Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-0711 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 11, 2011 O1:00 pm TOM TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT SITE VISITS 1. Lotker — 2664 Larkspur Lane 25 minutes 1. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deck addition within the front setback, located at 2664 Larkspur Lane /Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Intermountain, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110038) Applicant: Marc & Riette Lotker, represented by Michael Maggini Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 20 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for changes to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Map, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation, Town of Vail Land Use Plan, to allow for a land use category change from Medium Density Residential to Open Space; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning from Medium Density Multiple Family District to Outdoor Recreation District, located at 715 North Frontage Road (parking lot of Red Sandstone Park) /Part of Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110039) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 3. A request for the review of a variance, pursuant to Section 14 -1 -5, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 14 -10 -5, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of solar panels extending higher than one foot above the building ridgeline, located at 4918 Meadow Drive, Unit A/Lot 16, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision Fifth Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100046) Applicant: Warren Dean, represented by Capitol Solar Energy Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Table to August 8, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 4. A request for the review of a preliminary plan and a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the existing Parcels A through F and Units 1 through 3 of the Residences at Briar Patch, and the creation of Parcels G and H of the Residences at Briar Patch for the purposes of preserving open space and mitigating high severity rockfall hazards, located at 1446 Buffehr Creek Road; 1386, 1388, and 1390 Briar Patch Lane; 1374 and 1378 Sandstone Drive /Lots G2, G5, and G6, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2 (Residences at Briar Patch), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110034) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson Page 1 ACTION: Table to July 25, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for corrections to Section 12 -6F -3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow communications antennas and appurtenant equipment as a conditional use in the Low Density Multiple Family Districts; and for prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for corrections to Section 12 -6E -2, Permitted Uses; Section 12 -6F -2, Permitted Uses; Section 12 -6G -2, Permitted Uses; and Section 12 -13 -4, Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type, Vail Town Code, to allow Type III Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as a permitted use in the Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF), and Medium Density Multiple Family (MDMF) Districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110023) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Table to July 25, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 6. A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -5, Conditional Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of-way/U n platted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080063) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to August 22, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 7. A request for a work session on a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of-way/U nplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to August 22, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 8. Approval of June 27, 2011 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 9. Information Update 10. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular Page 2 office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published July 8, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 3 111 ]�Jl► 1 [�1� 0 VAIL � To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: June 27, 2011 Memorandum Subject: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deck addition within the front setback, located at 2664 Larkspur Lane /Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Intermountain, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110038) Applicant: Marc & Riette Lotker, represented by Michael Maggini Planner: Rachel Dimond I. SUMMARY The applicants, Marc & Riette Lotker, represented by Michael Maggini, are requesting a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deck addition within the front setback, located at 2664 Larkspur Lane /Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Intermountain. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. For reference, the attachments include a vicinity map (Attachment A), the applicant's letter to the PEC (Attachment B), architectural plans (Attachment C) and photos of the existing structure (Attachment D). II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance from the front setback requirements to facilitate a deck addition and remodel. The proposed deck material will be wood with open vertical rails, except for the western deck wall, which is proposed to be a solid wood wall six feet in height. The proposed deck addition and remodel will include a wrap- around deck that spans approximately 65 feet along the front of the house (north side), which will increase the deck from 488 square feet to 813 square feet. The minimum front setback for structures in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary (PS) District is twenty (20) feet and decks over five (5) feet above grade may encroach up to five (5) feet into the setback, per Section 14 -10 -4: Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Vail Town Code. For clarity, the structure setback will be referred to as the setback while the allowable encroachment into the setback will be referred to as the deck setback. The northeast corner of the existing deck encroaches less than one (1) foot into the 15 foot front deck setback, with a total of less than three (3) square feet in the deck setback. The northeast corner of the proposed deck will encroach up to 4.56 feet into the deck setback for a total of 103 square feet in the deck setback. Of the 813 square feet of proposed deck area, 710 square feet do not encroach into the deck setback. The plans also note proposed storage under the deck, but this is actually existing storage to be rebuilt and further reviewed for compliance with GRFA regulations in conjunction with the design review application. III. BACKGROUND The subject single family residence was constructed in 1980 under Eagle County jurisdiction. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail through Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1987, effective June 24, 1987. At the time of annexation, the property was legally nonconforming, with the northeast corner of the property built into the front setback and the deck in the front deck setback. The lot size is also legally nonconforming. The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that construction of a structure prior to annexation or the adoption of the current zoning regulations may be a basis for granting a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. On April 22, 1985, a side setback variance was requested and approved to facilitate a 100 square foot addition for an expanded home office. However, this addition that would have encroached 6 feet into the side (east) setback was never built. In 1999, the house was remodeled, with stucco added to the exterior of the structure. In 2001, the wood - burning fireplace was replaced with a gas fireplace that altered the chimney and deck area slightly. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12: Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) 12 -6C: TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R) DISTRICT 12 -6C -1: PURPOSE: The two - family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single- family or two - family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same zone district. The two - family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single- family and two - family occupancy, and to Town of Vail Page 2 maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12 -6D -6: SETBACKS: In the primary /secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15) Chapter 12 -17: VARIANCES 12 -17 -1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16 , "Conditional Use Permits ", and by section 12 -3 -7 , 'Amendment ", of this title. Title 14: Development Standards, Vail Town Code (in part) 14 -10 -4: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS, DECKS, BALCONIES, STEPS, BAY WINDOWS, ETC.: C. Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features projecting from a structure at a height of more than five feet (5) above ground level may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one -half ( 1 12) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one - fourth ( 1 14) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. Town of Vail Page 3 V. SITE ANALYSIS Physical Address: Legal Address: Zoning Designation: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Lot Size: Geologic Hazards: 2664 Larkspur Lane Lot 4, Block 1, Subdivision Fifth Addition Two Family Residential Low Density Residential Residential 0.2081 acres/ 9,065 square feet None Development Standard Allowed /Required Existin Proposed Lot size (min): Frontage (min) 15,000 sq. ft 30 ft. 80x80ft. square 9,065 sq. ft 69 ft. meets req't No change No change No change GRFA (max): 4,170 sq. ft. 2,591 sq.ft. No change Site Coverage (max): 1,813 sq. ft. (20 %) 1,097 sq.ft. (12 %) No change Landscape Area (min): 5,439 sq. ft. (60 %) 6,833 sq. ft. (75 %) No change Setbacks (min): Front setback 20 ft. 18 ft. No change Rear setback 15 ft. 51 ft. No change Side setback (east) 15 ft. 17 ft. No change Side setback (west) 15 ft. 32 ft. No change Deck setbacks for decks above 5 feet from grade (min): N/A denotes no applicable decks are present or proposed. Front setback 15 ft. 14 ft. 10 ft. Rear setback 10 ft. N/A N/A Side setback (east) 10 ft. N/A 10 ft. Side setback (west) 10 ft. 14 ft. 14 ft. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES North South East West Land Use Zone District Residential Two Family Residential Residential Two Family Residential Residential Two Family Residential Residential Two Family Residential Town of Vail Page 4 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed deck addition is associated with an existing residence originally constructed in 1980. The lot was annexed into the Town of Vail on June 24, 1987, and was immediately legally non - conforming. Both the existing lot and the existing residence are non - conforming in regard to several of the provisions of the Town's zoning regulations, including front setback and lot size. The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that construction of a structure prior to annexation or the adoption of the current zoning regulations may be a basis for granting a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. Staff believes the applicant is proposing a deck addition on an existing non - conforming dwelling in a manner that is in keeping with the general character and architectural style of the neighborhood. Staff does not believe this proposal will have any significant negative impacts on nearby existing or potential uses and structures in comparison to the existing conditions. Most of the residences in the Intermountain neighborhood were built under Eagle County jurisdiction. Many of these homes were legally nonconforming with respect to lot size, setbacks and site coverage upon annexation into the Town of Vail. Due to this lack of conformity with the current zoning standards throughout the neighborhood, an upper level deck encroachment will not seem out of place with the neighborhood. The proposed deck is 7 feet from the property line, but is 34 feet from the edge of road due to an larger than average right -of -way. 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. Typically, extensive decks are located in the rear of structures, but in this case, steep slopes prevent such private deck areas. In this case, the only outdoor space is on the front of the house. Most structures in the vicinity have outdoor space, either at grade, on upper level decks, or both. The expanded deck will allow this property to enjoy similar treatment to other properties in the vicinity. Staff finds that the requested variance as proposed provides too much relief from the strict interpretation of the setback regulations than necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. The deck setback rules generally assume that a structure will be built to the setback and decks at least five (5) feet above grade will extend five (5) feet from the structure to provide exterior space. The northeast corner of the existing structure encroaches 2.25 feet into the front setback, which would only allow for the deck to be 2.25 feet deep at the northeast corner in order to be compliant with the regulations. Town of Vail Page 5 However, Staff believes the portion of the deck that requires a front setback variance should only be five (5) feet deep in order to meet the intent of the deck setback regulations to avoid a granting of special privilege. Staff recommends a condition that would limit the variance to allow the deck to be built up to 2.25 feet into the deck setback to provide compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Numerous other properties within the Vail Intermountain Subdivision have requested and been granted approval of similar setback and site coverage variances due to the location of the structures on each lot, including, but not limited to the following cases: Year Address Legal Description Variance Description 1987 2664 Larkspur Ln Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Intermountain Front setback variance for g arage 1996 2704 Larkspur Lane Lot 5, Block 3, Vail Intermountain Side setback for garage 1998 2625 Larkspur Lane Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Intermountain Front, side and rear setbacks 2000 2865 Snowberry Dr Lot 2, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Front setback 2004 2714 Larkspur Ln Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Intermountain Side Setback, site coverage and landscapin 2004 2830 Basin dale Blvd Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Front setback 2010 2712 Kinnikinnick Ct Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Intermountain Front setback, site coverage for garage 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff finds the requested variance has no effect on distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety, as the deck will not increase the number of people likely to live in this single - family residence. However, Staff finds the requested variance effects light and air, with an expanded deck area reducing light and air access to the lower level of the house, but will not have any effect on neighboring properties with respect to light and air. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval with modifications of the request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deck addition within the front setback, located at 2664 Larkspur Lane /Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Intermountain, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following motion: Town of Vail Page 6 "Based on the evidence and testimony presented at this hearing and the review criteria in Section VII of this memorandum, the Planning and Environmental Commission hereby approves the request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a deck addition within the front setback, located at 2664 Larkspur Lane /Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Intermountain, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this application, Staff recommends the Commission make the following modifications: 1. Upon further review and approval by the Design Review Board, the applicant is granted a variance to allow the northeast corner of the deck to encroach up to 2.25 feet into the deck setback, or 7.25 feet into the setback, with a minimum deck distance of 10.5 feet from the property line. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this application, Staff recommends the Commission make the following findings: "Based on the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone 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 or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Request C. Architectural Plans D. Photos Town of Vail Page 7 Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision Block 1, Lot 4 (2664 Larkspur Lane) s uc��� f rM1 =ma,.as—byth —of 1ci T- us o-mea —xa g—ww Ny. rrorow�a-do«�m�.atime :a, «r-na�mer e Feet (— SAw.o-r �w wiseowo: d�1 0 1 5 50 100 Last Modified: July 7, 2011 7tlWN© 9N, June 28, 2011 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission RE: Deck: Replacement and Addition, 2664 Larkspur Lane, Intermountain Dev. Sub. Dear Board Members: The initial design work for the proposed deck replacement started based the original drawings and the prior legally non - conforming condition that existed in 1981. A new 7 foot wide deck is proposed on the east side of the building that is completely in compliance with the current TOV codes. There is a fireplace enclosure and an operable window existing at/near the northeast (front) corner where the new 7 foot wide deck is proposed to access the east deck. The front deck will extent approximately 4.1 feet further into the setback than is allowed. We would like to see this deck design approved by variance. As can be seen in Figure 1, there are several neighboring instances, where the set backs have been encroached. The actual residences on the three lots, across the street, encroach into the set back between 5 and 10 feet each. We would merely like to place the proposed deck approximately 4 feet (4.1 ft.) into the set back (5 feet farther than allowed at the east end, while the west end remains well within in the 5 feet allowed). As can be seen from the views up and down the street (Figures 2 through 9), the proposed deck addition does not appear to interfere with any other lots view corridors. And referring further to Figure 1, it would seem that this new deck proposal fits well with the existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed deck(s) will use new dark sky fixtures and /or down lit soffits lighting and step lights, replacing the bare bulb flood light in use now. The proposed deck will shield the neighborhood from the interior lighting of the residence. The new deck will also provide a sound barrier for both the residence and the neighborhood. There are many set back variances throughout West Vail and Intermountain (especially along Vermont Road, Bassingdale Blvd. and Kinnikinnick Road). The proposed allowance would seem to have a minimal impact on the neighborhood in general. And it would have a much smaller impact than is currently present in other parts of the neighborhood. The fact that the proposed deck is over 26 feet higher than, and over 30 from the edge of Larkspur Lane would seem to indicate that there would be very little, if any, detrimental impact on the neighborhood. The proposed deck would allow the owners to utilize the outdoor views (Figure 11) and experiences that are available to the entire neighborhood. I would like to repeat that the proposed deck was designed without the knowledge that it would encroach into the current set back limits. The 7 foot width was chosen to partially accommodate the narrowing effect of the fireplace enclosure and to match the continuity of the proposed east deck. In closing I would like to make it clear that the owner would like to be able to work with the Town to make this deck addition work to both of their positions. The northeast corner of the residence is, far and away, the most desirable location take advantage of everything that the neighborhood has to offer. Respectfully submitted: Michael Maggini (Owner Representative) PROPERTY LINE BLOCK 2 c - APPROX. 20 FT. "I nn — -/ PROPERTY LINE BLOCK 1 APPROX. 20 FT. 1 Figure 1: Copy of Eagle County CIS 2011. Overlayed are the locations where the following photos (Figures 2 -9) were taken. Also noted are the approximate location of the proposed deck, lot lines & the 20 ft. setbacks. CD C� CD N r 0 O Q (D Q 77 Tii t 00 0 � N Q <. C) Q CD Q Q rr � n Q rH /n om � V / O O F n D Q Fn O n �(D Lm "'� `'� a •;� ='; . gip. ; . �3�'•.'f r � 00 0 � N Q <. C) Q CD Q Q rr � n Q rH /n om � V / O O F n D Q Fn O n �(D Lm "'� `'� a •;� ='; . Figure 4: Taken from far edge of parking area across the street at 2665 Larkspure Lane (Lot 4 BIk. 2). (Facing south.) 11----- - - - - -- + - - -- H - - - -- w� II II l � Figure 5: Figure 4 with proposed new deck. O CD O U O O O O N O m O O N � O N c C) cn O � � O O LL cn Irl 4 1 [O N O n O n C CD N LL N LL Figure 8: 2618 (Lot Larkspure Taken from 8, Blk. 1) & Lane. (Facing center of 2645 (Lot west) road between 4, BIk. 2) Figure 9: With proposed new deck. Figure 10: New railing to be railing shown (2685 Larkspu Subject to condition in IBC and guards) similar r (Lot 8, 1607.7.1 to the BIk. 2). (Handrails Figure 11: New view facing NE from proposed new deck. U C Z n w m a w _Z c N Z N O Ed X O C, N O U Z c m - Z 6) O Q 0 Q w m a n a w Ga � A � A W � W < a p E-1 a � o � a E- -�t� W ��o E 0 a ISSUED PRELIM. 5/29/11 REVD.: 6/28/11 shee - / / \ \t . 0 ALL NEW RAILINGS SHALL CONFORM TO IBC 1607.7.1 = e I I I I I I I I I I I I fff� EAST LOT LINE 6 FT. TALL SOLID RAILING (TO MATCH EXISTING) 1 LARKSPUR ERNE DRIVE WRY L --------- - - - - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - BOTTOM OF PROPOSE DECK IS OVER 25 FT. ABOVE THE CURBING AT NEAR SIDE OF ROAD VERIFY STORAGE AREA WE LOFT BELOW DECK STUCCO WALLS WE WOOD DOORS TO MATCH EXISTING - L---- 1 - - - - DRIVE WRY NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" — 1' -0" - -J U C Z n w m a w _Z Z F_ No mm w m x I C , N 0 U _Z Q 0 Q w m a n a w X1 W � W a O r-4 o a � maw W ��o E c� o 0 a ISSUED PRELIM. 5/29/11 REVD.: 6/28/11 sheet A3.0 ' p i D, o I ° a / a ALL NEW RAILINGS SHALL CEINFEIRM III IBC 1607.7.1 I� II t I I I - -J I I I 1 -- II_T_1L ------------------------ - - - - -- - -L1 —J r -0 ' 0 iwe �or � 0 D D P o I I I I I rL1� I I I I Z 34+ FEET DISTANCE FROM PROPOSE DECK TO NEAR SIDE ROAD CURBING BOTTOM OF PROPOSE DECK IS OVER 25 FT. ABOVE THE NEAR SIDE ROAD CURBING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY TELEPHONE & CABLE ., PEDISTAL APPROX. ELEVATION THE NEAR SIDE OF LARKSPUR LANE EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" LARKSPUR LANE Z n w m a w _Z Z N O w N X O N O U z � C° _ z o+ ° a °a w m a n a w w> W z aa E-1 a Z O � O � a (� a GT, E-a O a ISSUED PRELIM. 5/29/11 sheet All NOTE: NEW DECKING TO BE EVERGRAIN COMPOSITE DECKING MADE BY TAMKO PRODUCT (CEDAR COLOR) NEW HANDRAIL TO BE SIMILAR IN DESIGN AS SHOWN IN ATACHED PHOTO (FIGURE 10) 2685 LARKSPUR LN. ALL NEW RAILINGS SHALL CONFORM TO IBC 1607. 7.1 2X4 FRAMED WALL P BETWEEN POSTS W/ D T &O 1 INSIDE LINI HANDRAIL SEE DETAIL S -X. WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" — , ° —O" i J / d Z n w m a w 0 O ° m _Z c N Z F_ No mm w X O N O U Z C I _ Z 0) O Q 0 Q w m a n a w W � � A � A W � W <I a p E-1 a � o � a E- -�t� W ��o E 0 a ISSUED PRELIM. 5/29/11 REVD.: 6/28/11 sheet A3.2 r 1 VERIFY L - -J Topographic Survey VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado Lot 4, Block 1 / wooD � / 9 0 \ A 6 5 A= 15'51'40" R= 250.00 T-34.83 L =69.21 CB= N11'24'53 "E CH-68.99 �� o — 'U" FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT p 0 eso 06 r /g eo `90� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lai 4, Block 1, Vail Ini erm ouniain Subdivision, according the Final Plai of VVU Intermountain Su bdlvlslon, Block 1. Recorded October, 01, 1970, In Book No. 218, Page No. 281 at Reception No. 114403 In the CITY- of the E19Ie County Clerk and Recorder, Eagle County. Colorado. NOTES: 1) DATE OF SURVEY: May 21, 2011, 2) Street Address: 2564 Larkspur Lane (posted 3) La U., of Improve —U, and lot Fines a e based ­ , me above — referenced P-1 nm Plat and Survey Monuments found at the time of t11, 5 vey as shown 1l ereon. 'U' Survey does oat o...FITte a boundary survey n any .... tlga1b' tofu record easements or encambrance. aee.Lmted wim thyrsp 4) Thrs rs oat o man ment,d survey, Lund Survey Plat. o Improvement Survey plot No boundar y,esol utlon was performed in making this survey, All lot Iln es, setback Imes, and eni lines shown hereon should be considered approximate and should not be relied Upon LOT5 f,, the placement of an future improve "I' 5) This lot may be subject to additional setback requirements per the town of Minturn. FF =91 -0 � h � ^ N / IdlC I 90.4 \ FF =100' ' s / ^ / / / MULTI LEVEL 1 WOOD FRAME 1003 e -0' Q �T..9 91 -0 DWELLING F o as 90 1905 \ �u 'T'2— \/ �\ 0 ¢ 02 2 — / / � /// / S. 0T 3 ]LOT 4 0.2081 AC. 4 so\ m GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET NOTICE: According to Colorado law you MUST c any legal action based upon any defect in ills s vey with in e ill— years after SIT first dlscovered —1 d,fA,U, In n o —t. . may any action based upon any defect in Uhl, s veybe c ced more Ilan ten years from the date of certification shown FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT 1.5' ALUMINUM CAP ON )j5 REBAR STAMPED LSg 6) TI11s survey was formed without IUI old of a title um U 1 7) Slie Benchmark was the upper (loo, level based at 100- 8) Contour Interval: 2 I. Patrick J. Quenon, a Registered Professional Land Su,veya, In the State of Colorado, lereby certify that ibis TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY was done by me or under my direct supervision, and that iF was performed using the standard .... and pr 11- used in the area at the time of the Survey. The Notes hereon are a part of 1115 Ce,ll(ICaU- Patrick J. Ouen on P. L. S- 37924 oaenan En —r, and sa,ve LLC. Colorado P,ofeesonm Land Surveyor oQP pJ . RtGlS.