The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-1010 PEC-°a me ao ~ri ~^ E O~ U'~ tiQ ~- Vl IZiE w U] a4 u~i o ~~ ,,s~~N 4 0 mmN'drb ~ °c~~mr~ ~ ~aR3° ~ A~°yb~o 3 t° m mm °~'~aroQm c m~y~oD apu°ii mU' '~j ~~~4~ro --,°y~ o~ Q ~ c--~,n `~~~`~SS'' ~ w~ -Om~Fpp9 mm u~ o ~ ~ ~ YA O O p'. ~ ~ ~ o U ~ ~ ~ Y N y _ ~. _ Z Q.. V' .~.. .. ~t ~~adm~0v n~cei~~c=`c ,.z2 C0~ ia4 ^~~I- j1j 70 plc Op~y(~O X611 H~i.Q ._.~U VO.'~(, v~~~N.=C_ a~a>cs ~~aaV @~EOCO~-~mu°mC~y0 ~m7 ~xm ~W®~~~°y$ ac>i~~_oa rya EQ a:a~.~ 6J ~ ~ C i. ~' 7 .~ '~' ~ ~ a• ' • CyK .V ' .a L' 0 ~ '~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ur `~ ~ O. ~ ~, ~ 9 cn ~ y Y . c~ 3 Q ~ y ~~y ~ y~q ~ ~ ~ ~i y ~ W ~ '' ~ C `~ C ~ ~ ~o~as ~~ A ~ ~ N ' ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ GJ a d ~~ ~'C a~a.~4.~ '~~~ ~ ~ © .~ ~ . ~ + ~ '~ ~ .~ °' ~ ~ ~ a ~ •~ ~ o '' ~~w Ica ~ •= ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ L +-~ V ~ i r ~ V ~ ~ ~ Q~ a ~ y Ge ~ ~ Q~ ~ L Q ~ ~ ~ r LfX ~ O H ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ r a T ~ ~'~3Q'o~~ ~ o a. ~ `° L- c ~. ~ a '~ d ~ ~ " ~ b ~ s ~' CL ~. sn ~ i .~ GL C7 G ~ i0 ~ . CC W v ~' G6 I--~ _ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ qy z sa ~~ s W x v q ~- w c.~ O ~ ~ ~.C 7r '~ y ?' cCG '~ C3.'~. 4 U ~ cn c3 a a r h = G-q ~U ~~ `y ~ ' ~ ~" i ~ ~ .~ ~ + b F ~ -' p p v a o ~ ~ O s. ~ U CT' L r ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~, fix,, G U ?' ~ ~ ~ -- b a ~ ~ x .~ N c ' ~ 3 a z y ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~ .~~ ~ ~ O tV 4~> 0 U 0 ~-, .G w..- m m =~ w Y au~ v r;C a ~ N ~- _N ~ ~ W .... = C m Z Q ~' ~ cQ~- 2ti0.d'r .~.~ .Nd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fV C1a ~ ,,.,j cCeS O y rte-, `,t_' ~ c0 ~ a z -..f • 0. x a 0 .~ 0 U : • ~ ~ J + W ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~y .~ ,,//~~ ~V~~I ~ r 1 ~1111.~E~~ fl E U o~ ~ I ~~ a =? ~ m C N v ~C ~ 3 ~ m~m~ d~Q' ha. I +u+1. MOTION: 5ECON0: VOTE: A request for linal review pt a f t to Chapter t 3-4, Minor SubdWisic de. to allow tar the subdivision or ati-a. Cpntlitinnal Uses, Wall Tpwn Cotle, to allow far a public convention facility and public parking facifiSes and structures; and fine! review of arphitectural deviations, ppursuant to Section 6.3.3,A, Revdew Criteria for ®eviations fo the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Dovelop- menL Lionshead Redevelopment Maxtor Plan, tp allow For a public canvaniion lacl!ity and public parking facilities and structures. located at 395 East Lionshead Gircle,^ Lot 1, Block 2, Wail Lions- head Filing t, Lot 3 and 5, Block 1. Vail Lionshead Filing 2, antl Witting forth tletails in regard thereto. Applicant: Town p'd Vail. represerted by Pylman & Assrciates, Inc. Pfannec Bi91 Gibson ACT10N: Ta61ed So 4ctalter 24, 2005 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:. 7'. A request for a correc[tpn to the Vail Land Use Plan to des!gnaie the Lionshead Reds velopmeni Master Plan Area, and selling lorth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Wail Planner: Biq Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 24, 2805 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 8. A request for s recommendation to the Wail Town Council tar a rezoning of Lpis t-3, Vail des Schone Filing 1, Lol 1 and Vail ties Schana Filing 3 from Commercial Core 3 (GC3? tta Public: Accommpdation (PA), located at 227 i North Frontage RoadlLots 1-3, Vail des Schone fling t and 3, and setting forth details in rc~ard !hereto. Applicant: Vanquish Vail I LLC, reprrsented by Bharat Bhakta Planner, Malt Gennetl ACTION: Tabled to Novembev Y4, 2~5 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 9. A request for a f,nal review of a ooltt5• tional use permit. pursuant to Section 12.7B-5, Permitted antl Contlftionel Uses; Abpve Second Floor. Vail Town Cade. tp allow for the operation of a private club, Ipcated of 333 Hanson Ranch RoarL1_ot C. Block 2. Vail Village Filing 1, and set- ting fonh details in regard there[o_ Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by tSnigM Planndng Services. Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Withdrawn MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 70. A request for a fleet review of a text amendment fp Section 12-7A-7. Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter i2.3, Amendments, to increase the hdighl limitation for a sloping roof from 48` to 56` in the Public Accommadatiar! zone district. and setking forth tletails in regard thereto. Applicant: Mauruello Planningg Group. LLC Plannor: Geor a Ruther ACTION: Withdrawn MOTIONr SECOND: VOTE: I'I. A request far a linal review o1 a mayor exterioa alteration, pursuant tp Section 12.7H-7, Exterior Alterations or ModlRVcatlons, Walt Town Cade, and a final review of a conditional use per- mit, pursuant to Section 12.7H•2, PErmitied and on Street Level, awelrng units, locatetl et 7213 West Lionshead CirclelLOt 2, Wasl Day Subdivision, and setting tnrth de#ails in regard thereto. Applicant. Vak9 Carp., represeMad by Braun Associates. Inc. Plal~ner: Warren CampbedN ACTION: Withdrawn MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 12. Approval of September 12, 28(15 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE; t 3. ApprovaD of September 26, 2005 minutes MOTION; SECOND: VOTE: ia. Information Update 15. Ad'ournmenk M~ION: SECOND: VOTE: The appltcatfpns and information about the propos- als are availat:le for public msppplion during ra9u- lar office hours at the Town pf Vail Community Cse- velopmen? Department, 7S South Frontage Road, ceEl is avaNable Community Development Department Publlsfted October 7, 2005, in Cho Vail Daily. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING October 10, 2©05 7~WNQF VAII,~ , PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Anne Gunion _ Bill Jewitt Rpllie Kjesbo George Lamb David Viele Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Webb ©ffice - 71 D Lionshead Circle 2. Hassett Residence - 1895 Gore Creek Drive 3. Taggart Residence - 4110 Spruce Way Driver: George Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 12:00 pm 2:00 pm 1. A request for a worksession to discuss a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed test amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations; Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; Title 14, Development Standards Handbook; Vail Town Code, (a more complete description of the request is available for review at the Community Development Department) for proposed corrections and clarifications to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Rachel Friede ACTION:. Tabled to October 24, 2005 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: VOTE: 7-0-0 Rachel Friede presented the memorandum, detailing the changes that Staff had made since subsequent meetings. Some discussion ensued regarding the difference between "substantial improvement"' as is included in the Hazard Regulations, and "'demolrebuild", Bill Jewitt commented that he disagreed with certain aspects of public parkinglconvention center parking, as each was listed in the Code. 2. A request for a final review of a variance from Section Parking, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail addition, located at 4110 Spruce WaylLot 24, Block details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Elizabeth Taggart Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approved 12-$F-$, Density, and Section 12-6F-11, Town Cade, to allow for a residential 3, Bighorn Addition 3, and setting forth MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 7~0-0 Page 1 Matt Gennett presented the project according to the memorandum. No Commissioner comment was added. The applicants were unable to attend the meeting, therefore no comment was added. Na public comment was added. Mr. Cahill asked Staff if the applicant had complied with Staff's requests and concerns regarding the design, which Matt answered affirmatively, 3. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Cade, to allow far a professional office located on the second floor, located at 710 Lionshead Circle, Units A and B {Vail Spa}ILvt 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Kyle and Lorraine Webb Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: T-0.0 Matt Gennett presented the project according to the memorandum.. Doug Cahill asked if any permanent second floor office spaces existed currently, Matt commented that he wasn't aware of any such long-term uses. lRallie Kjesbo asked if clarification on the kitchen would be necessary. Doug Cahill confirmed that if Staff could approve that request when it was submitted, that would be fine. He stated that the upcoming request was essentially already reviewed positively by the Commission members. 4, A request for a final review of a variance, from. Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking- Standards, and Section 12-E3D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the front setback and the construction of two curb cuts, located at 1895 Gore Creek DrivefLot 26, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Elisabeth Eckel Front Setback Variance request ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6-1 {Gunion opposed) Residential Parkins Standards Variance request ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE. ~-2-0 (Gunion and Cahill opposedy 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Design Review Board approval of the design review application associated with this variance request. 2. Prior to final design review approval, the applicant shall submit a topographic surrey which reflects the data from the most recently revised 100 year flood plain survey. 3. The applicant shall ensure that the Design Review Board submittal reflect no more than a total of twenty four feet (24') of pavement for both curb cuts. Page 2 Elisabeth Eckei gave a presentation based upon the contents of the staff memorandum.. Lynn Fritzlen spoke on behalf of the applicant and addressed the variance request far the allowance of a second curb cut. She stated it would be advantageous for the applicant to be able to pu[I out facing forward rather than backing out. Chas Bernhardt asked how they came up with ~4' for the total space required far the curb cut. Lynn Fritrlen responded it is a standard far this type of driveway. Pat Dauphinais spoke an behalf of himself and an adjacent property owner, Nicholas Emigholz, and stated they are bath in favor of both of the variance requests. Doug Cahill asked the applicant's representative how large the landscape island is between the two proposed curb cuts. Lynn Fritzlen responded it is 8' wide by 3£' long. Bill Jewitt asked how much paved area there would be with ahammer-head instead of the two Curb Cuts. Lynn Fritzlen replied that it would be about the same. Bill Jewitt said he does not like the idea of two curb cuts, but ifi it results in mare landscaping then it would be preferable. RDllie Kjesbo asked why PW is not in favor of two curb cuts. Elisabeth Eckel responded it is more the Planning Department than P1N that is not in favor of the twva curb cuts. Rallis Kjesbo stated he is in favor of two curb cuts for safety reasons. George Lamb concurred. Anne Gunion stated she disagrees with the other commissioners an the double curb cut and is not in favor of granting either variance. David Vie1e articulated his support far bath variance requests based upon the criteria and findings for a variance. Chas fernhardt stated he is also in favor of both variance requests based upon similar variances having been granted in the past far neighboring properties, and for safety reasons. Doug Dahill stated he is in favor of the variance request far the garage located in the front setback, but is in opposition of the variance for two curb cuts. 5. A request far a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifcations, Vaif Tawn Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section ~ 2-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Tawn Cade; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8,3,3.A, Review Criteria far Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Page 3 Plan, to allow for the development of 107 multi-family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lionshead CirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Corp,, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to October 24, 2005 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-U-D Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum, highlighting the changes that had occurred to the plan since the previous meeting. Jay Peterson and Tom Braun gave a presentation outlining the changes that had been made to the height of the building since the last meeting. The solution for screening the mechanicals on the roof, the height of the landmark tower, and the flat areas were described in detail. They also discussed the architectural changes made to the southeast corner of the structure and the addition of several roof-top terraces. Finally, the pedestrian connection between the Ritz Carlton Residences and the Marriott for the use of Vail Spa was discussed. Jirn Lamont stated he was comfortable with the physical model but it will be useful to have a digital model of the proposed structure when performing a master planning process in West Lionshead. Several members of the Commission expressed concerns about the height deviations being requested for the mechanical screening solution and the landmark tower, Several members felt . that the height deviations requested did not meet the criteria provided in Resolufion 18, Series of 2004. Other members expressed thoughts that the mechanical screening solution was appropriate. In general, the Commission was comfortable with the amount of fiat roof on the structure, but directed staff to look deeper into the.thought behind the 500 square foot limit found in the Master Plan. The Commission felt that the landmark feature should be something other than another clock tower as several currently exist within Town. It was suggested that public art should be incorporated into the project and that the Art in Public Places Board should be consulted. A concern was raised that the eaves of the roof around the structure be broken up with some extending further than others. In response to the need for a digital model several members felt that a project of this size should have a digital model, however, other felt that the physical model was adequate. The general consensus was that a computer model should be started with the ultimate goal of.using the model in the study of the master planning for the new properties acquired by Vail Resorts in West Lianshead, not for the final review and approval of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences. In the future digital models should be mandatory for larger projects with a physical model being secondary and constructed only if needed to make a more informed decision. 6. A request for final review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Cade, to allow for the subdivision of the Conference Center development site; final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9G-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section $.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Fifing 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 ACTION: Tabled to October 24, 2005 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 4 7. A request for a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 24, 20f15 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 8. A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a rezoning of Lots 1-3, Vail das Schone Filing 1, Lot 1 and Vail das Schone Filing 3 from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) #o Public Accommodation (PA), located at 2211 North Frontage RoadlLots 1-3, Vail das Schone fling 1 and 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vanquish Vail I LLC, represented by Bharat Bhakta Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to November 14, 20Q5 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-Q-0 9. A reguest for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-78-5, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Above Second Floor, Vail Town Code, to allow for the operation of a private club, located at 333 Hanson Ranch RoadJLot C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc,, represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner; Warren Campbell ACTION: Withdrawn 10. A request for a final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Cvde, pursuant to Chapter 12-3, Amendments, tv increase the height limitation for a sloping roof from 48' to 56' in the Public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Rather ACTION: Withdrawn 11. A reguest for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-?, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Tvwn Code, and a fnal review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 106 multi-family residential dwelling units, 1voated at 728 West Lionshead CirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting Earth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Corp., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. 'Planner; Warren Campbell ACTION: Withdrawn 12. Approval of September 12, 2005 minutes MOTION: Viele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 7-0-0 13. Approval of September 28, 2005 minutes MOTION: Viele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 4-0-3 14. Information Update 15. Ad}'ournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 7-0-0 Page 5 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Raad. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call {970} 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department PublishEd ©ctaber 7, 2005, in the Vail Daily. • Rage 6 MEM~OIRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 1 C1, 2i?Cty SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations; Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections and clarifications to the Vail Town Code.. Applicant: Town of Vail iPlanner: Rachel Friede I. SUM1411ARY On August 22, 20t)~, PEC held a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to the Town Cade, which have arisen out of the clean-up process. Staff presented an overview of the three tiers of proposed text amendments: spelling and grammatical changes, clarifications of code and policy chan~es. The PEC reviewed Tier 1, spelling and grammatical changes. On September 12 , a second worksession was held to review clarification changes. Questions left unanswered at that session are discussed in Section II of th`[s memo and will be discussed at this worksession. This worksession wiH also review the new set of proposed text amendments in Section III of this memo. As this is only a worksession, staff will not make a recommendation at this time. II. GlUESTIONS FROM PREVIOUS WURKSESSION: PEC Qe~~estian #1: Where is "'substantial impravementT referenced in the Code? What is its significance as a definition? Staff Answer: "Substantial Improvement" is defined below in Section 12-21-2. It is referenced again in 12-21-12, as a means of requiring improvements to nonconforming structures after repair, reconstruction ar improvements exceed ~Q6fo of the market value of the structure. The proposed text amendment was to include "Substantial Improvement" in Section 12-2-2: Definitions to provide a more comprehensive fisting of terminology in the main Definitions Section. • CHAPTER 72-21: HAZARD REGULATIONS: 12-2 9-2: DEFINITIONS; SUBSTANTIAL IIVIPROVEMENT.~ Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cosf of which equals or exceeds fifty percent (5(J%) of the market value of the structure. Market value shafl be determined by a qualified assessor designated by the Administrator. The market value of a sfrucfure is determined either A. Before fhe improvement or repair is started; or B. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of fhis definition "substantial improvement" is considered fo occur when fhe first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of fhe building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include any project far improvement of a sfrucfure to comply with exisffig State or local healfh, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions. 92-27-12: IMPROVEMENTS ON NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES: A. Protection Of Structures: Structures which are subsfantially improved must be anchored fo prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement during a base flood event; substantially improved structures musf also elevate the lowest floor elevation, includfig basement, to at Ieasf one foot (9) above the base flood elevation. B. Application; Contents: Applications for the substantial improvement for structures shall include the following: PEC Question #2: Where are "private parking clubs?° Will they be IegaHy non- conforming with changes? Shall we change policy? Staff Answer; "Private Parking Clubs" are located at the Gateway Building {zoned Commercial Service Center), Golden Peak {Ski Base 1), P3&J (Parking) and Cascade Club {Not Designated). The only zone where private parking clubs will become a non- conforming use will be CSC. Staff is proposing a policy change to allow private structured parking and private unstructured parking in CSC. PEC Question #3: How does the Conference Center project's parking situation relate to the new land use term "Public Parking Structure" and the Lionshead Parking Structure? . Staff Answer: The Conference Center project does not utilize any public parking {Lionshead Parking Structure) as part of its parking requirements. This new land use term will not be affected by the Conference Center project. 72-2.' DEFINITIONS: 72-2-2.• Definitions: PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE: A parking area wifhin a building for use by the public, to be considered an individual land use not to 6e linked with parking requiremenfs regulated in Chapter 9Z-7a. PEC Question #4: How can you have "Indoor ski storage" as a permitted use "Outside Of Lodge in the Ski BaselRecreation 1 district? Staff Answer: In this list of land uses outside of lodge in the Ski BaselRecreation 1 District, there are numerous land uses with implied structures, such as "Mountain storage buildings and "Water-treatment and storage facilities buildings." The "Outside" does not~mean open air, but rather in the close vicinity of the lodge. ?2-SD: SKI BASFJREtREA7lC~N 7 DISTRICT.- 72-8D-2; Permiffed Uses: E. Outside Of Lodge: The following uses shall be permitted outside the main base lodge and children`s ski school buildings as shown on the approved development plan: Bus and skier drop off. Food and beverage service. In~oar and outdoor ski storage. Mountain storage buildings. Private unstructured parking. Public parks, tennis and volleyball courts, and playing fields, playgrounds. Ski racing facilities. Ski school activities. Ski trails, slopes and lifts. Snowmaking facilifies. Special community evenfs. ~~ ~. ~:g-Ie~ Wafer-treatment and storage facilities buildings. PEG Question #5: Where does this defrnition of Wetlands originate? Staff Answer: This definition was taken from Environmental Protection Agency Regulations listed at 40 CFR 230.3{t), which lists the required definition for the Clean Water Act. It is important for technical terms to use the definitions from the highest regulatory bodies, ~ such as the EPA. T1TLE 14: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HAIVDBOOK.• CHAPTER 14-2: DEFINI TJONS: ~4-~: DEFINITIONS Wetlands: As deterrnr'ned by the Army Corps of Engineers or qualified environmental consultancy an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficr'ent to support and that under normal circumstances does support- a prevalence of vegetation adapted for Life in saturated soil conditions. Ill. PROPOSED TEXT AMEN©AAENTS: TITLE 11: SIGN REGULATIONS CHAPTER 1 ~-2: DEFWITIONS ?1-2-7: DEFINITIONS ENUMERATED: SIGN, CONSTRUCTION ~&1SJ: .. ~: A sign permitted to identify a project under construction and the associated hazardous conditions as further regulated by Section 99-7-73, Vail Town Code. TEMPORARY SITE DEVELOPMENT SIGN: A sign permitted to identify and describe a project under consfruction and the associated hazardous conditions, during large scale development periods as determined by the Vail Town Council, as further regulated by Section 11-7-6, Vail Town Code. f,4at-,~~~;.~.,nr..v-~.~esfi n„~,o nom.,: rddrea~~, ~, ~rr,~, ~r ~'rnhifinnfi rnnf nc.lnfn +~nnnf nr nfiAnr n'~-_C~ e r t ~j'~ ~~~7 Staff Comment:. During Vail's Billion Dollar Renewal, there has been confusion among applicants as to which Sign Regulations apply to particular projects. Staff feels that construction sign and temporary site development sign should be clarified to create two separate terms, one far major development periods, and the other for general canstruetian. Staff is recommending revamping the Ternparary Site Development Sign regulations and creating Construction Sign regulations below. In the future, applicants will have a clear understanding of which signs apply to their projects. Staff will also have codified standards from which. to regulate. CHAPTER T 9-2: DEFINITIONS 11-2-1: DEFINITIONS ENUIi~fERATED: FRONTAGE, LINEAR: The horizon#al, lineal dimension of any side of a first story, second' story, or other above grade level. When nnore than one use occupies a building, each use having a public entrance for its exclusive utilization shall be considered #a have i#s own linear frontage. FRONTAGE, BUILDING: The horizontal, lineal dimension of any side of a building that has a usable public entrance upon a major vehicular or pedestrian way or other major circulation area. Where more than one use occupies a building, each use having a public entrance for its exclusive utilization shall be considered to have ifs own linear-buei,~rrc frontage. [•irlo r,f .