Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2005-0711 PEC
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING _ July 11, 2005 ~~ (1F' t'Ab . PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb David Viete Site Visits: 1. Dantas Builders- 1772, 1778, 1788 Alpine Drive Driver: George Public Hearing ,Town Council Chambers 2:~D0 pm 1. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses,. Vaii Town Code, to allow for a public convention. facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lianshead Circle) Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, Lot 3 and 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead t=iling 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. Planner: Bil6 Gibson ACTION: Tabled to July 25, 2005 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6.0-1 (Vis)e recused) Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Kurt Fentress, of Fentress Bradburn Architects, presented an overview of the proposed conference center building using powerpoint slides and a model of the conference center. Rick Pylman introduced a model of the project to the Commission members at which time discussions regarding the specifics of grade, loading docks, access with the Vaii International, and other basic topics, ensued. Brent Lloyd, a landscape architect working an the project, detailed the landscaping, finishes, and pedestrian environment. Jim Lamont, representing Vail Village Homeowners, commented that 2,0DO lineal feet of retaining wall seemed a little generic far the development site and use. He also expressed interest in seeing digital visual representations of the building and surrounding structures, much as has been done far other development projects within the Town. Russ Forrest and the Commission member discussed why the number of proposed parking spaces was proposed. Bill Jewitt commented that a major parking problem existed along the Frontage Road already. He added that the study done by HVS did not seem fair or reasonable. The parking plan seemed clearly designed to fit the building, instead of the opposite scenario occurring. The I, money that was received from Vail Resorts was intended to address the lack ofi public parking, and not to provide parking for the conference center. Chas Bernhardt asked Russ Forrest how many high-use days were expected for this facility, to which Russ Forrest replied that the calendar of events and the actual availability of parking could be studied on a deeper level if necessary. Chas replied that the developments which were being considered throughout the area were already prompting an increase in the number of necessary spaces available to Lionshead locals and visitors. ft was mentioned that many visitors will not be needing parking due to their original locales outside of the Vail Valley. Bill Jewitt commented that more parking spaces, no# details, were needed as a part of this application. Kaye Ferry commented that parking has been a concern to her since the beginning of the project The parking numbers have been °massaged" into paying far themselves. She was concerned by comments from the applicant indicating the Holy Cross site was not selelcted a conference center because the project won't comply with the Town's own rules and regulations. She commented that a parking calculation had been applied to private developers,. which is not being proposed for this Town project. Bill Jewitt asked if the whole area was oonsidered one development site, if such consideration prompted that the parking structure be sprinkled. Rick Pylman noted that for building code purposes there is a perceived property line between the conference center and parking structure and that the existing parking structure needs to be updated to meet building codes regardless of the conference center. Same discussion ensued regarding the need for part-time employee parking. Doug Cahill commented that the parking standards which are currently in place may be as effective or accurate as they need to be and may need #o be revisited. The applicant promised further Employee Housing and parking calculations at following meetings, as well as some additional digital representations of the project. Bill Jewitt commented that this was a big building which entirely dominated the parking structure. However, he added that if the project was to be built, the parking structure would most certainky be re-developed and the design of the Center would likely change. From East Lionshead Circle, the structure's significance could be overwhelming. In sum, he still wished for the "mushroom design". Ro11ie Kjesbo commented that taming left out of Lionshead Circle could be potentially very difficult and hazardous, Regarding other aspects, some work needed to be done to address the relationship to the Vail lntemational and Evergreen Lodge. He also noted that only 125 parking spaces were not adequate and would not be approved for a private conference center project, George Lamb considered parking the biggest issue of the entire project. To allow parking to continue to be an issue would be a grave error. Regarding employee housing, spay-in-lieu. sys#em seemed to make sense and needed to be approved with expediency. Receiving CDDT approval early in the review process was a wise move an the applicants part. ' Anne Gunion commented that this site should be viewed as an urban infili site, with no way to meet the landscaping requirements. When viewed from that perspective, many mare aspects of the project could be well-managed and "compliant". The HVS study should be read thoroughly by all and critiqued equally as thoroughly, since the study results are based upon numerous assumptions that have many "outsn. Regarding employee housing, the formula for calculating housing provision is currently inadequate should be amended. The pay-in-lieu concept is a good one, but is not conducive for providing housing for all types of employees. Chas Qernhardt agreed with Ms. Gunion's comments regarding urban infili. Vai] Resort's money for parking shouid be used to expand the existing structure, especially since other uses such as the medical center's employees are using the structure on a daily basis. Vail Resort's money should not be used to subsidize the conference center. The pay-in-lieu employee housing system makes sense considering the high values of land within the Town. The design, he finished, was simple and sensible. Doug Cahill summarized the Commission's comments by saying that mare information was going to be needed on a variety of issues. A master plan should be devised that is flexible enough to address all of the issues and future development along the Frontage Road. As far employee housing, the lack thereof (on this site) further exacerbated the existing parking problem. Additional information about parking should be presented soon and the uses of the facility should never be hindered by a lack of parking. The conference center should function as a stand-alone project in regard to parking. Russ Forrest asked Ms. Gunion if illustrating the relationship of this project to the streetscape would be helpful in evaluating the landscaping requirements, etc. It was decided that digital presentations would be quite valuable.. Ms. Gunion added that unique approaches could be taken while evaluating the "requirements" of landscaping, transition areas, and other similar development standards. She encouraged the committee to cut costs only an the things which could not be seen. Jim Lamont commented that this redevelopment effort was the Town's last chance for several years to update the roadways and circulation patterns. Perhaps some thought should be paid to creating around-about in this area. Fie added that the addition of landscaping, even in the most urban areas, created green canopies in the summer and filtered sunlight in the winter. Mature needed to be incorporated -into urban landscapes as much as possible, enhancing the buildings. Fie finished by saying that it would be better to present a project which exceeded expectations rather than to simply cut costs to make the project politically viable. 2. A request far a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area and an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to amend, in park,. Chapter 5, Vail Civic Center Detailed Plan Recommendations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant:. Town of Vail, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. Planner: Dill Gibson ACTIC3N: Tabled to July 25, 2445 MOTION: ~.amb SECOND: Dewitt VOTE: fi-0-1 (Niels recused} 3. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow far a residential addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Robert Stephenson, Jr. and John Schofield, represented by Snowdon $~ Hopkins Architects ' Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to July 25, 2Q45 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-d-0 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Caunci! of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 2.8, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the boundaries of the study area to include Evergreen Lodge, located at 254 South Frontage Road 11Vest, Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail, represented by HB Development Company Planner. George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to July 25, 2005 MOTION: Jewit# SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 5. A request far a final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-3, Amendments, to increase the height limitation far a sloping roof from 4~' to 5~5' in the Public Accornmodatian zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. The Commissioners asked several questions regarding the proposal. Such as were there any limits on how high the eave of a structure could be located. Commissioner Cahill expressed concern that the PEC had recently reviewed the Crossroads redevelopment application and many people were concerned with the height of the proposed building and changing the feel of the Village. Changing the height in Public Accommodation zone district could change the feeling of the Village as many of the properties are located an the periphery of the Village. George Ruther stated that the proposed text amendment did not include any provisions for limiting the height of eaves. It was felt that ail the Public Accommodation zoned properties are different and each situation would be different and the Design Review process would serve as the process for ensuring good design. 6. A request far a fnal review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Cade, to allow for the construction of a garage addition within the front setback, located at 26Q8 Arosa Drive/Lot 2, Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Brenda and Steve Herman, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Gampbeli ACTION: Approved with candition(s} MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-Q-0 GONDITION~S}: 1. That the applicant reduce the width of the proposed garage from 24 feet to 22 feet in width which will be reflected in the plans to be submitted far design review. Warren Campbell made a presentation per the staff memorandum. ' Dominic Mauriella reiterated the applicant's proposal and expressed the ability to resolve several existing encroachments on the adjacent property. 7. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for an amendment to existing property lines; and a request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-5, Lot Area and Site Dimensions and Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Tawn Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Cade, to allow building within the setback, located at 1772, 1778, 1788 Alpine DrivelLats 1 a, 11, Vail Village West Fifng 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Dantas Builders Planner: Elisabeth Eckel ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 CONDITIONS}: 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 2. The applicant shall maintain a limits of disturbance line as shown on the site plan. No building encroachments or construction disturbance shall be allowed beyond this line. 3. Prior to submittal of a building permit for Lot 10, Lot 11, or Lot 12, the applicant shall record with Eagle County the amended plat, reflecting the access easement and its associated language. Elisabeth made a presentation per the staff memorandum. The applicant, Dantas Builders, Inc. was available to answer questions of the Commission and staff. Diana Mahan, representing the owner of Lat 13 to the west, inquired about setbacks and landscape requirements. Bill Dewitt acknowledged the need for shared access and limits an site disturbance. George Lamb expressed his support of the applications and applauded the applicant far the creative solution that was reached jointly with the Design Review Board during the spring. Na ether Commissioner comments were provided. Doug Cahill asked about the awnershipldevelapment structure to which the applicant replied that each of the residences would be developed by him and sold separately at a later date. 8. A request far a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Cade, to amend the allowable Grass Residential Floor Area, located at 3967 Lupine Drive/Lot 1 B, Black 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: William and Jan Burrow Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 7-0-0 CON~ITION(S}: 1. The applicant shall add a note to the plat which restricts the allowable GRFA to 4,61.5 square feet. This note shall appear on the myiar Copies of the plat. which are submitted to the Town of Vail staff for recording with Eagle County. 2. The applicant shall remove the footprint of the existing structure, deck, stairs, and driveway currently depicted on the proposed Amended Final Plat. Bighorn submittino m la stfordrecordinL wi h'E~~ RPSUbdivision of Lot 1. Black 1. prior to g . Y g gle County. 1Narren Campbell made a presentation per the memorandum. Seth Bossung, with Morter Architects, described the request in greater detail. No public comments were offered, Rollie Kjesbo clarified that several years ago his company performed some preliminary pricing for an addition on this lot, however, he felt he did not have a conflict of interest. George Lamb stated that he hoped, if the other lot came in for review, the review process would be as easy as possible. 9. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU}Type, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 2883 Kinnikinnick RoadlException to Phase II, Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Chuck C7gilby Planner: Sill Gibson ACTION: Approved with conditions} MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 CONDITIflN(S}: 1. This approva! shall be contingent upon the applicant submitting, to the Town of Vail, the written approval of this proposal by the Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums and the Lodges at Timber Creek Condominiums. Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. George Sink, representing the applicant, noted that the additional GRFA was for a mechanical room and the he was available for questions. Neither the Commission nor the public offered further comments. 14. Approval of June 27, 2445 minutes MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 11. ]nformation Update 12. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications'and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (974) 479-2138 for additional information, Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Phase calf x;970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Qepartment Published duly 8, 2005, in the Vail Daily. • MEMORANDUM TC?: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 11, 2405 SUBJECT: A request for a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area and an amendment to the Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan to amend, in part, Chapter 5, Vail Civic Center Detailed Plan Recommendations, and setting forth details in regard thereto; and, a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, .Vail Town Code, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead CirclelLot 1, Black 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, Lot 3 and 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Pylman ~ Associates, Inc., has submitted applications to allow for the construction of a Conference Center located at the "'Charter Bus Lot" site adjacent to the Lionshead Parking Structure.. Today's discussion will be a work session to further discuss the proposal. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal actions at this time. II. BACKGROUND Can June 13 and 20, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession #o discuss the proposed Conference Center project. ©n July f, 2005, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the proposed Conference Center project. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Additions! AoalicatvnslSukamittal Requirements 1, Required Approvals The proposed Conference Center project will require the following approvals • General election ballot initiative for additional funding • Resolution of all private protective covenant issues • Approval from Vail International (construction on their property) Conditional Use Permit (Conference Center} • Conditional Use Permit (parking structure modifications) • Design Review (Canference Center, parking structure, East Lianshead Circle and South Frontage Road streetscape) • Variance (excessive driveway grades) • Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan amendments • Minor Subdivision Amended Final Plat • Ccalarado Departrraent of Transportation Permits 2. Addiitianal Applications Minor Subdivision: Currently the Lianshead Parking Structure and the proposed Conference Center are located on two lots and the Eas# Lianshead Circle Right-of-Way. The applicant must update these property boundaries and vacate the existing, abandoned portions of the East Lianshead Circle Right-of-Way through the minor subdivision application process. Variance: The proposed driveway from the South Frontage Road to the Conference Center's eastern parking structure entrance and loading dock entrance are too steep to comply with Town of Vail's minimum engineering standards. The applicant must amend the proposed driveway to comply with these standards (Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code} or receive Planning and Environmental Commission approval of a variance. 2. Required Additional Application Materials The following is a preliminary list of materials, in addition to the above listed applications, not yet submitted by the applicant: a 3- dimensional model of the Conference Center and its surrounding, develaprnent standard calculations, architectural plans showing the Canference Center in its neighborhood confext, statements of compliance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and the Town of Vail Transportation Master Plan, and any other materials deemed necessary by the PEC, DRB, or staff. B. Zanina Reaulations 1. General Use Zone District The Lionshead Parking Structure and Charter Bus Lot are zoned General Use District. Within the General Use District the allowed development statistics are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of a conditional use permit: application. © Purpose The general use district is intended to provide sites far public and quasi.-public uses which,. because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed far other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for 2 each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. o Uses "Public theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities" ~i.e. the proposed Conference Center) and "public parking facilities and structures" (i.e. the Lionshead Parking Structure) are allowed within the General Use District subject to Planning .and Environmental Commission approval of a conditional use permit. o Lot arealsite dimensions The Conference Center development site includes the existing Lionshead Parking Structure, Charter Bus Lot, and the East Lionshead Circle Right-of-Way. The proposed development site boundaries and lot area can not be accurately determined until the applicant submits a minor subdivision application to replat this property. o Setbacks The determination of setback standards can not accurately be determined until the applicant submits a minor subdivision application to replat this property. At this time the Conference Genter building is approximately 10 feet from the South Frontage Road Right-af-Way on the north, abuts the Lionshead Parking Structure on the west, encroaches up to 34 feet into the East Lionshead Circle Right-of-Way on the east, and is 0 to 90 feet from the East Lionshead Circle Right-of- Way Right-of-Way on the south 4however, proposed decks do encroach from the south side of the building into the East Lionshead Circle Right-of-Way}. o Building Height The applicant must submit a revised building height calculation plan; however, the Conference Center's primary ridge appears to be 7'0 feet in height above the current Charter Bus Lot grade. The proposed eave line on the south side of the building will be approximately SO feet in height above East Lionshead Circle. c~ tensity Control There are no dwelling unit or gross residential floor area (GRFA) proposed with the Conference Center project. The applicant is currently proposing the following floor area program for this building: Use Square Footage Pre-function and lobby: 13,776 Ballroom: 30,008 Meeting rooms: 10,100 Meeting room support: 4,392 Food 5ervicelKitchen: 4,434 Operations: 18,523 Loading Qoclc: 12,649 Administration: 3,302 Infrastructurelcirculation 23,367 Total: 123,205 o Site Coverage The determination of site coverage standards can not accurately be determined until the applicant submits a minor subdivision application to replat this property. The applicant is estimating the proposed site coverage to be 59,677 sq.ft., The applicant estimates this to be 61'%0 of what they consider the Charter Bus Lot site. o Landscaping and Site Development The determination of landscaping standards can not accurately be determined until the applicant submits a minor subdivision application to replat this property. The applicant is proposing to landscape the 10-12 foot wide median between the Conference Center and the South Frontage Road. The applicant is also proposing a landscaping bed at the northeast corner of the Conference Center with an approximately 10 foot strip of landscaping between the building and the east access drive. The applicant is also proposing a 10 to 40 foot wide strip of landscaping between the access drive and Vail International and Dobson Ice Arena; however, much of this proposed landscaping is located within the existing East Lionshead Circle Right-of-Way and on Vail International's property. There are also small landscape planters proposed along the south side of the Conference Center building. The applicant is estimating the proposed landscaping to be 7,142 sq_ ft.. The applicant estimates this to be 7°/a of what they consider the Charter Bus Lot site. The applicant is also proposing a hardscape areas at the norkh entrance to the facility and a hardscape patio area an the south side of the building along Bast Lionshead Circle. The applicant is estimating the proposed hardscaping to be 59,677 sq.ft.. The applicant estimates this to be 13% of what they consider the Charter Bus Lot site. • 4 Existing landscaping will be removed along the Werth side of the Lionshead Parking Structure to accommodate the new entrance and slang the south side of the structure to accommodate the new shuttle bus turn-around. o Parking and Loading Required: 334 spaces Proposed: 125 Spaces Pursuant to Section 12-10-10, Vail Town Code, convention facilities are required to provide 1 parking space per 120 sq. ft. of seating area. The applicant is proposing approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of ballroom area and approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of meeting rooms. This approximately 40,000 sq. ft. of seating area requires 334 parking spaces. This does not take into consideration the 14,000 to 21,000 sq. ft. of pre-function, registration, corridor, vestibule areas which are commonly utilized by conference and event organizers. Including these areas would increase the parking requirement by 116 to 175 additional spaces. The applicant is proposing to construct a 325 space parking structure within the Conference Center building; however, 75 of these spaces replace the 75 space eliminated by the construction of the new Lionshead Parking Structure entrance. Construction of the other 125 spaces is being funded by Vail Resorts and may be used to off-set their parking requirements for their other 'Lionshead area construction projects. The applicant has hired HVS Convention, Sports, and Entertainment to prepare a parking analysis. The applicant is proposing that this analysis justifies the construction of 125 parking spaces for the conference center rather than the minimum of 334 required by the Town Code. A copy of the analysis was attached in the June 13, 2005, Planning and Environmental Commission memorandum. The HVS analysis examines the parking use demands for the Conference Center in relation to the public use of the Lionshead Parking Structure. The new conference center parking structure is designed to connect to the Lionshead Parking Structure. The analysis generally concludes that parking is adequately addressed on "design days" and "peak days" during the shoulder and summer season; however, parking deficits still exist on bath "design days" and "peak days" during the winter season. The proposed South Frontage Road improvements include the construction of a widen shoulder on the north side of the road'. It is anticipated that winter season aver-flow parking will continue to be accamrnodated along the South Frontage Road. The parking analysis recommends 10 of the 325 parking spaces be used for the estimated 20 full-time employees, The analysis recognizes that large events of 1,000 or more people may require 12 additional staff plus 70 to 80 part-time staff fat the July 6, 2005, Design Review- Board meeting, the applicant noted that community events of up to 3,000 people could be accommodated). The parking analysis identifies the need for an appropriate facility management plan to address the transportation needs of both conference center employees and users; especially during large conference center events, during peak days, during the winter season, or when other large parking demands are placed on the Lionshead Parking Structure such as events at Dobson Ice Arena. o Employee Housing The Town of Vail's requires development projects to provide housing for 15% of all new employees. The Town of Vail calculates the number of new employees based upon the 1991 Rosall Remmers Cares "Employee Generation Rates" analysis, unless more specific, project specific employment information is available. The applicant has not provided the Town of Vail Housing Division, or the Vail Local Housing Authority, with any specific employment projections. Therefore, the "Employee Generation Rates°' analysis will be used to calculate the employee housing requirement for the Conference Center project. This analysis calculates employee generation for a conference center at a rate of 1 employee per 1,000 sq. ft. Based solely upon the ballroom and meeting room area of approximately 40,000 sq. ft., 40 new employees will be generated by the Conference Center project. This employee generation calculation does not include any pre-function, registration, corridor, or vestibule areas which are commonly utilized' by conference and event organizers; nor does it include any kitchen or office spaces. Based upon 40 new employees, the Conference Center is required to provide housing for 6 employees. The applicant is not proposing to construct any employee housing. Instead, the applicant is proposing to provide the Town of Vail with the cash equivalent of 7 employee housing units; however, the Town has no adopted formally adopted "pay-in-lieu" program. 