Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-0727 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF d July 27, 2015, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members Present: Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Kirk Hansen, John Ryan Lockman, John Rediker, Dick Cleveland Members Absent: Webb Martin 2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-18-9, Restoration, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a roof height of 18'-2" to exceed the existing roof height of 12' for the restoration of a nonconforming structure, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle (Matterhorn Inn)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150025) Action: Approve with conditions Motion: Gillette Second: Cleveland Vote: 6-0 Conditions: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. Approval of this variance is for the building in its entirety as presented, and not of individual units. 3. The roof sheathing at the rear of the building shall be no higher than the existing roof. 4. The eave on the eastern portion of the property shall not encroach any further than the existing eave. Planner Spence delivered a presentation per Staff's memo. A brief history of the property was reviewed with regards to the fire that occurred this past fall. They are attempting to restore the building to the same location, number of units and form with a minor change to the roof height. The requirements of the Vail Town code, specifically in the restoration chapter, for non -conforming properties that have been damaged by a fault not of their own, they must be replaced with the same building footprint, units, height, etc. Staff would like to request that if approved that an additional condition simply stating that the approval is for the plans as proposed for the whole building. Commissioner Rediker inquired as to where the language is in the code that states that things have to be restored exactly the way they were before. Are we using a literal interpretation of the word restored? Spence confirmed that we are using a literal interpretation of the word restored. Commissioner Pratt asked about the applicants' letter as it indicated that no wood shakes are allowed on the walls, the commissioner was not aware of this regulation. With the drawings presented, they are not coming back with the same materials, doesn't this also deviate from the restoration standards? Spence clarified that wood shakes as well as other wood materials are allowed on the walls to a certain height. Clarification was also made with regard to the restoration code that the materials are not regulated in the restoration statute. That code is in regard to dimensional standards such as height, number of units, set -backs etc. Commissioner Pratt invited the Applicant to make a presentation. Michael Current, Current Architects, representing the applicant stated he did not have any further information to present with the exception that this request supports a better approach to improving the structure and livability of the units. All designs are matching what existed with the exception of the roof. The previous flat roof was leaky. Commissioner Cleveland asked why this roof form was chosen. Current responded that this roof was preferable due to economics, esthetics & functionality. It will shed water, snow & rain much better than the flat roof. Aesthetically it's more pleasing than the flat mansard style. Commissioner Cleveland indicated that the reasons for requesting a variance include in order to prevent or lessen practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with this objectives of this title. Even in the staff memo, there is no explanation of the hardships other than physical. We have to find the hardship by interpreting it the way it is. Economics are not a hardship Current responded that the functionality of a flat roof versus a sloped roof. The flat roof in this climate is not always the most practical application. Commissioner Gillette asked what is the proposed overhang on the east side. What is the existing overhang on the mansard? When measuring the plate height are you measuring to the top or the bottom of the mansard? Current responded that the overhang on the east side is proposed at 30" and that the current approximately 2' but will need to verify this. Plate heights are top of wall, bottom of mansard. The existing roof height was additional. Overall height is 12' as it exists today. Commissioner Gillette asked for clarification on the purpose of raising the plate height in the back. What do you gain from this? Current responded stating getting a little larger clear story window in the front to allow for more light and air as these are very small units. Gillette stated that the biggest impact to neighbor on east. Did they respond? Seems that you are only 4' off of the property line now and you are requesting to extend the eve even further. Second, you are raising the roof height which could block the sun and affect the neighbor. Seems you and the neighbor would benefit if we drop the rear plate down to the plate height rather than extending it. You still get a sloped roof, clear story, vaulted ceiling but the effects to the neighbor is lessened. Current responded that the neighbor to the east has not responded to this request. The benefit of increasing the back roof height would allow for additional storage in these units as well. Commissioner Gillette stated that the applicant is 4'/2 feet off of the property line and we are trying to balance the concerns between the neighbor and the property owner. Drop the rear plate down, pull the eave back in and then it solves the issue of snow shedding, light, and vaulted ceilings. Commissioner Cleveland asked for clarification on the roof pitch. Current stated that the proposed pitch is 2:12. Commissioner Pratt asked if there were any additional questions for the