~ firnt nfnrti e~nnn nrl e.fi~n~ r.- nfhnr ohn~rn C!r~~ r r J irtir i~ohin~~Ior nr ,;~. Ifl/hero mnr,^ +h^n • ~ Fi .Yt#fid'1.rr ~°nh ~ee.a F, or~`.~ ~' ^ail~lin anfr^nra ~~ S' r- ~si~-~ r ~ ~ irea#ag~ Staff Comments: Using both business frontage and linear frontage has created confusion in applying the Sign Regulations. By only using Linear Frontage instead of business frontage, one uniform term applies to all frontages. In the case of business frontages, refer to the Linear Frontage of a business. In the memo to PE=C on 9-12-Q5, these terms were changed within Title 11. CI-IAPTER 11-7: OTHER SIGNS T 1-7-3: PUBLIC INFORMA TlON SIGNS; A. Description: All public information signs shall "^ ~<<'~~~^f }^ include any display board or kiosk with the intended use of locating posters, handouts, and cards identifying community activities, special events, and personal information. B. Size, Neigh#, number, locotion, design, .lighting and landscaping: Subject fo design review. C, Special Provisions: All display boards arrd kiosks sha11 be constructed, erected, and maintained by the Tfawn of Vail or with the permission thereof. • • Staff Comments: In this case, the content of Section 11-7-3, Vail Town Code, was reworded to reflect the format of other sign regulations within Title 11, Vail Tawn Code. This proposed text amendment does not change the meaning of this regulation in any way.. f 1-7-6: TEMPORARY Sl TE ,DEVELOPMENT SIGNS.` A. Description: 'ter. fides ' arc} ~.~y a^de; ~~,~st~~^*'o~:,~-A sign permitted to identify and describe a projec# under construction and the associated hazardous conditions during large scale der+eiopment periods as determined by the Town Council. 1. Size: Any site development sign shat! not exceed ~~~f°nt P~M..,+~ra fnnfi ruifil~ ~ 1~nri~nnfiol rlirn rr~~'~~n n.n nrc~ofinr fh+~n fn,~+ ~;+~ , {~'~)- :Forty-tyro (42) inches by fifty three (53) inches in dimension. . F w ~.~1 h~ .r'~ l^~iiv~nr fih.~n nine/~fi fn~nfi 112 ~1 frnm nrrnrln r-uc~ ¢' 2S. Number: One sign per building frontage upon a site. 3~4. Location: ^ ~~inll mni~nfnnl ni'vn nl,nll hn nl+snnnf n~rnllnl fin film ~R~:,~i.~g irc c~~ . rc- Signs shall be mvunfed on construction fencing. In the absence of construction fencing, a two-sided sign mounted on a four by four 4x4) inch post may be placed within a landscaped planter. 4~. Lighting: Not permitted. 5~. Special Provisions: Temporary site development signs shall be removed prior fo the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. 6. Content: A. Temporary Site Development Signs shat! include fhe following information: (9J Project Name r~ L. J (2} Building Permit Number (3} Contact information: Only one name and ane phone number shall be permitfed. • (4} Physical address. B. Temporary Site Development Signs may include the following information: (1} Staff approved develapmenf slogans. (~} Rrief facfual descrr'ption of the project. (3} Websife address. (4} Artist Rendering. (5} Proposed completion date. ~9-7-93: CONSTRUCTION SIGNS A. Description: A sign permitted fo idenfify and describe a project under construction and the associated hazardous conditions. T. Size: Any construction sign sha11 naf exceed twenty (20} square feet, wifh a horizontal dimension no greater than ten feet {~ ~. 2. Height: The fop of a sign shall be no higher than eight feet (8} from grade. 3. Number: One sign per life. ~. Location: A wa11 mounfed sign shall be placed parallel to the exterior wall adjacent to the street or major pedesfrianway which the building abuts and shall be subjecf fo design review. !f no wall exists for sign fo be placed, the sign may be mounted on the construction fence. 5. Design: subjecf fo design review. 6. Lighting: Not permitted. T. Special Provisions: Construcfian signs shall be removed prior to the issuance of a temporary certifcafe of occupancy. 8. Content: The following fexf shall be included on construction signs with no other content permitted: a. Project name b. Building permit number c. Confect information: Only one name and one phone number fs permff#ed. d. Physicaf address. Staff Comments: The regulations need to be adjusted to clarify the difference between "Temporary Site development Signs" and "Construction Signs,". As Temporary Site development Signs will be linked tv major development periods in Vail, such as the Billion Dollar Renewal, the Cade needs to reflect the Town Council approved sign program introduced by the Department of Community Development andlor the Qepartment of Public Works. See attached "Billion Dollar Renewal Sign Program" sheet.) TITLE 12: ZQNING REGULA7I~MS CHAPTER 12-2: DEFT NIT! JNS 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS: SLOPE: ~#e--graeffe~cr ~ fic rrn,~r~#.,r~,a,~ r~n~r ~r M .'c:, ...te,~r ~, ~~# =11 ~~t/ ~_l f °'""' 1:17! .n .,., #,,,r rrt~ ~ „+ :., IIlIIlr•~Finn Trainer} nr !.-c of nrrnr arJnh #on fao# /dn~l nr fran~. fir: f# - •n : Cr 1$1~f!'C ~C ~~~)' std ~SAri~nn#a!'nnrtr+~~~r~+~.nn n# n#~all ~o evn.ronnorl ~~ nflrran#ila ac a lYtG ann r,f rrrrnn#ifi Tin.-r 4kn F.-.r,~ K,~~~.'i~t7'GT~rr~i~{{`~,,[~'I~~I,., {~~~i ""~ ~956€~-~8~., r ~~ ~+~ ~+ #nnnrrran#~in man of #.~+' ~~~hrar+# i-~=r''~'~~~ ~/.4~ #F--~rro--r+vi~i:9~7C ii~~a~+'A:~ 'i'_'IISk}f^fi~ '~1~°~ +-..-! .++,-.{L+~.-.1 €~h~ jarenr~rnr~/ ~-rnni nrrrrorn fao# rrrrrl CC'r'?'t74Cf°R i nnr'~;nn of #~,o fr~Wt, lager ~~~Ia: '~l~ereE--~The deviation of a surface from the horizontal, usually expressed in percent or degrees and calculated through rise over run. Staff Comment: The proposed text amendment will change the definition of slope in order to provide a more general definition. The Town Code is best served by definitions that da not define procedure, as is the rase with "Slvpe.'° Therefore, staff feels a general definition is more suitable. CI-lAP7E,R 12-9: SI'EClAI .AND MISGELLANEC3US DISTRICTS: 72-9A: SPECIAL DEVELQPMElV7DIS7R1C7: 92-9A-~': DEVELOPMENT REVfE4W PROCED[IRES: C. PEC Conducts Initial R`evisw: The fnitiaf review of a proposed special developmenf district shall be held by the planning and environmentaf commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to this meeting, and of the discretion of the administrator, a work session maybe held with the applicant, staff and the planning and environmental commission to discuss special developmenf district. A report of the department of community development staffs findings and recommendations shall be made at fhe initial formal hearing before the planning and environmental commission. 11Vifhin twenty (2Q) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendmenf, the Alanning and Envfronmenta! Commission shall act on the pefition ar proposal. The Commission may recommend approval of fhe pefition or proposal as fnitiafed, may recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Title, or may recommend denial of the petition or rejection of the proposal. The Commission shall transmit its recommendation, together i with a report on the public hearing and its deliberat-ons and ~" findings, to the Town Council. D. Town Council Review; A report of the planning and environmentaf commission stating ifs findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the town council in accordance with the applicable provisions of Secfion 92-16-fi f)f this title. ;-Re ~^~.,^ ^~~ ~^^cr nholr nnnnir~Inr ih~, ~~ ~~ subse~a~c 1 ~ ? 7 .Upon receipt of fhe report and recommendafion of fhe Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Council shalt set a date for hearing within fhe following thirty (3Q) days. Wifhfn twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed SDD, the Town Council shall act on fhe petition or proposal. The Town Council shall consider but shat! not be bound by the recommendatfan of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Town Council may cause an ordinance to be fnfroduced to create or amend a Special Development Dr"strict, either r"n accordance with fhe recommendation of fhe Planning and Environmenfal Commission or in modified form, or the Council may deny fhe pefition. If fhe Council elects to proceed with an ordinance adopting an SDD, the ordinance shall be considered as prescribed by fhe Uail Town Charter. 72-9A-8: DESIGN Cl?1TERfA AND NECESSARY F1ND1NG5: A. CRITERIA: The following design criteria shall be used as the principaf criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special devefopmenf district. It shelf be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate thaf one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with fhe public interest has beery achieved: (1)A- Compatibility: Design compafibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer cones, identity, characfer, visas! integrity and orientation. (2}~: Refatfonshfp: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relafionship with surrounding uses and activity. {3}~ Parking And Loading: Compliance witty parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 70 of this Title. {4}fl: Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vai! Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. {5)€ Nafuraf AndlQr Geologic Hazard: Identification and mftigafion of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development disfrict is proposed. {BJ,~ Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed fo produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetaffon and overaf! aesthetic quality of the community. {T}6: Traffic: A circufafion system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circufafion. {8}#- Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic Landscaping and open space in order fo optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. {9}la Workable Flan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan fhaf will mar`ntain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughouf fhe development of the special devefopmenf district. B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending ,and/or glranfing an approval of an application for a Special Developmenf flistrict, the Planning and Environmental Commission and fhe Town Council shall make the following findings with respect td the proposed SDfl: in (!} That the SDD complies wifh the standards lisfed in Subsection T2-9A-8A of this Tif/e, unless the applicant can demonstrate #hat one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a pracfr'cal solution consistent wifh the public interest has been achieved. (2}Thaf the SDD is consistent with the adapted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (3} That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and (4} That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes fhe coardinafed and harm©nious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural envr`ronment and its established character as a resort and residential community of fhe hr'ghest quality. Staff Comments: The proposed text amendments will clarify procedure far review of Special Development Districts. It is important to provide a dear procedure for legal proceedings in order to have a legally binding process. Subsection 12-9A-4C and D have added text to explain procedure for PEC and Town Council review. Subsection 12- 9A-8 has been clarified to provide Necessary Findings for PEC and Town Council when reviewing an SDD. 12-9A-1Q: AMENDMENT PROCEDURES: A. Minor Amendmenfs: 1. Minor modifications consistent with the definition of "minor amendment" in subsection 12-9A-2 {de#i~iti~-e~ "rrifle~ant"} of this Article, may be approved by the Department of Community Development. A11 minor modifications shat! be indicated on a completely revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Departmenf of Community Development. Staff Comments The proposed text amendment is necessary in order to delete confusing wording. -~2-8,A 1~: ~° earn nt~ce~cnc7• o^nnrnr7~nnrei -rer~ r~c~aae~7• irfi f-,-~~ll~ .'?11..n fl~ie* Title ~neJ 7 A T' ~i Staff Comments: The proposed text amendment is to delete Subsection 12-9A-15. This needs to be deleted because it is redundant. ,All other land uses are listed within the underlying zone district sections of the Code. Within the SDD regulations, na afher land uses are mentioned, but Bed and Breakfast has its awn section. Meanwhile, many SDDs are not eligible to have Bed and Breakfasts, making this paragraph somewhat misleading. Since SDDs cannot deviate from the underlying zone district's land uses, if a Bed and Breakfast is allowed, then it will be allowed in the SDD. CHAPTER 12-'19: DESIGN REVIEW. 92-19-1: Pl1RPUSF#~IT€-Al~• Staff Comment: The restructuring of this section is necessary in order to follow the format of other sections of the Tawn Code. This Wilk help to provide a basis for why we have the Design Guidelines section, which is generally referred to as "purpose" instead of "intent." CHAPTER 12-21: HAZARD REGI.I'LATIUNS: 12-29-14: RESTRICT!©NS IIV SPECIFIC Z~IVES C?N EXCESSIVE SLOPES: Slope is the gradient or configuration of the undisturbed land surface prior to site improvement of a lot, site, or parcel which shall be established by measuring the maximum number of feet in elevation gained or lost over each ten feet (1 a) or fraction thereof measured horizontally in any direction between opposing lot lines; the relationship of elevation or vertical measure as divided by the horizontal measurement shall be expressed as a percentile as a means of quantifying the term "slope': In determinafion of "slope" as defined herein, for use ~in establishing buildable area requirements and maximum floor area ratio limitations on existing and proposed lots,. a grid system based on ten foot (90? modules shall be superimposed on a topographic map of the subject property and the lot slope determination established by the defined method for each one hundred (10(?) square feet grid portion of the tract, lot or portion thereof. The following additional special restrictions or requirements sha11 apply to development on any !ot in a hillside residential, single-family residential, two-family residential or two-family primary/secondary residential zone district where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent {'30%): ~z • Staff Comment: In order to clarify the process on how to determine a slope of 30°lb or greater, this section requires this tent amendment which outlines procedure for determining slope. This procedure was taken from the previous definition of slope, as regulatory procedures should not be located in the definition of a term. This will provide a more comprehensive and understandable Code. CHAPTER 73-3: MAJOR SUSDIVfS10NS: 13-3-~: COMM1SS10N REV1ElN OF APPLlCAT10N; CRfTER1A AND NECESSARY FINDINGS.• The Planning and Environmenfa! Commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the application, relevant additional materials, Staff report and recommendations as well as any other comments or public information given at the hearing. The Planning and Environmental Commission may discuss advisable changes to the proposed subdivision with the applicant The burden of proof shall resf with the applicant to Shaw 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 shelf be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utilify companies and other agencies consulfed under subsection 13-3- 3C above. ~5 c.~rnd~~:;,n:~! resr~ic ru fhn nn nli.+.~f:~~ ~.~~e~itC '~~.~~l nrio }~a-rvron'rnicn"vQZ:C r'~rvnr.J r ?-~ti~av~~el;sies-~lat;;;~ {v c~<.isiel'7 n s~.,f,r~-Qer~o'Y~~i"~tl ;erepesv~', an~~a/r-~-(y~essk~tienc ~~~a` -et#er a~~'Jl~sabfe~ !+I rm t9, yTT~rrT7r~nTmFGTFt[7f-iTitL'~i+~~ •~nrl nmm~+~~i{~~ A. E3efore recommending approval, approval with condr`tions or disapproval of the Preliminary Plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following criteria with respecf to the proposed subdivision: f7~ The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with aA the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies auflined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (2) The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Title, as well as, but not limped to, Title 12, Zoning Regulations and other pertinent regulafions that the Planning and 13 Environmenfal Commission deems applicable; and (3) The extent to which fhe proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consisfent with municipal development objectives; and (4} The extent of the effects on the fufure development of the surrounding area; and (5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed fa avoid creating spafiaf patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication ar premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and (6} The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under- sized lines; and (7) The extent fo which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and (8} The extent to which fhe proposed subdivision results in adverse or benelrcal impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water qualify, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and (9} Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable fo the proposed rezoning. B. lYecessary Findings: Before recommending andJor granting an approval of an application for a major subdivision, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed major subdivision: (~) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection 13-3-4A. (Z) That fhe subdivision is consisfent with the adopted goals, objectives and poficies outlined in the Vai! Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and (3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suifable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the I4 surrounding areas; and {4} That fhe subdivision promofes the health, safety, morals, and genera! welfare of the Town and pramofes fhe coordinated and harmonious developmenf of fhe Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of fhe highest quality. . Staff Comment The proposed text amendrnenis are necessary to create a legally binding process for reviewing subdivisions. Criteria and Necessary Findings are the foundation for subdivision review and need to be clearly spelled out to subdividers and the commissions who review them. CHAPTER 13-4: MINOR SUBDIVISIONS: 13-4-2: PROCEDURE: The procedure for a minor subdivision shalt be as follows: A. Submission Of Proposal; Waiver Of Requirements: The subdivider shall submit two (~) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection 13-3-68 of fhis Title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the Adminisfrator and/or the Planning and Environmental Commission if determined not applicable to fhe project. B. PEC Public Hearing: public .~earirr5 .~e€ert f"r ~g ~'~'~~~^ G~A~---f9J18~~ n.~lifin~+inn rervreiromonfo #v~. W~fNy 1 c{-~~i~s ?-ille: Within thirty (30) days of receiving the complete and correct submittal for a minor subdivision, fhe Planning and Environmentaf Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the final plat. The Administrator shall cause a copy of a notice of the time, place and general nature of the hearr'ng and proposal to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town at feast 1<ffeen (95) days prior to said hearing. Also, adfacent property owners to the proposed subdivision sha1J be notified in writing at least seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. C. Review And Action On Plat: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review fhe plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modr'fications ar disapprove the plat within fwenfy one (21) days of fhe first public hearing on the minor subdivision ar fhe minor subdivision will be deemed approved. A Janger time period far rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the 1~ Planning and Environments! Commission and subdivider. The review shall be based on the criteria and necessary findings in Section 13-3-4. D. Appeal: ~'1~: • ~ ~ ~~,d Cn~..irnn,v,enf.~l f~s~fsste.~'c s-esisi~rn h~hen/~ Tetirsvr-~Seur~i' n'~af~--feNew t-r/c •c ~ufllr~ed--in SeoT~PiT-T~ ~ ~p-s~f Ih;s Tile Within twenty (2p} days the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission on the fins! plat shall be transmitted to the Council by the staff. The Council may appeal the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission within twenty (20} days of the Planning and ,Environmental Commission's acfion. If Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission decision, fhe Council shall hear substantiafly the same presentation by fhe applican# as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing(s). The Council shall have thirfy (30} days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision, and the Council shall conduct the appeal of a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Staff Camrnent~ Rather than cross referencing other Sections of the Code, it is necessary for each section to spell out procedure for a legally binding process. In order to ensure that procedures cannot be challenged in court,. we must have a solid regulatory tool in place, as outlined above. T1TLE 74: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HANDBOOK: CHAPTER 74-6: GRADING STANDARDS: Retaining WaI1s (General} Al! retaining walls are reviewed by fhe Design Review Board or the Administrator -Tetiv.~t S+~# fo determine compafibllify fo fhe exisfing topography and fhe materials in use. The maximum height of a retaining wall shall be six (6} feet, except within a required front setback, where fhe maximum height of a retaining wall shall be fhree (3j feet and within a public righf- of--way, where there is no maximum height limit Retaining walls shall be located a minimum of two (2} feet from ad1acent property boundary and ten (7Q} feet from the edge of a public street. AI! retaining wa11s over four (4} feet in height shall require a P.E. Stamp except in the right-of-way, where retaining walls over three (3} feet in height shall require a P.E. Stamp. • 16 fable 7: ~+~--~il~ ~ergr#t ~~ ~ ~' _a4--e.1E t ~rvh~r/.,~, I n Al~ ~-~ ~~ r~ nr~ '3' Frn m *. rl:. ~ .-.f nrnz~, nTrAps} //--y~~,,.~.,,, ,,.,,! .. rYro ofnr fF..~n 9l10 ~,.,,,,J +~a ~~ - - _. Ae-efitienal ~eaafew ~ Sta+~p ~sya! ems' eel' ~s - des #B ~6& ~~ ~~ ef~ff ao~„e, . nncr ~ i"~tr ~/~~^ ,^, -f-~ Boulder Retaining Walls Boulder retaining walls shall comply with n ~.~-~neGZ all the standards of retaining walls (genera!). The height listed for retaining walls is the exposed height of either a single or combined height of combination walls. if the batter (slope of the face of the wall) is greater than 1: ~, a P.E. stamp is required. Gombination Retaining Walls A retaining wall should be considered a cSombinatian walls are if the upper waft falls within a prism defined as starting 1' behind the face of the lower wall at the lowest finished grade line and then back at a 1.5:1 angle from this starting point. The minimum bench of combination retaining walls shall be half (i/2) of the difference of the exposed height or four (4) feet, whichever is greater. All combination retaining walls shall have a F E. Stamp. Staff Comment: Staff and numerous applicants feel that the afaove table is confusing and misleading of our regulations. With text paragraphs, the Code will become clearer and the difficult issue of retaining walls can be properly regulated and followed. IV. STAI=F RECQMMENDATIC}N; As this is only a worksession, staff will not make a recommendation to PEC at this time. However, on October 24~', 2405, staff Wilk present PEC with a request for the proposed text amendments, at which time staff will make a recommendation. V. ATTACHMENTS; A. VaiPs Ekklkon dollar F~enewal Sign Program Sheet 1~ Vail's Billion Dollar Renewal Si na e • ~ 9 Temporary Sife Development Signs • No lighting of any kind shall be included in the at~ove-referenced sign applications • The applicant must ensure thaf signage is maintained at all times MEMORANDUM, TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 10, 2005 SUBJECT: A requestfor a final review of a variance, from Sections 12-fiF-8, Density, and 12-fiF- 11, Parking, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vain Town Code, to allow for a residential addi#ion, located at 4110 Spruce'Way/Lot 24, Black 8, Bighorn Addition 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. {PEC05--005?