2. Conditional Uses The Planning and Environmental Commission will be reviewing the proposed conditional use permit applications for the Conference Center and Lianshead Parking Structure based upon the following criteria: G 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, transpor#atian facilities, utilities,. 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 flew and control, access, maneuverability, and removal ofi 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. B. Lionshead Redevetor~ment Master Plan The Lionshead Parking Structure and the Charter Bus Lot are located within the boundaries of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, and the proposed Conference Center project must be reviewed for conformance with the master plan. There are numerous portions of the master plan that are applicable to this project and the Commission should review the master plan document and the Staff memorandums dated June 13 and June 27, 2Q©5, for additional information. 1. PurposelObjecti~es: There are several fundamental design objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan that are applicable to the Conference Center project: • Pedestrian Environment: o create a generator for activity; create a cohesive, consistent, well defined pedestrianfretail environment o create a connection between C7obson Ice Arena and the west edge of Lionshead Vehicular Circulation: create efficient access to private and public destinations without negative impacts to pedestrian and residential areas +~ Transit: an effective and flexible public transit system is essential for the entire Lionshead area. • Service and Delivery: a consolidated, efficient network meeting current and futures needs that reduces interference with pedestrians, emergency services, and traffic. • Parking: to provide adequate public parking in Lionshead and the community as a whole • 2. Existing Conditions: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan thoroughly inventories the existing conditions of the Lionshead area. An important item of note within this inventory includes the identified need for additional meetinglconference facilities within the Lionshead area. Also within this inventory, the master plan identifies the need to address bicyclelpedestrian traffic, vehicular turning movements and parking along the South Frontage Road; and the need to address pedestrian traffic, transit, loading/delivery, and skier drop-off along East Lionshead Circle. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan also identifies the need to address the existing parking shortfall within the Town of Vail and highlights haw no new development should create a net-loss of parking. 3. Recomrrrendati©ns: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan makes numerous general and specific recommendations that are relevant to the proposed Conference Center project. General Recommendations: The following is a very brief summary pf the general recommendations applicable to the Conference Center project: • The proposed Conference Center, the Lionshead Parking Structure, Dobson Ice Arena, and the Library should create an "East Lionshead Civic Hub". • A physical connection needs to be created between Lionshead and Vail Village, a part of which should include streetscape improvements. • Connections need to be made to the natural environment, which can be addressed in numerous ways including building orientation and the preservation of view corridors. • Improvement should be made to the South Frontage Road to provide a ~ bicycle/pedestrian path, improve circulation, and improve the visual quality of the street. • Loading and delivery facilities should be located within buildings and the impacts of traffic, Heise, exhaust, etc. should be minimized. An intensely developed pedestrian walkway should be developed clang the south edge of the Lionshead Parking Structure. • Architecture and landscaping along East Lionshead Circle should create a consistent architecture to link I~obsan Ice Arena with the east porta9 of Lionshead. • Parking must be sufficient to meet the demand, parking should relate to pedestrian circulation and access points, new parking should be constructed below-grade, and no construction shall cause a net loss of parking. • The Lionshead Parking Structure is a potential Eacation for new, additional public parking. • Charter bus parking may be displaced by a new conference center. An alternate bus parking locations include Ford Park, new transit center, ordown-valley. • The Lionshead Parking Structure is a potential location far new employee housing. • Development projects should seek to incorporate public art according to the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Master Plan. Detailed Pian Recommendations: The following is a very brief summary of the detailed plan recommendations for the Conference Center project: • A future civic center {i.e. the Conference Center) should accommodate a variety of uses, but the Town Council will decide the specific development program. • The Lionshead Parking Structure should be the primary means of access to the Conference Center. • The southeast corner of the site should be a drop-off area and arrival point for pet~ple walking. • The front entrance should be highly visible with ample plaza space. • The front doors should provide vertical access through the building and pedestrian plaza. • An architectural connection between the Conference Center and Dobson Ice Arena is needed. • A cohesive pedestrian plaza should link the new center, Dobson Ice Arena, Library, and the Lionshead Parking Structure. • If the East Lionshead Circle extension is closed, a new access for Vail International is required an the South Fron#age Road. • Delivery points should include the southeast end of Dobson andlar a South Frontage Road access far the new civic center. No delivery points should create regu]ar delivery traffic on East Lionshead Circle. • The Conference Center should serve as East Lionshead Circle visual terminous. • A strong connection is needed between the Conference Center's pedestrian plaza and East Lionshead Circle. • A strong connection is needed between the Conference Center and Dobson Ice Arena and may include common entrances, lobbies, ticketing, concessions, and abelow-grade #unnel. • Additional parking must be built {in the existing Lionshead parking structure or nearby) and the charter bus parking lot must be relocated before the Conference Center can be built. Additional decks an the existing structure or a new public structure in west Lionshead may be necessary when the Conference Center is constructed. + The Conference Center is integrally tied to development on the south face of the Lionshead parking structure and East Lionshead Circle streetscape enhancements. 9 4. Architectural Design Guidelines: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan includes specific qualitative and quantitative architectural design guidelines for new development and redevelopment projects within the Lionshead area. These guidelines address: • Building Form and Massing • Building Height Exterior Wolfs • Exterior Doars and Windows • Balconies, Guardrails, and Handrails • Roofs • Fireplaces and Chimneys • Details • Quantitative Criteria The Design Review Board' will be reviewing the proposed Conference Center in contex# of these requirements. It is Staff's belief that the proposed Conference Center will not fuCly comply with these guidelines and the applicant will need to pursue an application to allow for deviations from these standards. Such a request will require the review and recommendation of the Design Review Board followed by review and approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The quantitative standards of these architectural guidelines should be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of the Conference Center conditional use permit application. The following quantitative criteria are directly applicable to the bulklmass of this proposed building: * Save height: 60' maximum and 12' minimum step back • Ridge heights: 71' average maximum height and 82.5' absolute maximum height • WaII surfaces: 35' maximum vertical face and horizontal steps required • Horizontal Wall Spans: 30' maximum span at street level • Roof Dimensional Guidelines: 30" min eave and rake overhangs, and 18" overhangs at secondary roofs • Roof Pitch: primary roof from 6:12 to 12:32. and secondary roof from 4:12 to 12:12 {or flat}. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, the Commission is not being asked to take any formal action at this time. Staff recommends the Commission table these items for further discussion at the July 25, 2005, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. IV. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Design Development Plans, April 2005 10 • ^~ Q .,.+ ~ ~ 0 as as 0 V~ r~-' ~~ ^~ C (~ d ~_ C!) ^...a ^~ O .~ ~.~ ~,`~ r I f" a 1 I E 4 ' ' ~ ~ ~~ .~.__ ,~ ~ R , x ~~ ,~~-- ,~_ ~, ~~~~~i~ Cis - - - +- -- -~. _~.°~~~~i C~ ~ -_ _ ii"'_ ~-,~ ~~ i ~ _~ ~ I~ j ~ f ~ I i ! ,~ SRI ~~ i i __~.-; ~ i ~; ''~ R ~ ~ 1, ~ ~ II ~ ~+---.... L1~ - --Ii E ~~ 1,' ~-. ~i i f 3 ~ li S _. __ ' Y , ___~a~s_ k~ ~ <._.. ~ a. ~ _t,. ~ ~ _. 1 $; 4 ~yt._ ~ ~ I ~~ __ i----_I _ ; ~ i fF i '+I ~~ _ a ~ ~~~ ~ -- - ---- r J Q? C .~C L {~ N Q J y i ~' c~ L I r~ LL t f ~` I ~~ . Vsf ~ 1[~ r ^~ _ _! _ 4 4 ~\ ~ Q ~ ,r 1 Y ~ ~4 I i ~ ~ _ ~ ~-i-- 1 _ ~''- a~-'` ~~ ~ ! 1 I ! J.~,~.-.. ~-~-----I_.__ 1 ~~ -~.-~_ i =-° _-~ _ -~ } I i ~11~i. ~ ~~-a 4~.i~s ~.~~,~._.~~~..~._. ~_ rae _ ._ f~~i¢. _ _...~M...._ .ti1~ -,e-i}= rw r~ _~ ~~ n_ -. . ~ --- ~~-- - --~ ~ r C7 _ -- _. (~ .. - - -~ ~? Q,7 J ryL~ W 0 a •~ L a ~'3. / !' /~{ ~`'' ~,~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - I ~ '7 - ~- - `° ~ ~ ~-~ - ----=~~ ~ --~_~_ s ,--~ I ` ~ ~ ~'~' ~- - `r -~ iy - -- - N ti ` T g4 _. 3~ - _. ~~ _ - .._.._....,... _ .y ,.,_ ~} 1 o _ __~ w m ~c 0 _ _ - as r' ~ c~ a J ~~ .~ L rl~~ O O N .~ L ~. l _ _ ,~ ~_--a t=~ - ~::, - 'fir rl I~ - ' ~.{ ~---- i _`_`------ J ,~ I I I E 1 ~ ~ E Q # 4 `y I ~J' ' Y ' ~y~~ ~•-- -- - E t ~ ~' ~ ~ r G'~nJl ~ J ~ tiN S l_a_.J { I e I r ~ k ~ti ~ r i I !!! C '_' E °~;. rr~ i- ls-FIrr ~ r ~ -~•,. /-`~ -_ --~.:R'- -._ rr `k~.°~ ~w _ rlyT _r-r~ ~ ~r.~~~ ~rr~ ~ ~y~'~ - __ _ te- ~i'~ti~ V V _ - ll _. ~-) ~ - -' _ _ _ LL.Y ~ ~~_._ ___- --- __ -...._._.~ - ~ C • .~ F 9 ~ ~ i ` ~, i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~; ~ p i ~ ijj i ~ ~ 4 ` I ~ I. ~-._ L I I~~ ~ _ _ _~___ ~~ ~~' i = ,~ _ ~ ~~ ~' C~ `. -~ - r:: ~;}; - - ~- - ~ -f-- -- ~~~ _ _ __. ~ ~_ _ ~~ ,~~ ~~ f -~_l .~ __ I --- , a ~ ~ 1 0 o - .~ ~ ~a • c~ U .~ _ _- ~ __.~ _ _ U _ ~ k O y~ y' - _ _ _ e~ ~a -., A _ ^~ ^w V• ^w ~~ ~/~ V• L A U C1. i N (6 [j'_ N a-+ C O LL a-.F N m a~ c~ z • Q rrrr^ ^... ^ V~ i L U fll a a~ C~ cu c Q J .w-~ N a~ a • r~ l~ tU v N C1. L tll Z3 c~ N t+7 C ~O J .~ N {~} • O N .~ .~..~ 4i ~? ~7 .~ N t~ 4a `~ L r . r; ;,`. Y ~. L /~~ I.L d-~+ • • ~ ~ O O N ^ ~. 0 a~ • 0 0 c~ ._ w t ~ O Z . r ~r ~+ C Q. O d D rrRR V~ ~rl~ a~ w~ ~~ ...- ,~ _~-- ,' °r~ y 4 A^ti, ~ ~ rt n ~.` i5 t7 _ I ~ ~ ~ psi°t in d~ yk i`~~ ~7~,'y'~g ~~n" ~;`~ ~4 4 ~ ~`: 'f, a~} ~1 ~ '` t t ~ ~~{;~gxi s 7 t i 1 ~ , `.1. . ~` .. "~: :q~: ~~. Yjya ~ ,. ~~ i :r ~ x , ~._ ~}~_; i•'°~i„ ~ ~ O O N ._ L ,~..~ 4i Q~ C~ X37 .... .~ W •~ ~; ; ~ ~d ~f: s fa i ~ ~ !g ~ 6 ~I #~ o---- - _~.. ~._ _ c~-- - i ~- ~~ - a- a_ a-.__ - C'r- - tw~r~ ww ~8~ua~ a ua~a~uo;y p~A :~ ~ i g s ~" ~ g ~ # __,~,w. __. -..._.. ~~ y,~ -- . __ _. ., o- - c~-._. _ a- - a---- - a--- - I 1 o--- - ~--- - ~. I ~ a--- I l ~_ I -6-- ~, C f ~---- - -- I 1 ~~ 1 t ~ ~ ~ ~. ~=,::.~...~.1.: t y y O w.srca ~~ 4~~ ~. fi ~,. ~~d ~~ e ~ ~ ,._..e _. I 1 ~__ 1 ~__ ~ __-- ~ ~ ., I _ -- ____ ,~-~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ C] MEMORANDUM TQ: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 11, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive/l,ot 1$, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. {PEC05-0047} Applicant: Robert Stephenson, Jr. and John Schofield, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects Planner: Bill Gibson SUMMARY • The applicants, Robert Stephenson, Jr. and John Schofield, represented by Snowdon & Napkins Architects, are requesting a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks and Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley DrivelLat 18, Block 3, Vail Village Idling 1. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, ~++~ith conditions, of the setback variance request and denial of the GRFA variance request subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST On June 20, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission review the applicants' proposal to construct a garage addition and widen the driveway for Units 18A (Stephenson} and 1813 {Schofield}; plus construct a new entry, elevator, and bedroom addition and a new exterior stair case for Unit 18A. This previous proposal required variances from the setback, site coverage, and GRFA standards of the Two-Family Residential District. Since that meeting, the applicant has amended the proposal and withdrawn the site coverage variance request. The applicant is now proposing to enlarge the existing three car garage to the west to create a four car garage {two spaces per dwelling unit} and to construct an elevator addition to Unit 18A. The proposed bedroom addition has been eliminated and the proposed enclosed entry has been amended to be an unenclosed 4-foot entry roof overhang. The applicant is still proposing to waders the existing driveway and construct a new exterior stair from the driveway to the third-floor entry to Unit 18A, The praposed garage addition to Units 18A and 186 is counted as site coverage and as GRFA garage deduction and encroaches into the required 20 foot front setback by 2 '/2 feet. The proposed garage requires Planning and Environmental Commission approval of a variance from the setback standards. The amended entry roof overhand no longer counts as GRFA or site coverage, and no longer requires the approval of any variances from the zoning standards- The proposed elevator for Unit 1$A counts as both site coverage and, per Town Cade, three stories of GRFA {i.e. level 1 -garage level, level 2 w mechanical level, and level 3 - living level}. Per the International Residential Code (i.e. building code} the elevator cab must be enclosed in a shaft. The elevator must be separated from the garage and can not be considered as part of the GRFA garage deduction. The proposed elevator requires Planning and Environmental Commission approval of a variance from the GRFA standards. The applicant's amended garage/elevator addition now involves a new retaining wall between the drivewayfentry area and the proposed exterior stair. This proposed retaining wail is greater than 13 feet in height and does not comply with maximum fi foot height limit prescribed by the Tawn Code. The applicant must revise the design of this wall and the proposed exterior stair or submit a variance application for future review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. A vicinity map (Attachment A}, site photographs (Attachment B}, a more detailed description of the applicant's request {Attachments C}, and the praposed architectural plans (Attachment D) have been attached far reference. III. BACKGROUND This two-family residence was originally approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board in 1976 and construction was completed in 1978. The structure was constructed with more GRFA than was allowed by zonirLg. Throughout the course of numerous amendments to the Town of Vail's GRFA regulations, this structure has continued to exceed the allowable GRFA limits. Today this structure exceeds the allowable GRFA limits by approximately 1,515 sq. ft. or 21'%. C7n June 20, 2005, the Planning and Environmental ,Commission reviewed the applicants' proposal to construct a garage addition and widen the driveway for Units 18A {Stephenson} and 18B (Schofield}; plus construct a new entry, elevator, and bedroom addition and a new exterior stair case for Unit 18A. This previous proposal required variances from the setback, site coverage, and GRFA standards of the Two-Family Residential District. The Commission was generally supportive of the setback variance request; however, the Commission was less favorable toward the requested GRFA and site coverage variances. The applicant has since amended this .proposal (see Section I above}. . IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Carder of Review: Generally, variance applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Enuironrnental Commission, and then any accompanying design review application will be reviewed by the design Review Board. 2 • Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a variance application, in accordance with Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a variance application. However, the Design Review Board is responsible for the final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of any accompanying design review application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, ar interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission andlor Design Review Board. The Town Counci6 may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission andlor Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Tawn Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial.. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING f~OCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Article 12-6C: Two-Family Residential (R} District (in part) 12-6C-1: PURPOSE: 7"he two-family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single-family or two-family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district, The two-family resrdential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space far each dwelling, commensurate with single- farnilyand fwa-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate sife development standards. 12-6C-S: SETBACKS: !n the R district, the minimum front setback shall .be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feel (15'). 72-6C-8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Dwelling Units. Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permifted an existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feef: B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The fallowing gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall ,be permitted on each site: a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residentia! floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (704) square feet of the fast ten thousand (90, 404) square feet of site area; plus b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) far each one hundred (T 04) square feet of site area aver ten thousand (90,000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet of site area; plus c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (940) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (?5,000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand (30, 400) square feet of site area; plus d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (940) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 72-6C-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (24°ro) of the total site area. Chapter 12-17; Variances (in part} 92-77-7: Purpose. A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: !n order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site ar the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physica! limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost ar inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. VI. SITE Af~ALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation: Current Land Use: Lot Size: 1448 Vail Valley Drive Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley Filing 1 Two-Family Residential Low Density Residential Two-Family Dwelling 21,045 sq. ft. {Q.48 acres} • • • 4 • • Standard AllvwedlReauired Setbacks (min): Front: 2U ft. Sides 15 ft. Rear: 15 ft. Height (max.}: 30 ft./33 ft. Density {max): 2 dwellings GRFA (max): 7,286 sq. ft. Site coverage (max.}: ~ 4,209 sq. ft. Landscape Area (min.}: 12,827 sq. ft. Parl~ing (min.}: 18A (West} 4 18B {East} 3 Existing Proposed 20 ft. 17'!z ft. 29 ft.121 ft. 22 ft.121 ft. 53 ft. na change unknown na change 2 dwellings no change 8,$01 sq. ft. 8,933 sq. ft. (+132 sq. ft.) 3,843 sq. ft. 4,207 sq. ft. (+517 sq. ft.} 4 {2 enclosed} 4 {2 enclosed} 2 {1 enclosed) 4 {2 enclosed} Vll. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Residential Two-Family Residential South: Mixed Use NIA (White River National Forest} East: Residential Two-Family Residential West: Residential Two-Family Residential VIlI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-1~6, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Facfors Reaardin4 Variances: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This prapased addition is associated with a remodeE of an existing residence originally approved by the Design Review Board in 1976 with construction completed in 1978. The applicant is proposing to construct a garage addition that, due to the orientation of the structure to the property line and Vail Valley Drive, encroaches 2'/~ feet into the required 20 foot front setback. In 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a front setback variance to allow far the construction of an additional garage bay to the east of the existing garages. This prapased garage encroached 12.5 feet into the 20 foot setback; however, this addition was never constructed. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed setback variance for this proposed garage addition will not be detrimental to the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This existing residence currently exceeds the allowable GRPA far this site by approximately 1, 515 sq. ft., which is 21 % GRFA than is allowed for other residences in the same zone district. The applicant is proposing the addition of a new elevator that will further increase the non-conformity of this property. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request; the structure wi11 exceed the allowable GRFA by approximately 1,647 sq. ft. This is 23% more GRFA than is alCowed for other residences in this same zone district. Staff does not believe deviations from the GRFA regulations to this degree are in keeping with the bulk/mass and general character of the Twa-Family zone district. Therefore, Staff does not believe the proposed GRFA variance request is in keeping with the bulklmass and general character of the neighboring properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and liiteral interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of thus title without a gran# of special privilege. The applicant is proposing to construct a garage addition that, due to the orientation of the structure to the property line and Va'rl Valley Drive, encroaches ~'/z feet into the required 20 foot front setback. In 1891, the Planning and Environmental Commission. approved a front setback variance to allow for the construction of an additional garage bay to the east of the existing garages. This proposed garage encroached 12.5 feet into the 2D foot setback; however, this addition was never constructed. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed setback uariance is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the Town's development objectives. As the Planning and Environmental Commission has historically approved several similar setback variance requests, Staff does not believe approval of this request will constitute a grant of special privilege. This existing residence currently exceeds the allowable GRFA. for this site by 1,515 sq. ft.; which is 21% more GRFA than is allowed for other residences in the same zone district. The applicant is proposing the addition of an elevator that will further increase the non-conformity of this property. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request; the structure will exceed the allowable GRFA by approximately 1,647 sq. ft. This is 23% more GRFA than is allowed far other residences in this same zone district. Staff does not believe deviations from the GRFA regulations to this degree are in keeping with the bulklmass and general character of the Two-Family zone district and the neighboring properties. Staff also believes approval of the proposed GRFA variance request would be a grant of special privilege. Since this property already exceeds the maximum allowable GRFA, Staff does not believe a further increase is appropriate. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and aiir, distribution of. population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant impact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities, utilities, or light and air in comparison to existing conditions of the site. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the comrnissian deems applicable to the proposed variance. 13. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the foHowina findings _. _. before granfina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. ~. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare., or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the fiollowing reasons: a. The strict li#eral interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b, There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable io the same site of the variance that da not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. ST,fIFF REC0144MENDATIUN Setback Variance The Community Development Department recommends approval, with a condition, of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 92-6C-6, Setbacks, pursuant to Chapter 92- 77, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residentiaf garage addition, located of 7'448 Vai! Valley Drive/Lot 98, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the following condition: 1. "his approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 7 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission finds; ~. The granting of this variance will not consfitufe a granfing of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on ofher properties classified in the Two-Family Residential District. 2. The granfing of this variance will not be detrimenfal to the public health, safely, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The stricf literal interpretation or enforcement of the specify°ed regulation would result in practical di~culfy or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 72, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally fa ofher properties in fhe same district. c. The strict interpretafr'on or enforcement of fhe specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by fhe owners of ofher properties in the same district. Density Control Variance The Community Development Department recommends denial of a variance from Section 12-5C-8, Density Control, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 148 Vail Valley DrivelLot 18, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section Vlll of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmenfal Commission denies fhe applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, pursuant to Chapter 12- 77, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential garage addition, located at 7448 Vaif Vafley Drive/Loft 78, Block 3, Vai! Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: R The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 9. The granting of this variance will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties cfassifred in the Two-Family Residential District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental fo the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious fo properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title ~2; Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b, There are rro exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do nat apply genera!!y to other properties in the same district. c_ The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation .would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. v A TT~h~ Il~r~l~~i Map ~ Architectural Plans 9 r Attachment: ~ n~~ e ~ . '"1 . ° °-~- ti e2 E- ~~f ni8r ~g ~@ 4''3 1M'~~g: I ESQ ~~¢~ ~~~~ ~}e;~~' ~ ~7 yo-~'~~; I ~ S K~ ~$ ~~~Lk ~aM x E ~~ ig`a =.~ YY ES Y yg "~ ata ,~++ / 5' C 2~ ~~A6~e ~ SS` Z6~Cib ~E ~ - Yc ~ g~qd~ ~~i~16C( ~~j~~Yg6 ~ ~ iE ~[p?~aYf~ ~ Iq I O• i Y~. 3 a2 ~.~ •~_~C 3 E'~67 E 5 jV~~9 3 ~Y ~ 4a~9~ '~Yi ~~iE"~ a ~ •@E pps o I~ g 6 °y] a~ ~'g a ~ ~5 ~ ~e~ba ~'~a~~ g~~~° ~~~cF aRhag w ~~ c, E~-a64gri 44y ~'y~q e a r- a ~ ~~ ~ s~iYde P~~&s~ ~~e4~3 SpQ i.$~~ Y ~ O I.t F- q do 1 a 1 4 y IImI II B Ili II Ilt 1''1`` 1} I 3 1~11 1j11 I'4 s e F ~~ ; °a~ ~ e d I n E Y 4 ~? V U GEC ~j ~u~ ~ow F~ u ~~o, a ~~_ o ~ F . 5 O 1 J V 7 OflH~I©'1C)~ `'Il'dA ~hl~ ~•~ a ~'~ ~ . ~~~-~.ri, ~~o~ R~ JNI~I~ ~5.2~1~ ,t3~lbA l[VA £ ~I~0~8 8L .LQ~ ~''"!' °•"'~ Q + 'ad ~5!4~Y~6~!~H~ ~w~s ~tOillaCld 3~N3aIS3a N~QSN3Hd~1S ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~I ,~i T i • • ,~,sq oa y . stinY~~ ~ ~ppxen+S l~~i~ ~3~--° t~N~a~s3a Nam""' ~ ._ ~N~--~~ :.~~ ,.F~ _~,. } _$..~ ~..~ 1 _~ /' "r "' ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~, ~~_ ~~?~~ Ai ~ r ; o ~~ ~ '~ ~ `~ p ._ ~- is;.~~ ,s,v ' -.. , DQ~Q1~.~ ~1~~A I ~iofifL ~~i+l~ ~t-~.~~ ~~~,•..n 'Jf+11'll~ 1S~I1~ A3~~VA ~f'dA ~~ ~I~QlB ~8L lOl Q°~-~~"~'~~ ~ ~~~'~~ei!wa~t+•8uurwHV voww~as t~IOIlIC~a'a' 3~N3dES3t! NOSN3Hd31S ~ ~~~ ,,,,,,,,,,~,,. -- '~ ~ ~~ I~' ~ I 'y (1 R ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ F '~ -- ~ ~ } V' ~ ~ ~ r ~ ` ~: 1 `~J ti ~ ~ t~ L ~yij tl _~., _ n ~;~ s i~-____ o ~. g ~ 2 ~~ { ~"~i 'I I~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,,~ ~- -- - I ~ ~~~.ri~ ~~o~ ~~ ~Oti §[rV(6 OICi N9d '~~d'~BUY~+b' - sui~day pue WpMOUS ~4~ • yn oadaa~o~ `~Eb'n 4P; ~ JNf~f~ ls~f~ x~~-fnn `If11n `~ ~oo-~a 's f. ~o~ ~,~ ~~ ,~/ S¢~4US ~ N©fIIC]Q'o' 33N3UfS321 NOSN3Hd31S ,~,„,,,,,, ~~~ ~, L . 1 I I I I I I i I J i~~ ~, ~r L I~i~i~IV'i ~Y 1 ~`~` ~I ~s.ren~e setae ~~~rn wcra~ra~~ wcc me oa .~,d •s1yaiicp~y. ey~ldg4 pug wprtiuug ;~ Irv ~~ oa~rao~a~'~irrn y~;~,~ d~ ero JNlII~~S~It~A3~ldA"TItIA`£)1a0~8 `8410 ~~~ ~ ~« .~ a NOIl~00a 3~N3a]5321 NOSN~Hd~1S ,~,,,,,, ,r d I ~ ,__ _ 1 all -- - .. I? 00 ~q^ f ~ 1`5 y ~( ~ f \ i ` I ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~p~ ~~ ~I.r ~~ ~- E i • s • This item will be tabled at the meeting. No memo enclosed. 4. A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 2.$, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the boundaries of the study area to include Evergreen Lodge, located at 250 South Frontage Road West, Lot 2, Black 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail, represented by HB Development Company Planner: George Rather • • MEMORANDUM TD: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 11, 2005 SUBJECT: A request. for a final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-3, Amendments, to increase the height limitation for a sloping roof from 48' to 56' in the Public Accommodation zone district; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0035) Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther I. SUMMARY The applicant, Mauriello Planning Group, is proposing a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to increase the height limitation for a sloping roof from 48' to 56' in the Public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Based upon Staff s review of the criteria in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval with modifications to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendment, subject to the findings noted in Section V1 of this memorandum. II. DESCRIRTI~DN t3F THE REQUEST The intent of this application is to amend the building height limitation for development located within the Public Accommodation (PA) zone district. The applicant, Mauriello Planning Group, is proposing a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height., Vail Town Code, to increase the height limitation for a sloping roof from 48' to 56' and for a flat roof from 45` to 63', in the Public Accommodation zone district. Currently, Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Code, limits the maximum allowable height for buildings with sloping roofs to forty-eight feet (48') and forty-five feet (45') for flat or mansard roofs in the Public Accommodation zone district. In order to facilitate the adoption of the proposed text amendment, staff has identified several other amendments which should also be considered for inclusion into an amending ordinance. Each of the additional amendments is described below: The proposed text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, are as follows (deletions are shaven in stril °° tin additions are shown in bold): 12-7A-7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof ar mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed fe~y<-f+de feet-~-5~ fifty three feet (53'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed f~i~h- fee~{4~'} fifty six feet (56'). 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS: Roof, Sloping: A shed, gabled, hipped, ar similar roof form with a pitch of at least one fast of vertical rise aver four feet of horizontal distance measured in the direction of the pitch. Roof, Flat: A roof with a pitch less than one foot of vertical rise aver fear feet of horizontal distance measured in the direction of the pitch. III. BACKGROI~ND The specific building height provision of Section 12-7A-7, Vail Town Code, was originally adopted by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1 g7G. According to Town records, at the time of the original adoption, the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation zone district was 45 feet, regardless of roof type. The maximum allowable building height limitation was amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 37, Series of 198{}. Pursuant to ordinance No. 37, among other revisions, the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation zone district was increased from 45 feet to 48 feet for sloping roofs, and 45 feet for mansard or flat roofs. 1n 1991, the Vail Town Council adopted the DEVELOPMENT CDDE REVISI+~N REPORT. Phase I, "An Assessmenf of the Town of Vaii Zoning Code and Recommendations forAcfion" The purpose of this report was to analyze the regulations prescribed in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and make recommendations for improvements. Upon review of the development standards prescribed for the district, the report recommends amendments to the density control provisions. It makes no reference or recommendations for amendments to the building height standard. In 1999, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1999, which provided for a comprehensive amendment to each of the development standards prescribed for the Public Accommodation zone district with the exception of building height. Amendments to the building height limitation were considered at the time, however, it was determined that the maximum building height should not be amended. In 2003, Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson, proposed a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7 (Height) of the Vail Town Gode, The amendment was intended to increase the maximum allowable building height of structures built in the Public Accommodation zone district from 48 feet to 56 feet far buildings with sloping roofs and from 45 feet to 53 feet for buildings with flat or mansard roofs. Following a warksession discussion with the applicant, the PEC and the Town Council, the applicant withdrew the text amendment application and submitted a development application to establish a special development district (SDD). As a result, SDD #37, Tivoli Lodge, was created. The Tivoli Lodge was approved with a maximum building height of 5fi'. Accordiing to the Official Zoning Map, there are sixteen properties in the Town of Vail zoned Public Accommodation. These properties are generally located around the periphery of the village commercial core area and include the Austria Haus*, Bavaria Haus, Chateau at Vail (Holiday Inn)", Christiania Lodge*, First Bank of Vail, Galatyn Lodge*, Mountain Haus, 9 Vail Road (Holiday House}, Ramsharn Condominiums*, One Willow Bridge Road*, Roast Lodge, Talisman, Tivoli Lodge*, Vail Athletic Club*, Vail Village Inn*, and Villa Valhalla. Of these sixteen properties, nine have received approvals for special development districts or were granted a height variance and have been identified with an asterisk (*). IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council, The Town Council will then review the text amendment application. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-T, Amendment, Vail Town Cade, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible far final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cade. The Tawn Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpreta#ion by the Planning and Environmental Commission andlor Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission andJar Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Cade. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Touvn Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications., or denial V. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria and factors for consideration for a text amendment application are established by the provisions of Section 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code. According to the Vail Town Code, the following review criteria shall be used to evaluate a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations, 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and, Staff believes this text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. The general and specific purposes of the Z©ning Regulations can be found in Chapter ~ of the Title 12 of the Vail Town Cade. According to Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Tawn Cade, the general and specifc purposes of the Zoning Regulations are, "These regulations are enacted for fhe purpose of prarnoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of fhe Town, and to promote the coordr`nafed and harmonious development of fhe Town in a manner that wiN conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. " And, "These regulations are intended fo achieve fhe following more specific purposes: i. To provide for adequate light, air, sanifatian, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulafion and to lessen congestion in the sfreets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-sfreef parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. $. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreafion opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired Living quarters. 17. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community." Upon review of the stated general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations, staff believes that the proposed text amendment complies with the general purpose of the Zoning Regulations and with numbers 1, b, 6, 8, and 11 of the list outlined above. Staff does not believe that the other six specific purposes are directly related to the proposed text amendment. A review of the Town's records indicates that there are sixteen properties in the Town of Vail with a zoning designation of the Public Accommodation {PA}. ©f the sixteen properties, more than one-half {9) have recently undergone some form, of redevelopment. For example, Four Seasons (aka Holiday Inn}, Vail Plaza Hotel, one Willow Bridge Road {aka Swiss Chalet}, TivaG Lodge, Vail Mountain Lodge, etc., have all recently received approvals for redevelopment which included increases in building height over 48 feet. 2. The extent to which the text arnendrnent would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and, Staff believes this text amendment will better implement and achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan by more realistically acknowledging the development trends within the resort community environment. For example, according to the Vail Village Master Plan, Objective 1.2, the Town shall "encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities" and Policy 2.3.1 states, "the development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged." In order to achieve these objectives and policies the Town's regulations must keep pace with changes in the market. Staff believes that in the instance of building height the Town's standards have not kept pace with the changes in the market. For example, a nine foot floor-to-floor section is used in the Vail Village hAaster Plan to determine the allowable number of stories of buildings within the plan area. As demonstrated by the recent redevelopment of the Austria Haus, a nine foot float-to-floor section results in a building containing 7'- B" ceiling heights in areas such as hallways, bathrooms, and ki#chens. These areas contain lower ceilings due to the need to provide for heating, cooling, and venting, In the end, developmen# may meet the technical requirements of the Town's regulations but fails to adequately address the goals, objectives and policies of the Town's master planning documents. The Town's comprehensive planning documents, zoning regulations, and recent development approvals appear to be in conflict with one another. For instance, the Vail Village Master Plan Conceptual Building Height Plan suggests building height in temps of "building stories and defines a "`building story" as "...9 feet of height {no roof r`nciuded). Exact height restrictions will be determined 6y zoning.n However, the Town has acknowledged the need for taller "Building stories" {ie, Lionshead} and granted approval of projects with floor to floor heights of 11 feet. Given that nine development applications have been approved by the Town for redevelopment projects within the Public Accommodation zone district in the recent past, it could be reasonably inferred that these approvals met the development objectives of the Town. Ali nine of these approvals exceeded the maximum height limitation prescribed in the Public Accommodation zone district. With the issue of precedence set aside, each of these projects was reviewed for compliance with factors such as impact an building bulk and mass and the effects that may have on the character of the area, impacts on the availability of light and air to surrounding uses, impacts on sunlshade on adjacent properties and public spaces, impacts on views from public spaces and established view corridors, impacts on the enclosure of streets and spaces between buildings, and impact on the urban design cansiderakions with respect to the height of roof eaves and overhangs and the presence of flat roofs and parapet walls. 3. The extent to which the tex# amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and haw the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and, Staff believes that the existing maximum allowable building height limitation is outdated and in need of amending due to changes in conditions. within the resort development industry. The existing height limitation is over 2~ years old and may na longer be appropriate or applicable in today's resort community environment. A review of the most recent redevelopment approvals granted by the Tawn of hail illustrates a need to increase the maximum building height al6owance in order to achieve the Town's development objectives. With the exception of the Sonnenalp Hotel addition, no development or redevelopment project located in the Public Accommodation zone district complies with the 48 foot maximum building height limitation. As was discussed at length during the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan process, industry standards and guest expectations far lodging units have increased since the Public Accommodation development standards were adopted. Two-hundred fifty square foot roams with seven and one- half foot ceilings no longer meet the expectations of our resort guests. In response to these changes in standards and expectations, an increase in floor-to-floor sections was factored into the determination of the maximum allowable building height standard in the Lionshead Mixed Use-i zone district. A ten foot to eleven foot floor-to-floor building section has become the norm in the hotel development industry. When four stories of buildings with eleven foot floor-to-floor sections are constructed with a sloping roof of approximately twelve feet in height, the resulting building exceeds 48 feet (4 stories X ~ 1 foot floor sectr"on + 12 fool roof freight = 56 feet]. An increase in maximum allowable building height to 56 feet better accommodates the needs and expectations of the resort. development 6 industry and addresses the change in conditions since the last amendment was adopted in 1984. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and, According to the Official Tawn of Vail caning Map, properties zoned Public Accommodation are generally located around the periphery of the village commercial care area. Further, the Vail Land Use Plan designates the village commercial core area as "Vail Master Plan'; Pursuant to the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Master Plan designation indicates the Village Care Area where development and growth is guided by the goals, objectives and policies as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan (adopted November 18, 198fi). An exception to the general spatial location of the Public Accommodation zone district around the periphery of the village commercial core area is the Roost Lodge. The Roost Lodge is located at 1783 North Frontage Road. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the Roost Lodge has a land use designation of "Medium Density Residential ". Staff believes this text amendment will ensure a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with the Town's development objectives. While it is true that the absolute height of buildings located in the Public Accommodation zone district will increase by 8 feet or 16%, the increase will likely have minimal impacts an adjoining land uses. Past redevelopment approvals have demonstrated that the increase in height granted as a result of a variance approval or a special development district approval did not necessarily result either an increase in density or site coverage, or a reduction in landscape area or setbacks. The recent approval of the Tivoli Lodge is an example of where an increase in building height to fifty six feet did not result in substantial impacts to the remaining development standards of the zone district. VI. STAFF RECOMMI=NDATIQN The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval with modifications to the Vail Tawn Council of a proposed text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height, and Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, to increase the height limitation for a sloping roof from 48' to 56' in the Public Accommodation zone district, to define the terms "sloping roof' and "flat roof', and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council of a proposed Text amendment, pursuant to Section 92-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cade, to Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to increase the height limitation for a sloping roof from 48' to 56' in the public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Punning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following f~~tdings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V this memorandum, and fhe evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: ~. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vai! Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-7-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code; and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and genera! welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of fhe Town in a manner that conserves and enhances ifs natural environmenf and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " • ~~ c~ U LJJ kl ~ U v?~ ~o~ ~~ ~ m a ~t 'I~ _ O o ~~~o o -' ~ o • • ,z ~~ ~~o Q ~ ~~ ~~ ~= ~zW /'`~ eJ[ ^~ LJ {„) L..~.w O J LI') Q ~° 1'~ W Q t~ Jr o 0 4 n ;m, u 2 \~ f ~- z Q 1 ~~ `. a ~ o .;. ,~~ ~,, :.~ ..;.. Q _ ~ ., ~~ .- „ ,:~ ._, ,. ~a o i *~:: `~ ` ~L ~\ U `` ~ .y . ^ ~~,` ,, • • • [.L r~ \J ~r r~ V J 0 <- ~o r- J Q Cn w r a~ C~ .~ )~' .