� FF / ONAI . LAN� SJQ ( / I 0 0T 3 ]LOT 4 0.2081 AC. 4 so\ m GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET NOTICE: According to Colorado law you MUST c any legal action based upon any defect in ills s vey with in e ill— years after SIT first dlscovered —1 d,fA,U, In n o —t. . may any action based upon any defect in Uhl, s veybe c ced more Ilan ten years from the date of certification shown FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT 1.5' ALUMINUM CAP ON )j5 REBAR STAMPED LSg per 7) Slie Benchmark was the upper (loo, level based at 100- 8) Contour Interval: 2 I. Patrick J. Quenon, a Registered Professional Land Su,veya, In the State of Colorado, lereby certify that ibis TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY was done by me or under my direct supervision, and that iF was performed using the standard .... and pr 11- used in the area at the time of the Survey. The Notes hereon are a part of 1115 Ce,ll(ICaU- Patrick J. Ouen on P. L. S- 37924 oaenan En —r, and sa,ve LLC. Colorado P,ofeesonm Land Surveyor oQP pJ . RtGlS.� FF / ONAI . LAN� SJQ ( / I 0 rowN of vain TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 11, 2011 Memorandum SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for changes to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Map, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation, Town of Vail Land Use Plan, to allow for a land use category change from Medium Density Residential to Open Space; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning from Medium Density Multiple Family District to Outdoor Recreation District, located at 715 North Frontage Road (parking lot of Red Sandstone Park) /Part of Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110039) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting a land use category amendment from Medium Density Residential to Open Space and a zone district boundary amendment, from Medium Density Multiple - Family District to Outdoor Recreation District, for the Town of Vail owned property located at 715 North Frontage Road. The subject property is the parking lot for the Red Sandstone Park. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII and VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of these applications subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Town of Vail, is requesting a land use category amendment from Medium Density Residential to Open Space and a zone district boundary amendment, from Medium Density Multiple - Family District to Outdoor Recreation District, for the Town of Vail owned property located at 715 North Frontage Road. The subject property is the parking lot for the Red Sandstone Park. The purpose of this request is to apply the same zoning to the subject parking lot as the existing public park. A vicinity map (Attachment A) and proposed zoning map change (Attachment B) have been attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The subject property was previously owned by Bob Lazier, developer of the adjacent Sun Vail Condominiums. The subject property has the same Land Use Plan designation and zoning as this residential development. With the previous owner's permission, the Town of Vail used the subject property to provide parking for the adjacent Red Sandstone Park. In 2010, Mr. Lazier approached the Town of Vail with a proposal to sell the subject property. Pursuant to Resolution No. 20, Series of 2010, the Town of Vail purchased the subject from Mr. Lazier on July 30, 2010. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS There is no mention of the subject property in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) Chapter II - Land Use Plan Goals / Policies (in part) 1. General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. Chapter VI — Proposed Land Use (in part) MDR — Medium Density Residential. The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/ public uses such as parks and open space, churches and fire stations. Town of Vail Page 2 OS — Open Space Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainage ways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 40% are also included in this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be institutional /public uses. Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) Article 6 -G: Medium Density Multiple - Family District (in part) 12 -6G -1: Purpose. The medium density multiple- family district is intended to provide sites for multiple- family dwellings at densities to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The medium density multiple- family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with multiple- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, and where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district. Article 8 -B: Outdoor Recreation District (in part) Section 12 -88 -1: Purpose. The outdoor recreation district is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses. V. SITE ANALYSIS Zoning: Medium Density Multiple Family District Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential Mapped Geological Hazards: None Lot Area: Approximately 0.49 acres VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use Zone District Land Use Designation North: Residential Medium Density Multiple - Family Medium Density Residential South: Hwy 6 / 170 n/a n/a West: Residential Outdoor Recreation Open Space East: Residential Medium Density Multiple - Family Medium Density Residential Town of Vail Page 3 VII. LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY CHANGE CRITERIA Before acting on a land use plan amendment application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to this proposal: 1. How conditions have changed since the Land Use Plan was adopted. The subject property was previously owned by Bob Lazier, developer of the adjacent Sun Vail Condominiums. The subject property has the same Land Use Plan designation and zoning as this residential development. With the previous owner's permission, the Town of Vail used the subject property to provide parking for the adjacent Red Sandstone Park. In 2010, Mr. Lazier approached the Town of Vail with a proposal to sell the subject property. Pursuant to Resolution No. 20, Series of 2010, the Town of Vail purchased the subject from Mr. Lazier on July 30, 2010. 2. How the Land Use Plan is in error. Staff does not believe the Vail Land Use Plan is in error. As identified in this memorandum, conditions have changed since the adoption of the plan. 3. How the change to the Land Use Plan is in concert with the Plan in general. Staff does not believe the subject property is the appropriate location for future residential development. Instead, Staff believes the site should be incorporated into the Red Sandstone Park. Staff believes the existing parking lot for the public park is more consistent with the description of the Open Space plan category than the Medium Density Residential plan category as outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. VIII. ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT CRITERIA Before acting on a zone district boundary amendment application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to this proposal: 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. Staff believes a rezoning of the subject property to the Outdoor Recreation District is consistent with the associated Vail Land Use Plan amendment to identify the subject property as Open Space. Town of Vail Page 4 The subject property is currently zoned Medium Density Residential District. Staff does not believe the subject property is the appropriate location for future residential development. While public parks are allowed as a conditional use in the Medium Density Multiple - Family District as outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, Staff believes the subject parking lot and the Red Sandstone Park should have the same zoning. Therefore, Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets this review criterion. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents. Staff believes a rezoning of the subject property to the Outdoor Recreation District is consistent with the associated Vail Land Use Plan amendment to identify the subject property as Open Space. Staff believes the existing parking lot for Red Sandstone Park has been, and continues to be, suitable to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff does not believe the proposed rezoning of the subject property will alter its suitability. Therefore, Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets this review criterion. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes the existing parking lot for Red Sandstone Park has a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff does not believe the proposed rezoning of the subject property will alter this relationship. Therefore, Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets this review criterion. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole. Staff believes a rezoning of the subject property to the Outdoor Recreation District is consistent with the associated Vail Land Use Plan amendment to designate the subject property as Open Space. The Town of Vail is proposing to rezone the subject property to the same district as Red Sandstone Park; therefore, Staff does not believe the proposal constitutes a spot zoning. Instead, Staff believes the proposed rezoning serves the best interest of the community as a whole. Therefore, Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets this review criterion. Town of Vail Page 5 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features. As identified in this memorandum, Staff does not believe the subject property is an appropriate location for future residential development. The subject property currently functions as a public parking lot for Red Sandstone Park. Staff believes a rezoning of this property to the Outdoor Recreation District will not alter the impacts of this property on the natural environment. Therefore, Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets this review criterion. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The applicant is requesting that the subject property be rezoned to the Outdoor Recreation District. Public parks are allowed in this zone district. Staff believes the existing Red Sandstone Park public parking lot is consistent with the open space and recreation purposes of the Outdoor Recreation District as outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. Therefore, Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets this review criterion. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. As identified in this memorandum, the subject property was previously owned by Bob Lazier, developer of the adjacent Sun Vail Condominiums. The subject property has the same Land Use Plan designation and zoning as this residential development. With the previous owner's permission, the Town of Vail used the subject property to provide parking for the adjacent Red Sandstone Park. In 2010, Mr. Lazier approached the Town of Vail with a proposal to sell the subject property. Pursuant to Resolution No. 20, Series of 2010, the Town of Vail purchased the subject from Mr. Lazier on July 30, 2010. Therefore, Staff believes the applicant's proposal meets this review criterion. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and /or council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. IX. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning an Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for Town of Vail Page 6 changes to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Map, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation, Town of Vail Land Use Plan, to allow for a land use category change from Medium Density Residential to Open Space; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning from Medium Density Multiple Family District to Outdoor Recreation District, located at 715 North Frontage Road (parking lot of Red Sandstone Park) /Part of Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections VII and VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of this request; the Community Development Department recommends the Commission passes the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for changes to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Map, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation, Town of Vail Land Use Plan, to allow for a land use category change from Medium Density Residential to Open Space, and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning from Medium Density Multiple Family District to Outdoor Recreation District, located at 715 North Frontage Road (parking lot of Red Sandstone Park) /Part of Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of this request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Sections VII and VIII of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated July 11, 2011, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. 1. That the amendments are consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town. 2. That the amendments are compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas. 3. That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." Town of Vail Page 7 X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment Town of Vail Page 8 0 0 E v I M Vail Potato Patch, Block 2, (part of) Lot 9 and Tract C (715 & 725 North Frontage Road West; Parking Let & Red Sandstone Park, respectively) Mir — - v n m r d 50100 209 Las� Modifed Msy t6, 7011 FPiC 0 0 h E Vail Potato Patch, Block Part of Lot 9 (715 North Frontage Road We Red Sandstone Park Parking , a v n m W v 1Q cD 0 Feet 0 50 100 200 Last Moa nve .ury 1.20$1 7W PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 27, 2011 1:OOpm TOWNQFY�IL , TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road W. - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Pam Hopkins Michael Kurz Bill Pierce Henry Pratt John Rediker Tyler Schneidman MEMBERS ABSENT Luke Cartin Gore Creek water quality testing results, ERWSD, Linn Brooks 45 minutes Linn Brooks made a presentation on the progress of the development of a water quality improvement plan. She highlighted the memo included in the packet which contained the most recent findings. Gary Brooks of Alpine Engineering made a presentation on the geospatial maps that have been created to help with understanding the data that is being collected. The presentation also identified stressors upon the creek. Kirby Wynn made a presentation on the nutrient findings contained in the creek. Linn Brooks concluded the presentation by addressing the conclusions to date. Water chemistry is typically good, need for improved maintenance of BMPs, and stronger regulations in the Town Code to protect the riparian area of the creek. Commissioner Kurz asked when the state hearing was to be held Linn Brooks stated that the hearing is December 12, 2011, with the notice of the hearing sent in September. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to other streams in the general area which are experiencing stresses such as the Blue River in Silverthorne and Summit County. Linn Brooks stated that there are other waterways which are impacted, but she is not aware of other groups undertaking the effort that this watershed council is undertaking. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the innovation of the process our watershed is taken. Linn Brooks stated that she believed the State would take notice of the effort and hopefully keep our streams off the impaired stream list. SITE VISITS 1. Ruder Cemetery — 2846 Basingdale Boulevard 2. Dean Residence — 4918 Meadow Drive 10 minutes Page 1 A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of one lot into two lots, located at 600 West Lionshead Circle (First Chair) /Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110037) Applicant: Vail Corporation, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. The applicant had nothing further to add and made themselves available for any questions. There was no public comment. The commissioners expressed their support for the application. 