The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-0725 PEC• • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING _ July 25, 2005 1~ ~F VAfL° PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME pm MEMBERS PRESENT Anne Gunion David Viele Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Bill Jewitt MEMBERS ABSENT Rollie 14jesbo George Lamb Site Visits: 1. Grand Traverse -Lots 1 through 24, Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision Driver: Warren Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers "i2:00 2:00 pm 1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-9A-1Q, Amendment Procedures, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse, modifying the GRFA calculations for the district; and a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4-2, Procedure, Vail Town Code, to modify the sizes of Lots 4 & 5, Dauphinais-Masely Subdivision Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Grand Traverse Homeowner's Association, represented by Pat Dauphinais Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to August 22, 2005 MOTION: Vele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 5-0-0 Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Pat Dauphinais, the applicant, presented an overview of the special development district's history and an overview of the current proposal. He noted that this proposal is an opportunity for the Town of Vail to conduct a case study on eliminating GRFA regulations. He commented how the latest GRFA text amendments negatively affected the development potential for this subdivision. John Schofield, homeowner, noted that the PEC recognized that individual projects may be negatively affected by the GRFA changes and that the PEC recommended that variances should be granted in such circumstances. He recognized that the Town Council did not agree with this concept. Chuck Baker, homeowner, described haw his property was negatively affected by the previous "25fl Addition" and Interior Conversion cut-off dates which excluded him from constructing a basement. similar to his neighbors property. He described haw the 5DD requirements have prevented him from taking advantage of the latest GRFA regulations. • Pat Dauphinais expressed their desire to have the flexibility in terms of GRFA as other zone districts. The Commissioners were in support of the proposed subdivision of Lot 5. The Commissioners generally supported the proposal to remove the GRFA restrictions within SDD Na. 22, Grand Traverse, as there area additional architectural requirements within the SDD which would provide a level of comfort that the homes which have not been built will fit the character of the neighborhood which has already been established. Commission members expressed that the elimination of GRFA for the entire Town would be more difficult as SDD No. 22 is different from a majority of Town in that it contains very small lots and additional architectural controls. Commissioner Jewitt stated he was specifically concerned how much larger homes could became an larger lots, where setbacks have less of an impact than they do an smaller lots. He asked the applicant what he would suggest to control the bulk and mass of structures on larger lots if GRFA was eliminated? He also questioned if much above-ground change would be anticipated on the lots with remaining site coverage? Rat Dauphinais recommended applying a regressive site coverage requirement to larger lets. The applicant continued by providing specific examples on the few lots with remaining site coverage and noted the minimal opportunity for expansion. The applicant, conclude by commenting that had there been no GRFA regulations he would not have constructed the existing homes any differently. 2. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Gonditional Uses, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead GircleJ Lat 1, Block ~, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, Lat 3 and b, 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 ACTION: Tabled to August 22, 20U5 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4-4-1 (Vials recused) Dave Viele recused himself.. Bill Gibson presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. He noted that this discussion is a worksession and the Commission is not being asked to take any formal action at this time. Rick Pylman, applicant's representative, presented an overview of the proposed parking and loading for the conference center project. He Hated a fundamental concept of utilizing underutilized infrastructure such as the Lionshead Parking Structure. He described Vail Resort's financial commitment to increasing the amount of available public parking. Paul Segwick, HVS, presented an overview of the analysis process, key points, and conclusions of their parking study. The Commissioners asked questions as IUIr. Segwich presented his power point presentation. Greg Hall noted the conference center and Dobson should not be used for large events at the same time. • Chris Fasching, FHU, presented an overview of their evaluation and summary of the parking study. He Hated that both parking supply and demand related to the conference center are very dynamic. Commissioner Bernhardt asked how many total people per year will attend the conference center. Mr. Segwick responded that the numbers start at 43,000 and increased to 75,000 after a few years. Commissioner Gunion asked about the overall trend of parking on the Frontage Road. Greg Hall noted that trends have not been consistently increasing. Greg Hall noted that previous Dobson events of 2,800 have put 50 to 100 cars on the Frontage Road, so a large conference center event would be comparable. Kaye Ferry commented that the proposed parking should comply with the same rules as a private developer. She noted her concerns about the existing summer parking demand. She noted that private developers aren't allowed to not provide parking based upon the timing of their events or their business hours. Rick Pylman noted that the Town owns the parking structure facility. He also noted that the parking standards are painted with a broad brush and not based upon a specific proposal. Jim I_amant recommended conducting an overall parking/transportation system analysis and master plan from Cascade to Fard Park. Commissioner Jewitt commented that based upon the findings in the Town Code, he doesn"t believe the parking standard for this project should be reduced to less than what is required by Zoning. He noted his concerns about the employee parking demand assumptions, the lack of an alternative transportation plan far the protect, only using the ballroom and meeting room floor area to calculate the parking demand, and that the event size assumptions were too small. He stated his concern that a future conference center operator would not be willing to limit group sizes or coordinate events with aobson. He also noted that the Lionshead Parking Structure was for public parking, and not intended to be used by a specific developer. In summary, 125 parking spaces are not adequate for the conference center. Commissioner Gunion questioned the event. size and frequency assumptions. She noted that the assumptions being used for marketing and the business plan must be used to analyze the parking needs. She noted that the conference center should provided the number of parking spaces that the Town would require of a private developer and the Town should take advantage of this opportunity to construct additional parking. She expressed her concerns about what if the parking analysis assumptions are incorrect. Gommissioner Bernhardt agreed with Commissioners Jewitt and Gunion, and that more floor areas than just the ballroom and meeting rooms should be used to calculate the parking requirement. Commissioner Gahill stated that the more parking that is constructed the better. He noted that additional information would be needed to convince him that only 125 parking spaces would be adequate for the conference center. Rick Pylman Hated that skier parking and special event parking are creating the real parking problems in Town, not the local businesses. Anne Gunion noted that the overall parking problem is creating a loss of tourism and event attendance. ! Rick Pylman noted that a lot of the conference center's parking issues come down to the management of the facility. 3. A request far a correction to the Vail Land lase Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area and an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to amend, in part, Chapter ~, Vail Civic Center Detailed Plan Recommendations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. Planner; Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to August 22, X445 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4-4-1 (Niels recused) This item was reviewed concurrently with item #2. 4. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6C-fi, Setbacks, Section 12-6G-8,~ Density Control, and Section 12-6G-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1448 Vaii 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 AGTION: Motion to approve variance for setbacks MOTION; Viele SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-4-4 ACTION: Motion #a approve variance far site coverage MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Vele VOTE: 41-0 (Dewitt Opposed) ACTION: Motion to approve variance far GRFA MOTION: Viele SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 41-4 (Dewitt apposed) Additional finding that this variance approval is far an elevator and an elevator entry, Bill Gibson presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum. Pam Hopkins and John Schofield presented the variance requests and their reasoning for the requests. Commissioner Dewitt was supportive of the setback variance, but not the site coverage ar GRFA variances. Commissioner Viele agreed with the applicant that more changes are needed to GRFA regulations, but noted that Jahn Schofield was directly involved in the most recent changes in the GRFA regulations. He noted his personal belief that anything below grade should not count as GRFA. Commissioner Bernhardt agreed that the regulations adapted by the Town Council gave basement deductions to only the lowest level of a house. However, he believes the applicant's proposal meets the intent of the law and is being evaluated in a site specific situation. Commissioner Cahill noted his concern about precedent and his support for variances for the garage. 5. 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 1Nest, Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting faith details in regard thereto. Applicant: Evergreen Lodge at Vail, represented by HB Development Company Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to August 8, 2405 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Gunian VOTE: 5-0-4 6. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-7B-12, Height, Vail Town Cade, and Section 12-7B-15, Site Coverage, Vail Tawn Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code; and a request for a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Cade, to allow for additions and exterior renovations to the Lodge Tower, located at 200 Vail RaadlLat 2, Lodge Subdivision, Vail Village Firs# Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to August 8, 2405 MOTION: Bernhardt. SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 5-4-4 7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council of proposed text amendments to 11- 2-1, Definitions, Sign Regulations; 12-2-2, Definitions, 12-3-fiC, Notice, Hearings, Administration and Enforcement, 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, PA District, 12-7C-4, Conditional Uses, Generally, Commercial Care 2 District, 12-7D-2, Conditional Uses, Commercial Core 3 District, 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, CSC District, 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On all Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), Lionshead Mixes Use 1 District, 12-71-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (On ail Levels of a Building or Outside of a Building), Lionshead Mixed Use 2 District, 12-8D-2, Permitted Uses, Ski BasefRecreation 1 District, 12-8D-3, Conditional Uses, Ski Base/Recreation 1 District, 12-9A-2, Definitions, Special Development District, 12-9A-1 fi, Private Parking Space Leasing, Conditional Use Permit, Special Development District, 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, GU District, 12-10-17B-1, Leasing of Parking Spaces, 12-15-5E-3, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance) Procedure, 12-17-68-3, Criteria and Findings, Variances, 12-21-2, Definitions, Hazard Regulations, and 12-22-2, Definitions, View Corridors, of Title 12, Zoning Regulations; 13-2-2, Definitions, 13-6B-1 B, Plat Approval Procedure, Condominium and Townhouse Plats, 13-7-2, Definitions, Condominium and Gondaminium Conversions 13-11-2, Certificate of Dedication and Ownership, Sample Certificates, 13-11-3, Certificate of Dedication for Mortgage Holder or Deed of Trust Holder, Sample Certificates, 13-11-4, Surveyor's Certificate, Sample Certificates, 13-11-5, Title Certificate, Sample Certificates, 13-11-fi, Clerk and Recorder Certificate, Sample Certificates, 13-11-7, Tawn Council Certificate, Sample Certificates, 13-11-8, Planning and Environmental Certificate, Sample Certificates, 13-11-9, Administrator Certificate, Sample Certificates, 13-11-10, Certificate of Taxes Paid, Sample Certificate, and 13-11-11, Certificate of Ownership, Sample Certificate, of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; and 14-2 Definitions and 1410-I, Accessary Structures; Utelities; Service Areas, Design Review Standards and Guidelines of Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections andlor clarifications to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTICIN; WITHDRAWN 8. Approval of July 11, 2005 minutes MOTION': Viele SECOND: Dewitt VOTE: 5-0.0 U 9. Information Update 10. Adjournment MOTION: Dewitt SECOND: GUniQn VOTE: 40-0 (Viele absent) The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Gammunity 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 Gammunity development Department. Please call (970) 47'9-2138 for additional information, Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department Published July 22, 20Q5, in the Vail Daily. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 25, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code,. to allow far a major amendment to Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse, modifying the GRFA calculations far the district; and a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4-2, Procedure, Vail Town Code, to modify the sizes of Lots 4 & 5, Dauphinais-Mosely Subdivision Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, President of Grand Traverse H.O.A. Planner: Warren Campbell I. 5UM IUTARY The purpose of this work session meeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity to introduce a proposal for amending Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse, to eliminate the maximum allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for each lot within the SDD and to subdivide Lot ~ of the Amended Final Plaf: Dauphinais-1Vloslev Subdivision Filina 7: A Resubdivision of Lots ~_ fi. 7. 8, 9. and 10 to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Staff is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission identify issues for the applicant and staff to address at a future meeting regarding the applicant's proposal. The Commission is na# being asked to take any formal action on this application at this time. As such, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Pat Dauphinais, President of the Grand Traverse H.O.A., has requested a work. session meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission to present a proposal to amend the SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse, to eliminate GRFA restrictions within the SDD. The applicant's request to remove the GRFA restrictions for the lots located within SDD Na. 22, Grand Traverse, has arisen as the homes within the 5DD are not eligible far the new GRFA methodology adopted by Qrdinance ~4, series of 2004, as the lots are restricted in terms of maximum allowable GRFA in mast cases far below that which would be permitted under the underlying PrimaryfSecondary zone district in regards to lot size. In addition,. the homes within the SDD are na longer eligible fora 250 addition or an interior conversion per the new GRFA regulations. The applicant is proposing that si#e coverage, setbacks, and height would control development on the Fats. A vicinity map has been attached far reference Attachment A). kn addition, the applicant is proposing to subdivide Lot 5 of the Amended Final Plaf: Dauahinais-Moslev Subdivision Filing 7: A Resrabdivision of Lofs 5. 6. 1. 8, 9, and 10 to create two lots from one larger lot. A reduced copy of the existing plat fvr Lot 5 ,Amended Final Plaf: Dauahinais-Moslev Subdivision Filing ~: A Resubdivision of Lots 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. and 90 elevations has been attached for reference (Attachment 6). The existing Lot 5 within the afore mentioned subdivision was created by combining two of the original platted lots within Daunhinais-Moslev Subdivision Filing 1. The applicant would propose to subdivide Lot 6, measuring 23,722 square feet, back into two equal smaller lots measuring approximately 11,861 square feet. III. BACKGROUND • The area included within SDD No_ 22 was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance 29, Series ofi 1979 which became effective on August 15, 1979. * SDD No. 22 was created from 30.69 acres of land with an underlying zoning of Primary/Secondary zone district by Ordinance 23, Series of 1988. It included the creation of the Dauc~hinais-Moslev Subdivision Filing 9 recorded in 1990 consisting of 24 fats and 3.741 acres of open space. On May 7, 1991, the Vail Town Council introduced, read and approved on second reading Ordinance #10, Series of 1991, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance #13, Series of 1990, to provide changes to Special Development District #22 that concerned lot size, corresponding GRFA, maximum number of allowable employee dwelling uni#s, and architectural guidelines. Ordinance #13, Series of 1990 was the original ordinance establishing 5DD #22. On September 22, 1997, the Gornmunity Development Department approved, and the Planning and Environmental Gommission upheld, a minor amendment to SDD #22. The minor amendment allowed for changes to the architectural guidelines outlined in Section 11 of Ordinance #10, Series of 1991. The changes included. • architectural guideline requiring that all the residences in the 5DD have copper gutters and downspouts, and the ability for the residence constructed on Lot 14 to have the garage doors of the residence facing the road. • On June 8, 1998 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a Major Amendment to SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse. The following items were approved as a part of the Major Amendment of the applicant's request an June 8, 1998: an increase in the allowable GRFA for all existing and proposed employee housing units from b00 square feet maximum to 800 square feet maximum, • a change in the allowable enclased parking area (garage} square footage credit from 600 square feet to 1,240 square to permit adequate enclosed parking for constructed employee housing units {fi04 square feet far the primary dwelling unit and f00 square feet for the EHEJ if constructed}, • a replat of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, g ~ 10 into Lots 5, 7, 9 & 10, thus eliminating two lots within the Grand Traverse development area, • an increase to the maximum number of outdoor lights allowed on each residential lot to 15 per lot total, • a modification to the required setbacks on Lots 5, 7, 9 & 10, • a reapportianing of GRIsA within the Grand Traverse development area, and • a reapportioning of the 600 square foot garage credit. • In October of 2004, Ordinance 14, series of 2004, was adopted which amended the GRFA regulations regulating Grand Travers which eliminated the ability of homes within the subdivision to request 254 additions and interior conversions. IV. RILES t?F THE REVIEWItVG 13OARQS Saecial Qevelor~ment District and Maior Amendment Order of Revie+~+v: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEG fQr impacts of use/development, then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Council. Planning and Environmental Commission: The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council based on the Criteria and Findings Cisted in Section IK of this memorandum. Design Review Board: The DRB has N4 review authority on a SbQ proposal, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB review of an SDD prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. Staff: The staff is responsible far 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. 3 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. Tflwn Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approvalldenial of an SQD. The fawn Council shalC review file proposal using the Criteria and Findings listed in Section lX of this memorandum. Minor Subdivision Review 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 commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one {2?) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or fhe 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 environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing fhe plat shalt be as contained in section 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 C~esign Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council is the appeals authority far an exemption plat review procedure in accordance with Section 13-3-bC, Vail Town Code, which reads as follows: tN'ithln ten (1Q) days the decision of the Planning and Environrnenfal Commission on the final plat shall be transmitted to the Gouncil by the staff. The Council may appeal the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission within seventeen (17} days of the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If Gounci! appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision, the Gounci! shall hear subsfantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Gommr'ssion hearings}. The Council shall have thirty {34) days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision, and the Gounci! shall conduct the appeal of a regularly scheduled Gounci! meeting. 4 Stafff: 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 protides 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 DOCUMENTS Town Of Vail Zoning Cade Article 12-9A: Special Development (SDD} District (in part) 72-9A-7: PURPOSE: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its mast appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations 13-7-2: PURPOSE: C. Specific Purposes: These regulations are further intended to serve the following specific purposes: 1, To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 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, consisfent with Town development objectives. 5. To gur`de public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other publr`c requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. 8. Ta provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and fo establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. 5 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard fhe water table and fo encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout fhe Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beaufy of fhe community and the value of the land. 13-3-4: COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION; CRITERIA: The burden of proof shalt rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Envr'ronmenfal Commission steal! review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision contra!, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrify and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects an the aesthetics of the Town. VI. SITIE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Dauphinais-Maslev Subdivision Filina 7 and Amended Final Plaf: Daur~hinais-Mosley Subdivision Filina 1: A Resubdivisian of Lots 6. 8. 7. 8. 9. and 90 Address: 145D-185D Lions ridge Loop and 14D2-1428 Moraine Drive Lat Size: 1 D.69 acres (455,656 sq ft} Zoning: Special Development District Na. 22 (PrimarylSecondary zone district underlying zoning) Current Land Use: Residential Staff will perform a complete analysis for final review. VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AN Land Use North: Residential South: HotellLodge East:. Residential West: Residential VIII. GRITERIA AND FINDINGS D ZONING Zoning Primary/Secondary zone district Public Accommodation zone district Low Density Multiple-Family zone district PrimarylSecondaryzcne district The following section of this memorandum is included to provide the applicant, community, staff, and Commission with an advanced understanding of the criteria and findings that will be used by the reviewing boards in making a final decision on the proposed application. 6 Special Development Distrcc# Maior Amendmen# 12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA: The following design criteria shall be used as fhe principal criferia in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. !t shall be fhe burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the fallowing standards, or demonstrate that one ar more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public inferest has been achieved: A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity fa the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 8. Relatianshr`p: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 1G- of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: ldenfiflcation and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special developmenf district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive fo natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of fhe community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed far both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and funcfion. 1. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relafionshr`p _ throughout the development of the special development disfricf. Minor Subdivision According to Section 13 3 4, Commission Review, Criteria, of the Town of VaiC M~rnicipal Code: "The burden of proof shall resf with the applicant fo show that the application is in compliance with the Intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and ofher pertinent regulations that the Planning 7 and Environments! Commission deems applicable. Due consideration steal! be given fo the recommendafions made by public agencies, utility campanies and other agencies consulted under subsection 73 3 3C above. The Planning and Environments! Commission shall review the application and consider ifs appropriateness in regard fo Town policies relating fo subdivision confrol, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolufions and other applicable documents, environmental infegrify and compafr'bilify with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town." Staff and the applicant are asking the Planning and Environmental Commission to provide feedback and input on the applicant`s proposal to eliminate GRFA restrictions within SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse. Staff believes the following questions will help to guide the discussion. • Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse, is not being treated equally under the new GRFA regulations? • Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the elimination of the GRFA restrictions found within SDD Na. 22, Grand Traverse, and the replacement with site coverage, setbacks, and height as limiting factors an structure size is appropriate? • Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that if GRFA restrictions are eliminated that structures within the SDD will remain relatively as they appear today for both existing and new structures? • Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe this would be a good case study to see haw the elimina#ion of GRFA would affect the design of structures? • Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the Architectural Guidelines adopted within Section 4 Number 11 provide added security to ensure that new and axis#ing s#ructures will maintain the scale and character as it exists today? • If not, does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe that the SDD should be amended to increase the maximum allowable GRFA on each lot? Should that increase be what each lot would be entitled to under PrimarylSecondary zoning based an lot size? • Dves the Planning and Environmental Cammissian believe that the SDD should be amended to allow for 2~0 addition and interior conversions? • Any additional comments from the Planning and Environmental Cammissian? 