~ ~p ~~ a LU ] CO _1 SCALE: ;/4"=1'-~1"' ~' TQ AGGOMMQD~TE= 5TFZ4JG$EJfZF= B M~GH. ~ ~ INTERIOR SECTION 4 O __ - , ~~ ~ii ~ ~~ • MEM~QRANDUM TO; Planning and Environmental Commission FRC)M: Community Development Department DATE: Jufy 11, 20{15 SUBJECT; A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6©-f, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition within the front setback, located at 2608 Arosa Driveftot 2, Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. {PEC05-0027} Applicant; Brenda and Steve Herman, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner; Warren Campbell SUMMARY The applicants, Srenda and Steve Herman, represented by Mauriello Planning Group LLC, are requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction of a garage within the front setback, located at 2608 Arosa Drive/Lot 2, Block D, Vail ridge Subdivision. The requested variance is the result of a proposal to construct an addition to an existing duplex structure which includes the combination of the two units into asingle-family structure and the construction of a garage within the front setback. Staff is recommending approval with conditions of the requested variance as a practical difficulty or hardship exists and approval of the variance would not constitute a granting of special privilege to this property owner. II. DESCRtPTIQN (7F REQUEST AND BACKGRQUND The applicant is requesting a setback variance in order to construct a new garage within the 20-foot front setback a distance of 8 feet 7 inches creating a front setback of 11 feet 5 inches. There are currently two dwelling units on the site both owned by the applicant with one of the units being rented to tenants. Apart of the overall proposed addition to the home is to eliminate one of the dwelling units and create a single-family structure. The applicant is proposing to construct a 744 square foot garage of which 187 square feet. are located within the front setback. The existing structure and lot are non-conforming in several aspects, First the lat is smaller than the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet far primarylsecondary zoned properties. In addition, there are existing improvements associated with the applicant's structure which are located on the neighboring property which include a small portion of the applicant's driveway and a flight of stairs which lead down the east side of the structure to the of an existing second dwelling unit on the property. The existing home on the site was completed in 1979 under Eagle Countyjurisdiction. The property was annexed into the Tawn of Vail by {Ordinance 26, Series of 1986, which became effective on October, 21, 198fi. Other than remodels and regular maintenance, this home I has not been altered from its original constnrction. A vicinity map depicting the location of the residence is attached for reference (attachment A}. Reduced copies of the proposed site plan and elevations are attached for reference (attachment B} as is the written request from the applicant (attachment C} and the public notice which preceded the request (attachment Q). III. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES The PEC is responsible far evaluating a proposal for: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approvaUdenial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship ofi the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of speciai privilege, 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has no review ,authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of the Design Review Board or the Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Gouncil or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the DRB or PEC erred with approvals or denials, and may uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect #o the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process, IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Zoning Regulations Section 12-2 Definitions SETBACK: The distance from a lot or life Line, creek or stream measured horizontally fo a line or location within fhe fof or site which establishes the. permiffed Iocafion of uses, structures, or buildings on the life. Secfion 12-6G--9 Primary/Secondary district (in part) 12-6D-B: Setbacks: In the prr'rnarylsecondary residential district, fhe minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (2©), fhe minimum side setback shat! be fifteen feet (15;1, and fhe minimum rear setback shall 6e fifteen feef (15'} (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) Section 92-'t T Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSI=: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: Ln order fo prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsstenf with the objectives of this fifle as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, varr`ances from certain regulations maybe granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the Location of existing structures fhereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physics! Iimifations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience fo the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulatr'on shall not be a reason for granting a variance. 12-17-5: PLANNILVG A1VD ELVVLRONMENTAL COMMLSSLON ACTION: CJ Within twenty (20} days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance applicafion, fhe planning and environmental commission shall act on the applicafion. The commission may approve fhe application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary fo accomplish fhe purposes of Phis title, or fhe commission may deny the applicafion. A variance may be revocable, maybe granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. 12-17-7': PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT: Approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is naf obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two (2) years from when the approval becomes fr`nal. V, ZONING ANALYSIS Address/L.egal: 2fi08 Arflsa DriveLLot 2, Block D, Vail ridge Subdivision Zoning: Two-Family Primary/Secondary Devel©©ment Standard AllowedLReauired Lot Area: 15,000 sq. fl:. Prooased 14,374 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 2D ft. 11 A feet Sides: 15 ft. 16.5 feeU18 feet Rear: 15 ft. 65 feet Building Heigh#: 33' 33' GRFA: 6,262 sq. ft. 4,769 sq. ft. Site Goverage: 2,874 sq. ft. {2D%) 2,47D sq. ft. (17.2%} Landscape Area: 8,624 sq. ft. ~6D%} 9,937 sq. ft. X69.1 %} Parking: 4 spaces 6 spaces VI. 'SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Residential Primary/Secondary South: Residential PrimarylSecondary East: Residential PrimarylSecondary 1Nest: Residential PrimaryfSecandary VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Gonsideration of Factors Regardin4 the Setback and Parkin4 Location Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This fat is located in a neighborhood with lot sizes ranging from approximately 12,D00 to 14,DDD square feet. Many Names in the neighborhood are constructed with approved variances aHawng encroachments into the setbacks. The loco#ions of several of these variances are: Lot 4, Block Q, Vail Ridge - 2848 Arose Drive -which has the duplex located within 1 D.5 to 15 feet of the front setback, Lot 1, Block D, Vail Ridge - 2586 Arose Drive -which has a detached garage with GRFA on the second level located within 8 to 16 feet of the property line. Lot 9, Block D, Vail Ridge - 2627 Arasa Drive -which has the home located at a zero front setback due to slopes averaging 32%. Lat 16, Block B, Vail Ridge - 2699 Davos Trail -which has a structure located 11.9 feet from the property line. This particular applicant's site has slopes exceeding 45% in the southern par#ion of the site. As well the locat%on of Arose Drive within. the right-of-way creates a large distance between the edge of pavement and the property line, 1D feet. The distance from the proposed garage encroachment to the 4 edge of pavement is 23 feet at the closest point. Staff does not believe that the requested setback variance will have any negative impact on the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing conditions of the site and location of Arosa Drive within the right-of-way in conjunction with the setback variances granted in the past far neighboring properties will allow this property to be treated equally in regards to other properties in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relie# from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. While staff believes the granting of this variance request will not be a grant of special privilege as other properties in the vicinity have been granted setback variances far similar situations, staff believes there are things which should be done to provide the minimum relief necessary. Currently the width of the proposed garage is 24 feet with an 1$-fact garage door. Staff believes that the width of the garage should be reduced to 22 feet with an 1$-foot garage door which will reduce the encroachment to 6 feet 7 inches at its worst location which. equates to a (rant setback of 13 feet 5 inches. In addition, staff believes there are potentially other design options which could eliminate ar reduce the need for an encroachment variance. 1=ar instance leaving a one car garage in the location of the current garage would eliminate the need for any encroachment even while constructing a new two car garage. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have {ittle, if any, negative effect an these issues. The proposal will reduce the bulk and mass of the structure on the rear of the site where slopes increase to 40% and greater. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following flndinps before granting a variance: 1 _ That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following 5 reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifed regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c, The strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. '11111. STAFF RECQMMENQATiON The Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions of the request for a variance from Section 12-fiQ-~, Setbaelts, Vai! Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition within the front setback, located at 2608 Arosa DrivelLot 2, Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision. Based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented as well as the findings listed below, staff recommends that, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the application, that the following findings be made a part of the motion: 1. That the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, 2. That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. 4. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Staff recommends that, should' the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the application, that the following condition be made a part of the motion: 1. That the applicant reduce the width of the proposed garage from 24 feet to 22 feet in width which will be reflected in the plans to be submitted for design review. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Plans C. Applicant's Request L7, Publication Notice 7 c7 t-- e LhLtFLd9i6 1 ~ ~ I d { 1EdY i76~fl[d ~ LS91903'Lr?A ~ tE9lB O~,r.-'w. w~W ~wV9f ] AL '., t~ I~ IYfl~iuHdddK { ~ r 1 uai}~~~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •au~ •dous u6~sap ddu~ aauap~say uaua~aH ~ w~ ~. . ~ ~gQba ~ o ~.~aa - /'~ N L V ~ O -" L ~° ~m~ try u, m ~~ XF fl.l II ,~ ~'~~~ f~# ~~~~ ~~~ ~ha~~ ~7~ c a L ~ry, V C (] '~ Q ~~ ~ Q) ~} Q ~ ~.e ~ r~ ~ ~a~ ~~W ~ oc~[5~ ~ ° ~ n~~~~~ i3 °aa ~ ~1'~ ~~-°OtSdd ~©Q~Q~o~ ~ `~ = > I m • Attachment: B ZIZP9Z(r(I[d 1 I~..~ ~ ~ IESt~06£t1t6 ~ LS91803'II~A ~ Zf4IS D~'SP+phP3 eyq ~+Y 909E ~ r ce~I7Ogrvn°,~e>hw~,ea~ uaf~!171]b' ~ ~ t~ ~ •au~ 'days u6isap ddua aaua~RSa~ uaw~aH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~y II 1 ~y I ~~ ''~ ~ ____~ - t' I `-- ! ' --- - I r ~_ c I II 11 ~~` 9 k~! ~~-41 _ '{ IE ~ I~ ~~ \ P] 2 FII 4 ~~ ` I v y ~~ I ~ ~~` `, x k 1 ®g y e`'' G h ~ \~ 5 ~ n~~ ~` ~ ppi ~ g ~9. ,~ , , ~,,;~ ill R~\ , t t ttttt K'~. K t 8 8 9 8 9 9 9; ~ 9 i $ ~ #iB~~ ~~' ~ y Z i R < ~ aa E ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ll I o°, ~ ~~ ' `` I~ ` / • - ~ / ~~ ! +. .w y M1 ~ ' I I I ! ! ~II ~ ~I{ , d ~ . 4 ~ r! I r ~ l! ~~~ : , ~, ! / J , ^~ !r r ! f f 1 ! ! ra ~ If ~ ~! ! I !~ I 1 ~I j ~ 1 ' I ' S' I! ! r i ~ r !r II II I ' 4 ~ I r ~ o o ' i ' ! , < , ~ b ,~ ,~ ! / ~ 1 J p ! 1 !f / !! '~ ~ ; I ~ ~u / / ~ jlp 1 !} % ~ ! ! If! ~ a l 4N ~ !i ~ '~! I 1 ! -V~'~RLw I ,! ~ ~'' !! , / I ~~ ~ ! ~ ! ~ 11 1 1~/! /! ! ~ !!' r ~ I J r ! !!r 1 f I !! 11 r' ~ !! 1 ! ! / ! 1 !I ! If !r ~ ~ ! / , i ~ ~ / I14 r ref -r._i !' I !' i' r` / i ~ ~`~ ~ t ~ ~~ ~,~ ~ ! I `-~~ ", - ~! r I! I j ~ Ir i / 4 I ~ ~ I i ~ 1 ~ O4 ~ I ~ i ~ I f LIA9L6 Q[d J LEdt'06C0C6 ~ [5949 d' "AA L£914 pJ '~P+~P3 nr.Np ~h' 409E ca->roe oa ~ ppb' 18L°j+wn ro ~+t~u 66dK u01 I ~au~ •doys u63sep dd~u aauap~sa,~ upu.uaH _~ o \~ ,,~ __~__ -- ~~~ _ 4. -- --°__ -_ 538`04'05'E - - ;~~ . /~ ~ ~=~ ter. ~~ C 1 \\ bM ~ ~ ~~ ~ \ i - .:..~ I Sry~ ~ ~ d a g: l ~ ~ ~~ I i ~ r ~ r ~ ~~ hp ' 1 ! ,F M3. I I I I -er I~ E~, a r-;-~ ~ r ~ t r;~';" rf ~ i r -,.--: ~~~ ~i I ! E ~ ~ r ~~ i I ~Id Q ~~ ,~ ;i ~~~ l~ ` ~ ~• ~ ` ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ --~y.-~_. - ` I ~ ~~ o~~~ fj~ Fl~~ Irv I ; IID ~ ~~ I4 I ~' ~~ ~~~ ~ i. I_ ~i II~=~ ~ C E ;~ ~ I ~ ref • ! ~. I ~ 'I / ~ ! ~ 1 ~+ ! r ~ i ,, ,, ~I ,~ t f .. ~~ - J~,._ - LILF9Ld~f6 J ~ S ~ ' ~ ILE9180~~W~p3 lS41B 07 '1,aA CC ~ r RZY >~9 Dd aNq osaY4D9L ios~ iNn's ~+aar+dddts ~ ~au~ 'cloys u6isap ddua aauapisay u~~aH ~!e ~ d~~ ~ ~ • • ~~ L;SVfiL6~it6 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i- iEar-casts ~ tS9190J'iPn i ~"~ ,r L£A IB~7"rs'+~/~3 aµq a~HB09L •~u~ •doys u6isap ddw eauaprsaa upua~~H ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 9 9 9999 9 1 >'7 5 90 i '~~~~~~E~ I~ I ~ ~' I I _ _, I -~ r RBI +~''~`-k ' \ _~ / ~4!~" ~ ~ ~ ~ _ \ I ~o. .a' ~'~~,~ ~..~r (~~ Ilf ~_. redt.w.~.. I4_~~_~?`_` \~``, ~_~rr~ ~• ~n I E ~ 1 / fj ~I9-` r' ~ +.` II \ _ • p rlrY r~r+I lAl'/ f~ • ~' k `S ~ ~ ^ 'r S I ~i~ I` ~ ~ l ~r r tt +••• 1 k ~i \~~{ 3a •~~ • f r I '• SiP ~~'~ I 3 1 r', t 3 p ~ Q R ~`' ' N1~ ~' ` / ` I , I /'r S•rrr r~r rlI ~.if I `~` ~I II rf rrr II' 'rr ~ ~N I _ rtJr~ ~ ~I~'`r~' ' ff 'r' r I! ri'•~i •r i~~. ~_ ~. I f r/ _~_~__ ~'~ r' R' rr I / ~ ~g~ 1 1~ t f rN;7.. .2'~7 Wr'~5a5,64'_~~"~r~-+~ / i r'+ '; F• I I ~~ r ~~ ~~- r i a I I i I i I ~ ~~ r r ~' '_- I I r ~ ' r I I , I I I I '{. 1 I ~/ I I i I / II I y ~ ' f S I /~ 1 I ~ ~ Y I I • • ZlZ49Z8{i16 1 Ifdt~6C-Q(6 7 LC91b CYJ's~arK*3 ~~» 1~9;NIl "9 XuM~IFI abarc '~U~ 'dOuS U~Ifi2p CICIUJ \y-`y~ r\ ~wrp t` ~ I ~ ~+ l ~'~` , - ~~a 111% rye- ~I -' ! I ~, i % ~~ _ ~ -- -_p-~_- - -: .~ 1 l A I '% V ~ "*~- ~. ~~~ ~ ~~ ~$~` ------~ .~~~~ [5919 OJ LoA ~~~Z uoi~iPP`d aauapisa~ Uou.uaH `, 538'09'05"E . - 1 ~" d 1 V ~ _ ~+ ' / ! ~ I r ,'lam J`t s~'- ' p t~ ~ 8 ~~/ / ~~' 1~ 1 1 / 111 : ~Y-r- J . e ..............................M1 !{ l I I ~I ~ ~~ ~ tl fo ~~ • ~~~ - ` s , ` ~i~ ~~ ~ ~ ~\,' ~~~ 3ZS '~. ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~ s 1 A ~1 ~~ `~-_ :! ~rggqqqq////// - ^ YF~~i. L.Lr-At60{4 ! I£'eY-i74C 0C6 ~ X91¢ C3'#W~'W3 LLZh m9 dd lOL9 3.x11'4 R~^~IGH 64dK '~U~ 'C'~OlRS U~IS2~J K~C~UJ L591B O7'E~R oMKI ~"~^/ 909E UOI.}I~~t/ a~uep~sa~ u~i~u~aH H ~~ h ~.. \~ ~~ ~~ ~ r as a ~~ \. '. \~ ~..__ • Herman Residence Owners: Brenda and Steve Herman April 200 Attachment: C Maurel[o Rlanning Group I, introduction and Summary of fZec~uest The owners of this home ~n West Vail, Brenda and Steve Herman, are requesting a front setback variance to allow atwo-car garage addition to be made to the existing home located at 260f3 Arosa DrEVe. Portwons of the garage addition are located within the required front setback along Arosa E?r~ve. This home was constructed m l `~79 under l=agle County's jurisdiction and was later annexed to the Town of Vail. The site currently contains two dwelling units, both under the same ownership, but the proposed home is aSingle-family residence. The home was originally constructed with a very small one--car garage located on the east side of the Structure constructed very close to the side setback. The home was constructed well w~th~n setbacks, yet towards the front end of the lot leaving a large pardon of the site inaccessible. I-Ierm~ The Herman's are proposing a remodel of the home which includes providing a new Interior stairway to connect the second downstairs dwelling unit with the main unit, a new front entry to the home, an expanded master bedroom on the main level, and a new two-car garage. All of the proposed uses and floor area is we'll within the Remits allowed by Town Code. In fact the Site allows 6,300 sq. ft. of GRFA and only 4,557 sq. ft. (a substantial amount of the Gl2PA ~s vaulted space) ~s bung proposed on the site. Herman Residence Maurtiello Planning Group, I.LC This home, Ike many others m the neighborhood, was originally developed with inadequate garage facilities. The Plannang and ~nv~ronmental Commission has consistently granted variances for the add~t~on of garages within the s,de and front setbacks. Add~t~onally, there are several homes in the vicinity that are constructed at 10.5' from the property line as detailed in section l11 of this report. The proposed garage as located to the lagscal lacat~on for a garage on this property due to the location of the existing home on the s+te. The proposed variance will allow the garage to encroach approximately 7.5' into the setback on the east end of the garage to approximately 8.5' into the setback on the west end of the garage. C-ue to the location of the Arosa ©r~ve within the Town's right-- of-way, the prr~po5ed garage addition is never located closer than ~2' from the edge of street pavement. There is a legitimate hardship due to the location of the existing home on this lot and the Town's promotion of enclosed parking, A precedent has been established by bath ex~stmg homes and the Planning and Environmental Gamm~ss~on with respect to garage add ~taons located in setbacks as documented in this report which we believe gives the Planning anal Environmental Commission power to grant the requested setback variance. II. Staff RecQmmend~tions Prior to Subm~t~al Prior to submittal of the appl~cat~on, the Town staff was consulted on the proposal. The previous design included approximately 3C7a sq~ ft. of garage space within the front setback. The area within the front setback was also a two Story building form mim~ck~ng the architecture an the existing home. Town staff recommended lowering any building encroachment tin the front setback to a one-story building farm and reducing the floor area within the franc setback. The plans that are now proposed reflect the changes recommended by Town staff, The area where the garage encroaches into the setback has been reduced to approximately 187 sq. ft. and the building form has been modified to a one story shed form m the front setback. Merman residence 2 Mauriell© Planrnng Group, LLC ~. Edge of Asphalt r ~,~ '~ r ~„ 20' Setback fine ` 1 -_ ~, ~ a ! `. a r ~ r •_ f ~'~ r +~ ~ f ~ i I ~ r J ~\ ~~ { ~ ` ~, ,a ~ ~s~`Q' eur +Hc ~~A~~ ~ r ~ > > ~~ ~ ~ f \ 1 r ~__ zf°~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ n ~ N 4 \c~ v `. ~r ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~-. ~ `-~ Area of Encroachment Q~~ I ~ ~r, ~yO,_ ~ 2 ~s ~$,'~+ F3, I r 1 ~ ~i .*' r _u ~ ~ '$,~ ; ~ ~~ 'I ---- ,~ ~ r- I r 1 r r i i r r i ~ r ~~ f ~~ t 4 ~- -'. i ., ~f ' / `` ~~~~ f f~~ i i ilW i f I0° ~r ~ ° r ~n rr ©i~ ~' ~ u, 1 / Proposed Site Plan _ ~. ~~ ~ 'x °'t ~'S47 27'00 W .- - - ,~;a~~xi ~-~ i i r ~~ I • Merman I~e~idence. 3 Mauriello F'lanninr~ Group, LLC Area Removed from Setback per Staff ecommendation ~~ ~, +~ I~ ~~,` ,` ~; ~ a s5~_~.. r '~ //' 1 47, V ~ 1 vl~ 71 ~~ ` 7940 -' ~! ~' ~~e d --~---- i i 1 ~~R - -- ..+ ' ~ -- - I / ~ w r `~ I j^;, Main Level Floor Plan ~~ ==:- i i i ~,, ~~,~, i i i i ~:~.a~- - -~j~-~--- -.1_.. __ .i ____.~;_._.1_ __ __._._._._.__. i i i i i Area in Setback West Elevation Herman ~e5idence 4 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC III. Precedent Sett~n Variance A roval5 9 pp There has been several setback variances approved by the Planning and Environmental Gommrssron ~n the past for garage additions rn this neighborhood and throughout the Town. The following rs a list of a few examples of such setback variances approved by the PEG: • Setback Varrance (200 l) -Lot 6, Block ~, Vail Intermountarn, 2955 Bellflower Dr. The PEC approved a varrance to allow a front setback of 9' and a side yard. setback of 9.5' for a garage and GRFA addition.. * Setback Varrance -Lot 4, Black 6, Vail Intermountarn, 2943 Bell#Iawer Dr. The .PEG approved a varrance allowing a front setback of ! 3". • Setback Varrance -Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Intermountarn, 2963 Bellflower Dr. The PEC approved a varrance allowing a front setback of 6' and side setback of G.4' . • Setback Varrance -Lot 9, Block 6, Varl Intermountarn, 3003 Bellflower Dr. • The PEG approved a varrance allowing a front setback of 15.5' for a garage and storage area, • Setback Varrance -Lot 6, Block 8, Varl Intermountarn, 2925 BaSrngdaie Ln. The PEG approved a varrance allowing a front setback of 13' . • Setback Varrance -Lot 8, Black 8, Varl Intermountarn, 2942 l3ellf{awer Dr. The PEC approved a varrance allowing a front setback of G' and side setback of 6.4' . • Setback Varrance (I 992) -Lot 7, Varl Village 9~" Frlrng, 898 iced Sandstone Grr. The PEC approved this setback variance to allow a 2-car garage and GRFA addition to be constructed rn the front and srde setbacks. The garage rs located 17' from front property line and I O' from the srde property Irne. • Setback Varrance (I 992} -- Lot 5, Bighorn Estates, 4238 Nugget Lane The PEC approved a srde and front setback variance to allow 2-car garage and GRFA addrt+on. The garage was approved at I 'from the front property line. • Setback Varrance (I 993}- Lot 19, Block A, Varl Das Schone I ~t Frlrng - 2409 Chamonix Lane Berman Residence 5 Mauriello Planning Grain, LLC The PEG approved a setback variance allowing a garage addition in the front setback. A 2-car garage was allowed at 2,5' from the front property lane and 13' from the side property I~ne. 11f. Uther Homes In Ne~ghbarho©d with Front Setback Encroachments Item numbers refer to locations on the foliow~ng map. Lot 4, Bock D, Vail Ridge, 248 Arosa Drive Thes duplex (Bask~ns/Boatman) as constructed, ~s located within 10.5' to 1 5' of the property line alone Arosa l7rive. 2. Lot 1 ,Block d, Vail ledge„ 258G Arosa Dnve This home (Gleveland/Langenwalter), as constructed, has a detached garage with GRFA above located up to ! 6' from the front property line to the wall of the building and up to 8' from the front property I,ne to the second level deck and stags. Portions of this garage are also located I Q' from the sEde property lme. 3. Lot 9, Block C, Varl Ridge, 2627 Arosa [7rfve This home {Slinkman) was allowed a ©' front setback due to the slopes averaging 32°Io. 4. Lot ! C, Block B, Vail Ridge, 2699 Davos Trail This home (Oberlohr) is located I 1 .9' from the front property line. 1lerman Residence ~ Maur~elle Planning Group, LLC 1lerman Residence Maur~ello Planning Group, LLG • • • V. Zoning Analysis Zoning: P15 Two-Fam71y Residential District Lot Size: 14,493.32. s~. ft. Standard Allowed/Rerauir~ed F.ac~stina Density: 2 DU's 2 DU's GRFA: G,3Q7.46 sf 3,357 sf Garage Area: I ,20Q sf 276 sf Building Height: 33' 3 1 ' Site coverage: 2,898.G6 sf (20%} 1 ,357.34 sf Landscaping: Setbacks: Front: W. Side ~. Side: Rear: Parking: 1'ronosed I DU 4,557 sc~. ft. 744 sf (144 sf GRFA) n/c 8,95.98 sf (6d%} I 1 ,759 sf (8 I %) 10,339 sf (7 I %} 20' 27.5' f 3' to I O' f 5' 33' f 6.5' f 5' 16' I G' (no change} 15' G4' ~4' (no change) 3 spaces 3 spaces 4 spaces Herman Residence Maur~ello Punning Group, LLC 8 11/. Approval Criteria The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures ~n the v~cin~ty. Gur Analvs~s: The proposed variance will allow the construction of a 2-car garage. There are many other homes located within the Vail Ridge Subdivision that exist today with garages or living areas located within the front Setback. Several of these encroachments exist as a result of var,ances approved by the Town of Vail. The proposed garage addition ~s con5~5tent with other existing homes within the neighborhood, The proposed encroachments are located in the only logical location on the lot due to the location of the existing home. 2. The degree to which relFef from the strict or literal enterpretation and enforcement of a Specified regulatpon is necessary to achieve compatibGlGty and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of th~S title without grant of Special privilege. Our AnalvSiS: The proposed variance wil[ allow an adequate two-car garage to be constructed for this duplex home. The variance will create cons~Stency and uniformity of treatment with other homes developed ~n the neighborhood. The PAC has consistently allowed setback variances for garage improvements to be located in the front Setback when no other reasonable location was available on the lat. The proposed garage is not located in any Sgde setback therefore allowing adequate Space to adjacent neighbors on either 5rde. The proposed variance is not a grant of 5pec~al privilege as many other homes in the neighborhood enjoy the ability to have garages and living area constructed in the 5etbacll. 