' 2" 63' 0" 64'-6" 66'-0'• 57' 10" 60' D" fit, 6" fi4' 3" 66' 0" 39'-8" 42'-0" 44'-4" 46'-2" 48'-0" 60'•D" 61•-10" 63'-4" ,64'-9" 66'-0,• 58' 8" 61'-0" 63'-0" 64'_6" 66' 0" 57'-0" 59'-8" 62'-D" 64'-2" 0 66'-D" - 38' 10" 4t'-6"' 43'-8" 46'•0" I 48'-0" 58' 0" 60'-6.' 62'•®" fi4' 6" I fi5•-1 1 " 57'-0" 59'.8" 62'-0" 64'3" ~ 65'-11" 55" 9" 58'-9" 61'•6" 63`-10" ~ 65'-11 ° 40' 11" 43'•6,• 45,•5•• 46'-9" ~ fJ8'-0" 60'-4" 62'-9" 64'-3" 65'-5" ~ :66'_0.' 59'-2°' 61' 11" 63'-9" 65._2'.' ~ 66'-0" 58' D" 61.0,. 63' 2" 64' 10" ~ 66'•0" 39'-T 1 " 42' 5" 45'-0" 46' 6" I 48'-D" 59.•3.. 61'-9" 63' 4" 64' $" ~ fi6' 0" 58'4" 60'-1 i" 62"-10" 64`-6" 66'-0" 57,•D" 59'-10" 62° 2'" 64' 1" fib'-0" 39'•11" 42'-5" _ 45' D" 46''6" 48'-0" 59,•3" 61'_9'. 63'-4" 64'-8" ~ 66,•0° 58' 4" 6D'-11" 62'•10" 64'•6" ~ 66'_0" - 57'-0" 59'-10" 62' 2" 64'-1" 66'-0" • A: Santa Barbara. California AIA; McClellan/Cruz/Gaylord 8 Associates: Pasadena, California MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 10, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 {Site Coverage} and 12-7A-6 {Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow far the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drivell_ot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 Sr Filing. Applicant. Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: Bill Gibson • I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects is requesting a variance from Section 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 Drivelt_ot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 151 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. !f 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 14, 2002 Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. ll. BACKGROUND In the fall of 2000, the Mountain Haus proposed to construct a similar front entry feature at (heir north entrance along East Meadow Drive. This proposa! included discussions of a joint venture between the Mountain Haus and the Town of Vail to make streetscape improvements to East Meadow Drive. It was determined that streetscape improvement to East Meadow Drive would not be a high priority in the Town's Capital Improvements Program at that time, so the Mountain Haus has decided to proceed with a proposak for a new front entry feature and abandon proposals for joint effort streetscape improvements. ••~ Nl~ T049,"J ©F PAIL ~ Since the Mountain Waus 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 Flaus. 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. 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 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 far the site, and that the Town should receive some 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, 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 benefts. 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, 2001 afternoon hearing to discuss the applicant's 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 na formal actions pertaining to this proposal. ~ copy of the Town Council staff memorandum has been attached for reference. • 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 opposed to the project as presented, and other Counoil 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 RECOMMENDATIQN 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, 2x02 PEG 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 Tawn Staff conditions are met prior to the issuance of a building permit. N. REVIEWING BOARD RQLES TI1e F'EC is responsible for evaluatinca a r~roposal for; 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict ar 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 Tiile 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. 3 Desian Review Board. Action: The DRB has 1V0 review authority on a variance, but must review arry accompanying DR8 application. V. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration at building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting ZC3NlNG STATISTICS Lot Size: 21,610 sq.ft_ (0.486 acres) Zoning: Public Accommodation Develooment Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. U ft. Infill ~ ft. Sides: 20 ft. 4 ft. No Change Rear: 20 ft. 0 ft. Na Change Site Coverage: 14,047 sq.ft. (65%} 17,909 sq.ft. (83%) No Change 4 Vl. CRITERIA ANm FINQINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reoardina 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. ~. 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 facilities, publiic facilities and utilities, 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. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the uariance 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 wiR not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5 3. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation ar enforcement of the • specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. la. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 6 I'4~femarantfum To: Vail Town Council From: Bll Gibson, Community Development Department Date: December 4, 2041 Re: Mountain Haus proposed front entry feature RE4UEST The Mountain Haus and their representatives are requesting this worksession with the Town Council 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 wip 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 properly owner of the Meadow Drive right-of-way. BACKGROUND RATIONALE In the fall of 2040, the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 S` 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. It was determined that the streetscape improvements at this location would not be a high priority in the Town's Capital Improvements Program at that time, 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 righ#-of-way}, Town Council permission is required. At its Tuesday„ October 24, 2444 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 contingent upon the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of a setback variance. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the setback variance request far the proposed front entry feature at its November 7 2, 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 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 far the site, and that the Town should receive some 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, 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 7=nvironmental 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 for a ~-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 REC©MMENDATI©N The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council give the Mountain Haus and their representatives further direction an this matter. ATTACHMENTS A copy of the November 12, 24x1 Planning and Environmental Commission staff memorandum and meeting minutes have been attached for reference. • MEMOIRANDWI~A TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Gommunity Development DATE: November 12, 2001 SUBJEGT: 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 DrivefLot 5, Part of Tract t3, Vail Village 1 S` Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium Association Planner: Sill Gibson DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Mountain Haus Condominium Association, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects is requesting a variance from Section 12-7A-B {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 S' 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 far reference. A copy of the proposed and existing site plans, proposed demolition plan, existing and proposed elevations, proposed raoflceiling 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-fi, 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}, Vail Town Gode, 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 Cade. Section 12-2-2, Vail Town Code, defines SITE COVERAGE as "...shall include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves,. or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extend more than four feet (4') from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns." since the 1 ~~ T044'N 0% PAIL ~ 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 will be required to execute an easement agreement with the Town of Vail. 11. SACCGROUND 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 Maus and the Town of Vail to make streetscape improvements to East Meadow Drive. It was determined that streetscape improvement to East Meadow Drive would not be a high priority in the Town's Capital Improvements Program at that time, so the Mountain Haus has decided to proceed with a proposal for a new front entry feature and abandon proposals for joint effort streetscape improvements, Since the Mountain Haus is proposing to construct a significant portion of their new front entry feature on Town of Vail property (i.e. the East Meadow Drive right-of-way), Town Council permission is required. Upon hearing the applicant's previous request at its Tuesday, October 20, 2000 meeting, the Town Council granted the applicant permission. to proceed through the planning process. At its November 7, 2001 public hearing, the Town of Vail Design Review Board approved, with condi#ions, the proposed new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus. The Design Review Board's approval is contingent upon the Planning and Environments! 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. lll. STAFF REC©MMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends appror-ai of the requested 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 limitations on other properties in the Public Accommodation Zone District. 2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulations results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Municipal Code or the Public.Accommodation Zone District. 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Public Accommodation Zone District. 2 Should the PEC choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition; 1. That the applicant execute an easement agreement with the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of building permits. IV. REVIEWING B©~IRD ROLES The PEC is responsible 'far evaluatina a Qrooasaf for; 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2, The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Desian Review Board; Action: The DR8 has NC7 review authority an a variance, 6uf musf review any accompanying DRB appiicafian. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage on-site - Acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fiencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances - C.ocation and design of satellite dishes - Provision ofi outdoor lighting 3 V. ZQN1ING STATISTICS Lot Size: 21,610 sq.ft. (0.49fi acres} Zoning: Public Accommodation Develooment~Standard AllowedlReauired Setbacks: >Fron#: Sides: Rear: Site Coverage: VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Pxistina Prot~osed 2(} ft. t? ft. Infill 1 ft. 2D ft. 0 ft. No Change 24 ft. 0 ft. No Change 14,847 sq.ft. X65°/0} 17,909 sq.ft. (83°Jo) No Change A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina 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 rnrhich 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 • 4 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed new entry feature at the Mountain Haus wil! comply with all Town of Vail Public Works Qepartment standards to minimize any effects to pedestrian and vehicular circulation, snow removal, drainage, etc. within the East Meadow drive right-gf-way. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have negative impacts associated with the above_listed criteria. E3. The Planning and Environmental Cornmiss_ ion shall make the following findings before granting a variance; 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallowing reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district, 5 ~y~nl~ Fril'Zleri. ,~J,~,,. ArCllilt:tl 'J`rilliam F. Fier~-e, Arr;hitec;t 7h=_,mas I~. C,~u {;t:lis. ArchiteCl 5te~l~ani~ l~f~rcj-iohrr~~.~ii,.r>vrC}iitC~l I]u~b'!d ~u-JYII, .'