} Applicant: Michael and Elizabeth Taggart,. represented by Charles downing Planner: Matt Gennett I. SUMCUTARY The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum Grass Residential Floor Area requirement of the Low Density Multiple Family (LONE}; and a variance from the minimum Parking Standard in the LDMF zone district in order to build a residential addition on a nonconforming legal lot. of record. The Taggart's home and lot, located at 4110 Spruce Way/Lot 24, Block 8, Bighorn Addition 3 (Attachment A}, are presently in a state of pre- existing noncanformify with respect to all minimum setbacks, in addition to several other zoning standards (Section VI). Based upon the criteria and findings in Section VIII of this memorandum, staff is recommending approval of the applicant's variance requests. DESCRiPTI(]N 4F REQUEST The applicant is making a request to add Gross Residential Floor Area {GRFA} to the existing single family home on the applicant's lot at 4110 Spruce Way in the farm of a 286.85 square foot addition spanning both levels of the home, all of which will be within the minimum rear setback of twenty feet {20'}. The minimum rear se#back is the only required setback presently being adhered to and staff suggested to the applicant they maintain conformance with that development standard. In response to staff comments, the appCicant modified their proposal by reducing the amount of GRFA being requested in excess of the maximum and pulled the proposed addition back within the minimum rear setback of twenty feet {20'}. The proposed addition would result in 31.3% site coverage of the total site area, up from the existing 22.6% site coverage, still well below the maximum allowable site coverage in the LDMF zone district of 35%. The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum parking requirement in the LDMF zone district as there has never been parking accommodated on the site outside of the minimum front setback of twenty feet (20'} and there exists no alternative for locating a parking space any place else other than within the front setback. Given the preexisting, nonconforming status of this lot and structure, the variance requests being made are the result of extraordinary circumstances on the site and will allow the applicants to achieve the objectives of Title 12, which is one of the purposes for 1 „ ~y TQ~N t}F YAIL granting a variance. Another factor in the granting of variance requests. addresses the effect of any such request upon light, air, and traffic facilities. As demonstrated in Section VI11 of this memorandum, the requested variances wiPl have no impact upon fight and air, and will have a positive impact an traffic facilities, The parking variance will allow the applicant to continue parking one car off the street and on their own property within the minimum front setback of twenty feet (20'}. The GRFA variance request will allow the applicants to modernize a small nonconforming single-family home on a nonconforming lot of extremely limited square footage without a grant of special privilege given the circumstances of this unique property, and in keeping with the purpose of Chapter 17. Ill. BACKGROUND In 1967, the existing home was constructed on the subject property. In 1973, the Tawn of Vail re-adapted the zoning regulations (Ordinance No. 8, 1973} and the subject property, with the existing single family dwelling, zoned LDM1=, thereby rendering both the lot and structure nonconforming. In 1976, a reining application was submitted requesting the subject property be rezoned from Low Density Multi-Family ~LDMF} to "Agricultural", which most likely referred to the Agricultural & Open Space zone district (A}. There is no record or evidence demonstrating the approval of this request. On July 11, 2005,. the applicants submitted the first iteration of their variance request, which included a request for a variance from the minimum rear setback standard of twenty feet (20') in the LDMF zone district. After receiving comments from staff concerning the rear setback and the availability of other options, the applicants have made considerable modifications to their request in order to achieve a higher level of conformitywith the zoning standards. IV. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2, The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve cornpat'rbility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect ofi the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. a 2 B. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. C. Town Council Actions of Design Review Board ar Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Cauncil or by the Town Council. Tawn Cauncil evaluates whether ar not the Planning and Environmental Commission ar Design Review Board erred with approvals or denims and can uphold, uphold with madifcations, or overturn the board's decision. D. 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. Staff provides a staff memorandum canfaining 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, ar denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING I?DOCUMENTS TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIdNS ARTICLE F. Lt~W DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY (L~7MF) DISTRICT 12-6F-?: PURPC7S'E: The low density multiple-family district is intended to provide sites for single-family, fwo-family and multiple-family dwellings at a density not exceeding nine (9) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The love density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequatelgh>7 air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with low density occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6F-8: DENSITY COl+1TRaL: A. Gross Residential Floor Area: Nat more than forty f©ur (44) square feet of grass residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed nine (9) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than ore-third (9/3) of the total floor area of the dvrelling. 8. Exemptions: All projects that have received final design review board approval as of December 19, 1978, shall be exempt from the changes in this section as long as the project commences within one year from the date of final approval. If the project is to be n f~ 3 developed in stages, each stage shall be commenced within one year after the completion of the previous stage. 72-8F-17: PARKING; Off sfreef parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter i0 of this title. No parking shall be located in any required frontsetback area, except as may be specifically authorized in accordance with the provisions ofchac~fer 77 of this title. CHAPTER 77, VARIANCES (in part) 12-77-F.~ PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: !n order fa prevent ar to lessen such praclical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic ar physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limifafions, street locations or conditions r`n fhe immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason far granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances maybe granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildr'ngs, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements; ar with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of Phis title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Nof Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided 6y chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits'; and by section 12-3-7. "Amendment" of this fide. 12-77-6: CRITERIA AND~FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors wifh respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict ar literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treafinent among sites in the vicinity, or fo attain the abjecfr'ves of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on lighf and air, distribufion of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safely. • 4 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to fhe proposed variance. VI. 51TE ANALYSIS Address: 4110 Spruce V'Jay Legal Description: Lvt 24, Block 8, Bighorn Third Addition Lot Size: 1,833.5 square feet ! .042 acres Hazards: None Standard Allowed/Required ,Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 11' no change Sides: 20 ft. 0' 19.5' no change Rear: 20 ft. 2' no change Height: 38' 21,5' no change GRFA: 806.74 sq fk 862.03 sq ft 1,148.$$ sq ft Site Coverage : 35% 22.6% (414.3 sq ft) 31.3% (573.8 sq ft) Density: 9 DUs 1 DU no change Landscape Area: 40% (733.4 sq ft) 77% (1,417sq ft) 69% {1,265.1 sq ft) Parking: 2 spaces 1 space no change VII. SURRQUNDING LAND USES AND ZONI NG Land Use Zoninct North: Residential Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF) South: Residential Two-Family Residential (R) East: Residential Two-Family Residential (R) West: Residential Two-Family Residential (R) VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. 1. The relationship of the requested rsriance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the rricinity. Staff has determined the requested variance will result in a harmonious relationship between the existing structure and the neighboring buildings as the bulk and mass will increase only slightly. The proposed addition will not impact any of the surrounding properties because it is to be situated at the rear of the building, not facing any other buildings, only Bighorn Raad, and inside of the twenty foot (20') minimum rear setback. Likewise, the proposed addition will not increase the parking requirement for this property, and the applicant is proposing to continue with the existing parking condi#ion, one space in the front setback, as there is no alternative. Staff believes the applicant has met this criterion with their proposal. 5 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve carnpafibilityand uniformity of#reatrnent among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Considering the preexisting, nonconforming status of the subject property and the structure located an it, and othervariance requests approved by the Planning and Enviranmentai Commission (PEC}far similar properties in the area, staff believes the approval of this variance request would not be a grant of special privilege. The applicant is asking for the minimum amount of relief from the development standards of the Law Density Multi-family (LDMF} zone district to achieve their goal and has modified the application at staff's request to adhere with zoning to the maximum extent possible. 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 believes the effects upon light, air, and other public interests in comparison to existing conditions would be negligible considering the small addition proposed an this building. The existing building is currently nonconforming with respect to the required minimum setbacks of twentyfeet (20'} on three sides and the proposed addition will not encroach into the presently conforming rear setback. The building's height will remain the same and the addition, split between the two levels, will not impact any of the elements contemplated in this criterion 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff believes the proposed variance will have a positive effect on the subject property's aesthetic values and will therefore benefit the neighborhood as a whole. l3. The Planning and Environmental_Commissian shall make the following findings before arantino a variance: 9. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materiaEly injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. r1 U 6 ~. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance thatdo notapplygenerally 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, L.X. STAFF RECOMMEAIDATIQN The Community Development Department recommends appro+ral of the requested variances from Sections 12-6F-8, Density, and 12-6F-11, Parking, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a residential addition, located at 4110 Spruce WaylLot 24, Block 8, Bighorn Addition 3, subject to the criteria outlined in Section VI I I of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose approve to the requested variances, the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission pass the following matic~n: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Secfion Vl11 of this memorandum, and the evidence and testirxtony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: Thal the granfing of the variance will i?ot constifute a grant of special privilege incansisfenf w7th fhe limitatiar~s on otherproperfies classified in fhe same district. 2. Thal the granting of the variance will not be defrimenta! to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially inJurious to properties or irrprovemet7ts in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of fhe following reasons: a. The strict liferaf interpretation or enforcement of fhe specified regulation would result in practical difficulfy ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objecfives of this fide. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The sfrict interpretafion or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 7 X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Plans C. Applicant's Request • n ~~ O r i y, t kF} I I ~ aI 1:'. u9 a n_,ai~., ,...~ ,t, K,~e, ~ :a,~~. a~~~~.a~l .i z~~ ~,~~i }9 y ~ a ~ I ~. ~y - .E ~ V Y I ~:~ ~~ ~~3 ~: ~t `~ r.d `r- d s ~ \ i. 6 1 A .a I ~Y Cp i~ 3 = c a s v~ F E;•. ~i::iA l s S~ y1 ip d. a E w r.-, , ~~g • 4 ~ -~ 1x r a y y~.c k- a}a. ee d ' i~ E~' y.§ - { St q~ x?$15 ~Sn 3~ ip "'~ p ~' [ ~i~ i ` / 1,^• ~ , :; ~ ~~: . , - - f ~L. t ~~, -_ ~ , i 'era; - - ~ ?' _.,_.._.. _ _.. _~~_ ~ - -~~ l- - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' _ / ~1 e• .:~~. ~ -F x _._ _~ _ ~ ~' _ 4 ~ 11 ~ [ 1 s~~~yr~ F c~_ I ' i h'-f f y `3_-. ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~t^ f ~ + ' r5i i. ~~ ~ ~ j S ~r ` Ir I. 3 ~~~ ~ jam, L ~ I ^\ --- iii ,~ LLB °^. 1~ y- _~.~.. ~___.:)-~._-----'----.-` _ - 1\\. YY-II _ .. 'VV ray ~, ~ '`\ e1l~ i ~61~ Y ~~V` _ _ _ ~ ~I tiV ~ M1V 51 Vl T ~`N} p 1 i 1 r ~ I ~I _ _ ,a~: c - 1 I ~1` _ ~~ 1 _ -, _ _ - 1t 1 ~ ! I _ ~ I 11 I ~ - _ ~ ,. --- ~ ~ ~~ •__ - ___ - ' - . _ ~ 3" _ .'. --- ~ ~ I i I I' a :_ '.I ~ :~uawy~~~b- ~~ • ~~, ~., . 11(4 V 41 V> IlJ l{V1 }- ~ I I _ I~'~. RD=."+b , ~ .f.'-W ~ F! 1 3. ~. r.n:l'.-. a ~ ~:.. Y - `I ^..1 JNtl!;H'=~~~77 //'y7r~ .:~~~gg ~. yy,~ .. yy ,~]7I r~r~}y~.yn- .. ~;A - .aw4. .~.~ p,.., I.., .e ~.~~~1'..A.~:~il Cl .4 cJ tfi~~~.~. = e Li 1 ~« ~ _ { Y < ; ~~1 PPf ~ ~; Y i p aL t' ;~ kt' 1 { n. ~ e ~P~ ~e:.: a gp r Yi z': S ;F C+ 3 ~~y a §m~.] s3 (. s_ iP::= ~ ~1 `77 ; a. _. S Sl ?€ s ai E7 ~~$~- ?t~ iSS~e~ ~: e€ dfA itir~ ei $6 if '_t 9 11 _ ~ -'- I .. 1 1 ~~ `~~ ~ . l ~ +~' V r ~ :~~ ~ _. _ _ ~ ~ _ . f ~ Cde ''1 ~ I! 'I ,k ~ I 3 I '" ~ ,,(, ¢~ I ~ I _ _ ~~ ~ !~~ ~el I ~~i ~ I I I ' ~ ~-~'.~ ~~ Yi i. V ,~y t'~ rl ~.. C~ Ae .i~ y~, .7I ~ .. ;~ z, ~1( ,~ ~' a li' w ~ ,; ~_ ~ 'ti ~., ~9 • I ' a~4 P ~ ~* ~ ,I * ,1 ri / 5 1 ,' $_ ~ ,,1 ~ v, ~ , it e ~ ` t ~~ T. f`€`~t ' t I ' 'o; ~I TJL.._._. _._._._,_ _ _. _._.~'~, I ~~~ - I y~ _ _ .I . :_ ..~__._ r.... .. ... ~S IL 4 t ~Ilt _ ___ _ _ _ 11 ` I` _ _ - _ - _ 11 1 I I j'~zl ~ f} G .Y 1 ~.It t` S t ~ ~ 3 ~~ -r.~' ' .% %~ ~ c • . ~v ~~ i ' g. i ~~ i~ ° q, ~+ ~ , f ',~.° ~I p /~' , I i '~ '- ~ a . u ~ ~ _ ~ ' s' - 1 , ^,+ • YY ~' ~ ~y ` t ~ f tQ ~ n- -'- I . ' a. o 'g, _ wi -. _ _ _ _ -ebwaR ++f tr' .mu - y 1 ¢, ~ Ktq, ~ , _ . ,~ t ., ~ ; ~ ~, ; , 11 11 1 ', w -. __~_.. _. ~~ .B'ai't.... _ i Y ' 11 11 I ~ I ' ~ I I i I , t 1 \ t __. t._. .. __. L •~ `I 1 ' ~ i i I I I f , : ~ . .; ~ I l ~ r t tl ., .Its t t ' 1 1~ I t i I 1 r i I ~ II I ~ ' I f r I II I I, ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ! • C7 a t ,1 • . cruvan ~n~ '~Irn ~.~rr ?antse~. c.Ir 7 :SUN. Yt `.Url1C!gtl g211HL 'rlCr~.glN~'n(1F. N eE~H 'a '9 )I:sr'rlEl '~ lJ~ j~ lilVtd s __ ~ ~ ax; ~;,~ M ' !~i>; x x rl ' x~ - : I I i , ~ ~ ~ ~E i r I `~ ff~ r r `~ ~ i~ r n _• ~~ ~i - Z ' f t A I I_ I i `~ ~~ ~~ r ~ s~. .. 1 yl tr _ _ _ ~ , 241 3 5 t[4 } ~ e t ` y 3 ... __._______________ ___ r ue.9q -...._._. ~ L..._.._ j 3r * ~~ .. -.... --f ` a-5Y3 ~,i^~", _ _ ~ Ai ll ~}~ ~ ~ 't P1 r r 7 -~ ~ h r ~ r ~~ p ' 5 i !g ~~ ' r I ~ ~6~r r ' r • i _ __ C Y e ~ I '`5 ~ .5 I } r ~ Y~ ' ~{ I ~ _ 1 r '~ 3 ~ I I ~ p ! r ° 1~ `4 * E ! ry` r ~ ¢: I ~ i r s i3 I_ _ 4 al r i rl • 4. ! r i I ±i"~ I ~ 9 r 7=k'I I__.. ' ~' _~~ I I * ~~ ~~~- 5~~; ~ .1.-q .per r. _...._ ~ __~._.____. I iy~~ r I ~ ~~ ,. ,:. .__ Y ~1 I1 ~X----~- P• -~ 0 1 •k ~ 2 r 1 ------. 1 _.. __. -.._ Sa«' ........ ...... _.- ~__-_. _. E _._...__.#~... .._~___. lE~i ~t\ - -_--_____...zr11 ~{ E ~ 1 T_._._._Z._._. f _._ . . •.I~ r I i ~3 I ~~~ s._ _. _ _ _ _ _._. _ j r-. - . ,.' ....e • s ~A .1 ~ ~ ~ ~. Qr,~G 'C llcn - ~ ~ ~ ! r xrrr 3 a ~ ~ ' ' ~ C30F1?rvr 'PI (I~;; - ~~iN !?I~ ':CH!' ~ _ _ a t g l t I ? :c {' Prri77H'JH~:?~E::B[[!R ., -~:j 'l. ]7 r[~Y'0 IY,^i7a [.. _ ~ " ri L ~tn~~u Ni~.a .xr nrrv, on~ni ~7 .~1u.'[Y11~'~c7 Jlq~ ~1~~lW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~. ,_ ~~w __ _ -..- _ .-._ _ _ ~ _ ..~._ _ ..~.. T _-r ~ ~I ,, ~ ,' 'gig ~~;~ ~, t ,! k,'~" --------- --~-rte -I ~. ~I k~~, ~ ~ ~ 3~ ' ~} 8111 ~ A ~ ~'~ a I ~ ! ~r._ ~ 7T ~- ~ i ~'' €€ I j ~ ~~ j'~ ,• ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,i ~ ~ ~I -- ~', d ~i ~ ~ ,~ i .ti ~~ 6 5~ ~ ------ ! 1 ,`~ _~_~ 5 1 11 _ ~ 7 \ !1 1~111~ 1 t . 'k 1 y I y --~'~`---~------` I-------~-^' I {~~ ~ `11 l1 ~+ -; I ' ,} ~' r ~ _ 2 ', ~ ~ 3 ~ x r r _ i _ i i ~ ' ~ ! ~- ~ s LL a' i ~9 ~ ~ ~' i (,\ 1 i1 ," ~~~ !-- - ~-- _~ 1 I. -- - -~~ - -_ -- _ - _ ~ ~~ ~i" ~ - ' ~ ~~ 'I ;~ ~ '- ~ ' 1 • • wA+~N ie:~:~~a:i~~.~. GI]7L'4-'~.J1 114'.\ ~.ral ~I ~ +5 I)I ~t +]3G`i3wti 'V I_r_.}/ ~~H 'N[r ~.Il+IQE'l5 ~ f r << ~ p d ! J .. ,1~ 3-~ 4 4 Y p Y r. ~ $ a q~q~: }f Sf ~ ~ a } ~A. a yggE ly I~ ` ~ 5 i pa 9~ e - ; ~y: py !k 6a ~ ,g ~ ~~ 9 p ° ~ ~ x, pia 3 3y rs ~i in _ ~~ a y I ~ ~' ,. i ~ I E ~~ •s ,r M1~ 's nn~ ]: s W A': ':. 9~e ^:t- d ~7a r~S~ (~' ter' $~ 4q +~.~ ~~, aE ~"•`s a a P ifs a.: 1 ~ ~: eta z I ~ I I ~. .,1 f e ~ ~` 4 `~ { f I`~ i• ~ ~' Y I y 1 1 ` I o f I e~. i S~FS ~ 6 ` f 1 1 f 1PP~ ; dy„L ~ Y~¢iy ^~ ~ ' `\ s. ~, - / ~ I _ _ _I_4 ,I ~ r I Q4-sl ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ J5 I 1~1 1 ,` r _ __ _ _ I I , _.. ~-_ ISI i ~~~ I~ ~ I yf ~5 ! 1 I1 g. ~' i 4 ~ry 2 ! I ~J ~ ~~-- i'ii - I i i JIS `I~r' 1 •~i I ~, I , [1 _ _ F~ E ~ I I' ~ I _ I f I ~I , r~ I ~ ~ i }\.~ ~~ . +~ x 41 , r ; I, ~ ~~ ~~-~~° ~ + + .1I j kr - -.. 1 to s! ~i J I f44 1 +. ' 61 , I `, ~~ t ', y , ~ , i ,J ~ I'~1 E :Yk:Yk11 a ~ g + 'I ~ , I "g~y ~ ,5~ +~, tl , I " - - - - y ~ - - - " .. ti ' i I I t`t~S --.~. ...-. -- -.W__.. _._.'..~...~".~ 5'~Y`..K,H,i.. _. __-..'~.,_L....,5 14,1E Irl I 1 I {}~{{~~F ~.,yr ~C ~ 4xyyllRy `'S,, ~ .:~-- }y 1 II III 41 ~4 I I ..~ - - ' - - _ 1 rY I 1 r 'a~ I4 Y 1 I I ! Y SI ~ ~ ~ I _._ tl I I I _ II I ~I _ _ P 1 1 1 II I I _ _ 4~ `I I I I ! I I! r --__ ~~- Y 4 I I ~ 1 I r { i r I { I - _ I I r r I _ 1 i I I I I YI I - _ _ 1 { ~ ' 1 ' . I I t f r ' I Y I 3 ~" ~- ~7?~6~0~.7J uan si_ ~ ~7?QV3P+W ':C yv!.~a QA.dyA{ 'NP~;.n<~d;7`.. ` = d ; ~ _ x ° ~_ ~ ,_.. FrNGrI.^,~u_ '2 .~:;:~,fl "Z :n1 }n i,,.,.y ~'S ?,~3 A ~' r, r .~ ~ =i i ~; /{ L. 1 E5 ~ r r y"e ~~ aS z sy a x y ?g a Qi ~!! ~ ~I a }'1 i s '~r i e F r P} '~ ~ ~~ gg ~• s gp $6l t if y `} ~ 3s~}y 9 B 5~ v Y7A~ F } kr~ .~ ~`'S 7 ~ Y., a ~~ '~ 7_~!, r~ " aS i3 ~~ r~r~~~~ ~4'~ e~ rye a 7~~ x~ 1 73 ~~, S ff r s ~i~ ~~, a ~• .~ ~ ~" ~ - - ° i it : ~ ~ ~~~5 ,~~ ~~ ~ `i~u~ _I~' I i ~: ` `` t ` 5 ~ e" `. ~~ r i ~ rat `~ 1 ~.. ~~~~~~ >~~,``~4 fi . fi '~ rq ~ +' '. ~S ._ _ 1 S // 1 {FMS ~~~~s~~ of , ~: ii r. ~i,...; .i~. i 5 r~i 1 ~ ~ : ~ ~` ~ ~, A~`e'4~~~ ~ fir- ---- ~ 1' i ~. f 1 ~ ~ ~1 , ~~~ 'sLrit- ~ stiyc~ 1 -------~ 4~ ,4 ,: ~'~ _ ~ { , ~ :~ i ~I y ~ /pef 4 ~mi - s____ 1i` ~_i '1 ii4 i 3. 4 \ Y is 1 ii fi q r ' 4: - ~ c f ~y~ - i S ~ i ii 1 R4A ,~ ~ I i ' i - i I rr CI - ~_ - '- ii ii 1 ~ i , i - _- + 1 ~ , - 1 i i 1 1 1 _- `I ~ i 1 P , ~ i y r 4- • • C9~~~.J,.r~ ' iss~.~ i R ~ ~~ i 1vm , -o~ad "~ ~ ~ ~ raa~tl ~ N ~.a r. ~h. ~. is m ~ ~ x 1 • • `+ ~, ~~~-i1~~ ~ ~, ~ti _ ~ . 3 ._ ......: _...._ : , _ a, ~ ~ .. ~~_. ~. ,. Ai i I~ ~ F. 6 ', NI ~.~ ' i ~ W ~ I~ ~~ ~ ~ 11 I i i r i ~ ~' I f i , .-e ', ..~ ~i 5 ~i i , ~i 'T ."s wr .c3t s t ~\ ~ -.,r,. .. ' ~. ~ ~ ~ ' is ! - - ~ r`~ K.. .. . ~ ! ~e ~ .~., !~ .F+~ ~ { n rF. • k _ _ Iu, ` _ 2 i k ~' j ._~~V_._._ _._._ _,,._ _ ~~ 5 I ~~ ~' ` ,V ~ _ } ~~ ~ ~ ~J1~~ t i ! _ f ~I i ~° R -- i ~ IL fl ~- k i~ I ~; k ~a r: .~ - G , 9' - °-- --~ " ~~ i - 1A~ni a !S = `'- o '4'X4 ~.. ~ ~ ~gsg~ 99~~ ,~7gC "~~; I ~ Y ' f¢i 4§@ Gq t1 1 ,1 5 SE ~ V ~§ ~ `t ' ~ I 1= {,8 , + cf ~, I ~~~ ~ i ~ t ~~,Iw . wI ~ ~_ _, _, 1.1~:IiI153?I ,LrI1'.J~t~~. ': ~_ ~ ~ ~ °" - --- --- `~ I ~` 2 7 ~ p3 e y ,~ 4 1 L(Y ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~3 1 i -r~ ~ r ~ y~y~ ~~ ~ °~ ~1~ I ~ I >~4 1 ~ 'L C ~~ _ ' ~ ~-" - I~t ~ v i 4 ~ 4 ~~I k : ~ Rl ~ : 1 ~,~_~ " i 153 :q ; _ i ±~ ` ~ ;{ ~ . ~~ ~~ ;I ~ .s ~ ~ ~ lr~ ~ '~ ~ ~ 11 r 4` Ill X111 II 1 ~ e~ 1'i~ I ~~ - -- v `,II 4 1 II Si .. ~~__.- _ i d ,,; ,, ~s ~~ i Y Z S } s C ie d' --~- 1 2 Q 7 I xIlI' Tra :~ y ~ ~ _ - l Attachment: C ~.~ ~., Variance Annlication for. ~' , Michael D. and Elizabeth E. Taggart 4. '.~ ;: 411© Spruce Way ~:~ ~~ -, 1t Vail, Colorado r ~ ~' ~ t`r I lu'~ E V~Vritten Statement Orate Description of the Nature of the Variance and the Specific Standards Involved Michael D. and Elizabeth E. Taggart, current owners of the subject property located at 41 10 Spruce Way in East Vail are requesting relief from several standards set forth in the Low Density Multi-Family Residential Development Standards in Title 12, Chapter b, Article F of the Vail Colorado Town Code. The property and the home in its current condition do not conform to the current development standards of the Low Density Multi-Family District. The proposed minor addition will therefore also not conform, however the changes relative to the development standards are negligible, will enhance the property and thus adhere to the Town of Vail's planning objectives of maintaining a high quality residential community. The Taggarts seek relief from at least the following standards. 1. Lot Area and Site Dimensions (12-6F-5), The lot does not meet the minimum area or some of the dimensions required. Z. 5ctbacks (12-6F-6). In its current configuration the house itself establishes the minimum front and side setbacks. The addition will not encroach over the required 2fl' rear setback line. 3. Density control (12-(F-$}. The GRFA to lot ratio is currently at a maximum of 47 to 1Ofl and therefore non-conforming. An addition will increase this ratio to a minimum of 57 to 100. 4. Landscaping (12-bF-10}. The current configuration does not have the required area of Landscaping. The addition will decrease the current area of landscaping by the size of the addition. 5. Parking (12-bF- l l }, Under the current development standards there are no qualifying. parking spaces for this home. However, during the life of the home at least one car and often two have traditionally beers parked within the front setback area without any known problems. The proposed renovationladdition will leave the current situation unchanged with no need of any additional parking.. • • Variance Annlication for: Michael D. and Elizabeth E. Taggart 4110 Spruce Way Vail, Colorado V4'ritten Statement Two A. Iaescription of the Property The single family detached home, built in 1967 is a two story 862 square foot home {26 feet wide by lb feet deep) that has preserved its original architectural style. The 1833 square foot lot is 33 feet (width) along Spruce Way and extends 55.5 Ceet {depth) in a southwesterly direction down a gentle sloping hill. This. property and the surrounding properties (i.e. one condominium association and one single famil}~ residence) are exclusively residential. Relationship to Other Struciures in the Vicinity The impact of the proposed improvement to 4110 Spruce Way on adjacent properties is negligible. C'ondon~iniums Uphill. and north across Spruce Way is a candon~nium complex (Vail East Lodging). That same cotx~plex's condominium association owns Lot I that wraps around the subject property on the northwest and southwest sides. Lat I currently has a small storage shed and a few parking spaces to the northwest of the subject property along Spruce Way. Tlie southwest side of Lot I, adjacent to Bighorn Road, is too steep for driveway access to the property. Although there have been previous attempts to develop Lot 1, this Iack of viable access has thwarted those efforts. Because of this inability to develop Lot I it was consolidated, for the purpose of tax assessment, with the association's condominium property across Spruce Way in the late 1990's into one property. As a result it is unlikely there will be any development or occupants residing on Lot 1 in the future thus negating any potential future impact caused by the Taggart's proposed addition. The renovation will increase the number of window and door openings on the northeast elevation facing Spruce Way and a few of the candaminiuzns. Most of the condominium units are actually across from Lot 1 further to the north. Those directly across from the subject property are up high enough to look over the top of the Taggart's home to the southern view across the valley. In addition the grade along the northeast elevation will be modified to nutigate current water damage to the structure along Spruce Way. However the mass, height and style will not he changed. The addition will not be visible from the perspective of the condominium owners. Their views, light and air will be unchanged. Variance Aoolication for: Michael D. and Elizabeth E. Taggart 411 ~ Spruce Way Vail, Colorado 4112 Sr~ruce Wav Ta the south east 4112 Spruce Way {owned by Robert D Schultz, Jr.) is a single family detached residence adjacent to and similar in configuration to the Taggart's residence. 