8 • Does the Planning and Environmental Commission want any additional information to be provided by staff and the applicant at a future meeting? The next step is for the application to be scheduled on the August 8, 2005, Planning and Environmental Commission agenda.. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a major subdivision application is as follows: A. Lot Area Q. Frontage C. Site Dimensions The second set of review criteria t© be considered with a major subdivision request is as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows: The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the #uture without conflict with development on adjacent property. 3, To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. ~. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land. uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. B. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly sufydivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures, 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 municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff and the applicant are asking the Planning and Environmental Commission to prt~vide feedback and input on the applicant's proposal to subdivide Lot 5 of the Amended Fina! Plat: Daunhinais-Maslen Subdivision Filing 9.• A ResubdivisiQn of Lots 5. ~. 7. 8. 9. and 90. Staff believes the following questions will help to guide the discussion. • Does the Planning and Environmental Commission believe there is support to approve a subdivision of Lot 5 with the two resulting lots encompassing an area less than the '15,400 square foot minimum requirement for Primary/Secondary zoned properties? lX. STAFF REC©MMENDATiQN As this is a work session, staff will not be providing a staff recommendation at this time. Staff will provide a staff recommendation at the time of a final review for this application. Staff would request that the Planning and Environmental Commission table this application to the August $, 2flfl5, public hearing agenda. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map Ei. Reduced Copies of the plats of the Dauohinais-Mosley Subdivision Filina 1 and Amended Final Piat: Daunhinais-Mosley Subdivision Fiiinc~ 1: A Resubdivision of L©fs b. ii. 7. &. 9. and 1 Q C. Copy of SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse 10 ~ aa> > ..':5o- ~../s _LL-.. o .~ =v~ ~_~ ~eH ~~ ~,~ 4 t €= ~~~ 9~a ~`o nu m m E~ ~ m n~ 7 m E~ ~~ ~~ :~ > m~ O p~p~ L R E Attachment: A ~~. ' ~i. S \ ~~ ~ '~ ?1 ~' ~- ~ ~: 4~ ~~ ~~~ 2\`,_ 4 _ t ~Y~d.~ `~ V O a g N *'~~ II ~' ~ * ~ ~ ~;~ ~ 1 };; ~^G t~~ ~" ~ •;> $~ a . ~ 4~T a~ ~ { .. .~ Y ~t . \ 'L~ "w tiy~. . ~i ~, 1 ~; m ', 4 . ^~ \ `~ -' 2~ & ~°. s 2 ~~~~ u ~ `' ~ ,~. i ar .~4~ ~y., h ~r. ;S,S~-c ~ ~~ Y~' ~. m u.. d c y~ k A qa `~~ 1" r ~ ~j 3 \ O v ~! 2 R `: L' ~~ :~ e !~) ' y~ t4 ~ V ~ J ~ ~L ~ b N d O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ s ~ [(A/~~ `~ J D C>>'c~~ ~~04~1 Q (f~ ~ Q ~ Lu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~4+.sh~s zQ ~a ~ ~~~~ U ¢a R +.a •' Y ~ Nc fi~~ T k'~" .~ ~\ 3~~E Si~G 0 :: ' z " e , , ~ ~ ii 3 I n ~ 0 ~ ~,F 6... 'M1i ~ ~ + ~ ~ f ~ ~ :l ~~ ~:'? l c y.A.. ~ 1~ Ai ~ ~ ' r Sol ' ~ • ~S II , . s ~ ~ *- I :I k FFr.~- ~ p iT r'; ~^ . ~. <x~........ .~,s .~. ... ..~.. -<. .zz E. . ...., t r~ ~ ~ ~.~T~SS-n~ `~~'. °M8~"o~5ffi,^, 7~N.T,: d{Y. '~ $oL F~l: cLB d~t~ u$p ~, ~:.$af ask ~xa n8;$F~ +$ea k.. :.~~$$R$a'w=ASR ~ ~'C 5^, '~5~ R iY~!~~. L~°;d5fa~$`aY ~~ LL. 8. u[ ,48 "7R 88 B,BRA8s ~saf4 Ya• R°S~ 7~a.~e ~ . . _ l i~q ,a,FC,~aB ~ S.W ffiSiS ~&;&k° hmen'~• B :~~`~~8 ow; Att F..FS.~nPY~R,;RRRER~BRSbtR^18..: ,,nR~BM ~ ac hnNN zxxazmyaa.,xccz nee<n~y x<~x~ wdR~A+i .'. S, ~.. .n...~c ~.ea.^"w:....,,R ;k8bfip, 6IECli :: a ~ .. i- '3~Y 4~.-`1 Er F7~r_-~C £:E -2• 5 ~::~~a 57 ±}i y€. V S "s~a ;a° t 7. c~~Y . :Zy+ C r2 ~9~ • • i• ~, 7 5 7' :Y ~E 1i .1 rl °z~ V` ~~cn0 00 6 ~ O G~ P4 ~~ ~P~'I ~urzaau~~u~~~ r~~~unayu-aaauY • ~ ~. ~~ l ~~~~ zl~ ~P~ f' ~r~~g. s _~s s E } ~ x 3Fi 5 f ~ .. ~~ ~~« 1~ ai ~4~~s ~~ x` F~~ ~; ~ 7 ' SF r d~t *~ ~ 3`~35i k~E Y g- 6 I e L P ~ T ] LJ ~ ~ ~ Rj Y ba }4 ~. f « DJ ~i ~?64` pR u +,c k §p $ _ qty ±fl3,jj lp wa a~ xSyp M$~g~a z ~Yf& :~: .~ ~f9$ssa>t 5 B ~ ~z ~` ;~ ~g s ~~ ~* 1 `\1 R ~$ ~{ 9 ~dh a ~ ..~e CCYZ~~' '.Si '1~ 3~7Y3 -l•Yn .+u wnua DI aha 'n a i 's s ~'iC'. !'~ Na6u~..C0f63a v ON ..^.Nf1 G; - `^.OrNl~791S ti~13'aCM - SYYNIHdIIYO i+~-ia ~d a3arr~wr :.; S~}`}p I r a ` ~~ $ k F 3 I I a. }i a + ig~ 1 €~ '~~ ~ ~ Yq ^r, ~~ ii ~ ~ ~. z~.7x t' I$ ~ 3 3 ~ Y~ A. .~~ R~y SS .y ._ .S ~S F _.~~E F ~ J ~F `~ z Leii ~ ~ {- a. 3a ~ a x r ~ ep~~s ~~~ ~ {{ ~ ~~ ~4a} ~ ~ 3g~6c ~ PE a. ~=1 .~.: ~ „y i C~ ,1 'k ~, cjo.t bi ~ a ~o~x~a~s i~~ x-""#~~~s.€ ~ a~~~a;Sf~ Pg f ; I .y~FnF. 4.~ '~" a ~caAade:'~ : v~`'. (r~~'~r n~ - _ f I ` ~ ~ I;~I: ~y ?r 6 -~ y 5II v F~ k _ s~ $ T q~T 7 Y ~ A ~~ } ~ ~ F : "~9 "• 6 ! ~ r ~{ tl x ~ r lf~y £= ; ~ Y ~ ~ _ % ~ L yt Z i .k 11 ~ ^' fl ~s w § a ~ 1 .,.' a ~k 'Y ,~ . ~3aSf 3' S p ~~x'} y 1~i 'r J =-P s. :€ ~ 6 E -uik ~,3.,?~ ~,_ . r F f a4 ORDINANCE NO.9 Series of 1998 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 10, SERIES OF 1991, PROVIDING FOR CHANGES TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 22, GRAND TRAVERSE, THAT CONCERN THE LOT SIZES, THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE CORRESPONDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES; AND SETTING FORTI-i DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, Chapter 9 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, The Town Council approved Ordinance No_ if), Series of 1991 Special Development district No. 22, Grand Traverse; and WHEREAS, Dauphinais-Moseley Construction has requested to amend the existing Special Development District No. 22; and WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipal Code provides procedures far major amendments tg existing Special Development Districts; and WHEREAS, The applicant has complied with "the requirements outlined in Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, The Special Development District provides for creativity and ,t flexibility to allow for the development of land within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, There is an identified need for quality affordable housing in the community; and WHEREAS, On June $, 199$, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment proposal and has recommended that certain changes be made to Special Development District Ng. 22, Grand Traverse; and WHEREAS, The Town Council considers that ii is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and re-enact Ordinance No. 10, Series of i 99i to prpvide for certain changes-in Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED SY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance Na. 14, Series of 1991 is hereby repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: Section i. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled. Planning Commission Report The approval procedure prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 9, Section 10(B) of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Vail Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval, of At#achrnellt: ~ the proposed development plan for Special Development district No. 22. Section 2. Special Develoament District No. 22 Special Development District Na. 22 (SDD 22} and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved far the development of Lots 1 through ] 9, 6iock 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing 3 within the Tawn of Vaii consisting of 10.69 acres, Section 3. Puroose Special Development District No. 22 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development is regarded as complementary to the Tawn by the Town Council and meets each of the design standards and criteria as set forth in Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development District No. 22 that are difficult to satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the underlying Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Special Development District No. 22 allows far greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. The smaller single-family lots provide the opportunity for a common open space for the subdivision as well as the means to preserve the southerly ridge line of the property. Specia! Development District Na. 22 provides an appropriate development plan to preserve the uisua[ quality of the site from within the subdivision as well as adjacent properties in the community in general. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development.plan for SDD 22 is approved and shall constitute tt~e plan for development within the Special development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Dauphinais-Moseley Construction and - " consists of the fallowing documents: 1, Site development plan, Lionsridge Ftesubdivision of Lots 1-19, Vail, Colorado, Intermountain Engineering, dated July 7, 1998. - 2. Conceptual landscape plan, tntermountain Engineering, dated Juiy 7, 1998. - 3. Fnal Plat of Lionsridge 5utxiivision Filing No. 5, A Resubdivision of Lots 1.11, - Black 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3, Tawn of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, sheets 1 and 2, intermountain Engineering Limited, dated April 19, 3989 and f=inal Plat of Dauphinais-Moseley Suhdi~fsion Filing No. 1, . A Resubdinisian of Lots 5, 6, T, B, 9 7 10, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, _ State of Colorado, Intermountain Engineering, dated July 21, 1998. ~ '" 7 4. Construction, grading and drainage drawings far a resubdivision of Lots 1-15, Block 2, and Lionsridge Lane, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing fJo. 3, Tvwn of Wail, '~ Eagle County, Colorado, Intermountain Engineering Limited, sheets 1-8, dated March 9, 1989. 5. Soils and Foundation Investigation for Lots 1-24, L+onsridge 5th Filing. fi. Lionsridge Color Palette, Amo6dlGwathmey/Pratt Architects, March 799Q. 7. The subdivision plat for Dauphinais-Moseley Subdivision recorded August 23, 1990 and July 21, 1998. B. The development standards shalt be as follows: 1. Acreaoe: The total acreage of this site is 10.69 acres or 465,650 square feet. 2. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for SOD 22 shall be. a. Single family residential dwellings b. Open space e. Public roads d. Employee dwelling units as defined in Section 5, paragraph G of this ordinance, 3. Conditional Uses= a. Public utility and public service uses b. Public buildings, grounds and facilities c. Public or private schools d. Public park and recreation facilities 4. Aceessarv Uses: a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family uses. b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupatlon permit in accordance with the provisions of 5eotion 12-14-12 of the Vail Municipal Code. c. Other uses customarily incidents! and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 3 5. Lots Sizes and Maximum GAFAS: MAX CFtFA INCL. 425 50. FT. LOT S-zE GRFA ALLOWANCE PER UfJIT 1 11,805 2.,293 2,718 2 16,248 4,070 4,495 3 11,500 3,171 3,596 4 11,.761 2,293. 2,718 5 23,330 5,889 6,314 7 15,393 4,070 4,495 9 14,588 4,070 4,495 10 14,429 4,070 4,496 11 10,803 3,171 3,596 12 12, 981 3,171 3, 596 13 15,159 3,171 3,596 14 11,151 3,171 3,596 15 $,538 2,293 2,718 16 8,494 2,293 2,.718 17 8,494 2,2'93 2,718 18 10,062 3, i 71 3,596 19 9,148 2,293 2,718 20 9,801 3,171 3,596 21 10,237 3,171 3,596 22 9,409 2,293 2,71 B 23 9,148 3,171 3,598 24 10,629 2,293 2,718 69,052 76,402 GRFA shall mean the total square footage of all 4evels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e. not including furring, sheetrock plaster and other similar wall finishes, GRFA shall include, bu# not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, mecllanicai chases, vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shalt also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of paragraph A below. A. Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units., the fallowing areas shall be excluded fr©m calculation as GRFA: 1. Garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable +,~ 4 dwelling unit and one t+~e spaces for each c©nstructed employee unit. 2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the fioorlceiling assembly above. 4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar featurelspace with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than 25% of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio. or similar featurelspace provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring Ehe Eotal square footage of a building as set forth in Section 12-~-2 of the Vail Municipal Code.. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall then be deducted from total square footage. In addition to the above, four hundred twenty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit not to include any restricted employee housing unit. 6. Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved site development plan by Intermountain Engineering, dated July 7,1998. A 4-foot raof overhang shall be allowed in the front setback for Lots 15-19, provided the rear setback is increased by 4 feet. A 4-foot raof overhang shall be allowed in the rear setback of tots 2d-24, provided the front setback is increased by 4 feet. Roof overhangs shall be allowed to encroach up to 2` feet into the required side setback oft ®feet for each lot. An unenelosed, unroofed, deck or patio within 5 feet of finished grade may encroach into the rear setback by 5 feet for Lots t-14 and ]rots 20-24. fVo other setback encroachments shall be allowed. 5 7. Densitv: Approval of this development plan shall permit a total of 22 single-family dwelling units on the entire property. A minimum of G employee dwelling units shall be required. A maximum of 22 employee dwelling units shall be permitted an the ' entire property. ~K,,;~;-r7F g2 ~ple}~ee-dwellifl~ :~-:~1~-'~~~ tr~~-~;~e"' .~ el~:itJ iw;~~rii:., . ~ ~I tf`~•/ ~:~>ta-i~-desire by -re ..