~rC:IYIILf;r !:athv H~~;lir~.ga, ~uslrsess lv1aa<'~~;er Qctober 12, 2DD1 Mountain Haus New Front Entry Site Coverage and Set Back Variance Mountain Haus Fran# Entry FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, coLORADC> Property; 292 E. Meadow Drive Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1# Filing Zoning: Public Accommodation District Site Coverage Variance (12-7A-9 and 1$.22.17 0) Non conforming existing condition Reeluired: Shall not exceed 55%° of total site area Existing : 83°/° Proposed: 83% - Infill a 1 `deep strip between the property line and the building Set Back Variance (12-7a-6 and 1$.22.Q60) Non-conforming existing condition Reeluired: 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 - Infill 1" of between property line and existing north elevation. The majority of the proposed Entry Structure is on TQV property Description of Request: Site Coverage anc! Set Back Variance Qn the behalf o f the Mountain Haus Gondominurn 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 face of the existing building. Additionally, two columns would be positioned approximately 2' auk from the building face to support the new roof. Improvements to existing paving, landscaping beds, and landscaping walls are also proposed. See attached plans. As with the entry structure, the majority of these improvements are proposed on TC}V land. FRI7TLEf+1 i EiSG East Vzii Vvll~s {,~:rivu•, 1=all.ric;ye (:-'I, P I E R C E ,.ail. i~[t14'~r;lr;~:! 7i1G.i," ~; iP1lU;'~,~': X11 i rCl'11tf:'{.:I5. Ll!I r' .. <..... e.. 4ti~VL"rti'.'v;Alle[. .:[llt'fi'C~~.4.:J fr'I L' FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLQRADC~ • Special CircurnstancesJPf~ysical Hardship Relief From Strict and Literal Interpretation The facility was constructed in T 9~9 when the current codes and zoning requirements were not applicable. Due to the existing building and property lines, there is little room for the Mountain Haus to improve their entry way without extending out over the property fine. Both the existing site coverage and set back requirements are existing non conforming conditions. Adjacent properties Nail Athletic Club and the Austria Haus1 have both pursued extensive exterior remodels and/or "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 downfrebuild" would not be fiscally wise. Howewer, improving function and aesthetic to bring the facility into the next decade is still a goal. Additionally, the Mountain Haus would like to match the quality of buildings that are along East Meadow Drive. The existing mass and height of the Mountain Haus is difficult to minimize without attaching scaled-down elements and building up to and extending out over the property line. Therefore, any renovation/improvement that the lv1ountain Haus proposes wilt most likely encroach on TOV land. This provides the TOV with an opportunity to encourage development that meets TC~V objectives and requirements. Compatibility with adjacent useslNarmony Maintained The new entry structure is design to complement the West Entry structure that was completed with Slifer Plaza Renovation. The architecture ties into the Vail vernacular of heavy timber and stone structures. Additionally, the Mountain Haus is proposing to improve the landscaping along East Meadow Drive. Snowmelting the sidewalk and paving the sidewalk is also proposed in a TOV joint venture type of project. Effect of the variance The public safety is improved by providing clearer direction, lighting and snowmelt into the facility. The new entrance is an "open-air" structure and should not have any impact on light and air. Please note, the Mountain Haus would still be interested in pursuing options to address the traffic congestion prohlem that was identified a year ago. Compliance with Wail ~ Comprehensive Plan Goal 7.2 -Upgrading buildings - encourage the continued crpgrading and enhancement of existing lodgrng 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 FRITZLEN IESU GaSTL'~i? VaU~_V _}rf4~~'; r-aiiriCi~,.: (._i; PIERCE .%d1E, ~.=c~li3;'a~~{~ ~ i!~r' r:€rtfi, u;°atlt:rcF~iLut:L>.C~i • • ~ • ~' • ~ T • ;~tnt•'.~,'.4•dii~t,'=f iii.C:~.S.[J CTl FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, COLc7RApQ. adding a more human scale t© the Front Entry. The West Entry that was constructed with the TQV Slifer Plaza project has been well received by both patrons and the publicl. The intent is to add the same quality of construction to East Meadow Drive. Goa!' 7.3 -Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in corporation with the Town Mountain Haus and the TOV worked very successfully an the West Entry at the Mountain Haus. The Vail Athletic Club is working an improving their property and some T{~V property along East Meadow Drive. The Mountain Haus would again like to participate with improvements will there is already on-going construction proposed for the area. Goa12.~ - Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and cornmercia! facilities to better service the needs of our buests. 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 FRITZLEN 'If>Q Ea3l Vail Halley L~ri~e, ~~aiiri~i~c ~.•'I, P I E R C€ Vill~, Cr)~{7!'~lijl? ~1I'sr7 i I F:in{urnwzaifr~rr..hitraas.i:::~,r~, -._^ ~._-, ritivw•aailrci~iPeCL.c_~.ir's L' tc iu•1.73ipya rr 11 ~ . a` ~ G4911 (]pVeQ ip]'1NA J v W i y tr 9nWa N~Obvit9 LS4'3 iii N~ ti t ~1 N ~I ~9 ~~ ~ ~ snaH ~tb~Nnaw ~~ Rid ~~i ~ b ~g ~~ ~ . ~ ~ ; ~ F V~ xt}~ X53 ~t4 ~t~s~ ~5~ ~ ~$ ~ ~9~ ~ ~28 ~ e ~ 8 ` ¢~¢~. gg~~ 5sg~ ~~-yy ~ s ~¢~~ gyp; ~ 3~r ~ ~Y; ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~5~'~ i~ `~ Sid ~~~ B ~9~ [3 C: Ci i ti t~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ ~. } ~ ! i T: ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~._ S 6 ~ ~ ~~ g ~ f I' yi ~ fw a ~y# ~ ~ ~ ~ ~q~ }~' w Y: -' i r Sp i i :: S.i iii A~ ° ,1:i~i : ~9#R • ~~~~ ~Ili~ l_ ~ '~'°~ ~ ~1~illl{ ! Ili III ~ ~CtS i,5 i'C K KiK~r'. ~ II I I ~~ ~alai~~~~~ ~~a,a~~~~~ I , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ Iala~~ s sia?slaja a;s~ i ~ i I E~ ~a a~E a a,$,aleaa ~°al ~ a~a~e~ I ~. I ~ I ~ ~ I ,' F ~- ~ ~~IK~ Jxrt;~K~Ix~Rl~:x x~r~~ ~ i j i~~i, '.i'ii~i ii~ii i,i'~ ~ r I ~ I i ~ I~~jp ~j~!'t ~ 'i ~~ I t~9 C~ t~ I ~ ~' ~~~ ~ ,~~~~~ ~,~~'EI~ ~I~ ~ t ~~ ~I~ ~~ E~i ~ ~i ii~~ , I ~ ~ '~ :~ ~ ' o %t d a ~ ~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ 1 ~~ .e'~ ~ t ~~- =agrl~e5e `7. h ~-w,°:~~ ~'.~".'A ~ :~~ f .t. ...»,r ~-I ', ~~ ~ ® ~ ~i ~1 ~4 ~i ~~ ~11oo'~eaFi wry... yj 1310. 1]3~W 6 C541Y OONtiOIm 'liYn ii ihq~0 MOOYIW i3M3 lG[ IL ~~ ~~ Snb'H NI'd1Nf~C?W zw L.i.9 t , ~~ '~= J ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ CC ~ a t ° R' ~ ~~ ~ - r~ u ~ w LL C.. rc g . r- ~ ~j i! 9i !