Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-1209 PEC~ ~ Y ~~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, December 9, 2002 ~'~18~8 L~~ • PROJECT ORIENTATION ! -Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits 1. Evergreen Lodge - 250 S. Frontage Road 2. Tivoli Lodge - 386 Hanson Ranch Road 3. Whitewater Park -Gore Creek Promenade 4. Halaby residence - 252 West Meadow Drive Driver: George 1:00 pm ~~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends unfil 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearir~q - Tawn Cauncil Chambers 2:D0 pm A request far a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, located at 252 West Meadow Drive/Lot 8, Vail Village 2"d l=fling. Applicant: Theodore S. Halaby, represented by Segerberg Mayhew & Assoc, Architects Planner: Bill Gibson Bill Gibson gave an overview of the staff memo. MEMBERS ABSENT Approued D11303 PUBLIC WELCOME 12:Oq pm ~. T(~WNOFV~IL ~i Approusd 011303 Kurt Segerberg added that this was a duplex project and it was a 50150 split in size with the proposed EHU. Gary Hackman stated that he had no comments. Doug Cahill asked what the incentive was for the owner to put in the EHU unit. Kurt Segerberg stated that the configuration of the design and the garage location just made sense to add an EHU unit- Doug Cahill asked about the need for a walkway to the EHU unit. Chas Bernhardt, Rollie Kjesbo, George Lamb, and Erickson Shirley had nothing to add. Merv Lapin, a neighbor, stated that he had an issue with the tree removal and the connection of the houses on the lot, John Schofield noted that the tree removal and the connection of the houses were Design Review Board issues. Doug Cahill made a motion to approve the request for a conditional use permit for this Vocation, with the findings and conditions found in the s#aff memo, with the additional condition that the applicant provides an appropriate and safe walkway from the EHU to the EHU parking. The motion was seconded by Rallis Kjesbo. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for a variance from Section 11-4C-3 (Building Identificafion Signs), Vail Town Code, to allow for a sign that exceeds the allowable maximum height above grade, located at 250 S. Frontage RoadTTract C, Bock 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail Ltd. Planner: Matt Gennett Matt Gennett gave a presentation, per the staff report. The applicant was not present, at this point in time, There was no public input. Rollie Kjesbo stated that there were more than enough signs on the building and this one was not needed. George Lamb agreed and added that he thought there were better locations that would not need a variance. Erickson Shirley stated that wherever the sign goes, it needs t© be visible, but the trees should not be removed. The applicant arrived. Doug Cahi]I did not see any hardship and agreed with the previous comments. Chas Bernhardt disagreed with all the previous comments and saw two hardships being the be~ow- grade location of the building and the large trees an the site, He believed it to be the responsibility of publsc boards to facilitate successful businesses and therefore, was in favor of the request. Approved 011303 Pam Stenmark, manager of the lodge, apologized for the miscommunication which lead to the premature movement of the sign and stated that customers were having difficulty identifying-the building. Erickson Shirley asked if any suggestions were made by Matt Gennett. Matt Gennett stated that there were alternatives in the staff report and proceeded to go over those options which included the possible relocation of the monument sign. John Schofield mentioned the criteria an page two. He stated that his opinion was that there were alternative locations on the building and continued by adding that the site was currently out of compliance in terms of the number and size of the sign, even thougfi there was a variance. Doug Cahiill asked if the applicant had given any thought of dressing up the entrance to make it clearer. Pam Stenmark said they had not given it much thought, as the hospital had some sort of easement on their land and they considered it theirs. Pam then asked where could they go from here. Chas Bernhardt asked if she would consider a tabling. John Schofield asked if there was motion. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this to the January 13m meeting. He suggested the applicant work with the planning staff to find a better location and to waive the fees for the next two months. Rollie E~jesbo seconded the motion- The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Jahn Schofield apposed. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 37, to allow for the redevelopment of the Tivoli Lodge, located at 3$6 Hanson Ranch RaadlLot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5"' Fi9ing_ Applicant: Robert & Diane Lazier Planner; George Ruther Diane Milligan manages the Rams Horn and wanted to ask some questions, since she is having a yearly board meeting this month and wanted some information for that meeting. John Schofeld stated that staff would introduce her to the planner working an the project. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this item until January 13, 2003. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 4. A request for a modification to the 100-year floodplain, to allow for grading in the fioodplain to modify the Gare Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek PromenadelTracts & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 ~ti Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner; Bill Gibson Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this item until January 13, 2003. 3 Approved Q11303 George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request for text amendments to Sections 12-7H-11 (Height & Bulk} & 12-71-11 (Height & Bulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements for buildings constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Qevelopment Qepartment Planner: George Ruther Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this item until January 13, 2003. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 6. A request for a warksession to amend Chapter 12-15 (Gross Residential Floor Area}, Vail Town Code, to discuss modifications andlor elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest TABLED UNTIL JANUARY '13, 2a~3 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code., and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant. Town of Vail Planner: Russell ForrestlMatt Gennett TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 2UQ3 8. A request for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, to allow for the construction of a new retaining wall exceeding the maximum height limitation, located at 265 Forest Road, Lot 21, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Forest Road LLC, represented by Michael English Planner: Bill Gibson WITH DRAW N 9. Approval of November 25, 2002 minutes Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this item until January 13~' . Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion, The motion passed by a vote of 5-0, Hartman and Erickson abstained, 10. Information Update 4 Approved X11343 The applications and information about the proposals are ova@@able 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 47g-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request wikh 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, far information. • • THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ~"~ PUBLIC NOTICE ~~~~~~ '~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12.3-~ of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on December 9, 2flQ2, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vai[ Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a variance from Section 11-4C-3 (Building Identification Signs), Vail Town Code, to allow far a sign that exceeds the allowable maximum height above grade, located at 250 S. Frantage RoadlTract C, Black 1, Vail Lionshead 2"`' Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail Ltd. Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the establishment of Special Development District No. 37, to allow for the redevelopment of fhe Tivoli Lodge, located at 386 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5'" Filing. Applicant: Robert & Diane Lazier Planner: George Ruttier A request far a variance from Title 14, Develapment Standards Handbook, to allow for the construction of a new retaining wall exceeding the maximum height limitation, located at 265 Forest Road, Lot 21, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Forest Road LLC, represented by Michael English Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and infarmation about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the pra~eet planner's office, located at the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visi#s that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479-2138 far information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 22, 2002 in the Vail Daily. t ~~ T01~Nl7Ft'Al~ ~y 1 1 ! ~~ y~'' .,''1' ., ~. J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING Monday, December 9, 2002 G~istmas Lute, PRO.tECT ORIENTATION ! - Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits 1. Evergreen Lodge -- 250 S. Frontage Road 2. Tivoii Lodge - 386 Hanson Ranch Road 3, Whitewater Paric -Gore Creek Promenade 4. Halaby residence - 252 West Meadow Drive Driver: George PUBLIC WELCQME 12:0[l pm 1:Q0 pm ~~ NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Tawn Council Chambers 2:@0 pm 1, A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 252 West Meadow DrivelLot 8, Vail Village 2"d Filing. 