~_. B. Building Height: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of the building shall not exceed 30 feet. For a sloping roof, the height of the building shall not exceed 33 feet- The height calculation shall be made by measuring from the existing grade as indicated on the Intermountain Engineering Topographical Survey dated March 13, 1990 or finished grade. Height shall be calculated per Section 12-2-2 of the VaiP Municipal Code. 9, Site Coveratie: Not more than 25 percent pl the total site area on each lot shall be "*, covered by buildings with the exception of Lot 5. On LQt 5, not more than 20 percent ofi the total site area shall be cowered by a building. "Site coverage" shall mean the ratio of the fatal building area on a Site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean. the total horizontal area of any building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. Building area shall include a!I buildings, carports, ports cocheres, arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of roof overhang, save, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns. 10. Parking: Parking shall be as required in Title 12, Chapter 10 of the Vail Municipal Code. Each employee dwelling unit shall be required to have at least one enclosed garage parking space. 11. Design Cuidetines: The development of each lot shall be guided by the architectural and landscape design guidelines as approved as part of the Special Development District No. 22. The guidelines are as follows: a. Architectural- The architectural design of the buildings open the site shall be such that buildings relate harmoniously to each ether. This is not to imply that each building must Look exactly similar to those around it, but that compatibility be achieved through the use of scale, materials and colors, and `- building shape and form. The overriding concern is that, upon completion, the Special Development District, because of the clustered nature of the small single family lots situated around common open space, should appear to be an integrated development possessing a common architectural quality, character, and appearance. To this end the following general design criteria shall be followed by the developer and indiuidual lot owners: b. A palette of colors sha[I be as set forth in the Lionsridge Color Palette from AmvldlGwathmey/Prat! dated March 199©. Colors are indicated for the use on different types of building materials and elements such as stucco colors, siding colors, metal flashing, windows, accent colors, etc. The palette of colors indicate a range of acceptable colors in order to encourage similarity on one hand, but also diversity within the acceptable range. c. The following building standards and materials shall be adhered to: (f} Roof. The roof pitch shall be a minimum 81f2 and a maximum of !2112. A gable, clipped gable or hipped roof shalt be mandatory. Dormers shall be allowed and reviewed by the pesign Review Board. The roofing material shall be cedar shake shingles with staggered butts. {2} Ghimnevs. The chimneys shall be stucco with chimney caps of weathered copper. {3) Flues. Ail flues shall be galvanized or painted sheet metal, painted to match the roof. (4; Main Fascia. The main fascia shat) be a solid color stain, with brown, taupe, or gray. {5} Secondary Fascia and Metal R~ilinns above the First Floor. The secondary fascia and metal railings above the first floor shall be a muted accent trim color to be reviewed by the DRB. (~6} Walls. Walls shall be of stucco and horizontal or vertical wood siding. Stucco colors shall be gray, beige or off-white. Wood Siding colors shall be gray, brown or taupe. {7} Stone. Residences will have a minimum of a two foot high Stone wainscot in rainbow mix with a sandstone cap around the perimeter of the structure except under docks where substantially concealed by landscaping. (t3} Windows. Windows shall be recessed a minimum of two inches from the outside wall plane and have a sandstone sill, firim shall be whiter taupe or brown. 7 (9} Qutdaor Liahtinq, Outdoor lighting shall be indirect with a concealed source except for an entry chandelier, two carriage lights and one pilaster light which may be exposed globes with a fixture of black or weathered copper ~ look metal. The maximum number of outdoor lights permitted an each lot shall be 15 regardless of lot Size. Outdoor lights which conform with Ordinance #22, Series of 1997, shall be exempt. All exterior lighting shalt be reviewed by the DRS. (10} Garaoes. No garage doors shall directly face the street, except on Lot 24 and . Lo# 14. (1' 1 } A residential address/nameplate if desired by the owner shall be located on the side of the garage facing the access paint to fhe lot. (t2} When the individual landscape plans are designed for individual lots, special care shall be taken in the design of side yard landscaping in order to provide adequate screening between structures. i2. Recreational Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax shall be assessed at the rate For asingle-family residential zone district. Section S. Conditions of Aaoroval A. The major amendment to Special Development District Na. 22, Grand Traverse, shall not be effective until the major subdivision is recorded by the Town of Vail at the 'Eagle County Clerk and Recorder°s ®fiice. 13. The major subdivision shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to a building permit being released for any ° construction on Lots 2, 5, 7, 9 or ~ 0, C. The development of Special Development District No. 22 will have impacts on the available employee housing within the Upper Eagle Valley Area. In order to help meet this additional employee housing need, the developer of Special Development District Na, 22 shall provide employee housing on site, The ';following restrictions sha[I apply to all employee dwelling units within SDD No. 22: 1. The developer shag build a minimum of six employee dwelling units within the subdivision. Each employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum square footage of 400 square feet not to exceed 8UQ square feet and is allowed to have a kitchen. The GFtFA and number of employee units shalt not be counted toward allowable density or 8 GRFA for Special Development District fdo. 22. The developer may choose to transfer up to 3Q4 sq. ft. of GRFA from the primary unit to the employee unit. The GRFA transferred will be deducted from the total allowable GRFA of the primary unit. The developer may provide up to i5 employee dwelling units including the 6 required dwelling units if sa desired. 2. The employee dwelling units may be located an any of the lots within the subdivision providing all the development standards are met for each lot. Only one employee dwelling unit shall be allowed per lot with a maximum of 15 units allowed. An employee dwelling shall be incorporated into the structure of the primary residence and shall not be allowed to be separated from the primary unit. Each employee dwelling unit shall at least one enclosed garage parking space. This parking space shall not b8 detached from the single-family garage or structure. Each phase of construction shall include a minimum of one employee dwelling unit until six employee dwelling units are constructed and available for rental. , 3. The Employee Housing Unit shall be leased to tenants who are fu11- time employees who work in Eagle County. An EHU shall not be leased far a period less than thirty consecutive days. For the purposes of this section, afull-time employee is one who works an average of thirty hours each week. 4. An EHU may not be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from any two family dwelling it may be a part of.. 5. The EHU shalt not be divided into any form of timeshares, interval ownership, or tractional #ee ownership as those terms are defined in the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. 6. fVo later than February 1 of each year, the owner of each employee housing unit within the town which is constructed following the effective date of this chapter shall submit two copies of a report on a form to be obtained from tf~e Community Development Department, to the Community Development Department of the Tawn of Vail and Chairman of the Tawn of Vail Housing Authority setting faith evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each 9 tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full-time employee in Eagle Gounty. 7, The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or lower than those market rates prevalent for sirnflar properties in the Town of Vail. ~. The Town of Vail Housing Authority will determine the market rate based an the study of other units of comparable size, location, quality and amenities throughout the Town. The market rate shall be based on an average of a minimum of five rental rates of comparable units. If the unit is not rented and is not available at the market rate it shall be determined to be in noncompliance. In addition to any other penalties and restrictions provided herein, a unit found to be in noncompliance chap be subject to publication as determined by the Housing Authority. 9. The provisions of these restrictive covenants may be enforced by the Owner and the Town. i .~ t.©. The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, and agreements contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by the written consent of both the Town of Vail and the owner of the property. , D. The architectural and landscape design guidelines shall be 'rncorporated into the subdivision covenants before the final plat is recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The Town Of Vail shall be party to these agreements. Section 6. Amendments Amendments to Special Development District No. 22 shall follow the procedures contained in Section 1$.40.1fJD of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 7. Exrairation The applicant musi begin construction of the Special Development District within 3 years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the appkicant does not begin and diligently work. toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Deveiopmen4 District within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the Special Development District. They shalt recommend to the Tawn Council that either the approval at the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the 10 Special Developrnent District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of. this ordinance is for any reason hekd to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would haue passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses ar phrases by declared invalid. Section 9. The Town Councii hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary. and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 1 D. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of Vail Municipal Code as • provided in this ordinance shaA not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repeated or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 11. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof', heretofore repealed. INTROI]UCED, READ AND PASSi=D aN FIRST REA[71NG THIS 7 day of July, 1998, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 21 day of July, 1998, at 7:DD p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Vall Municipai Building, Vail, Colorado. 11 • • • Ordered published in full khis 21 day of Jufy, 1998. Robert E. Ford, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, HEAD AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORI3ERED Pl1BLISHED By T'~tle Only this 21 day of July, 1998. ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 12 MEMQRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 25, 20QS 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 Lionshead 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 conven#ion facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead CirclelLot 1, Block 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 proposed parking and loading far the Conference Center project. Since the Conference Center site is located within one of Vaif's "commercial core areas" (it is not located within a "commercial core pay-in-lieu area"), the Town of Vail zoning regulations require a minimum of 243 new parking spaces far the proposed Conference Center, However, based upon a parking analysis by HVS Convention, Sports, and Entertainment, the applicant is proposing to provide 125 new parking spaces. Representatives from HVS will be present at the public hearing to further explain the methodology and findings of their parking analysis. The Commission is not being asked to take any forma! actions at this time. However, the Commission is being asked to listen to a presentation by HVS and ask questions. Staff is requesting that the Commission provide Staff and the applicant with direction on the following issues: t. Does the Commission agree with the assumptions made in the HVS parking analysis" These assumptions include: • Design Day vs. Peak. Day. • Number of events. • Types of events. • Event attendance sizes. • Percent of attendees driving. • Number of employees. • Employee parking demand. • Managing the Conference Center to provide alternative employee transportation. • Availability of overflow parking at the Lionshead Parking Structure. • Availability of overflow parking at the Vail Village Parking Structure. • Availability of overflow parking along the South Frontage Road. • Inability to host large conference events during peak ski and summer tourism seasons due a lack of available hotel roams. • Managing the Conference Center to discourage large events on peak ski days. Managing the Conference Center and Dobson Ice Arena to prevent over-lapping events. 2. Using the criteria of Section 12-10-2Q, Special Review Provisions, Vail Town Code, does the Commission agree with the conclusion of the HVS parking analysis that 125 new parking spaces satisfies the Conference Center's parking needs rather than the 243+ spaces required by the Town Cade? 3_ Ifi the Commission agrees with the HVS parking analysis, are the parking requirements of the Vail Town Code outdated or inadequate for theaters, meeting rooms, and conference facilities? Should the parking requirements of the Town Code be amended for all theaters, meeting rooms, and conference facilities? 