20 minutes 2. A request for the review of a variance, pursuant to Section 14 -1 -5, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 14 -10 -5, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of solar panels extending higher than one foot above the building ridgeline, located at 4918 Meadow Drive, Unit A/Lot 16, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision Fifth Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100046) Applicant: Warren Dean, represented by Capitol Solar Energy Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Tabled to July 11, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 4 -2 -0 (Pierce and Schneidman opposed) Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Kurz and Pierce clarified the need for a variance. Commissioner Pratt asked how the Colorado State laws affect the Town's regulations. Rachel Dimond responded that the Town Attorney's office has determined that the Town's regulations are legal. Jason Weingast with Active Energies presented the results of a solar analysis of the site. The lot has 82% sun access or 18% lack of access. He testified that more access is better, but the site has adequate access. Commissioner Pratt asked what efficiency would be lost if the panels were lowered to the ridge height. Mr. Weingast did not have the specific numbers for the change. He noted that the panels are at the lowest angle already, and a steeper angle is more desirable. Commissioner Pierce asked about the impact of angling the panels differently. Mr. Weingast again deferred to Laurent Meillon's upcoming presentation. He noted concerns about adequate drainage within the solar panel. Commissioner Rediker asked if the smaller panels were as efficient. Page 2 Mr. Weingast noted that the efficiency was similar, but less energy would be collected Laurent Meillon of Capitol Solar Energy stated that they are a 30 -year old company and they understand when permits are needed. It was their understanding that the solar panels had been included in the building permit plans and building inspections were performed. The panels had not actually been included in the building permit. They did not anticipate the Town would have rules about solar panels after the 1973 state laws that don't allow aesthetic restrictions on solar panels. Commissioner Pierce clarified that debate about Town versus State laws was not the issue, but the issue is what is different about this property that justifies a variance. Laurent Meillon noted that their company stocks numerous sizes of panels and the request for the variance is not due to the owner already purchasing certain panels. He noted that the issue is the solar access challenges associated with the site. He clarified that they are proposing a solar thermal system for hot water heating and not solar panels for the generation of electricity. He noted that even the neighbor's letter of opposition recognizes that there a solar access issues with the site. He stated that the panels need to be as steep as possible and need to be angled toward the sun to be functional. He noted that the Town's ordinances recommend angles up to 55 degrees, but their panels are only 35 degrees. He stated that 35 degrees is the lowest minimum angle for the panel to function. He clarified that the neighbor's letter is based upon the previous installation of the panels, but they are now proposing to lower panels. Mr. Meillon noted that the owner of the other half of the duplex has approved the proposed panels. Commissioner Rediker asked for additional information about why the applicant can not pursue an alternative installation design. Mr. Meillon presented tables and charts comparing the availability of solar energy and the heat load needs for the house. He noted that the proposed installation would have a 72% efficiency and a 30 -year pay back. He said he understands that cost is not a factor for the Commission's review, but the payback on investment is an important factor in the purchase of any solar system. He added that the angle of the panels is important to ensure that snow slides off. Commissioner Pierce asked if the system would function using 8 or 6 foot panels instead of 10 foot panels. Mr. Meillon state that the system would function, but it decreases its efficiency below a level acceptable to the homeowner. Commissioner Hopkins asked how cold winters with a lot of snow affects the panels. Mr. Meillon explained how an adequate angle would allow the panels themselves to melt the snow. He noted that the effects on photovoltaic systems are different. Mr. Meillon distributed a photograph of a similar solar system as an example of how this proposed system would appear. He addressed the review criteria. He addressed the environmental and health benefits of the proposed solar system. He identified two solar systems in Vail with a 60+ degree angle that are visible from the rear. Commissioner Pierce asked for the location of the existing panels Mr. Meillon clarified the location as a home on Aspen Lane. Page 3 Rachel Dimond clarified that this system was installed prior to the existing regulations Mr. Meillon noted that Vail has a reputation for making it difficult to install solar panels. He noted that the permit costs for an $80,000 installation in Eagle -Vail was only $50 and he made only one visit to the County offices. Vail is more expensive and has taken 50 plus hours of his time. He does not believe state law was intended to only apply to homeowners associations, but also to towns. He hopes the Town of Vail will reconsider its regulations. He identified the federal funding available for solar projects. He also noted Vail goals of promoting environmental issues. He asked if the Commission wanted to prohibit solar or encourage renewable energy. He identified the positive effects on air pollution. Mr. Meillon identified that the variance is needed due to practical difficulties and exceptional circumstances as identified in the review criteria. He stated that the home is existing. If the home was still in the design stage the roof could have been raised to accommodate the panels as proposed. He noted that not approving the variance would deny the owners the privileges afforded to other owners. Warren Dean, husband of the homeowner, made himself available for questions. He said he would prefer not asking for a variance, but feels backed into a corner. The site is difficult for solar access and the roof ridge is lower than the maximum building height. He clarified that the highest portion of the panel generates the most energy. There was no public comment. Commissioner Hopkins asked if the future height of the adjacent trees was taken into account when designing the system. Mr. Dean stated that the projected height was considered and so were impacts of the pine beetle epidemic. Commissioner Kurz asked about the color of the panels. Mr. Meillon clarified that they are brown. Commissioner Kurz identified the positive intent of the homeowner and solar companies and identified the conflicts between State and Vail laws. He noted the minimal visual impacts of the panels. He stated he was contemplating whether or not this is special privilege and thus jeopardizing the integrity of the ordinance. However, he does believe the visual impacts are minimal and may support the variance. Commissioner Pratt identified that the roof is not built to the maximum height and could be raised. By raising the ridge height, the variance would not be needed. While he agrees with many of the applicant's arguments and applauds the homeowners attempts, but he does not believes the criteria have been met. Commissioner Rediker agrees with Commissioner Pratt's comments. He applauded the applicant's intent and believes the Town should promote solar energy. He asked Staff to clarify why the variance would be special privilege. Rachel Dimond clarified that a solar system could be installed without a variance. She clarified that installation costs and payback rates are not a matter for consideration. Page 4 Commissioner Hopkins asked for clarification of the existing regulations. Rachel Dimond noted that the roof could be altered. Commissioner Pierce noted that the rules should apply to everyone and could be changed. Commissioner Hopkins had questions about future technology options and what impacts tree growth have on the system. Commissioner Pratt noted that if the trees die, the panels could be lowered. Commissioner Schneidman noted that this was the debate during the adoption of the regulations. He stated he does not believe the proposed variance meets the criteria of the code, and his role as a Commissioner is to review the adopted criteria. Commissioner Rediker asked about the applicant's solar analysis. Rachel Dimond clarified that the applicant did not submit the study to the Town. Commissioner Rediker noted that every variance is a special request. He noted that the applicant chose not to submit a solar analysis as requested by the Staff. He noted that variances are sometimes needed for the best interest of the community. Commissioner Schneidman made a motion to deny the variance pursuant to the memorandum. Commissioner Rediker asked if there is any benefit to tabling the item and asking the applicant to revise the application or provide additional information. Commissioner Pierce asked Commissioner Schneidman to clarify his motion to reference. The applicant requested that the Commission table this item. There was no second to the motion. A motion was then made to table the item. Commissioner Pierce asked what information could be provided by the applicant to add to the discussion which had already taken two hours. He asked if the Commission could consider a revised application. Commissioner Pratt asked if the commission was obligated to table the item. Rachel Dimond responded that the commission did not have to table the item at the applicant's request. 