13uilding the addition to the Taggart's home may have some future impact on 41 l2 Spruce Way. The addition will extend dawn the hill an additional eight feet from the south corner of the home and would ordinarily block some of the view northwest across the Taggart's property and some summer evening sunlight from Mr. Scl~ultz's outdoor deck. However, Mr. Schultz currently has a lf?'x 6' storage shed on the southwest corner of his deck that already blocks both that view and the summer evening sunlight. In addition there will be a one-story projection {10'-8" long and 2'-(}" wide} that will be approximately 9 feet from the northwest side of Mr. Schultr.'s home. {one foot closer than the current chimney on the Taggart's southeast elevation.) B. Proposed Development and Requested Relief from Development Standards The property and the home in its current condition do not conform to the current development standards of the Low Density Multi-Family District. The Taggarrts would like to rehabilitate their home and in the process to modestly increase the size of the kitchen and add I '1~ baths to the current plan configuration. This plan, if approved will add 154 square feet to the footprint of the structure and 287 square feet to the gross residential floor area. The exceptional condition applicable to this site that does not generally apply to other sites in this same zone district is that the property was developed prior to the establishment. of the current zone district and does not now conform to nearly all the current development standards. This places severe and extraordinary limitations on the owner's ability to practically improve their property that are nak generally imposed on other property owners in the same district. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations will deprive them of the privileges {i.e. the ability to improve their home) enjoyed by neighbors and other members of the residential community. Assessor's records show a fairly recent fi00 sq. ft. addition to a home nearly identical to the Taggart's at 4143 Spruce Way. Further down the street at 4227 Columbine a third floor was added to a similar home on a smaller Iot. Under the current development standards similar additions or an addition of any size or kind is not possible for the Taggart's home. Variance At~nlication for: lViichael D. and Elizabeth E. Taggart 41 1©Spruce Way Vail, Colorado C, Variance Effect The proposed renovationladdition maintains its status as a two bedroom single- family detached residence and therefore will. not affect (any more than it has in the last 3S years) the population density, traffic, parking, utility or public safety requirements of the neighborhood or community in general. The impact on adjacent properties is also negligible. ~-. Application tc~ Town of Vail 1evelopment Objectives Part of the general stated purpose of Title 12 is_. _"ta promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environt~~ent and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. " A reinvestment and very modest addition to a thirty eight-year-aid residential structure with such a small impact on the immediate neighbors and their community can only enhance the high quality of Vai1's residential community. U MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Devefoprnent DATE: October 10, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for a professional office, located at 710 Lionshead Circle, Units A and B (Vail Spa)1Lot 1, E31ock 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and set#ing forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0073) Applicant: Kyle and Lorraine Webb Planner: Matt Gennett I. SUMMARY The applicants, Kyle and Lorraine Webb, are requesting a conditional use permit as prescribed in Section 12-7H-4: Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Cade, to allow far a professional office tv operate in the Vail Spa Condominiums Building, located at located at 710 Lionshead Circle, Units A and B (Vail Spa)1Lat 1, Block 2, Vaii Lionshead Filing 3. A conditional use permit is required in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 {LMU-1) zone district far a professional or business offce. The applicants intend to operate their architectural firm in a unit of the building which is presently a vacant restaurant space. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VI11 of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of an architectural office in what is now a vacant restaurant space, located on the second floor of the Vail Spa Condominiums Building, located at 710 Lionshead Circle, Units A and B (Vail Spa)lLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3. The existing restaurant space has been vacant since 1993 and the applicants are proposing to remodel the interior to better suit an office use. The proposal does not call for any additions or modifications to the building except for a tenant finish of the existing restaurant space to render it more suitable far a professional office. Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, defines a professional office as follows: "OFFICE, PROFE551ONAL: An office for fhe practice of a profession, such as offices of physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, musicians, teachers, accountants, anal others who fhrough training are qualified to perform services of a professional nature, where storage, sale, or display of merchandise 4n the premises occupies less than fen percent (10%) of the floor area. " The applicants do not intend to perform any exterior modifications to the building and will have to go through the Design Review Board approval process should any signage be desired for the new use. iVo development standards will be negatively impacted by the proposed conditional use permit. There are presently 74 enclosed parking spaces at the Vail Spa Condominiums. The parking requirement for a professional office is less than that far a restaurant. The vacant restaurant space to be utilized with this conditional use permit proposal is approximately 2,500 square feet in area. A professional office in the LMU-1 zone district requires 2.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office area (6.7 spaces}, and an eating and drinking establishment in LMU-1 requires ~ parking space per 250 square feet (10 spaces}, As indicated above, staff is recommending approval ofi the applicant's proposal, pursuant to the findings and conditions outlined in Section IK of this memorandum. III. BACKGROUND In December of 1979, construction of the Vail Spa Condominiums building was completed. !n 1998, the restaurant formerly known as Cyrano's closed its operations. IV. REVIEVIIING BOARD ROLES Order of Review: Generally, applications wil! be reviewed tryst by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planninn and Environmental C©mmission: Action: The PEC is responsible for frnal approvaUdenial of CUP. The PEC is responsible far evaluating a proposal for. 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on Light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and ether public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safiety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. fi, The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district Lat area Setbacks Building Height Density GRFA 2 Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Desian Review Board; Action: The C7R8 has NC) review autharlty on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background. on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial, Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title iz, Town of Vail Zoning Regulations For the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, Section 12-161, Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose for a conditional use permit as follows: In order to provide fhe t]exibility necessary to achieve fhe objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, condifional uses require review so that they maybe Located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended fo assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as condifional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject fo such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of fhe conditional uses will be in accordance with fhe development objectives of fhe Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits steal! be denied. The Vail Resorts maintenance site is located within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. The purpose of LMU-1 is: 72-7H-1: PURPOSE: The Lionshead Mixed Use 7 District is infended fo provide sites for a mixture of multiple-family dweNings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial 3 establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 7 District, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopmenf Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate Light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain fhe desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopmenf Master Plan. This Zone District was specifically developed fo provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in fhe Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public, off-site, improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. Pubfic amenities which will be evaluated with redevelopment proposals taking advantage of the incentives created herein may include; streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway Improvements, and similar Improvements. VI. SITE ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Address: 710 Lionshead Circle Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU1) District Lot Size:. 152,460 sq ft (3.5 acres} Land Use Plan Designation: Resort Accommodations and Services Current Land Use: Vacant Restaurant Space Parking: Total for Vail Spa Condominiums: = T4 spaces Required for Professional Office: = 6.T spaces Required for Eating and Drinking Establishment = 10 spaces VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: CDOT ROW nla South: HotellResort Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District (LMU1) East: Residential Lionshead Mixed Use-1 District (LMU1) West: Mixed Use Arterial Business District (ABD} Vlli. CRITIrRIA AND FINDINGS The applicant's proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code, A. Consideration of Factors Recardina Conditional Use Permits; 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 4 Staff has determined the proposed conditional use is consistent with the development objectives of the Tawn of Vail. The professional office use will have no negative impacts upon the zone district, surrounding uses, traffic or parking, and will provide a clear benefit to the Town of Vail in improving the parking capacity of the subject property with the proposed change from a restaurant use to an office use. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes the proposed conditional use will have no discernable effects upon the elements this criterion. Because the location of the proposed conditional use is completely in#ernal within the existing building and nv modifications tv the exterior are proposed, staff believes that there is na effect on light and air. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to conges#ion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The impacts of the proposed conditional use upon traffic will be negligible considering the office presently operated by the applicants is in the Vail Professional building located on the South Frontage Road. Also, as mentioned above, parking will be improved by removing the more parking intensive restaurant use and replacing it with a use which requires less of a parking capacity. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The granting of a conditional use permit for the proposed use will have no effect upon this criterion, B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use Hermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone Qistrict. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, .or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 5 IX, STAFF RECOMMENpATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request far a conditions( use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-4: Permitted and Conditions! Uses, Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for a professional office, located at 7'i l7 Lionshead Circle, Units A and B (Vail Spa)ILot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section Vlll of this memo and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "`The Planning and Environments! Commission finds: 9. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit secfion of fhe zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and floe condifi©ns under which it would 6e operated or maintained would not be detrimental to fhe public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in fhe vicinify. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of fhe applicable provisions of fhe conditional use permif section of the zoning code. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Floor Plans C. Applicant's Request n 6 • ~c`• ~ i 1 ; c ~~ /~ 5LJ f'~ ~ ' ~ O O W N '~ ~, T S L '~' ~ ~ ~ frf~ C a f ~ I ~. ' J U , 3 ~ ~ ~~, k' ~ ~~ ~ ~ v ~~ it //~~ V ~ w ~'~ ~ N ~ ~~ ~~. v i ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ y r ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ n ~ O a n 4 _ ~r V L w I.:- ~ ~ .. k, ' ! ~y nS ~ .~ ~ ~ v , ~ G=° 1L O / L L ~ ~ ~~ . ~k a ~ "~'.' ', "1`~ ~~ ..~68"tea - Attachment; A ~~`~~~ ~~~: '~ ~e °~i~-~ " ~& ~~~ o~ ~ g~ v 6'~ F ro~~ ~.4 S c ~ $~~ ~$$ ~~ o~ m t ~~ ~'re ~> ~o >E ~F ~~ c~ o~ 4 a IdS4dfI1Y'OIL 14if{Fy01i 15118 91 ' 17F - 1tE 3LA1 ' !S1'A 7191 19f1MRfl W109i FH ggar~ • 8 :;uau~y~e}~ar aprva~n~ 71YA .~ SNtlIIM11109N0] 6MY YdS 11tlA ~e•ci~.rlv„° pUl)aA01ia1 a31)~0 .• >< 4 s~~aYiy~.r~ q9a"" '4'~ aK~ r 0. O 0 ~. I f~ ` ~ ~R~9 \ ~ ~~4 ~J '~~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~ ~ I I I ~ ~~ I ~ i I ,`~!' ~~ I I n ~~ I I I ~ I I I ~ -- I i ~ ''~ it ~ I ~ ~_ II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~; ~ s - ~ J~ J I I ~~_ ~---------------_; I I ~ 3~ I - r it rN~ 1 ~ _ ~i I ~~ e 1 1 ~~ ~ f ~ I f d - -~ ~ I ! ~$ `~ II r -----------~__ -r ~ J~ * ~ ~ I ~i V~p ~R ~r q`~ C ~~ VVV h ~~~ ~ II (I ~ ~ h II ll ~~ ~ ~~ II II s ------' ~~ I I~ i r______ 1 ~ ~~- - -,~.w,~ ~ ~~ ~I ,~(~ ~ I ® ~ I II \,~ VA s.n ¢Z J oc 0 U d c17 Z !1J r~ ~_ X ,.W/ I..L O J Q w 0 0 Q lawlemtil afrwul amrOrol'1frA 15111 QI' YI1' 115 IR1{' WM 9rP1 79fu0)1 wIOS ffl ° sua~aixoaaa~ an ras Ana 1 a' s i o- a r! ~~ i c U 0 1~ Y d 0 U b .l ~~ I]] 0 e q ~ 2 '~ y '~ s~~a3iy~aE ggbs •y•~ WSW _ 4 ~ r d a a t W a f>r W !~ 43 .~ ~ '~ ~ ~, ~ . ~ >+ i o9Y E I`~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ %~ ~ gg ~~ I ~ ~ i y~~~ A 1 g ~~.~m~. _ ~~ 'I ~~~ I ~~ ~ G ICI o ~.,. ~. ~ ,~9 ItY ~ I~ ~ ~~ - f i f`i i N ~ --~ --- !I ~ ~ _ ~ I~~^i ~ ar~r~r g d ,~ 1, g ~ Imo., ~. ~, ~ ~ ~ i ie~~ ,:~,~ a ~ _ ~ ~ ! -.~~ez ______ J ~~ ~ ~~ "~' per, „. ? ~m~ ~ ~ax~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~~ ~ E " ______ _ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ f 2 U ~U =CYG ~c+i S~ Y da. • ~ ~ a ~• I II r./`) e~ _°o ` LL w u Q a on <t 5 ~ d 1 i ~ I O W LL ~ W ~.a a~ CJl ~ ~ € ^. ~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~ !~ oC Q ~ O ~~ ~ ~ s a u ~; w ~ +n Z • • Attachment: C 9.12.OS Wiggins II Commercial Space Vail Spa Condominiums, llnits A & B DES~LI[lPTl4)y aF PItQP~SED IJSE: Applicant addresses the matters set forth in the application as follows: A. flescrihe the precise nature of the proposed use and measures proposed to make the ale compatible with other propertier in the ricinity.~ The Commercial space in question is wholly located inside the Wail Spa Condominiums structure with no exterior building walls and only skylights for natural light. Formerly a restaurant spate, this location has been vacant since 1998 and historically has not peen suctessful as a restaurant spate. The Applitant is proposing to keep the existing Kitchen area to function as a Catering Kitchen, and Convert the former dining and bar area into office spaces. The surrounding neighborhood, although in a great state of transition, is typically hotel rooms or condominiums. There are isolated similar Commercial spaces located in the Marriott, and the Lionshead Inn that are typically vacant ar have been converted to meeting rooms, therefore the use is Currently compatible with adjacent uses. B. The relationship and impact of the ure on development ohjectires of the Town. The proposal does not alter development objectives of the Town as this is an occupancy of an existing vacate space. Moreover, this will bring activity and use to a space that has graven no other potential economic usage ar activity in the past seven years. ~... The proposed request is fully compliant with Town of Vail planning policies and is an encouraged .pattern to redevelop and upgrade Lionshead properties. ~, G f/fect of the use vn light and air, diftrihation of popu/atian, transportation facilitiex, utilitier, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other publc facilities and public facilities needs " The proposed change in use will not alter any of the above factors from the current situation... if the space was not vacant as it is currently. Q. The effect upon traffic with particular re/erence to congestion, automotive and pedestrian salety -~ and convenience, tragic Bow and contra!, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the streets and parking area. a~ ~ The proposed Change in use will not alter any of the above factors from the current situation...if the spate was. not vacant as it is Currently. ~ E. The effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed ure in relation to surrounding uses. ~ Due to this being wholly existing interior space, this is irrelevant. 4$3 SflU1H PRflHTALE RaAD wEST STE 216 MAII talaRA4q SldSJ 9J4,4JJ.J44D 47 U.4J7.~465(F} www.khwtbh.ttrm lltr.atq or JMr Anearrnx l~rrirzrr n. Aatx~rrrr, MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: Oc#ober 10, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, and Chapter 12-6D-fi, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the front setback and the construction of two access curb cuts, located at 1895 Gore Creek DrivelLot 2fi, Vail Village West .Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0072} Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Elisabeth Eckel I. SUMMARY The applicant, Nancy Hassett, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects, is requesting variances from Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, and Chapter 12-8D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the front setback and the construction of two access curb cuts, located at 1895 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 2!6, Vail Village West Filing 2. 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, wi#h conditions, of the setback variance request; and denial of the request for a variance for two access curb cuts subject to the findings noted in Sections X111 and IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OIF REQUEST The applicant, Nancy Hassett, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects, is proposing to construct a new single-family residence in West Vail. The new residence is proposed to be approximately 3,700 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA} upon a 9,983 square foot lot. Several existing site constraints preclude a substantial amount of the site from being developable, including a twenty foot wide Eagle River Water and Sanitation District easement that extends the width of the lot and the encroachment of the floodplain encompassing the rear half of the lot. As a result of these site constraints, the applicant is requesting two variances, first proposing to locate approximately 210 square feet of the two-car garage within the front setback and secondly proposing to construct two curb cuts in an effort to provide more landscaping along the street and to avoid backing onto a road, • A vicinity map (Attachment A}, site photographs (Attachment B}, the applicant's request (Attachments C), the proposed architectural plans (Attachment D}, and the Public Notice (Attachment E} are attached for reference. III. BACKGROUND Vail Village West 2"~ Filing, including Lot 26, was annexed into the Town of Vail through passage of Ordinance No. 18 in August of 1986. At that time it was zoned Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential, which allows for single-family or two-family dwellings and the passibility of a Type I Employee Housing Unit. No structure has yet been constructed upon this site. However, plans were proposed for new single-family residences upon this lot three times previously: in 1984, 1987' and 1997. A Planning and Environmental Commission approval of a 6.5 fool setback variance request was approved in conjunction with the 1984 proposal. For reasons not documented in Town files, none of the proposals were ever constructed. The lot is relatively modest in size at 9,9$3 square feet, of which 20°f° may be utilized for site coverage and which allows a maximum GRFA of 4,592 square feet. However, several site constraints exist which substantially limit the buildable area of the lot. The most substantial site constraint exists in the form of a twenty foot wide sewer easement owned by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD}. The easement runs east-west through the center of the lot and occupies a total of 17°fo (1,665 square feet) of lot area, including the side setback areas at the east and west sides of the easement.. The second most notable site constraint includes the floodplain area at the north side of the lot, which renders approximately 36% {3,570 additional square feet} of the lot area unusable, including the area of the east and west side setbacks and the rear setback to the north. Once the front and side setbacks have additionally been taken into consideration as unusable lot area, the total amount of buildable site area remaining to the owner is 19°f° of the total lot size (1,919 square feet). Firstly, the applicant is requesting a variance from the 20' front setback standard prescribed within the Two-1=amity PrimaryfSecondary District. This request is primarily the result of the ERWSD easement. If the easement did not exist, the homeowner would potentially have access to 5°fo more lot area (486 square feet, excluding the setback areas} and thereby be able to locate the residence between seven {7} and fifteen {15} feet further north on the site. Instead, the applicant has proposed the location of an angled garage within the setback, with between three {3} and twelve (12} feet encroaching into the front setback. The amount of garage square footage proposed far location within the front setback (210 square feet} is 278 square feet less than the aforementioned lot area precluded from development because of the easement location. The applicant is not proposing to locate any GRFA within the front setback in association with fhis request. Secondly, the applicant is requesting approval for the construction of two curb cuts in association with the construction of this new single-family residence. This request is being attributed to the fact that the residence is located on West Gore Creek Drive,. which provides a bus route for residents and guests within the West Vail area and which the homeowner would prefer not to back out upon. At the time of its adoption, a regulation within the Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, Driveway Standards stated that °backing into the street. is not 2 permitted on streets with a) high traffic volumes, b) on bus routes, or c) where sight distance requirements cannot be met" (Section 14-11-3). Since that time, however, such regulation regarding not backing out onto bus routes was deemed unnecessary and fs no longer enforced. Additionally, the Residential Access and Parking Standards detail within the same Title states that only one curb cut "per street per unit" is allowed with a "maximum of two curb cuts per lot" (Section 14-3-Table 2). The requirement of only one curb cut was instituted to limit the amount of visual disturbance which results from an excess amount of pavement at the front of a lot. Because the applicant is proposing to construct only one unit upon the site since the site is less than 14,OOtl square feet in size, the number of curb cuts allowed for the lot is only one, per the aforementioned guideline. The applicant has presented Staff with a site plan showing the feasibility of a hammerhead scenario in which only one curb cut is necessary and therefore a variance for two curb cuts would not be needed from the Planning and Environmental Commission. Because this scenario has been deemed possible, it fs Staff's opinion that it should be pursued, provided it can accommodate a full-sized parking space completely within the property sines. This proposal is not currently scheduled for review by the Design Review Board, but such review is a condition of approval recommended by Staff as a part of the variance requests. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BC}DIES Order 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 Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a variance application, in accordance with Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vasil Town Code. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a variance application. However, the I]esign Review Board is responsible for the final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of any accompanying design review application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission andlor Qesign Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission andlor Design Review Board. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials 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 Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. 3 V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DQCUMENTS Staff believes that the fallowing provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 72: 201VIIVG REGULATIUNS Article 12-6D-1: Aurpase The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family,residentia! uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate fight, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and fa maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate life development standards. Article 12-6D-fi: Setbacks !n the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shat! be twenty feet (2QJ, the minr'mum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (75~. Chapter 12-17: Variances (in part} 12-77-1: Purpose: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: !n order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result tram fhe size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic ar physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in fhe immediate vicinity. Cast or inconvenience to the applicant of stricf or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. 5ecfian 143-Table 2: Residential Access and Parking Standards (in part} Sil<~igle-family, TWQ- family, Standard Curti Cuts Curb cuts permitted (number} Primary/SeGOndary -access to not. more than 3 dwelling units (including EHUs} -stn-ctures and all portions thereof within 150' from edge of street pavement 1 per street per unit Maximum of 2 curt cuts per lot Multiple Famiily -access to 4 to 11 dwelling units -feeder road only 2 per parcel Multiple .Family -access to more than 1 I dwelling units -feeder road only Minimum necessary for adequate access C7 C7 V{. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 1895 Core Creek Drive Legal Description: Lot 26, Vaii Viilage West 2"~ Filing Zoning: Two-Family Primary/secondary Land Use Plan Designation: Medium Qensity Residential Current Land Use: Vacant Lot Size: 9,983 sq. ft. (-0.23 acres} Standard Allowed/Required Proposed Setbacks (min): Front: 20 ft. 8 ft. Sides 15 ft. 15 ft. Rear. 15 ft. 66 ft. Height (max.): 30 ftJ33 ft. ~ 33 ft. Density (max}: 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit GRFA (max):. 4,592 sq. ft. 3,725 sq. ft. Site coverage {max.): 1,997sq. ft. {20°f°) 1,819 Sq. ft. {~-18%} Landscape Area {min.}: 5,990 sq. ft.(60%) 7,fi66 sq. ft. {~76%) Parking {min.}: 3 3 {2 enclosed) VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Residential Residential Cluster South: Residential Two-Family Prirnaryfsecondary East: Residential Two-Family Primaryfsecondary West: Residential Two-Family PrimaryfSecondary VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vaii Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardna Variances: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Front Setback Variance The width and location of the ERWSD easement renders approximately 15% of the iot unusable. As was mentioned in the background section, the P€C approved a 6.5 foot setback variance for a proposed structure upon this Lot in 1984. Qther existing uses and structures in the vicinity have not requested or been granted variances due specr`fidaliy fo the easement because the easement intersects the surrounding fats at angles that allow far more development upon. these lots. However, fhe smali size of the lots within this subdivision. has prompted other homeowners to request variances from the setback regulations. Staff believes that the proposed front setback variance is necessary due to the existing site constraints and will not be detrimental to the existing or ,potential uses and. structures in the vicinity. Drivewav Standards Variance Staff does not believe that. the deviations from the driveway standards are in keeping with the general character of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary zone district surrounding this lot, in which district no other residences have been allowed two curb cuts. Research of the most recent five years of variance requests within the Town yielded the result that no other homeowner within the Town has requested or been granted relief from this standard. Therefore, Staff does not believe the driveway standards variance request associated with the proposed residence is in keeping with the general character of the neighboring properties.. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Front Setback Variance Staff believes that refef from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the front setback regulations would grant this homeowner some amount of flexibility in constructing a residence upon this lot. This relief is necessary to achieve compatibility among sites in the vicinity through the construction of a weq-designed residence on a previously empty site oft-used for construction materials. Staff does not view the approvaE of this request. as grant of special privilege. Drivewav Standards Variance Staff does not believe that relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the driveway standards regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity since no other sites in the vicinity have requested or been granted such a variance. Additionally, the applicant has provided Staff with a workable plan that may potentially negate the need for this variance request. 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. Front Setback Variance Staff believes that the requested firont setback variance will not have a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic utilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety. Furthermore, Staff believes that the requested variance will have a positive effect by continuing quality (re)development within the Vail Village West Z~~ Filing. Additionally, Staff believes that the applicant should make every effort to mitigate the effect of a structure built within the front setback through increased landscaping. Driveway Standards Variance Staff believes that the requested variance from the driveway standards will not have a significant effect on light and air,. distribution of population, transportation and traffic utilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and EnvironmP_nt_a_ I C;nmmission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. lK. STAFF REC©MMEIVDATION Front Setback Variance The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a variance from Chapter 12-6D-fi, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, to allow for the construction of a garage within the front setback located at ~ 895 Gore Creek Drivell_ot 26, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion; The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request far a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Sefbacks, pursuant to Chapfer 12- 97, Variances, Vail Town Code, fo allow for the construction of a garage within the front sefback at 9895 Gore Creek Drive/Lot ~fi, Val! Village West Filing 2, and selling forth details in regard therefo, subject fa fhe following conditions: 9. This approval shall be contingent upon fhe applicanf receivr'ng Design Review Board approval of the design review application associated wifh fhis variance request. 2. Prior to final design review approval, fhe applicanf shall submit a topographic survey which reflects the data from the most recently revised 100 year flood plain survey. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance reques#, the Community Deveiopment Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings; The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with fhe limitations on other properties classified in fhe Two-Family Primary/Secondary f~islricf. 2. The granting of fhis variance will not be detrimentaf to the public health, safety, or welfare, or maferially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted far fhe following reasons: a. The sfricf literal interpretation or enforcement of fhe specified regulation would resulf in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with fhe objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b, There are exceptions or extraordinary cr`rcumstances or conditions applicable to fhe same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in fhe same district. c. The sfricf interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulafian would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Drivewav Standards Variance The Community Development Department recommends denial of a variance from Chapter 1~-3, Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of two access 8 curb cuts, located at 1895 Gore Creek DrivelLot 26, Vail Village West Filing 2, 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. Shau#d the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request far a variance from Chapter 94-3, Residential Access, Driveway, and Parking Sfandards, pursuant to Chapter 92- 97, Variances, Vai! Town Cade, fa allow for the cansfrucfian of two access curb cuts located at 7895 Gare Greek Drive, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth defails in regard thereto, subjecf fa fhe following conditions: 9. This approval shat! be confingenf upon fhe applicant receiving Desibn Review Beard approval of fhe design review application associated with this variance request. 2'. Friar to lino! design review approval, fhe applicant shall submr`t a topographic survey which reflects fhe data from the most recenfly revised 900 year flood plain survey. Should the Planning and EnvironmentaP Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: The Planning and Environments! Commission finds: 1. The granting of fhis variance wiI! not constifute a granting of special privilege inconsisfenf wifh the limitations on other properties classified in fhe Twa~Family PrimaryfSecondary Districf. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to fhe public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious fo properties or improvements in fhe vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the followr'ng reasons: a. The sfrict liters! inferprefation or enforcemenf of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsisfent with the objectives of Title 92, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable fo the same site of fhe variance fhaf do not apply generally to afher 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. 9 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the fallowing fndings: The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 9. The granting of this variance wilt constifute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limifations on other properties classified in the Two-Family PrimaryfSecondary District. 2. The granting of this variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is not warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation ar enforcement of the specifed regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 92, Zoning Regulations, Vai! Town Coale. b. There are no exceptions or exfraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that da not apply generally fo 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. K. ATTACHAAENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Site Photographs D, Architectural Plans E. Public Hearing Notice • is -_~ °~~ aka ~a~ m E'~ u.€ 3 aE~ g'c ~ a~'$ n° ~~ Em b~ ~~ ~n ~~ ~~ v u~° S3 ~ ~5. $~ F ~~ ~" b 0 E 0 0 T .~'°' 3 E C Attachment B FRITZIEN PIERCE any F. Pi:~r: e, arr#t;Ic!;I y He~ii€r,>a iusint°.~ ~~s~tta~t}r MEMO Date: September 12, 2x05 To: Town of Vail From: Chet Arasim FRITZLEf~ PIERCE ARCHITECTS VA1L, COtORApO SUbjeCt: Hassett Residence -Description of the variance: The request is for a front setback variance to allow a twa car garage to encroach up to 21 Q sf into the setback. 7 . The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Residential drive access along Gore Creek Drive is primarily perpendicular to the lot fines and off street parking is located in the right of way. Numerous garages are located within the front building setback. The right of way width is 20' allowing for easing maneuvering and off street parking. These non-conforming conditions are due to the re-annexation of West Vail from Eagle County several years ago. Numerous Pots along Gore Creek have a signifrcantly restricted buildable envelope due to the Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation easement that bifurcates the lots. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The site coverage allowed for this lot of X996.5 is 77.5sfgreater than the area within the building setbacks and outside of the Utility Easements making it impossible for the Owner to utilize the maximum amount ofsite coverage allowed by the Town of Vail Zoning Code. further the area within the Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation utility Easement that is outside the applicable .building setback is 486 sf. Therefore 486sf of site area is not available for development due to the Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation easement. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transpartatinn and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 1 t. ;!'? Ens! `r~aii ~'aii>t=y. Dri}~e, F~liritl~e (;-1 E: ir?!~!~cJ :'ai~.zt,.~i rii; ::15 Cfr!t1 \41'}1 \`d! I:! ft 'lir': ' ~ . ~+, iITE I •,c.~-' , ;i.t.S,, l ~?cti,Err,.c,Yr:rii-i:i ~~~Irixs ~F:,('~,rra,~ir~l?rian~c~'~Tr+}wl? ~I }ra~l,!)~'_1~ (I~~ - h~4e~lr?;, l;ir,~l;_~_ iJr._i r~~:>1iti,l?;}~,t. I"RITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS VAIL, CC7LQRADO IVo adverse effects are anticipated. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The proposed' garage is angled to the street in order to enhance ease of driveway access and to create a more desirable street presence. The dual driveway cut allows for a low planting area next to the road that will enhance the appearance of the street from the public right of way. The proposed layout elr'minates backing out onto Gore Creek Drive which is a bus route and a collector street. FRITZLEN ' +:~t~ ~a~,t l~s:il `J,:I'cC`~ I i~ i~<~, l,~IEa'itii;tr C' 1 , PIERCE i_ ~3'1~.~'r'~_~~i'I°;?1 r r?I;}s,;:.il,;i~ IrEt~r~3r..nayl _ ..s3d v. _ liyS'>: ~~97 ,_. ~`-r`,A~ ;~~. ~~. ~y, -. 4f ~ ~i~ 6t. ~' ~:s 3 ~ ~ ~ > ~ ;. ~~ c~ l yr:. ; ~. p~ j ~~. ~ ~ ~ . i ~ ~ y d ~- , x _~.~ ._ t r -. ~ `.. ., h - 4 ~'., ' F i '~, t~ ~~' - ~ ~i A Q~Yt''~ l ~ :, ~C4 ~ .~.. ~In-~' f^ 4 ~. ~~_~ ~ ~~~ ~,~. !{` 1 ~ $~ 3 .~y ` ~ '~ YS. a.~ 4++4+4UfUfUf ~' .,,,.~~ 4. F ~] ~~~ ~ s '~ ``~~ w ~ a ~~ r ~Z ~~ U J t;- J V ~W '~ J U ~ j 2 S r~~Q 7 O~ .i~ ~-+~ a a Yo~,~ ~~ '~ 's. a ~~ a ; 9~ ~5 ~~~ 3f1 ~ 4 ~, ~ sx§ g 4~g ":~• ~ i ~~f~~! 3~ z ~ ~ ~ s c 1 ~ ~i~s~s; ~.~ '~. `.. E ~z~ Fi 3 s a ~. ~ ~a{ ~~p~~ Ps Gr~ 'g; ER~ ~~3 °7c ''- i2 y =S~ ~~~ ~.~~a~Y~~r~ ~ 9 3 ~~~~SbB ~~ ° bx ~~e~ °, s s _~ ~. 83 H ~ a3 ~YSy £ $ S _a i°-' o r ".. w nmr Isn Z W ~ ~ :!9~i 11 bllY'tl Ot O]'IIVM1 ~~~ ~-y LLl ~ :J 9 ; ~ V °~ a}p~ i.'Xn+'lyilli ltilr4}1•JV IIIA IIV~''li.U'1 ~ ,4y J S a 111Yf1 11]k'f 1Xfl`15h Al ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ Q 3~N~C71S32~ 113SSb'N 1 ~w ~ §= N ~ tea. ~ y.~ psi 1 • u a 0 ;~w/J S y I ~ w ~ z ~~ ~ ~~ d W ~~ a $ 4~ ~~~ ~~`~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u S Y u O ~4 a~ 0 ~< \ J • • a ~ 6~ I /~ 1 I ~~, 1 1 ~~ ! I 1 1 1 I I I I' 1 i 1 t 9` ~` I 1 1 ,t 1 ,\ 1 1 1 1 I I ~~ ~ i r y I I i ~ I ~ I L I I ~ I 19 1 1 I I 4 ~ 1 I i 1 4 I 1 1 11 III fl 2 s~so w lltlnde J ~sela nowaDto:)'uvn i Z !~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [~ ~Cw JN1fU 1tiih11JVIIN. 'xVM1 ''1l lUt ~~/ ~" 4~s .~ In1~l xax~1 t»,rl ssx ~ ~ ~ r ~ £ ~ ~ a Q 3~N3aIS3~11..L3SSbH ~= ~ ~ ~(4y ry C.e- d PL p LL LL C ~Yti nn LKJ''tYJ°UJ' nvn 3~ky3QIS3~t x..1355 ,~ ~ j ~ ~ i a, O z ~d ~~ ~ LJ.J bl ;~ t lil![75W [596~i lH.rvx[)iCj.e'nvA W V 5 Q roN ~,vnu ia~n vmmU bwn'9r im inmu:a3a~aba~sem -~ N ~ n s~ 3~N~aIS~~ 11355`dN ~2 a~ ~j? ~'d D ~` ~ ~.a '' _ s ~ o ° V l~V ~~ ~ <L Q J [L d p H ~~ 0 ~~ a • • aae~.a ,uvw rw.> =nn F t [cN:'JH111J }: 1N6x': w44rcie'nt #fi~ L YvtlV 1SillJ 9MD: Y'w?I ~~ 3JN3~iS32i ~.1.3SSb`H h~' ~ ,s~ ~ ~ ~' ~- ~.~ = 1 W 4 iJ 1 14 .°•~f • O~ -i ~€ ~9 ~j WE v ~~ ~~ Q ~~ ~~~ k ~~~~ 'Y~ \ 1~ ro 5 Z 0 ~. 5 W ~: yQ 7 y4 ~~ R Y • Attachment E a' ,~ TOWN OF PAIL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YQUR I~R~PERTY PUBLIC NQTICE NC)71CE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on f)ctober 10, 2005, at 2:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a rezoning of Lots 1-3, Vail das Schone Fling 1, Lot 1 and Vail das Schone Filing 3 from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) to Public Accommodation (PA), located at 2211 North Frontage Road/Lots 1-3, Vail das Schone fling 1 and 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vanquish Vail I LLC, represented by Bharat Bhakta Planner Matt Gennett A request for a final review of a conditiona! use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Professional office, located at 710 Lionshead Circle, Units A and B (Vail Spa)JLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Fi'~ling 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: I(yfe and Lorraine Webb Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a final review of a variance, from Chapter 14-3, Residential Access, ~,~ Driveway and Parking Standards, and Chapter 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, ~ pursuant to Chapter 12-17 to allow far the construction of a Variances Vail Town Code ~1 '~~~ , , , ` garage within the front setback and the construction of two access curb cuts, located at 1895 Gore Creek DrvelLot 26, Vail Village West Flling 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Nancy Hassett, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner Elisabeth Eckel A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses, First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New iDevelapment, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development of 1 D7 multi-family residential dwelling units, Located at 728 West Lionshead CirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Corp., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell • The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during ofFce hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification.. Please call 970-479-23~fi, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published September 23, 2005, in the Vail Daily. MEMORANDUM TU: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 10, 2005 SUBJECT: A request far a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifcatons, Vail Tawn Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Cer~ditiar5al Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Cade; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for the development of 107 multi- family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lionshead CirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. {PEC 05-0062 and PEC 05-0063). Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the changes which have been made to the application in response to comments from the previous meeting. The desired outcome of the hearing is for the Planning and Environmental Commission to understand the following: • The proposed structure in terms of bulk, mass, height, and operation. The criteria by which the applicant is requesting flexibility regarding the area of flat roof on the structure, the architectural mechanical screening solution, and the proposed landmark tower. The Cammissian is not being asked to take any formal action on this application at this time. As such, staff is not providing a formal recommendation at this time. Staff and the applicant request that the Planning and Environmen#al Commission tables the applicant's request to the October 24, 2005, hearing. It is anticipated that the applicant will request a fnal approval at the October 24, 2005, Planning and Environmental Commission hearing. ll. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The purpose of today's work session hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the changes which have been made to the application in response to comments from the previous meeting. After the presentation the Planning and Environmental Commission will be asked to provide additional feedback regarding the revisions to the proposal. The proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project is on the third and final parcel of the comprehensive development site encompassing the existing Marriott Hotel, the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lot parking area. The West Day Lot parking area and the existing Marriott parking structure sites total 2.399 acres in size and is location of the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences project. A vicinity map identifying the location of the development site has been attached for reference (Attachment A}. A reduced set of revisions are attached far reference {Attachment B}. The Ritz-Carlton Residences proposal is comprised of two (2) different development review applications. Each application is intended to facilitate the redevelopment proposal. The development applications include: • A maior exterior alteration aonGcation for a new 107 multiple- farnily dwelling unit structure; and • A conditional use permit aor~lication for "Iadge roams or dwelling units" located on the basement or garden level and the first floor or street level of the structure. The key elements of the proposal include: • A 107 multiple-family dwelling unit condominium structure; • A total of 212,.695 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA}; A 388 space below grade parking structure to serve as parking for the Marriott Hotel and the Ritz,Carlton Residences; • A landmark feature which is 120 feet in height; • A loading and delivery facility comprised of three bays; • A lobby/lounge area with a front desk, concierge, and valet; and • A media room, game room, and poollhot tub deck. IIL BACKGROUND The subject development site includes seweral parcels of land currently used for the Marriott Hotel, the parking structure foe the Marriott Hotel, the Gore Creek Residences, and the West Day Lot. Marriott Hate[ History (Parcel 1 of the West Day Subdivisan} The Marriott (previously "The Mark") was approved by the Town in 1977 as a hotel and condominium project and was zoned Special Development District No. 7 by ©rdinance 3, Series of 1977. The project was expanded and modified throughout the 1980's and 1990'x. In 1999 the Marriott property, along with the rest of Lionshead, was rezoned to Lionshead . Mixed Use 1 and SDD No. 7 was repealed. The Harriett as developed today includes 35 dwelling units, 276 hotel rooms, meeting rooms, a restaurant, and other hotel amenities. 