applicant. He then closed the public hearing and requested commission comments. Commissioner Lockman felt that Commissioner Gillette brought up some interesting points regarding height in the back of the building and why it is being brought up. He also agreed with Commissioner Cleveland regarding the possible lack of hardship. However, he felt that Staff has reviewed the application and does understand that the fire has created this condition. Feels that the hardship is vague yet supportable. Planner Spence clarified that it would agree that its less of a hardship, than a practical difficulty. Staff sees it as an opportunity to add some value to the process and the value of the product. Adjacent structure is also non conforming and directly on property line. Commissioner Hansen felt that this property is important to our community. States that he agrees with the logic to this application and fully supports staff recommendation. Commissioner Cleveland questions the appropriateness of granting a variance. That being said, questions if we could get DRB with the roof the same way it was. Agree with Commissioner Hansen that this type of building is important to community. Shares Commissioner Gillette's concerns regarding the variance has to be the absolute minimum required. Stated that this application is asking for things that shouldn't be granted through this process. Variance can be granted under the current circumstance. Commissioner Rediker stated a variance in this circumstance is appropriate. This board typically has difficulty with variances because a lot of times we are trying to look at the regulations and ensure that there is a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship that leads to the variance. In this instance, a strict literal interpretation of the code imposes a hardship. Inclined to vote for this application since the height falls within height limits. I do would like to hear more about the roof proposed closer to the neighbors' property. We need to minimize impact to neighbors. Commissioner Gillette nothing additional to add. Perhaps we should forward a motion to approve with additional conditions one being that the eve no closer to lot line than current, and the other that the spring point be lowered to the existing plate height. Commissioner Pratt having gone through this before and having relied heavily on the reconstruction clause that stated you did not have to go to PEC & DRB to rebuild it exactly the way it was, little concerned about what we are doing. There is no doubt that the design is an improvement over what was there, there is no doubt that it is in the towns best interest to see this property improved. That said the commissioner has a hard time with the fact that this particular design is nothing like what was there. The application is changing wall materials, changing roof form, and roof pitch. There is no great benefit to a sloped roof over a flat roof as there are flat roofs all over town, this application is for an esthetic improvement not a physical hardship. This application is unique in the fact that it has a DRB component so in essence we are not using the restoration clause as it is intended. The application as presented makes it difficult to find a hardship to support granting a variance. The request for the variance as well as the DRB application is working against everything in the restoration section in the code. Regarding Commission Gillette's comments, the overhang in the back makes sense since it is such a narrow space and with a metal roof everything is going to get covered anyway. As for the height, this is nothing like what was there, it's way under the building height. Why quibble over 12". Commissioner Rediker requested clarification from staff if there was no fire, what if they wanted to do this roof today? Would they still be required to request a variance? Would they have to come into conformance with additional regulations? Spence clarified that the applicant would still have to come before the board to request the variance. They would not be required to come into any greater conformance. Commissioner Cleveland disagreed that the board has attempted to bring more properties into conformance through this process. We ask for improvements in a non -conformity regularly during these hearings. Community Development Director George Ruther reviewed the practical difficulties with this application. A lot of the non -conformities today are a result of actions taken in the 1970s & 1980s. We have multi -family zoned properties with many more units on them and far more non -conforming than this. Chamonix Chalets is in a district zoned Primary/Secondary. Asking homeowners to give up their homes to allow the property to become conforming is not a reasonable conversation to have; especially in light of the circumstances and the fire. In a perfect world, the town would have already gone through an exercise to address non -conforming properties rather than leave it up to an applicant to have to apply for a variance. Commissioner Cleveland restated that this is an aesthetic change. We've kept everything the same with the exception of the roof, windows. These aesthetics are not contemplated in the restoration code. This variance is really for aesthetic not for physical hardship. Ruther clarified that the allowable building height in this district is 33' and what is proposed is well under the allowed building height. No one is building anything back exactly the way it was existing. Unfortunately, with the non -conforming clause in the regulations as adopted, the premise is good — you can maintain it as long as you want, but as soon as you want to change something it has to go away. The purpose for the variance request is Commissioner Pratt is hanging his hat on finding 3b in the memorandum. Stated that there are extraordinary circumstances to this property that do not exist on neighboring properties. Commissioner Gillette believes we should throw out restoration clause as this isn't applicable to this application. If we look at it based on there wasn't a fire, we are just grating a variance based on aesthetics & not hardships. Commissioner Pratt stated that the restoration clause should not be thrown out. It is a vehicle for them to keep their non -conforming issues out of the discussion. As for a variance only for height which leads to this aesthetic. Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification if there really is no benefit to pitch roof vs. flat roof. Building Contractor Mark Scully doesn't agree with flat roof comment. Generally speaking, if its built correctly, spend a lot of money, they work well. Generally, pitch is better. This is an improvement to the flat roof. Commissioner Rediker asked what type of roof was on the building previously? Current responded that the roof was originally mansard style roof with a mix of gable forms & flat roof with parapet. Commission Rediker asked if we follow the strict definition of the word restore, the exact same type of roof will go back onto the buildings. Commissioner Pratt stated that there would have to be slope to the roof even if it was flat as required by the roof. 3. A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150019) Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department Planner: George Ruther Action: Table to August 10, 2015 Motion: Cleveland Second: Hansen Vote 6-0 4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the former Cascade Village Theater and Colorado Mountain College property to include 14 dwelling units, one (1) onsite Employee Housing Unit and the preservation 4,087 square feet of existing commercial, retail and office space, located at 1310 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This project was previously approved most recently in 2007 and expired on June 1, 2015. (PEC150014) Applicant: Ultimate Cascade LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Action: Table to August 24, 2015 Motion: Cleveland Second: Hansen Vote 6-0 5. Approval of Minutes July 13, 2015 PEC Meeting Results Action: Approve Motion: Cleveland Second: Gillette Vote 4-0-2 (Rediker, Cleveland abstained) 6. Informational Update Environmental Training — Kristen Bertuglia A Snowmelt Usage, Efficiency, and Offset program presentation was made to the Planning and Environmental Commission by Taylor Critchlow from AEC Engineering. The floor was opened for questions regarding this topic. Planner Spence asked if there off site monitoring systems ensure no systems are left on during the warmer months (like a fire alarm system). Critchlow was not aware of any of site third party monitoring companies. Commissioner Gillette asked for Taylor's opinion on idling vs. powering the system on and off. Half of the cost is in idling. Critchlow responded that he recommends setting up a system with idling at the lowest energy usage. It takes a lot of energy to reheat something that was previously turned off. Commission Pratt stated that costs do not necessarily decrease with on/off scenario. Our code currently incentivizes applicants to use snowmelt systems by reducing the amount of on-site snow storage requirements as well as in some circumstances a steeper grade is allowed. It's also important to remember that the Vail Valley is very tight and payback on a solar system may not occur for an extended period of time and payback in East Vail is never. Commissioner Hansen asked Kristen Bertuglia if Vail has a progressive modern code or are we in the process of updating or modernizing the code. Bertuglia responded that the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as well as the other International Codes are current and we are going to be adopting the 2015 code. There is nothing additional in the IECC that address snowmelt. There has always been controls and the high efficiency boiler requirement is going away. Bertuglia requested Critchlow explain to the group why condensing boilers are a good application for snowmelt. Critchlow responded that the condensing boilers have a higher efficiency by condensing flue gasses. Commissioner Pratt asked staff what the goal is. Is the goal to get some sort of snowmelt legislation into our code similar to Aspen/Pitkin? Bertuglia responded that the Town has done a great job in recent years in energy efficiency in other ways but it has never addressed outdoor energy use. Are we missing something if we are focused on the building envelope but ignore outdoor energy use? Should we start working on this for future? Vail owns more than 350,000 feet of snowmelt and there is more than 200,000 feet of privately owned snowmelt so finding the offset for this amount will be quite challenging. Commissioner Pratt asked if there is a technology out there in a residential environment that can capture heat and somehow drive that to the snowmelt system. Is there anything internal, waste heat, boilers? Critchlow responded that Solar is the only residential application. There is nothing renewable from residential environment that could be transferred to a snowmelt system. The energy level is so small that there isn't enough to drive a system. Commissioner Hansen asked if other communities measure carbon footprint and does the Town? Bertuglia responded that we do track this information in a number of ways. It's difficult to measure what the community uses but substation data is available on a limited basis from Holy Cross Energy. Most resorts have some sort of carbon inventory and tracking system. Commissioner Gillette is very familiar with Eagle Counties system. Suggests that there should be a carbon tax added to utility bills with a mill levy off set. Effectively what would happen is that someone who is energy efficient would have less property tax to pay and those who use snowmelt will pay this tax on their energy