2. Applicant: Theodore S. Halaby, represented by Segerberg Mayhew & Assoc. Architects Planner Bill Gibson A request for a variance from Section 11-~C-3 (Building Identification Signs), Vail Town Cade, to allow for a sign that exceeds the allowable maximum height above grade, located at 250 S. Frontage Road/Tract C, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing, Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail Ltd. Planner: Matt Gennett ~. Tl1W~'OF PAIL MEMBERS ABSENT 3. A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Gouncil for the establishment of Special development District Na, 37, to allow for the redevelopment of the Tivoli Lodge, located at 388 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5t" Filing. Applicant: Robert & Diane Lazier Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for a modification to the 1 QQ-year floadplam, to allow for grading in the floodplain to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I A, Block 56, Vail Village 15~ Filing, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Bill Gibson 5. A request for text amendments to Sections 12-7H-11 (Height & Bulk} ~ 12-71-11 (Height & Bulk}, Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements far buildings construe#ed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12-15 {Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to discuss modifications andlor elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 2Q[}3 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell Forrest/Matt Gennett TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 73, 20Q3 8. A request for a variance from Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, to allow for the construction of a new retaining wall exceeding the maximum height limitation, located at 266 Forest Road, Lot 21, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Forest Raad LLC, represented by Michael English Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of November 26, 2D02 minutes 1Q. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner"s office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. 2 Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published December 6, 20102 in the Vail Daily. • ~ ~ Y ~~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, December 9, 2002 ~~,s ~,~~ PROJECT ORfENTATION ! -Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt Doug Dahill George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman Site Visits 1. Evergreen Lodge - 250 S. Frontage Road 2. Tivoli Lodge - 386 Hanson Ranch Road 3. VVhitewater Park -Gore Creek Pr©menade 4. Halaby residence - 252 Vilest Meadow Drive Driver: George PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm 1:00 pm ~o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type If Employee Housing Unit, located at 252 VVes# Meadow DrivelLot 8, Vai! Village 2"d Filing. Applicant: Theodore S. Halaby, represented by Segerberg Mayhew & Assoc. Architects Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: `l~~ ~i row~~ of v~~rL '' MEMBERS ABSENT 1. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval ofthis conditional use permit is contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall execute a Type !I EHU deed restriction with the Town of Vail Department of Community Development to permanently restrict the use of the EHU for employee housing. 3. Prior to DRB approval, the applicant shall revise the plans to indicate a walkway to the EHU. 2. A request for a variance from Section 11-4C-3 (Buildng Identification Signs), Vail Town Cade, to allow for a sign that exceeds the allowable maximum height. above grade, located at 250 S. Frontage RoadlTract C, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2"d Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail Ltd. Planner: Matt Gennett MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie lijesbo VOTE: 6-1 (5chofield apposed) TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 2083 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council far the establishment of Special Development Distric# No. 37, to allow far the redevelopment of the Tivoli Lodge, located at 385 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot E, Block 2, Vail Village 5'h Filing. Applicant: Robert & Diane Lazier Planner. George Ruther MOTION: Chas Bernhardt S>=COND: George Lamb VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 2003 4. A request far a modification to the 100-year flaadplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain t® modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek PromenadelTracts I & A, Block 58, Vail Village 151 Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND; George Lamb VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 2003 5. A request for text amendments to Sections 12-7H-11 (Height & Bulk} & 12-71-11 (Height & Bulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow fior a clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements for buildings constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 2D03 6. A request for a warksessian to amend Chapter 12-15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to discuss modifications andlor elimination of the Gross Residential Flaar Area regulations in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al. Planner: Russell Forrest • TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 2003 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow far text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Gade, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russell FarrestfMatt Gennett TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 13, 2003 S. A request far a variance from Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, to allow for the construction of a new retaining wall exceeding the maximum height limitation, located at 265 I-crest Raad, Lot 21, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing Applicant: Forest Road LLC, represented by Michael English Planner. Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 9. Approval of November 25, 20fl2 minutes MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 5-0 (Hartman & Shirley abstained) APPROVED 1fl. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular csffice 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, for information. Community Development Department • Common Problems with Zoning ordinances by felon I3. Ba•edin local government's zoning ordinance is an important part of its Land development policy implementation. Zoning ordinance provisions-indeed, entire zoning ordinances-are often aclapceci as much as possible from existing ordinances because of this importance and the relatively long legal and political history of zoning in the U.S. While this efficiency uses existing language tested both in the courts and in practice, it also tends to perpetuate errors in procedure and substance. This does not mean that all zoning ordinances and ordinance provisions should be drafted completely from scratch, but only that existing and proposed language must be read critically. The ordina:tee should conform to law, faithfully implement the locaE government's land-use policy, and be reasonably understandable to the citizens and landowners affected by it and to the officials who enforce it. The drafter should always know why he or she is usiri9 - particular language, and not parrot it solely because an existing ordinance or model uses the same language. Clarity of Language There are some general concerns that one must anticipate in drafting or editing a zoning ordinance. Legalese is amuck-reduced problem now that law schools emphasize drafring in plain language, burst still occasionally slips into modern ordinances and amene[ments. The drafter should always know why lie or she is using particular langti•ige, and not parrot it solely because an existing ordinance or model uses the same language. Vague language should be avoided both to deter legal challenges and to make the ordinance a practical guide to which development and activities are permitted or not permitted. ~ln the other hand, broad luiguage in purpose statements is not only acceptable but necessary. The numbering system of a zoning Bode should be kept consistent, and the assignment of new section or chapter numbers m ame~idments should he done with this goal firmly in mind. It should be clear to the reader which citations are internal (to other provisions in the zoning ordinance), to other ordinances of the jurisdiction, and to the enabling statutes. ©efinitions are one area where drafting mistakes can have far- reachingeffects. Key terms should be defined. Similarly, terms of art in the rcYning and land-use field should be used and defsned consistently with the general practice inseead of creating an idiosyncratic defsnition that confuses trained users such as officials, developers, and attorneys. The inclusion of substantive regulatory provisions in definitions should be avoided; otherwise, reading the substantive chapters of the ordinance alone would be inadequate to detertnieie the applicable regulations. Categorizing Uses Usc categories have problems similar to chose of definiuons: They should he clear, use common terminology where possible, and avoid including substantive provisions, Use categories should be relatively bread definitions that group together similar uses of similar impact, rattier than long enumerations of particular businesses and activities. For example, "retail sales" is preferable to "clothing stores, shoe stores, haberdashers, grocery stores, drug stores," as retailers of the same store size tend to have the same impacts. The size of retail sales uses (for example}, which is relevant to impact, can be addressed in other aspects ofzoning districts such as dimensional standards. The permitted and special uses in the various use districts should be set forth in a table, rather than in long lists oFthe uses for each district. A single table is not only clearer to read than separate lists, it allows users to compare at a glasue the uses for each district. While single-use districts sen-e a vital purpose (for example,. heavy industrial districts m separate high-nuisance uses), replacing strict separation of residential and commercial (retail and office} uses with one or more mined-use districts, where the residential and commercial uses are of compatible scale and impact, should be considered. Some zoning ordinances appear to base the list of uses permitted in a given use district, with or without conditions, on existing uses. This becomes obvious when one or a few of the uses do not "fit" with (eat necessarily that they are incompatible with} the other permitted or conditional uses. When listing the uses permitted in a use district, the question that should be asked is, "What uses do we want buil~ or commenced there in the future?" If it is decided that a given use should be encouraged in the district, then it should be a permitted or .. .about this article. ~oin us online! Eluting December 9-20, go online to participate in our ".Ask the Author" forum,. an interactive feature of Zonang News. John Bredin will lie available to answer questions about this article. ~Go to the Al'A website at www.planning.org and follow the links to the "Ask the Author" section. From there, just submie your questions about the article using an e- mail link. The author will reply, posting the answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all