} !!6 oi! • u~ 5~ ~~ ~ p~ s ~~ • y~ I S w W r ~' ,~•'i ¢` ~aiE ~s ~1 l w ii l~ ~ ~ ~f~1 1 ~Iiltia~`, ~~ i iGl.ii~ •• {1d04m000 ~a {~ ~ 4 r 7 ~ A F w~ pi~ O~ r ~1~ ~b fb`"v d~ Y x4x ~'t ay ~~w _~ 2~ I' PC ~a ti~ 4 f~fl _~ • C7 ~( 77~ o ~~ i$ w o~ z ~ ~ ~ v O~ d h ~ ~~ Z 4 ~~ 1 ~/ ,~ :'v A ~'~ 2 3:~ ~ff W ~ ~ c 3;3 w ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 6~ . ~~ r ~f 3 3 ~L =- L ~ z pw w= 9 is~o. u~time ~srro arvnoxi3 inn via Ma~,.+.sre csP sndH N~blNnow E 7' 3 ~ a¢ n ~9 i~ a = v }~ ~ ~k ~~ ~~ ~~ e~ ~ ~t~x ~-3~ y~. ~~~ ~a ~~~ ~0a ? ~ ~ ~=z~ ~ ~~~~^ §~~ ~~~ a:,tx a" oY4 SE~ S~~ w llW~ 171k7tl~ 15916 ppY601p.1'NVA 3A.610 M.~p~"3w ISYI i62 S~lb'H NI'd1Nf~ClW ~~ ~~ z~ o~ ~~ Q r ,V u fY z Q Q ~ ~ ~ . T e 6 0 O~ OA OQ S O "' a o 6$ o° ° o ~'~ a p ~ - ~- i • ~ 9 ~~ } ~~i i { ~ !7 ~ 55~~ * f J a 0 W ~ ~, o ~ yam ~ a ~` ~ ~t~ O I~ W C;L !~ ~ = S V >~.~ ~ ~ Q J ~ ~ w _ Q w a. ~ =~3 4 l ~ i ii ~I! ~~~ _~ ;~ ~ J ~~s ~.~~ ~ ~~ -~ A i •I ~ ua ~ 63 ~ ~ z Z 4 _ anu. u3bea 16949 4;avM0107 ~91YA w L} W .J ~ 5 ~°' ;~ y MaK1 Mt70Y3w LS~/~l [tz j r- JJ I g "s _ J} ~ o sn~y t~~alr~nc-~r ~ ~ ~ e~ €~ $ ~ • gx~ayd~ Y~ E~ C~ C~$ ~Y~~ ~k ~~ ~ Et aQa o~ o~~ o0 oiI -t~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ E~S ~~a$ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ s~ s~~ ~~~( ~s Z _H ~~ ~~ aQ Z2 ~© ~~ XJ ~~ i[ SO Y ~31Omtl essf® .~... o,, ,.,.,'iirn 1h1°9 N.IXJV3W LLV7 f6f ~,~~~ ~ snb~-~ .vial now to ~~ B's ~ 4 ~ $ a raid ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ? ~ 9 ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~Y~ a ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~~ ;3 ~9~ °r t sy 2 2 t ' °~~ ~~ aig ~fs& ~~ ~ ~~ ~ °r ~ ~~ s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ---~.~~_--~,..~_R. ~_.-_~ ....._._ ~w ~ ~ ~ w -~~ z ~~ Q _ ' ~ CG ~.. e . ° ~ O I ~w LL. ~ ~ =~ ~ ~ Z Q. _~ 4{~ ,~ „~ ..Y~~ 0. F ~ ~~ 0 ~ 4 4 0 b __ ._ _ _ _...Q - _,~_ - . .a.._~ ....~_.. ~ _ >0 O Q G D Q 8 p 0 0 0 ~ O ~ f O 0 ~ ~y<~*" ® tl O c ~y ~ f t9 e i 4 e ~ ~~ ~ n C I O I.. I 0 °c ! (9 v a t < P ~ ~~ © o° ° ~ ° i 0 ~ ~ ~ O p e C ~ ~o ~~ o a 0 ~o ~'~ ~ ,~,~ __,` I I I I • ~ ~ I I J......_ .....___ .._~ . I I 4 i r I 1 I ~~~~~ ~4QLL'JJ 11 LII~_ `I'I >~~ i \. ~ _ . _ d ~~ ~~ ~ b .y~l ~''`9 .~ _ C • efrur 17dload tseiu Lx]YaOlw',rvn LMp MppY3W 15Y3 Z6Z ~ sndH ~vidlr~naw 3~~ ~ $ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ _ pq ~6 ~~ ~ Y l $ a ~ e~~~ ~r~ ~e~ ~~q ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ !. ~i ~ l 3 .~:h.: r ~$~ ~$S ~~ Y${ O I~\\i~ ~~i ~i Z "'~ F 'S_ z ~ ti~ ~ w ~.: ~_ _ {=~ ~ ~_: F L` ~1 E~ R Z 'r ~ ~ : ~ r~~__~. I ~I ~ ~ IY ^ I~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~r ~~ r ~ ~~ i z J a z 3 ~.. ~e ~ , ~.~ t~.,: ~ ~~{F~eo p g 3 ~ .__l ' ' I ~ ~ I ~ ` 1 ~ ' - I~ ~ ~ i r I 1 { 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~~_ ~ ~ I ~ i ~~~ ~ V ~ ~ e eAA V7 ~_~_~_ ~. __ \ M1r t .W ~ .~ a ~ ,~•.i uUU ]v~• Dl .~+J ectn~.t~lrae~ (511 p[Lr1171L1~'9YA LVIb DASPdv3~ LSV3 L6L ~~ ~~ Sf1bH NI`d.CNf1OW ~d a ;~ 3 ~ ! ~ ~~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~x~x~~ ~~~ ~t}~7~ a~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~;~ ~ ~r s # ~ ~~y ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ 6 ~~~ a ~ Sa ~~ ~~ ~s t~~ .- e~ z ci rr ~~ ~ c a ._ III ~~ _ ._ ~~ . ~r ~: F ~ I I w ~ ~! E I g 3 i. I I e[ I I ,;:, Z~ w~ ~ ~ ~ W~g~ ~ o ~ 6 ~ ~_~ ~ _~ ~ q, a ~,_ ~~ ~~ t~ t J ~3 Z J q.1 V p w ~ ~ 3 !"~ ~~ .~ J ~* S • ~-~ r ti _ ~r~nr u3iond ~ u i X S anax~ nM~nvw~ uva rca N fi ti ° ' ~ Q ~ Sfl'dH NI'~1fVf~~W ~~ ~ ?~~ ~~ < ~r~ s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ 3 ~ t ~ a s ! ~: ~ ~ ¢~ S ~s d Y ~ Q ~~ r t s~°~ $i YF~ eat 4e~ ,~ a~~ ~ !~~ ~ ~~ .@ ~~ ~ ~~ z~ a L~ r r,~r,. W l +~~ S ~9 ~~ ~ L ~~ 4~~ s~ ~~~ ~~ ~3 ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~Y~ }.}~ ~ ~ t~,tl ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ S# ~ QR ~$a~ ~~~ ~~~ 5~~~ ~~~ g ~8 el ~ ~~~ ~° °I~ I ~~ i g n -.q.~ 1._. ~ I . . i.~i I I I~ ~/' lAlt A t[lo~ L2iK]xa 2991P CKIVL(i103 IIYq iM1MQ!110(1v9W LS19 tdi Sf~b'H NIb1N~1C~lN 7 ~ Y ~ 3 aY~ a ~~ e ~ s ~ ~~'~ 3~a= ~ ~ e ~~- : c3~ a. [~~ 2 f~ t~ Sd ~ I ~~ O ~ r-- - I ~ 4 ~ -~t ~-- ~, ~, - ~~ ~ ~ - ,~ ; ~ ~ a~-- a ~' € ~. ~~ Q ~e ~~ :~ W '~.~.~ ~ ~~ J I~~ ", ~ t(1 ~ ~ w ~ ~ y p'~ ~ ~ , ~ U W ~~€ ~ ~ ~~ ti 6. qtr ~~ < ~'S Ww 1 ~~9g I ~~ # I I ,___ ~_. _~. ,„ ~.., ~ m~ R~ ~~ ~r J ~ i~ ~ ~---._~~ t_~~1~ ~.__ f~~ a I I --~ I I 1 I I I I I 1 4 1 ~ 1 ~ I ~ I Q ~I z ,, I f I I I I 1 • - lIEIOI L]3l~a L~SJ J u 1'~ Z I I ~+ ~~ 6S9Sy WS'VO~J lIVA L/ ~ L ~ O NIi1p Mipp4]W lSM3 [6i' N LY ~ w 4~ Q F y ° ~ ~ndH I'US'G~I~11Q~ ~,~ ~~ ±~~ ~uuu K ..; • wl f ~~~~pp~ ~`33 ' ~e~t~ ~ ~~p "$ ° pp {5~ 4 ~~ii ~~23 ~'~ ~ ----______________ ...sd~~_ _ ~..,~_.~. _ _ ~~' ~ T r \ j - - f~/'~ - - - ~ f' ; ,~ 1 (l~hi 1811 .. ., iv r~a~ p ~}yif) a ~a I I / ~, r f f £ J,/ I l 4 r/~~r I 1 r i ~ I /%,~ k ' ,~,. I 1 / I ` 1 J" // M ~~~ I I I I r. -- I I 1 ~~ . ; I I I I I I I ~~ ~~ 1 yl f ~~ j ~~ { ~a RRxO~ E^ ~~ ~ ~~ I I I ' I I ~2=_ °1r ~S c_~ -----1r ~ r 1 til v____u a-- I I , II I I I I I I F ~_~~1 1 I I J 0 I I I 1 I 1 ~ 1 1 1 I I I { S I I I 1 I 7 Y~ fi~ 8~ Z a~ u N~ PLANNING ANp ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • • PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, November 12, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! - Camm~anity Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site Visits 1. Hagerman residence -1784 & 1794 S. Frontage Rd. West 2, Cohen residence -1467 Greenhill Court 3. Lions Square Lodge - 660 Wes# Lionshead Place 4. Mountain Haus-292 E, Meadow Drive 5. Parks residence-4166 Columbine Drive Driver: Brent 12:00 pm 12.45 pm 1~3 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 far a major amendment to Special Development District No. 6, to allow far the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing units and a request for a conditional use permit, to allow for Type ill employee housing units, located at the Vail Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Cats M,N and d, Block 5D, Vail Village 1s1 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 far 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 Ochs indicated that sufficient