bills. Bertuglia responded that some would feel that all tax payers would be subsidizing the users Commissioner Rediker responded to the carbon tax option that we can't tax everyone has to pay for those that choose to install snowmelt systems. Commission Hansen asked if the staff would like the commission to jump into this and make it a priority to see if we want to adopt a policy similar to Eagle County or Aspen/Pitkin County. Bertuglia responded that staff would like to continue the discussion, if that is what is directed by the Commission. The Town will be updating the Sustainability Strategic Plan beginning this year, which will require setting new energy goals. Commissioner Pratt brought up other options that may be available in our area. Micro -hydro plants along the gore creek or something up at the Black Lakes. These could be used to offset the energy production required for snowmelt. Commissioner Rediker would like to see us get away from the Aspen/Pitkin model and look at the individual users. Base fees on the usage over the year. Commissioner Pratt commented that the valley is 90% built out so this type of fee would have to be imposed on current & future users in order to build a fund. Commissioner Gillette stated that this is exactly what the carbon tax does. It taxes the individual users and those utilizing snowmelt are going to be higher carbon taxes. Stated he would prefer to recommend a ban on snowmelt and require people to plow and remove the incentives for installation of these systems. Commissioner Lockman indicated that the Town is the largest user of snow melt and imposing a fee on private property when the Town has installed such a large amount may not be fair initially. The Town should take a leadership role by penalizing itself first. Noted that the Energy Smart Colorado program utilizes snowmelt offset funds through ECOBuild and distributes it back to the community in the form of rebates. Commissioner Rediker stated that the benefit the Town recognizes is through our guests being able to walk on our streets without a slip and fall risk. Commissioner Pratt commented that we have to look at the incentive side of the program instead of the penalty side of this. Maybe additional GRFA allowed or a similar program. Bertuglia stated that it appeared that there is enough support to continue the conversation and Staff will come back to the Commission with options. 7. Adjournment Motion: Rediker Second: Cleveland Vote: 6-0 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. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily July 24, 2015 TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 27, 2015 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-18-9, Restoration, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a roof height of 18'-2" to exceed the existing roof height of 12' for the restoration of a nonconforming structure, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle (Matterhorn Inn)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150025) ATTACHMENTS: ame: Description: PEC150025 Memo.pdf Staff Memorandum D Attachment 1 Vicinity Map.pdf Vicinity Map ❑ Attachment 2 Matterhorn Photos.pdf Photos ❑ Attachment 3 Narrative.pdf Narrative ❑ Attachment 4 Plan Set.pdf Plans TOWN OF VAII � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 27, 2015 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-18-9, Restoration, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a roof height of 18'-2" to exceed the existing roof height of 12' for the restoration of a nonconforming structure, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle (Matterhorn Inn)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150025) Applicant: Matterhorn Inn Home Owners Association, represented by Current Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY Matterhorn Inn Home Owners Association, represented by Current Architects, is requesting a variance to allow for a roof height of 18'-2", exceeding the existing roof height of 12' for the restoration of a nonconforming structure, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle. 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 a condition, of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A), photographs (Attachment B) the applicants' request (Attachment C), and proposed architectural plans (Attachment D) are attached for review. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Matterhorn Inn Home Owners Association, represented by Current Architects, is requesting a variance to allow for a roof height of 18'-2" exceeding the existing roof height of 12' for the restoration of a nonconforming structure, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle. The property was heavily damaged by fire on November 21, 2014. The applicant has chosen to restore the existing structure as the most expeditious way of returning the owners to their homes. Per the requirements of Chapter 12-18-9 Restoration of the Vail Town Code, the property may be restored to its former non -conforming condition. The applicant is not proposing any increase in GRFA or any change in the building's location (setbacks). To improve the functionality of the residential units, the applicant is proposing a modification to the existing roof design and height. The existing roof on the non- conforming structure is a flat mansard -style roof with a wood shake covered parapet. The applicant is proposing a shed -style roof with a height of 12.5 feet in the rear sloping at a 2:12 pitch to 18 feet in the front. This roof exceeds the height of the existing roof on the non -conforming, thus necessitating the variance request. It should be noted that the requested roof height is well within conformance with the maximum allowable building height in the Residential Cluster zone district of 33 feet. III. BACKGROUND The Matterhorn Inn was originally built and legally established in 1972 in Eagle