subscribers- This feature will be available foe selected issues of Zoning News at announced times- Afeer each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive available through the APA Zoning News wehpages. conditional use. But if it is oat desired that an existing use be duplicared in the d'sstrict, but only that preexisting instances be protected, this should be addressed in the nonconforming uses provisians and not in the list of permitted ar conditional uses. Some ordinances rely too much on special andlor cond'stional uses. Most land uses should be as-af-right, sul7ject to enntpliance with clear and objective starldascis and criteria far that particular use category or zoning disuiet. Discretionary approvals should be reserved for unique uses that defy regulation by objective standards. The routine elnploylnene of special uses, especially without (or with few) standards or erireria, opens up both individual zoning decisions and the zaning ordinance provision itself to constitutional challenges as being arbitrary and capricious. Even where such a challenge would not necessarily succeed, the uncertainty to landowners and citizens alike created by discretionary and/ar standardless zoning review should be avoided. A related issue of discretion arises in the aeea of variances, Every state has established a standard, usually stated expressly in the enabling stature,. for when a variance may or may not be granted. The near..universal standard requires the existing regulation to effect an "undue hardship" upon the landowner unless the requested variance is granted. While zoning ordinances almost always include this variance standard, not all boards oFadjustrnenr or boards of zoning appeal adhere cnnsiscently ro the standard when making decisions. Instead, many apply a greater degree aFdiscretion. This is more a problem of implementing the zoning ordinance, rather than aF its content, but a local government can indicate to its officials that it wants the standard followed by including language stating that the standard must be strictly adhered to and that any variance oat founded upon the standard is void. Issues of Discri~ninalion Another substantive legal problem in the establishment of use districts arises from. permitting only or mostltiF single-family detached houses on large lots, with pauses on smaller lots, rawrrllouses, duplexes, and apartment buildings either not permitted ar severely restricted in number and location. Local officials and existing residents may adapt such a policy in order to preserve the existing character of the community as they perceive it. However, such policies may be deemed exclusionary zaning and therefore a violation of the equal protection clause of the federal and state constitutions. While it is admittedly noe easy to challenge a zoning ordinance as exclusionary, local governments Gave been found to have violated the constitution on such a basis {L?ews a Srcnrayvctl~, (N_F]. Tex., July 3l , 2000}). An unsuccessful challenge can still cause a local government great expense and damage to its reputation.'I'his is above and beyond the fact that exclusionary zoning is bad public: policy. If avergeneralized beliefs about the residents afsmaEler houses, tawnhames and duplexes, and apartment buildings, which often form the underlying impetus far exclusionary policies,. were ever true in some earlier time, they make little sense in light of today's demographic changes. The days should be long past when a respected public official can state char apartment buildings are "a mere parasite" to detached pauses. (1/illage of Euclid v. Amber Realty, 272 U.S. 365 { 1926), quoting State v~ City ofll+ew Orfeanr, 154 La. 271, 283; 97 Sa. 440, 444.) Jflllllafly, same zaning ordinances restrict or prohibit rnauufacrured and modular housing. The legal foundation often cited far this restriction is that the local building, fire, and Jahn Bredin it an attorney in Chica,;o who, fQCU.res on Innd useQnd znrsin~ plumbing inspecrors cannot sec inside the walls, floors, and ceilings of the structure before it is completed at the Factory, which is usually in a different jurisdiction, Often, however, the reason for the restriction is that existing landowners perceive all non-scratch-built housing as inferior and believe that allowing it to be sited in their neighborhood will negatively affect their awn land values. The flaw in this perceptinrt is that much of this nontraditional pausing is nontraditional in construction methoc{only; there is little difference between a modular house and a u•act house constructed equally en masse but onsite. In response to the inspection concern, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has implemented a national building code and inspection program for manufactured housing. Also, several stags (about 20) have protected manufactured housing in their zaning enabling legislation, providing either that local ordinances cannot discriminate betrvicen manufactured housing and other housing, that manufactured bottling must be allowed 'tn single-family residential districts on the same basis as other housing or, at a minimum, that manufactured housing not be excluded from. the jurisdiction (that is, it must be a permitted use in some residential zone}.'T'hese laws typically provide that a manufactured dwelling, to be protected, must be on a permanent foundation, have at [east a minimum (that is, not fiat) roof pitch, be sided or covered in certain materials and nor others, and other aesthetic prescriptions intended to make manufactured housing equivalent to traditionally built pausing. Even where the state has not extended such protection, it is goad policy to follow the lead of these statutes in zaning ordinances and either accept manufactured and modular hauling on an equal footing with traditionally built dwellings ar at least provide some residential districts where manufactured housing may realistically be built (chat is, wltiere they are a permitted use not subject to undue restrictions or requirements). Same jurisdictions still have unduly restrictive provisians an home occupations. There is a substantial difference among the impacts of an author writing in a den in a house, a hairdresser with a dozen or so clients seen in the living roam each day, and a mechanic who rebuilds old cars in his garage. Yet malty ordinances treat all home occupations as suspect, either prohibiting or strictly regulating all without distinction. This approach is especially problematic in the information age, where many people perform some (if oat most} of their work from Name by computer, telephone, and fax. Generally, home occupations that are true accessory uses to a primary dwelling use, do not involve nuisances (.noise, dust and dirt, vibrations, fumes, etc.}, and have neither employees nor customers visiting the home workplace should be permitted absolutely. The licensing and regulation of home occupations with employees or customers an premises, which must still lse accessary to a primary dwelling use, should be reasonably tailored to regulate the impact of the employee ar customer traffic. This can be done by limiting the number of ernplayees, the number of customers that may visit in a day, and the hours during which the business is open to customers and deliveries. I~leedless to say, borne occupations that, by these size ar scope, are no longer accessary to a primary residential or dwelling use, and occupations chat constitute a nuisance, may arld should be prohibited. Standards and Pra~edures It should be clear in reading the bulk and dimensional standards applicable in a district iF the standards apply to all uses in the district or only to the predominant use. For example, does the lot-size standard in a residential zone apply C7 =i '.: :` 2 to perrrsitted nonresidential uses such as churches and schools? In older areas K=ith an established prezoning pattern f development, averaging aneasures like height and ~erbacks-requiring the average of the existing front-yard setbacks (Eor example) along a particular bloclf or frontage, rather than using a single preset Figure-should he C considered, to make new development compatible with existing structures in size and location. Generally speaking, bulk and dimensional standards should eefleet rite scale of development that the local government desires for a given district. Dove=nzoning an area with the goal of having more control over individual development proposals by °R i R' R' A 'R ~ R R ; . R ~ R i ' I~ R i ~ Ilse Category CNi GQ ~ G~ C C I C~; ~~ ~IU~ ~G' 45 -~ S S , S S ~ S' S ; M M' M ~ M , r~ N i] Ca R ? ~°' ~q '''~ ~~; .~ =A'..:~ .r~~ a ~ t f 'I ' ~ fR' ~ '+`{ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~i ~ I'.}~~i ~ ~ I' ~Tg"5 UULI[~JL1L11~1~~1LIL~J~®.!~-~~i~~-~~F=~~~l®II®IIJLILILII~' L1~1~~ ~~~u l[J ~_~ II:_:u ~l_-~I ~ _ ~ ~I, _~ IIJI ~~I I~ ~ ~ NSG H[lt p ~ IUI IL~..U ~~~ I1~I 1~_ll ll.__~ ~L~ U~ ~L~J ~~ A A I A I - I -~- - j~ Aecesso - JJJ~~J~.~J,J.._....,~ Dtivellinq ~ __~~~~J~.. __I._~..... .~J~~~J~~~~J _ Attached - ~ P ~ - ~J~~J~J -1 - Dwelling ~~~~~~~~~~~ _ .. Cluster .. _ I .P. j _ ~~~~~_J~ ..a...~ I. Dwellin4 P P: P P P P '~ iI P 1' ~' P P 'Detached P I ~~~~~- I -- J ~ J ~: _ Dwelling I - I - - ~ - II S S ~ _ Manuf Home' - ~~~~~~~_.J ~J~ Park, I - I~~~~~~ .._ . ~ ' _~~ P P '. P P P P P i P P P' P~ Manufactured P -- ~ - - - Home, - I - - - Residential- - J Design _. - - - - . P P P P Multi-Dwelling P - ' Pl' P PI - -- - - Structure (3+ ` S i : S units _. . -----~~~~~~ sera Lot Line P ~ __- - ~~~~~~ _ I . Dwelling ~ A A A A A A I~ A A A A~ A Home occupation i. TWpe A AIA~A A A A AiA A A A Home ~; Occupation I Type B ,J i~~~~~.~:..~~~J..~_.~~:1:~~! ? ~ROU~LIVIN~ ~ ! -w .•~~::1...~~.:~ '`• ~~;~ "~F~a;1, ~~~ 5 S S S S S S~ S S S 5 Group Home, ~ S S S!. S S S:-- - - .