4. What additional parking related information does the Commission need prior to the final review of the Conference Center project? II. BAGKGROLtND C?n June 13 and June 20, 2085, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss the proposed Conference Center project. Staff and the applicant provided an introduction to the project at these worksessions. On July 6, 2005, the Design Review Board conceptually revsewed the proposed Conference Center project. The applicant presented an overview of the Conference Center design. The Design Review Board was general favorable toward the proposed design. The Board did note their concerns about the connection of the proposed Conference Center to the Lionhead Parking Structure, the need to upgrade the existing parking structure, the scale of the Conference Center's south elevation, the form and color of the proposed roof, the arch'rtectura] treatment of the Conference Center's west elevation, and the colors of the proposed wood and stone building materials. • On July 11, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission held another worksession to further discus the proposed Conference Center project. Staff and the applicant presented the Commission with additional information about the project. The following is a brief summary of the Commissioner comments about the proposal: The perceived building heights of the building from the South Frontage Road and East Lionshead Circle are a concern. • The impact of the Conference Center's east driveway an the future redevelopment of the Vail International Condominiums is a concern. • The buffer on the east side of the Conference Center needs to be enhanced. • A 31~ computer model of the project and surrounding buildings must be provided. • Parking is a significant problem in the Town of Vail today, and this project should not make conditions worse. • The HV5 parking analysis is not an unbiased report. • The proposed 125 Conference Center parking spaces are not adequate. • Additional parking information is needed. • The proposed Conference Center must be reviewed as a stand-alone project and should be reviewed in the same manner as a private development. - • The funds provided by Vail Resorts should be used to create new public parking, not to off-set the casts of the Conference Center project. • Traffic circulation and turning movements are still a concern. • The employee housing requirement should be met through apay-in-lieu program. • The applicant must provide employee generation projections. • The proposed Conference Center should be designed and reviewed as an urban infill type project. III. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUIMENTS Staff has emphasized the parking related code excerpts with bold text. TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE= CHAPTER 12-1, TITLE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY Section 12-1-2: PURPOSE: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promo#e the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town 9n a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its estabEished character as a resort and residential community of high quality. 13. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 3 1. To provide far adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and ether dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and effiicient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 8. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, worl~able relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. i3. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 1 ~. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. CHAPTER 12-14; QFF-STREET PARKING AND.LQADING Section 12-1 D-1: Purpose In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on-street parking areas, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidental to new structures, enlargements of existing structures or a conversion to a new use which requires additional parking under this chapter. The number of parking spaces and loading berths prescribed in this chapter shall be in proportion to the need for such facilities created by the particular type of use. Dff-street parking and loading areas are to be designed, maintained and operated in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact. In certain districts, all or a portion of the parking spaces prescribed by this chapter are required to be within the main building in order to avoid or to minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations ar exposed parking and of separate garage or carport structures. 4 • 12-~ 0-2: Applicability: Off-street parking and loading space shall be pravided far any new building, for any addition or enlargement of an existing building or for any conversion of uses which requires additional parking under this chapter. 92-~0-6: Parking; off-site and Joint Facilities: All parking and loading facilities required by this chapter shall be located an the same site as the use for which they are required, provided that the Town council may permit off-site or jointly used parking facilities if loco#ed within three hundred feet {300') of the use served. Authority to permit off-site or joint parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by this title to be located within the main building on a site, but may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. Prior to permitting off-site or joint parking facilities, the council shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will be as usable and convenient as parking facilities located an the site of the use, and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly concentration of parked cars. The council may require such legal instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unified operation and control of joint parking facilities ar to ensure the continuation of such facilities, including evidence of ownership, long-term lease, or easement. '12-1©-10: Parking Requirements Schedules: Off street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with the fallowing schedules: A. Schedule A applies to properties within Vail's "Commercial Care Areas" (as defined on the town of Vail care area parking maps I and 11, incorporated by reference and available for inspection in the office of the town clerk): Use Theaters, meeting roams, conference facilities Parking Requirement ...... ... .. ..... 1.0 space per 1 fi~ sq. ft. of seating #loor area '12-10-2©: SPECIAL REVIEW PROV1SlONS: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12-10-18 of this Chapter, the Planning and Environmental Commission may approve a reduction to the number of required spaces specified in section 12- 10-10 of this chapter, pravided a report documenting the presence of unique parking characteristics is pravided by a qualified consultant. and the #ollowing findings are made by the Planning and Environmental Commission: A, The parking demand will be less than the requirements identified in section 12-10-10 of this chapter; and B. The probable long-term use of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand; and ~C. The use or activity is part of a demonstrated permanent program {including, but not limited to, "rideshare" programs, shuttle service,. or staggered work shifts) intended to reduce parking demand that has been incorporated into the project's final approved development plan; and D. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation (including, but not limited to, public transit or .shuttle services) is significant and integral to the nature of the use or business activity.. IV. V. In reaching a decision, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider survey data submitted by a qualified transportation planning or engineering consultant. Pro}acts under "special review" are subject to additional scrutiny by the planning and environmental commission after development plan approval if it is deemed necessary to verify continued' compliance with the above listed criteria. The maximum allowable reduction in the number of required spaces shall not exceed twenty five percent X25°/°) of the total number required under section 12-10- 1Q ofthis chapter. DEVEE-f3PMENT STANDARDS Required Parking: 243 spaces (ballroom and meeting rooms only) 328 to 370 (ballroom, meeting rooms, pre-function, corridors, vestibules, eta.) Proposed Parking: '125 spaces Max, Parking Reduction: 25% reduction (243 required) _ '183 spaces 25% reduction (328 and 370) = 246 to 278 spaces Dlscussl©N Pursuant to Section 12-10-10, Vail Town Code, convention facilities are required to provide 1 parking space per 165 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 243 parking spaces. This does not take into consideration the 14,000 to 21,000 sq. ft. of pre-function, registration, corridors, vestibule areas which are commonly utilized by conference and event organisers. Including these areas would increase the parking requirement by $5 to 127additional spaces. The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 325 space parking structure within the Conference Center building; however, 7S of these spaces replace the 75 spaces eliminated by the construction ofi the new Lionshead Parking Structure entrance. Construction of the other 125 spaces is being funded by Vail Resorts and is intended for public parking. b The applicant has hired HUS 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 243 required by the Tawn Code. A copy of the analysis has been attached for reference (see Attachment A}. 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 both "design days" and "peak days" during the winter season. The proposed South Frontage Road improvements include the construction of a widen shoulder an the north side of the road. It is anticipated that winter season over-flow parking will continue to be accommodated along the South Frontage Road. The parking analysis recommends 1 Q of the 125 parking spaces be used for the estimated 20 full-time employees. The analysis recognizes that large events of 1,OQ0 people may require 12 additional staff plus 70 to 80 part-time staff. The Town of Vail Building Department has determined that the posted maximum occupancy of the Conference Center wilC be approximately 5,©OC1 people; so future events much larger than 1,0©0 may be accommodated. The parking analysis identifies the need far 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. Pursuant to the Genera! Use District regulations the Planning and Environmental Commission prescribes the parking standards far a conditional use such as the proposed conference center. However, Section 12-10-10, Parking requirement Schedule, Vail Town Cade, establishes a minimum parking requirement for conference facility uses (i.e, 243 spaces}. Section 12-10-20, Special Review Provisions, Vail Town Code, allows for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces based upon Planning and environmental Commission evaluation of a parking report by a qualified consultant. An allowed reduction of parking spaces shall not exceed 25% of the original parking requirement (Le. 183 spaces). The Planning and Environmental Commission must make the following findings when approving such a parking requirement reduction: A. The parking demand will be less than the requirements ldentlfied in section 92-7D-'0 of this chapter; and 8. The probable long-term use of the buifding ar structure, based on its design, gill not generate additiona! parking demand; and C. The use or activity rs part of a demonstrated permanent program (including, but not limited to, "rldeshare" programs, shuttle service, or 7 staggered work shifts) intended to reduce parking demand that has been incorporated into the project"s final approved development plan; and D. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation (including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services) is significant and integral to the mature of the use ar business activity, Vt. STAFF RECQMMENDATIQN Staff is requesting that the Commission provide Staff and the applicant with direction on the following issues: 1. Does the Commission agree with the assumptions made in the HVS parking analysis? These assumptions include: • Design Day vs. Peak Day. • Dumber of events. • Types of events. • Event attendance sizes. • Percent of attendees driving. • Number of employees, • Employee parking demand. • Managing the Conference Center to provide al#ernative employee transportation. • Availability of overflow parking at the Lionshead Parking Structure. • Availability of overflow parking at the Vail Village Parking Structure. • Availability of overflow parking along the South Frontage Road, • Inability to host large conference events during peak ski and summer tourism seasons due a lack of available hotel rooms. • Managing the Conference Center to discourage large events an peak ski days. • Managing the Conference Center and Dobson .Ice Arena to prevent aver-lapping events. 2. Using the criteria of Section 12-10-20, Special Review Provisions, Vail Town Cade, does the Commission agree with the conclusion of the HVS parking analysis that 125 new parking spaces satisfies the Conference Center's parking needs rather than the• 243+ spaces required by the Tawn Cade? 3. If the Commission agrees with the HVS parking analysis, are the parking requirements of the Vail Tawn Cade outdated or inadequate for theaters, meeting rooms, and conference facilities? Should the parking requirements of the Town Cade be amended for all theaters, meeting roams, and conference facilities? 4. What additional parking related information does the Commission need prior to the final review of the Conference Center project? 