3. The effect of the requested variance on I~ght and air, distrGbution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public faalitieS and ut~l~t~es, and public safety. fur Analv5~5: The proposed variance has I~ttle, +f any, effect on the above listed Issues, Herman ~es~dence ~ Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ~i T~~ ~~ YAIL TH[5 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 12-3-6, Vail Tawn Cade, vn June 'i3, 20a5, a# 2:Ofl pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, .Vail Town ~1 Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the ~ construction of a garage addition within the front setback, located at 2648 Arosa ~ ~n~ DrivelLot 2, Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. ~~"'~ Applicant: Brenda and Steve Herman, represented by Maurieilo Planning Group, ~1'~ LLC Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-3, Amendments, to increase the height limitation for a sioping roof from 48' tv 66' in the Public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Maurieilo Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruttier A request for a final review of a variance from Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to, Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, tv allow for a retaining wall in excess of 3 feet in height located in the front setback, located at 1837 Alpine DrivelLot 49, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Seven Vails, Inc., represented by David Flinn Planner: Elisabeth Eckel A request fora final review of a variance from Section 12-6G-7, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant ;to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a sbping roof which exceeds 38' in height, located at 1040 Vail View DrivelLot B2, Lions Ridge Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Snow Lion Condominium Association Planner: Matt Gennett A request for final review of a variance from Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for retaining walls in excess of six (6) feet in height, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision and Unplatted Parcels, a more complete metes and bounds description is available at the Community Development Department and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson Attachment: D Ad,~acent Property Owners List $renda and Steve Herman April 2005 LOCKHART, J. DOUGLAS 2808 3 I ST AVE. GREELEY, CO 80634 ARMOUR, ROBERT W. & MARY LOU 2668-A AROSA VAIL, CO 8 ~ 657 CLEVELAND, RICHARD D. - LANGENWALTER, KATHLEEN PO BOX 1065 VAIL, CO 81658 SCALISE, JAMES J., JR, DENNIS W. & DOROTHEA A. PO BOX 2591 VAIL, C+0 81658 ELL,EFSON, TASHINA 2607 A AROSA VAIL, CO 81657-4205 MOULTON, H. EDWARD PO BOX 4342 VAIL, CO 816;8 • MEMORANDUM • T©: Planning and Environmental Commission FRaM: Community Development Deparkment DATE: July 11, 2005 SUBJECT: ~ A request for approval of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to amend the lot sizes and configure#ions and a request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-5, Lot Area and Site Dimensions and Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow building within the setback, located at 1772, 1778, 1788 Alpine DrivefLats 10, 11, 12, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Dantas Builders, represented by Mpp Design Group Planner: Elisabeth Eckel I. SUMMARY The applicant, Dantas Builders, represented by Mpp Design Group, is requesting approval of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Cade, to amend the la# sizes and configuration; and a request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-5, Lot Area and Site Dimensions and Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Tawn Code, to allow building within the setback, located at 1772, 1778, 1788 Alpine DrivefLots 10, 11, 12, Vail Village West Filing 1. If approved, this request would result in the creation of three similarly-sized lots and a common driveway and access easement. Staff is recommending approval with conditions of this application subject to the findings and criteria outlined in Sections VIII and IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Dantas Builders, represented by Mpp Design Graup, is currently undergoing design review of three new residences a# Lo#s 10, 11, and 12, Vail Village West 1St Filing. Prior to beginning construction, the applicant is proposing to create three equally-sized lots from three existing non-conforming lets in order to best accommodate the placement of three homes on whale is a very steeply-sloped development area. The applicant's request is bi-fold: in the request for approval of a minor subdivision, several development standards will not be able to met, from which the applicant is requesting variances. Firstly, the applicant is requesting approval of a minor subdivision, which proposal is prompted by the reconfiguration of existing lot lines for three separate lets. Through such reconfiguration, the new lots will mairttairt a smaller size than is allowed by the Town for lots within the Primary/Secondary Zone District (15,004 square feet). Additionally, each lot will become equal in size. However, because of the creation of lots smaller than allowed within the Twa-Family PrirnaryfSecondary District, four of the regulations related to Lot Area, Site Dimensions, and required Setbacks will be unable to be complied with, including minimum lot area, minimum frontage, minimum site dimensions, and minimum side setbacks. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting variances from each of the aforementioned standards. A vicinity map and public notice are atkached for reference (Attachments A and B). III. BACI~GRDUIVD Preliminary plans are filed which reflect the proposed development of three lag homes an Lots 74, 11, and 12, which were part of Eagle County at the time, in 99$0. The development area was annexed into the Town in 1986, after which time plans were submitted for the development of asingle-family residence upon lot 11 in 1994.. The applicant simultaneously requested variances from the front and side setback regulations. The variance requests included encroachment into both the side and front setbacks on the basis that "ninety percent of the lot is greater than 40% slope". The applicant`s stated hardship was similar to that of the current proposal; the overall desire to limit site disturbance as much as possible (see Attachment C, applicant's written request). That Planning and Environmental Commission application was tabled on four occasions in the fall of that year, and eventually assumed to be withdrawn. According to the files, preliminary plans were also submitted, in 1995, fora new single-family residence upon Lat 12. However, the only additional documentation on file for Lot 12 states that the plans were withdrawn and the building permit application, expired. No further activity upon or proposals for this development site occurred until its purchase by the applicant in 2404. Since November of 2004, the applicant has produced more than twenty proposals in order to locate a new single-family residence on each of the three separate lots in West Vail. At a number of its public hearings, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed each proposal. Dn March 16, 2405, during a final conceptual review of the proposals for general access and location of the residences, the Design Review Board agreed that access from one common drive at the north side of the development area was the best. proposal far the site (see Attachment D, Amended Final Plat). The Board's sentiment was largely based on their desire far the preservation of as much of the southern area of the site as passible. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS MINOR SUBL?IVISION APPLICATION Order of Review: Generally, minor subdivision applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and then any appeals would be heard by the Town Council. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible far final approval, approval with conditions} or denial of a minor subdivision in accordance with Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Vail Town Code. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a minor subdivision, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission andlor Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission andlor Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials far completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. VARIANCE Planning and Environmen#al Commission Action: The PEC is responsible for frnal approva!/denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to at#ain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance, Design Review Board: Action; The 17RB has na review aufhority on a variance, buf must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of the Design Review Board or the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or 6y the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the DRB or PEC erred with approvals or denials, and may uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING I:]QGl1MENTS Tt7WN OF VAIL ZQNIN~ CODE Title 1;2. zoning Regulations fin ^artl Section 92-6D: PrimaryJSecondary District (in part} 12-6D-5: Lof Area and Site Dimensions: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand 05,000} square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80') on each side, within its boundaries. 92-6Q-6: Setbacks: !n the primary/secondary residenfial dr'stricf, the minimum front setback shah be twenty feet (20;1, the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (95), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet ()5'} Section ? 2-7 7: Variances (in part} 12-17-1: PURP©SE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order fo prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the ob1ectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site ar in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or liters! compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. 72-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMM1551CNACTION: Within twenty (20} days of the dosing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the applicafion. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the applicafion subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary fo accomplish fhe purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a Iimifed time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. 92-77-7; PERMIT APPROVALAIVD EFFECT; Approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two (2~+ years from when the approval becomes final. Title 13: Subdivision Regulations (in r~artl 13-2-Z Definitions Minor Subdivision: Any subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property. 73-4 Minor Subdivisions 93-4-9: EXEMPTIONS 1N PROCEDURE ANI] SUBMITTALS: "Minor subdivisions';. as defined in Section 93-2-2 of this Title, shall be exempf from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submiftals, Minor subdivisions may be required to submif an environmental impact report if required by Title 92, Chapter 92 of this Cade. (Ord. 2(9983) § 9) • VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND 20NING Land Use Zoning North: Residential Two-1=amity Primary/Secondary East: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary West: Residential Two-1='amity PrimarylSecondaryr South: Residential Two-i=amity PrimarylSecondary VII. SITE ANAL YSIS Development Standard A1lowedlReauired Proposed Lot Area Lot 1D 15,Ot70 sq. ff. 19,848 sq. ft Lot 11 15,da© sq. ft. 11,848 sq. ft Lot 12 15,fl00 sq. ft. 19,848 sq. ft. Frontage Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Site Dimensions Lot 10 Lat 11 Lot 12 3U feet{along Alpine Drive) 25 feet 30 feet (along Alpine Drive) 30 feet 30 feet (along Alpine Drive) 30 feet 8D sq. ft. area 80 sq. ft. area 80 sq. ft. area C8t7 sq. ft. area X84 sq, ft. area X80 sq. ft. area ,. Side Setbacks Lot 'PO 75 feet 'PO ft. at west side only Lot'! 1 16 feet 1 Q ft. at east and west sides Lot i2 15 feet 'l0 ft. at east side onPy 1JI11. APPLICATION CRITI=RIA AND FINDINGS Minor Subdivision A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of new lots must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: The minimum lot area for the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary iDistrict is 15,000 square feet. Neither the existing nor proposed lots meet this requirement. The proposed area for each new Lot is 11,$48 square feet. Dimension: The Two-Family PrimarylSecondary District requires lots to be able .................... to enclose a square with a minimum dimension of $0 feet by $0 feet. Neither the existing nor proposed lots meet this requirement. Frontage: The Two-Family PrimarylSecondary District identifies a minimum frontage requirement of 30 feet, Though Lots 11 and 12 will Comply with this requirement, the proposal for Lot 10 includes twenty five feet (25') of frontage along Alpine Drive. Setbacks: The Two-Family PrimarylSecondary District requires a minimum front setback of twenty feet (20') with which standard each of the proposed Lots will comply. Additionally, the Two-Family Primary Secondary Distract requires minimum side setbacks of fifteen feet (15'), which standard will be met at the eastern perimeter of Lot 10 and the western perimeter of Lot 12. B. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13-3-4, and is as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is In compliance with fhe intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable....The Planning anal Environmental Commission steal! review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating t© subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordr`nances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental Integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town." • The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that the subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13-1-2 (C)are as follows: To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals wr'll be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. "` Staff Response: The applicant was informed as to the standards and criteria by which the proposed plat and future development would be evaluated. Subdivision regulations and development controls establish basic rules which the staff, the PEC, the applicant, and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision it does include the re-subdivision of existing parcels of land. Therefore, the minor subdivision process is the appropriate process to redefine the lot lines and area of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Vail Village Vilest 1~C i=ding. 2. To provide far fhe subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land." Staff Response: This proposed minor subdivision redefines three currently platted lots by relocating the inner lot lines between Lots 10 and 11 and Lots 11 and 12. Lot lines located at the periphery of the three lots will not be changed and therefore future development of property on adjacent land will not be affected. 3. 7`o protect and conserve the value of land throughout fhe 1'vfunicipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision will not negatively impact the value of land within the Town. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, fo achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consr`stent with Tawn development objectives. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed minor subdivision, though not in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances without the granting of four variances, will achieve a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. According to the Goals statement of Ttle 13, "These regulations are intended to pro#ect the environment, and to ensure...suffieient open space", concepts to which this proposal is sensitive (Section 13-1-2:B). The effect of this plat approval will not only create equally-sized lots but will provide one access point for three Iots, thereby reducing the number of curb cuts along Alpine Drive to a minimum. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The subdivision regulations are primarily intended to address possible impacts of large-scale subdivisions of property. As a result, Staff does not believe that a proposal of this scope will have negative impacts on transporkation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, or other public requirements or facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable canstruction design standards and procedures. Staff Response; The proposed minor subdivision will allow for a comprehensive approach to the development of three very steeply-sloped sites. The proposed subdivision will allow the applicant to minimize the negative effects to the landscaping at the south side of the developmen# area through the creation of one access easement along the north side of the area, which allows far the location of each of the residences farther north on each lat. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision will encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town by preserving as much of the development area as passible considering the size and topography of the affected lots. Findings: The following findings are used far a Minor Subdivision: 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Minor Subdivision Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. Variances A. Consideration of Factors Reoardina Lot Area.. Frontage. Site Qimensions, and Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Lot. Area The requested variance from required lot area will have no effect on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, particularly since the lots are currently non-conforming in regard to area. Frontage. Staff believes that the requested variance from minimum lot frontage will have a positive effect on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity due to the fact that only one access point will be created from Alpine Drive, both improving safety along Alpine Drive and decreasing the amount of visible pavement that would otherwise occur as a result of three separate access points. Site Dimensions The requested variances from required site dimensions will have no effect on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Setbacks Staff believes that the requested variances from required setbacks will have a negligible effect on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, aside from the future owners of Lots 10, 11, and 'I2. The proposed location of the homes in a clustered fashion still provides more than twenty feet (20'} between the exterior walls of each of the residences placed upon these three lots. The applicant is planning to design the exterior walls fronting the affected side setbacks with fewer windows in order to protect each owner's privacy. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Lot Area Staff believes that relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the required lot area is necessary in order to allow these sites to be developed in a manner consistent with that of other sites within the vicinity. As previously s#ated, none of the lots currently meet the crikeria for minimum lot area. Frontage Staff believes that relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the required minimum lot frontage (upon Lot 1 {~} is necessary in order to allow for the smallest area of site disturbance upon all three lots. Though the creation of one access paint from Alpine Drive along Lot 12 results in less frontage far Lot 10, the benefits of further preservation of entire site helps to attain the objectives of this Title. Site Dimensions Staff believes that relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the required site dimension is necessary to achieve sensitive development of these lots. Setbacks Staff believes that relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the required side setbacks is necessary due to the small size of the tats. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, Lot Area The requested variance from required lot area will have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and u#ilities, and public safety. Frontage The requested variance from required lot frontage will have na effect an distribution of population or public facilities and ufilities, However, Staff believes that the requested variance from minimum lot frontage will have a positive effect an light and air, in that less .site disturbance will occur, thereby maintaining three home sites with as much vegetation as passible, considering the scope of construction and the steep slopes. Staff also believes that the requested variance from minimum lot frontage will have a positive effect on "transportation and traffic facilities" and "public safety" by creating only one driveway cut slang Alpine Drive, likely decreasing the probability of accidents occurring along what is already a dangerous curve in the roadway. Site Dimensions The requested variances from required site dimensions will have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Setbacks Staff believes that the requested variances from required setbacks will have a negligible effect an light and air, primarily between the lot lines of Lots 10, 11, and 12. Because the farthest east and west setbacks of the three lots will be maintained, the light and air of property owners outside of this development area will not be affected. Staff believes that the requested variances farm required setbacks will have no effect on distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety.. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. ~~ B. The Planning and Environmental Cammission shall make the following findings before arantino a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the 'limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literati interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical. hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c, The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF REC©MMENDATI~N The Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions, of the Amended Final Plat, Vail Village West Filing No. 1, A re-subdivision of Lots 10, 11, and 12, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to amend the lot sizes and configurations; and a request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-5, Lot Area and Site Dimensions and Section 12-6D-B, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow building within the setback,. located at 1772, 177$, 1788 Alpine Drive/Lots 10, 11, 12, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Minor Subdivision Should the Planning and Environmental Cammission choose to approve this minor subdivision, the Community Development Department recommends the Cammission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Cammission approves the Amended Final Plat, Vail Village West Filing 1'110. 1, A re-subdivision of Lots 10, 17, and 72, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to !of sizes and configurations located at 1772,. 1778, 1788 Alpine 17rive/Lots 10, 71, 12, Vail Village 1/V'est Filing 1, and setting forth details fi regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this plat amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: ?. That the application is in compliance with the Intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulati©ns, the honing Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmenta! Commission deems applicable. 2. That the appllcatr'on Is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision confrol, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compafibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. Lot Area. Frantaae. and Site Dimension Variances The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a variance from Section 12-6D-5, Lot Area and Site Dimensions, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of three new single-family residences located at ~ 772, 1778, 1788 Alpine DrivelLots 1 Q, 11, 12, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. .This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Gommission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, pursuant fo Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, fa allow for the construction of three new single-family residences located at 7772, 1778, and 1788 Alpine Drive/Cats 1g, 11, and 12, Vail Village West Filing ~ and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the following conditions: This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 2. The applicant shall maintain a limifs of disturbance fine as shown on the site plan. No building encroachments or construction disturbance shall be allowed beyond this line. 3. Prior to submittal of a building permit for Lot 10, Cat 11, or Lot 12, the applicant shall record with Eagle County the amended plat, reflecting the access easement and its associated language. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: The Planning and Environrnenfal Commission frnds.• I2 ?. The granting of this variance will not canstifufe a granting of specie! privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in the Two-Family Residential l~istricf. 2. The granting of this variance will trot be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in fhe vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for fhe following reasons: a. The sfricf literal interpretafon or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulfy or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Gode, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances ar conditions applicable fa the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. The sfricf interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Setback Variances The Community Development Department recommends approval, rnrith conditions, of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Cade, to allow far the construction of three new single-family residences located at 1772, 1778, 1788 Alpine Drive/Lots 10, 11, 12, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Gomrnission approves fhe applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, pursuant fo Ghapter 12- 17, Variances, Vai! Town Code, fo allow for the construction of three new single-family residences located at 17'72, 1778, and 17$8 Alpine Drive/Cats 1 Q 11, and 12, Vail Village West Filing ?and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the following condition: This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of fhe design review application associated with this variance request. 