County prior to being annexed into the Town of Vail in 1982. The property is comprised of eleven (11) individually owned condominiumized dwelling units totaling 5,048 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the property is zoned Residential Cluster (RC) District. Based up the current zoning designation, the Matterhorn Inn is legally nonconforming in the following ways: • The 11 dwelling units exceed the density requirement of no more than 6 dwelling units per acre as permitted in the RC zone district. (2.75 units allowed under zoning.) • The existing sideyard setback of 4.31 feet does not meet the required 15 foot setback. • The unpaved parking surface does not meet the code requirement for an improved paved surface. • The percent grade of the access drive is in excess of the town standard. • The existing trash dumpster does not meet the screening requirements of Title 14. • The portions of the site not covered by building or parking areas total approximately 10,646 square feet or 47% of the property, nonconforming with the required landscape area of at least 13,552 square feet (60% min. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS 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) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review Town of Vail Page 2 process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 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. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4. The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.5. Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development maybe permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7. New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.8. Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if: a. Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. b. The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. c. The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision-making process. 1.9. The existing condition and use of National Forest Land (USFS) which is exchanged, sold, or otherwise falls into private ownership should remain unchanged. A change in the existing condition and use may be considered if the change substantially complies with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and achieves a compelling public benefit which furthers the public interest, as determined by the Town Council. Town of Vail Page 3 1. 10. Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.11. Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 1.13. Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.2. Quality time share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. CHAPTER VI, SECTION 4, PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORIES (in part) LDR Low Density Residential This category includes single-family detached homes and two-family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acres. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) Chapter 12-18-9: RESTORATION (in part) Whenever a nonconforming use which does not conform with the regulations for the zone Town of Vail Page 4 district in which it is located, or a nonconforming structure or site improvement which does not conform with the requirements for setbacks, height, density control, building bulk control or site coverage is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of God or by the public enemy, its use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided the restoration is commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion. All new construction must conform to the applicable adopted building codes, fire codes and other relevant codes regarding safety and construction which are in effect at the time rebuilding is proposed. CHAPTER 12-17. VARIANCES (in part) 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. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 1552 Matterhorn Circle Legal Description: Unplatted, Matterhorn Inn Condominiums Zoning: Residential Cluster District Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Multi -family Residential Geological Hazards: None Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. Buildable Lot Area 8,000 sq. ft. Density: (max GRFA) 7,213 sq. ft. Building Height: Site Coverage: Parking Setbacks: North: West: East: Town of Vail 33 ft. 5,647 sq. ft. (25% max.) 17 spaces (1.5/DU) 20 ft. (front) 15 ft. (side) 15 ft. (side) 22,588 sq. ft. No Change 20,037 sq. ft. No Change 5,048 sq. ft. No Change 12 ft. 18 ft. —2in. 5,048 sq. ft. (22%) No Change +17 spaces (not No Change striped) 38 ft. No change 53 ft. No change 4.31 ft. No change Page 5 South: 15 ft. (rear) 25 ft. No change VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use North: Donovan Pavilion South: Open Space East: Multi -family Residential West: Single-family Residential VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District General Use (GU) Agricultural and Open Space (A) Residential Cluster (RC) Single Family Residential (SFR) The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Matterhorn Inn was originally built and legally established in 1972 in Eagle County prior to being annexed into the Town of Vail in 1982. As such, it has been confirmed that the Matterhorn Inn is a non -conforming structure, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 12-18, of the Vail Town Code. This is especially important as non -conforming structures are granted certain rights permitting restoration after substantial destruction. The subject property is located within an established neighborhood consisting of both multi -family and single family/duplex structures. The proposed increase in roof height is compatible with other existing buildings and uses in the vicinity. The requested height of 18'- 2" is 14'-10" less than the permitted height of 33' in the surrounding area and within the Residential Cluster zone district. The height of the existing structure is not the cause of the non -conforming status. The number of existing dwelling units, encroachment into the setback and landscape area are the primary reasons for the non -conforming conditions. If approved, given the non -conforming status of the Matterhorn Inn, the new, non -conforming, maximum allowable building height for the Matterhorn Inn shall be 18'-2" Staff believes this proposal will not negatively affect the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity in comparison to existing conditions. 