8 As this is a worksession, the Commission is not being asked to take any format action at this time. Staff recommends the Commission table these items for further discussion at the August 22, 2005, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. VII. ATTACHIVII=NTS Attachment A: HVS Parking Analysis • • 9 Attachment A NVS Convention, .parts & Entertainment DiU1FI Vail Confemnce Center Business Plan Appendix: Parkrn~ Analysis 1 } Appendix: Parking Analysis HVS analyzed the demand :for parking the proposed Vail Gonference Center would generate in each of the three seasons identified in the business plan. Felsburg Holt & UIIevig, the Town parking consultant, provided data on base parking demand by season and time of day in the Lionshead structure. This data provided .the `"base" parking demand assumptions, upon which HVS layered in the additional parking demand associated with conference center event activity. i~ I Peak Day-The peak day reflects the 100th percentile of parking demand. The exception is the exclusion of the 4`~ of July, as there would likely be an insufficient number of available lodging moms to host a major conference that occurs on that date. It is standard practice for parking analysis to look at the 75`'' to $S`~' percentile as a design day. Rather than providing sufficient parking so that there is never excess demand, typical practice is to plan for a design day sa that there are sufficient parking spaces on the majority of days. I'rovidirig sufficient spaces for peak day demand is considered to be inefficient because of the larger number of spaces that would sit vacant for most of the year. However, because of the Town of Vail's desire to limit the number of excess cars that end up parked on the frontage road, it instructed HVS to use the 90`h percentile as a gauge. In bath cases, the parking demand is divided into two segments. The first segment is the base demand from skiers, other visitors, and general demand, The second segment is the demand associated with the conference center and its event attendees and employees. Facilities located in areas that necessitate Estimated Conference The analysis looked at two demand scenarios: design day and a peak day, Genxer Parking which are defined below: Demand • Design Day-This reflects the 90th percentile of parking demand in each season. FNS Cnnvenkon. Sports & Entertalrunent DIiAfT Vail Canlerence Center $usinrss Plan Apperrrliz: ParrangAnafysis 2 • paid parking typically manage their employee parking to minimize the need far on-site spaces. HVS assumes that there would be ten spaces allocated for on-site employee parking. The analysis addresses the demand for employee parking in detail laker in this letter. The analysis estimates demand at four time intervals during the day. HVS focused on the events that would generate the largest number of attendees in both the daytime-conferences--and the evening hours- entertainment/civic or banquet events. A day in which the facility hosts a conference during the daytime and an entertainmentlcivic event in the evening represents the greatest demand for parking in the ski season. In the summer and shoulder seasons, a day in which the facility hosts a conference ~ ,: iun the daytime and a banquet in the evening presents the largest demand for parking. By assessing such days for both design and peak day scenarios, HVS ` was able to determine the number of additional parking spaces that should be provided to accommodate the conference center demand and the implications of conference center event activity on available parking in the Lionshead parking structure. Design Day Table 1 shows the estimated parking demand for the conference center on a Design Day (9Q"' percentile) in each. season. The table also shows the base parking demand and the estimated excess (deficit) of parking spaces in the Lionshead parking structure assuming its current capacity. r i i ffVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Busine~ Plan Anpendrx: Parking Analysis 3 Table 1 EStirnSted Barking Demand for the Vail Conference Center, Base Demand, and L ionShead Capacity-Design Day' 0esign Oax Percent Parsons Per PNeM Total Cars 9:00 AM 12:00 Pht 3:00 PM T:00 PM Drdv_ina Car Attendance 8umnter Conference 25'% t.SO 850 142 1'20 137 135 71 Banque BOX 2.OD 900 360 0 D 1l! 3fiO Additional Empioye<' TBD TB0 TB0 TBD SuETatat -- - -- - 12D 137 i53 131 Base Demand - - -• - 110 4Otl 575 475 Total0emand ~ - - -- -- 23D 33T 7Y8 flOB Fscess (0eflc11} - - •- - 8i5 508 317 139 Shautdar Conlercncs 30",L 1,50 SSO 110 1D5 1D7 9/ 41 Banquet 70% 2,OD SSO 793 D D 4 t93 Additional Ei+playee~ TBD TBD TBD ,TBD. Sub Total - - •• -- 105 107 99 23J Base Demurd - - -- - 6O 3D0 525 29D Total6etna^d - - - - 145 407 421 527 Esaess IBetk~t} - - •- _ as1 43a 121 sill std Conferea+cs 15% 1.75 SOD 13 42 39 41 21 F1NenairenenilCivk B51G 2.75 70O 21fi D O 11 214 Addlliatal Employee= TBD TBO TBD TBD. Sint Total _ _ .. - 42 39 52 23a Base Demand - - -• _ 40D 1,125 980 S50 Total0ema~ - - - - 142 1,166 1,032 78t Excess IDar~B} - - -• - sot (21Q {82f 142 ~ Acsuminfl Cirre+e wIOOH at Pa+1~nfl ipacas N+ 1lmsAeffi Panliep Stmci3u~e r lnvrrranp! ampbyae P~fl esamafes m!k WavWe'CDl`f+lsbuy !b1 d fYievip . Sawses: irhsurg xoR a ura~fl a rn5 ]~or the design day, conference center parking demand during the ski day reaches its highest paint at 3:0U PM with demand far 52 total spaces. The highest parking demand occurs at 7:10 PM, when there is conference center demand for 238 spaces. Parking in the evening hours, after the ski day has concluded, is plentiful relative to the available supply during the day. Peak Day • Planning far parking associated with the conference center should fetus on the Design Day. However, it is also prudent to assess the parking demand that would occur on a peak day. The purpose of looking at a peak day scenario is to identify how intense the demand for parking would be under the very unlikely scenario that base and conference center parking demand reach their highest points on the same day, This peak day reflects the following scenario: ^ Base parking demand is at its highest point during the ski season, HVS Cvn vent3on, Sports & Entertainment .a.RAFT Vail Cnnferenec Center Business Plan ,y Anpendrx.• Parkin,~Analysis9 ^ The largest conference event the facility is like}y to hold during the ski season occurs on the same day, and ^ The largest entertainmentJcivic event also occurs on this same day. Table 2 shows the parking demand ^n this unlikely peak day. Table 2 r~ ~4 ~• Estimated Parking Demand for the Vail Conference Center, Base Demand, and Lionshead f Capacity-Peak Dav' Peak pay Paridnq Percent Persons Per Event Tutal Cars 9:80 AAI 12:00 PAI 3:04 PM 7:00 PM } tirlvinq Car Attendance Summer Gonterence 25% 1.50 2,104 350 298 340 333 175 Bangrtlet 80% 2.00 2,000 80f1 0 0 40 800 Adddlonal Employee' TBD TBD TBD TBD j Suh Tahl - - - - 298 310 373 975 ~ Base Demand _ .. _ - 125 475 675 575 TotalOemanl - -- - -- 423 815 1,048 1,550 , Estesx(petkN) - - -- - 732 310 107 (34fi( ~I_ Shoulder Gonlerence 30% 1.50 1.800 360 342 349 306 144 Banquet 70% 2.40 1,704 595 0 0 1B 595 Addltlanal Emplay~' TBD TBD TBD TBO Suh Toial - - - - 342 319 324 739 ~ Base Deonand - - -- - 75 350 S75 325 . Tohlpemand - - - - 417 699 899 1,084 Eseeu (4efieda - -- - - T37 d5S 255 40 ~ 5kd Co~erenca 1S% 1.75 1,250 1AT 144 96 102 54 `' EnGertaiunenl/ Chic 85% 2.75 2,104 649 D 0 32 649 Additlonal Eniployea' 786 TBD 7BD T8D Suh Total 3,350 T56 104 9i 131 743 BaSeDemand - - - - 550 1,350 1,100 800 _,- Tatal pemand - - - - 654 1,44fi 1,231 1,503 1:xcexs (Oeliclt- - - - - 411 (381( {169( (438- ' fncreme+ob' empbyue parkrq utrrt+atas to be provi0ed aY Fafsbury NaA' d Ullr+ip Sources: Rlsbu~g Ha'r b fAkviQ d NJS The estimates show that the peak conference center parking demand during the ski day, when parking spaces are at a premium, is 134 spaces at 3:00 PM. The peak day scenario shows parking deficits in the ski season at nodn, 3.00 PM, and 7:00 PM. Deficits occur with or without the conference center demand in the peak scenario at noon and 3:00 PM. Deficits also occur in the peak scenario at 7:00 PM in the summer. Parking deficits in the summer are less problematic than deficits in the ski Season because there is more capacity at the Vail Village lot to handle overflow conference demand, However, this FNS Canven tine, Sports 8r Entertainment DRAFT 4~arl Canlerenre Center Business Flan Appendrx: f'arkfng Analysis 5 • analysis does need to consider ways to address excess parking demand in the summer for peak day demand. Conference Center The detailed staff schedule HVS prepared for the facility estimates that there €mployee Parking will be I8 permanent full-time employees. In addition, the, kitchen would. have two full-time employees, which are not included in the staff schedule for the facility because the model estimates food and beverage revenues and expenses on a net rather than gross basis. The business plan for the facility is designed such that staff levels increase during larger events with temporary staff so that a minimum of permanent staff is required. There should be approximately 10 parking spaces on site for facility staff and visitors. The balance of employees would either park remotely and walk or commute via public transportation. Total staff levels at the facility will vary with the size of events. Events that have plated dinners are the most labor intensive. The typical ratio of guests to serves ranges from 30 to 20 to one, depending upon the specific characteristics of an event. Larger events with 1,000 ar more attendees would require two captains, eight additional kitchen personnel, and two restroom attendants. These events can require ~0 to 80 part-time personnel. However, the facility would not need to provide on-site parking for all of these employees. For the largest ski-season events, the facility would need to provide remote parking options for attendees, .which could also serve employees if necessary. The cost of such service is included in the Town Services line item in the lousiness plan (estimated at $210,000 in year 2003 dollars}. During non-ski season periods when Barking is free of charge, a higher ratio of facility employees would drive to work and such shuttle service would not be necessary, as the Vail Village lot could help to handle excess demand for the largest events. Recommended The number of parking spaces the Town should add to the Lionshead Conference Center parking structure is a function of the design day demand in the ski season. Parking Spaces The prior tables demonstrate that the additional demand associated with the conference center would not cause parking demand to exceed design-day supply in the summer and shoulder seasons. The daytime demand is the critical period for the recommended number of additional spaces, since that is the time when both of the Town's major parking structures are at or near capacity in the ski season. If the combined parking demand at Lianshead exceeds the capacity in the evening, the Vail Village lot could effectively serve HV5 ConrenLron, Sports & ~'n[ertainment DRAFT Vai! Conferenre CrnterBusiness Flan ~ Appendix: Parkin~Ar~alwsis 6 the excess demand, as people shuttle to and from the conference center on the Town's bus service. Assuming that ten spaces are allocated for employee parking, the peak scenario suggests that the conference center creates the demand for 62 additional parking spaces {52 peak conference daytime demand plus the ten employee spats). Previous analysis on the number of spaces the conference center would require has recommended 125 additional spaces. Assuming that the intent of adding the parking spaces is to avoid increases in overflow parking at the Lionshead structure, this analysis shows that the 125 figure exceeds the number of spaces necessary to accomplish this goal.. However, the 125 additional spaces would decrease the number of overflow cars related primarily to base parking demand in the ski season and provide additional capacity to handle peak conference center demand. • For the purposes of the following demand and capacity analysis, HVS uses it the 125 figure to allow for some unanticipated demand and to remain consistent with prior analyses. Table 3 shows the estimated demand and ~ supply of parking assuming that 125 spaces are added to the Lionshead parking stricture, i t1VS Convention, ,Sports & Entertainment 17Hr1FT Vail Conference Center Business Flan Appendix.• Farkin~ Analysis 7 } i Table 3 Estimated Parking Demand for the Vail CanferenGe Center, Base Demand, and Livnshead Capacity-Design Day With 125 Additional Spaces (10 for Employees) EsOmaled ParMinp Demand tar the Vail Conference Center, Base Demand, and 1.ionshead Capacity with 125 Additlanal Spaces {10 for Emplgyeesj-Design Day Deslyn Day Parking Percent Perseus Per Event Total Cars 9:D4 AM 12:00 FM 3:00 PM 7:00 PM Driving Car Attendance Summer Conference 25% 1.50 850 142 120 137 135 71 Banquet 80% 2.00 900 360 0 0 18 360 Additional Employee' - TB4 TBt) TBD TBD Suh Tote{ - - - - 120 137 153 431 Base Demand -- - -- -- t10 400 575 475 Tatai Demand - - - -- 230 537 728 906 Excess (Deliclt} -. - - -- 924 617 X27 24B Shoulder Conference 30% 1.50 550 110 105 107 94 44 Banquet 70% 200 550 193 0 0 6 t93 ~ Addilionat Empluyee' T80 TBD TBD TBD Suh Total - - - -- 105 107 99 237 Base Demand - - - ~ 60 300 525 290 Total Demand - -- -- -- iS5 407 821 527 Excess (Oeticlt] - -- - -- 990 T48 530 fi23 Sid Conference 15% 1.75 500 43 42 39 41 21 EniertainmentlCivid 85~ 2.75 700 216 0 0 11 216 Addltlotsal Employee' TBO TBD TBO TBD Suh Total -- - - -- 42 39 52 233 Base Demand -- - -- - 400 1,125 980 550 Total Dema~ - - - - 442 1,164 1,032 l58 Eacess ~Detleit~ - _ - -- 623 ~99~ 33 277 ' lacrernaiUf errpfoyet patdnp esErrutes la 4v provideC QY falswrp flay d t/lYevig Sources.' felsSurQ Hoff d [AFe~p d ffV5 On a design day, the only day and time- when estimated demand exeeeds~ capacity is in the ski season at noon, Figure I shawl graphically the estimated Lianshead parking demand on a design day in the ski season with the existing and proposed capacities of the parking structure. FNS Conventr'on, Spans & Enterrainmrn[ DRAFT l/ai/ Conference Center $usiness Plan } Appendix: Parkrn,~ Analysis Base panting deficits occur with or without the additional spaces in the ski season, but the additions! 