~ ~ General (11+ x Individuals) 3 P P P' P P P~ P i P P •. P~ P Graup Home, P - - -- - ' ~ Limited Individuals A =accessory ~ Rj~/ CC =community eon~mercial '. S =special RM fl~= multifamily residential CR =regional commercial P =permitted Coil =neighborhood c©mmcrcial low density IBP =industrial business park RS = sirkgie-family residential CO =commercial office district IL =industrial light RSQ =mixed office district C~l2 =neighborhood commercial high density IG =industrial genera! *Numbers refer to squazc-foot lots CD = downtown comnu:rcial 05 =open space requiring a variance or zoning amendment raises the same issues of excessive discretion, due process "arbitrary and capricious" challenges, and citizen and landowner uncertainty that were mentioned previously in the context of special uses and variances. Similarly, height, floor area ratio (F,A.R.), and density limits higher than what is actually intended for an area, ar even what the infrastrueture of that area can bear, can lead to false expectaeions for landowners and developers. AYso, die individual standards (height, setback, F.A.R., etc.) far a particular district should be consistent with one another in shaping development to the desired pattern. When the regulations giveth with high F.A.l2.s or density Limits but then taketh away with the height and setback standards, confusion and challenges result. l3asic parking provisions should be established in a clear table, as wills use districts. The parking table should use the same use categories as the use district tables, and care should be taken wheta use categories are created, eliminated, or modified that the parking requirements are amended appropriately. Mare substantively, parking regulations should be flexible, allowing far shared parking acrd the provision of required parking off site where appropriate. Parking requirements far bicycles and other nanautomotive modes of transportation should else be considered. Administrative procedures should be spelled out in the ordinance, h should be clear for each kind of permit or approval who receives notice of an application, haw, and when, who nsay contribute information ar testimony, when hearings are required and when written submissions may be used, which officials or bodies make recommendations and which make decisions, when a superrnajoriry vote (for example, two-thirds or three-fourths) is required, haw recommendations or a decision are announced and to whom, and haw and when a decision may be appealed. Even wlsere it is no€ expressly required by statute or judicial precedent (as it is in many states), zoning decisions should be required in writing and state the legal and factual bases for the decision. Conflict of interest provisions with teeth are an excellent idea to give the administrative process bath the perception and the reality of fairness. All these requirements must be consistent with any express requirements of the enablirrg staetetes. But where the statute has few specific requirements, it must serve as a beginning point for local governments to establish the necessary details of administrative procedure rather than as encouragement far local gavernntents to make their awn procedural provisions vague and general. ~EWS BRIEFS `"Va~ectamy" Zoneng Cities across Massachusetts have initiated zoning strategies to linsie the number of incoming children, viewing them as a financial strain on local school districts. Specifically, they are making it mare difficult for a family with children to afford buying a home, Many of the communities see the burden placed an the local schools by an excessive number afchildren as a fiscal problem that can be addressed with zoning. The zoning ordinance aineosdments to limit families with children have been labeled "vasectomy zoning." Essentially, communities are reducing the number of new children by targeting young families because young families with children usually require lower-cost housing, which does not generate significant property taxes. Cities in Massachusetts have adopted such zoning initiatives as refusing multifamily housing developments, increasing the minimum [at size in residential •rtining districts to three acres, and limiting the number of housing permits issued per year. 13y requiring a large minimum residential lot size, they force developers to build larger, more expensive, houses to eompensate for the higher land value. Empty nesters or married couples without children are usually more likely to be able to afford homes above the median price. City officials in Plymouth, Massaehusetts, a cit}r of 52,Q00, estimate that a home would need to be valued ae $475,Q00 to garner the necessary tax revenue to educate a child in the local school system. ©n the other hand, communities nationwide traditionally have relied on commercial and industrial property taxes to make up much of the difference. John Lenox, director of Planning and Development in Plymouth, describes the result of the zoning measures taken there as not excluding families, but attempting.. to balance the housing opportunities available. The primary measures taken ate phased residential development, a cap on building permits issued, and a building permit cap exemption far age-restricted housing. "We welcome family housing," says Lenox, although he also says that the community realizes it roust pay its bills. Lenox adds that Plymouth has just as mariy young families as it did in the 3 980s. The zoning changes that some would classify as vasectomy zoning took place in the late 198Qs and, to a greater extent, since 1995, Another method of accomplishing the same objectives, in addition to amending the zoning code, has been to interpret certain zoning language differently to accomplish attracting empty nesters. For example, "senior citizen housing" can be interpreted exclusively as a retirement home or as a housing development with a minimum age restriction of 55. Such 55+ housing developments fall into the c<ltegary oFage-restricted housing. Lenox says these zoning measures may not be as appropriate in every community. The context in Massachusetts is important. Massachusetts already has typical home prices more than twice the national average. The cost of homeownership in much of the state is already sa high that the ustersx of vasectomy zoning is largely accomplished without such previsions,. According to the Citizens' Housing and PlanningAssnciaeion, almost two-thirds of Massachusetts residents live in communities where a family carn'sng the local median income could not afford their community's median-priced home. In the Boston metropolitan area, only 39 of 327 communities have homes that the typical family in the area can afford with 90 percent financing. Nonetheless, many school districts in Massachusetts see a significant problem in the fiscal cost of school overcrowding, Several communities have chosen vasectomy zoning measures as a primary solution to this problem, eriggering criticism from numerous public policy analysts, who see such zoning as foolish because it runs the risk of driving young professionals and young families to other states. josh L~t`.EtUdTdJ Zonieeg News is a monthly newslerser puhlished by the Amcriran Planning Aasoeiarian. Subscripeians are avai4able for $CO (U,S.j and 582 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, n1Cr, Exceative Dirccmr, William R. Klein, Ncr, Director of Researcls. .~arrin~ Nom is Produced at A1.A. Jim Sehwab, ruer, and Miektael lJavidwn, @diton, Ilasry Bain, eter, Fay Dalnick, Jash Edwards, Sanjay Jeer, AtCP, Megan Lewis, n1Ch, Marva Marcia, AICP, Roberta Rcgoeja, Lynn Ross, lZcporrcrs; Slrzrrie Matthews, Assistant Editor; Lisa IIarcon, Design and Production. Copyright ~2tio2 by ,American Planning .Association, 122 S. Michigan Avc., Suite L6~L1. Chinaga, IL GUGU3. The American L'lanning Association adso has offtus at 1776 Ma~s:rchusetta Ave„ N.W., Washington, TiC 2on3G; wwryv.planning.rng .All rights reserved. No pare of this publication may be reproduced as utilized in any form or by any means, rlcctranie or mechanical, ineluding phocoropying, recording, ar by any infi,mrarinn sturxgr and rerrirva9 systcn,, without permission in wrinng from the American Planning Assoriarinn. Priiaied an recycled paper, inr-.iuding 50-7ti3'o recycled fiber and Ltl'Ya paxeconsumu waste. .] MEMORANDUM TO; Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow far a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 252 West Meadow DrivelLot 8, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Theodore S. Halaby and Paul A. Steinway, represented by Segerberg Mayhew & Assoc., Architects Planner: Bill Gibson :7 I. SUMMARY The applicants, Theodore S. Halaby and Paul A. Steinway, are requesting a conditional use permit as outlined in Section 12-16-2 {Conditional Use Permit), Vail Town Code, located at 252 West Meadow Drive. The conditional use permit is requested to allow the applicant to construct a Type II Employee Housing Unit (EHU) within a proposed two-family residence. Based upon Staff s review of the criteria in Section VII! of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct atwo-family residential structure and a Type II EHU on this property. The proposed development of this property is currently in the Town's design review process. The proposed EHU will be approximately 499 sq.ft. in size {plus an additional 75 sq.ft. of storage). The proposed EHU will be a studio style unit with a kitchen and a bathroom. The provisions of Section 12-6C-3, Vail Town Code, identifies a Type II EHU as a conditional use in the Twa-Family Residential {R) district. The provisions of Section 12-16-2 {Conditional Use Permit), Vail Town Cade, determine the review criteria and procedure far a conditional use permit. • F:lcdevlPECSMF MOS5021Fialaby EHU_120902.aoe III. BACKGROUND !n September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Series of 1992, to create Chapter 13 (Empi©yee Mousing) which provides for the addition of Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certain zone districts. In April of 2000, the Town Council passed Ordinance 6, Series of 2000, to repeal and reenact this chapter and provide additional incentives for the creation of employee housing in Vail.. On November 20, 2002 and December 4, 2002, the Town of Vaif Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the applicant's request for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new two-family residence and EHU located at 252 West Meadow Drive. The Design Review Board was generally supportive of the proposal, but recommended some revisions for the applicant to address. This proposal is scheduled far further review by the Design Review Board at its December 1r~, 2002, public hearing. IV. ROL.1=6 OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review. Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission far acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Rlanning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final appravalldenialfapproval with conditions of Conditional Use Permits. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utiCties, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. F:lcdevlPECxMEhAOS1024Haiaby EHU_120902.tlOC 2 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district Lat area Setbacks Building Height Density G RFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking anal loading Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The Design. Review Board has NO review authority on a Conditional Use Permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review Board proposal for: Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings bitting buildings into landscape Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography RemovalfPresen+ation 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 dlstanceS Location and design of sateElite dishes Provision. of outdoor lighting The design of parks Town Council; Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifcations, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that al! submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. F:lcdevlPECVMENi651021Halaby EHIJ_724902.dac Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING D©CUMENTS Staff believes that the fallowing provisions of the Vail Town Cade are relevant to the review of this proposal: Chapter '12-2; Definitions 12-2-2: Definitions Employee Housing Unit (EHU): A dwelling unit which shall not be leased ar rented far any period less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are fu11-time employees of Eagle County. EHUs shalf be allowed in certain zone districts as set forth r"n this Title (Section f2-7~3). Development standards for EHUs shall be as provided in Chapfer 13, "Employee Hausir~g" of this Title. For the purposes of this definition, a "full-time'" employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty (30) hours per week. There shall be five (5) categories of EHUs: Type 1, Type !!, Type Ill, Type IV, and Type V. Provisions relating to each type of EHU are set forth in Ghapter 13, "Employee Housing" of this Title. Chapter 't2-6C. Two-Family Residential (R} District 12-6C-1: Purpose The two-family residentiaf district is intended to provide sites for low density single-family ortwo-family residential uses, together with such public facilities as maybe appropriately located in the same district. The fwo-family residential district is intended fo ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6C-3: Conditional Uses The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the R district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfast as further regulated bysection 92-14-98 of this Title, Dag kennel. Home child daycare facility as further regulated by section ?2-14-72 of this Title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. F:lcdavlP~C1MFMC3St02YHa1aby EHU_120902.dac 4 Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type II employee housing units as set forth in cha~vter 73 of this title. Chapter 12-13: Employee Housing 72-13-1: Purpose The Town`s economy is largely tourist based and the healfh of this economy is premised on exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a strong, high quality and consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the comma»ity must work to provide quality living and working conditions. Availability and affordability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions far the community's work force. The Town recognr'zes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in confunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town Caunci! may pursue additional i»cenfives administratively to encourage the developme»t of employee hauling units. These incentives may include, but are not limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in kind services to ow»ers and creators of employee housing units. The Town of Vail or the Town's designee may maintain a registry and create lists of all deed restricted housing units created in the Town to assisf employers and those seeking housing. 92-13-3: General Requirements A. teed Restricfion, dccupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type 1, ll, 111, and V. 1. No employee housing u»it which is governed by this Chapter shall be subdivided or divided into any form of time shares, interval ownerships, or fractional fee. Al1_Fmployee Housi»g Units are required to be occupied and shat! not sit empty or unoccupied. 2. Far EHUs which are required to be_leased, they shall only 6e leased to and occupied by tenants who are full-time employees who work in Eagle County. A» EHU shall not be leased far a period Tess than thirty {3(?} consecutive days. Far the purposes of fhis Chapter, afull-time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty x'30) hours each week on a year round basis. The owner of each EHU shall rent fhe unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or lower tha» those market rates prevalent for similar properties in fhe Town. An EH'U shall be continuously rented and shall not remain vacant for a period to exceed 5 consecutive mo»ths. F'icdealPECIMEhl~p51D2iHalany EHU_i20902.tloc 3. For an EHU which can be sold separately, the EHU must be occupied by the awner of the EHU as a permanent residence, except for Type Ill Employee Housing Units, which may be occupied by any person meeting the employment requirements captained herein, Far the purpose of this paragraph, a permanent residence shall mean the home or place in which ape`s habitation is fixed and to which ape, whenever he ar she is absent, has a present Intention of returning after a departure ar absence therefrom, regardless of the duration of absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the town staff shalt fake the following circumstances relating to the owner of the residence Inca account: business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence far income or other tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spause and children if any, location of personal and real property, and orator vehicle registration. Thirty (30) days prior fo the fransfer of a deed for an EHU, the prospective purchaser shall submit an applicaflon to the Department of Community Development documenting that the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth herein and shall include an affidavit affirming that he or she meets these criteria. 4. No later than February T of each year, fhe owner of each employee housing unit within the Town which is constructed following the effective date of this Chapter shall submit two (2) copies of a sworn aff<davit on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department, fo the Community Development Department setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented or owner occupied throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each tenant why resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle County. 5. The provisions set forth in this subsection (A} shall be incorporated r'nto a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run wifh the land and shat! not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town. Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder office prior to the l55uance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU. C. Development Standards 111o property containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum GRFA permitted In Title 92 except as specifically provided In herein. 2. All trash facilities shall be enclosed. 3. All surface parking shall be screened by landscaping or berms as per Chapter 12-11, Design Review. ~. Each EHU shall have Its awn entrance. There shall be no interior access from any E'NU to any dwelling unit if maybe attached to. F:SCde~IPECtM~,MOSlO?1Halaby E H U_ ~ 20902.doc V 5. An FH'U may be located in, or attached to, an existing garage (existing on ar before April 'I8. 2(i00 and whether located in a required setback or not), provided that no existing parking required by the Town Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. A Type P ~HU which has 500 sq. ff or less of GRFA maybe considered far physical separation from the primary unit, if it is constructed in conjunction with a two car garage and is otherwise compatible with the surrounding properties, does not have an adverse impact an vegetation, and does not dominate the streef. The l7esign J4eview Board shall review such requests for separation. 6. All EHUs must contain a kitchen or kitchenette and a bathroom. 7. occupancy of an of an employee housing unit shall be limited to the maximum of two persons per bedroom. F:letievlPECtMEMC]S1~2'~Nataby EHSJ_ 1 zp942.tloc • 12-13-4: EHU Requirements by Type. ~xu Type u Zoning districts ©wnership/ Additiana! Additional Garage Credit! Parking Minimum/ Density permitted by right Transference GRFA` Slte Storage Maximum or by conditional Gaverage Requirement GRFA of use /Reduced an MENU Landscape Area Condiflanal Use: The FldU The EHU is !V/A Alowed 300 sq. Per chapter 30o sq. ft Allowed single-Family she!! not-be entitled to ft. of addiSona! 12-f0 as a min as 3rd Residential, Two- sold or an garage area far dwelling unif .f ?00 sq ~ unit on Family transferred additional iha EHU. property. Residential, separately 500 sq. ft. maX. Does not Primary/Sacanda from die unit it GRFA A!l units not counf as ry Residentlar, is assacialed credit. constructed with density. Agriculture & x'rth• a garage she!! Open space be required a minimum 75 sq. fL of storage area in addition !o normal crosef space. This 75 sq. ft she!! be a credit for storage only. Chapter 12-16: Conditional lJse 12-18-1: Purpose; Limitations: In order fo provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permuted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the Location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses ar properties. 1Mhere conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permr`ts shall be denied. 72-16-5: Planning and Environmental Commission Action: A. Possible Range Of Action: iNithin thirty (3pJ days of the application for a public hearing on a conditional use permit, the planning acrd enviranmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application, A conditional use permit may be revocable, may be granted for a limited tr'me period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the F:lctlevlPECVMEMOSl02viaiany EHU_~ 20942.doc commission may prescribe. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited ta, requiring special setbacks, open spaces, fences or walls, landscaping or screening, and street dedication and improvement; regulation of vehicular access and parking, signs, illuminafion, and hours and methods of operation; control of potenfial nuisances; prescription of standards for maintenance of buildings and grounds; and prescription of development schedules. 'i2-~6-5: PermifApproval and Effeci:• Approval of a conditional use permr't shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued Toward completion or the use for which The approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2~ years from when the approval becomes final. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Two-Family Residential (R) district Land Use Plan Designation: Medium density residential Current Land Use: Residential Development Standard AllowedlRec~uired Lot Area: 21, 535 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' Sides: 15' Rear: 15' Building Height: max. 33'130' Density: 2 units + 1 Type II EHU GRFA: Two-family 5,254 sq.ft. EHU 500 sq.ft. Site Coverage: 4,307 sq.ft. (20%) Landscape Area: 12,921 sq.feet (60%) Parking: Two-family 6 spaces EHU 2 spaces EHU Storage Area: 75 sq.ft. Proposed No Change >20' ~ 15' > 15' <33' 2 units ~- 1 Type li EHU 5,195 sq.ft. 499 sq.ft. 4,300 sq.ft. {20%) 14,760 Sq.ft (69%} fi spaces 2 spaces(unenclosed) 75 sq.ft. E9cdevlPECSME&NUSti°21Hai3by EHU_ 7 2o9°2-doc VII. VIII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AN© ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Medical Center General Use District South: Gore Creek Natural Area Preservation District East: Residential Two-family Residential District West: Residential Two-family Residential District CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town Cade. The proposed Type II EHU is located within the Two-family Residential (R) district. Therefore, this proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-1 ~, Vail Town Code, A, Consideration of Factors Reoardina Conditional Use Permits: 1. Relatiionship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study on November 2a, 199©, it recognized a need to increase the supply of localslemployee housing units. The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents, The proposed unit will have a positive impact on the Town's rental housing needs. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transporta#ion facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be an insignificant impact from the proposed Type Il EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. S. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Two additional vehicles are anticipated in association with this EHU, and the applicant is proposing to accommodate this anticipated parking demand. Staff believes that this proposal will have an insignificant impact to the above-referenced criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is fio be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. FictlevVPEGIMEMQS102tiHaia6y EHU_120902.doc t TMe EHU will be located within atwo-family residential dwelling that is currently in the Town's design review process. Staff believes that the Design Review process will ensure that the proposed EHU wiU not significantly impact the scale and bulk of this project in relation to surrounding uses, and that the proposed EHU will be consistent with the development standards applicable to this property. 3. The proposed EHU meets the Town's requirements for zoning, ownership/transference, GRFA, garage creditlstorage, and density. a. Zoning districts permitted by right or by conditional use A Type II EHU is a conditional use in the Single-Family Residential, Two Family Residential, Primaryl5econdary Residential, and Agriculture & l7pen Space zone districts. The subject property is zoned Two-Family Residential. b. Ownership/Transference A Type II EHU shall. not be sold or transferred separately from the unit it is associated with. The applicant is not proposing to sell or transfer the EHU separately from the primary dwelling unit. c. Additional GRFA i The EHU is entitled to arx additional 500 sq.ft. GRFA credit. The applicant is proposing to utilize 499 sq. ft. of that credit. d. Garage CreditfStorage Requirement An additional 300 sq.ft. of garage area credit is allowed for the EHU. If the applicant chooses not to construct a garage for the EHU, then a 75 sq,ft. storage area is required. The applicant is proposing to provide an additiona175 sq.ft. of storage area for the proposed EHU. e, Parkin The parking requirements for El"IUs are subject to the regulations of Chapter 12-I0, 'Vail Town Code. This EHU is proposed to be 499 sq.ft. in size, therefore two parking space are required. The applicant is proposing to provide two unenclosed surface parking space. f. Minimum/Maximurn GRFA of an EHU Type II EHUs are allowed with a minimum of 300 sq.ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and a maximum of 1,00 sq.ft. of GRFA. The proposed EHU will be 499 sq. ft_ in size (plus an additional 75 sq.ft, storage area). F:SCdevIPECIMEMQ5i~21Halaby EHU_120902.doe 11 ~. i7ensty The applicant is proposing to construct atwo-family dwelling unit and one Type II EHU on this site. Pursuant to Section 12-13-4, Vail Town Code, a Type 11 EHU will not count as density and is allowed as a third dwelling unit on a property in the Two-Family Residential (R}district. B. The Plannincr and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use hermit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Two-family Residential {R}district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properkies or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning regulations. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type II EHU, located at the 252 West Meadow Driveft_at 8, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Staffs recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section Vlll of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, subject to the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Two-family Residential ~R} district.. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning regulations. • F:1c6w4PECIMEANOS1021Haiaby EHU 120902.~ac tL Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, the Community Development Department recommends the following conditions: 1. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of Phis conditional use permit is contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. Prior tv the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall execute a Type II EHU deed restriction with the Tawn of Vail Department of Community Development to permanently restrict the use of the EHt9 for ernplayee housing. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map S. Public Hearing Notice C. Applicant's Statement D. Architectural Plans • • F:teUewl?EChMEMC3~S102U-IaiaDy EHU_i 2092-aac i 3 i..-_V.Y__a. Attachment: B THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YdUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NdTiCE NdTICE IS HEREBY G]VEN that the Planning and Environmental Gommissian of the Town of Vai! will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail on Nr~vember 25, 20x2, at 2:OQ P,M. in the Town of Vai] Municipa{ Building. In consideration of: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type lI Employee Housing Unit, located at 252 West Meadow Drive/Lot 8, Vai[ Village 2"d Filing. Applicant: Theodore S. Ha{aby, represented by 5egerberg Mayhew & Assoc. Architects Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Setbacks}, Vail Town Code, to allow for a building encroachment into the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina LanelLot 6, Block B, Vaii Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: Bill and Norma Brown, represented by John G. Martin, Architect Planner: Bill Gibson A request far a recommendation to the Vai! Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vaii Planner: Russell ForrestJMatt. Gennett A request for text amendments to Sections 12-7H-11 (Height & Bulk) & 12-71-11 (Height & Sulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements for bui{dings constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Community development Department Planner: George Ruttier A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12-15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town Code, to discuss modifications andJor elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area regulations in all zone districts and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et_al. Planner: Russell Forrest 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 Vai{ Community Development Department. Please call 479-2138 far information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department ~?, ~'~, Published November S, 26Q2 in the Vail Daily. ~ }~ ~} ~~ I(r ~ '` 5, I 4+~ i 1 Adjacent Properties Caleb Hunt 272 W. Meadow Dr. Vail, Co $1657 (Tel. 476-524) Legal: Vail Village Filling 2, Lot #9, Unit A Mervyn Lapin 232-B W. Meadow Dr. Vail, Co {Tel. 476-5531) Legal: Vail Village Filing 2, Lot #7 Vail Valley Medical Center 181 W. Meadow lJr. Vail, Co (Tel. 476-2451) Legal: Vail Village Filing 2, Lets E&F • -„~ Atta~hrrxent: C October 28,20x02 Mr. Bill Gibson Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, Co 81657 Dear Bill, We are submitting an application for a Type II lmployee Dousing Unit for the Halaby Duplex Project located at 252 West Meadow Drive. The following list is a response to the contmttnity guide lines for compatibility. Item {a) The proposed use is a Type Ii Employee Housing Unit. The unit will be designed above the East Unit garage footprint which will have separate access and will be contiguous with the project architecture. Item {b} The proposal provides quality employee housing within the Tawn of Vail. Item {c} The proposed unit will not have any significant. effect on these uses. Item {d) There should have a beneficial effect on traffic and congestion in the area. Pedestrian safety should be significantly unproved with better Barking and maneuverability being provided on the site. Snow storage and removal will be improved as demonstrated on the proposed site plan. Driveways will be heated while providing good off street parking which currently does not exist. Item {e) The character of the area will be significantly enhanced. The scale and massing of this project with the proposed employee housing unit will certainly improve the architectural character of the community as well as the need for housing. The scale and mass of this project has been designed to respond to the design guide Iines for its lntended ZOntng Use. If there is further information needed regarding this request, Please feel free to contact me. Best Regards, Kurt A. Segerberg n ~ f t t !~ + r 1 f j I k t t t +! ~ ~ r f tt p +~ +y,_ - t p* Jj ~ f } -mot ~ 1' J 1 +.. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,~ !f y `„ f J t j 6 +r ~ ~ ~~yr;i ;~;`~ t r t t if ~~~ ~; a ! 