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. In order to maintain the non -conforming structure status, Section 12-18-9 of the Vail Town Code requires nonconforming structures that are rebuilt or restored following substantial destruction from an event such as a fire to be done so with no changes to the Town of Vail Page 6 bulk, mass, scale, location, size, etc. to the structure (i.e., height, setbacks, GRFA or other dimensional standards). The intent of the adopted non -conforming sites, uses, structures and site improvements Chapter of the Vail Town Code is to allow non -conforming conditions to continue yet limit the enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement of non -conforming which increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the prescribed development standards. In this particular case, the not conforming condition is primarily the result of too many dwelling units acre, a portion of the structure in the setback and not enough landscape area on the site. It is not due to building height. Since building height is not the cause of the non -conformity, and in fact, the allowable building height in the designated zone district is up to 33 feet, granting approval of a request to increase the height of the building to 18'-2" appears reasonable and is not in conflict with the purpose and intent of the Chapter 18 of the Vail Town Code. To further that point, the applicant is proposing to replace the flat mansard -style roof with a shallow sloping shed -style roof with a pitch of 2:12 to a maximum height of 18'-2". Staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief necessary from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of building height regulation to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the development objectives of the Zoning Regulations. Staff believes an approval of the proposed variance request will not result in a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will facilitate an increase in the roof height that will not alter population; will not increase the required number of parking spaces; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 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 a condition, of a variance from Section 12-18-9, Restoration, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a roof height of 18'-2" to exceed the existing roof height of 12' for the restoration of a nonconforming structure, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle (Matterhorn Inn)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Town of Vail Page 7 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-18-9, Restoration, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a roof height of 18'-2" to exceed the existing roof height of 12' for the restoration of a nonconforming structure, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle (Matterhorn Inn)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto" Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following condition: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the July 27, 2015 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds. 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Residential Cluster District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons. a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Residential Cluster District. Town of Vail Page 8 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 Residential Cluster District IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Photographs C. Applicants' Request D. Architectural Plans Town of Vail Page 9 Town of Vail Page 10 Town of Vail Page 11 �^F► r ��,. - � ����-moi "f ice•, ..; ».`r e„�'i'.r"��"1' ,.�� � d 1 ri � F � $4'',� v, v * ���'�: '��yvr-° j�.'•. I y Svc Z5 f r if� q got .' # 11 .17 Its xillY f9�V'+'�}..R�` %YrP 17111L . ,t # ..', t ori i�r+X�JY�•��{�{'�y1�+� r# t+ $4 ��'a �r�t, 4 is f ��r , i x : I � u.�4• tail 49 tf?C`jk! rye yryy i M1 ��rla,�� �,�°a #fir., ��`�'��4'k tt�v'�. Y.'.`"�+.�'1L^;� � .•�,.f o'. r t a 4 3t R m pp" " gar �� k'` � ' � yv1f� � f ,�•-� �j'�f � i .x � � `-�j � rf �` <•f,� 19' 6 - I,'l � r b f ,�i ryt4 �?• 0 C Y F> 'I .t. m n�T may,. »wee•MIC'�* '"'. N CURRENT ARCHITECTS AND ASSOCIATES June 29, 2014 Matterhorn Inn Condominiums 1552 Matterhorn Circle Parcel Number: 2103-123-16-001 thru 011 Vail, Colorado Project Narrative: The Matterhorn Inn Condominiums are comprised of 11 individually owned properties housed within a single structure of approximately 5,000 square feet. It was originally built in 1972 prior to the annexation and application of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. It is therefore a nonconforming structure and site improvement as the current zoning for the area is Residential Cluster. The property was heavily damaged by fire November 21, 2014. After consultation with Town of Vail building officials, structural engineers, and rehabilitation specialists, the homeowners have decided the best course of action to get back into their homes the most expeditiously is to rehabilitate the existing structure. The proposed rehabilitation will maintain the existing structure as much as possible including the foundation and basic floor plans of each unit. We would like to propose a new roof structure and exterior cladding materials. The original roof was a flat mansard style roof with a wood shake parapet that