2 West Day Lot History (Par+cel 2 of the West Day Subdivision) The western portion of the site (the Morcus Subdivision), known as the "West Day Lot", was regraded and used for Vail Resorts employee parking. Prior to the rezoning of this parcel to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 in 1998, the property was zoned Parking District. On August 22, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission held an initial hearing an the Ritz-Carlton Residences. At that hearing Staff proved the Commission with parameters by which the project would be reviewed. At this hearing the Commission requested to see haw the parcels recently acquired by Vail Associates and the potential of relocating the Frontage Raad would affect this property. In addition the Commission asked fiar a response as to why a conditional use permit was appropriate to be granted for condominiums on the ground floor next to a potential future lift and within an overall greater portal to the mountain being created in western Lionshead. On September 12, 2005, the Planning and environmental Commission expressed that there were no concerns with the Conditional Use Permit that was being request for dwelling units on the first floor or garden level. The Commission continued by expressing concern regarding the height of the landmark tower. The general consensus was that a height of 140 feet was inappropriate. In addition, the Commission stated that the height ofi the screening element for the mechanicals had not been justified in the presentation and other options should be examined. The Commission was not comfortable with approving the height of the screening element aver the maximum height of 82.5 feet. Finally the Commission expressed that they would like greater information regarding the flat roof maximum area requirement found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Several members expressed a need for the western elevation along the. Frontage Road to have step backs incorporated into the architecture. On September 26, 2005, The Planning and Environmental Commission generally expressed that of the three OptionsfA[ternatives presented that that OptionlAlternative Pwas preferable to OptionlAlternative C. The Gommissioners generally felt that whi{e Option/Alternative B incorporated the mechanical screening solution which exceeds the maximum height, it does not. result in additional head height in the tap floor units as in OptionlAlternative G. Some concerned was expressed about haw mechanical screening which exceeds the maximum height could be limited and controlled so as not to be abused on future projects. One thought expressed was to have more specific language in the Master Plan to address screening of mechanical units. Some members believed that enough regulations, or safeguards, were in place to insure that mechanical screening abuse would not occur on other projects as they would need to pass PEC and DRB review. Far instance, the applicant was directed to provide a sample of the mechanical screening material, look at incorporating rooftop terraces, and examine the possibility of creating a mare "cascading roof effect' on the southeast elevation. Gore Creek Residences History (Parcel 3 of the West Day Subdivision}: On November 24, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commissian approved text amendments to Section 12-7H-5, Conditional Uses; Generally (on all levels of a building or outside a building}, Vail Town Code, to allow single-family residential dwellings and two-family residential dwellings as conditional uses in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District and Section 12-16-7, Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Code, to provide criteria to which asingle-family and two-family residential dwelling proposal within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District must adhere. The text amendments were subsequently approved by Town Council upon second reading in Ordinance 36, Series of 2003, on December 16, 203. On June 28, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commissian approved, with conditions, a conditional use permit and a major exterior alteration appfcation on this site for eight two-family structures for a total of 16 dwelling units. On December 13, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a minor subdivision establishing the West Day Subdivision (Attachment D} which is comprised ofi three parcels. The approval and recording of the Vilest Day Subdivision was the culmination of the review of the Gore Creek residences during which it was agreed that the three lots comprising the West Day Subdivision would be tied together for zoning purposes. A note was placed upon the West Day Subdivision which states the fallowing: "For the purposes of zoning, Lots 1, 2, and 3, created by this subdivision are to be treated as arse development site. Development standards shall be ,based upon fhe improvements and land area of fhe combined area of Lafs 1, 2, and .~.'° As a part of the approval of the West Day Subdivision, a spreadsheet identifying the development potential for each of the three parcels was approved in conjunction with the minor subdivision. That spreadsheet, entitled, "West Day LotfMarriott HotelllGore Creek Place Approved Development PIanlDevelopment Allocations", and dated December fi, 2004. IV. ROLES OF T,}iE REVIEWING BOARDS The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to clarify the responsibilities of the Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Council, and Staff on the various applications submitted on behalf of Vail Resorts Development Company. A. Exterior AlterationlModification in the Lionshead Mixed-Use I zone district Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of useldevelopment 4 and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approvalldenial of a MajorlMinor Exterior Alteration. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal for compliance with the adopted criteria, The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval "shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping." Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Major or Minor Exterior Alteration, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Staff. The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background an the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Tawn Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. B. Conditional Use Permit fCUP) Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for acceptability of use and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning arad Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approvalldenial of CUP. The Planning and EnvironmentaC Commission shall review the request fior compliance with the adopted conditional use permit criteria and make findings of fact with regard to the project's compliance.. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Cl7P, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Staff.• The staff is responsible for ensuring tha# all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines, Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS The fallowing checklist was created to provide a means of evaluating the Ritz- Carlton Residences proposal for compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment. Master Plan, The checklist is intended for the Planning and Environmental Commission to use in conjunction with their copies of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to locate relevant portions of the Master Plan which pertain to this proposal. Lionshead Redeveiopmen~ Master Plan Chapter 2: introduction ^ 2.1 Purpose of the Master Plan 2.2 Definition of a Master Plan ^ 2,3 Policy objectives ^ 2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment ^ 2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities ^ 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds ^ 2.3.4 Improved Access and Circulation ^ 2.3.5 Improved Infrastructure © 2.3.6 Creative Financing for Enhanced Private Profits and Public Revenues Chapter 4: Master Plan Recommendations -Overall study Area ^ 4.1 Underlying Physical Framework of Lionshead a 4.1.1 Lionshead Master Plan Concept ^ 4,1,5 West Lionshead - ResidentiallMixed-Use Hub 6 ^ 4.3 Connections to the Natural Environment ^ 4.3.1 Visual Connections ^ 4.3.1.2 North-South Orientation of Buildings ^ 4.6 Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation ^ 4.6.4 Modifications to West Lionshead Circle and Lionshead Place ^ 4.6.4.1 East Intersection. of W. Lionshead Circle and South Frontage Road ^ 4.6.4.2 Intersection of Lionshead Place and West Lionshead Circle ^ 4.fi.4.3 Pedestrian Sidewalks and Crossings ^ 4.6.4.4 Visual Improvements ^ 4:7 Loading and Delivery ^ 4.7.1 Properties with Direct Service Access ^ 4.8 Parking ^ 4.8.1 Potential Displacement of Existing Parking ^ 4.8,1.2 Vilest Day Lot ca 4.8.2 Residential Properties ^ 4,9 Housing ^ 4.9,1 Na Net Lass of Employee Housing ^ 4.9.3 Policy Based Housing Opportunities ^ 4.1Q Gateway, Landmarks, and Portals 4.10.2 Landmarks ^ 4,11 Public Art Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations ^ 5.13 The Marriott ^ 5.13.1 Redevelopment or Development of the Parking Structure ^ 5.17 West Day Lot/ Vail Associates Service Yardl Holy Cross Site Chapter 6, Site Design Guidelines ^ 6.4 Secondary Pedestrian Walk ^ 6.6 Pedestrian Path Chapter $, Architectural Design Guidelines ^ 8.1 Vision Statement ^ 8.2 Organization, Purpose and Scope ^ 8.4.2 Architecture 7 ^ 8.4.2.11ntroduction ^ 8.4.2.2 Building Form and Massing ^ 8.4.2.3 Building Height ^ 8.4.2.4 Exterior Walls ^ 8.4.2.7 Roofs Resolution 18. Series of 2Di~4: A Resolution Amending Certain Sections Of The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Clarifying And Affording ALL Tvaes Of Development Projects. "New And Redevelooment". Flexibility In The Application Of The Architectural Design Guidelines. As Prescribed In Chapter 8 Of The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, And Setting Forth f3etails In Regard Thereto. 8.3.3.A Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development Similar fo the implementation policies of the AflG prescribed for existing structures, the Town has determined fhat there may be instances where flexibility in requiring strict compliance with the Guidelines for new development maybe in fhe best interest of the communify and the furtherance of the goals and objectives stated in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. That said, however, it is acknowledged thaf such instances are rare and extraordinary, and shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. To aid in determining when flexibility shall be afforded to new development from strict compliance with fhe Guidelines, review criferia have been established. The degree of design deviation flexibility afforded to a development project shall bear proportionately to the extent of fhe improvements proposed. Far example, a development application that proposes the construction of a new structure which includes the demolition of an existing structure or adds significant volume or mass to a property, shall mare fully comply with the prescribed Architectural Design Gur'delines outlined in the master plan than an application which proposes a renovation or addition fa an existing building The following criteria shall be used by the Town of Vail Planning Environmental Commission and Design Review Board to determine if deviations fo fhe Guidelines should be granted: It shall be the burden of fhe applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of fhe Tawn of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission following a recommendafion from the Design f7eview Board that: • The request for design deviations are in compliance with fhe purposes of the zone district; and • The proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with applicable elements of the. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and • The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and • The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and 8 The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of fhe specific design standards as prescribed in Section $.4; and, ~ A public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviafion; and, The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Zoning Req~iatians Lionshead illlixed Use - t Zone District {in part} 12-7H-1: PURPDSE: The Lionshead Mixed Use-1 zone district is intended to provide sites far a mixture of multiple-family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use ~ zone districf, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopmenf Master Plan, is infended to ensure adequate light, air, open. space and other amenities appropriate fo fhe permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualifies of the District by establishing appropriafe life development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance wifh the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives far propertr`es fo redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is fo create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone ,~istricf include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in fhe Lionshead Redevelopment Masfer Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is fa create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created fa help finance public off-sife improvements adjacenf fo redevelopment projects. 1Nith any development/redevelopment proposal taking advanfage of the incenfives created herein, fhe following amenifies will be evaluated: sfreetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopmenf, public art, roadway improvemenfs, and similar improvements. 92-7N-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; BASEMENT OR GARDEN LEVEL: A. Definition: The "basement" or "garden lave!" shall be defined as that floor of a building thaf is entirely or substantially below grade. 8. Permiffed Uses: The following uses shall be perrniffed in basement or garden levels within a structure: Banks and financial institutions. Commercial ski storage. Eating and drinking esfablishmenfs. 9 Personal services and repair shops. Professional offices, business offices and studies. Public ar private lockers and storage. Recreation facilities. Retail esfablishments. Skier ticketing, ski schoof, skier services, and daycare. Travel agencies. Addifional uses determined fo be similar to permitfed uses described in this subsection, in accordance wifh the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title. C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9fi of this Title: Conference facilities and meeting reams. . Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodafion unify. Major arcade. Mlu1#iple-family residential dwelling units, fime-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type 111 (El-iU) as provided in Chapter 73 of this Title). Radio, TV stores, and repair shops. Theaters. Additional uses determined fa be similar fa conditional uses described in fhis subsection, in accordance with the previsions of Section 12-3-4 of Phis Title. 12-7H-3: PERMITTED AIVD CO1VDlT10NAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR STREET LEVEL: A. Definition: The "first floor" ar "street level" she!! be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level along a pedesfrianway. B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shaft be permitted on the first floor or street level within a structure: Banks, with walk-up feller facilities. Eating and drinking esfablishmenfs. Recreation facilities. Retail stores and establishmenfs. Skier ticketing, ski school, skier services, and daycare. Travel agencies. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in this subsection, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3- 4 of this Tifle. C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor ar street level floor within a structure, subject fo issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors. ~a Conference facilities and meeting roams. Financial institutions, ofher than banks. Liquor stores. Lodges and accommodation units. Multiple-family residentia! dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type 111(EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title,. Radio, 7V stores, and repair shops. Additional uses determined to be similar to condifiona! uses described in this subsecfion, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title, 12-7H-4: PERMITTED AMID CQNDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLO~DR AND ABQVE: A. Permitted Uses; Excepfion: The following uses shah be permitted on those floors above the first floor within a sfrucfure: Lodges and accommodation units. Multiple-family residential dwelling units, time-share units, fractional fee clubs, lodge dwelling units, and employee housing units (Type Ill (EHUj as provided in Chapfer 13 of this Tifle~. Additional uses determined fo be similar fo permitted uses described in Phis subsection; in accordance with fhe provisions of Section 12-3- 4 of Phis Title. 12-7H-6: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district: .Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance wifh fhe provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title. Loadr'ng and delivery and parking facilities customarily incidental and accessory fo permitted and conditional uses. Minor arcade. Offices, lobbies, laundry, and other facilities customarily incidental and accessory fo hotels, lodges, and multiple-family uses. ~Qufdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drinking establishments. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or ofher recreation facilifies customarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses. pfher uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for fhe operation thereof. 12-7H-8: C©MPLIANCE BURDEN: 1t shall be fhe burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of fhe evidence before the Planning and Enviranmenfal Commission and the Design Review Board thaf the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of fhe Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a 11 significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. 12-7f-1-78: MITIGATION OF DE'VEt.OPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their devefopmenf on public infrasfructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the devefopmenf impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements steal! be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the plannr'ng and envr`ronmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mlfigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. VI. ZONING ANALYSIS AddresslLegal Description: Parcel Size: Zoning: Land Use Designation: 720 and 728, West Lionshead Circle, and 825 West Forest RaadlLats 1, 2, 3, West Day Subdivision 6.82 acre (297,165 sq. ft. ) Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Resort Accommodations and Services The West Day Lot Development is comprised of three parcels which include the existing Marriott Hotel and the 16 Gore Creek Place Residences, and the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences. As was stated previously in the memorandum these three parcels are tied together and treated as one large development site by the recorded plat. Below is a zoning analysis which incorporates all three parcels and the developments which exist, are under construction, and are proposed on the three lots. This analysis will become a part of the Approved Development Plan for the three parcels included within the West Day Lot Development Site. Development Standard Allowed Existinq Proposed Land Uses: Lot 1 - Marriot Hotel Lat 2 -West Day Lot and Marriott Hotel Parking Structure Lat 3 -Gore Creek Residences Lot Area: 10,000 sq. ft. 297,165 sq. ft. 297,165 sq. ft. Setbacks All Sides: Building Height: Density: 10 ft. 71 ft. avg. 82.5 ft. max 238 DUs {351ac.} Unlimited AUs 10 ft. 7fl #t. avg. 80.5 ft. rnax 51 DU {7.51ac,} 27s Au 10 ft. 67,9 ft. avg. 82.5 ft. max • 158 DU {23.11ac.} 276 AU ><2 • • • GRFA: 742,912 sq. ft. 213,239 sq. ft. 425,934 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 208,015 sq. ft. 148,075 sq. ft. 203,234 sq. ft. {70%} (49.8°l0) {68.4%} Landscape Area: 59,433 sq. ft. {20°/°} 139,713 sq. ft. {41 %) 119,772sq. ft. (40.3%} Parking: 156 {1.4JDU} 412 spaces 498 spaces 276 {0.7/AU} The following analysis is performed solely on the site proposed to be the location of the Ritz-Carlton Residences. AddresslLegal Description: 728 West Lionshead CircleJLat 2 West Day ' Subdivision Parcel Size; 2.399 acre {104,500 sq. ft.) Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Land Use Designation: Resort Accommodations and Services Development Standard Allowed Existing Land Uses: Lot 2 -West Day Lot and Marriott Hotel Parking Structure Lot Area: 10,000 sq. ft. 1(}4,500 sq. ft. Setbacks All Sides: Building Height: 10 ft. NA 71 ft. avg. NA 82.5 ft. max Density: O RFA: Site Coverage; Landscape Area: 83 DUs {35Jac.) NA Unlimited AUs 261,250 sq. ft. NA 73,150 sq. ft. NA {70%) 20,900 sq. ft. {20%) NA Proposed 104,500 sq. ft. 10 ft. 66.4 ft. avg. 82.5 ft, max 107 DU {44.61ac.) 212,695 sq. ft. 77,760 sq. ft. {74.4%) 25,060sq. ft. (23.9%} Parking: 145.6 {1.4/DU) NA 388 spaces* * Of the parking proposed to be provided 146 spaces will serve the Ritz_Carlton Residences, 237 will serve as replacement spaces fort he Marriott Hotel to replace the structure, and 5 are surplus. VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use North: Residential South: ©pen Space East: Residential Zoninca Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District Natural Area Preservation District Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District 13 West: Public Utility General Use District Vlll. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-7H-$, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 ~LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-$, Vaii Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: 1. That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; 3. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and, 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the major exterior alteration application, staff recommends that the Commission makes the following finding as part of the motion: "Pursuant fa Section 12-TN-8, Compliance Burden., Vail Tawn Code, the applicant has proven by a preponderance of fhe evidence before fhe Planning and Environments! Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed major exterior alferafion is in compliance with fhe purposes of fhe Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, fhaf the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negafive effect an fhe character of fhe neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. IX. G©NDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA As previously discussed in Section II of this memorandum, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Condi#ional Uses; Basement ar Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, to construct dwelling units within the Garden Level and on the First Floor of the proposed structure, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions outlined In Chapter 1~6, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code. Section 12-16-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Tawn Code, outlines the review criteria for conditions! uses permit requests proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 {LMU-1) zone district. According to Section 12-16-6, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:. 14 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air; distribukion of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4, Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the application, staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1, That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regula#ions and the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district. . 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. X. RESQLUTIdIV 18, SERVES OF 20Q4. REVIEYII CRITERIA The applicant is requesting two architectural design deviations which are permitted flexibility under the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian and are subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission under a set of criteria. If certain fndings can be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission, upon receipt of a recommendation by the Qesign Review Board, flexibility can be granted. The two architectural design features the applicant is requesting flexibility from are: 1. The Master Plan limitation an a maximum of 5a0 sq. ft. of flat roofed areas; and 2. The Master Plan requirements for screening of mechanical equipment by proposing a screening feature which exceeds the 82.5 fact height limitation; and 3. The Master Plan requirements for an architectural landmark which is 124 feet tall. 15 Staff will not address the specifc criteria at this time regarding the two architectural design elements the applicant is requesting to deviate from in the I~ionshead Redevelopment Master Pian. Staff's initial analysis regarding the two architectural design deviations are as follows: Flat Roofed Area of the Structure: The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies a maximum area of 500 square feet for flat roofed portions of a structure. Staff believes that the intent of this provision is to limit buildings to minimal fiat roofed areas so as to encourage true sloping roof forms. Staff believes that the limitation of 500 square feet for a structure located on a site encompassing 2.399 acres may be unreasonable. The proposed structure has a total roof area of approximately 59,41 square feet and the proposed fiat roofed portion of the structure is proposed to be approximately 7,076 square feet or 11,9 percent of the total area. This is a reduction from the previously proposed roof design which contained approximately 9,100 square feet of flat roofed area or 15.3 percent. The current roof plan now incorporates 757 square feet of roof-top terrace. The applicant has proposed a roof design in which they believe the fiat portion is secondary to the sloped roofed areas. Through the use of sloped mansard roof forms the applicant has attempted to reduce the visibility of the flat roofed portions of the structure from many perspectives, The flat roofed areas will nat. be visible from a pedestrian perspective nor from the surround properties as the height of the building is above a majority of the neighboring structures. The flat roofed areas will, however, Ise visible from the ski mountain. The applicant will be bring photo renderings of the project from several vantage paints in order to provide an idea of where the fiat roofs will be visible from. 2. Mechanica6 Screening Solution: The applicant has proposed a solution to screen several large cooling towers and condensers on the main ridge of the structure located above the part-cochere. The applicant has proposed to place a screening solution over the mechanicals which would continue the roof line of the main ridge up to a height which ranges from 85.3 feet (3.3% over maximum allowable height} on the north elevation of the building to $9.