20 minutes 3. A request for the review of a preliminary plan and a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the existing Parcels A through F and Units 1 through 3 of the Residences at Briar Patch, and the creation of Parcels G and H of the Residences at Briar Patch for the purposes of preserving open space and mitigating high severity rockfall hazards, located at 1446 Buffehr Creek Road; 1386, 1388, and 1390 Briar Patch Lane; 1374 and 1378 Sandstone Drive /Lots G2, G5, and G6, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2 (Residences at Briar Patch), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110034) Applicant: Town of Vail Page 5 Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to July 11, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for changes to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Map, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation, Town of Vail Land Use Plan, to allow for a land use category change from Low Density Residential to Open Space; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning from Two - Family Primary /Secondary District to Outdoor Recreation District, located at 2846 Basingdale Boulevard /Lot 1, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6-0-0 Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. There was no public comment. Commissioner Pratt asked if there are any negative aspects to the proposal. Bill Gibson responded that the Town has evaluated the proposal and deems that there will be minimal impacts at all, if any negative. Commissioner Kurz asked if there are people who visit the cemetery. Gibson stated that family members of the deceased live locally and still visit the cemetery. 5. Approval of June 13, 2011 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 6 -0 -0 6. Information Update 7. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 6 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 24, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 6 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 27, 2011 1:OOpm TOWNQFY�IL , TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road W. - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Pam Hopkins Michael Kurz Bill Pierce Henry Pratt John Rediker Tyler Schneidman MEMBERS ABSENT Luke Cartin Gore Creek water quality testing results, ERWSD, Linn Brooks 45 minutes Linn Brooks made a presentation on the progress of the development of a water quality improvement plan. She highlighted the memo included in the packet which contained the most recent findings. Gary Brooks of Alpine Engineering made a presentation on the geospatial maps that have been created to help with understanding the data that is being collected. The presentation also identified stressors upon the creek. Kirby Wynn made a presentation on the nutrient findings contained in the creek. Linn Brooks concluded the presentation by addressing the conclusions to date. Water chemistry is typically good, need for improved maintenance of BMPs, and stronger regulations in the Town Code to protect the riparian area of the creek. Commissioner Kurz asked when the state hearing was to be held Linn Brooks stated that the hearing is December 12, 2011, with the notice of the hearing sent in September. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to other streams in the general area which are experiencing stresses such as the Blue River in Silverthorne and Summit County. Linn Brooks stated that there are other waterways which are impacted, but she is not aware of other groups undertaking the effort that this watershed council is undertaking. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the innovation of the process our watershed is taken. Linn Brooks stated that she believed the State would take notice of the effort and hopefully keep our streams off the impaired stream list. SITE VISITS 1. Ruder Cemetery — 2846 Basingdale Boulevard 2. Dean Residence — 4918 Meadow Drive 10 minutes Page 1 A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of one lot into two lots, located at 600 West Lionshead Circle (First Chair) /Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110037) Applicant: Vail Corporation, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. The applicant had nothing further to add and made themselves available for any questions. There was no public comment. The commissioners expressed their support for the application. 20 minutes 2. A request for the review of a variance, pursuant to Section 14 -1 -5, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 14 -10 -5, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of solar panels extending higher than one foot above the building ridgeline, located at 4918 Meadow Drive, Unit A/Lot 16, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision Fifth Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC100046) Applicant: Warren Dean, represented by Capitol Solar Energy Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Tabled to July 11, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 4 -2 -0 (Pierce and Schneidman opposed) Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Kurz and Pierce clarified the need for a variance. Commissioner Pratt asked how the Colorado State laws affect the Town's regulations. Rachel Dimond responded that the Town Attorney's office has determined that the Town's regulations are legal. Jason Weingast with Active Energies presented the results of a solar analysis of the site. The lot has 82% sun access or 18% lack of access. He testified that more access is better, but the site has adequate access. Commissioner Pratt asked what efficiency would be lost if the panels were lowered to the ridge height. Mr. Weingast did not have the specific numbers for the change. He noted that the panels are at the lowest angle already, and a steeper angle is more desirable. Commissioner Pierce asked about the impact of angling the panels differently. Mr. Weingast again deferred to Laurent Meillon's upcoming presentation. He noted concerns about adequate drainage within the solar panel. Commissioner Rediker asked if the smaller panels were as efficient. Page 2 Mr. Weingast noted that the efficiency was similar, but less energy would be collected Laurent Meillon of Capitol Solar Energy stated that they are a 30 -year old company and they understand when permits are needed. It was their understanding that the solar panels had been included in the building permit plans and building inspections were performed. The panels had not actually been included in the building permit. They did not anticipate the Town would have rules about solar panels after the 1973 state laws that don't allow aesthetic restrictions on solar panels. Commissioner Pierce clarified that debate about Town versus State laws was not the issue, but the issue is what is different about this property that justifies a variance. Laurent Meillon noted that their company stocks numerous sizes of panels and the request for the variance is not due to the owner already purchasing certain panels. He noted that the issue is the solar access challenges associated with the site. He clarified that they are proposing a solar thermal system for hot water heating and not solar panels for the generation of electricity. He noted that even the neighbor's letter of opposition recognizes that there a solar access issues with the site. He stated that the panels need to be as steep as possible and need to be angled toward the sun to be functional. He noted that the Town's ordinances recommend angles up to 55 degrees, but their panels are only 35 degrees. He stated that 35 degrees is the lowest minimum angle for the panel to function. He clarified that the neighbor's letter is based upon the previous installation