parking is available. MEMBERS ABSENT M~ TOW11r 0~' VAIL ~`, Connie Dorsey clarified that the parking spaces specifically reserved for Craig's Market are not counted as part of the available spaces. Doug Cahill questioned if any of the rooms will be used for common areas or facilities.. Connie Dorsey indicated that no common areas are being proposed. Galen Aasland expressed concern about the electrical system and fire safety of the building. Joe Stauffer replied that the entire building was rewired as part of an addition in 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 Cleveland agreed that people should be in the units, rather than having the building be empty. He said he would like to see a 56-unit maximum placed on the proposal. Bryan Doyon agreed to a maximum of 56 units, but wants to be sure that the Type III BHU 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 aone-year Ismit with follow-up Fire Department inspection. Diane Golden asked what assurances are being taken to ensure that parts of rooms are not going to be sublet. She also indicated a concern about parking in front of Craig's Market. Connie Dorsey indicated that this wili be controlled by the lease agreement and that approximately 30% of the tenants don`t have cars. Galen Aasland indicated that his greatest concern is for fife safety. John Schofield motioned to approve the amendment to the SDD, in accordance with the staff memo. The motion was seconded by Ghas Bernhardt. The motion passed by a vote of 7-©. 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 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead t S` Filing. Applicant: Lion's Square Lodge Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL N®VEMBER 26, 2U01 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-7A-9 (Site Coverage) and t 2-7A-6 (Setbacks}; Vail Town Code, to ailow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 B, Meadow DrivelLot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 sc Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson BIII 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, or a revocable right away be created.. Tam 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 posts to support the awning in relationship to the right-of-way and whether there would be heated pavers. Tom Debois said there would be heated pavers. The PBC then discussed, with the appliaant, haw guests currently park to check in and how loading and delivery works on the site, Doug Cahill stated that the overhang will further reduce parking and loading and delivery an the site. Stephanie Lord Johnson, also of Fritzlen Pierce, stated the applicant wanted to do an entrance in conjunction with other public road improvements to improve vehicular and pedestrian access. John Schofield stated he was opposed to the use of public land to resolve the Mt. Bell problem and felt that the proposal would reduce safety on the site. John thought this would be a grant of spec'sal 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 far the site. Chas Bernhardt asked what Greg Hall 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 on the site. Stephanie Lord Johnson stated that she believed she was headed towards a denial. She asked if the PEC would consider tabling the application until some 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 Gatch-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 maxed out on the site and stated that his primary concern is the safety. Galen Aasland stated that if they would like to table the item, they would reconsider the project. Dick Cleveland stated that this is a tough circumstance and there may not be an easy solution. He then made a motion to table this to the first meeting an December. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with John Schofield opposed. 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-5 {Lot Area and Site Dimensions), Vail Town Cade, a minor subdivision of Lots 2 & ~, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, to relocate a common property line and a rezoning of Lot 3, Vail Village West, Filing No.2, from Two- Family PrimaryfSecondary Zone District to Single-Family Zone District and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 1784 & ~ 794 South Frontage Road West/Lots 2 & 3 Vail Village West, Filing No. 2. Applicant: Philip HagermanfAllison Ochs Planner: George Ruttier Allison ©chs gave a presentation of the requests and reviewed the criteria for the requests. Thee applicant, Phil Hagerman, thanked staff for their help. He commented that the site has challenges with the floodplain. There was no public comments. Dick Cleveland had concerns about changing the size of the lot in relationship to the bike path. Mr. Hagerman believes that he can safely create a 39-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 home. Mr. Haggerman said he would Gke 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January ~$, 2012 SUBJECT.: A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for zone district amendments to the Official Tawn of Vail Zoning Map and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruttier I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Tawn of Vail Community Development Department is requesting to amend the Vail Tawn Code. The proposed amendment to the Town Code is intended to establish criteria for consideration for amendments to zone district boundaries, as permitted by Section 12-3-7 of the Vail Town Code. Sections 12-3-7A of the Town Code states, "The regulations prescribed in this Title and the boundaries of the districts shown on the Official Zoning Map maybe amended, or repealed by the Tawn Council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this Chapter. " Further, Section 12-3-713 sates, 'An amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries may be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident ar property owner in the Town, or by the Administrator. While the Vail Town Code provides a procedure for zone district. boundary amendments, it does not provide criteria and findings to be used by the reviewing and approving bodies when evaluating a request for a zone district boundary amendment. Staff believes that it is imperative that the Vail Town Code be amended to include criteria for consideration and findings for zone district boundary amendment requests. The absence of established criteria and required findings results in unnecessary exposure to claims against the Town and its boards for arbitrary and capricious decision matting. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission ferwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council of the proposed text amendments to T'rtle 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for zone district amendments to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map with the following findings: ` Ml! row, Q~ ~ar~, '~ That the proposed text amendments are consistent with the Town of Vail's development objectives; and 2. That the proposed text amendments are compatible with procedures prescribed far zone district amendments as outlined in Section 12-3-7 of the Vail Town Gade; and 3. That the proposed text amendments are necessary to further the administration and enforcement of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code; and 4. That the proposed text amendments will reduce the likelihood of claims against the Town and its boards for arbitrary and capricious decision-making; and 5. That the proposed text amendments are in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. III. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT The Community Development Department is proposing the following changes: 12-3-7: AMENDMENT: A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this Title and the boundaries. of the districts shown an the Official Zoning Map may be amended, or repealed by the Town Council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this Chapter. E3. Initiation: 1. An amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries may be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Administrator. 2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in district boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the Administrator. The petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a complete description of proposed changes in district boundaries and a map indicating the existing and proposed district boundaries. If the pe#ition is for a change in district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the name of all owners, their addresses, and a ger~e~ai legal description of the property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the Administrator. C. Criteria And Findings: '1. Zone District Boundary Amendment Factors, Enumerated: Befiore acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: a. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Tawn; and b. The extent to which the proposed zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses; and c. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among ,and uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and d. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and how the amendment does not constitute spat zoning; and e. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and f, The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Necessary Findings: Before recommending andfor granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Gommission and the Tawn Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: a. That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and b. That the amendment is compatible wish and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and c. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Tawn in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. G-:D. Fee: The Town Gouncil shall set a fee schedule far petitians for amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries, sufficient to saver the cost of Tawn staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the petition. ~.E. Hearing: Upon filing of a petition for amendment or upon initiation of an amendment by the Town Gauneil, Planning and Environmental Gommission, or Administrator, the Administrator shall set a date for hearing in accordance with the provisions of subsections 12-3-6G and I] of this Ghapter. €F. Planning And Environmental Gommission Recommendation: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall act on the petition or proposal. The Commission may recommend approval of the petition or proposal as initiated, may recommend appraval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Title, or may recommend denial of the petition or rejection of the proposal. The Commission shall transmit its recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to the Town COUrlcll. ~.G. Hearing By Town Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Council shall set a date for hearing in accordance with subsection 12-3-613 of this Chapter. ~.H, Action By Town Council:. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the Town Council shall act on the petition or proposal. The Town Council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Town Council may cause an ordinance to be introduced to amend the regulations of this Title or to change district boundaries, either in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission or in modified form, or the Council may deny the petition. If the Council elects to proceed with an ordinance amending the regulations or changing district boundaries, or both, the ordinance shall be considered as prescribed by the Charter of the Town. (flrd. 49(1979} §§ 2, 3: Qrd. 59(1978) § 17: Ord.. 16(1978) § 8: ©rd. $(1978) § 21.500: Ord. 8(1973} §~ 21.501, 21.5x4, 21.506} • • Approved 21t x/42 PLANNfNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, January 2.8, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1-Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brian Doyon John Schofield Doug Cahill Erickson Shirley Site Visi#s Mountain Haus - 292 E. Meadow Drive Driver: Bill 12:40 pm 1:00 pm ~~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:40 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Fiearinq -Town Council Chambers 2:40 pm A request for an exterior alteration. or modification, in accordance with Section ~ 2-7'A-12 (Exterior Alterations or Modifications), 1/ail Town Cade, to allow for the construction of a new front entry feature at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 E. Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail'+/illage 15` Filing. Applicant: Mountain Haus, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson • Bill Gibson presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Erickson Shirley asked if the PEC had' to use the findings, as presented in the staff memorandum, Tom Dubois stated that he believed that the design has met the PEC"s and staffs concerns, as stated at previous meetings. Brian Doyon requested that the applicant present the drawings of the proposed canopy addition. Tom Dubois stated that the intent ofi the design is to provide a covered entry and parking fiar the residents of the Mountain Haus. John Schofield stated that they watched a suburban use the turnaround today while on a site visit. Galen Aasland stated. that he watched 4 cars in the turnaround area this weekend. He then asked about haw the parking would be managed. Steve Hawkins stated that the parking space would only be used for Goading and unloading of guests. He further elaborated on the other parking spaces and their use. +~+~~u C 7~ r MAC 1 V P~ ~1 ©P Y~~L MEMBERS ABSENT Approved 2f11fo2 Brian Doyon stated that the signs that are up right now state that they are for Mountain Haus only, Greg Hal! clarified that those parking spaces are for public loading and that at one point the Police Department had asked for those signs to be removed, but they were apparently put back up at some point. Erickson Shirley stated that he is curious about the improvement to the traffic flaw_ Stephanie Lard stated that they believed that the improvements would be done primarily through signage. Erickson Shirley asked if anything has improved traffic flaw. Stephanie Lard stated that the canopy has no effect on traffic flow. Brian Doyon asked for clarification on what the applicant is proposing. ^oug Cahill asked for clarification on turning radii from Greg Hall. Greg Hall clarified. Erickson Shirley stated that people run, walk, bike,. and rallerblade dawn the south-side of the road, including him. Stephanie Lord stated that she did not believe the canopy had an effect on that. She stated that they are attempting to improve the situation. Erickson Shirley stated the 4~" parking spot is illegal. Stephanie Lord stated that unfortunately, that is the way it functions. Galen Aasland attempted to steer the meeting into a more positive light. He then asked for Commissioner comment. Erickson Shirley asked if they are voting. Galen Aasland stated that the are first asking for Commissioner comments. Erickson Shirley stated that he believed they should comply with parking and loading requirements. Brian Doyon stated that it was good that they are improving the building, but did not believe that those improvements should be to the detriment of the public. He does not believe that this improves the situation. He also stated that he did not feel that. the applicant had made the changes as requested by the PEC. ~He further stated that there are great opportunities for improvement, but he felt that this was a permanent improvement and it needs to be the best it can be. Steve Hawkins stated that they believed that this would improve the situation for everyone and that they have examined multiple proposals, but this is the one that improves the situation best for the Mountain Haus and for the Town. • Brian Doyon stated that he believed they needed to think outside of the box. Chas Bernhardt stated that he likes the proposed canopy. He stated that he would like to see the traffic flaw work better. He recognized that there is a problem and while he sees this as an improvement, he doesn't feel that this improves the traffic situation at aIL He stated that he doesn't 2 Approved 2111102 ' believe that this is the best it can be. He asked about possibly working with. the Vail Mountain Lodge. He doesn't object to the canopy, but doesn't feel that the traffic flow is improved. Doug Cahill stated that he believed that this is a positive move, but his concerns are in regards to the backing situation, His solution is to focus more on parallel parking and making a forward movement and a 180 degree turn instead of backing. He would like them to move forward on this proposal. John Schofield stated that they all agreed that the canopy looks great but that there is still a lousy situation with regards to the traffic. He stated that the original developer created the constraints on this property, which maxed out the development on the property. He stated that he did not believe that the proposal met the required findings for the granting of a deviation to the setback requirements. He stated that they should explore other alternatives. He does not believe that this design is the best that it can be and that the owners need to open up their pocketbooks and shell out some money to make the improvements that would be mare successful. Diane Golden stated #hat they are between a rack and a hard place Galen Aasland stated that while the canopy improves the building, the proposal does not improve the situation and that there are better alternatives. Steve Hawkins stated that there are many alternatives which were explored, but that the Town did not approve them. Greg Hall stated that to design a full cal-de-sac would cut significantly into the hillside next to the parking structure. He stated that the Streetscape Master Plan does not indicate aturn-around in this area, but that a van turnaround may be passible. He stated his apprehension of building a full turn-around, fearing that it may encourage more traffic and skier drop-offs in this area. Stephanie Lord stated that they have looked out of the box, but that the Town staff was often not impressed with the designs. She stated that the feedback from the Town has lead' them to this point in the design.. Doug Cahill stated they would like to see an improvement of the property. Erickson Shirley stated that he believed that the application ignored the parking and loading section of the code. He stated that it was not the PEC's role to design the proposal and that they needed to do mare to improve the