115 spaces would reduce excess demand and be more than sufficient to accommodate the additional demand associated with the conference center at the times when demand exceeds supply. Table 4 shows the amount of excess parking demand at the Lionshead structure with. and without the conference center, its additional attendee demand, and the additional 125 spaces (assuming ten are used for employee parking) in the design day scenario. S;bO Afl ~ ~ 3:00 PY 7:00 PM Saucer feSd,rp Flat d f&bKp, 7m~n d Yal, 4 hN5 fN5 Convenuan, Sports & Lntertainmrnt ~} DRAFT Vail Cnnlerenre Center Business Plan Appendix: Parking Analysis 9 Table 4 (Deficit) of Lionshead Parking Spaces With and Without Conference Center & 125 New Spaces-Design Day Scenario 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 7:00 PM WIo Conference Genter 8 • 125 Spaces N1A {175} {30} NIA W Conference Genter b 125 Spaces NIA (99) NIA NIA Sources: Feisburg Holt & Ullevig & HVS Adding conference center demand and 125 spaces to the parking stricture results in a decrease in excess parking demand, from 175 spaces at noon to 99 spaces. This analysis reveals that the addition of 125 parking spaces is more than sufficient to accommodate the event related demand projected for the conference center at the highest demand periods when spaces are at a premium. The additional parking spaces would create the added benefit of reducing overall excess parking demand at the Lionshead structure, as the design day demand ar less will occur on 90 percent of the days during the ski season. Implications of One possible method of addressing conference center parking demand Restricting Event Dates during the ski: season would be to restrict the fac%lity from hosting larger in Ski Season events during Fridays, Saturday, and Sundays-the busiest ski days. Conferences present a possible conflict with ski season parking because the demand for parking spaces peaks during the daytime when ski-related demand is also at its peak. HVS estimates there will be five conferences during the ski season at demand stabilization. These events often prefer to have at least one if not more weekend dates. A frequent event pattern is to conduct move-in activities on a Saturday, hold an opening session on Sunday evening, and conclude on a Tuesday. Other events may run from Wednesday through Friday. A prohibition of larger conference events Friday through Sunday would negatively affect the ability of the facility to attract such events, Removing 3f7 of the potential event days during this period would increase the likelihood of scheduling conflicts. The inability to use weekend dates would deter events that depend upon minimizing the number of days attendees need to miss work. An alternative approach might be to encourage events to use non-peak ski. days by providing lower facility rental rates for Monday through Thursday. This could increase the likelihood that events would schedule on non-peak HYS Con veniion. Sparta & Entertainment DRAFT' Vail Con/rrrnn Center Business Plan AApend}x.' Parklnq Analysis 1 a ~~ ski days without decreasing the event potential of the facility. Another strategy would be to set an upper limit on the attendance of an event that ~ would occur an a Friday, Saturday,. or Sunday during the busiest ski periods. Given HVS' assumptions for attendee parking demand, an event of 1,000 attendees would utilize less than 90 parking spaces. Another option would be to arrange for remote parking and shuttle service during events that occur on weekend days during tt~e ski season f Evening events present less of a potential parking problem because the { ; demand For ski-related parking decreases after the slopes close for the day. Among the events projected to occur in the facility during the ski season, ' entertainmentlcivic events would generate the largest potential demand for parking in the evening. The estimated peak parking demand for these events in the ski season is approximately 650 cars. Since this demand would. occur primarily in the evening, there should be little need to restrict the size of these events to a point below the maximum occupancy of the facility. The Lionshead structure would be able to accommodate the majority of these cars in the evening hours and the Vail Village structures could serve overflow demand. Lead times for Town bus service during the ski season are generally short enough to serve as shuttles between the Vail Viiiage structure and the j conference center. A slight increase in peak service could be necessary far the largest events. Scheduling in order for the analysis of conference center parking demand and capacity to Coordination Between accurately reflect actual conditions, the Town would need to ensure that the Conference Center & event schedules at Dobson lce Arena and the conference center are f}obsan Ice Arena coordinated. The conference center parking analysis assumes that the parking demand associated with Dobson in the ski season peak day scenario is minimal, reflecting typical uses such as public skating or a local amateur hockey game, The Town would need to coordinate the scheduling of the two ' facilities to avoid simultaneous events that would generate parking demand well in .excess of capacity. liven so, only the largest of events held simultaneously in the two facilities would approach or exceed the daytime demand associated with skiing. The signif`~cantly shorter booking window far Dobson sirimplfies the coordination of these two facility's schedules.•Most of the larger conference center events-those that exceed 500 attendees-will have booking windows of six months or more. Conference events are often scheduled years in advance and larger banquets are typically scheduled several months in advance. Management at Dobson indicates that most of their larger concerts FfVS Cnnvtntion, Spnrts & Entertainment DRAFT hail Canlerenee Center Business Pdan Appendix: Farkin~ Analysis 11 • and evening events are scheduled approximately fiQ days in advance. The Town would also need to coordinate the scheduling of shorter-term entertainment and civic events in the conference center with Dabsan's schedule. The Tawn could maintain a master event schedule throughout the year that included events in bath facilities. The type of event and estimated attendance would indicate a range of parking demand and the Tawn could preclude the healing of simuktaneous events that generated an excessive. amount of parking demand at any particular time. Given that )~obson management reports holding 1-2 large concerts andlar other evening events per month, there would be sufficient scheduling flexibility to coordinate events in the two facilities. The level of parking demand that the Town should refrain from exceeding will vary with the season and time of day. • Conference Center The Telus Conference Center in Whisper, British Columbia is in many ways Parking In 1Nhistier the mast similar facility to the proposed Vail conference center. I-IVS interviewed facility operations staff and Resort Municipality of Whisper staff to Iearn haw they address conference center parking demand. Conference center staff indicated that parking is not a major operational issue at the facility, due to the high percentage of event attendees that either stay in nearby lodging units, live in the nearby area, ar park remotely in day lets that are afive-minute walk from the facility. The majority of event attendees walk to the center, although some use a municipal parking structure that is adjacent to the facility. According to municipal staff, the parking garage adjacent to the conference center has 217 underground spaces and 75 surface spaces. The surface spaces run an a pay for use system. The underground spats are free, but limited to three hours. It is very rare that an event at the conference center generates sufficient parking demand to cause shortages, even during the ski season. If there is an especially large event that is expected to generate significant parking demand the municipality may restrict entry into the parking lot far a few hours prior to the event so that the lot is largely available for use by attendees. • The muniapality maintains approximately 3,100 parking spaces. There are a total. of 6,581 spaces, municipal and private, in the Village core. The conference center has seven dedicated employee parking spaces. Municipal staff stressed the need far space for truck parking in the process of loading or unloading and adrop-off area accessible to buses. Also, any surface parking HYS Convention, Sonrts & Enterrainn-enc DR.4,F7' Vaii ConAerenre Center Business Flan Appendix: Parking Analysis 1~ areas should be covered or located far enough away £rom the facility to avoid being covered by snow shed. •' i U MEMQRANDUfVI TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROf1+'I; Community Development Department DATE: July 25, 2005 SUBJECT: 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, Vaii Vallage Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0047) Applicant; Robert Stephenson, Jr. and Jahn Schofield, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The applicants, Robert Stephenson, Jr. and John Schofield, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects, are requesting 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 DrivelLot 18, Block 3, Vaii Village Filing 1. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section Vlll of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of the setback variance request; denial, of the site coverage variance request; and denial t~f the GRFA variance request subject to the findings Hated in Section IX of this memorandum. II. QESCR[PTION OF REQUEST On June 20, 2045, 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, fhe Commission was not favorable toward the requested GRFA and site coverage variances. Since that meeting, the applicant has amended the proposal by eliminating the proposed bedroom addition and extending the elevator to al! floors of the building. The applicants, Robert Stephenson, Jr. and Jahn Schofield, represented by Snowdon ~ Hopkins Architects, are proposing to construct a garage addition to Units 18A (Stephenson) and 18B (Schofield); plus a new entry and elevator addition to Unit 18A. The new garage addition will widen the existing three car garage to the west to create a four car garage (two spaces per dwelling unit). To fhe west of the proposed garage addition the applicant is proposing to construct a new 100 sq. ft. single-story front entry room with a 45 sq. ft. five-story elevator addition {total of 225 sq.ft,). The applicant is also proposing to widen the existing driveway and construct a new exterior stair from the driveway to the third-floor entry to Unit 18A. The applicant is requesting a 2'!2 encroachment into the front setback, a GRFA variance for an additional 325 sq. ft. (the structure currently exceeds the allowable GRFA limits), and a site coverage variance for an additional 129 sq. ft. The applicant's revised architectural drawings have been attached for reference (Attachment A), III, BAC}~GROUND This two-family residence was originally approved by the Design Review Board in 1976 and construction was completed in 1978. The original approved architectural plans blend the overlapping garage level (finished floor elevation 8267') and the mechanical 'level (finished floor elevation 8277') into one °basement plan" even though these levels are separated by a floor-to-floor measurement of 10 feet. According to the Town of Vail's records, this structure was originally allowed 5,261 sq. ft. of GRFA. However, 5,491 sq. ft. of GRFA was constructed and a final certificate of occupancy was issued. Therefore, in 1978 this structure exceeded the allowable GRFA by 230 sq, ft. It is unclear how the GRFA was calculated for this structure at that time. At some paint in time a party wall was constructed to separate the garage level parking spaces, and a portion of the garage level located directly below the storage room on the mechanical level was converted from a parking space into a storage room {i.e. GRFA). On June 24, 1991, 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 20 foot setback; however, this addition was never constructed. Even though the Town's GRFA regulations had been amended several times since 1978, GRFA calculations were not done at the time of this variance approval, In 1999, allowed and existing GRFA calculations were conducted. According to Town of Vail records, the allowable GRFA in 1999 for this lot was 5,205 sq. ft., plus each unit was eligible for one `"250 Addition° for a total of 5,705 sq. ft. However, the existing GRFA calculations (including a "250 Addition" for the Schofield residence) were 6,393 sq. ft. Therefore in 1999, this structure exceeded the allowable GRFA calculations by 1,188 sq. ft. and 688 sq. ft. when two "250 Additions" were included in the calculations. ~It is unclear how the GRFA was calculated in 1999, but it appears that na portion of the garage level or mechanical level (shown on a single "basement plan" drawing) was counted as GRFA; even though the entire mechanical level qualified as GRFA and the unapproved garage level storage room also qualified as GRFA. Recalculating the garage and mechanical levels using 1999 GRFA methods, the structure has 7,500 sq. ft. of GRFA. Therefore, in 1999 this structure exceeded the allowable GRFA {plus two "250 Additions") by 1,795 sq. ft. In 2004, the Town's GRFA regulations were again amended. Under these new regulations, this property is now allowed 7,286 sq. ft. of GRFA. The existing structure, including the appropriate portions of the garage level and the appropriate portions of the mechanical level, has 8,801 sq. ft. of GRFA. The existing structure exceeds today's 2 allowable GRFA by 1,515 sq. ft. The applicant is currently proposing to add an additional 465 sq. ft. ofi bedroom, entry, and elevator GRFA, thus proposing to exceed the current GRFA limits by 1,981 sq. ft. (approximately 27°/a). On June 2Q, 2C?05, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the applicants' proposal to construct a garage addition and widen the driveway far Units 18A (Stephenson) and 1$B ~5chofield}; 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 not favorable toward the requested GRFA and site coverage variances. The applicant has since amended this proposal by eliminating the proposed bedroom and extending the proposed elevator to all five stories. IV. RDLES GF RE~IIEWING BQDIES Qrder of Review: Generally, variance applications will 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 Environmental Comrn'rssion: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for fiinal approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a variance application, in accordance with Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Cade. 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 Tawn 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 facility#es the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for 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 Tawn Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, ar denial, V. APPLICABLE PLANNING D©CUMENTS Staff believes that the following previsions of the Vail Tawn Cade are relevant to the review of this proposal: TfTLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Article 12-6C: Two-Family Residential (R) District (in part) 72-6C-1: PURPOSE: The two-family residential disfrict is intended to provide sites for fow density single-family or two-family residenfial uses, together wifh such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The two-family residential disfrict is intended to ensure adequate light air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single- famllyand fwo-family occupancy, and fo mar'nfain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 72-6C-6: SETBACKS: In the R district, fhe minimum front setback shall be fwenfy feet (20"), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'}, and the minimum rear setback shall be lrffeen feet (15'}. 