of the panels, but they are now proposing to lower panels. Mr. Meillon noted that the owner of the other half of the duplex has approved the proposed panels. Commissioner Rediker asked for additional information about why the applicant can not pursue an alternative installation design. Mr. Meillon presented tables and charts comparing the availability of solar energy and the heat load needs for the house. He noted that the proposed installation would have a 72% efficiency and a 30 -year pay back. He said he understands that cost is not a factor for the Commission's review, but the payback on investment is an important factor in the purchase of any solar system. He added that the angle of the panels is important to ensure that snow slides off. Commissioner Pierce asked if the system would function using 8 or 6 foot panels instead of 10 foot panels. Mr. Meillon state that the system would function, but it decreases its efficiency below a level acceptable to the homeowner. Commissioner Hopkins asked how cold winters with a lot of snow affects the panels. Mr. Meillon explained how an adequate angle would allow the panels themselves to melt the snow. He noted that the effects on photovoltaic systems are different. Mr. Meillon distributed a photograph of a similar solar system as an example of how this proposed system would appear. He addressed the review criteria. He addressed the environmental and health benefits of the proposed solar system. He identified two solar systems in Vail with a 60+ degree angle that are visible from the rear. Commissioner Pierce asked for the location of the existing panels Mr. Meillon clarified the location as a home on Aspen Lane. Page 3 Rachel Dimond clarified that this system was installed prior to the existing regulations Mr. Meillon noted that Vail has a reputation for making it difficult to install solar panels. He noted that the permit costs for an $80,000 installation in Eagle -Vail was only $50 and he made only one visit to the County offices. Vail is more expensive and has taken 50 plus hours of his time. He does not believe state law was intended to only apply to homeowners associations, but also to towns. He hopes the Town of Vail will reconsider its regulations. He identified the federal funding available for solar projects. He also noted Vail goals of promoting environmental issues. He asked if the Commission wanted to prohibit solar or encourage renewable energy. He identified the positive effects on air pollution. Mr. Meillon identified that the variance is needed due to practical difficulties and exceptional circumstances as identified in the review criteria. He stated that the home is existing. If the home was still in the design stage the roof could have been raised to accommodate the panels as proposed. He noted that not approving the variance would deny the owners the privileges afforded to other owners. Warren Dean, husband of the homeowner, made himself available for questions. He said he would prefer not asking for a variance, but feels backed into a corner. The site is difficult for solar access and the roof ridge is lower than the maximum building height. He clarified that the highest portion of the panel generates the most energy. There was no public comment. Commissioner Hopkins asked if the future height of the adjacent trees was taken into account when designing the system. Mr. Dean stated that the projected height was considered and so were impacts of the pine beetle epidemic. Commissioner Kurz asked about the color of the panels. Mr. Meillon clarified that they are brown. Commissioner Kurz identified the positive intent of the homeowner and solar companies and identified the conflicts between State and Vail laws. He noted the minimal visual impacts of the panels. He stated he was contemplating whether or not this is special privilege and thus jeopardizing the integrity of the ordinance. However, he does believe the visual impacts are minimal and may support the variance. Commissioner Pratt identified that the roof is not built to the maximum height and could be raised. By raising the ridge height, the variance would not be needed. While he agrees with many of the applicant's arguments and applauds the homeowners attempts, but he does not believes the criteria have been met. Commissioner Rediker agrees with Commissioner Pratt's comments. He applauded the applicant's intent and believes the Town should promote solar energy. He asked Staff to clarify why the variance would be special privilege. Rachel Dimond clarified that a solar system could be installed without a variance. She clarified that installation costs and payback rates are not a matter for consideration. Page 4 Commissioner Hopkins asked for clarification of the existing regulations. Rachel Dimond noted that the roof could be altered. Commissioner Pierce noted that the rules should apply to everyone and could be changed. Commissioner Hopkins had questions about future technology options and what impacts tree growth have on the system. Commissioner Pratt noted that if the trees die, the panels could be lowered. Commissioner Schneidman noted that this was the debate during the adoption of the regulations. He stated he does not believe the proposed variance meets the criteria of the code, and his role as a Commissioner is to review the adopted criteria. Commissioner Rediker asked about the applicant's solar analysis. Rachel Dimond clarified that the applicant did not submit the study to the Town. Commissioner Rediker noted that every variance is a special request. He noted that the applicant chose not to submit a solar analysis as requested by the Staff. He noted that variances are sometimes needed for the best interest of the community. Commissioner Schneidman made a motion to deny the variance pursuant to the memorandum. Commissioner Rediker asked if there is any benefit to tabling the item and asking the applicant to revise the application or provide additional information. Commissioner Pierce asked Commissioner Schneidman to clarify his motion to reference. The applicant requested that the Commission table this item. There was no second to the motion. A motion was then made to table the item. Commissioner Pierce asked what information could be provided by the applicant to add to the discussion which had already taken two hours. He asked if the Commission could consider a revised application. Commissioner Pratt asked if the commission was obligated to table the item. Rachel Dimond responded that the commission did not have to table the item at the applicant's request. 20 minutes 3. A request for the review of a preliminary plan and a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to the existing Parcels A through F and Units 1 through 3 of the Residences at Briar Patch, and the creation of Parcels G and H of the Residences at Briar Patch for the purposes of preserving open space and mitigating high severity rockfall hazards, located at 1446 Buffehr Creek Road; 1386, 1388, and 1390 Briar Patch Lane; 1374 and 1378 Sandstone Drive /Lots G2, G5, and G6, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2 (Residences at Briar Patch), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110034) Applicant: Town of Vail Page 5 Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to July 11, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for changes to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Map, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation, Town of Vail Land Use Plan, to allow for a land use category change from Low Density Residential to Open Space; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning from Two - Family Primary /Secondary District to Outdoor Recreation District, located at 2846 Basingdale Boulevard /Lot 1, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Pratt SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 6-0-0 Bill Gibson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. There was no public comment. Commissioner Pratt asked if there are any negative aspects to the proposal. Bill Gibson responded that the Town has evaluated the proposal and deems that there will be minimal impacts at all, if any negative. Commissioner Kurz asked if there are people who visit the cemetery. Gibson stated that family members of the deceased live locally and still visit the cemetery. 5. Approval of June 13, 2011 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 6 -0 -0 6. Information Update 7. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 6 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 24, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 6