$ feet (8.8°f° over maximum allowable height} on the south elevation of the building. The proposed solution exceeds the 82.5 feet maximum identified in the Master Plan. The Master Plans identifies that mechanicals should be placed on roof tops and painted so as to blend into the roof color materials. The proposed structure has placed the large mechanical pieces in a well on the roof, which has a finished floor elevation less than 82.5 feet, and placed the screening element on top. The screening element is proposed to be an element which would be an architectural element which is custom created from metal and would be primarily open. l6 3. Landmark Tower Element: The applicant has proposed to locate a landmark tower element on the northwest corner of the proposed structure. The Master Plan identifies the importance of landmark elements on projects within Section 8.4.1.2, Landmarks. The specific language in the Master Plan is as follows: A landmark provides a sense of orientation for the community, and reinforces ifs "sense of place" or Image. As such, it must be visible from key locations within fhe community, such as portals and major public spaces, and must offer an image consistent with Lionshead. ,~s a unique architectural element, a landmark should be designed fa clearly stand out from the rest of the community, while still presenting a consistent design language. Care should be taken to provide a clear hierarchy between the village landmark and ether, secondary landmarks. Landmarks are most successful when they serve special functions such as bell towers, clock towers, monuments, or public art, rather than being self-serving. Furthermore, they should be carefully scaled to the buildings adjacent to them, as well as to the overall scale of the urban village. Title 14 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code states that: Towers, spires, cupoloas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architecture! features net useable as habitable floor area may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty-free percent (25°/} of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet (96), The proposed tower has a height of 120 feet, measures approximately 25 feet by 25 feet, and is located in close proximity to the intersection of the South Frontage Road and West Lionshead Circle. This revised proposal has reduced the height of the landmark tower a total of 20 feet from 140 feet depicted on the plans dated September 7, 2005. The proposed architectural landmark tower does not. contain any GRFA above the maximum height of 82.5 feet in height. Currently the feature is anticipated to be illuminated from the exterior with up lighting. At a height of 120 feet the proposed tower is 37.5 feet (45.5%) taller than the maximum height of 82.5 feet identified in the Master Plan. The Planning and Environmental Commission does have the authority within the Master Plan in con}unction with the criteria found in Resolution 1 S, series of 2D04, to allow for an architectural feature as proposed if the findings found below are made, It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town of Vail Planning ~ Environmental Commission following a recommendation from the pesign Review Board that: 17 The request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of the zone district; and ~. The proposal which includes the design deviations is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and 3. The proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and 4. The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and 5. The design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and, 6. A public benefit is achieved. as a result of the design deviation; and, 7. The design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the application, staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings before granting a flexibility under the recamrnendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: 1. That the request for design deviations are in compliance with the purposes of the zone district; and 2, That the proposal. which includes the design deviations is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan; and 3. That the proposal which includes the design deviations does not have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan; and 5. That the design deviation meets or exceeds the intent of the specific design standards as prescribed in Section 8.4; and, 6. That a public benefit is achieved as a result of the design deviation; and, 18 7. That the design deviation furthers the goals, objectives and purposes as stated in Sections 2.3, 2.5 and 8.2 of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. XI. NEXT STEPS The following is a tentative schedule of hearings dates at which the Planning and• Environmental Commission {PEG) end the Design Review Board (DRB) will be asked to review, comment, and take action on the proposed Ritz-Carlton Residences: DRB October 12 and 19, 2005: Applicant and Staff respond to previous DRB comments. A recommendation will be requested regarding the proposed architectural deviations. PEC +Dctober 24, 2005: Request for final review and approval of the project if all comments and concerns have been addressed. DRB November 1Fi, 2005: Request for final review and approval of the project if all comments and concerns have been addressed. • XII. STAFF RECUMIVIENI?ATI©N Staff and the applicant would request that the Planning and Environmental Commission tables the applicant's request to the October 24, 2005, hearing. XIII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Reduced c©py of the proposed revisions • 19 ~~ L a a~ ~ ~ e '~ L V ~ U V J ~_ _ ~_ ~~ ~ ~ c O ~ 'c~~n +~ s .cn _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~r .~ ~ ° o ~.~, *+ J U ~ ~ ~ ~ 4! ~ N O ~ a,7 .E+ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ -~ ~"" W w L O -a ~ia ~ ~ ~ c ~ '~ :. ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~" ;~. ~': Attac~rnent: A ~ .~.' ~' ,. .., eta P o- n~ a`~ 5E ~~ E ; c~~ a~ g~ ~= ~~ ~~ ~~ E F ~~ m s ~, 0 s ~~ R t~ .~ ~~.~,. . N ~, W o~ ~. ~.., .~ a~ Attachment: B v .S~© '~+. arnmm'trve. i ~?a, 17VA .I.d S~~~I3QIS3~I ~ Kd~y't8,~ hIO.I,'I2I`da-Z.CI~I ~~I.I. a!--y ~~l --_ - - 3 ~ i I - ~~ =~; ii _ ~~ ti' ~ g = t 6 ~ i +~ y ~~I ,~h S C ii it ~ 5. ~ y I~ ,; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~s ~ @ Jr ~ ,~~ % s.. ~~-s~ _~ Y_~~a~~ 3°~€A ~y iiiaaa p € y ~~.. ~~ mlaz~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ _~ E ~~ ~ F ~q-~~a` F~~~ d ~#k. ~~e s ~j`FL ~~ `g~zeP"~ ~ B~~~PE ~~ ~5~i~_F a E~.~~~Pc ~ ~ , ~ y~~ p w~ §~ T.~yi -~ 1"q5 u°~izs'~~ ~-I, ~vt ~~ G ~ _ ~ -j 7 :~~~~~ i n e 35 s 9- -#6,g ~~az#sEg '~vfi.~3 - g _ :.i~.aE ~ `_'i~~5 E _ x !q F t~~~«~ ~ ~~ s~La fir`=?s: ~ yz K~~ ~_g~~=~ ~ ~~~~~F~ ~ _ ~ 9.. ~1S i f Alo~ M ~ s ? z L I { C~ i 7~ 5 y;5 € 3 ~ _ ___ _ - _. f 1 !-~ W o .~, ~~`~~~ C! G; a' H +7. z a ~' F» 2 .L ~ I '7` ~ U Y • y I ~W, o~q ~~;=i Q~ ~ ~ ~~ i • • Y O~~ ~ J7 s dad, ~ ~O*y ~~OJ J OlOa'liY.~ 'INA .L~ S~~I~I~QIS:~3I noi~xv~-ztaa ass, ~. c C i i h C? ~~ e2 ~ e ~.Y. f 9 s ~ 'Jc~2 V ~ ~Sy ~ ~~~ ~~ R ~t~~ ~ p ~ ~ ~~ r- G 0 m u x U i en a Q] ____ Ir r ~ ~~ ~ k } • _a , r~ . ~IIY L>.I.V 633AI3aI$~8 ~ ~~~~ t V IS ~B[ ~~r' ~5~ 3~y~ ~~~~ ~ d'~ G y i F ~ }w~- ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ k i 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~. ~~ + 1'~y ~' ~--~ , ~ }III\\l f ~ R of ~•-, ~ _ ~ _ ~ I r ~~ 1\t -•;~~'k - -p I. ~ `i "~ '~'1t \, ,:, h a z J ' E. 5 .~ y 5~ ~ oR P, ~~~~ I ~~ ~ r~~1 '+ `' k ' `t I + psaY~c~' ' .'N~ 11~ ~ } 7 -a~viSf~`yY~ ~+ t a `1Yy` `I ~ 1 ~} ~ .+~'' - u ~~ u ~r~ ~~ y"~ ~ 1 v/f t ~ ~~x ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~. I~~' ~ ~ ~ €~ ~ ` ~~ ITS ~$ 1 ",~ ' ~ a ~ ~j } a 1 it ~ !Il Tr ~ q ~ ~ ~ J pry ~ ~ I .I ~Yµ ~ 4~s ~g `g '~ tP? ~ I lil ~ _ ~~ J a '' , i EM1 'r 61~ ~ `` i ~Y' l y 11 8 ~.~{y I ti E£ ~ t~ ~ f~~Y Y 1 1 ~ ~pyr~v E~i ~l3` -,~~.~ ; ~ ti s + ~~ ~ ~ 1~+ 1 1 ~ ~ + w~5^j O~Y i ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ a 1 e` ~'IQ I~ ~~~\v ~M~` I 1 1~ S 1 .. aw = 1~ ! ty ~ k c{y{9 y. li~ ~7 ~gSS 1 1 ~ aY G mf ~ ~=P e~~ y~. 1~ ~ ff { vv ~pA 16 1 y/+ ~ ~ S~ ~ I*~8 I3~ ~~tu ~+ : ~ ~f i L~1 i e a99~ ~ ~~`A ! y3 ~ Y84 Y~ ~~'~ ,~ 1 ( ~_ 1+1 ~~' \ ~ ~ [ !by I9 iY"9Y [¢! rF~Ii4 I 1 I a}V~14~I i. ¢ ~ , ll ~ yj~ ~ X 11 ' ~-~ '~ ~I, _. gel @R a ~~~ ~ ~ 'F ? :.~ 1' a ~ ~~: 1 ` ; 5 ~!~ ~~~ II~ 11111 1a ~, X ~~ S~ 1~ 5 t f_j l III I V II `~ `., \ OV ~'u I~.. Yea =~' t~. - ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ I_ I I_i _ ~ III;~ ~ ~ ,~~ `e~. '~ ~ 1 ,16$_b _ __. .`\ _ `~ 1 3 i I ~ ~ ~e 1•s {ldi~~9i'~4~3~~tlilr[!! ~le~A ~R~at~- ;'S%%' `^~` I`^I y5 ~ .~ .ae. ae..en xa ....ee ,,. ~ \\ \\ \ ~ a I~~ I o ., 4~~ `~ I s ._ µ `-ice ':~~~1.\ ` ~,`. \ \ ` 1 .. `~r! 1IVA id SI~fSiJflIS32i 3 . z s ~ ~ _ ~ ~ 8{c f ~$.3 ~ ]~ ~ ~ r r~,,.YS,ya~! d~o.L'Rld~°Z.LI2Iaxs = ~ ~-I ~ ~3~ d~' ~& € ~ ~~~ ~ ~ I~ j _ f h~~ u r N {j? N W /) ~ ~ ~ ~. W ~i U ,"„ o ~` N ~ . ~_ N ~ ffi 7 2 U ,r w W 0 ~ F~- f!{ C~~ N W ~' U: W Q m ~ ~ G w R. w ~ 0 a 0 N ~ K ~ W ~. m ~ ~ ... W k U w 0 o - ---~ ~ - - - __ f ~K ~ ' .___ _.__tir. "~~ ~ 0 ~~ tai [ ~ ~4 a a;§; ~ S 3 dOd, i R "Ilt'AI.d S~Oh~CTIS3I1 , ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ `1' z~ = ; ~ d~Qy,'~d~ I ' R:O.L72I4'~-2.LRi 3}-1_T. ~ ' ~ I ~ ix~ E : i 3 .:s E b '' ;~ ti 43I ~ ~ _~. 5 'a~ ~ ~ Et ~24~ 2 a ;,~ _ _~ I tltltl _ N N w Rl ~ w ~ W 47 .F- N G Q' C1: W ~ °' W r a a. w (/1 a N N ~ . W m W a w vi Q O N r K W m W a. w f~ ~ ~--~ grj o I r~ Y~ ~ d~ 'fir ~ ~.~ ~._.. • • $ 7d, T~A.LV S3~AiffC[IS~4I ~ .toQy~,ay [~O.I."'~i~"J-'7 i,I21 ~H.L I~ ti oa .:! '• ~ i, ~~ i ~~ ~ ~ l 4 ~~, t, ,^ ,` ~ , • I ~~~, \1m i } I, ~ o ~~, I e tl ~,I aas {i'r" e~~~ { f. ~e V ~ 9; I I asp, C' ! X51 A 1 1~1 ii I+ " I I . I I! + I 1 --~1 ~ ~ ! ! ~ I r ,! ~ ~ I i r .a ~ ~'. _~ t/ ~ .Tl'~' ~_~`~+ 'I.`^_ w i /~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.:'- ~~~~ ~ ~~~ z~ ~~~~. ~z `!~~ ^1i~C i ~ I F X 11~ t- ! © - v~I L f I F. ~ ~c ~~ \y~ ~ ~ \W a ~~ `~ ~ ~~ ~~~ _g r r j "~ "~ E ~~ ti~ ~,• ' I r Z' , ~ e ,~~ t5 I ~~~ 3` ~<< 1\ 1 I a~Y~~3>5zn t @ -~ '~,'~~~ ,~ 54 y, ao~~~~~~~ 3~ gsgs~ ~..._._ ~ 1''~,lL..-^~~ ~lV ,rte li ~ii~4i I ~I I i •' ~~I I I '~ ~,I 15 r~~~iy'~T° ~'~'~ I~ ~ i i~ k i ~ 1 I~ i ~ ~ I W~ ~+~-~...r~~ ~.~V ".~i~ ~~, r r r o I~ ~ i i~~ a 11 I I ~ ~~ ~' ' I~ I ~~ ~'.~,~" ~ I I I I I I I I l i l i ~ i I~ I ~' I p ilk ~F Y ,,, ;~ Ka~ad ! ! f` a f.i`5 ~, ~` f ~ ~ I I ~ y Q ~ ~ ~ I 4 ~~E ~ sl i t _'' I y~~~y~yir\•, 1l E9~z~~d$iCS~~~~~e E~~~~~ ~•c -"-r _ -~, fi `~. I 'y u~acra~r.8.%17~~... ~~ Lac . ~~ ~ t 5 i a; li\5~ `I Il\ Ig~ I! i ; o~~ ~`. a t 1~ ~1 4 \ F ~ ~ § ~ 3 E GSJ II! ': •'^ li 1i5,' 1 x. ~.e o.ied l•^t®Cla mow ~1 ~~ ~ `5 1,, i5,11 ~ ~ lyt i~~l~ ~',l 'd51i 15}5 15t } ~ 1 ~y~ ggg4 ~~\ I, '~,~ 5I ~5 ~~ lE _ _ ~ ~~. 1 i~ y ~Y :~r\ 1~ ~~ ^ 5 1 \1 V1 Sl 1.t - `~it 1 ~1 5 _ _ .,~. _ r I ~ ` ~r. ~+ Ili 1 l~~~VS til 1' 1 ~- ,.~11°-li~ 1V 1 _ rr ,s;961 ~~,1`i1 ,5 k'S!}I~~}5 ~5 ll'i ~, 1 r 2ie_g I II it glf~~R 11 `'.~ «~,,51 I 1 .~ kfV y II~ ,'~5}5y,5511 I, I "~ ~~~',I 1 9 ~r~ }y i11114tii.55 1 •1 5 1 r r~ ! l~f ~'!+ !~ ~~ !~ ~I ~,1151N5y5511} ! V --` =----~ r i I I! ''i I + r °,~, \ ~ 151115155,,\ , 4 ~ ~ 5 ~ 4 1 ~ 5 ~~ ~'. f 1 l~ .\ ^. `~ 5 ~ _ ~ ~,°Y~ ~ ~, 141 i 4i y 51 ~ 1 ~I ! ~, !! I 4 i \1 \\1151,5T ~, .n•^" - ~_~ ~ ~+ "s x,14111 5,, i !! ~ ! ! M . h5 n \1 ill 5,, I , w~ `~ • ~~_.,,. ~ -5 n 14555 5 d tit ! 1 I ~~ ~ o, +,5411 -1- -~,...~ "1 ~,^„"~ 1 Y * ~,.`.: i '?. 5X5`1 `~. ~ ~ 1 5 ~ 59 `Y 1 X5;1 - ~p~ ~,o~' + i 1 r' 5 51.155, 51,. , 4 1l 5 l -'~it•, ~5\i.\ ,~ ~I~ i .Y= - ~. ~ -\ l5 =111 S 1l } ~1 I 5 5 1 t '~ ~ . ',5 \~. `'I ,~,~~+'Y 1 ~ ~---- --~~Z`1151111~1~ ~ ll 1 11. . S4.'li`, ~i,~ ~l ~~ '1 l 1 5 11Y15 l l 5 5 °~~~+ 1 ' ~~~ 5 '~ 1 5 it l S ~~ 5 - i-~1 ~,~ , n.~ _ 5 5 l 111511 1 l h $f~, ~4`~ z~ V ! - `' i L ~ 1 a ..4; ~...~ l ,1 '~'41l ll r* 1 5 ~ ~~ i ~z '~ r .` v Sn~~ A1511 5 ~ i~ 1 ~ -'.~ `~ t 551 4 1 ;, '• ~ `~ - - {~>, v'~v. ..~'-,`~ `~, \, t ~`--~' l 31511\\\ 4 .` s1 ~'-t ~ '~ ray -,~ ~i ~, j.. ~~ ~~1~ ~°~~ ,,.~ '~ 51 `\~r\\~,I ~~ 1, ! I` I' a'Y ~./ ~ 4 ~~,--••, ``1n~'4v '•~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~~ r ~ ~~'~ 'w 1~ / I ~ 51 5 ~ 5 4,.r ? + -~ ~~ a ~ "~ ~ ~ ten's ~~.+~~£ ~ ~ - ~ @ _ _- 3 J ~ ~ ~ ` -""` !•-~ ~ ~ ^~ .!!~ ~~' ' ~ Y I ~~° 5~ ` 1 ` 1 ti V I ~ 1 ~ I ~~ 5 ' ~ r, © ~ m ~ ~~x `$}y ~ V I~ ~~e~ ~+~ Rp~ ~~ ~~£~ 'y~ a-- -- - - - r~ G L ~ ~ ~ Y ~° /~I~ lg~Q 9C ~J~ ~~' ~t. 5 a p ~ O ate? i''- `~, ~ ~ ~&~ °~6 ~~ ~~ ~`;~ d ~ ~ u . \~ ~ ~ 5 / , -18 ~ 4 1 d ` :4 % ~f~ / ~ i t 6 a ~ ~ ~ff ~. ~yw5., p y~ro+ 1j} 3 s ~ ~_ ~ .~ i i !~ )~ i'4C ~ it 4 ' ~~'""'i {... I e Or ¢~ ~~y ~ryo oawo7a~-srvn ~ © ~~ ~ F ~ E y a a "IIdA,I.V S~7hieIQI5~I r ~ ~ ~ ~ 13 ~~, ; '~~ d~Y~ ~`~~; e h101'I2It'~•7I.I8 sx.r. ~ ~ c ~ € ~ ~.. ~ ~ o ~~ '~ E~ ` ~~~~ ~ ~ s 9 ~ r , - ~ U ry 01 ~ d i a x N ~~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ d u J - - t h~ ~f ~ J4 • ~ ~ ~~ 1 a I tea: _µ akYAY'~/=` : Tar' Y' ', r.~ • ~•'1 i~'• I ~,„ 11~'~F.,~ti•• ~. "SAPtIG~~°p 1 ai ~;a 5f#ti~`'` fig • ~~ I \ ±~y • i • ~ ~f r / {~~ i ,, f /,, lr I i . ti it •\ ~• <:. eft` \ •i ~.::~ ~~, _s ~ `~~ ~. ~ ~-e~~,~ is ~ ~ .: Y, ~' 4~ ~'~--, tiS ~ ~ p~ R ~ ~ ~ 6 ~~~~Hi _ ~: i r ~ r III ~' Y,' ` ~~ g ~+ 3 ~l ='~ 6 E 6~ F :;~l~E ' ~:;: ~p ';,ll 1, ~,d Il`.~u~ g 7 a"~ E ~ ?Fp ~ Y Y !f ~ ~° y``a ~~"! ~~BYr +i~~~r~Ea~~Y ~f 's~3n ~ ~ Y p~z~'i~~Y~b ~}k 4 ~~ ~* ~ \;. frat+' $ 3 ~dr~d n Cxd 4~3 q$is 9-pq F FaE:p~sA, 4~r+, ~5 • `K S~ !Y/~_ ~2~Ena3~~8~Y5~p8p9Fri frd~4;ipspf giFi~~S~ ~ 'g€3gdEg3F¢..E4Zg@~g~p~E~sptY~`g t ~A, '~., F ~ °l~^q y~~"~~ p~ [ pfFYYl'B~6~~~6YXi'FYS~EI~iY61 Y iR€9T~~~6~£~F~~F~~P ~k,4 '\v ~e rAl'~i za, k"~9~dBF59F 8'H8F'~ 958F~9 6 ~ ~ ~ y ."'1~ '~V/ $~~ ;,~E ~ d'I) ~~. Idl ' IIII ddlil ~ I ~- r~~ ""~ `~, ~. ~j i d F# F F 'i f '• / cE~ 3 1 n 'lii i 1F ~i;~I ' ilk I jllj I[II~ ~~ ~ "~ ;~,~'~' r ~~ „tic. ~i i~~~~R~~ae~;l~l~, All~u~la~ III:t~]tt~l ~ t ~ e~ ~~'arrr~ ~ i~ I ~ i~ li I I did illy a. ~ ~~~ ~.zs .;i ~e ~I1. it i'i~ it id: i T~~dl ddlil ~ ~;.-° ,sta~\ ~~~•~~,~ `,,: omevw~`~rv-n ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 33 ~ o,o -rrvn,rvs:~~nr3azs~a~r ~ ~~~~ e ~p ~ ~~} ~~ ~~ ~9 ~,i ~ E F d0~y'fS~ AiO.I.aav,+'Z.I.I2I~H.L ~ }•~+.u'~ i ~-I t ~~'~ ~~ 3.3 ~@ ~ Q~q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lJ~ll~~ ~~ FFE~FiF YYLYI~L4 33~~3~3~5333~~~~3~ §33~33F3ab~4~~5~5S5dbd~3~ b3333d~ °~ K 4~ ceecececcrxssr cyan ::::::::::::::.::xxxcxx: cezex.x y ! i s 6 ~ ~l E~~~~~ ~ ~R~ x ~~f~~1~~~~~~f~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ &EE [F 7 77 # $~~..~ISl ea;<faao-~eEafasx3 L'aa2:heb~es~8agt~vss~Pcae~~3a9esaa ~IC ~i C~~: `:~ f,- ~~~~~ ~, ~ , ._. _}- ks 3 A I ~' n~~ ~. ~ ~~~ag it GR m ~b ~Q ~~ ~~ l ~r '"" ~~ ~ ~~ /~ m ~A- .. nML„J-....~~ i~ ~-~_ ~W~~ ~l ,.~- .star ~ ~ ~~~~~ €€ 3 _ ~ '~ H ~ ~ .~~ ~ .~~M ~ wp - ~ ~~ ~~a~ _ r7x t.. , tea' ~ ._,, ,,, ~ -~ -~ ~~ ,~ --, - ~ ~~, ~t,.~ ~ a' 3 r~ r~ 'a 5 - ,, i'l JAI r`^ _ _-~~,(~ ~~ J'V1~Y'~i •'.`~~j ~*:, .. s ",„J r O~ ~ ~~~, ~ --~tin zd s~~H3a~s~ . F .Cd~,y~`~fi i N©.L'I}1V3-~.LItI ~Hi, ~$ " '~°, i i ~ 6 ~~ ~ rt B apps ~ V I ~ ~a~ §I~ 'r ~{ : ~~~~ ~ S '"'~~i Y i ~~ I l~ - ~. ~, I~ ~ a _~; .. ~C ~- :- -- ~:~L= -, J r ..~ ..® ~! - - it ~ ~ - ~J' ~ ~ ~ ~~QQ~ ~ __~. , ~° ~ ~ ' $ I I r f o l ~ ~„ .. L - --- :, ~_ - I [Q-~ _ ~ W._~ v ~ ~~~~~ ~ = ~a gx € e ,i _ ~,~ a~ M~{{ ~ > ti s~o ~ ~ ~e I '. I I ~ h • tl O~ ~!. ou`rmo:r-ww 4 T ~ a~ ~ a r ~ t o ~ ' 'IIdA .LY S3~~I3QISHH ~ s _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a~~* ;~~~ ~ ~ h . i ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ,~ s rtai-iav~a-z~.rx ass ~ s .. _ 1 qai .'~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ` ~ .`- ;p uE C gig I 4~rv r ~ ` R ~ ~ - - ~ L J ~ 'z' A' ~ va ~ - ~ . ~}e I V yII~ ~a~ I y ~ ~ tl tl - ~ -~ --~I r-~~-1~`~~`-' L_JL_JJ._JL_~, ~ L r1J ~' ~'' I~~ ~ ~I a E N~ L . _ ~ I I i c 1z__r :t r ~n ui #I 3,~4a ~ ------ r~ i ~~O}Y~_._ -:, oars®-am~nA ? ~~ 3 ~ ~ ~e_! ~5~~ ~ ~ ~~ g ks~ 3 € ~ 6 ~___~ ~~ ~~ b~d~ ~ zrvn iY s~~t.~~a~s~ ~ ~ ~ _ ; ~ ~ ~~~ ~E s r ~-~ " ~ a ~ r ~ ~.v~~, ~ I~IOi'jNV~-ZiI2i~i ti's ~ j s~~ ~-H ~i4~ ~~~" 9 I ~ ~ ~-'_ ~ Q • ~~J .c- -'- v_-. _ _ I I --- - ",ZYr_ __~~ ~ r a- _ ~ _ = I 1 I r~ I ~ II I ijf ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I &';~II II ,I 1 f I vmll I a ~~~~-~ I~I I f ~ a I ~ ~. +! i "` ~ 'c ~` ~'~ ~ nc ~ He nc ~ He ~ I l 1 _ - S i 1 ~ r - 1 I I t r I ~ I F ~ ~ I I ~ ~~ /l « !_ I ,_„ f F f i I I ` g ~, ~ 4 ! I . a;~ ~ I ~ ~ ~- F F F ig i "~ ~ ' ~ - ~v. 4 ~F ~ ~ 3 _ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ __ ~ - I ~~ 4~ ~~ ~If` ~~ ~. I ~ ~ I •, i r r ~ Ij oQO I ~, r ~ - ~ - e. r r,r ~ o ~ _ I ~ ¢! is 1' ~ Ni - ~ r:~; m' I ~` r - l3> ~ ~ -- ~ - I ~ ~\ I - < ~ w ~ I F i r \ _.~, I.~~. I \ `. !~ _ ~ ~ J- ~ _ t` I \ I ~ '~ I r I t ~~_~ - -- ~,,~ !~ oavxoio~tnn ~~ ~*Jd, 'IIWA.I.V SHOt~HQ1S32I ~ fQ~yf~,~,oJ AIOZ72IV'J-2ZlZi ~H.L FF GJJ e p ~-,~_, - F S ~ Q ~1~ ~ ~ ~ y'} ~ ~ I ~i J E i ~ ~~ y; ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~~ Iiii ~y~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~§ s` g i E~ ~_ ~ ~ ~~ o_ l + i '~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~f 1 ~ `. _- 'I ~~ .tttl3daty _ _ _ 1 ~4Y `• 1 „X~ a v~ a- ~} I 5 1 I ~E ~€ I l M 9 ~ I I I~ f~ !~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` :n~\ 0 ~~ ~ - ~ ®, ~ ~,~. ~ ~ i \`~. ~ ~ .`\ . , ,~ ` ~ ~ ~ \ F~ ~ ~ „ ~ 4 1 a_~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __.,_ ~~ ~I a ~ ~- ~d o o ~ o 1 l~~ U - ~ r-~ r~ ~s , ' ~, .~ ~ _ ~ i \ - +~,:_ _ p .. 5 ~ . `~~\ n~ s m~ Y ~~, ~ E ~ I ~ ` - - _ . ~h.Er \ I ¢! ` ~ '~, a ~I ~r~, \ • t, ` 1 ,,\ ~ ~ \ I ~ ,` ~ ~ \ '. I .\ _ ~T, -- ---- --I - - - - - - J W l ~.p ~j•; ta~ • • ~\ e O ~ arv.aia~yrve z f p~ -~ ~ ;•b ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~z b*7~, , 'II~+A i~ 5~~:~I~Q15~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ "~" ~g~ ~~ gs g~gt e;~a ~ t i i ~. ~ ~ ~' 3 I a: E ~t~yy s~~s0 NO.L7~irJ-"L1f21 ~HZ ~ ~c~; ~ ~ I ~ ~'~ _~? ~ ~€ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ Y7 ~ ~$ ~ -___ - __ -- '°~ i~ u • -I~ `S ~~ -3 4% ~Y' • ldod ply TIdA .I.d 5~hIHa1S~H ~s, ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~ ~~ ~~~ r! 3 ~~~3 c uo~.-nlda-zil~lsxi ~ s~E.r a ~.I f §~~ ?~? -~ s~c~ ~'~b ~ € d I --- -- `~ ~ ~ i I r y ~` ~ i ~~~ ~ ~~ ~- - ~ ~-- ~~--~ #~ ~-- Wit. I. ~ ~ ~- - i a q4 ~; F-> 'ti/ a~ • • ~~a~ oyy ~%' ,~ ._.,~.> zive s.v s~t~r~~ais~ ~oz,~wJ-ura $x.~ P z 0 g to Y G C ~ r y[n ~ 2C~- t ~ ~PF ~ _ ~ Gt ~ y~~f.. g ~€ ~: .® _ ~ e~ I r ~ y3 ~ +~ ~ ~ x d `IG ~ ~~ ¢ ~ y~ ~ ~ {'r O i ~ f~J ~~ ao~~. ~ g "II~'A.I.b'S~~:1'3CIYS~ ~ ~6~ s `~' S ~~~ d5~ ~~~ e~tg ~~~~ ~ ~oi~.~-zYr~ ~a~z.F. ~ ~ o J~ ~ t~#' I ~ ~~~ ~~' ~ gs 3 ~z~s a Q k€ p ~ ~' . . ~-~ ~~ ~~ a ~~ ~. ,. _ z a, ~t O~ ~] 5 L V `i/ ;~ • j2 ~„(, umvaw~`aar.s 2 r. ~{~,~ e V t E`r~7 S~+ ~ ;! ~ i~~i ~ n ~ ~ I ~~ ~ i ~ 5 ~C ? '!IE`t~. 3.~' S3~C.I3QIS~2I ~ ~ _ d" I g ~ ~ ~ ~; a_p ~° I .-. 't i ~_ o kq ~ yy`~SyO PlO.L'Ri'd~-Z.LI4I H.I. p~p ~-~' ~~i a C~ j $°~i ~y S~~ c~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~'~s ~ 6 --~ 5ti., i ,.-tl~h~,~.~ I ~~ d 5, `,~.~ r 0 es ~y o m1 m4 ~a m~ 3p3 l ~ I~ - ~~ W J-' LJ O O 0 1 ~ ~~ ~ i QI ~~ J~ ~1 0 . i --` ~ ,~~ IJ • J ~€ i ~ ~ ~ ~~'~~, zidnavs~7n*.:ams~ ~ ~x~~ ~d-~~ ~~~ ~~~ tg~ ~jp~ ~~~E ~ ~ ~~ o_ ~ #~~yrs~~u t~oa-nrv~-un~ tea. € o~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~tl~ try ~ ~ ~~ ~ °$~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i i ~ i ~ f I 1111 ~~' /,r/~ ~ I rt ~ I, /I ' If ,r hf fl.' I. I ,r I I~ 7 _, ~ ~ % ~ r ~ ~ E / ~` ~1 /tr f 1 I~ 11~ ~ f i~ ~ r I I i ` {~/11 ll~f "1.~ '. j 1 " 1 1 I ~' ~~ e ~ 1 I I I I ~ I ~I t I 1 I 1 I 1 t 1 1 Y I 1 ~ I 1 1 1 1 1' I 1 1 + ~ ~ 1 1~ ~ I 1r 1 I " 1 i Y" I ~i 1 1 I j j I II ~! ~ I t '~ I ~ i i ~~ >~ >AAi~ E I ~I I I 1 ~ Q ~± 1 "' "I e~ ~~ 1~ i i ~~ If~ ~a i ~` ~~ ~ I ! j i "~' 9~'0~ ~~ ' ~ i- cE f I j 1 ~ r '~~ 8t «a i ; i I" i ;~ I i -r r 1 ~~ ~ r` '~ " ~ L() ~~ I+r I r ~ /~ ` rf , O ° ~ `~ „ @ I I ;~~ ~ 1 ''° w rl I i ~` 17 i s~. ~ i W .``1 \ I 1f I ! /fir l1 / ~~k r _ ~ riI /JJ r~~' ~° .~- _ ~ ~ S,./ rte' w „_„~ J ~ ~ i ~ „ ~` ~' r • r • ,'fig OO~'tl030]RSV.~ *fQOy.'~d,~, I~IO.C.°l~k'~-Z.LTH ~H.L 1 ~ 03 y%~~~ s V ffI~ ~y~ ~~x 3 ~~ ~ ~~~.~ ° ~ q f E ~~ - i r - --- - - -- f I I ,, , ti- I ^1 I /; 1= - ~~'I~ ~I~ i i I I I I I ,~. l - - ' i I I I I I f a.o °r~-I' I J. ( i l ~ I I I I I I j I - ~. . _ I I n ~p I I I - a v o ~. II '~ ~ '; f I ~,~ ~ ,, I i I I I o~ ~ I 1 _ I . .sue e o ~ ~ ~ ~ I I _ I `-~~~----------G--- ' ~ i I I l I .. I I 1 ~ I I I I I n~.-, ... ~ - I ~L I l I hI ~I ~ -L - 4n ~ ~i~ ~ ~~ ~n i i ' -,, II ~~ ~ I~ i~l :~ ® ~ I ~ . I I I I I ~ ~~ ~ i :i ~ i ~ I i ~ t ~~' I I i I ~ ~ ~.1~ ~ ~ '~ I ~ ~ f~ 4^~ ,'~~ ~ 1 Ia d ~ . I i I 1 I ` I ~ ~ i ~ ~ I ++ t ' '~ - ' ~': , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a q I ~ I I I ~ I I j _ ~ i tt i I I ~ ~,'~ I i n © ~~ ~i~ I ~I '~ L ~ o o .o I~ ~, ~' ~ i~~ ~ '' i t ~ f III ,I ~I ~ "."~' I ~, ~. ,,. ; qy CC~ ~ 3p~, ~ d p ~ O I _ ~ ~ Ali ~-~ I' it ~ I I_ ~~ ;~;~'on I ~ ' oib p I I ,~F" - ,i. ®• I ~ I I T~ I I ~} f '! ~ ' ~ ~ ~ I ICI k I I I III ~'f I E ~ 'I I I I ,~ ,~, ~~a III I I x '~ ~ I i t ~~~~ ~ ~~II ~i I I -II I ~ dl I i I ~i L : I I I I I 1 I~ I I I r Ij I ~ ~ ~ ' L'y-~I ~ ' ~ i I I II ~ ® Q ~ i~t I I I ~ ~I I I I` ~I I II ®,~ ~ B' ~ I [ I I , I I I ~~ { u. I I I ~I ~ I~ ~~~ I I I I i I I l I I f~ l I I I I I I I :, ~ i II ' i I I ~ 4 ~ 'V I l I' I I 1 ~._----------r' r I ~l .,~ ^^~ yI~Ig9yj -5~{I~y~i >o S 6 ~ V H b IrrII ~+ 1J t ~~ E e € s $ 3~ ~ L ~ ~9 "II'b'A3.F"53~I+.I~CIIS32I ~ ~ <~ '¢' ~ S.r ~~ j9°s # e a E'+. ~ r O o&ti a ~ s N ~F ZdF ~ zc 3 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~<~ ra ~ d~hy S,y~3 NO,L'IW~-Z,I.I21'lI Il. F _ ~ . ~' I ! ~~ ~ ? E$ ~ ~~3~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~^-L-~`~---------*- ~ I `y------,-___-_----~ o ~,I ~ - i ~ '" r a; } -- i I I I _ 4 - ~ ~, I I ~ t i I - ~~ ~. I II ~ o a c ~~~------- --1 I` - I I { - ICI i~ L I y I I 4 ?~ I ~ ,.L I r„ I m $ I ~ ~ I ~I ;t I I a 1 ~ ~q ~ j I I ~! [ - I ' (+ I i ~ k I ~~ I , f _ i~f I I - I' } I I ~~~- I ~ I ~ - -+ - I ~~ .._ ~ '__~lo a o v ^~ I `~{ i ~~,i I ~ ~^ii~ I ~ I I I '•B. ,Fd cam! I I ~ ~ ~ 1 ' ® I°JI . rIC~1 ~ Ia I ~ ", `' ~~ I -~ ~~~ + ~ I '~ I i ~, I ~, ®~ ~ ~+ ~! ! : I IIf e a ~ ~, ,L ~- ~ . I ~ I ~ ^oo, , P I ~ I I~ ~ I ~ !-; I A f I ~ I I ~~ :~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~~~~ f ~ ~ 1 I ' I a. 4 ~ -r- F d I } Y ..' i ~ i M ~ I 3 ` ~ o o~ g ~~ , i ~ ~ f ~ I li •;~ ~~ ~ o I f ~ ' ~ ~ I I I ~ I ; ~~I A~ I { ~ ~-~~~ o ^ I ^ i' I~ 9 I I w o m ,~ ~ , ~ ~ I I~i ~ I ~ ~ ~, u. ~'~~C=1 + - , ~+ E i . i ~ ~, I ,Y e, ~ ~ ~ e e 1 A I, z5 0 ~- ~\ • • s6rad# E _~-~- -- ih 6,~ _.. ~ _ ..,._ vrn € a `~ ~' ~, 0 R E i:- y ~ P 's. ~ ~ 3 -,~ I -. ~ a z ~ `~~ 'IIVA.LNS~~AIHQIS~I a ``~~ ~ d" I~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~B~ ~ ~~~~ § ~ 3 ~ K° _ ~~ ~ ~ +f~ y~'ifi ~ f10.L°IHV~-2.LI2191I.L ~ ~a9 ~ ~I ~ ~~d o~~ e ~ :`c~~ 4g#~ ~ S t ~~ Q _ ,~, *°o~ --- - - -- - • w~« 1 y~y ~ 8 ~ 1 i j d 4 ~E ~~ 0 0 E- .q c,s E. ~~ E~ LE ~ EF E ~t¢ ~~ cE s x ~ ~ ~: ~~ ~ ~E ~ ~ ~~~ z: ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ _ g ~~~ ~E ~`. o~ ~ y€ ~S ? !(E 3E i y~ I g 3~ ~g ~ e~ g~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ !~~ g e $~ ~~ ~ ~ s ~~ g~` ~' 9 ~ ~~ d 6 `G'F~" N __. 3 ~ ^ ~ ~e OAK onwmua ^u.rn p ~ Q ~~ Y ~ "~ 'i' ~ ' 'e 7 ~IdA.LdS~7h13C{CS~3i a 1. ;~ g+lda,"~fit 1vO.L"T7Td'J'Z.I.S~31-I.I. ~ `~xr ~~I~ '~ ~3~ i ~ a' ~~~~ $ ' ,~ ~il,p ~' ~~ ¢ '~ oo~ > ~ _ jai ~ ~~ ' ~e~ ~ ~ JJ .~ , ': a s ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ s s ~. I~ ~ III ~ i ~ ~E~~ ~ . ~ II ICI. ~ ~ I li i i '. _~ _ 1 ~, ~~ ~~~ I~ Ipa I~ ~ <r ®' ~ ~ }t ~ _ 'i { P i ~ i 'i f ~, I B ~ Y I I ' ~i Il J' u • 3 ~~~~ ~wramvatirvn g ~~_ Q ~g~ B9 ~ @ A9 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~? 7dt'A.I.V S3~hI~QIS3~I _ < , E ~ ~ }•° ~ i ~ ~ ~~~ F ~' ~ g •r~4~'~a 3sIO.L'I31S'~-Z.I.RI 3H,L € s a' ~ } N a~ ~y2 ~ F 3s~: '-~, i y f4 Gyp' 1,C i ~ ~ ~ a ? '~ ~ ~ !~~ ~~' ~ ~ `; € #~.€ ~ r a ~ -~ 525 ~ _ 'tti ~ _ ' ~ I I I I V' I - - ~~ ~~~ ~$ 5~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~E '~ ~ 'I I Imo-' . _ \\\. ~ ~ ~ ~ 'I I . { Ig I e I I I ~ ~~ r: ~~ S _ `~a $~ y~y~ P~ 8 I .~ e' f ~ `< ~: ~ ~~ ~f L i ~Q~~J _ - ~mramimhre.~ R .. . 0 } ~ky eP G S a' a ~ ~ ___- I i i ~ _~f ~ '°'~ Y ~~ "INhS.~" S~3AI3QIS~3I ~ a ~~~ o ~' I f s.~ ~~~ ~'~ ;bg` ~85~ ~ # ~ : < ~ ~°M ~s,~a, rtoz°Ixv~-Z.I.I2I ~I~3. ~ } F,; ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ;~~ ~A~ ~€ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ! I ~ ~,_ F~ ~~ ~ ' - - - -- 9 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~ E ~ ~z ,~ ~ m ~ I ~~i €~ e i i ~ ~~ 4t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i J~ i a~ T ~ ~ I ~I ~ , ~ I I ~~ ~! li o y ~`- ~~~ ~ ~ € ~ 5€ ~ ~~ ~~ i ate ~Y ~E 9 ~ a I ~ ~ 93 j ~~~ ~~ ~ aF i w •i ~©~,~J aweoYO~'trra F .~~a ~' €~~ c4 ~ ~ ~y ~.s~~ i ~ ~ ~ -~_ ~ 8q ^1 boar '[IdtSZ~'53~,'~i~415~2T c $~Fa ~~ I~ ~~€ ~a~ e`, 3~iF ~~~ ~ ~ i s ~v-_~,~~ 6 ^~F~ ~ d~by s,~,~~ i~O.L'R1V~-Z.LRI3FiZ yogis E ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~'~ j ~ ~ ~ ~6~ !" A ~! ~ ~;,c, ''~ ~ ~i ,a __ - - • an ;ai' r, .co-s_w.aw. mncar r.+ ~' ~~ rs.r... ~ A.,~~ g `s 8 3' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~0 ~~ ,, o-- _ .~ ~o,o~,~.. '~ °o znn sv sa~:~aa~s~u daoy~P,j, l~O.L°I2IV~-'L.I.IB 3f{.I. ~ -~ - ~J C 5 s ~d<~ ~ 1 g5 4 ~ N g gg 7o~s ~ ~~ ~ 4~~ 633 3+~ €~ ~ ~~~ ~ i ~ a±I ~ _ • _~~~ C s _~ ~~,~ ~Q .°~ ~~~ t F ~~ ~~ ~..~ .- w q ~: wr ~- ~~ • ~~ i __~ I I I1 p I I I: I I: ~a, s PII f`ss6#s •I Q~ i~ omwaio7vra. K @@ ~3 ~ f 9 !~ ~. 