72-6C-S: DENSITY CONTROL: A. LJwe!ling Units: Not mare than a fatal of two (2} dwelling units shaft be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lofs less than fourteen thousand {14,D00} square feel. B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 7. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA} shall be permitted on each 5lte: a. Nat mare than forty six (46} square feet of grass residential floor area (GRFA} for each one hundred (700} square feet of the first ten thousand (70, 000) square feet of sife area; plus b. Thirty eight {38} square feet of gross residential floor area {GRFA} for each one hundred (700) square feet of site area over ten thousand (10,000} square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand {75, 000) square feet of site area; plus c. Thirteen (73} square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA} far each one hundred (700) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand {75,000} square feet not exceedr"ng fhirty thousand (30, 000} square feel of sife area; plus d. Six (fi) square feet of gross residentia! floor area (GRFA} for each one hundred (700) square feel of site area in excess of thirty thousand {30, 000) square feel. 12-6C-9~~ SITE COVERAGE.' Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. • 4 Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part} 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons far Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficufties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the obfectives of this title as would result from strr'cf ar Literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practice! 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 or in the immediate vicinity; ar from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not 6e a reason for granting a variance. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 1448 Vail Valley Drive Legal Description: Lot 18, 81ock 3, Vail Valley Filing 1 Zoning: Two-Family Residential Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Two-Family Dwelling Lot Size: 21,045 sq. ft. (0.48 acres) Standard AllowedfReouired Exis#inq Prooosed Setbacks (min): Front: Sides 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 29 ft.! 21 ft. 17.5 ft. 22 ft.I 21 ft. Rear: 15 ft. 53 ft. no change Height (max.); 30 ft.i33 ft. Density (rnax}: 2 dwellings 2 dwellings no change GRFA (max): 7,286 sq. ft. 8,801 sq. ft. 9,126 sq. ft. (}325 sq. ft.) Site coverage (max,.): 4,209 sq. ft. 3,843 sq. ft. 4,338 sq, ft. (+495 sq. ft.) Parking (min.}: 1$A (West} 4 4 (2 enclosed) 4 (2 enclosed} 1$B (East) 3 2 (1 enclosed}4 (2 enclosed} Vll. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Residential Two-Family Residential South: Mixed Use N1A (White River National Forest) East: Residential Two-Family Residential West: Residential Two-Family Residential VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nat~rre are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Cede. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina Variances: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This proposed addition is associated with a remodel of an existing residence originally approved by the Design Review Board in 1976 with construction completed in 197$, 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. !n 1991, 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 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. The proposed garage, entry,. and elevator additions will cause the structure to exceed the maximum allowable site coverage far fhs property by 129 sq. ft. Additionally, this existing residence currently exceeds the allowable GRFA far this site by 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 entry and 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 1,840 sq. ft. This is 25°I° more GRFA . than is allowed 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 Two-Family zone district. Therefore,. Staff does not believe the proposed GRFA variance request and site coverage request are in keeping with the bulklmass and general character of the neighboring properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and I'rteral interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity ar to attain the objectives of this title without a grant 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 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 proposed garage encroached 12.5 feet into the 20 foot setback; however, this addition was never constructed. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed setback variance 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. h 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 a new entry, elevator, and bedroom 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 1,840 sq. ft. This. is 25% more GRFA than is allowed 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 buiklmass and general charac#er of the Two-Family zone district. Therefore, Staff does not believe the proposed GRFA variance request and site coverage request associated with the proposed entry, elevator, and bedroom are in keeping with the bulk mass and general character of the neighboring properties. Staff also believes approval of the proposed GRFA variance request and site coverage request associated with the proposed entry, elevator, and bedroom would be a grant of special privilege, As this property already exceeds the maximum allowable GRFA, so does not believe a further increase is appropriate. The proposed garage, entry, and elevator additions will cause the structure to exceed the maximum allowable site coverage far this property by 129 sq. ft. Since the proposed garage addition can be constructed without a site coverage variance, Staff does not believe the proposed site coverage variance is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the Town's development objectives. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe 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 criiteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. On June 20, 2{)O5, 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 Gommission was generally supportive of the setback variance request; however, the Gommission was less favorable toward the requested GRFA and site coverage variances. The applicant has since amended this proposal by eliminating the proposed bedroom and extending the proposed elevator to all five stories. t B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance wil6 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 ar welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. Thera 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 RECOMMENDATION Setback Variance The Community Development Department. recommends approval, with a condition, of a variance from Section 12-6C-fi, Setbacks, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley DrivefLot 78, 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 Comrnissian choose to approve this variance request, the Camrnunity Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicanf's request for a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, pursuanf to Chapter 12- 97, Variances, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a residential garage addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lof 18, Block 3, Vall Village Filr'ng 1, and setfing faith details in regard (hereto, subject to the fallowing condition: 7. This approval shat! be contingent upon the applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this varianae 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 other properties classified in the Two-Family Residential District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be defrimenta! to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted far the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physics! hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 92, 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 to other properties in the same 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 same district. Site Coverage Variance The Community Development Department recommends denial of a variance from Section 12-6C-3, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 144$ Vail Valley DrivelLot 18, Black 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 rnation: The Planning and Environments! Gammission denies the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 92- 97, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow far a residential garage addition, located at 9448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: • 9 The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 7. The granting of this variance will 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 detrimentaf to the public health, safety, or welfare,.. or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinr`ty. 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 72, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are no 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 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. Density Control Variance The Community Development Department recommends denial of a variance from Section 12-fC-8, Density Control, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Fail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 144 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 VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Enyironmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion; The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicant's request for a variance from Sectr`on 92-6C-8, Density Control, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow far a residential garage addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vai! Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning, and ~Environnaental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings; 1g The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistenf with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two-Family Residential District. Z The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in fhe vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specilred regulation would nat result in practical difllculty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vaif Town Code. b. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in fhe same district. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specilted regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Amended Architectural Plans 1l ~~ ~~ ~, ~~ ~nowa~ v 0.0a~ pp1T14 v.~ R~~1p~RgT Ftl_1NG • • i'N ~:~ _ _ 111 } `y 1I - ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ :- .~.~..~Y ~ ~' ~r-~ III ~,~~ 'I L11J ~~ +. 1 - ~ 11 i~ ~~ ~__ w ~= - ~_ l ~' I a. I I_I. ._ -.._ ~-_ - 'y'-. s'.- ~4 ---- ~'T -°° ~ I ~. ~•I e.4 -y s - -~ ~~~ 3~ ~~~ ~~ I ~ r r ~ ~ .,, ,~ ,,.' _~ ~ ~ _ I ~ e `~ '-I '_ ~°_~~_~~° Z~' '. STEPIiENSQN 1 SCOI+IELD RESIDENCE ADDITION ~ ~,~ er-te-os Rr,~ISEO~~ LOT'i8, ELOCI~C 3, VAIL VALLEY FIRST FILING ~ ~ su~nairln~ i VAIL, Cr~L(}FtADO i ~~ _ . Snowdon and Mppkins • ArdrileCls, P.C P 2 eon 53aU mosrs:Yai v.,e. cnloreaoavasA r,u aruras, __~ I~ =~ E~ b ~~ - r.-^ - ^------- -~'~ -~---- -----t 1 I 1 1 ~~~ -`~~ 1I l 1 '~ 1 I,I 1__~-....___ _ f ~~a R ` ' K,i ~, ~'~ ~ Viz` ~~ ~~~ }~ q w. '. Jal hlvN'+ ~~~ ~ p.r. 07-19-05 ~, ~. {tENS€4 PEC SV&AIYTAL 13i i i~- - ~~ ,.~ ~~~ i ~~*, 7 ~~ ~ ~4 _~~ J~{ ~ --~ ~fi ~ A ~~ -7r M1 ~~_ 3 t STEPHENSON I SCOFIELD RESIDENCE /~DDiTION LOT t8, BLOCK 3, VAIL VALLEY FIRST FILING VAIL, COLORADO L~ Snowdon and HoRWnB • Pudrilect5. F.C. " P.O.ev ]34] ~,iW ~6IIa1 vr. ca+a.anneee .v an~w+ • • • ;: f '~ C[° ~~ -~ 4 ~` I I~ ~ ti5 x•11 ~~-~! ~ (~~ ~'~ ~r~ _ r- ~~ y i ~~~~ II ~I y ~. ~~ 4f x' i~+ ~ ~~ ..,~~J 3 ~I.I~ rI+- I _'~^'~ _.25°' STEPHENSON f SGflFIELd RESIDENCE ADDITION ~ ~ m.:e 07.1&OS Ft~++is~~e~ - ~ LET 'I $, BLACK 3, VAIL VALLEY FIRST FILING '~ SuBtw;innL _ VAIL, Cf)LURAdO ...I Snowdon antl Hapk~s • Arcnilects, P.C. ' aa.B~•.::a:r ere~7aun, vau. C._a: r„~-; n~•. ~a FA-~~.i e-'d91 ~I~ n U ~~ ~~ ~~ ,-. ~~ Iq 4~ t(1 i Ii} 1 ~{ 17 '7` I~ ~~ A ~ ~8. . ~~ L' p; ~~ ~, ~~ ~_,_~ E~ ~~~ _~ _ _l. _~! ~~ '1 f ~ "°°'°m°° ~~°' STEPHENSON l SCOFIEI"D RESIDENCE AQD[TION ~ oa» ~,,e.o~ { LOT 18, BLOCK 3, VAIL VALLEY FIRST FILING ~ stsvlsio vEC iI SUBMITTAL 1 VAIL, 4©L^RADO • Sn©wdon and ~lopkins • Architect; A.O. Bw 3Y+4 971!+176-y'o71 VaU, Cobrv4o 614•'3!1 FAN /74~7~I~i I • :~~ ~. Y ~ ~• I~ ~~ •~ ;~ .~ ;~ ;, a ~. I ,~ ~•~ I~ ~" ~ ! ~ z ~~ ~ ~r ..~ .: a ,; rr~~~T~ r+-1 n ~k~ ,i ~;~ ,~ I~ 4 ji 1 " i t I- ,~ _ _t _9~ " € -y 1 ~.~-~ ~~ ~~ ~~~I S ~ ~"...~ .~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~~~I~ ~ '~ ~ f- 's ~ i~ ~~ ~' '~ ' ~'~°°°' _~ 2~°i STEPHENS4N I SCQFIELD RESIDENCE ADDITION ~, oL~. 0;-78-05 ~ ~, ~ ~~~ ",i L(~T 98, BLOCK 3, VAIL VALLEY FIRST FILING VAIL, CdLORADC? " ~ Snowtlon pntl Nopk"mss • A,d"ilects. F C i pA. 5a• 33e0 Bra?6.uo: j 1'a+ CMnroao 8l&58 FF%4.B-`a9: ;~ - ~, _ ~. } ..-~ ~I t ~"' i y' ~ 1 la ~ i3'~i ~ ~;I ~ ~c } I`i ~ ~ I ~ :i:~~ ~~~~~ I '''1~~r .1.-~~. ~ ~-;~ `; '~-~`~1~] ,~ a~.y` ~~~ _ ti f -~I -- ~,; i, .. i~ S• Tf .yid 3'. I t 4~ ~~ iS ~~ -+ r ~G; '~t l ti ~ r', '~. s a ~ ,.1R~~ .i~ a l~~_~ ti ~ 114 `,,,1 i ~ ~ 1 ~~"'t ~~ °7 1 1~~ • ~ ~ ,.:,,,~ T~:~_ f ; ~- + , ~ ~ lip '_`~__--~=- ~~ , U ,r ,r'~1 i ~~ ' ~' ~ ~ ... , , -_------- _ ~; ~ ,rf ~ ~ -,. ~' ° rl , J 4~ ~ '~ rr rr=- - ^~ i ~ ?~ L A - ~------..v- ~. _ u~j ~ i JoU W~mnri a5o~r _ $TEPHENSON 1 SCOFIELD R.ESIOENCE ADDITIDIV C _,6.~5 ~ ~ ~~~ P BLOCK 3, VAIL !/ALLEY FIRST 1=ICING LOT 18 ,~~p E y , sva~vrrn~ ~; VA~L, COLORADO _J Snowdon and Hopkins ~ Archite a o ~qK v3ao exc~axr.~azo} ~, y~il, Geb•JUO 6+fAp Fr14dx47J91 ' 3' o 0 ~ ~ ~ '' ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ o a °.' ...~ ~ ~+. ~ .~ 'R. b~ © ' U U L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GO ~ O, ~ ~ L ~ C.L C1, 17. ~ ~, ~ ~ a .~ ~] c~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~+ ~ ~ ,~ W ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ p T ~ ~ '~ +© ~ a O ~ dl ~ 4'" ,t+ 'a.+ N ~ N ~ 6Gj ~ 4 .b . ~ d i... O = bD c~ U y .~~~~0~•~ 3 ~ ~ .~ ~ i.. d.] +~ ~, Cs. ;~ , L a~ cr ~ 4. -c °~ a, ,~ v ~, ~ o F„ C s.. . y 'C _ rn ~ ~. C!~ `~ p. 'd ~~. ~ ~ ~ ice.. ~' ~ M ... r`~ O c ~ b y ,q; ~ w, '~ Z ,~ W re ~ e9 Fr A ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ O .Y a a~ C ~ as 3 i p. ~ ~ C r w. ~ ~, .~ o Ci H ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ t ~ o ~, ..., .~ ,n -+ ~ ~ b a E-~ O ~~~a Esc ~ N ~_ "'O 7-, O s 0 ~. 3 a~ 3 ~, ro y c~ .~ U C O ~ ti ~ 0 fV Fr 9~ z° 'a x a~ G .~ C7 U i ~/+ ~] 4?. ~ • a.' ~ s • V : ~+i .• ~,'• a .......