2. The applicant shalt maintain a limits of disturbance Tine as shown on the site plan. IVa building encroachments ar construction disturbance shalt be allowed beyond this line. 13 3. Prior to submittal of a building permif for Lot 10, Lot 7 7, or Lot 12, the applicant shat! record with Eagle County the amended plat, reflecting the access easement and its associated language. Should the Planning and ~nvironmenta! Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: ~. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two-Family Residential District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances ar conditions appficable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. The strict inferprefafion or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Public Natice C. Applicant's Request D. Reduced Copy of Amended Final Plat • ~t A -a ~q ~~~ ~Qo °~ ~_~ ~~a go" ~m ~~ ~_ ~r _~ ~~ ~~ a~ oa ,~ ~} >~ ~~ F ~- ~_ @~ 3 F O r 0 F c c Attachment B' ~~ .i TOWN OF Y~I~ ~ THIS 1TEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Tawn of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 11, 2005, at 2:00 pm in the Tawn of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow far an amendment to 3~~~ existing property lines; and a request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D- • ~ ~ ` 5, Lot Area and Site Dimensions and Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, ~'" ~~ 1 pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow building within the ~ setback, located at 1772, 1778, 1788 Alpine DrivelLots 10, 11, 12, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Dantas Builders Planner: Elisabeth Eckel A request for a fins! review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Cade, to amend the allowable Grass Residentia! Floor Area, located at 3967 Lupine DrivelLot 1B, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: William and Jan Burrow Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU} Type, Vail Tawn Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for additional Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 2883 Kinnikinnick RoadlException to Phase II, Vail intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Chuck ~gilby Planner: Bill Gibson The applicafions and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South 1=rontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 9701-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published June 24, 2005, in the Vail Daily. ' Attachment G LETTER mpn design PO Box 4227 0113 Mill Loft Street, Unit 8207 Edwards, CO $1b32 c 970-390-4931 f 970-925-0b82 michaelC?rraor~desianshoo.cam Dear sirs; This letter serves as the required statement to address to Town's list of concerns as outlined in the PEC Application. a. The proposal, far the above mentioned lots, is to; 1. Re-subdivide the_three lots_ i. The re-subdivision ~:.~~~u~ y ~.., 4~~pt~:~F~~.rrta~tk~. buildi~~a~i.c~f.therthre~l~at~dt~tl~l ~ - ai~l~ts. ii. Tk~e three lots will be re-subdivided such that each of the three lots will be relatively equal in size. 2 Create a driveway and utifty access easement for the three lots. i.: One driveway and utility access point from Alpine Drive will be created to access each of the three Sots. 3. Be granted a variance for the side yard set-backs from 15' to i0'' where each lot abuts one another. i. The East side of Lot 10 and the West side of Lot 12 will maintain the standard 1 S` side-yard setbacks. n. The side-yard setback variance wi11 not affect the existing structures to the East and West of the proposal. b ":The DRB. hos granted ~oncept~~at approval far tf~e.singulaf driveway" access.and:re-subdivision. of thethree.lots They have been presented aver twenty {20) different options for the access of the three lets, and have concluded that this option best meets the Tawn of Veil's guidelines and objectives. The nature of each of the buildings and site design is consistent with the Town of Veil's guidelines and objectives in.:that it allows for th,e development of the three lets in a manner that has the least amount of l~ ~~ site disturbance and allows far the greatest diversity and interest in building design. It is recognized that a significant number of trees will be removed and considerable Site disturbance will occur due to excavation,.'' Every effort wiR be made to replace as many trees as possible and create ~ a finished landscape that will be an asset to the community and the Vail Valley. 7 c. The proposal will not have a major impact of Town of Vail traffic patterns, ~1~ as the three prgoosed homes to be developed will access Alpine Driver ~ (f from one driveway. rather thc]r~ir~e Surat drivewa s. The propose! will net have any adverse impact on adjacent properties. The singular . driveway access will allow for more landscaping to be installed along Alpine Drive {which is currently a severe cut in the hill side which is not appeaking to look at and is prone to sloughing off and sediment washing onto the read]. pgp$_11r_OS24-05_PEC.dflc ~ Page 2 of 3 LETTER d. The singular driveway access wil! be a safer access point to Alpine Drive than three separate driveways. Considering that Alpine Drive Gs a steep raad and in the winter months it is covered in ice and snow due to the northern exposure, having one vehicular access point creates less impact fhan three access paints. Please contact me with any further questions or comments. Thank you. SIGtV~l3; Michael Pukas Cc: rnnn desir~n shoo PCB Bax 4227 0113 Mil! Loft Street, Unit B~ Edwards, CO 8ib32 c 97(~-39~+-4931 f 970-92b-4b82 miehael@maadeslartshaa_cam • 04p8_!1r OS-24.05_PEC.doc Pnge 3 of 3 L~TT~R • Dear sirs; mpa desiar'I shop PCB Box 4227 0113 Mill Loft Street, Unit B207 Edwards, CQ 81632 c 970-390-4931 f 970-92b-0682 michaelC~mcaadesianshao.cam Due to the steep nature of the three lots involved, it is felt that these variances sport the best development options for the to#s. The DRB has granted) conceptual apr~rpval and sugpraCts fihe d~sic~n for the sinaula~drivewa access, the re-subdivision of the three lots, and the variances requested. ~ ~ ~-`~ This application is for the follpwing proposed variances from the Town Qf Vail 5tandard5; 1. Lot Area and Site dimensions a. Minimum lot area shall not meet the Town's standards of 15,000 sq ft minimum lot size. ~ ~ II i. As currently subdivided, the existing lots do nat meet the , ~~/,~ minim lot size -- b. Lot frontage shall not meet the Town's standards of ~~, minims i. The re-subdivision will allow to#s 11 ~ 12 to meet the ~ minimum frontage requirements, however lot 1 Q wil / meet the minimum requirements for frontage." r fµ C. Each lot will not be capable of enclosing a square area of 8D` an each side. ! i, As currently subdivided, the existi_n_g (cats do nat. meet the_ minimum lot size. 2. Setbacks ~. ~-~~_ a. Be granted a variance for the side yard set-backs from 15' to 10' where each lot abuts one another. i, The East side of Lot 10 and the West side of Lot 12 will maintain the standard 15' side-yard setbacks. ii. The side-ycird setback variance will not affect the existing structures to the East and West of the proposal b. The issues oft e side yard setbacks have been addressed in a previous etter-for a re-su division pplication. ~ ~ This letter serves as the required statement to address to Town's lis of conce as ~ outlined in the PEC Application. ~,"~~~' ~ a. The variances requested will not have any negatrve rmpact o y adjacent properties or structures. The requested variances ill only have impact on the lots that abut one another. Where the lots are adidcen to e sting lots an s ruc ores, no variances are requested. ~' b. The variances requested regarding~ot area ana sire aimensions will not differ significantly from the existing lot configurations, 1. The existing lot size of each lat is less than the Town standard of 15,000 sq ft, The three lots have been re-subdivided such that they are equal in size. The new size of each lot will be less than 15,000 sq ft. 2. Qnly lot 10 will have a frontage of less than 30' -Lots 11 S~ 12 will have frontages that meet the Town's standards. Lat 10 will not have driveway access to Alpine Drive -the singular driveway p4p8_3h f7lr I O-05_v..,;... ~„s.dac Page 2 of 3 LETTER moo design shoes PC) Box 4221 0113 Miii Loft Street, Unit B~ Edwards, GC3 81632 c 97©-390-4931 f 470-92b-0582 michael@mpodesianshoo.cam design for access to the three lots is for the driveway to enter on Lot 12 and cross lots 11 & 12. This issue is being addressed in a separate application for a common driveway and utility easement for the three lots. -ter ' 3. The 'Ling lots not meet fhe size requirements for a square of ~~ 80' on ea sEde. The new to ca gurafsons will not meet this standard. c, The variances will not have any more significant impact on light and air, ~ '~-' population, traffic, facilities, etc. than if the variances were not being ~ t requested and the three Pots were being developed individually. ,~~,r, Vehicular and utilify access to Alpine Drive will be less in that the ,;U'~' variances allow for the Iots to be developed in a manner that has only n one access point to Alpine Drive, rather than three. d. The variances are keeping with the Town's objectives in that the variances allow access to the building sites in manner that minimizes the possible and inevitable impact and site disturbance. The variances also allow for architectural and landscape designs that are varied in nature, yet have common themes, which will be an asset to the local community and the Volley as a whole.. Please contact me with any further questions or comments. Thank you. SIGNED: Mfc e P ka Cc: • • D4fk}_!1r_D6-Ip-pS_variance.doc .?age 3 aF 3 y4:A:E: ~• -~ r s,=L Latlu vst svlullASlT ~or+R~ osTk Ae sureE rAllLY f•[JO[NCE ITJIAMTR.pV LSTI 41 OZr' AC. HPR9LG FAMA.Y AEa}G1FnCE mi3Fa{fvd 01b tM R3 41T~~ 9RR'1E FAYEY RESNFl:GE ITH.ra14EbN {n9TAt! 9.meAc RA01US - 109.39' RA!}NS + 10&89' OflTA - 17'38'19 DELTA - 12'44'47 ARC - 34,22' ARC = 24.24' TANGENT - 1715' TANGENT - 12.17' •~ J f]lORO - 34a7B' CHOF~ - 24.20" ' ' ' ' E ®RG - N3911 09 E 6RG - N5333 l~ Li. RADWS ~ 1(38.99' DELTA 3d'44'03' (CALL.) FELTA .~ .}6'45'53' (REC. PLAT) ~ ARC =58.48' (CALCJ 3 ARC =58.92' (REC. PLAT} TANGENT = 29:95' GI'{A~'V(€C S4:A4.[i CHGRQ = 57.77 BRL N47'~d'44'E g y 'a•T-~~ --~ ~ { UI YttT l , ~ \ ~ 1 r4cYt - L'A CE \~ ~ ${T Ny. 9 RE85R RITN (l AW4. EAp. L.5 Nn. y0pgm LET a Mkf'4 ALkJ 'Ai IN lrn_ .bax ~~ ~ \ ~ \ 7 ~ ywf ~~E 0 X11 .. , i a%~ \ 3 ., ti \ ~ ~. ~;'~ ~ ~( sue. ~' ~ "\ 3 ' \ ~ 6 S. t+, \ 1~F 5ET I.o s rrse:,N ,A+-. ~ ~ ~ ~'y 4 ,,n\' ~ L \ ~-+ ~ \ aiUM. CiP. ~3 ho :4:95 ) % Zf ~ \ -\~ \ \ 1 \\ ~` \ _. r ,~, ``~ ~.`. \ ya\ 1 P;2DRERTY ilNE CRCaT~A 1 w ~ agi~ \ 9Y 1fa5 P4AT \ \ \ \ / \\ ~.\ ~l ` \ \ / ~ _ RiGCk:[5 EUr_J4v4 :c=oacF ` `~ £ ~ \ L~1T 11 r~\ ~ `. .m9~ \ / CR£ATi:4 lI'r T.ay vLA' \ \ ~\ yc~ \ m \ 0.277 A[]tf S J"~ ~~ ~ , '$\\ \ 17 JR ALPMiE fkhtit ` 1 ~ LG1T 12 ~\e\ \ \ r ,~ ~° a~ ITgE AlT`AE I%OH. \ \. ~. -,''`~ ~ItCa•FA rr .`vE c~EEArt=. - -` LOT 13 `'s. \ ~ ~• RRS PLAT ~ss.~~ `._ }1.~~ ~ ``~ 1j1.~y"` \ ~._ . k. _ . _. .. ... _ \. \ - ~. Fl;uko ."LA.N Re. A AEaRP ~ $~ _ 9EP1.:CEU =1M IW. i REaAR -- u10 ALUN. SM. '. a. 11m. 56091 _'~-ti . 154.83' ~ ~ 5~9°41'00"W - 183.22° Gdre Range ~ LOT 18 ,, ~° Sulveying,uc ~ ! LOT 19 k ( ~ J 433 Snub Frm1R4e Rand Wts: 1 SuIIR tcd / vra. co e.a57 {97x1 a79-+waR .IRS Ia7a167gau55 or 518 ~ ~lssJ ~; ~ f2T,34. yt_ 4`T Nn 5 f§itAR 1d01 ALUM. CAa'., 1.4. J.n. 39001 ~" LOT 10 aaTZ ArA€s ~ fnz ALRINE IR21VC p1 f WL GAIf:S PIM'GNIY Ie!. ' ANSI uIR/'Y kM1S£f.LEN 1; vacArtauY nRS PLAT `~ ~ \- ~'8"w ^ ~Be ~~ ~~ , ~_ •~~~~ ~' Sl g1TY ANU DRAW AC>( EASELIENT {EREA//TEf1 BY 1M.4 i":4T) ,. 39.3?" FOUIiO RLNN Ne. ~ REl RF3LaCm YAi31 Nu S REl Awb Klfht f:AB_ L 4. No. JO tOT 20 ANIEI~DEb ~'II~AL PLAT.. VAIL VILLAGE WEST, FILING No. I A RESUBDI VISION Or LOTS. I0, 1 I ~ 1~ T~W[~ OF' VA[L, COUNTY OF EAGLE, S`PAT`E OF COLORA1Jt~ Cerilncala of Oedlcatlon end Owneaahip _ Hnow o0 men py ihea» peasams Ihal oanla:J (irJlld4r0, Ina„ s CdumD Gorparelrnl, harp Ede nrwtsr4 m In PNYpi4. ann Firsl-ark 41 Avan, he+r10 nmrlqugn4 PP a!I thal red prop4ny sluued m the TaAn d YeJ, Ea914 Cmwtly. CdPrudo d-xr'kod as Idkrrvs: Vdl Ytlaa4 Woat, Flling Na. I, Lata ID, t I a 12. per the Dllrl Iherxl r4wrdatl Odoher 25, 1993 m IPId-r Reaopbn .E N4. 99135 m ih4 oflaa d the Eagle Comly perk>a~ Rr: a'dar.. rt mman+n 9.9I s area mare ar lase; have hY Ihese esonm lekf DUI, Q pr phaitltl end suhdvdetl h4 same mto Ida antl htlod+s as shown rm Iqw final plat wtl4r 9tD name arld style al Amrmdad Find PI41. V0Y VI9a9e Wa51. Fillnp y1u, I, A R45UWni5ien d LUI'J 1 U, I1 6 12, a subdrvlsr4n in iha Town d VBA, CVrdyd Eopw; and Odea per4Dy zF'uipl IhB rea PansidrllYy br the wmplfrlion al raW lred ImWavomanu; enu dooa Iter4by deaede old a41 a{uun ail d the pW+lra roads aew 41h»r pupae; rmpav5+rwn;s and plaaPS as shown an Ina xwmpanykq pat b Irw IlS9 al ma pudaa rarawx: arrd gun narehY dW.~al4 moos Forums 41 seal rOrd pr4parlr wh+ch are rrdlaYaed av eatwnenl oh IhB aemmpanyrrq prat aA ea4emenlS IDr Ina PWP098 9110VM rErYBOn; Hlq drlae r14rBhy (yA16Ilw np+I b k~SteN and malfrlaln rrxD06Ply structures to the Bnfi(y reependd4lDf praYdL9ng dH saryra4e lp Whlall the bLBrnenR WB 40bW011BU. ExecuTEOlrvs~dard_- ,A.IS.,m__. QAmor. 0,]ntas 3vlldu, Inc. AdNaM' e CdaradP aap4rmbn 61', ~_. .. _._ TIOe STATE GF - ) °l~ CWwI'Y IX° } The Iwagmq Cw'ghcab d Dedcas4n artl Qwrwrshw was ack . ,_: Oche rtw an .®daY d _ , AD., ~_, by as _ ...... __ _. Pr Qantas tk+aMae, Ivc, a C4taraPP wrymaaan. z kIY Com+aaaut ey.[s' W W inca mY nand end o#tlc+al sad J _ _ w ~ ~J hoary Prtlua Q v 1 W IlmepaaN: FNR n d Aver Arnrg~; 11 5YD& nNr+N GRek BNtl. AvgL fA DY920 f [iy ~ ~ l Tase: STATE OF } CIXINTY Cp __~.l The IarelJgnp Certilkata d Oadicarlon ant OArwtshp rres atlntcMeoed betas ma eta ,ydaY d - ~. AD . m_ bl as d FuDtAVUI d nYan. Attachrrtent D AdminlDlratar Cerllllcate Tnis !na plaz ra neragy spprwad qy the Town o! Vau Admuriurala+tlne . _-.. day al 25 nrrEST Twr. Clerl+. Adminidrabr Town al Val, CBIwad4 7gwn a! ueil. C-iraeaa Surveyor's Cerllllcate ad. I. do IIBYd5y cur4ly mat I am 4 Rsyislored LarW Su.rvayor ucrnsed uralw uw laws d,~ SIB al Cab2da. 6YU ihi5 plat Is Ir.4, c4rIBCl aed brTpiO[a as Iaid ou{, pIBIIP.d, d0rLC31tltl a+d ~r[w.wr hereon, 118; s:i7t plat was maPA Irani an aewraln aurvsy 41 sold prapeny by me antl ~,Jrd4r mr suParvlsbn antlcarrealy shtrx5 the Inx+ti+n and etimmmialsd dle Ida, »aeem+nuY amt sareelD d saltl suMlvlel4n as she eamo are slanted upon E19 prouM h carpliarxv Wuh appolcobl4 rayu4al'wns 9avwru:,9 me suha'irhimr a ta'y. In wihwss wrwraol, I nave mrl my+srto and seas c a aDy d ~ A.o.. ~ Samuel K Etl4+r Cdarede P L.S. Na. 39991 GEIaEItAL a0TE9: t} OAl[9r SUr1YEY: naY. ]006 ZJ D'Wlr[CSO.SCPU'Cn TI•CLS+E.._.-._...._TrIC MCriWGVi^.F'.IrK+-WIIWNGI~nPrYMMf3IEkLY Ca~11EntY $nY! ILJT 10 JJI-'i i, r..^.kr i iti"rAi • C:+»..vl~a :.'r. 3nuu LO1 10.1taA rpar>5~0'c ~E 9+UWrvh7 Yt NOra-r+Eal+: r_v+:~S 'ti GT".a01Ln[Cr4 +1 S»Efi{;LE PUePpe4 rx n+yrt'If ra Tp Btlaaa'nnESaYrrpf510.IY^Ia TO PI1EA[En1E Ilp'A'LOTSr6lrlnAS rrlW.Ar EO roilCC41 AY10 TQYALAIE JND iaGT[CEnT1W VSF!lENYS AS OILNGIF-ISHCGar 51 I rc 4-r)rp.rlrY PO:rkRSE.Y+U. USY4Ear5 aWP A03Nr9 prw0Y5i1pa11 rENEW JV+E PBITNE nECCH-RAT Pon drE aUa.CPYMWrSnrY AMD rlTL9:g Wfaf P[Wt71YXD eY IAMDnrrFf rlWlIf4 C9NYMar.OPLQgnb.4!gR.'d~, WrTF.D xn ri MOS fl aP*raE+-+AFtPPJG T3 ittOa+W LOW YCU NUET tCWJE4CE A+YY IEaf1ICTSNUASE-eX•rA1Frtt-ETE-Tlnnas sulewtr W~nw nrleEYrArc +u rw xu . asT crnxta ,uc» r.EFFtT. n ru Evora, wr JJ++x Iron ersl~,u uptr+.w~ oErccT W r»rs sa+vt-r ra ccY,u:ircru eoJeE I »ur rEW rcAas ana. rrt uu E eECErmneAn-» slaxra+r€ Icw TI LarsArao tlUMlrARi su6JEartO aESrarcTWS mcrwnsAS P41fJWtDHRSTILUENI PECn:PSpttroeeas. I W a W DtlC. r r0 a+ »wk, la0 uaJ+S 04kenre W 0aD1rgW [M r~4XJnPPA .~~.y .~. ~.0. t2W W Dppr rrO.r P.YUE5J0,,ylD M"r J8'0r:NtS +MrNkYR al A'd aEEGaEhCEe TO oecLwErm Yle: r0111DSE Q Y»E feAl EarAlE REGla~3nE 111E EAGLE 6CA0mYCdCrK IfrU xtaa'rrEIN$ DYFYCt My Canmisdart eadrae'., _ . WlawSS mY barb anP afAa'd 598E wakVY RUd+c Tine CrrrDDCale [] ts'd True Gua~a+lne Company case hereby Las? uw ne rue ro yl lands srnwn [] ~ up3n [MS qDI nave h4ert 4xanlrnau rrrd is vealw 6+ Oanlaa Buatlars, hc.. scdaarb ...,. : ,. r Q _ alltl that -tle 10 aueh IaretlS la Ire4 DrW al4ar Or dl Ilare am OnclartU'ana4e, erP9]I ea IoMoWa- Laf Z ..._ _. -' _. _ - - __ 0 zz ~ J ~ .___.__ _ _ 4 I ~ l Uat~if+rs, _ ~Yd A.6.. 2D ~_ Agani apr>:arua Addrpsa'. AgWtl nsne lCartineele er Ta+m Pald I, Ino uadwslgnetl, da helaby crlify 9+a1 ttw anlva amourtl d la,as Wd a&aas9raarh AN and peja-la upon dl parPals ai real eaeaw tlesaiJad rn ass pea aln pild ut WE. Owed ths~dayd ,AD.. 29`_ Treasurer 4I Etgls Ctwnry Clerk and Recardar'a Cer)krictls Thl6 Plu waa grad la rocortl in taD Gklo4 al Ina Cork ant Aeoador Ae o'clock , on Inla dsY d . . 29~ sntl la dWy reoordad w Rocaptlan Na. CIDrk and RryaP'dw gY -~__. , DapuN f ,w,w Pr. ~ wm_.__ 7/OEf7L105 _ I c~x.+.sr. ~ ..w .m 0.7-2 . as ,.e. r14-7(k3 ~4rrr ! M~~ MEMOR~4NDUM T©: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 11, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13- 12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Tawn Cade, t© amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 3967 Lupine DrivelLot 1 B, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. {PEC05-0052) Applicant: William and Jan Burrow, represented by Morter Architects Planner: Warren Campbell h SUMMARY The applicant, William and Jan Burrow, represented by Harter Architects, is requesting approval of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Cade, to amend the allowable Grass Residential Hoar Area, located at 3967 Lupine DrivefLot 1B, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition. 1f approved, this request would result in the maximum GRFA for Lat 1 B, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition, to go from 3,300 sq. ft. to 5,486 sq. ft., which is the maximum allowable GRFA allowed by the current single-family zoning. Staff is recommending approval with conditions of the proposed Amended Final Plat. Bighorn Subdivision. First Addition. Lot B. A Resubdivision of Lot 1. Block 1. ft, DESCRIPTION C}F REQUEST The applicant, William and Jan Burrow, represented by Harter Architects, currently have a submitted a design review application to construct an addition of 441 square feet onto the existing single-family hams located at 3967 Lupine Drive. A vicinity map is attached depicting the subject property {Attachment A). The applicant is requesting an amended final plat as the proposed addition will put the GRFA of the structure over the plat restricted 3,300 square feet maximum GRFA by 569 square feet. The total GRFA of the proposed structure will be 3,869 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to remove a plat note which restricts Lots 1A and 1B, Black 1, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition to one shared curb cut for the two properties. A Letter from the applicant describing the request is attached for reference (Attachment B}. A copy of the proposed plat is attached for reference {Attachment C). II1. BACKGROUND • The property was annexed into the Town of Vail by Qrdinance 13, Series of 1974, which became effective on November 5, 1974. The property was zoned Twa-Family Residential Zone District. • In October of 1983 Lot 1, Black 1, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition (42,8fi3 sq. ft.) was subdivided into two smaller lots {21,431.5 sq. ft.) and rezoned to Single-Family Residential. As a part of the application the two new lots, 1A and 1 B, were plat restricted to 3,300 square feet of GRFA for each lot and were to share one driveway curb cut on Lupine Drive. • Ordinance 33, Series of 1987, removed the plat restriction which required Lots 1 A and 1 B to have a shared driveway curb cut off of Lupine Drive. Today there are separate driveway curb cuts servicing the existing structures on Lots 1 A and 1 B. • (7n .luly 6, 2005, the Design Review Board conducted a conceptual review of the proposed additions to the Burrow Residences and in general were quite pleased with the proposed improvements. IV. RULES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat. Specifically the code states in Section 13-12-3C, Review and Action on Plat: The planning and environmental carnrnrss~on shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one {'21~ days of the first public hearing on the exemption plaf application ar the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision maybe granted subject to mertual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in secfion 73-3-4 of this title. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on an exemption plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Councik: The Town Council is the appeals authority for an exemption plat review procedure in accordance with Section 13-3-5C, Vail Town Code, which reads as fiollows: Within ten (1 D} days the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commis5ian on fhe final plat shall be transmitfed fa the Council by the staff. The Council may appeal fhe decision at the Planning and Environmental Commission within seventeen (17) days of the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. 1f Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission`s decision, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard of the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing(s). The Council shall have thirty (301 days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision, and the Council shall conduct the appeal at a regularly scheduled Counci! meeting. Staff: fihe staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations, The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with Conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process, . _ _ _ CUMENTS PLICABLE PLANNING, DO TOWN OF VAIL ZONING CODE: TITLE 13: 5UB©IVISION REGULATIONS {partial) 13-2-2 DEFINIT1ONS EXEIIilPTI~IV PLAT: The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall Within the definition of ~ "subdivision", as Contained in this seCtfon. 13-12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCE®URES 13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside the purpose, purview and intent of chanters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. {Ord. 2(2x01) § 1 } 13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats", as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by title 12, chapter 12 of this code. (Ord. 2{2001) § 1) 13-12-3: PLAT PROGEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The procedure for an exemption plat review shall be as follows: A. Submission Of Proposal; Waiver Of Requirements: The applicant shall submit two {2) copies of the proposal following the requirements far a final plat in subsection 13- 3-68 of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the administrator andfor the planning and environmental commission if determined not applicable to the project. B. Public Hearing: The administrator will schedule a public hearing before the planning and environmental commission and fallow notification requirements far adjacent property owners and public notice far the hearing as found in subsection 13-3-6B1 of this title. C. Review And Action an Plat: The planning and environmental aommission shall review the plat and associated materials and chalk approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21 }days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmentaC commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13-3-4 of this title. D. Appeal: An appeal of the planning and environmental commission's decision by the town council, the applicant, or an "aggrieved or adversely affected person" shall follow the procedures outlined in subsection 13-3-5C of this title. (Qrd. 22041 } § 1) 13-12-4: FILING AND REC{]RDING: The department of community development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County clerk and recorder; however, no plat shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the applicant provides the town with a certification from the Eagle County treasures office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The department of community development will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. An exemption plat. may not be recorded until applicable appeals periods have expired in accordance with the provisions of subsection 13-3- 5C of this title. (Ord. 2{2401 } § 1 } VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zonina North; Residential Two-Family Residential East: Residential Two-Family Residential West: Residential Two-Family Residential South: Residential Two-Family Residential Vil. SITE ANALYSIS Develaament Standard AI'IowedCExisitna Prooosed Lot Area 21,431.4 sq. ft. No change Maximum GRFA 3,340 sq. ft, 5,4$6 sq. ft. VIII. APPLICATI©N CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Exemution Piat Review A. Factors of Consideration Reaardina an Exemotion Plat Review: This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. The purpose of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to ensure that the subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. Pursuant to Section 13-1-2 C, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission will be evaluating this proposal based upon the following criteria: i. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which developmen# proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements requiired. The applicant is aware of the standards and criteria by which this proposal is to be evaluated. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacen# land. As the proposed amended final plat 'ts an amendment to an existing subdivision, Staff does not believe this proposal wiH create a future conflict with development of adjacent lands. Aspects such as lot area, frontage, site d'nmensions and setback regulations are not affected by this proposal. Currently the lot complies with all standards far a lot zoned Single-Family Residential 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. in Crctober of 1983 Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition s;42,8fi3 sq. ft.) was subdivided into two smaller lots (21,431.5 sq. ft.) and rezoned from Twa-J=amity Residential Zone District to Single-Family Residential Zane District. The primary reason for the subdivision of the lot was to provide for the protection of a large stand of mature trees in the center of Lot 1. The subdivision of Lat 1 into Lots 1 A and 1 B allowed for the large stand of trees to be preserved as they would fall within the setbacks of the two new lots and therefore a structure would not be able to affect the trees. !n regards to the reasoning behind the PEC placing a condition upon the subdivision that restricted GRFA to 3,300 square feet staff has determined that it was an effort by the Board to limit the.size of the structures on the two new lots as the rezoning from Two-Family Residential zone District to Single Family Residential Zone District allowed for the total GRFA of the two new lots to exceed that of the entire lot zoned as Two-Family Residential Zone District. Under the zoning requirements in effect in 1983 Lot 1 zoned Two- Family Residential Zone District measuring 42,863 would be allowed 2 dwelling units with a structure size of 5,862 sq. ft. while the new Lots 1A and ~ B rezoned to Single-Family Residential Zone District would be allowed two dwelling units done on each Got) w%th a combined GRI=A for the two lots totaling 7,974 sq. ft. Therefore the PEC did not find it acceptable to grant a resubdivison of Lot 1 and a rezoning which would in essence give the developer an increase in GRFA of 2,192 sq, ft, Under current GRFA regulations the original Lot 1 measuring 42,863 sq. ft. and zoned under its original zoning of Two-family Residential Zone District would be allowed 9,221 sq. ft. of GRFA. Under current Single-Family Residential Zone District regulations the combined GRFA of Lots 1A and 1B would total 19,972 sq. ft., which is 1,761 sq. ft. aver the allowable GRFA ofi the previously existing Lot 1. Therefore with the changes in GRFA which have occurred and the original intent of the PEC approval of the subdivision of Lot 1 and the restriction an GRFA staff believes that Lot 1 B should be restricted the 4,610.5 sq. ft. which is half of the allowable GRFA if Lots 1A and 1 B were still one lot zoned Two-Family Residentia! Zone District. Staff believes this maintains the originally intent of the PEC approvals in 1983 as the sum of the GRFA for Lot 1A and 1 B would not exceed the allowable for the lot as a whole. In conclusion, the sum of the parts (Lots 1A and 1B} would not exceed the sum of the whole (original Lot 9, Black 1, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition). Staff believes this proposal will enhance and further conserve the value of land and the value of building and improvements on the land through the maintenance of existing stand of mature trees along the shared property line between Lots 1A and 1 B, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Town development objectives.. Staff believes the proposed amendment is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances and will serve to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses as the requirements and restriction will now be governed by the entirety of the Single-Family Zone District. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and ef'hcient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and foci{ities and generally to provide that public facilities wi11 have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff does not believe the proposed amendment has significant impact on this criterion, in comparison to existing conditions. 6. Ta provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff believes the proposed amendment will continue #o provide accurate legal descriptions. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the wa#er table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff does not believe the proposed amendments will have significant impact on the pollution of air, streams and ponds, but that they will assure adequacy of drainage facilities, safeguarding of the water table and the wisest possible use and management of natural resources throughout the Town B, Pursuant to Section 13-3-4. Commission Review of Aoolication: Criteria. Vail Town Code. the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before aor~rovina an amended final plat: 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed,. regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable docurrments, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. lX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions, of Amended Final Plat. Bighorn Subdivision. First Addition. Lot B. A Resubdivision of Lot 1. Block 1, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Resldentia4 Floor Area, located at 3867 Lupine DrivelLot 1B, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Exemption Plat Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this plat amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approues an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town code, fo allow for an amendment to plat restricted GRFA located at 3967 Lupine drive/Lof 1B, dock 9, Bighorn Subdivision First Addition„ anal setting Earth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Gommission choose to approve this plat amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the fallowing findings: 1. That fhe application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning ordinance and' other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. Thaf the application is appropriafe in regard fo Town policies relating fo subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances aed resolutions at~d ether applicable documents, envirenmer~tal integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this plat amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission apply the fallowing condition: 1. The applicant shall add a note to the plat which restricts the allowable GRFA to 4,fi10.5 square feet. This note shalt appear on the mylar copies of the plat which are submitted to the Town of Vail staff far recording with Eagle County. 2. The applicant shall remove the footprint of the existing structure, • deck, 5talr5, and driveway currently depicted on the proposed Amended Final Plat. Biahom Subdivision. First Addition. Lat B, A Resubdiv'rsion of Lot 1, Block 1, prior to submitting mylars far recording with Eagle County. K. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Letter from the applicant dated June 13, 2005 C. Copy of the proposed plat D. Notice • ~t~ 3~ ~ ~~o a8~ ~ag S' sRg gb~ ~@ ~~ t ~~ ~~ ~g ~a oa ~~gg ~ S ~F a B n 3 Q E t Q r r 0 N Y 9 0 0 err 7 d C e A Protes&ional Corperr2tign • X271 N. ~rantage Road W. Suite C Vail, CO 81~i57 970! 47G5105 ~,~x s7tri a7s-a~1o MA(c~irnnrlerarchiiects.com 13 June 2005 MORTERARCH iTECTS Town of Vail, Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Application far Exemption Plat, Lo# 1B, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision We are requesting a plat amendment of the aforementioned lot. We would like the amended plat to be identical to the existing plat with the following exceptions: 1. The plat stipulation that there be one common driveway for lots 1A and 1 B be updated to reflect Town Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1987, removing said restriction. ll. The plat restriction limiting GRFA to 3,300 square feet be removed- The reasons for the request are as follows: Regarding the ftrst request, it appears that Town Ordinance 33 of 1987, stipulates an amendment to Section 1, Subparagraph 2 of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1983, to read as follows: 2. Access to Lots ?A and 7B steal! be limited to 1u+o driveways as generally indicated on the site plan by PeterJamarAssociates, lnc., dated September 4, 1987. The existing plat does not reflect this change, and two driveways have been built. In the interest of tidy record keeping, for all parties interested, including the Town and any subsequent Landowners, we believe the plat should reflect the most recent known ordinance affecting this property. Regarding the second request., we believe the plat should reflect the most recent zoning changes, in keeping with Tawn Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2004, in order to simplify GRFA rules and retain consistency across zoning districts. Specifically, we believe the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the GRFA restriction have changed to allow reconsideration: • The plat restriction was originally written in part to help protect the lovely, mature trees on the site. Homes have been built on both 1 A and 1 B and the trees have been successfuNy preserved. Any future development on-the sites will be regulated by the Town of Veil's design review procedures, assuring the protection of the trees and any other site features. • Using current zoning calculations, the site would be allowed 5,486 square feet of GRFA Sincerely, Jim Mprker, FAIR Morten Architects • • hAarte*archstects.con} Attachment: B ~~~~ .-~ r ~, .~ ~~n~, ...1 ~ ~ r a ~~ ~~ ~~~ a : ~ ~~ ~~ r iii $~}~ ~~~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ it s F 8 ~~~~~ ~ ~~ v ~ ~ H ~~~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~ C) ~'+ F a ~~~ ~ 4 ~~ '~• ~ e~~~ . ~ ~~ ~~ ,. ~! ~ ~ sj f i 1~~ ~~ $~~ ~ ~` ~t ~~_~ L ! ~~ ~ ~ }~j;~~~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~t~~g' ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~¢ ~~~1 ~~~~~~~ ~~ I €~~~~~ bJ Y ` tF ' j i {* ~ /! ~ gy~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~i i t~'~ ~~~;i i ~ ~~ 536~iE~ ~ ~ ~~a ~~; ~a ~, ~~ ~7E4.~ I ,~~ ,~ ., q ~~ • m ~ ~_ ~ ~-+ p C O O ~ J N +~ ~ +~ N 43 N m _ L ~' _ Q '~ '~' O N~ g O J . L ~ T' w U Cn . C T C ~ G L p 4 ~ O d ~ Z ca ~ ~ U d V p ~ t ~ O ~ v ~ p ci cr ~ i ~ E ~ a ~ 23 m m N ~ ~ 0 +~ w L L a.! N Y •X a C L ~ j y ~ O N __ cu o~ 4 I ~ C T T 7 p y O J C ~ ~ ~ L} cCll ~ L ~ ~ C p ~ '~- _ ~ T•~ T'~' N O O 3 ~ > a_, ~ o p U ~ N N ~ N 0 ~ - -c' ~ N ~ O ~ ~ W .,. a ,E Z o~ 0 Q X ~, C- ~ p O ~ " ~ C C~ O ~- (~ N .~ ~ p _T C ~ SCk? ~ +~ ~ C ~ C C U N y ~ f i ~ ~ U ~ ~- a v ° 3 N e' s-, .J O O ~ L Y ~ o~~ n E ~ ~ O _ ~ ~ u1 v~ ° ~ v L ~ o ~ o ~,~ ~ o `o Q1 O C O SJ ~ C L O O O p L~ do m `~ U ~ O U] N ~ T C ~._ ~ ~ T~ Q ~ 7 C ~ 'i ~ CJ 61 p W a N N . ++ ~ ~ U 7 L ~ L7 N ~ O +• N t L O r ~ ~ , ~ +J 6 c~ . ~ +~ O C p N 0 0 Y:7 O N :~. O c > z m ~ _ . ~ ~ ~, N,~. ' ~ z r-. rn .-. ~ p ¢ ~t .. cv ~ v .-.. v . ~ r ~ .--.. ~ a~ ~- ~ v .J ~ ~ S ~ . C~ ~ ~E~ ~~~ N F- O J ''L ~J y,~l1 1# To~v a~ Y~tz~, THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vaii will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 11, 2005, at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request far a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Cade, to allow far an amendment to existing property lines; and a request far a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D- 5, Lot Area and Site Dimensions and Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Ghapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Tawn Gode, to allow building within the setback, located at 1772, 1778, 1788 Alpine DriveJLots 10, 11, 12, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant: Dantas Builders Planner: Elisabeth Eckel A request for a final review of an amended i:lnal plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Tawn Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 3967 Lupine DrivelLot 1B, Black 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant; William and Jan Burrow Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit {EHU) Type, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Gode, to allow for additional Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 2883 lSinnikinnick RoadlException to Phase ll, Vail intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Chuck Ogilby '- Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please coil 970-479-213$ far additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-475-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published June 24, 2045, in the Vail Daily. b~? 1~~~ ~~ Attachment: D MEn~oRAl~oun~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 11, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for final review of a variance from Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU} Type, Vail Town Code; to allow for a' Gross Residential Floor Area garage credit, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 2883 Kinnikinnick RoadlException to Phase II, Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0051) Applicant: Chuck Ogilby Planner: Bill Gibson I, SUMMARY The applicant, Chuck Ogilby, is requesting a variance from Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type, Vail Town Code; to allow far a Gross Residential Floor Area garage credit, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 2883 Kinnikinnick Road (i.e. tennis court site at the comer of Kinnikinnick Road and South Frontage Road}. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of the requested variance subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. IL DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Qn May 23, 2005, the applicant, Chuck Ogilby, received Planning and Environmental Commission approval of a conditional use permit and a GRFA garage credit variance to allow the construction of a Type III EHU residence at 2883 Kinnikinnack Road (i.e. tennis court site at the corner of Kinnikinnick Raad and South Frontage Road). The approved residence is atwo-bedroom, two-story (plus basement level two-car garage), single- family format structure. The structure is a log-cabin design consistent with the architectural design and details of the adjacent log-cabin style Lodges at Timber Creek Condominiums. Since May 23, 2005, the applicant has modified the proposed EHU design. The applicant is now requesting to fully excavate a previously approved crawlspace on the basement level of the structure. The approved crawlspace is located below the first floor kitchen at the rear of the approved garage. By excavating this crawlspace and creating a full head height space, the applicant is now requesting to add 88 sq. ft. of additional area to the previously approved garage. A vicinity map {Attachment A), the applicant's request {Attachment B}, and architectural plans (Attachment C) have been attached for reference. III. BACKGROUND On May 23, 2005, the applicant, Chuck Ogilby, received Planning and Environmental Commission approval. of a conditional use permit and a GRFA garage credit variance to allow for the construction of a Type III EHU residence at 2883 Kinnikinnick Road (i.e. tennis, court site at the corner of Kinnikinnick Raad and South Frontage Road). The approved residence is atwo-bedroom, two-story (plus basement level two-car garage}, single-family format structure. The structure is a Cog-cabin design consistent with the architectural design and details of the adjacent log-cabin style Lodges at Timber Creek Condominiums. On June 1, 2005, the Design Review Board approved, with conditions, the previously proposed EHU design. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of lieview: Generally, conditional use permit and variance applications wile be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and then any accompanying design review application will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Planning and Environmen#al Gammission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a variance application, in accordance with Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a variance application. However, the Design Review Board is responsible for the final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of any accompanying design review application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission andlor Design Review Board_ Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials far completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Cade; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. 2 V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code ARTICLE 12-6E: RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER SRC} DISTRICT (in !part} 12-~6E-?': PURPOSE: The residential cluster district is intended to provide sites for single-family, fwo- family, and multiple-family dwellings at a density not exceeding six (6) dwelling units per acre, together wifh such publr'c facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The residential cluster district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate wifh residential occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing approprfate site developmenf standards. CHAPTER 12-13, EMPLOYEE HOUS]NG: (in part) 72-73-1: PURPOSE: The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on exemplary service for flail'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 community must work to provr'de quality living and working conditions. Availability and affordability of housing plays a critical .role in creating quality living and working conditions. for the community's work force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an r`mportanf role in sustaining a healfhy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes ifs role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town Council may pursue additional incentives administratively to encourage the developmenf of employee housing units. These incentives may include, but are not Limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, fax abatement and in- kind services to cawners and creators of employee housing units. The Town or the Town's designee may maintain a registry and create lists of all deed restricted housing units created in the Town to assist employers and those seeking housing. • 3 RS ~. Q ~., .~ .C N ?, O W .~ ~' ~' r N O U C77 ~. ~ z ° ~, ~ w ,~ ~~a ~ a v a ~ `; ~L a ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 40 ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ .~. ~ ~ y ~ w a .. ~fi QO ~ o AGO oo ~ v ~~. ~~ ~ ~ b O a v .~ ~o ,~ `~ '~ n ~ y i U o ~ a ~ v o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ °3 ~' a ':7U~ y Q ~; o ~° ~ :~ ~ ~ "~ ~ ~ a ~ U ti ~ .. C y U ~ C C~1 p rL. 'ti C ~ C, ~} "' ~ .~ _ ~ G ~ ~ O ~, V 0. °~ 'y ~ ems © ~ ^? ~ ~ , Y ~ ~ ~ ~, C3 '~ ~, ~ -4 ~~~, .~ -: ` 1 e :~ U ~ ~. N, ~ o cs a, ~ c o v d i~ C. h ~ 0 ~ "_ 4 G y ~ ,o y ~~ ~ ~ H y r ~ O ;v ~ ~ ~ ~ L C[ c7 ' e ~ ~ k _,~ ~~= ~ U ~ .y ~_ ~ ~ O Q ~ ~ 4 c F V n y p e , ,o 'L 'w O -ts 'ts 'L ~ ~ m ~ ? ~ ~ ~ "~ ~? a 3 a s a c a 'S3 1 ~ ~ '~ '-' '4, 'u h -Q '"'~, ;l ~ p ti ~ C O b9 h ~ ' ~ ,~ ~:. Apr ~ ~ ~ ~` C Cr W v c'r ~ ~ ~~ ~ "~'^~ ~ fi fi " r L ~ W NQ. -+a y ~Y~-1 ice U~y ~, ~ ~ 4~~~UUC1U ~ c°i 'J~! g4 . , , . ~ ~ ~ ~~ W ~~~ d' • • C] VI. Z(3NiNG ANALYSIS Address: 2883 Kinnikinniclc Road Legal Description: Exception to Phase ll, Vail Intermountai n Swim and Tennis Club Zoning: Residential Cluster (RC} District Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Current Land Use: tennis court Development Site Size: 5.116 acres {222,849 sq.ft.} EHU Site Size: 0274 acres (11,935 sq.ft.} Buildable Development Site: 3.817 acres {186,277 sq.ft.} Hazards: 100-year Gore Creek Flaodplain Tata9 Site Standards AllowedlReauired Previously Aooraved Proposed Dwelling Density (max}: 20 units* 22 units no change EHU Density (max}: unlimited 5 units{1 new} no change Density, CRFA (max}: 45,169 sq.ft.** 38,469 sq.ft.*** no change Site Coverage (nnax}: 57,712 sq.ft.**(35%} 25,300 sq.ft.(15%} no change Landscape Area (min}: 133,709 sq.ft.*(60%} 142,634 sq.ft. {64%} na change EHU Standards AiiawedlReauired Previously ApAroved Proposed Setbacks {min}: Front: 20 ft. 92 ft. no change Side: 15 ft. 22 ft. no change Side: 15 ft. n1a n/a Rear: 15 ft. nla n!a Building Height (max}: 33 ft. 33 ft. no change EHU size (max}: 1,200 sq.ft. 1,200 sq.ff.plus 1,200 sq. ft. plus 775 sq.ft. garage 873 sq.ft. garage Parking {min}: 2 spaces 4 spaces (2 enclosed) no change *A[lowed per Residential Cluster District **Allowed per Annexation Agreement Rezoning *'` GRFA calculation methods prior to Ordinance 14, 2004 Note: The above listed calculations are based upon the original development plan approvals and survey data. An Apri12005 survey calculates the development site size as 220,414 sq. ft. VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES ANi] ZONING Current Land Uses North: South Frontage Roadll-70 South: Multiple-family residential East: Multiple-family residential West: Multiple-family residential Vlil. REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning Unzoned Residential Cluster District Residential Cluster District Residential Cluster District The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to a variance application: 7. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • 5 Since the proposed 88 sq. ft. of additional garage area will be created by fully excavating a previously approved crawlspace, staff believes this request is consistent with the previously approved proposal. Staff does not believe that this request will negatively affect the existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity, in comparison to the previous approval. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation its necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The Vail Town Code generally encourages, and occasionally requires, the construction of garages and similar storage areas for "dwelling units'° and other types of EHUs. However, Staff does not believe the provisions of Section 12-13-4, Vail Town Code, contemplate the construction a Type III EHU with an attached garage. Therefore, Staff believes the applicant is requesfrng a variance to the degree necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege due to the unique detached, single-family dwelling format of the proposed Type III EHU (i.e. rather than the typical dormitory ormultiple-family dwelling formats}. Staff also believes the original Eagle County development plan approvals and the subsequent annexation agreements with the Town of Vail have created unique circumstance related to the configuration of this EHU site and its associated development rights. Since the proposed 88 sq. ft. of additional garage area will be created by fully excavating a previously approved crawlspace, staff believes this request is consistent with the previously approved proposal. 3. The effect a€ the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant impact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities, utilities, or light and air, 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. IX. STAFF R1=COMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a variance from Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a Gross Residential f=loor Area garage credit, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Cade, located at 2883 Kinnikinnick Road/Exception to Phase II, Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the 6 review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presen#ed. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following mo#ion: "The Planning and Enviranmenta! Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 72-73-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (ENU) Type, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 92- 97, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Gross Residenfr'al F1aor Area garage credit, located at 2883 Kinnikinnick RoadfExcepfian to Phase 1!, Vail intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto; subject to the following condition: 7. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant submitting, tv the Town of Vail, the written approval of this proposal by the Vail lntermounfain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums and the Lodges at Timber Creek Condominiums. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings; "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 7. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on ofher properties classy"fled in the Residential Cluster (RC) District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Gode. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same life of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Residential Cluster (RC) District. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Residential Glusfer (RC) District. " 7 X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Pequest C. Architectural Plans C. Public Notice ~J ~gE 5~m a $~ ~ 4 m¢ 'a E ~ __& ~' c~ s t ~. ~~ ~~ n~ E; zR ~° m~ ~~ ro° 5~ ~~ v $_ "m 3 a w E Q ~"' T' J F 0 c Attachment: B ~Cp JUN 16 2005 ~ June 15, SOUS RE: Ogilby Residence Variance We are requesting the use of appox. SSsgft. in the garage f©undation bump out under the kitchen for the mechanical room. With out this variance the mechanical room would decrease an already small living foot print. a. This will have no impact to other existing or potential uses and structures in the Vicinity. b. This would have a very small affect on the strict or literal interpretation of the regulation. It does not change the building size, This variance uses the underground space more efficiently, c. The variance has nD effect on light and air dlstrlbution Df population= transportation, traffic facilities, utilities or public safety. d. This variance complies with the TDwn of Vail planning policies and development objectives for eflicient well planned projects. Thank you, Tom arzecha W.E.I. ~, ~ ~ '~ !~ ~--~~ '~ 1 ,, 1 1 1 i i 1 ~~I I 1 1 1 I~ ~~~ -- u ~~ 4 ..