4. j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ '~ {,rl i "iiiVVASV S~~NiHQIS~i ~ a~~ ~ `~ 19 ~ s~9 ?ex ~~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ 'I ~ ` i ~ ~F ~; ~t'Daytd',y I~(7.L'IiIV~'~,~~H.L E ~~i ~ ~ I ~ ~~3 B~; s ~ ~~-.~~` q~J~ ~ ~ j it ~ ~~ L3- sc~l; ~~ ~ ~~ :~ 4 ~~ E t/7 ~ ~~ y~R ~ ~~ 36 m • ~o -- ~ ~~~ ~[~ ~~K~ t ~ _ yea I i I v .r-'eq R7 -~ - ~ r - --- 'IiVA.LV S~7E~I~CIT5~2I ~ ~ ~z~ ~'~ ~~ z+a ~} ,'~ 3~ ~ ~~ SkOZ anv,r-Z.LI2I ~Ii.L ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~, I ~ ~~ ~' ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~E ' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ,• September 12, 2005 ?t1WN Dl' YAII. ' PROJECT ORIENTATION , Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm 1. Staff memorandums were discussed with Commission members; no direction given. MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Ann Gunion David Vlele 1. Boone Residence - 3094 Booth Falls Road 2. Ritz - 728 West Lionshead Circle Driver: Warren Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a final review of a variance from Section 12-6F-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow far a residential addifion within the setback, located at 3094 Booth Falls Road, Unit 1 (Booth Falls Mountain Homes)/l.ot 1, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 12, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Katie Boone Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved, with condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. This approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving Tawn oil Vail approval for the related design review application. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the Staff memorandum. There was no public comment or comment from the applicant. 2. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, 'Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Pemmi#ed and Conditional Uses; First Floor on Street Level, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 105 multi-family residential dwelling units, located at 728 West Lionshead GirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Corp., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to September 2fi„ 2005 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 Page 1 Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the Staff memorandum. The applicant's representatives, Jay Petersen and Bab Fitzgerald gave a presentation of the project which included a power paint presentation. Jeff Winston, the Town's consultant regarding the project, gave a presentation. Gil McNeish, the lawyer representing the Vail Spa, stated that his comments were as stated in his letter dated August 19, 2005. He added that he would have specific comments regarding the project at the following hearing. There was no other public comment. The Commission expressed that there were no concerns with the Conditional Use Permit that was being request for dwelling units on the first floor or garden level. The Commission continued by expressing concern regarding the height of the landmark tower. The general consensus was that a height of 140 feet was inappropriate. In addition, the Commission stated that the height of the screening element for the mechanicals had not been justified in the presentation and other options should be examined. The Commission was not comfortable with approving the height of the screening element over the maximum height of 82.5 feet. Finally the Commission expressed that they would like greater information regarding the flat roof maximum area requirement found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pfan. George Lamb and Chas Bernhardt expressed a need for the western elevation slang the Frontage Road to have step backs incorporated. 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a recommendation to the Vail Town Council far proposed text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations; Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; Title 14, Development Standards Handbook; Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections and clarifications to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to September 2fi, 2005 MOTION: FCjesbo SECONQ: Lamb VOTE: 5-0-0 Rachel Friede gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Members of the Commission had a few questions on various proposed text amendments, of which answers will be given at the next worksession. There was no public input. The item was tabled and further discussion will ensue, 4. A request far a recommendation to the Vail Town Cauncii of a text amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Vail Town Code; to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, to define the term "Time-Share Units" and to amend Section 12-6H-3, Conditional Uses, High Density Multiple-Family (NOME} District; Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, Public Accommodafion (PA} District; Section 12-7H- 4, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Second Floor and Above, Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District; and Section 12-71-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Basement or Garden Level, and. Section 12-71-8, Permitted and Conditional Uses, First Floor ar Street Level, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 {LMU-2) District, to replace the terms "fractional fee clubs", "fractional fee club units", "timeshare estate units°, "fractional fee units", and `°timeshare license units" with the term "time- share units", and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther AGTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SEGOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-4-0 George Ruther gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Page 2 There was no public input. Members of the Commission expressed support for text amendment, 5. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section '12-7B-5, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Above Second Flavr, Vail Town Code, to allow for the operation of a private club, located at 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Remonvv & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning Services, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled #o September 26, 2005 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-0-0 6. A request for a final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-3, Amendments, to increase the height limitation far a sloping roof from 48' to 5fi' in the Public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: George Ruttier ACTION: Tabled #v September 26, 2005 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-0-0 7. A request for final review of a fins[ plat, pursuant to Chapter f 3-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of the Conference Center development site; final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria for Deviations to the Architectural 17esign Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Black 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, Lots 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 ACTION: Tabled to September 26, 2005 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-0-0 8. A request far a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to September 26, 2005 MOTION; Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-0-0 9. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 1, Block 2, Vaii Lionshead Filing 1, Lot 3 and 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Applican#: Town of Vail, represen#ed by Pylman 8~ Associates, Inv. Planner: BIII Gibson ACTION: Withdrawn • Page 3 10. A request for a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Pian 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. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACT10N: Withdrawn 11. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6F-6, Setbacks, 12-6F-9, Site Coverage, 12-6F-10, Landscaping and Site Development., 12-fiF-11, Parking, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, Eocated at 4110 Spruce Way/Lot 24, Block. 8, Bighorn Addition 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant; Michael and Elizabeth Taggart Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Withdrawn 12. Approval of August 22, 2(305 minutes ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-0-0 13. Information Update 14. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Val Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 9, 2405, in the Vail Daily. r Page 4 • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ,~ September 26, 2005 TQ4V~'DF 49ii, . PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:pp pm 1. Staff memorandums were discussed with Commission members; na direction given. MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahi11 Anne Fehlner-Gunian Bill Jewitt George Lamb MEMBERS ABSENT David Viele Rollie Kjesbo Chas Bernhardt Site Visits: No site visits Public Hearing -Tawn Council Chambers 2.00 pm 9. A request far a final review of a flood plain modification, pursuant to Chapter 14-8, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the floodplain far a new water intake facility, located at 530 South Frontage Road, F'ard Parklunplatted, (a more complete metes and bounds description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard. Applicant: Tawn of Vail and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, represented by Mauriella Planning Group Planner: Sill Gibson ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 40-0 CONDITION(S): 1. The applicant shall submit a stamped Improvement Location Certificate and topographic survey, verifying the "as-bull#" conditions of the subject site to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to Town of Vail final construction inspection. 2. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvals.. 3. The applicant shall coordinate the construction schedule for this proposal with the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife. Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriella further explained the extent of the project, and stated that there would be no signifcant impact to the flaodplain. Linn Schorr, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, verified that the entire construction period would last no longer than six weeks. George Lamb ask~;d about the status of Arrny Carps approval, which was stated to be in process. Page 1 Doug Cahill asked about the size of the above grade structures, which was verified to be 42 inches tall and 90 inches wide. There was na public comment. 2. A request for a final review of a flood plain modification, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for grading within the fioodplain for a new water intake facility, located at 1600 South Frontage Raad, Donavan Park lower bench/ unplatted (a more complete metes and bounds description is available at the Cammuni#y Development Department, and setting forth details in regard. Applicant: Town of Vail and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with conditions 1MAOTION; Jewitt SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 4-Q-Q 1. The applicant shall submit a stamped Improvement Location Certificate and topographic survey, verifying the "as-built" conditions of the subject site to the Tawn of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to Town of Vain final construction inspection.. ~. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvails. 3. The applicant shag coordinate the construction schedule for this proposal with the State of Colorado Division of Vllildlife, This item was reviewed concurrently with agenda item #1. 3. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-71-6, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for a public utility and public service use, located at 862 South Frontage Road (Vail Resorts Maintenance 5ite)lunplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Xcel Energy, represented by AI Morganfield Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approved MOTION: ,Jewitt SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 4-©-~Q Elisabeth Eckel presented the project according to the staff memorandum. AI Morganfield, Excel Energy, presented an overview of the proposal. Commissioner Lamb noted the similarities of this proposal to the gas regulation shed on the golf CflurSe. Commissioner Cahill asked Mr. Morganfield to describe how the structure would be protected from vehicles. There was na public comment. 4, A request for a recammendatian to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Tawn Code, to allow fora major amendment to Special Development District No. 22, Grand Traverse, modifying the GRFA calculations for the District; Page 2 ' increasing the number of lots for the District; and a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4-2, Procedure, Vail Town Code, to modify the size of Lot 5, Amended Final Plat, DauphinaislMosely Subdivision Filing 1, a resubdivision of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Grand Traverse Homeowner's Association, represented by Pat Dauphinais Planner: 1Narren Campbell Amendment o SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Jewi#t SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 4-0-0 Minor Subdivision ACT10N: Approved with conditionjs) MOTION: Jewitt SEC©ND: Lamb VOTE: 4-0-0 CONDITIONS): 1. That the applicant not record the proposed plat, Amended Final Plaf: A Resubdivision of Lat 5. A~-rlended Final Plat. Dauohinars=Moseley Subdivision Filina 7: A Resubdivision of Lots 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. and 1U, until both readings of an ordinance to amend SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse, without GRFA limitations has be adopted by Town Council. If an ordinance to adopt SDD No. 22, Grand Traverse, without GRI=A limitations is not approved by Town Council that a GRFA limitation on the new Lot 5 and 7 will be 3,157 square feet for each lot and the SDD will be amended and adopted according to Town of Vail Code. 2. That the applicant revise the title of the plat to state Amended Final Plat: A Resubdivision of Lot 5. Amended Final Plat- f?ariohinais-Moseley Subdivision Filina ?: A Resubdivision of Lots 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. anti i0 and replace the Town Council signature block with the correct Planning and Environmental Commission signature block prior to submitting the mylar copies for recording. Warren Campbell presented the project according to the memorandum. Pat Dauphinais, the applicant, reiterated the request and expressed that the Staff memorandum was very detailed and thorough. Chuck Baker, a homeowner, expressed the desire to be able to do with his home (within the Grand Traverse) what others have been able to do within his subdivision. He commented that the changes that had been made to the GRFA regulations were not applicable to homeowners within the Grind Traverse subdivision. The Commissioners voiced support for both applications. They felt that the SDD had sufficient regulations {building height, setbacks, site coverage, garage orientation, and architectural controls) contained within the document to control the bulk, mass, height, and character of the structures which remained to be built and any additions to existing structures. Several members expressed concern that if GRFA was eliminated for the Town as a whole, more control would need to be given to the Design Review Board to advise homeowners and architects regarding design (bulk and mass, box-like structures). George Lamb specifically commented that he has always been an advocate of simplifying GRFA regulations. ~ The governing aspects of home size should be setbacks and site coverage (perhaps a variable measurement, based on lot size), making this issue an ideal scenario for determining how effective those governors would need to be in the event that GRFA was eliminated for the Tawn as a whole in the future. Page 3 5. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Basement or Garden Level, and 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor an Street Level, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 106 multi-family residential dwelling units (Ritr-Carlton Residences), located at 728 West Lionshead CirclelLot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Corp., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION:. Tabbed to October 10, 2005 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewiitt VOTE: 4-0-0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the memorandum. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, further presented the changes that had been made to the propose! since the previous PEC hearing. Bob Fitzgerald, the applicants architect, presented three options (scenarios} of the proposal which addressed the Commission`s concerns in different manners. Option A was the initial building presented on September 12~'. Option C reduced the landmark tower to 124 feet in height, eliminated the mechanical screening and reduced the flat-roofed areas of the structure. Option B was a hybrid between ©ptions A and C, which depicted the landmark tower at a height of 120 feet, reduced the mechanical screening on the main ridge, and reduced the flat-roofed portions of the building. Jay Peterson pointed out that the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan paid little attention to rooftop mechanical equipment other than stating that it should be screened. Bill Jewitt commented that Option B was preferable to Option C. While the maximum height is being exceeded in Option B, at least additional head height would not result as it does in Option C. He commented that perhaps screening elements should be considered when dealing with maximum height calculations were performed to determine average height. He stated that he would be more comfortable if there was a mare specific regulation within the Master Plan addressing mechanical equipment and the screening thereof. Russ Forrest responded that it would be wise to consider the nature of the screening element, regarding whether ar not it created a ridgeline or not. Jeff Winston asked about the height overage within Option B which was verified to be between two and six feet higher than the maximum allowable height with six or eight inches between the ridge and the mechanical equipment an the inside. The screening roof was designed to appear more as a screen than as a roof. From an architectural standpoint, a pattern was desired for the smaller roof 4all questions answered by 4240). Jeff Winston also queried about whether this is a screening method that could be applied to the remainder of the Town. Jeff suggested devising a number that represents the amount of flat roof proposed (say, 20°/a) and then having the architect work with that standard instead of the b00 square feat maximum flat roof requirement. Anne Gunion commented that enough regulations, or safeguards, were in place to insure that mechanical screening abuse would not occur on other projects as they would need to pass PEC and DRB review. Commissioner Gunion suggested that flat roofs be viewed as options for other uses, such as rooftop terraces, etc, which can be used extremely effectively. She concluded by suggesting that perhaps a "cascading roof effect" could be integrated at the southeast elevation as well as it was incorporated into the southwest elevation. Page 4 Gil McNeish, representing Vail Spa, commented that the existing codes and master plans were already being used by the developer for basic guidance in this development. He expressed some cvncerp that the development was not being viewed in the context of other neighboring buildings. He encouraged the Town to evaluate this proposal by placing more emphasis on creative solutions than code directives. He also expressed some concern regarding views to thje mountain which would be impacted by the new development. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, commented that it would be good for the Town to have the proposal rendered digitally into the overall digital model for Lionshead. Jay Peterson inquired whether other issues should be reviewed by the applicant prior to the next meeting. George Lamb answered that much progress had been made with the tower element. He added that he did feel confined, as a member of the Planning Commission, by the 82.5 foot height requirement. Doug Cahill requested tv see examples of the transparent material proposed for the roo# farm. Changes to the tower height were good, he agreed. 6. A request for a worksessivn to discuss a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed text amendments to Title 11, Sign Regulations; Title 12, Zoning Regulations; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations; Title 14, Development Standards Handbook; Vail Town Code, for proposed corrections and clarifieations.to the Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to October 10, 2005 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 40-0 7. A request for a final review of a variance, from Sections 12-6F-8, Density, and 12-6F-11, Parking, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 4114 Spruce Way/Lot 24, Block 8, Bighorn Addition 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael and Elizabeth Taggart Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Tabled to October 10, 2005 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 4-0-0 $. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-7B~5, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Above Second Floor, Vail Town Code, to allow for the operation of a private club, Located at 333 Hanson Ranch RoadlLot C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Remonav & Company, Inc., represented by Knight Planning cervices, Inc. Planner: 1Narren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to October 10, 20D5 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 4-0-0 9. A request for a final review of a text amendment to Section 12-7A-7, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant tv Chapter 12-3, Amendments, to increase the height limitation for a sloping roof from 48' to 56' in the Public Accommodation zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: .George Ruther Page 5 ACTION: Tabled to October 10, 2405 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:4-0-0 1©. A request for final review afi a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Mlinor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of the Conference Genter development site; final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures; and final review of architectural deviations, pursuant to Section 8.3.3.A, Review Criteria far Deviations to the Architectural Design Guidelines for New Development, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, 6ocated at 395 East Lionshead Girclel Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, Lot 3 and 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regand thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 10, 2045 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 40-0 11. A request for a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant;: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to October 10, 2005 MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 4-0-0 12. A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and Site Coverage, 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a garage, located at 1771 Alpine DrivelLot 38, Vail Village West Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Susan Bird Planner: Elisabeth Ecke] ACTION: Tabled to Na~ember 28, 2445 ' MOTION: Lamb SECOND; Jewitt VOTE: 4-4-0 13. Approval of September 12, 2005 minutes ACTION: NO ACTION DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM 34. Information Update 15. Adjournment ACTION: Adjourned at 4:20pm MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 4-4-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular vfisce hours at the Town of Vail Communi#y Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please tail (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call {970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department Published September 23, 2005, in the Vail Daily. • Page 6 ~n Q ~ S.v ~~~ ~~ C Q G ~ m 3om ~ W ~ a ~~~$ ,~ ~ ~z Q aW~ yy o c ~m ~ '~o 7 H ~ > ~.~,mm4 ~ '~ 4 ~ sv m =~u0-~ W C %1.7 tL ~' O ~' N ~ ~ G L p > O :~ O a v ~ O ~ .~ C .~ ro ~ ~ a C vs ~ ~ ~ .~ ~. Q rq c3 ~ t ~ ~~ ~ b ~ Y~ N L L G ~~ .C O 'L] ~ ~ ~ ~ cd ~-' a' ~ ~ C7. ~ ~ v O • C/) en ' 3 ~' ~ ~ N :: 'mss ~ ~ c ;~ 'i `-~~ c eC ~ W ~ O ~ a ~ ~ v ~ v O Q 0^ •` i ~ N ~'.O ?r y O L _ ~ ~ O C' ~ L ?~ ~ a, 33 N O . `i' ~:. Ri .~ C ~ `~ L a7 ~ ~ a~ rn ey ~ CL ice. ~ L ~ V :~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a~fl ~ ar ~ o ti c ~ y '~ L = L ,,,~ ~ ~ ~ 9.) rVr^1 ~ ~ _"~ ~ U f~ ~ i.. O.o G *~'~ s d i3 c~ r y a `~ L ~ ~ Q 3 3~i''~ O ~~~ ~, ~ o p ~ ~ ay c ay c~ u O '*.. a U ~ ~'ti~C.70_`~_ ~ c~ 1 O ~ ~~.~~~~~~ A ° ~ 'CS ~ `ty T ~ L .~ O ~ -p. O Q ~ O'vGi i:~ CLS~.'x C `~ ~ ~„' j C ~ L L:..C r9 .~ L Q _T ~~ 71 ..? ~ ~ G d ~ "" ~ C L ~ ty G. 4 ~ U e.:Q.~ ~ °~FU ~ c c~~ :~ c T VJ 0 L G.. O 3 v .~ c 0 N ,D a cn >-, c6 °O r, cia O O ~l C'Sv C3 R.. n 0 N ~--i v r x c~ C O O U T rr__ ~~~fr~~~ l/~ ~v~ ~ ~v. ~~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a' ~`, _ ' ~ Y • ~ c..) • db., ~ cry ; 4 `fin:'-•.,..••'`G;~