was unattractive, prone to leaking, and susceptible to wildfire. The original cladding was wood shake siding that is no longer allowed within the Town of Vail. We would like to request a new sloping shed roof that will fit better within the aesthetics and nature of neighboring properties. No additional GRFA is proposed, but the existing volumetric building envelope will be increased to allow for proper drainage and more appropriate scale of the structure in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. The existing height of the flat roof is approximately 12'-0", the high point of the proposed roof top of sheathing will be 18'-2". Residential Cluster allows up to 33' height for sloping roofs. Allowing this variance will allow the scale and proportions of the building to be more in line with the surrounding neighborhood. A variance request is required for this property because there are currently 11 homeowners that would like to remain homeowners of the property. Total reconstruction of the property to bring it to conformance with the current code would require a minimum of 8 homeowners to sell their stake in the property. That would place an undue hardship on those owners to re -locate, as well as the hardship of the remaining homeowners to bear the entire burden of costs of redevelopment. The property directly adjacent to the east of the subject property is also an older non -conforming structure, so the existing density of the subject property will still be consistent with the neighborhood. We hope that you will agree that this variance request is just and necessary to allow all of the existing homeowners their right to remain in their property while allowing them the ability to enhance the functionality and aesthetics of the structure. Current Architects and Associates Postal Box 5293 Vail, Colorado 81657 970.331.6345 CURRENTARCHITECTS.COM o 11 1111,111-1 o u 18 o � � &I,¥�s¥9g� �® meem,« ��=wae�ma. T- C) O k N N ` s mmmo�o N m Na Hag�� N „ § 4 iN]dd�� / \ / §((}\ (} (1111} {!{ i)§ l<<1 6/ ! U) o 11 1111,111-1 o u 18 o T- C) O N N N „ \ \:\\ {}/// / \ / §((}\ (} (1111} i)§ l<<1 6/ U) � � z . \ io \^� { \� t _ - i ! \;,u | §§§<\\Z t: §2R.—i- §: \ ^o�� \\ooQ \/o \ ) \} \Z/ (/ §/ z z o= _ - _ _ _ cr '\ ^ ( nQ t :� - - : \ : - ^ /\ � ^ \ - - - - - ^ - \ _\` ( o - - - \ �_ / - \ \\(( \ / u_ _ {\ (T. _ _ \ �/ j}\{} } (\§ DY % - ^ _ � �«-m U - - \ \ 6 / \ \ r U qo�^_ - _ y-\\\ - \\ / \\,\\\ LLI\ z :E� - �^ _ _ - �� -_- \ \\\ \ � �` - mmi a _ m. :- : - -_ - \� / -- _ - - \ }(\� })\)�) }�}� }E - >_ - [ § j \\j \}\ .1umm - <(m ): \\ )} \\�} }(\\(\ }{}j} z§: \<umo //:\ §Z/ >§: ><>/K § \§i : : >:: \}( t\ :>:: \:: §>i o :< � ) / \\ \\ \\\ ��\\ Effi\ �\ \ \\�\\ \\\\ /\ \\ �\ \\<U Y\� Y,<§(\ \ }»< �, , _ , , __ _ - �} / 'm /( ;8 'm &�:\« o *; � /w \} o 00'11 } O »«� _m. m. : O SAAq AOONOO N\ N�JOH�J]1 Va � /w \} S31`dI3OSS`d(INV oavaMoOIivn P N i,. La nnvdmao'iim (� I �'11 I 1I I�'1�4./ raza soa od J1J lvflv.Jn V 3l�?J I� N?JOH?J311VW Z99L - 0 00 0 1N�aal 1�1 •J SWf11NIWO4NO0 NNI NbOHb311b'W m � Q 0 Efl L 'od] El EOH El o0 EEo o0 0 Eo lo 0 El El 00 0 RElID o. o El lo El l:l -- — - — - — - — - — - — El ------------ P 0 00 0 - ..°°'."�'" S31`dI3OSS`d4Nb' �b�F.l'LF.f'f.iry oavao�oO'�ivn r i ,!�a nnvdmao'iim raza soa od J1J lvflv.Jn 3lO?J I0 N?JOH?J311VW Z99L o L -o 0 � SWf11NIWO4NO0 „„��.Y.We,u,� NNI NbOHb311b'W m � Q 1N�aal 1�1 iN3aan� •J o�� o L -o � 0 = El � o0 o loo.E0 El 00 o Va[El o0 0 00 0 o d Eo EU 18 o. =u lo 00 � O Ecc o 00 o o IF 00 o VIEI 00 0 S1�31v1Hn N?JOH?J311VW Z99L O � - O ❑ � 0 S31`dI3OSS`d4Nb' voo'�ivn oaao� S1NIWO4N00 Wf1 NNI NbOHb311b'W m loi,. La nnvdmao'iim 3lO?J I0 v�21t/ 1N�aal 1�1 •J I I I Y Eo EU Eo I m8' o. I IW - D - e U - y �U D - r a o d Eo EU 18 o. =u lo 00 � O Ecc o 00 o o IF 00 o VIEI 00 0 S1�31v1Hn N?JOH?J311VW Z99L O � - O ❑ � 0 00 S1NIWO4N00 Wf1 NNI NbOHb311b'W m a Q v�21t/ 1N�aal 1�1 •J o d Eo EU 18 o. =u lo 00 � O Ecc o 00 o o IF 00 o VIEI 00 0 O � - O ❑ � 00 SMV13OSS` (INV �bF.l'LF.f'f.,f raza soa od J1J 1 fl.J V OavaMOO IIVA 3lO?J I0 N?JOH?J311VW Z99L 0 - SWf11NIWO4NOO NNINHOHb311dW m � Q v v ns_ 1N�aal 1�1 •J o OavaMOOIIVA NNI lo m N NHOHHI-LLVW Q o�� o o OavaMOO IIIA - 31?� O NNI m N o NHOHHI-LLVW loQ Flo � olo � �lo OlO 0 10 1 01 01 Q30 SO 01 - IP 20 1 20 m - - - - _ i Y - BID �p I -< - - - - El— EL El: Ti - \ lo 10 El EEI EEI E71 - W _ 3 - - mm 0 0 - mm sg I mm EEI a mm EIE EEI EEI - - - - z [f] I z� \ < _ _ _Ti q : � \}� � ` � &I,¥�s¥9g� �® g0]1HD�V meem,« ��=wae�ma. s mmmo�o N m Na Hag�� \ \ k 4 - i\]dd�� {!{ ! ) \ �_ � � / \ ƒ / .. ] | ! � � \. , « w � � \ ; � � � � z .. » !\ � �� � ��{ ��� � � � � � � � \�� ~ ��� � ., : � \}� � ` � &I,¥�s¥9g� �® g0]1HD�V meem,« ��=wae�ma. s mmmo�o N m Na Hag�� \ \ k 4 - i\]dd�� {!{ ! b�F.l'LF.f'f.if S31`dI3OSS`d4Nb' oavao�oO'�ivn SWf11NIWO4N00 NNI NbOHb311b'W � r aal 1�1 •J i,!�a nnvdmao'iim s�«A S1331v 1HvO21t/ 3lO?J IO N?JOH?J311VW Z99L z C)_ n D 1NYAW �rrr ■m ■� cam BE SWf11NIWO4N00 NNI NbOHb311b'W aal 1�1 •J \ m \ \ /�� 10 cd > 00 4 1% 1% U) �D co U) . LO M U cd Cq 4. U) U > 4� o U) TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 27, 2015 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Vail Town Code, to allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC150019). Request to table to August 10, 2015 ATTACHMENTS: Name: Description: No Attachments Aviilihk TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 27, 2015 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the former Cascade Village Theater and Colorado Mountain College property to include 14 dwelling units, one (1) onsite Employee Housing Unit and the preservation 4,087 square feet of existing commercial, retail and office space, located at 1310 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This project was previously approved most recently in 2007 and expired on June 1, 2015. (PEC150014) Request to table this item to August 24, 2015 ATTACHMENTS: Namf Description: No