~ _ -~ , ~~~ _~, ~ ,~ I _, \ ~-~___ `~' ~~.J~ ... _. ~; ~ ~ I`~-I t~ .~ :~ I~,i ~ ~ ~, ~_ , ~_~ rt ' f~ fi_ '~~ ~ ,_ ~= ~~ ~~ 4~ _$ ~~ ~~~ ~; --~ .. • r,~ .S ~ !~ ~ ~. . ~----- ~.-_ ., ~~ ~~ _- --. ~~ ~ ^...+ ~" ++ ` ~ ~~ I` ..ice 'f' ~J -y r_ _~ `~~ ~j~ ~ 7t` 1 r s ~ 1 r ~, ~~ I { ~l -- .,,~ ~t ~. ~~ '~ ~ J '~` ~ ~ ,~~ 4 L~ N `~.~ V >.-- • ~ ~~.~- ~.~.. ~- ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ `U{'k.r tom.{ _ , [.::. ~ .~ ~~ v3.,• r~~ • ©I `~ ,~ ~ "~=- ~ ~ 1 e ~~ ~i l~ Il 4 I ~~ i #, I I ~ ('~ ,~ I i ~ i L ' F 4~ ~ ~ - - . r_ ~ .f ~ • o~ 1 ~~ q ~' ~ ~~` _~ ~~ ~ ~ Attachment: Q ~. TDWN OF PAIL ~~ THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PRapERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Carnmission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 11, 20f15, at 2:U0 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to existing property lines; and a request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-fiD- 5, Lot Area and Site Dimensions and Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vaii Town Code, to allow building Within the setback, located at 1772, 1778, 1788 Alpine DrivelLots 10, 11, 12, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Dantas Builders Planner: Elisabeth Eckel A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuank to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 3967 Lupine Drive/Lot 1 B, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1, and seating forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: William and Jan Burrow Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-13-4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Gode, to allow for additional Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 2883 Kinnikinnick RoadfException to Phase Il, Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Chuck Ogilby Planner: Bikl Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published June 24, 2005, in the Vail Daily. • C] t~~ ~I~~ ~~ ~~ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING . . ! June 27, 2005 n714~'Of` VAL- . PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Bill Jewitt absent fallowing item #9} Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb David Viele DRB Members Sherry Darward Pete Dunning Lynne Fritzlen Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Anne Gunion 1. Selby Residence - 1463 Aspen Grove Lane 2. Seven Vails, Inc. -1837 Alpine Drive 3. Cascade Village Metropolitan District - Westhaven Drive Bridge 4. Treetops Condominiums - 450 East Lionshead Circle 5. Vail Valley Medical Center -181 East Meadow Drive 6. Stephenson Residence r 1448 Vail Valley Drive Driver: George Public Hearing - Tawn Council Chambers 11:00 am 2:00 pm 1. Joint worksession with the Design Review Board: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and struckures, located at 395 East Lionshead CirclelLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to July 11, 2005 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Klesl~a VOTE: 5-0-1{Viele recused) Bill Gibson made a presentation according to the memorandum. The applicant's representative, Rick Pylman; Chris Fasching, the Town of Vail's traffic consultant; Greg. Hall, Public Works Director; and Mark DeVoss, the applicant's traffic consultant, gave an overview of the proposed traffic/circulation plan and study. I~lo public comment was added. 2. Joint worksession with the Design Review Board: A request far a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area and an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to amend, in part, Chapter 5, Vaif Civic Center f]etailed Plan Recommendations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pylman & Associates, Enc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to Jufy 11, 2005 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND; Kjesba VOTE: 5-4-1 (Niels recused) 3. A request far a #inal review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 1 ~-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment tv an existing platted building envelope, located at 1463 Aspen Grove LanelLot 8B, Lion's Ridge Filing 4, and setting forth. details in regard thereto. Applicant: Robert and Kristine Selby, represented by John Martin Architect, LLC Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesba SECOND: Lamb VOTE:6-0-0 Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Jeff IVlanfey, the applicants representative, made himself available for questions. No public comment was added. 4. A request for final review of a floodplain modification, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for the bridge reconstruction, located at the 4'Vesthaven Drive Bridge and PedestrianlSkier Bridge (a more complete description is available at the Department of Community Development offices); and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Cascade Village Metropolitan District, represented by Lonca, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE:6-0-0 CONDfTIONS: 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this request. This shall include, but not be limited to, the review and approval of demolition plans, sitelgradiing plans, erasion control and Best Management Practices plan, landscapingltree preservation plans, structural design plans, utility plans, utility relocation plans, structural analysis studies, construction staging plans, street disturbance (i.e. street cut) plans, and all necessary details. 2. Construction and disturbance within the Gore Creek 100-year floodplain shall only occur during low flow periods (i.e. after August 1 and prior to spring run-off), 3. Prior to construction, the applicant shall obtain the following: a. Town of Vaff Storm Water Discharge Permit approval b. Town of Vail Revocable Righ#-of-Way Permit approval c. State of Colorado Dewatering Permit approval d. State of Colorado Division of Wildlife approval e. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers approval f. Approval of any other applicable local, state, or federal permits 4. The applicant shall submit a stamped Improvement Location Certificate and topographic survey of the past-construction ``as-built" conditions of the subject site to the Town of Vail Community Development Department far review and approval, prior to Town of Vail final construction inspection. 5. As determined by the Town of Vail Administrator, any changes to the proposed design plans may require a revised floodplain study and Planning and • Environmental Commission approval of a revised floodplain modification application. Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Steve Stinks, the applicant's representative, described the project in further detail and was available for questions. No public comment was added. Commissioners Jewitt and Lamb stated their concerns about which side of Westhaven Drive the bike path was being located, but noted that issue was not. within the scope of this application. 5. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-8C-6, Setbacks, Section 12-fiC-8, density Control, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley DrivelLot 18, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Robert Stephenson, Jr. and John Schofield, represented.. by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTIQN: Tabled to July 11, 2005 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VC3TE: 6-0-0 Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Pam Hopkins introduced the project. She explained the scope, background, and reasoning for project. John Schofield further explained the variance requests, adding that some discrepancy regarding the GRFA could be related to the fact that the methods for calculating GRFA within the Town have changed many times. He commented that a similar setback variance had been granted for this lot and similar site coverage and GRFA variances had been approved for tither lots. He explained haw he believed the below grade portions of the house should not count as GRFA. No public comment was added. Bill Jewitt commented that he was in opposition to constructing an additional bedroom through a GRFA variance. Regarding the lowest level basement argument, he mentioned his support of changing the GRFA regulations. However, Regardless, his opposition to a GRFA variance remains. Regarding site coverage,. he had same difficulty in determining the hardship that was used to constitute a variance from the regulations. Rollie Kjesbo agreed #ha# any square footage below grade should not be calculated as GRFA. However, the currently non-conforming state of the residence's GRFA should not allow a variance far further non_conformity. Regarding the site coverage variance request, the fact that the residence was built within the Town of Vail negated a request for such a variance. George Lamb agreed with the Commissioners who had already spoken, stating his faith in Stafes calculations. In terms of site coverage, he expressed interest in site coverage variances which were granted to properties that were built in the Tawn and according to Town regulations. The parking situation would be improved by the construction of a garage,. however. He was in favor of some solution, but thought that it should not include increased GRFA. C7avid Viele commented that he was not necessarily 'tn agreement with the new GRFA regulations. However, the applicant did not show a hardship that warranted a variance from such regulations. Chas Bernhardt commented that he would like to see the item tabled and proposed somewhat differently at the following meeting. John Schofield added that perhaps simply an entry elevator and a garage could remain a part of the proposal. Bill Gibson clarified that the elevator would be calculated as GRFA on each level of the structure. Bill Jewitt commented that the GRFA request may be more palatable if the site coverage variance was eliminated. Pam Hopkins replied that one of the Town's wishes was to enclose parked vehicles. John Schofield said that site coverage was available upon the lot for a garage and the entry eleva#ar. Doug Cahill asked if the applicant would be willing to table the item, to which the applicant replied affirmatively. 6. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-~H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for a professional business office and studio, located at 450 East Lionshead Circle (Treetops Building), Lot 6, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:6-p-0 CONDITIONS: i. This conditional use permit for a business office, located at 450 East Lionshead Circle (Treetops commercial building), shall expire upon the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the Lionshead Core Site (i.e: Arrabelle). Bill Gibson presented the project according to the memorandum. Jay Peterson, the applicant's representative, made himself available for questions. George Lamb commented that this proposal was consistent with the development that was occurring within the Town at the time. 7. A request for a final review of a conditional use permif, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Parking, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a revision to the approved parking plan at the Vail Valley Medical Center; located at 1$1 East Meadow DrivelLots E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Mauriella Planning Group, LLG Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 5-1-0 (Bernhardt. opposed) ;~ Matt Gannett presented the project according to the memorandum. Greg Rapetti, president of the Vail Valley Medical Center, expressed his support of the proposal to use existing, additional space within the Medical Center. Stan Anderson, with the Vail Valley Medical Center commented that the Center has evolved over time, which evolution has required carefuP additions and allocations of space. The proposal to use some of the existing space is the natural result of an ever-expanding and improving state-of- the-art medical facility, he continued. Dominic Mauriello, the applicant's representative, further introduced the proposal to the Planning and Environmental Commission via a slide presentation. He specifically focused on the efforts that the Medical Center had taken to provide convenient parking for its patients and staff. Though some of the incentives for employees to make use of alternative forms of transportation seemed unsubstantial, such incentives were successful The Center's commitment to providing appropriate and practical forms of parking should cantinas to be recognised by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Doug Cahill asked Staff what the required number of parking spaces would be for this proposal, should the incentives be replaced by actual parking spaces. The answer was forty seven (47} parking spaces. No public comment was added. Rollie Kjesbo commented that concerns about the parking situation existed. at the time that the addition to the hospital was approved. However, because the parking seemed to be currently effective, he would be in support of the proposal. Eventually, the parking situation would need #a be dealt with. George Lamb commented that if the hospital could not be considered a service to the public, he wasn't sure what could. He commended the hospital and expressed his interest in full use of existing space. David Vieie commented that his firm had been contractually involved with the hospital, but those dealings had no bearing on today's proposal. He further added his support of the project. Chas Bernhardt commented that patient parking at the Center has always been good. However, employee parking was not always quite as successful. Many employees are forced to park in the public structures and at times, on the Frontage Road. The °un-used" shell space, as predicted, was now being requested. He was not in favor of "dealing" with the parking later. Doug Cahill agreed with other Commissioners regarding the high level of service provided by the Center. He commented that additional employees must exist now who did not exist at the time of previous approvals. Though he was in support of the proposal today, he also expressed the need to address the entire parking situation as soon as possible. • 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Section 3, nail Land use Plan, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Section 3, Vail Land Use Plan, to establish a site specific land use plan far the "Chamonix Parcel, located at Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto.. Applicant: Town. of Vail, represented by Suzanne Silverthom Planner: Matt Gannett ACTION: I~ecammendatiora of approval MOTION: Kjesba SECOND: Lamb VOTE:6-0-0 Matt Gannett made a presentation per the staff memorandum No public comment was added. David Viele commented his extreme opposition to any proposal for aself-storage facility upon the site. Chas Bernhardt added that such a use was not supported previously. Doug Cahill asked about the fre access, to which the Town of Vail Fire Chief John Gulick responded that the access easement was too far within the Wendy's lotto be entirely usable. 9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 2.8, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the boundaries of the study area to include Evergreen Lodge, located at 250 South Frontage Road West, Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant:: Evergreen Lodge at Vail, represented by HB DeveCopment Company Planner: George Rather ACTION: Tabled to July 11, 2005 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: ~-0-0 George Rather presented the project according to the memorandum. TJ Brink, with HB Development, further explained the background of the project. Doug Cahill asked how access would be addressed. The applicant responded that access for the hospital could occur at the Westbank location. The Evergreen access could then occur as close to Vail International as possible. Bill Jewitt thought that making this area a part of the Lionshead study area seemed to make good sense. Rollie I~Cjesbo continued, saying that adding this area to the Lionshead area seemed to make sense. David Viele stated his lack of support of adding this area into the Lionshead area without serious study of the hospital's future plans. Chas Bernhardt agreed with Commissioner Viele. However, since the Medical Center had now purchased the building to the east, access may work better in the future. Evergreen Lodge should remain amenable, however, to helping solve the traffic situation. Doug Cahill thought that it would benefit the Town to include the site within the Lionshead Master Plan area. - George Ruther pointed out that issues including the maintenance of accommodation units, service and delivery access, pedestrian connections, trafficfcongestion, etc should eventually be studied and added to Chapter 5 of the LRMP. TJ Brink expressed his wish to avoid ono#her joint application with the Medical Center. Chas Bernhardt asked if this was a time sensitive issue. The applicant replied in the negative, stating, however, that a re-zoning application and other applicable requests would follow which would warrant expedited review. 10. A request for final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7H-12, Density (Dwelling Units Per Acre}, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-3, Amendments, Vail Town Code,. to allow multiple attached accommodation units within a dwelling unit, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: IKjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-©-0 George Ruther presented the project according to the memorandum. Jay Peterson, representing Vail Resorts Development Company, asked Staff about several possible corrections which should be reflected within the memorandum. He also asked alaout employee housing and traffic impact fees and requirements. There had been substantial interest for more than one lock off unit within the Arabelle. The only negative to the scenario, he continued, would be "an extra door into the hallway''. Owners who were not interested in renting a second unit, would not ask for this privilege through a conditional use request. Rollie Kjesbo commented that the idea of more "warm beds" within the Town seemed like a good idea. George Lamb said that this proposal would give certain owners a chance to increase rental income. Chas Bernhardt agreed that this proposal seemed to be a good one, He though# that the employee housing requirement was a bit "stiff', however. Point 2 (.2) seemed like a better solution. Regarding traffic impact fees, he had no feelings on that matter. Doug Cahill agreed with the benefits of the proposal and stated that he hoped the concept might be applicable to other developments within the Town. George Ruther commented that employee housing requirement numbers were an attempt at remaining consistent with other approvals within the Town. The generation of new employees was minimal regardless of the number of new attached accommodation units. 11. A request for a final review of a variance from Chapter 14-f, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of 3 feet in height located in the front setback, located at 1837 Alpine DrivefLot 49, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Seven Vals, Inc., represented by David Flinn Planner: Elisabeth Eckel ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 5-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town ofi Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 2. As a result of this approval and prior to final inspection by the Community Development Department, the applicant shall provide only two parallel parking spaces within the Right-of-Vllay along Alpine ©rive, subject to a new Revocable Right-of-Way permit from the Tawn of Vail Public Works Department. 3. The applicant shall ensure that no vegetation shall be disturbed which is not indicated to be disturbed on the plans. Additional disturbed landscaping shall be replaced, according to a new landscaping plan, subject to review and approval by the Community development department. 4. Prior to final inspection by the Community Development Department, the applicant shall ensure that the driveway be paved, to come into conformance with the driveway material regulations defined in Chapter 14:2 Definitions, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code.°' Elisabe#h made a presentation per the staff memorandum Pepper Etters was available to answer questions of the staff and Commission. There was no public comment.. The Commissioners agreed with the applicant's rationale for the physical hardship and believed that relief from the Town's development standards was necessary. i 12. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a ! request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 38, Manor Vail Lodge, pursuant to Section 12-9A- 10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Cade, to allow far modifications to the approved building plans for the Manor Vail Lodge, 595 East Vail Valley DrivelLots A, B, and C, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting farkh details in regard thereto. Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Warren CampbeCl There runs nQ public comment 13. A request far a final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-~, Amendments, to increase the height limitation for a sloping roof from 48' to 56' in the Public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant; Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruther ACTION; Tabled to July 11, 2U05 MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND; Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5-~-0 14. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Tawn Code, to allow far the construction of a garage addition within the front setback, located at 2608 Arosa Drive/Lot 2, Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting Earth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Brenda and Steve Herman,. represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to July 11, 2005 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5-0-0 15. Approval of June 13, 2p05 minutes MOTION; Rollie Kjesbo SECOND; Chas Bernhardt VOTE; 5-0-0 16. Information Update 17, Adjournment MOTION: RollieKjesba SECONQ: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development. Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970} 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970} 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 24, 2(105, in the Vail Daily. • r N • ~~p~~pG ~~ (j N U C)®ryl N~ C~«t(1 Ol a~~~'n m~$ .5 tF ~Tm m~~ ~.~ ~~ S??:; ~a_ :i?,`~`~_~7` C/~ V] z ~, ,~, ~. Q 0 rr A U ~ ,~~ G~ © ~7 a V W ~ w a O ~ W F+ ~ ~ Q cam`-~=?v~ /ry y~ O y~ [~ ,~ 1K1 k C"" O ~ m fiS ~~ ~~ d h O 'C ~ ~ p • ~' a3 A CJ) m •~ "' O i:.~ ~ ~ y u ~ca ~ O v ~ "0 .~ w ~ G ~ ~ U O y .d 3~ ''~ G N ~ 'G ~ ~~ ?.~ ~a ~ ~.©~`~' C ~ O car, i Q. t*~3 ~ y ~.. ~ N 4? ~ 0" ~ 0.1 ~ I-. +~ ~~„ i 'b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn ~ W ~ +-+ ~.a°'ctl-~ tJ dG7~u5 N ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ a e--, ~ ~ Q RE '~ L'~p +., a 'd ~+, pq cs ~ ~ ~ LL1 ~ U r. L~ 3 0~ o c Q ~•~ ~'~_~ O ~ G7 V Qr °a;~~c.~A~~ k. Q 7' cC ~ . O ~/1 Q~ w u~ .~ .~ a3 "~ c: ~--~ '~ N R, 3 G .~ '~ c3 0 6? c.~ 0 c rya °~ b as ctl F-+ '~., N 'C3 C ca T a? 0 a 3 n~ 3 G ~'M1~ ~~~ ~,~ 3U~ n~~ m 4. m c~ ~ '^ ~ x c'~ mY£ ~ o,P ~~ ~ «~~O cwt ii v CTN ~y G/1 0 a 0 ai ty c3 W a 0 0 T ti tV a M N 9 Q ~ a ~' ^'--~ N ~ ~ o ° " ,~ z ~ A Cx. ~ .~ ai O p O ~...... J~~• +~ • • ~ ~ r e~ • J • 7 W 2 .~ U to • ©~'• a ~"'~'~~ 1\ N ZF W Z [n W W ~n a~ cn n 2~ ww mm ww ~~ H a Gir 4 a C/] r~ ~~~ ,A ~I a d =~ ~I W F C U yZZ O ~~Q C14 ~ ~CN C~ ~ ~ _N'C aaJCa~ ~ W ~~~ _ o _ma ~ _ Sus ~ m ~ ~ C ~ y N m mC`-~ ~ O ~U~ .~aEm?sp o Z m c o ~$a m °~ OU ,~~ nm LLSe ~c~ w c~® ~ m tQ;a~~csN Hmm N o~~ U "~pEj~ro ~6 Vimz~ ?NO m~mE~~ ad ~~~- moo ~ ~ ~, n~'+vm~a~° m a_~mmm E ~~ ~q~'OmCU ~~ ~'. oC3 m a ~ ~~P Pa~pp ab V(/y'f]~ N 4-~LL G~ mA ® Cl.SVJ ~ ~ ° ~ a a ac a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :+ .~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~% ~ '~ p E-~ a ~ y ~ p C ~ G (A U bA C can 'b v1 ~ ~ ~ C ~ :'S S-. '~ SFr L W •~ ~ ~ ~ r+. O O O ei3 ^Lr O Y ,~ ~ L ~ ~ O] i 'd ~ ~ ~ C A ~~~~ ,.,'L1~ ~ ~ O, cCd ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ n~.l ~ Vim] Q" r ate, "t3 .C O ~ ~ "~ ,~ ~ ~ > ~ w ~ ~.. ~ `~ C CD ,~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ std ~' ~ cd q ~ 7 ry `~ C O cy 'Cj ~ v~i ~ G ~ ^ ~ ~ .~ ~,3~~a~~a~o O v ~ ~ -da.~~ s~~=~ ° ~~ ~ p.,,~Ax 3 ~ ~ ~ v o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ty O Cr a~ as G a~ .~ H ~~ .~ C ~ w O ~ &g y 0 ~~ u'i O N ~f d _~ I'7 't~ cc7 3 G} '~ ctl w a .~ .~ .~ 3 c~ 0 N ~ a Z f7 ~ i3 cn CV '~ .C a t!s O w N .C s a~i a~ 3 .~ G a m C c'S 0 0 r~ A b =gym ~ ~ ~~®~o~; ~ ~ {u-;7 ro~~"'Em ~ W aco103i y o v 9 '~}4DOe d O ~ aU~N O~3 "L I q~N©d~ ~ mx me mE3~b m~~` [j ~~~ ~~ a o ¢ O C~-`o-U~~7mo~ 4 Z e~S U.-~~ m m Z mNU~m _ m~® O c~~Eao "a o Q o.- nmmm~SiN '.. N m~ULOr~ °1 g C7 ~ ~ ~ nm - ~ t cu 'mc~ my oauj-3cA .Z ~oc~v°aa ~ ~ ZZ ~.mc~cym9n CQ~cva O ~mmro~~'.. ~ ~p0 M°'~~m~.- ~r 6~nvprm ~" U ~ mU.CJ o.r m ~ ~ do7~i. ~'"r.c 4 a4`2 mGC..v C1 3 mv' USN room m.„~sgmgd0~m ,C Oa J j'.'~~aa1 TU m~~r E °~~' ~ y~ mo~riCa b,~v my a omo av ~..p o¢. yn}rn ui mc°7~~~i O to~ma~rn NU rt?`~.5 U ~ o ~ ~ ' ,-" o d z ~ 7 .~ x v O .~ .~ O U y~G ......, ~ .~ .. i ~ • • ~ r ~ ~ ' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ `~ ?- : W ~ • U • ni'. ~U ~~ Vrw~. ~T - r1 L_J • • ro~~~~_- ~(1.61UL_Ur { ~~o v^a ~ O ®E ¢ ~ m~ ~ ~x~ooo ~~ m~ULLd-' 61 acJ Z m ;c~3~mm Em O 3 ~~ H a~i O°p W ~ G7 d ~~~~~~ A ~a.}OC°c~ °c ~ZZ ~o~o~~ a~U© a C ~ d J Q ~ ~~na 3rn Vls c ~, ~~ E_ c d EO O O~ ~ ~~ Z O ^9 ~ 6 ~'_ U cam m ~m ~ ~uwi 8 ~ c o .. °~ ~~ ~z °R ~z Goa og E ~a °aaa~ 4~ ~ 4~ ~G~ONP~}Y `lpC_ 4"pNC Q .~ cpBN $Uyy~ ~TT-YY~~ ~nc-_ t~O.ffi~~V1~ ffiG^.2 NVI_L i@J Fm «nF Oi ~