1 ~ t . ff t t !, ~ Gj t ~ o r ~ ~ _ I a 1 ~ /~ ~ I ~ l ~ .. . ti i t i 1 ~ t t j. 4` ~ `. oG ,. ~ j `~ , *f ( , f +, ~ i /~ t ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~`r / ~ . t r1 ~ t 4 r 1~ / ate /` ~ ~ ti t'~ b _/ / ., f ~ ~ ~ ~ _ r~ ,, t r r to -" )r (~,.. %r '~--t 4 a f oq f3 ~ f 1r`o~ ~ i~ 1 r ~ r '~" r ~y ~ f , ~ f ~ Ott att ~'~ ~." "..'+.+. `4Yy. o .` ~, ' ~, /. H , ' aC ~~ `~ "'K - Y~ C:i ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ,~ ~ ~ I ~~jt ~' 1 % ~. It/ j I t ~ j r ~ i r i r~ r ccc ~. ~~ ~ ~ + # ~ - N ~~~ Na~ ~b~l~ @~ 13~~` pate: ~~~~e' f 1=~~~ 'p2 12/05 THU 09:22 FAX 303 623 22fi2 SMAI2CH5-bENVBR } T 'I yy~ + L., ~ 'ul ~.O ~1;d - PACIILZ ~r~o'~`~ I ~ 11 ~' 4 ~ ~_._, I ,/ r :, 111° 1 ~ a :, `. ~, ~ 1 ~7 f ~'°'' ' I ~ _ ~ 7°. n _ _ .. wl ---- ~ ~_.v.~~ ,~ ~ i I ~ re~e ~~ - ~.._.---- i I ~~ i ~ n.~c.+s ~ _ -J Y __ _ ~ ~ i - L- -- i f ~~ i ~ru.raas ~r - --- - - ~. J " ~ O C3 O ~ ~~ ~ ~~ E I I ss " ..er ' 1 i ~ ~~, I " I 1 f " 1 \ J_ ,~ ~ /' " ~ -~ f J s• ~J / ~ / f 1i / ~, / ~,~.K ~ / r ~/ ~ ~/ ~,~ J ~ ~1 ~. ! `~ f ~., ! ~ t. / ~~// t~] p03 1 - M' I ''y" ii 1 i >" / ~ 1°~~ rratzrN S~gerberc~, Mayhew ~ Ass~ctat~s ,4rchit~ct5 10P~ 5. Frontage Rcaad lllest, ~~ Ibll IiJazae S4real Su~tC C-? Nall, Galorada 8165 6env~r, Caloradcr 8~2~2 TAI: S~O..d~6..4433 Fax: 5~2a.d~b.4[,fti~ 7e€:3r~9b~3J3SS Pax: 3fD36733 Ezevision: yob r~o: z6mt5_mm~ Deta91 No: Drawn B~: SP'tIC Cate: IT-~-m21 Sc81e; IJS'"~1'-~"I ~~-~ 5h9ARCH5-NAIL " r,•`. 4 ~ .~ ~ -I 'D2 12105 THU 09:23 FAX 303 B23 22B2 i SMARCIiS-)7~N~ER aN~ SMA}ZCH5-NAIL [~ U04 - -- I 1 j - ~/ I I { f~' j i ~ .l Il s= ~ 7 I '~ _ ~ i _~ ~i '~,~" l ~ ! ~ °" I 1i ~' i ~ _ K ~ I I1 ~ ~ P 's l ~ ll I / ~ ~ ll ©S ~ - w 1 ~ p \ - _ , w --- ----3 ~ ll `r ~, ~~ I _ P~~ i ~ ~ ~i~ r I ~--- -- I ~ ~ n _- b~ dRJuiE I ~ ~ # ~~ 5F. A~.~ _-~ I l ~; l __JI _ ..` -- - 6 I ~~-~ ~~ Vf ~ 1 F+ 1 ~ F+~ i.~.-~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ V 1J ~ I inn ~ I i ora ,~1 ~/ia 1 NCJFZTN ' 1 i~ev i s ion: Job No: 2h2a15.Pr'@ Deta i I Na _ Qra~u-, ~: 51-iK Seyerberc~, I"i~yh~w d Assrclates '4rchlte~ctsDate: I~-~-viz I~GJ~ 9. FronLd~a Rudd LLJsal,'3~ 1611 Wd2Ce 5tree! Su[Re G-7 vd~l, Colorado 81Fo51 Danvmr, Golarado L~7fD7 i5cale: lf$"•I'-@" Tel_910.41(a.4433 Fax:31~_416.46lL+B TGI:3~3b~33355 Fdx:3P~3.6~91Z62 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 9, 20fl2 SUBJECT: A request for a variance fram Section 11-4B-3(C}, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for a building identification sign to be higher than twenty-five feet (25') above grade, located at 250 S. Frontage RaadlTract C, Block 1, Vail Lianshead 2"a Filing_ Applicant: Pamela 5tenrnark, General Partner, Evergreen Lodge at Vail Planner: Matt Gennett SUMMARY The Evergreen Lodge at Vail is requesting a variance from Section ~ 1-48-3(C} of the Town of Vail Sign Regulations to allow a building identification sign an the eastern face of the building to be mounted approximately fifty feet (50'} above grade. The regulation calls for a maximum height of 25' above grade for building identification signs. ll. DESCRIPTIQN OF THE REQUEST The Evergreen Lodge at Vail is requesting a variance to allow a building identification sign on the eastern face of the building to be mounted approximately fifty feet (50'} above grade. Section 11-4B-3{C} of the Tawn of Vail Sign Regulations allows a maximum height of 25' above grade for building identification signs. The applicant identifies the justification far a variance to relocate the sign at a higher position as the existing trees on the east elevation have grown taller over time and now black the sign fram view. The subject sign, through a misunderstanding on the applicant's part over a Design Review application for sign placement, is presently located at the proposed position for which a variance is necessary, III.. BACKGROUND The Evergreen Lodge, through a 1:987 variance granted by the Design Review Baard far the former owner, Doubletree Hotels, has five signs totaling approximately 45 squarre feet, one of which is a second building identification sign that is mounted 65' above grade under the terms of the 1987 variance. At the time the variance was granted, as a single business use, the Doubletree was allowed a total of two signs with a total area not to exceed 20 square feet. The 1987 variance was granted based an conditions related to the design of the building and height of the South Frontage Road, factors that do not apply in this case. • With regard to a Chateau at Vail sign variance in 196, the PEC found the location of the Alpine Standard gas station blocked the visibility of the guest entrance to the hotel and that an additional sign was warranted along South Frontage Road. Therefore, the "special circumstances" criterion was addressed in this situation. IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES Before the Planning and Environmental Commission acts on a variance application from Title 11 (Sian Regulations}. the applicant must prove physical hardship. and the Planning and Environmental Commission must find that:. A. Special Circumstances Exist; There are specie! circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in questions provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. B. Applicant Nat Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. C. Harmony Maintained: That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this Title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighbarhoad, ar to the public welfare in general. D. In Line With Provisions; The variance applied for does na# depart from the provisions of this Title any mare than is required to identify the applicant°s business ar use. E. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board (DRB}: Action: The DRB has NQ review aufhority an a sign variance, ~buf must review any accompanying DRB application, The [DRB is considers the following when reviewing a sign application: 1. Harmonious with Tawn Scale 2. Domination of Structure Prohibited 3. Materials 4. Architectural Harmony s. Colors 6. Landscaping 7. Reflective Surfaces Prohibited 8. Lighting • 2 9. Temporary Signs 1 D. Wind Pressure and Dead Load Requirements V. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS Section 11-413-3(C}: Height Section 11-7-1: Purpose Section 11-7-3: Criteria for Approval VI. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION -SIGN VARIANCE A. Consideration of factors: 1. Special Circumstances Exist: There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures yr other matters vn adjacent fats ar within the adjacent right-vf- way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question, provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique tv the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally #o all businesses or enterprises. The applicant states the variance is necessary to facilitate building identification from the east as guests arrive driving west along the South Frontage Road. According to the application, the trees on the lower plane of the east elevation obscure the sign from view when placed in its original location. Staff does not believe there are any special, unique circumstances on this site that warran# a deviation in the application of the Town's Sign Regulations. There are locations on the east elevation of the building that do not exceed 25' from grade and are still visible while driving west along the South 1=rontage Road. An option may be to relocate the directory sign at the west entrance to be visible from the east. 2. Applicant Nat Responsible: That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant ar anyone in privy to the applicant. The sign was placed in the position that became obscured by the trees well before the trees reached maturity. Staff does not believe there are any special, unique circumstances on this site that warrant a deviation in the application of the Town's Sign Regulations. • 3. Harmony lViaintained: That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of the sign code, and will nat be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.. The subject property has already been granted three variances for nonconforming signage that provide relief from quantity, overall area, and height standards. The sign code only allows for one building identfication (building ID) sign and the Evergreen currently has two building 1D signs, the other of which already has a height variance granted for it to be 65' above grade on the north elevation of the building. The other hotels and lodges in the area of the Evergreen E_odge adhere to the height limit for building identification signs. Staff does not believe an approval of this variance request would be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. 4. In Line With Provisions: The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Where are locations other than the one chosen by the applicant that conform to the height requirement and are visible to visitors traveling west along the South Frontage Road. Therefore, staff believes there are alternatives under the provisions of the Town's Sign Regulations that could meet the applicant`s objectives without the need for a variance. Perhaps relocating the directory sign is a viable option as well. 5. Other Factors: Such other factors and criteria as the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or ether matters on adjacent lots or within the right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. Z. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with fhe purpose of this title and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • 4 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of the Vail Town Cvde more than is required tv identify the applicant's business use. VII. STAFF RECOMIViENDATIUN Upon review ofi the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, the Community Development Repartment staff recommends denial of the variance request to allow for a building identifcation sign to exceed the height limit of 25' from grade, located at 254 S. Frontage RoadlEvergreen Lodge, based upon the following findings: That special circumstances or conditions do not apply to the land, building, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters vn adjacent lots or within the right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were created by the applicant. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be detrimental tv the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance applied for departs from the provisions of the Vail Town Code more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. VII1. ATTACHMENTS A. 1987 Variance Memo and Approval B. Adjacent Property ©wners C, Applicant's Request D. Photographs E. Vicinity Map • ~. Attachment: A TC~: Design Review Soard FROM: Community Development Department DATE; June 17, 1987 SUBJECT: Sign variance request for the Doubletree Hotel APPLICANT: DTM Vail, Inc, ~`~rr~ 3-~ +~~~= I. REQUEST The Doubletree Hotel is requesting a sign variance to allow an additional building identification sign of 20 square feet to be placed approximately 65 feet above grade on the north elevation of the existing building. The sign would be identical in size and design to the existing sign located on the east elevation of the building. The request requires a variance fram the size, height, and number of signs that the sign code permits. The Daubletree Hotel, as a single business use, is allo~~ed up to two wall signs with a maximum combined square footage of 2Q square feet. The height allowable is 25 feet above existing grade. The Doubletree currently displays two wall signs, a 20 square foot sign on the east elevation facing the South Frontage Road and. a sign of approximately. f~`_ve ~.q~aa~re~fee~on the southwest portion of the building, This sigma ~.s oriented toward the pedestrza.n pathway that leads down to the bus stop by the ice arena, There is also a sign marking the western entrance to the Doubletree Hotel parking lot along the Frontage Road. The request for additional signage requires a variance from the combined maximum square foot of 20. The total square toc~tage ~rit~th`e proposecc ad~icion wauid~e approximately 45 square feet. The request also requires a variance from the number of signs. The request is far a total of 3 wall signs, along with the entranceftraffic control sign. A third variance is requested far height, The sign location. is appr©ximately 65 feet above grade, although its distance above the level of the Frontage Road is approximately only 25 feet. Attached is the applicant's statement .n support of the request. II. FINDINGS AND STAFF R~SFONSES Before the beard acts on a Variance application, the applicant must prays physical hardship and the board must find that: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topagra.hy, vegetation, sign structures or other maters on adjacent lots ar within the adjacent right-of-wav which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; ~arovided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which-the applicant desires to draw attention and da not appl~r generally to all businesses or enterprises. Staff Response: The Doubletree Hotel does have a legitimate identifi- cation problem due to the size and various exposures of the building and the fact that for the entire project they are allowed only two signs with a combined total. allowable area of 20 square feet. The Raintree znn, Holiday Inn, and Marriott Mark are hotels that have also recently received sign variances due to the size of their projects. Staff feels that the Doubletree Hotel has similar special circumstances that warrant this increase in the combined square footage for signage. We also recognize that due to the design of the Doubletree, it is difficult to. utilize one wall sign that has effective exposure to both east and west-bound travelers on the South Frontage Road. We feel that it is a legitimate request to have two signs relating to this exposure, and that it is also in the interest of the community to have signage oriented to the pedestrian area that relates to the Town of Vail bus route. With regard t4 the variance far height, while the sign itself is approximately 65 feet above grade, the Frontage Road is substantially higher than the finished grade of the Doubletree parking lot, and that circumstance mitigates the impact of the height request. S. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in priv~r to the applicant. Staff Response: Special circumstances were not created by the applicant. • ., C, That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will nat~ be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Staff Response.: Generally, the staff feels that the sign is in harmony with the purposes of this title. Staff believes that. the size, location and height are harmonious with the surrounding setting and wilh be compatible with the scale of the existing building, The size of the sign is in scale with the rest of the building and will not draw undue attention to itself. D. The variance applied far does not depart from the provisions of this tit~.e any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff kesponse: The applicant is requesting an additional 20 square - feet of signage beyond that which is existing and approximately 25 feet. beyond what is allowed by the sign code. Given the size of this building and the difficulty orienting signage to the exposures of this building, staff feels that the applicant is not requesting a departure from the provisions of the sign code any more than is truly required to identify the applicant's bus-mess. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIQN Staff supports the variance request for size, number of signs and height. Staff believes that the proposal is harmonious with the sign code's requirement that signage not call undue attention to itself. We feel that the request for the additional square footage does not depart drastically from signage allowed within the code and that the height request does not depart radically from the intent of that section of the code. We do feel that the height could be ,further mitigated by placing the sign as low as possible on the building race. Staff recommends approval of the request, recognizing that the applicant has a difficult site and has made a reasonable attempt to work with the sign cads. _. .; ~, ~: • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA JUNE 17, 1.957 3:00 p.m. SITES VISITS 1:00 p,m. 2 1. Talon Roof & Siding Colors (1st, Final) Motion--Rives Second-Viele Vote 3-d Approved siding, roof tabled to July 1st (1st, Final) Vote 3-© providing the owner zing framework. {1st, Final) Motion-Viele Second-Rive Vote 3-0 Approved wfmodificatians & remove sign. T 4. Eck Garage (2nd, Final) Lot 1, Vail Village 9th Filing Motion-Viele Second-Rives Vote 3-0 11 2. Lobster Bar Deck Creekside Building Motion-Viele Second-Rives Approved on temporay base takes dawn the doorway aw: 5 3 Park Mead©ws Re-Paint 9 5. Diones Duplex (lst Review) Lot 2, Pulis Subdivision Motion-Rives Second--Viele Vote approved 3-0 t 6. Vail Des Schone Shopping Center Amendment to Pian Motion-Niels Second-Rive Vote 3-~ 10 7. Piper Residence (lst Review) Lot 3, Sundial Phase II Motion-Riga Second-Niels Approved 3-0 8. Children's Fountain Sculpture TABLED UNTIL JULY 1st meeting 3 3. Elk Meadows SDD Guidelines & Landscape Plan ~ i Motion-Niels Second-Rive Vote 3-d ~ ~ 6 Z0. Timberline Tours Sian (1st Review} Voliter Property CONSENT 7 11. Daubletree Sign Variance Motion-Niels Second-Rive Vote 3-€~ Approved as submitted. 8 12. Holiday Inn Deck Enclosure (1st Review) i~ Vail Village ~I~I CONSENT i r • 4 13. Canton Residence Lc~t 3, Lionsridge 3rd k'iling 14. Madsen MEMBERS PRESENT Kathy Warren Grant Rives Jim Viele STAFF PRESENT Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy RosQlack STAFF APPROVALS: TABLED (see consent) (1st Review) MEMBERS ABSENT Ned Gwathmey Dan Leary STAFF ABSENT Joni White - Replace Window & French Door Crotzer Retaining Wall R©ss Stain - Lc~t 1, Block 3, V Valley 1st Dana Resid. Addition - Lot 8, V village 2nd Northwoods Remodel - Expansion of WaII Otto Resid. Remodel - Lot 2, Block 3, V Village 11th Gerwig-Branca House - Repaint/new color - Lot 34, V Meadows ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~lt~~~~ ~~~4~ w~s~ S ~~~~~-, ~.~ ~o~ 5~~ ~-~~~~ ~la~~ ~a~~ 1~ti~~~1 C~,~~f ~~~ S~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ w~~~'~c. ~-A~~,~o ~~~~~ a~~ ~~ ~~~~ ;~ ~~`~~~1 ~~\~, ~S ~~~L, ~~ ~~~~~ Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel; 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.ca.us General Information: AYI projects requ"rring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the sutrmittal requirements far the particular approval that is requested. An application for Planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council andJor the Design Review Board. Type of Application and Fee: Attachment: C ^ Rezoning $1300 O Conditional 1Jse Permit 5650 ^ Major Subdivision X1500 ^ Floodplan Modification $400 ^ Minor Subdivision $650 ^ Minor Exterior Alteration 5650 ^ Exemption Plat 5650 © Major Exterior Alteration 5800 Minor Amendment to an 5DD 51000 ^ Development Plan $1500 ^ New Special Development District. Sbai]0 ^ Amendment to a Development Plan $250 ^ Major Amendment to an SDD 56000 C^ Zoning Code Amendment $1300 ^ .Major Amendment to an SDD $1250 ^ Variance $500 (naexteriormadific~tiansJ P~ Sign Variance $200 Description of the Request: '~'('1dZ.sQ ~ •~rY• { ~ Ca ~y^_+C~^~~ ~ '`~~ ~' Dom"` ~~~ ~-n '~.o t ~ . n ~ p M. ~V ~ h 3n ~C ~ ~ r, a ~ 1W . '~3.M0 _~L y~ ~ ~RG2r "~'y"~G.~r YY ~ sn d. ~:im c. [ a,; C .... w Q..d yt vti . ~ e4„}+•t , ,r, B "~-ql'1•~-~ Location of the Proposal: Cat: Block: Subdivision: Ph s' ~ ress: _ `~ ~•`` C-~--,tvt~c3,c~e `4 ' ~?sz.n~-. ''+Ila~ :l Parcel No ~1~/~l '~~ " ~il ~ Q~`~'f (Contact Eagle C©. Assessor at 97p-328-8640 for parcel no.} coning: ~'Qh ~ ~ - Name(s) of Owner(s): ~~,e,r,~~~~,.~ ~~~~ @~~ Mailing Address: 2 `rJC~ s- ~'1rmn~ ~ c~ P one: •wner(s) 5i~n~turt[s): ~ .~ Name of Applicant: w~lc~ ~~e/t,w.a~ti lc Mailing Address: .5~~ _a~c, Phone: LEA '~.,~~r,,~rv, ~1a. S ~_ ~. ~.- E-mail Address: ~~m ~ ~ri ~ T3 £v e.rn v ~ Bch Fax ~ ~'~ ~ ~~' ~ ` ~ ~ '~ B ~ tJat1. cpr~. w • .For Office Use Qty: Fee Paid: ~"tlFr^ Check Na~~-, `~~~ By: ~/r~~,~r „~~''~''~- ~~, ~, Application Date: PEC No.: ~ ~'~`'C%/~~_ (.-~~~'. ~ -~~ Pianner: Project N©,; /~I~'~.~-~ - CJ •~'~ ~~ ~-- j~~iii t i ~8r}n~ r~~~ 4~~~ Page ] of 6-01 /1 X3107 Attachment: D • Current view a~ Evergreen Lodge driving west on ~out~ i=rantage acad. Existing "~vergreAn badge" sign is abseUred by trees. As one nears tie east entrance to evergreen dodge, trees still obscure existing slanage. ~, ,~~ ~, View of east end flf Evergreen Lodge from top ?/4 of driveway -off So~tb Frontage Road. Existing sign is partly visible, again, obsc~red_:,: 4 Y, - . by trees. . ~~ - - Y r _ ~ I _ y ~, Evergreen Lodge proposes to remove letters currently on iawer tier of the building and re-position them on the upper tier of the buiidn Na change in size will be made. Lighting would be as current, a spa light shining on the lettered sign. .4 ,-Y;_ w,n~s'~, .~ :~,~ - ti~{ :~ ~> . ,. ~ n • • i ii i i i_-- a ,~ b x~r jW`~ L r~ ;~ ~E ~~ .~ ~ ~ Q ~ t!! V \~` \` `c' +~. `~~_ ~+ -' ~ ~ r r~`i W •S, . y41 ~~~ __ I 1 .~ f i~ I ;ter;, ...~ 7 _~~ .~ "~~~.,_-