situation. Steve Hawkins stated that they are doing the best they can do to improve the situation. Chas Bernhardt stated that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. He understand the difficulty; but that he felt that this would be detrimental to the public. Steve Hawkins asked if they put aturn-around in, would they get an approval. Galen Aasland asked the Commission for a straw pale. George Rather stated that we should see a proposal before the Commission answered the question. Stephanie Lord asked what the staff saw as their options. George Rather stated the options. a Approved 2111102 Steve Hawkins stated that he was confused about why he could not get support from the PEC, when Town staff recommended approval. Stephanie Lord asked to be tabled. Brian.. Doyan recommended that though the architects are great, an expert in parking, earth moving and planning would be beneficial to take a look at the plan. Galen Aasland stated that they should focus an the pedestrian scheme and traffic circulation. Brian Doyan stated that same of them are professionals up here, and having a consultant support the proposal will not ga over well. Chas Bernhardt made a oration to table this to the next meeting. Brian Doyan seconded the motion. The oration passed by a vote of 6-1, with John Schoffield opposed. 2. A request far a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Cade, to establish criteria for consideration for zone distric# amendments to the Official Tawn of Vail Zoning Map and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruttier George Ruttier presented an overview of the staff memorandum. He stated that the purpose of this application is to codify findings and criteria for rezanings. Dominic Mauriello, representing multiple clients and a local consulting firm, stated that he believes that it is a great idea to codify the findings and criteria. He believed that it helps both the Tawn and the applicant to protect against lawsuits. He stated that staff is wonderful, terrific, and all-around gaud people. He stated that their comments are Doming from the standpoint of any client. He said, think globally, but act locally. He provided three general criteria far rezoning requests: 1. Is there are change in conditions that warrant a change in zoning? 2. Is the proposed change compatible with surrounding uses? 3. Is the proposal consistent with the Land Use Plan? Specifically,. he stated that he had concerns with Criterion A and Finding A. He stated that the criterion should be broader. He believed that documents of the Vail Gamprehensive Plan should be listed individually. He also expressed a concern about Criterion E. The point being that a property may be rezoned years prior to the completion of a detailed development plan and may change the effect of a project on the listed factors. He also expressed a concern that Finding C may be difficult to apply to specific small-scale projects. He agrees with the intent of the Finding, but feels that the language should be made broader and take into consideration the other goals of the community. Erickson Shirley recommended that the Town Attorney establish the minimum standards required to protect the Tawn from litigation. Erickson Shirley asked where the proposed language came from? George Ru#her responded that the proposed language was derived from other sections of the Vail Town Code and the Ordinances of other communities. George Ruttier mentioned that. staff agrees with Braun and Associates recommendation to include a criterion that addresses changes to the site, neighborhood, community, etc. Staff feels that the other comments have been addressed by 4 Approved 2111!02 the proposed language, however, minor changes could be considered. Galen Aasland closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Erickson Shirley wants to know what the Town Attorney wants to see for language that will be required to avoid lawsuits. Brian Doyon recommended keeping the proposed environmental language. Chas Bernhardt had no additional comment. Doug Cahill recommended that the Town Attorney review the proposed language. John Schofield also recommended that the Tawn Attorney review the proposed language. He also recommended that the language of "applicable" plans be used in the proposed language. Diane Golden had no further comment. Galen Aasland recommended that the environmental goals of the community be incorporated into the criteria and findings. He also recommended that the proposed Criteria C remain a part of the proposed language. Brian Doyon made a motion to table this until February 25, 2x02. The motion was seconded by John Schofeld. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 3. A request for an exterior alteration or modification, in accordance with Section 12-76-7 {Exterior Alterations or Modifications), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition located at Units 301 and 303, 225 Wall Street !Lot B, Black 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Eugene Fahey Planner. Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until February 11, 20{}2_ Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 4. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.Jto be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 2002. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until February 11, 2002. Approved 21111D2 E3rian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5, A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Vail Town Code, to allow far a proposed new residence to encroach into the east side setback, located at 1794 5. Frontage RoadlLot 2, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. ~ Applicant: Philip & Jocelyn Hagerman Planner: George Ruttier WITHDRAWN 6. Sign Cade Presentation _ Discussion of Signs and Community Character Planner: George Ruttier 7. Approval of January 14, 202 minutes Diane Golden made a motion to approve the minutes as read. Erickson Shirley seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a vote of ~-b-2, with Brian Doyon and John Schofield abstaining. 8. Information Update -Reappointments 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 far 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 6