Attachments Available TO6'UPJ OF VAdL. VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 27, 2015 ITEM/TOPIC: Environmental Training - Kristen Bertuglia ATTACHMENTS: Nam( No Attachments Available Description: Ad Name: 11388022A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM dnly27CounclCham Vail Town Council Chambers Your account number is- 1OP2P 33 75S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Vail Daily 1.Call to Order 2.A request for the review of a variance from Sec- tion 12-18-9, Restoration, Vail Town Code, pursu- ant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, PROOF OF PUBLICATION to allow for a roof height of to exceed the existing roof height of 12' for the the r restoration of a nonconforming structure, located at 1552 Matter- horn Circle (Matterhorn Inn)/Unplatted, and setting STATE OF COLORADO }Time forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150025) Needed: 30 min. iss Applicant: Matterhorn Inn Home Owners Associa- II tion, represented by Current Architects COUNTY OF EAGLE } Planner: Jonathan Spence 3.A request for final review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Vail Town Code, to I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified allow for the future development of Employee Housing Units on the Chamonix parcel located at representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper 2310 Chamonix Road, Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D'Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150019) printed, in whole or in part and published in the County Request to table to August 10, 2015 of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation Time Needed: 5 min. therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of Planner: George Ruther more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first 4.A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pur- ublication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and suant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Proce- that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice p q g dures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelop - Colo d the former Cascade Village Theater and Colorado Mountain College property to include 14 and advertisement as requested. dwelling units, one (1) onsite Employee Housing Unit and the preservation 4,087 square feet of ex- isting commercial, retail and office space, located at 1310 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, and The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, setting forth details in regard thereto. This project was previously approved most recently in 2007 and expired on June 1, 2015. (PEC150014) only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. Applicant requests to table this item to August 24, 2015 Time Needed: 5 min. Applicant: Ultimate Cascade LLC, represented by That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence published in the regular and entire issue of every 5.Approval of Minutes number of said daily newspaper for the period of I July 13, 2015 PEC Meeting Results consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said 6. Informational Update notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7/24/2015 and Environmental Training - Kristen Bertuglia that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/24/2015 in 7.Adjournment the issue of said newspaper. The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- laroffice hours at the Town of Vail Community De- velopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orienta- In witness whereof I have here unto set m hand this da y y, tion and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develop- 09/23/2015. ment Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be re- lied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is avail- able upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Community Development Department Vail Daily Publishe) in the Vail Daily July 24, 2015 (11388022 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 09/23/2015. � 2M 4,& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9�� COt-SRP$ My Commismn Expires 11/0112015 Ad Name: 11352216A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Your account number is- 1 OP2P33 Vail Daily PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7/10/2015 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/10/2015 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 07/10/2015. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 07/10/2015. � 2M 4,& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9�� COt-SRP$ My Commismn Expires 11/0112015 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on July 27, 2015 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-18-9, Restoration, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to al- low for a roof height of 18'-2" to exceed the exist- ing roof height of 12' for the restoration of a non- conforming structure, located at 1552 Matterhorn Circle (Matterhorn Inn)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC150025) Applicant: Matterhorn Inn Home Owners Associa- tion, represented by Current Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pur- suant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Proce- dures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelop- ment of the former Cascade Village Theater and Colorado Mountain College property to include 14 dwelling units, one (1) onsite Employee Housing Unit and the preservation 4,087 square feet of ex- isting commercial, retail and office space, located at 1310 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This project was previously approved most recently in 2007 and expired on June 1, 2015. (PEC150014) Applicant: Ultimate Cascade LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for information. Published July 10, 2015 in the Vail Daily. (11352216)