Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-13 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VA10 May 13, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Present: Pam Hopkins, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar, Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo Absent: John -Ryan Lockman Site Visits 2.1. 366 Hanson Ranch Road - Vailpoint LLC 2.2. 2698 Cortina Lane - Scheidegger Residence 3. Main Agenda 3.1. A worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 60 min. 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a seven (7) suite private lodge and staff apartment with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0008) Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker, PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence introduced the project and noted that the public accommodation zone district has language that allows either staff or an applicant to request a work session with the PEC, or any town body. He noted that this work session has been initiated by the applicant, not by staff. Mr. Spence referred to the staff memo submitted and noted that there will be no action requested of the PEC today. Mr. Spence further noted that there has only been an initial analysis done on the proposal Ms. Baker, on behalf of the applicant, introduced the team. Mr. Mueller, owner of Cuvee, George Sollidge, Owner of Vail Point LLC, Jens Warner, from REcom Global, Rick Pylman, Land planning and Emilia Kraft and Hans Berglund from Berglund Architects. Ms. Baker stated they requested a work session due to town procedure and enumerated the three items they are seeking feedback on today. Ms. Baker stated that there are a few options and would like feedback; however, no formal action is requested. Ms. Baker stated that the proposed building siting has a couple of options. Setbacks in the PA district may be modified based on criteria. The variation is not a variance. Upon inquiry from Chairman Stockmar, Mr. Spence agreed with Ms. Baker's interpretation of the PA zone district setbacks. Ms. Baker noted that the building footprint that does meet setbacks has implications for the pedestrian experience in the area. Mr. Baker stated there is also a desire to address the fact that there are two zoning designations for the single lot. She noted that there was a previous attempt to reconcile that issue, however, was not achieved on a PEC vote. Mr. Larry Mueller, founder and CEO of Cuvee, then provided an overview of how the building will be operated. Mr. Mueller described the private lodge and the clientele it serves. He noted that there is a large demand for high end lodges that allow people to travel as extended families or as friends and have a private lodge experience with access to high-end amenities. Mr. Mueller noted that the property has private space for families as well as common space. He stated that you can only rent the structure as an entire unit, and individual rooms are not individually leased out. Hans Berglund and Emilia Kraft presented to the Board design images of the proposed building. He noted that setbacks can be modified without a variance as long as five criteria are met. He then presented why this proposal meets each of those criteria. Mr. Berglund stated that the proposal maintains open space and creates a more welcoming pedestrian element. Additionally, he noted that the proposal will maintain adequate light and air. Mr. Berglund stated that they reviewed the I BC to ensure they will meet building code requirements for building setback requirements. He noted that the proposed building setback has the massing stepped back between 10'-16' to create more space. Mr. Berglund then discussed the proposed tower which would comply with the 60' standard for architectural projections and stated that the tower is essentially the same height as the Tivoli building next door. He noted that towers are prominent features and is consistent and will add to the visual overall landscape from a distance as well as a pedestrian. Mr. Berglund then described the proposed materials, a stone base around the house as the main architectural element and the other materials include two colors of copper siding, one as a very dark bronze tone and a lighter copper color, heavy timber construction. He noted that the theme is mountain architecture and speaks to the early days of Vail. He noted that while they are before the board to talk about setbacks, he feels that the building design will contribute to the community. Mr. Kurz inquired about the function of the tower besides the architectural design. Mr. Berglund stated that it is mainly architectural, there is not space in it, with the exception of stairs and a small landing with balconies that wrap around. Upon inquiry from Ms. Hopkins, Mr. Berglund stated that the tower could be lower, however, in order to achieve the effect of a tower, the height is needed. Ms. Hopkins inquired about the throughway from Mill Creek Circle to Golden Peak. Mr. Berglund stated that the new building will be more attractive. Mr. Berglund stated that there have been discussions with Vail Resorts about updating the landscaping. He stated that trees are to be removed within the property. The board then reviewed the shadow study. Mr. Stockmar noted a concern that the shadow is extensive and puts all of Hanson Ranch Road in shadow, which is icy and has implications for safety. The existing pavers are snow melted but not the asphalt road. Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Berglund noted that the alternative footprint would be similar in terms of shadow impact. Ms. Baker stated that at the next meeting they will provide the current condition as well as proposed. Ms. Baker noted that the cumulative impact will be helpful in a future discussion. Mr. Kurz inquired about proposed parking. Mr. Rick Pylman, stated that the lodge parking requirements is 0.7 parking spaces per room, 7 parking spaces total would be required. 1 '/2 spaces are attributed to the small caretaker unit. He noted there are 3 spaces in the garage and 4 spaces outside of the garage. All parking spaces are on the property. Mr. Kjesbo noted that Tivoli was required to have 15-minute parking and cars currently block the sidewalk, which pushes people into the icy road. Mr. Pylman stated that since the entire property is to be rented out and not as individual units, they do not foresee parking being an issue. Mr. Kjesbo noted that the use can change which would impact the operation. Mr. Stockmar noted that the ownership and use can change at any time. Mr. Stockmar noted that the PEC must consider future impact as well as proposed operations. Mr. Pylman stated they will take the PEC's comments into consideration into the design. Mr. Kjesbo stated that the Tivoli was approved with a variance for the height and noted that he has an issue with something extending up 56' on the corner and that it looks out of place and unbalances the building. He does not like that much bulk right at the street. Upon inquiry from Mr. Kjesbo, Mr. Spence noted that the Town Council never opined on the zoning change. Mr. Stockmar stated that the meeting when this property was addressed in June of 2018, the minutes reflect some of his concerns are allayed by the design. Mr. Stockmar stated that it was an odd circumstance due to how the property was obtained. Mr. Stockmar inquired if the applicant would take out the fence across the back yard? Ms. Baker stated that they have not contemplated removing the fence, however, will consider it through the design process. Ms. Baker stated that the message has been received and will focus on it moving forward. Mr. Stockmar stated that there may be implications for the fence, existing trees, and hot tub. Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Spence stated that the same standards for variances do not apply for a setback variation. He noted that a variance is a different thing from a variation, which is subject to the five -criteria Mr. Berglund enumerated. Chairman Stockmar opened the hearing up to public comment. No public comment was provided. Mr. Gillette discussed the zoning of the property. The commission discussed open space and zoning with the applicant and Planner Spence. Ms. Perez stated regarding the zoning it was meant to be space available to the public and stated the applicant has created this issue. She noted that it feels like the open space is part of the community. Ms. Perez stated that she disagrees with Mr. Berglund's analysis of the proposal meeting the required five criteria. Ms. Baker clarified that the space has never been publicly open space and has always been a private lot. There was a discussion regarding what development can occur in open space zone districts. There was a discussion over how the space be preserved to open air and light in the future. Ms. Perez pointed out where existing trees will be removed from the street to accommodate the proposed tower. Ms. Perez stated this will deteriorate open space, air and light. There was a discussion over where existing trees will be removed. Tower would go to corner of where the existing fence is, 60' high. Mr. Gillette inquired if the building could be built without the rezoning. Mr. Spence stated no, it could not. Mr. Stockmar stated they are concerned about massing, height, and the fence along the south side of the property. 3.2. A request for the review of variances from Section 14-3-1: Minimum 20 min. Standards, Table 1 Driveway/Feeder Road Standards, Entry Angle Minimum Deflection, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the entry angle minimum deflection for first 30 feet of driveway length to facilitate the development of a single-family structure, located at 2698 Cortina Lane/Lot 11, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-00013) Applicant: Benno Scheidegger, represented by Berglund Architects Planner: Ashley Clark Planner Clark introduced the variance request. She noted that the property is unique in that is shares a steep driveway with two other parcels. Ms. Clark noted that Public Works Department is supportive of bringing the grade up to code and changing the angle to meet code. Mr. Berglund reiterated staff's comments. Chairman Stockmar opened the hearing for public comment. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Kurz moved to approve the variance request. Ms. Perez seconded. The commission unanimously voted to approve the variance request. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3.3. A Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an 5 min. administrative action regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 36, Four Seasons, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plan in order to permit a non- residential addition totaling 980 square feet to accommodate a glass enclosed seating area located at 1 Vail Road/Lot A — C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0014) Applicant: Ex Vail LLC Extell Development, represented by OZ Architecture Planner: Erik Gates Planner Gates introduced the project. The glass enclosure is proposed on the south deck to the restaurant. No action is required by the PEC. Public Comment — None 3.4. A request for the review of variances from Section 12-6D-9-6 Setbacks, 20 min. Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback of 20 feet to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-00010) Applicant: Paul & Danita Ostling, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Ashley Clark Planner Clark introduced the application, which was tabled from a past meeting. The variance on the west side is no longer in the application. Staff recommendation from the previous meeting stands, which is to recommend denial. Allison Kent, Mauriello Planning Group — She read a statement from the owner's representative, who could not attend the meeting. She described the property location at 706 Forest Road, and presented images of the property. The application required several public hearings when it was originally built. Ms. Kent described the history of the lot and construction, including being built with a 10' setback. Variances were obtained for the original construction. All variances on the west side unit have been eliminated with the application. Ms. Kent described the variances on the east side. The front entry was relocated to the second level. Also, a roof pitch change is proposed. She described the revised plans, and showed a comparison to the previous application. She showed how the existing home currently sits over the front setback. Adam Harrison — Existing front setback is about 3 feet on east side. Ms. Kent — Stair is proposed 3.9 feet from property line. We are also removing GRFA from the setback area (70 square feet). She showed a comparison of the existing GRFA within the setback, and as proposed with this application. Ms. Kent — Presented written letters of support from neighboring property owners. She then reviewed the criteria for a variance in the existing Town Code. She focused on criteria #2, "to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment". She reviewed other elements of the site that make this property unique. She reviewed other sites in the Primary/Secondary zone district with steep slopes. Ms. Kent showed a map analysis of lots in the Primary/Secondary zone district with the steep slopes layer on. Ms. Kent argued that this lot was one of the only lots in the district that had steep slopes extending all the way to the front of the property line. She further illustrated that the steep slopes layer for an overwhelming majority of the lots remains at the rear of the lot and does not extend to the front. Ms. Clark — Explained why staff focused on the uniqueness of the site, and that the applicant needs to be treated differently to be treated the same. Ms. Clark noted that the map analysis was helpful in demonstrating the uniqueness of this lot. Ms. Perez — Why is it necessary to have the entrance on the second floor? Ms. Kent — The site is so steep we are trying to get people into the living level without going through the garage. Ms. Perez- Please explain again which side is being demolished, and which is remodeled. Also please explain the overhang variance. Ms. Kent — Showed examples of other homes built with front setback variances. Public Comment — None Mr. Kjesbo — In favor of the variance. They have done a good job reducing and eliminating variances. They are eliminating square footage on the east unit. I will support Mr. Gillett — I support the variance. It's a very steep lot and deserves a variance. Mr. Kurz —Agree with Kjesbo. Within reason, the applicant had come close to not meeting a variance, but with changes in favor of the variance. Ms. Perez — Pleased with reducing the number of variances. You have also minimized the degree of the variance. Site is a steep lot. Previous concerns were with the other side of the lot. I'm normally not in favor of variances, but in favor of this due to the changes. Ms. Hopkins — In your favor is that the road is so far. Those lots were built in the 70s and 80s, and for cost reasons were built this way. Mr. Stockmar — Agree with other Commissioners and issues raised. Laud the applicant for making a substantial effort to revise plans. The slide showing the steepness of lots in the area helped to convince me. This is a very steep lot. Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. April 22, 2019 PEC Results Brian Gillette moved to approve. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Hopkins Absent: (1) Lockman 5. Adjournment Ludwig Kurz moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: 366 Hanson Ranch Road - Vailpoint LLC City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: 2698 Cortina Lane - Scheidegger Residence City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 13, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a seven (7) suite private lodge and staff apartment with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0008) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Staff Memorandum.pdf A. Vicinity Map.pdf B. Worksession memo May 8 2019.pdf C. Applicant Narrative March 15 2019.pdf D. Plan Set Berglund Architects March 15 2019 Part1.pdf D. Plan Set Berglund Architects March 15 2019 Part2.pdf D. Plan Set Berglund Architects March 15 2019 Part3.pdf D. Plan Set Berglund Architects March 15 2019 Part4.pdf E. PEC Meeting Minutes June 25 2018.pdf Description Staff Memorandum A. Vicinity Map B. Worksession memo, May 8, 2019 C. Applicant Narrative, March 15, 2019 D. Plan Set, Berglund Architects, March 15, 2019_Part1 D. Plan Set, Berglund Architects, March 15, 2019_Part2 D. Plan Set, Berglund Architects, March 15, 2019_Part3 D. Plan Set, Berglund Architects, March 15, 2019_Part4 E. PEC Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2018 rowN OF vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 2019 SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a seven (7) suite private lodge and staff apartment with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision. (PEC19-0008) Applicant: VailPoint LLC, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. and Sarah J. Baker P.C. Planner: Jonathan Spence I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, VailPoint LLC, represented by Pylman & Associates, Inc. and Sarah J. Baker P.C., is requesting a worksession to discuss a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a seven (7) suite private lodge and staff apartment with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/ Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision. The applicant would also like to discuss the previous rezoning request that was presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on June 25, 2018. Please see the background section below for a summary of this meeting. A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicant's memo dated May 8t", 2019 (Attachment B) applicants' narratives dated March 15, 2019 (Attachment C), proposed plan set from Berglund Architects dated March 15, 2019 (Attachment D), and the minutes for the June 25° 2018 PEC meeting (Attachment E) are included for review. II. BACKGROUND In 1963, Vail Associates conveyed the entirety of Lot d, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing (Lot d) to Christiania -at -Vail, Inc. (VailPoint's predecessor in title). Lot d is comprised of the present-day Christiania at Vail Lodge, the Chateau Christian Condominiums, and the single family residence at 366 Hanson Ranch Road. Over time and apparently prior to enactment of subdivision regulations in the Town Christiania- at -Vail, Inc. severed portions of Lot d. They did so by recording deeds that described these smaller parcels by metes and bounds description. These deeds effectively served to subdivide Lot d, although not through the process that would be required today. The property at 366 Hanson Ranch Road is one of these severed parcels. The property has an existing residence that was built in the early 1960s, prior to the incorporation of Vail as a Town in 1966. It is located between the Christiania at Vail Lodge and Chateau Christian Condominiums to the west, and the Tivoli Lodge to the east. The land to the south of the home and to the east of the home (between the home and the Tivoli Lodge) is owned by Vail Resorts. The land to the east of the home is Lot d-1, Block 2, Vail Village Fifth Filing. The lands south of the home are a part of Tract E, Vail Village Fifth Filing. For as long as 50 years, the existing property and portions of Lot d-1 and Tract E have been surrounded by a fence. For unknown reasons, the fence was not built on the deeded property line and instead encloses a larger area, both to the south and east. All previous owners have treated the fenced area as an integral part of the property and have landscaped and maintained it consistent with the remainder of the property. The aerial photo below illustrates this situation. w Town of Vail 366 Hanson Kant R. ..„I Vail CDIfN (il- ®IMim d Tran d1 h Trx: f Page 2 In January, 2018, the Eagle County District Court entered an Order and Decree Quieting Title (Court Order) to this area outside the deed boundary but inside the fence. Recognizing the historic conditions, the Court Order declared VailPoint to be the fee simple owner of all of the lands within the fence. On June 25, 2018 the applicant presented two requests before the PEC. These were: A request for the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3, Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to incorporate a portion of Lot d-1, Block 2, Vail Village Fifth Filing and a portion of Tract E, Vail Village Fifth Filing into the existing property located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road 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 the rezoning of two parcels of land located in the vicinity of 366 Hanson Ranch Road; A portion of Lot d-1, Block 2, Vail Village Fifth Filing and a portion of Tract E, Vail Village Fifth Filing. The rezoning request was to change the Zone District from Agriculture and Open Space (A) District to the Public Accommodation (PA) District Following presentations, questions and deliberations, the PEC approved the Exemption Plat consolidating the parcels within the fence boundary into a single parcel. This was approved by a vote of 4-2 with Commissioners Gillette and Perez voting against the measure. The PEC was unable to forward a recommendation to the Town Council concerning the rezoning request. A motion forwarding a recommendation of approval did not prevail with a 3-3 vote, Commissioners Gillette, Perez and Hopkins opposed. Based on this lack of a recommendation, the applicant chose to withdraw the application at that time. The result is a single parcel (Lot 1 of the 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision having multiple zonings. III. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE Article A. Public Accommodation (PA) District (in part) 12-7A-1: PURPOSE: Town of Vail Page 3 The public accommodation district is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semipublic facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. The public accommodation district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1: Ord. 30(1977) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 7.100) 12-7A-2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the PA district: Automated teller machines (ATMs) exterior to a building. Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. (Ord. 12(2008) § 11) 12-7A-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Fractional fee club units, as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A8 of this title. Healthcare facilities. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and occupying between ten percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. Major arcades. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Town of Vail Page 4 Private parking structures. Private unstructured parking. Professional and business offices. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public parking structures. Public parks and recreational facilities. Public transportation terminals. Public unstructured parking. Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Ski lifts and tows. Theaters and convention facilities. (Ord. 12(2008) § 11) 12-7A-4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PA district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Meeting rooms. Minor arcades. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1: Ord. 6(1982) § 8(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 7.400) 12-7A-5: LOTAREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: Town of Vail Page 5 The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of buildable area and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 23(1999) § 1: Ord. 12(1978) § 3) 12-7A-6: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: In the PA district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board, variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of exterior alterations or modifications (section 12-7A-12 of this article) subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria.- A. riteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. D. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. E. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1: Ord. 50(1978) § 2) 12-7A-7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48). (Ord. 23(1999) § 1: Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12-7A-8: DENSITY CONTROL: Up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) may be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Final determination of allowable gross residential floor area shall be made by the planning and environmental commission in accordance with section 12-7A-12 of this article. Specifically, in determining allowable gross residential floor area the planning and environmental commission shall make a finding that proposed gross residential floor area is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Village urban design guide Town of Vail Page 6 plan and design considerations. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. For the purposes of calculating density, employee housing units, accommodation units and fractional fee club units shall not be counted towards density. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 5(2003) § 4: Ord. 31(2001) §§ 3, 5: Ord. 23(1999) § 1: Ord. 50(1978) § 19.- Ord. 9:Ord. 12(1978) § 2) 12-7A-9: SITE COVERAGE.- Site OVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total site area. Final determination of allowable site coverage shall be made by the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board in accordance with section 12-7A-12 of this article. Specifically, in determining allowable site coverage the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board shall make a finding that the proposed site coverage is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1: Ord. 17(1991) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 7.507) 12-7A-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT. At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 23(1999) § 1: Ord. 19(1976) § 8: Ord. 8(1973) § 7.509) 12-7A-11: PARKING AND LOADING.- Off OADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No at grade or above grade surface parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. Below grade underground structured parking and short term guest loading and drop off shall be permitted in the required front setback subject to the approval of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1: Ord. 19(1976) § 8: Ord. 8(1973) § 7.510) 12-7A-12: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has Town of Vail Page 7 substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. The following submittal items are required: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application, Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. 3. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. 4. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. 5. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void three (3) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 5(2003) § 5: Ord. 31(2001) § 7: Ord. 23(1999) § 1) 12-7A-13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN.- Town URDEN: Town of Vail Page 8 It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village master plan, the Vail Village urban design guide plan and the Vail streetscape master plan, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1) 12-7A-14: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS.- Property MPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1) 12-7A-15: ADDITION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA TO EXISTING PA PROPERTIES.- For ROPERTIES: For any gross residential floor area added to a public accommodation zoned property following the effective date hereof, a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the added gross residential floor area shall be devoted to accommodation units, or fractional fee club units subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. This limitation shall not apply to gross residential floor area being added in accordance with sections 12-15-4 and 12-15-5 of this title. (Ord. 23(1999) § 1) Vail Land Use Plan (in part) Chapter 11- 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. Town of Vail Page 9 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Chapter VI — Proposed Land Use (in part) GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRYAND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY ASA WHOLE. Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy 2.3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Vail Village Master Plan (in part) GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY, REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. GOAL #2 TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRYAND PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY ASA WHOLE. Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 11 sub -areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Policy 2.1 The zoning code and development review criteria shall be consistent with the Town of Vail Page 10 goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short-term overnight accommodations. Policy 2.3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed ina manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. GOAL #4 TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND GREEN SPACE OPPORTUNITIES. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Policy 4.1.3: With the exception of ski base -related facilities, existing natural open space areas at the base of Vail Mountain and throughout Vail Village and existing green spaces shall be preserved as open space. IV. SITE ANALYSIS /_�'. C I �� [c��:� :.FTi�•7 i1:FTit•7 7 :Z:FT'. Legal Description: Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision Existing Zoning: Public Accommodation (PA) District and Agriculture and Open Space (A) District Proposed Zoning: Public Accommodation (PA) District Land Use Plan Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Current Land Use: Single Family Dwelling Unit Proposed Land Use: Lodge Geological Hazards: None V. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use Zone District North: Lodging/Multifamily Public Accommodation (PA) District South: Open Space Agriculture and Open Space (A) District East: Lodging/Multifamily SDD #37, Tivoli Lodge with an underlying zoning of Public Accommodation (PA) District West: Lodging/Multifamily SDD #28, Christiania at with an underlying zoning of Vail Public Accommodation (PA) District Town of Vail Page 11 VI. REVIEW CRITERIA Within the Public Accommodations District, new development is required to demonstrate compliance or consistency with the following: • Purpose of the PA District; • Applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan; • Applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan; • Applicable elements of the Vail Streetscape Master Plan; • The proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and • The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan Prior to a formal public hearing on this application, staff will present a full analysis of this review criterion. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a worksession, staff has no recommendation at this time. VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Memo to the PEC, May 8, 2019 C. Applicant Narrative, March 15, 2019 D. Plan Set, Berglund Architects, March 15, 2019 E. PEC Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2018 Town of Vail Page 12 OQ ( r VAI L VALLEY DR \ cin \ \ \ _ \ ap 11 j, u -------------- J AVANTI LODGE MEMORANDUM TO: Town of Vail — Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Avanti Lodge Project Team DATE: May 8, 2019 RE: PEC 19-0008; Memorandum for Work Session Discussion — May 13, 2019 On March 15, 2019, VailPoint LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (Applicant) submitted its application for Major Exterior Alteration (Application) for review by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) pursuant to the procedure established by Vail Municipal Code (VMC) § 12-7A-12. Applicant seeks approval to redevelop the existing structure at 366 Hanson Ranch Road (Property) into a lodge (Avanti Lodge). Avanti Lodge, under Applicant's ownership, will be offered as a whole -property, short-term rental by Cuvee, a Denver-based owner, manager and curator of a rare collection of ultra -luxury villas, chalets and private resorts in celebrated global destinations like Vail. Applicant has requested a work session with PEC pursuant to VMC § 12-7A-12. A.3. This memorandum is intended to introduce the three matters which Applicant wishes to discuss with PEC at the May 13, 2019 work session. Anticipated to be in attendance at the work session on behalf of Applicant are: • George Solich, Owner/Applicant • Larry Mueller, representative of Cuvee • Hans Berglund and Amelia Kraft, representatives of project architect, Berglund Architects LLC • Rick Pylman, representative of project land planner, Pylman & Associates, Inc. • Sarah Baker, legal counsel to Owner/Applicant Submitted with this memorandum are (1) Avanti Lodge — Project Narrative in support of Application, and (2) Plan Set — Avanti Lodge. This memorandum is intended to comprehensively cover the matters which Applicant desires to discuss with the PEC at the work session; the full project narrative and full plan set are intended as additional information should PEC find it helpful for additional context. Avanti Lodge/ 366 Hanson Ranch Road Memorandum — May 13, 2019 Work Session Page 1 Building Siting Within the Public Accommodation (PA) zone district, the VMC establishes setback standards of 20 feet on all sides. Departures from these standards are allowed without variance when an applicant demonstrates that: 1. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas; 2. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations; 3. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space; 4. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties; and 5. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. See VMC § 12-7A-6. The Property is a lot that is roughly 110 feet on the north (bounded by Hanson Ranch Road), 108 feet on the east (bounded by a pedestrian path), 131 feet on the south (bounded by the pedestrian path connecting Golden Peak to Vail Village), and 87 feet on the west (bounded by Chateau Christian Condominiums). Applicant has two options in locating the building: 1. Applicant can situate the building such that it preserves the sense of openness to the recreation path to the south but deviates from the 20' side setbacks (Rectangle Plan); or 2. Applicant can compress the building such that it achieves the 20' setbacks but moves more of the mass of the building to the south, compromising the feeling of open area between the Avanti Lodge and the recreation path to the south (Square Plan). As submitted, the Application proposes the Rectangle Plan and intends at the work session to explain its rationale behind this design. Applicant, however, desires discussion with PEC regarding the options prior to proceeding with the Application. Avanti Lodge/ 366 Hanson Ranch Road Memorandum — May 13, 2019 Work Session Page 2 The Rectangle Plan situates the building with a 20' front setback, a setback of 10' on each side, and is approximately 4' inset from the 20' setback on the rear: I � u I pyEKK FROM TRYER PCK)T RI 1 I PtJ1�Y YB•1 MOGEib.�„ e'Nry r�. R tELMfn FNIJN hvefn uxE. i5y i - iM nv�. lT __BEiMC�t'NihY PPLwEnfrJei � � T------�,C-GM' -3 YB4T M0�'-tea I 6EMUL-UNU ARCHITECTS, LLC 366 HANSON RANCH ROAD IIETBACKG- PROPOIIEID PLAN 210 —6V—E—DA103 ED1WARO6,C081— —G.-- V.AIL CO 3f32'- 1' -D 05 -M-21319 See also Vicinity Plan, Sheet A2.1. Avanti Lodge/ 366 Hanson Ranch Road Memorandum — May 13, 2019 Work Session Page 3 In contrast, the Square Plan achieves the setbacks indicated in the VMC for the PA zone district, but moves more of the mass of the building closer to the pedestrian path that connects Golden Peak to Vail Village. In doing so, it compromises the feeling of openness from the public pedestrian path and makes the footprint of Avanti incongruous with the adjacent Tivoli Lodge and Chateau Christian Condominiums in that it would project past the imaginary line between the buildings. Additionally, this would decrease the amount of landscape buffer between the public path and the building, patios and other side improvements. �j ;I I I ` I I � id< _ I LCL--�� jt-- h I I I I I I I I •-BT. P �- 'SOJARE' O'TIOh BUILDING FOOTPRINT kN .e -s ,a•r.,. � I i � — � — � — i i II I i j II 1 -J ir-----------1 i fI F g+_ - - -- T=-- ' 4 13EHGLUNE3 ARCMIT6CTG, LLC 366 HANSON RANCH ROAD I SETBACKS-'SQOARE'PLAN 210-5V-E-DA1W,EPV M,CGS- --E- '1A L CO 3/32 - 1-0• G5 -D6 -2D19 Applicant desires discussion with PEC on the relative pros and cons of these building siting alternatives. Avanti Lodge/ 366 Hanson Ranch Road Memorandum — May 13, 2019 Work Session Page 4 Architectural Elements Applicant is proposing a tower on the north east corner of the building that is an architectural element. Architectural elements are allowed to project up to 25% above the height limit in the PA zone (48'); thus, the tower is allowed to project up to 60'. The proposed tower complies with the architectural element height limit. Towers are a significant part of town urban planning throughout the world and particularly so in Vail, which has a number of iconic towers on other private buildings. Towers provide significant architectural character as well as visual interest and orienting landmarks to pedestrians. Access to the Avanti Lodge tower is provided to the tower for maintenance. Applicant desires to clarify with the PEC that the tower is considered an architectural element which meets the height limit. 366 HANSON RANCH RD CHRISTIAN AN BERGLLJN0 ARCHPTECTS, LLC 366 HANSON RANCH ROAD I +TI?EET ELEVATION 3+0 FDww+uL YaL+Oi YWO wq+. ¢pWwwpA pp ��� rf�a.uc.lu� VAIL CO NTS OS -06-:019 Avanti Lodge/ 366 Hanson Ranch Road Memorandum — May 13, 2019 Work Session Page 5 Zoning Town staff and Applicant believe that the Property may be the only lot in Vail that has two different zone districts— Public Accommodation (PA) and Agriculture/Open Space (A/OS). As indicated in Applicant's written narrative submitted in support of the Application, Applicant's development can proceed with this dual zoning if it must—the A/OS zone district allows single-family residences of up to 2,000 square feet, subject to setback requirements that are less restrictive (on the rear and side setbacks) than setbacks in the PA district. However, both Town staff and Applicant recognize this dual -zoning within a single lot as unworkable and undesirable. It will not prevent development, only dictate an awkwardly designed building. In 2018, Applicant submitted a rezoning application to the Town, simultaneous with a subdivision exemption application. At that time, PEC approved the subdivision but—on a split 3/3 vote—made a recommendation of denial of the rezoning to the Town Council. Applicant subsequently withdrew the rezoning application, sensing that it could be helpful to consider it when the development proposal was known. For purposes of the Application, Applicant has assumed a singular PA zone district for the entire Property, but desires discussion with PEC as to the appropriate process to resolve the zoning disparity. The available options are: 1. Do nothing –proceed with development with dual zoning; or 2. Rezone a. Rezoning initiated by Town Council; b. Rezoning initiated by the Planning and Environmental Commission; c. Rezoning initiated by petition of Applicant; or d. Rezoning initiated bythe Administrator. Each of the rezoning options is permissible pursuant to VMC § 12-3-7 B.I. Criteria and necessary findings for a zone district boundary amendment are further set forth in VMC § 12-3-7.C. Avanti Lodge/ 366 Hanson Ranch Road Memorandum — May 13, 2019 Work Session Page 6 RECTANGLE PLAN Avanti Lodge/ 366 Hanson Ranch Road Memorandum — May 13, 2019 Work Session Exhibit — Rectangle Plan Z Q rn J ao w N ° w Y ( PROPERTY LINE O 0 z a o a w a O Q W m Y J U) 0 U ---- m / Y lz w w �I o W � U I, o0 I I I I I 2 i I I I o w _= � 0 == d I o z W Q z 2 NOV913S ?J3h0 ONVH?J3h0 �00?J I I �i J H I ow oz :fl XVW ..E -,Zl Z a>0 ao M II o°o I as L— I II o I _i <w 0 II/ I I V _ NOV913S ?OAO SNVH?GAO �00?1 xvw * o Y U WN < _ IX U)J L — 0 w z r I � I Z � w w —� �� w I_ U - J a W c i w j off- w O \ PROPERTY LINE Y f LL f o � m 'Qy_ Q `S 77=---'/ / Q ww' W 'n ____________�--%- w O Q I > W U' 0 2\�w\OO-010 Ztn 2\ / \ ❑ -jO\ZQ\FK I K Fo\oAo= W ❑ <\\ SQUARE PLAN Avanti Lodge/ 366 Hanson Ranch Road Memorandum — May 13, 2019 Work Session Exhibit —Square Plan z Q o J N a� w�PROPERTY LINE � O -� 0 L) LU co w I v� \ o 0 F\— I I � I 5- z II I I I I o= W. z � I I 0 R_ I �I R _ o0 0 NOV913S?.GAOONVH?J AO=IOMJ Eu LL Q z L— _j I Z� I I I y - �� \ I I �w w < I II I I I I )IOV813S 2i3A0 `JNVH2i3AO doo2j I XVW ,.8/£ 9 -,b I 3Nn AJa3doad woad ONVHa3Ao dooa J I — _ _ ---E I I _---- — N L 4 � > m ' NIW „b/£ S S6 J o O rn _ — — — — M LU ,Z; J U ❑ PROPERTY \ LINE L O ____________ ____ ---\,O I 16 ----- ---__ _Wo / I Z Q I ❑ zz J W \ow U U' 2\fq \,O / ' � O\Z Q\F K I K Z9 1y = � W ❑ STREET ELEVATION a 0 N t Z t 0 LU lu uu M :I: 0 z z 0 0 z a J i� i� Avanti Lodge/ 366 Hanson Ranch Road Memorandum — May 13, 2019 Work Session Exhibit — Street Elevation 01 Albl. wkr- oll rill' a ;-WN IV T Table of Contents Table of Contents Page Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 Project Overview and Background.......................................................................... 4 A. Background of the Property....................................................................... 4 B. Zoning of the Property............................................................................... 6 C. Surrounding Land Use................................................................................ 7 D. Private Restrictive Covenants..................................................................... 8 Description of the Project....................................................................................... 9 A. Development Program............................................................................... 11 B. Project's Conformance with Zoning........................................................... 11 C. Development Standards............................................................................. 13 D. Vail's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance......................................................... 14 Conformance with Applicable Review Criteria........................................................ 15 A. General Review Criteria.............................................................................. 15 1. Vail Village Master Plan...................................................................... 15 2. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan ................................................. 20 3. Vail Streetscape Master Plan.............................................................. 22 4. Neighborhood Character and Vail Comprehensive Plan .................... 22 B. Setback Variations Review Criteria............................................................ 23 C. Restrictions on Additional GRFA................................................................ 24 ApplicationMaterials.............................................................................................. 25 Table of Contents AVANTI LODGE Project Narrative in support of Application for Major ExteriorAlteration Permit TO: Planning and Environmental Commission, Town of Vail RE: Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, CO DATE: March 15, 2019 I. INTRODUCTION This p roject narrative describes the background, purposeand details of the p roposeddevelop ment of Avanti Lodge, a redevelop mentof 366 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, Colorado (Avanti Lodge). The owner and develop erof Avanti Lodge is VailPoint LLC, a Colorado limited liability company(Applicant). Avanti Lodge, under Applicant's ownership, will be offered as a whole -property, short-term rental by Cuv6e, a Denver- based owner, manager and curatorof a rare collection of ultra -luxury villas, chalets and private resorts in celebrated global destinations. Ap p licantand Cuv6e's shared vision for Avanti Lodge is to afford its guests—typ ically multigenerational family and friends—their own private, exclusive resort almost in the heart of Vail Village. Given its p rime location, guests at Avanti Lodge are perfectly situated—usually within a short stroll—to enjoy all of the best that Vail has to offer. Cuv6e strives to create the world's most elevated travel experiences by connecting guests to their surroundings through couture design and architecture, exceptionally tailored guest p lanning and immersive, singular cultural exp erien(es. The redevelop ment is p rop osedto p roceed as a Major Exterior Alteration (Application) in accordance with the procedure established by Vail Municipal Code (VMC) § 12-7A-12. This narrative is submitted, with its sup p ortingattachments, forthe record in sup p ortof the Town of Vail's (Town) requirements forthe Applicatior) as adopted in the VMC. The develop mentsite for Avanti Lodge is comprised of a single lot as dep icted on the Exemption Plat– Lot 1, 366Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision (Property), Assessor Parcel No. 2101-082-90-001. Presently, a functionally obsolete single-family residence exists on the Property as a preexisting non- conforming zoning use. The three level, seven -bedroom residence was constructed in 1965 and is approximately 8,122 square feet. Portions of the residence have seen upgrades over the decades, but upgrades have been limited to patchwork, interior remodels. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 1 Photo: 366 Hanson Ranch Road, streetviewfrom north Redeveloped, Avanti Lodge is prop osedto be a seven -suite private lodge with a flexible staff apartment and related site, recreational, and landscape improvements commensurate with its quality and premium location within Vail Village. Depiction: ProposedAvanti Lodge, streetviewfrom the northeast Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 2 The project vicinity map below depicts the Property and the neighboring properties :t Q OFF, k WOE 14F NA Source: Eagle CountyGlSMapping — ProjectVicinity; labels to adjacentbuildings added Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 3 II. PROJECT OVERVIEW and BACKGROUND A. Background of the Property In 1965, before the Town of Vail was incorporated, a seven -bedroom, roughly 8,000 square foot single family residence was built on the Property. The home was built on the east side of the +/- 0.75 -acre Lot d, Vail Village First Filing. In 1968—and before the Town even had subdivision regulations—the original owner severed the homesite from the remaining +/- 0.50 acres of Lot d, on which the Christiania Lodge and Chateau Christian were, or have since been, constructed. Sometime before 1968, the original owner built a fence enclosing the Property. Perhaps not unusual for its time, the fence was built beyond the boundary of the original parcel. U Source: September26,1968 US GeologicalService Aerial 366 Hanson Ranch Road 4F This boundaryproblem was addressed and resolved in 2018. In VailPointLLCv. The VailCorporation, Case No. 2017CV30207, Applicant asserted a claim of adverse possession against Vail Resorts based on Applicant's predecessors' adverse, open, notorious and continuous use of the land inside the fence for roughly fifty (50) years. The Eagle County, Colorado District Court entered an Order and Decree Quieting Title (Decree) vesting title in all of the land inside the fence in App Iicant.Subsequently, the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approved the Lot 1, 366Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision Exemption Plat, creating the current lot, which is approximately108 feet on its north/south line, and 130 feet on its east/west line, for a total size of 0.304 acres (Lot). Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 4 The home on the Property has historically been occupied as a single-family residence, a legal non- conforming use'that is out of compliancewith its Public Accommodation zoning. The approval sought in this Ap p lication offers the Town the opportunity to correct this non -conforming use. Courts in Colorado have long held that non -conforming uses are disfavored and should be eliminated as quickly as possible. See Hartleyv. Cityof Colorado Springs, 764 P.2d 1216 (Colo. 1988). Avanti Lodge falls squarelywithin the criteria for a "Lodge" under the Town's applicable definitions, a permitted use in the Public Accommodation zone district.' For this reason alone, Avanti's redevelopment proposal includes the significant benefit of enhancing the implementation of Vail's zoning ordinances and master plan goals. The Avanti Lodge redevelopment further satisfies one of the overarching goals of the Vail Village Master Plan: Upgrading buildings: Vail Village has not escaped the aging process. There is a need to encourage the continued upgrading and enhancement of existing lodging and commercial facilities within the Village In order to maintain the unique character that is its main attraction. Source: Vail Village MasterPlan, p.3. Although the present home is a site of understandable nostalgia for some, its 55 -years of use are evident in everything from its mechanical systems and its interiordesign to its exterior ap p earancein one of the most well -traveled guest corridors in the Town of Vail. Keep ing the Property in its p resent condition is not, realistically, a safe or viable option. Ap p licanthas strived to present a redevelopment proposal that is consistent with the Town of Vail zoning and p olicygoals, while at the same time honoring the Property's iconic significance in Vail's history. 'A non -conforming use is a use that was lawful p riorto the adoption of a zoning regulation prohibiting the use, but that does not comp lywith the requirements of that regulation. See Tri-State Generation & Transmission Co. v. City of Thornton, 647 P.2d 670 (Colo. 1982). ' Avanti includes a large patio with a firepit and hot tub on the south side of the proposed building. Such uses are permitted accessory uses in the PA zone district p ursuantto VMC § 12-7A-4. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 5 B. Zoning of the Property The Property is thought by App Iicantand Staff to be the only parcel in the Town that has multiple zone districts. The portion of the Lot that was originally conveyed by Vail Associates in 1963 has been zoned Public Accommodation (PA) since the Town adopted its original zoning in 1973. The remaining portion of the Lot—that is, the portion outside the original parcel but within the fence and historically integrated with the original parcel—has been zoned Agriculture/Open Space (A OS), also since the Town originally adopted zoning. Source: Town of Vail GISMapping, Zoning Layer This dual -zoning within a single lot is recognized by both Town staff and the Applicant as unworkable and undesirable. In June 2018, Ap p licant ap p lied for a Zone District Boundary Amendment but elected to withdraw the ap p lication prior to hearing before the Town Council. Although Town staff recommended ap p rovalof that rezoning ap p lication, it seemed to Ap p licantthat deferring the rezoning request until it could be simultaneously considered with this redevelopment proposal would assist the Town's understanding of the request. It is important to emphasize that Applicant's development can proceed with the dual -zoning if it must. The A/OS zone district allows single-family residences of up to 2,000 square feet, subject to setback requirements that are even less restrictive (on the rear and side setbacks) than the setbacks in the PA zone district. Rejecting a rezoning will not prevent redevelop ment it will only dictate an awkwardly designed building inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Town and surrounding land uses. The A/OS zone district appearsto be a relic of Eagle County zoning, prior to Vail's incorporation. In this zone district, zoning regulations require a minimum lot or site area of thirty-five (35) acreswith a minimum of one acre of buildable area. See VMC 12-8A-5. Applicant's research indicates that there are only about ten (10) parcels zoned A/OS in the Town, all but one of which don't even come close to satisfying this Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 6 required minimum lot size.' Notes in the Town's GIS mapping system indicate that some of these may have been rezoned over the years, and there is confusion about what property is even within the zone district. At a minimum, it is apparentthat there are problems with the A/OS zone district throughout Town, including on this Property. For these reasons, it is ap p rop rialb to address the zoning of the Lot in the context of the redevelop ment. At the work session Ap p licanthas requested p ursuantto § 12-7A-12. A.3, Applicant desires to discuss with the Town the appropriate procedure to resolve the zoning disparity inside the Property. For purposes of this Application, Applicant has assumed a singular Public Accommodation zone district for the entire Lot. C. Surrounding Land Use The Property is bordered by PA -zoned lands on the north, east and west. Each of these prop erties-- Christiania, Chateau Christian, Tivoli, Rams Horn, Galatyn Lodge, and Villa Valhalla—has been developed (and in some cases, redeveloped) and is operated as either a lodge or condominium. The property is also across from the Parking -zoned Founders Parking Garage. Source: Town of Vai1GISMapping, Zoning Layerwith SDD OverlayDistricts To the south, the subject Property is adjacent to a strip of p rivately owned, A/OS-zoned land that is approximately 100 feet wide before transitioning to the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential properties on Mill Creek Circle. 3 Assessor Account Nos. R006780 (30.6 acres); R066944 (3.150 acres); R050657 (6.302 acres); R057430 (2.132 acres); R007977 (0.762 acres); R008042(1.687 acres); R008078 (2.860 acres); R031618 (1.390 acres); R033001(0.272 acres); and R004010 (3.0 acres). Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 7 D. Private Restrictive Covenants In the 1960s, prior to formation of the Town and enactment of zoning regulations, various private restrictive covenants were recorded against Tract E and Lot d-1. AN Tract E (outlined in yellow) Source: Eagle CountyGlSMapping Overthe years, numerous imp rovementsand structures have been builtthat contravenethese covenants. Up and down Tract E, from Vail's incorporation in 1966 until as recently as 2013, the Town has approved developments that violate the covenants. Pirate Ship Park and the pedestrian path violate one of the covenants; various buildings and commercial enterprises violate some of the covenants; other landscaping improvements by publicand private parties violate other covenants. These various covenants, to the extent they have not been abandoned or otherwise become non - enforceable as a result of the long history of violations, are not at issue in this Application. The question of enforceability of the covenants, and whether or not this project contravenes them like others have, is not one that requires resolution in this context. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 8 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Ap p licant seeks to remove the existing structure and build a new structure under the Major Exterior Alteration Permit application process codified in VMC § 12-7A-12. Applicant's proposal requires no variances from the Town, though variations to setback standards are requested pursuant to the unique authority vested in the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board in the PA zone district pursuant to VMC § 12-7A-6. These variations are consistent with—and in most cases, more conservative than—variations approved by the Town for other projects within the PA zone district 4 Avanti Lodge seeks to be one of Vail's premier, whole -lodge, professionally managed short-term rentals. Once re -developed, the Property will be operated largely the same as it has been under Applicant's ownership for the last three years. That is, it will be offered for reservation by a single party of guests at a time, on a short-term basis, through the Cuvee collection of distinctive properties Under Applicant's ownership and Cuvee's management, annual lodging tax revenue to the Town has been approximately as follows: 2016: $10,500 2017: $17,800 2018: $20,000 It is anticipated that the proposed redevelop ment will enable the Property to command a significantly higher daily rate and higher occup ancythroughout the year, increasing lodging tax revenues to the Town. Avanti Lodge is unique from other "Lodges" in Vail Village in the sense that it is offered as a "whole" lodge experience, in contrast to one where multiple, unrelated groups simultaneously occupy a property. Globally, there is a clear trend for single parties wanting to be together in p rivate chalets. This trend is reflected in the advent of Airbnb.com and VRBO.com, technology p latforrrs that will, fundamentally, p ut anything on their sites. Through these, one can rent a single room with a shared bathroom in someone's condo in Vail foras little as $158/night.5 Cuvee is at the other end of that sp ectrum—providing the highest quality properties and exceptionally tailored guest planning to provide the highest level of personalized, curated experience for high net worth parties that travel togetheras friends and family. Cuvee's portfolio of properties can be viewed at www.Cuvee.com. This multigenerational travel that Avanti Lodge is p urp osedesigned to accommodate is one of the hottest trends in travel .6 Residence -like accommodations in resort locations are increasingly popularwith families, offering the space, comfort, relaxation and privacy of a private home. 4 For example, Chateau Christian Townhouses, the p roject immediately adjacent to the subject to the west, has a setback of less than six (6) feet. See Site Plan, SheetA2.0. s See The Music Box – Private Room in Condominium. e See 2019 Is the Year of Ultra -Personalized Travel - Virtuoso, Oct. 30, 2018 ("Multigenerational travel maintains its stronghold as the hottest trend for2019."); see also Multigenerational Travel is the 2018 Top Travel Trend– Forbes, May 20, 2018 ("[F]amilies continue to travel, in search of experiences that create closer bonds and lasting memories; Connecting with family through travel is one of 2018's must -have experiences.") See Family Travel Trends 2018 – Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 9 Asa matter of practice, this use is already widespread in many of the Town's residential properties. As of January 2019, the Town has issued ap p roximately700 active short-term rental licenses. These rental p rop ertiesconsist of everything from moderate duplexes and condos to some of Vail's finest private homes. One home is advertised as a "Luxury 7 Bedroom Vail Retreat' and is offered for more than $22,000/night during the peak winter season.' Numerous other properties scattered throughout Vail's residential zone districts offersimilar experiences' Applicant believes that it is preferable—from a business, guest and resident experience—to locate these uses in the more commercial and public accommodation -zoned areas within the Town of Vail, ratherthan imbed these uses in the residential districts where conflicts in use are more likely, as is anecdotally evident from Vail's recent experience drafting its new short-term rental regulations. When the use is located in a commercial or PA zone district, like Avanti Lodge is, guests are removed from Vail's neighborhoods, enhancing the privacy of Vail's residences. At the same time, guests are primely situated within walking distance to the commercial amenities in Vail Village. Groups that come to Avanti tend to have a varied and packed agenda, and Avanti's central location makes them perfectly situated to enjoy their individual interests without having to have individual cars. In the summer and fall, Avanti guests have easy walking, bicycle and bus access to all of Vail's most iconic attractions including Gerald R. Ford Amp hitheaterfor Hot Summer Nights concerts, Bravo! and Vail Dance Festival. Ford Park's sporting fields, the Gore Valley Trail, the tennis center, and the Vail Golf Club are a short walk or even shorter bus ride from the property. And no trip is completewithout a stroll through the renowned Vail Sunday Farmers Market, where the whole family can find toys, art, games, entertainment, fresh produce and ready -to -eat food to indulge in. Gore Creek is easily accessed from Avanti Lodge for fly fishing, relaxing with a good book or viewing the excitement of the Kid's Adventure Race or Go Pro Mountain Games. For a more tranquil mountain experience, guests have easy access to Vail Mountain's hiking trails directlyoutside the Lodge or by nearby Gondola One. Betty Ford Alpine Gardens is also only a few minutes away from Avanti, as well as several art -in -public -p laces displays. Numerous opportunitiesto learn about Vail's history and the mountain environment are equally close. Additionally, Avanti's location on Hanson Ranch Road provides premium access to all Vail Village has to offer in terms of shopping, dining, apres and nightlife (with a simpleand safe walk back), family activities Agoda, Aug. 23, 2018 ("65% of American travelers have traveled with their core family in the past year, 11% with their extended family and 23% with their grandparents and/or grandchildren.") ' See https://www.vrbo.com/1207275. 8 See, e.g., https://www.vrbo.com/4456057ha - Luxurious chalet w/ Private Elevator, Sleep s 16!; https://www.vrbo.com/4372453ha - Gorgeous 5Br Private Chalet in Vail Village, Sleep s 14!; https://www.vrbo.com/1448240 - RARE Sleeps 16! Ski-In/Ski-Out Mountain Chalet —Access 2 Hot Tubs!; https://www.ai rbnb.com/rooms/16268528?location=Vail /o2C/`2000 /o2C/`2OUnited /`2OStates&adults=l&guests= 1— Impeccably Remodeled Platinum Rated 5 Bedroom Home; https://www.inspirato.com/destinations/vail/residences/beaver-dam/ - Beaver Dam Road residence. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 10 and iconic kids' attractions like Pirate Ship Park. All of these are accessible without a car, and most by foot. It would be easy to express as many or more attributes of Avanti's location in the winter season, but suffice it to say, there is a reason Vail's first mayor and his family chose this location for their personal residence. A. Development Program Avanti is p urp osedesigned to sup p ortits use as a private lodge, offering all the amenities of a 5 -star resort at a residential scale. Avanti offers six (6) Presidential suites, each with its own 5 -piece bath, modest closet and separate sitting room. In addition, it includes one lower level bunk suite and one self-contained staff apartment. In designing Avanti, Applicant and Cuvee placed a strong emp hasis on recreational activities for its guests. On the lower level, Avanti includes a state-of-the-art spa and fitness center, bowling alley, and bar. The main level lounge, dining and guest kitchen near the front entry function much like a "lobby" in a more traditional lodge. In addition to the guest kitchen, the main level includes a staff kitchen to accommodate large gatherings, including weddings. It includes an extensive wine cave and multiple smaller common areas throughout the lodge to gather and socialize in different groups. Avanti's recreation amenities extend outside. The lodge offers a lounge area, hot tub and fire pit both on the ground level and on a south -facing roof deck. On the ground level, the patio is screened on the west with a six-foot landscap e wall with water feature to provide visual and acoustic screening, enhancing privacy for guests and neighbors alike. B. Project's Conformance with Zoning The Town's stated purpose of the PA zone district is to "provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors... The public accommodation district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site developmentstandards." VMC § 12-7A-1. In the PA zone district, "Lodges" are a permitted use. See VMC § 12-7A-2. A "Lode" is "a building or group of associatedbuildingsdesignedf oroccupancyprimarily as a temporarylodging placeof individuals or families either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units or fractional fee club units is equal to or greater than seventy percent (70%) of the total gross residential f loorarea on the site, and in which allsuch units are operatedundera single management providing the occupants thereofcustomary hotel services and facilities." VMC § 12- 2-2. Avanti Lodge fits squarely within the definition. It is a single building designed for occupancy primarily as a short term rental for individuals or families in accommodation units. Avanti will be offered as a single, Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 11 whole -Lodge rental by Cuvee, which provides unparalleled, personalized services similar to those offered in customary hotel facilities. By the numbers, the six suites, single bunk room, and staff apartment within Avanti have a combined GRFAof 5,304 square feet, which equals 74% of the total GRFAon the site. This is equal to or greater than the required seventy percent (70%) mandated by the definition of "Lodge" in the VMC. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 12 C. Development Standards A summaryof develop mentstandards as prescribed bythe PAzone districtand as proposed bythis p roject is below: Standard VMC Provision Proposed by Application Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet 13,242 VMC§ 12-7A-5 Minimum Frontage 30 feet Greater than 100feet VMC§ 12-7A-5 Setbacks Front: 20' Front: 20' Side: 20' Side (east): 9' Rear: 20' Side (west): 10'2" VMC§ 12-7A-6 Rear: 24'6" Building Height 48 feet (slop ing roof) Building height does not exceed VMC§ 12-7A-7 48 feet, as calculated by VMC Gross Residential Floor Area Up to 150 square feet of GRFA 7,138 for each 100 square feet of (40% of maximum allowable) buildable site area (See Sheet A2.2A) (13,242 square feet = maximum allowable is 19,863) VMC§ 12-7A-8 Density 25 dwelling units peracre 19 VMC§ 12-7A-8 Site Coverage 65% of total site area (max.) 41% of total site area VMC§ 12-7A-9 (See Sheet A2.2A) Landscaping 30% of total site area (min.) 51% VMC§ 12-7A-10 (See Sheet A2.3) Parking 0.7 spaces p erAU 7 onsite (3 enclosed) 1.4 spaces per DU (See Sheet A2.0) 0.7AUx7=4.9 1.0 DU (staff apartment) x 1 =1.4 Total = 6.3 required VMC§ 12-7A-11 9 Pursuant to VMC § 12-7A-8, "employee housing units, accommodation units and fractional fee club units shall not be counted toward density." Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 13 D. Vail's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance VMCTitle 12, Chapter24 imposes various inclusionary zoning requirements on residential redevelopment throughout the Town, including in the Public Accommodation zone district. Generally, the requirement is for mitigation at a rate of 10% of the total increase in GRFA in a redevelopment scenario. GRFA forthis project will be calculated as set forth in VMC § 12-15-3.C.1.b. Pursuant to this section of the VMC, Applicant calculates the GRFAof Avanti Lodge to be 7,138. Under a redevelopment scenario, employee housing is required to be prodded for the increase in GRFA of a redevelopment. See VMC § 12-24-4. Applicant's research and discussions with George Ruther, Directorof the Town of Vail Housing Department, confirm that no existing emp loyee housing unit will be removed as a result of the proposed redevelopment. No known GRFAcalculation forthe existing structure exists. As such, it will be necessaryforthe Town and Applicant to agree on any ap p licablefee-in-lieu requirement. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 14 IV. CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA The review process for the Application is governed by VMC§12-7A-12. Because the Applicationproposes to add accommodation units and more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common sp ace, the Ap p licationwill be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission as a major exterior alteration. Applicable review criteria forthis Application derives from three sources: 1. The general review criteria set forth in VMC § 12-7A-13; 2. The review criterial for setback variations, asset forth in VMC § 12-7A-6; and 3. The requirements for additional GRFA set forth in VMC § 12-7A-15. A. GeneralRe vie wCriteria VMC § 12-7A-13 establishes the applicablegeneral review criteria: Itshallbe the burden of the applicantto prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village master plan, the Vail Village urban design guide plan and the Vail streetscape master plan, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the characterof the neighborhood, and that the proposalsubstantially complies with otherapplicable elements of the Vailcomprehensive plan. 1. Vail Village Master Plan: The proposed exterior alteration or new development is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master plan. Applicant's Response: The Vail Village Master Plan was originally adopted in 1990, updated in 2009, and most recently amended in 2012. The Property appearsto be outside the Vail Village Master Plan core area focus, but within what the plan defines as the "Periphery/Surrounding Area." (Map, p.6) Specifically, the Property is within the "East Village, Sub -Area (#7)" area. (p.48) Applicant's understanding of the plan's goals for this sub -area is a focus on the importanceof preserving adequate parking. The development of Avanti Lodge will not cause the loss of any parking and satisfies the requirements of the VMC for on-site parking. As such, it is not inconsistent with the sub -area plan. Of importance, the Vail Village Master Plan recognizes: At the same time, Vail is maturing. There is a need to continually maintain and upgrade the quality of existing buildings, as well as streets, walks and utility services. Vail's economy relies to a large degree on maintaining its overall status and attractiveness as a world-class resort. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 15 Vail Village MasterPlan - Executive Summary, p.1 Upgrading buildings: Vail Village has not escaped the aging process. There is a need to encourage the continued upgrading and enhancement of existing lodging and commercial facilities within the Village in order to maintain the unique character that is its main attraction. Vail Village MasterPlan – Historyof V ailVillage, p.3 Avanti Lodge is a project that is precisely what the Vail Village Master Plan envisioned. Not only has the existing structure on the Property become functionally obsolete, but the desires of travelers have changed. The use prop osedby this Application enables the very "upgrading and enhancement of existing lodging" that the plan envisioned to enable Vail to remain competitive in "its overall status and attractiveness as a world-class resort." To Applicant's knowledge, Avanti is the only property within Vail Village that offers the unique, whole -lodge experience that many travelers today want. The Application proposes a project that harmonizes Vail's land use objectives with today's market demands; positions guests to take advantage of Vail's shops, restaurants and entertainment, thereby adding economic activity; reduces conflict by removing rental use from Vail's residential neighborhoods; all while locating guests in an area that enables them to enjoy Vail without reliance on private automobile transportation. Avanti is the "modest growth" which the Vail Master Plan envisions. (i • Goal #1: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving unique architectural scale of the Village in orderto sustain its sense of communityand identity. Applicant believes Avanti Lodge is consistent with Goal #1 of the Vail Village Master Plan in the following ways: Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. This Application accomplishes exactly that: upgrading the quality of one of Vail's iconic properties, a property that has not been meaningfully upgraded since it was constructed in 1965. And it accomp lishes it within one of the overarching goals of the p Ian—to not significantly alter the existing character of the Village. Objective 1.4: Recognize the "historic" importance of the architecture, structures, landmarks, plazas and features in preserving the character of Vail Village. Ap p licant recognizes that the Property was the home of Vail's first mayor, Ted Kindel. As such, Ap p licant p rop oses to install a p laque on the exterior of Avanti Lodge commemorating the property's historic significance. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 16 • Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year -around economic health and viability f orthe Village and f orthe communityas a whole. Specifically, Objective 2.3 recognizes the need to increase the number of residential units available for short-term overnight accommodation. The Ap p lication—by converting a preexisting non -conforming residential use to a conforming "Lodge"—does that. The redevelopment will result in the creation of a seven -suite private lodge with a staff apartment that is purpose designed for short term accommodation. The Application satisfies Objective 2.4, which "encourage[s] the development of a variety of new commercial activitywherecompatible with existing land uses." Avanti Lodge is the typeof whole - lodge rental that many of today's travelers desire. There is simply nothing like Avanti in Vail Village today. In addition, the redevelopment achieves Objective 2.5—encouraging the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of Vail's guests. Although the Propertyhas an understandable nostalgia to those who have been a part of its almost 55 -year history, the Property is desperately in need of upgrading and renovation. Some portions of the existing structure are reminiscent of eras long past. However, economic reality is that the significant cost of the upgrade is not feasible without the redevelopment sought by the Application. Photo: Original spa room of the Property Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 17 • Goal #3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancementof the walking experience throughout the Village. Sp ecifically, Objective 3.1 encourages the incorporation of streetscap e imp rovements (such as paver treatments, landscaping and seating areas) along adjacent pedestrian ways. In addition, p ublicart and other similar landmark features are encouraged at appropriate locations. Upgraded landscape improvements adjacent to the pedestrian paths to the east and south will enhance the pedestrian experience. The existing privately -owned land outside the fence to the south of the property is one of the only areas of Tract E that retains its "natural" unimproved character. 4-` To be direct, the area is an eyesore that ap p earsunkept and inconsistent with the "maintained" appearanceof surrounding properties The redevelopment ap p roval sought by the Applicatbn will result in improvements that enhance the walking experience throughout the Village, consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan's goals. These p rop os2d improvements are similar to those recently approvedby the Town for the property at 303/305 Mill Creek Circle, continuing the progression of enhancements along this important pedestrian corridor. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 18 A. 4-` To be direct, the area is an eyesore that ap p earsunkept and inconsistent with the "maintained" appearanceof surrounding properties The redevelopment ap p roval sought by the Applicatbn will result in improvements that enhance the walking experience throughout the Village, consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan's goals. These p rop os2d improvements are similar to those recently approvedby the Town for the property at 303/305 Mill Creek Circle, continuing the progression of enhancements along this important pedestrian corridor. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 18 • Goal#4: To preserve existing open space areas and expand greenspace opportunities. The approval sought by the Ap p licationwill not result in the loss of any existing op en sp ace area. All land on which development will occur has long been privately owned and available under the Town's regulations for development. • Goal#5: Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation systems throughoutthe Village. The objectives of Goal #5 are largely focused on public projects. The redevelopment does, however, satisfy Policy 5.1.1 that new development provide on-site p arking to meet parking demand as required by the zoning code. Moreover, by locating this whole -lodge, private, short- term rental in Vail Village (as op p osedto in the other residential areas throughout Town, such as Beaver Dam Road, Forest Road, Rockledge Road, Potato Patch and the Vail Golf Course where there are homes of commensurate quality), this Ap p lication achieves Objective 5.2 to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. (p.13) Guests of the Property will have convenient walking access to recreational, dining and entertainment amenities in Vail. The Property's private management through Cuvee will offer concierge services that will further alleviate the need for guests to have or use private automobiles during their stay. At the rental p ricep ointforthe Property, it is anticipated that the majority of Cuvee guests will arrive by p rivate shuttle. For this reason, demands on parking are expected to be lower than demands for comparable projects Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 19 • Goal#6: To ensure the continuedimprovement of the vital operational elementsof the Village. Like Goal #5, the objectives of Goal #6 are largely focused on p ublic projects. The redevelop ment proposed under the Ap p licationwill not interfere with the p rovisionof safe and efficientfunctions of fire, p olice and p ublic utilities. 2. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN: The proposed exterior alteration or new development is consistentwith applicable elements of the Vail Village urban design guide plan. Applicant's Response: The applicableVail Village Urban Design Guide Plan dates back to June 11, 1980. It establishes collective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail Village and is intended to suggest the nature of desired improvements. The subject Property is on the outskirts of the plan area and much of the guidance seems of marginal ap p licability to the area. However, the Application is not inconsistent with any provisions of the "Sub -Area Concepts: Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street" discussion. As the Applicant's architectural team will explain in hearings on this Application, Applicant believes the redevelopment enhances the following ideas of the Plan: • Idea 5: "Landscape feature area to reinforce entry to Core Pocket park potential, enhancement of Mill CreekT.O.V. parcel." • Idea 11: "Limited building expansion/improvements. Increase facade transparency on south side to strengthen pedestrian activity, with entry to street. Potential expansion of building to south property line. Additional vertical expansion maybe considered on south end of building to improve street enclosure proportions but must respect designated Hill street- Gore Range viewcorridors. Potential secondlevel open balconydeck (sun pocket) to restore activity to streetlostfrom groundf loorterrace." • Idea 15: "Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increased facade transparency, entries simplified and orientedto intersection. The Urban Design Guide Plan includes the Vail Village Design Considerations, adopted June 11, 1980 and updated February 18, 2009. These Design Considerations are intended to develop a mechanism to manage physical change in Vail Village. Like with the Urban Design Guide, the Application is not inconsistent with any provisions of the Design Considerations. In fact, the redevelopment enhances the following ideas of the Plan: • Sections A through C of the Design Guide Plan encourage the reinforcement and expansion of quality to pedestrian walkways. Avanti Lodge proposes extensive landscaping and hardscape that will connect the Property to the pedestrian path to its south. Consistent with the plan, these improvements are proposed to consist of berms, grass, flowers and tree planting to present a soft, colorful framework linkage along Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 20 pedestrian routes. This creates the "visual interest and activity" along the existing pedestrian path, as encouraged under Section C of the Design Guide Plan. • Section D of the Design Guide Plan encourages building fagade heights that vary and provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. The building fagade includes building heights that vary and also includes a tower element that is verymuch in keeping with the Vail Village vernacular and history of iconic buildings. • Section E of the Design Guide Plan encourages the formation of a "strong but irregular edge to the street" in an effort to "give life to the street and visual interest for p edestrian travel." The building fagade along Hanson Ranch Road includes an improvedsense of arrival and entry and presents an improved irregular fagade with updated building materials and increased transp arena/. Consistent with the Town's authority to approve "variations" to the setbacks in the PA zone districtwithout otherwise complying with the Town's standards for "variances," the Design Guide Plan recognizes that "there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village." • Section F of the Design Guide Plan encourages height and massing varietyand discourages uniform building heights across the street. As demonstrated by the materials submitted in support of the Application, the building has been designed with varied building heights that are compatible with the adjacent Tivoli Lodge and the Chateau Christian Condominiums. • Section G recognizes the importanceof view corridors and encourages consideration of the impactof the p rojecton views, especiallyviews frommajor pedestrian areas or public spaces. The redevelopment p rop osed by the Application does not impair any of the Town's designated view corridors, nor does it impair any other view corridor for which the Town's regulations encourage consideration. • Section H emphasizes the need to preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The propo!ed development does not adversely affect any service alley. Attention will be paid during constructionto minimize, to the extent reasonably possible, impactson pedestrian ways. • Section I encourages attention to sun/shade areas and guides development against substantially increasing the spring and fall shadow pattern on adjacent properties or the public right of way. A full sun/shade analysis has been completed and is included in the materials submitted in support of the Application • Attention to the Design Guide Plan's discussions regarding roofs, facades, windows, doors, trim, decks and p atios, balconies, accent elements, landscap a elements and service features will be presented at hearings on the Application. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 21 3. VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN: The proposed exterior alteration or new development is consistent with applicable elements of and the Vail streetscape master plan. Applicant's Response: The Town of Vail Streetscap e Master Plan dates to November 20, 1991. In addressing Hanson Ranch Road in the vicinity of the Property, the Streetscape Master Plan recognizes that because of the narrow right of way on Hanson Ranch Road, the extent of streetscape improvements will be limited. The Streetscape Plan also recognizes the heavy winter and summer use that the pedestrian path to the south of the Property enjoys. For Hanson Ranch Road, the Streetscape Master Plan endorses "the concept of the pedestrians and vehicles sharing the same roadway." (p.97) The redevelopment proposes to preserve the brick or concrete unit paver bands at the edge of the asphalt to define the roadway and the p edestrian areas. As the Streetscape Plan recognizes, throughout the Hanson Ranch Road area, "more landscaping is necessary to soften the building facades." (p.97) The site plan and building massing create opportunity for vertical landscaping to soften the building fagade, as demonstrated by the materials submitted in support of the Application. The manner in which the project satisfies the requirements and guidance of the Streetscape Plan will be further addressed during public hearings on the Ap p lication. Of importance, the design team recognizes opportunities to provide art and other elements that create an atmosphere for recognition of the Property's historic significance as the home of the first Mayor of the Town of Vail. As recognized by the Streetscap e Plan, art can provide focal points, create interest and impart level of quality to a streetscape design. 4. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERAND VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Applicant's Response: Eliminating the historic non -conforming use of the Propertyand implementing a use that is consistent with its PA zoning will have aosp itive effecton the character of the neighborhood. The architectural up grade is in character with the adjacent Tivoli Lodge, which has been redeveloped within the past ten years. The redevelopment of Avanti will continue the progression of improvements made to the neighborhood, hop efullyencouraging other surrounding neighbors to soon do the same. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 22 The proposed redevelopment consistent without the need for variances further evidences that the proposal has been designed to not have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the neighbors. B. Setback Variations Review Criteria — VMC § 12-7A-6 In the PA zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board have the unique flexibility to approve "variations" to the setback standards. Stated differently, variations to setback standards in the PA zone district are not treated as "variances" subject to approval under VMC Chapter 17 as in other districts. Applicant's proposal achieves setbacks as follows: Front: 20' Side (east): 9' Side (west): 10'2" Rear: 24'6" In the PA zone district, setbacks are 20 feet on all sides.10 However, at the discretion of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board, variations to the setback standards may be approved during the review of exterior alterations or modifications subject to demonstrated compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. D. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacentproperties. E. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. In the PA zone district, the Town Code establishes setbacks of twenty feet on all sides. However, understanding how the PA zone district has evolved is essential for an understanding of the design "As referenced above, a portion of the Property is, at the time of this App Iication, within the A/OS zone district. In that district, the required front setback is 20 feet, and the side and rear setbacks are 15 feet. See VMC § 12-8A-6. This Application assumes that prior to development, the Property will have been rezoned to a single zoning classification of PA. Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 23 Applicant proposes. Applicant's research indicates there are about twenty (20)11 properties zoned PA in the Town. Of these, more than half are in app rovedSpecial Development Districts (SDDs) under which individual setback requirements less than twenty (20) feet have been approved" In other words, more than half of the PA -zoned properties have been approvedto opt out of the standard PA zone district requirements and into SDDs that have individualized site and other restrictions that encourage flexibility and creativity. See VMC § 12-9A-1. It is quickly apparent almost no property in the PA zone district complies with the Town's recommended setback requirements. Based upon a review of the Town's GIS mapping for these PA zoned properties, it appears that Avanti Lodge would be the exception if it actually achieved a twenty (20) foot setback. Applicant's design alternative is to compress the design—so that it is more square than rectangular—but the effect of doing so is to move the building closer to the pedestrian path connecting Golden Peak and the Ford Amphitheater to Vail Village. Because of the site location and the abundance of open area around it, Applicant's proposal opts to preserve the feeling of "openness" to the south, even though that minimizes side setbacks. As proposed, the edge of Applicant's improvements are from 60 feet at the closest to 80 at the farthest from the pedestrian path to the south, which preserves the feeling of light, air and undeveloped areas and presents a scale that is compatiblewith surrounding buildings. Applicant believes the Town's goals and policies are betterachieved with this more rectangular design that requires setback variations wholly consistent with other projects developed in the PA zone district, both in the immediate vicinity and throughout Town. With respect to separation between buildings, Avanti Lodge is physically close to Chateau Christian Townhomes along the west boundary. However, this is a condition that exists even today. Chateau Christian chose to build with a mere 5 -foot -9 -inch setbackfrom its own east property boundary. On the opposite boundary—the east boundary—the pedestrian path between Avanti and Tivoli creates a generous separation of a minimum of 42 feet measured perpendcular to the proposed building (45 feet measured diagonally). This irregularity of setback actually achieves the objectives of the Urban Design Plan, which discourages standard setbacks. C. Restrictions on Additional GRFA – VMC § 12-7A-15 VMC § 12-7A-15 provides that for any gross residential floor area added to a p ublicaccommodation zoned property, a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the added GRFA shall be devoted to accommodation units. All of the GR FA proposed is devoted to the accommodation units and Lodge use, and the associated staffapartment As such, Applicant complieswith this VMC provision. 11 Roughly from east to west, Rams Horn, Tivoli Lodge, Galatyn Lodge, Villa Valhalla condominiums, the subject property, Chateau Christian townhomes, Christiania Lodge, Vail Mountain Lodge, Mountain Haus, Austria Haus, One Willow Bridge, Talisman, Sonnenalp, 151 Bank, Village Inn Plaza, Vail Village Plaza Condos, Sebastian, the Holiday House condominium, and the Four Seasons. 12 The subject property, Villa Valhalla (constructed in 1966), Vail Mountain Lodge (constructed in 1978), Mountain Haus (constructed in 1970), One Willow Bridge (constructed in 2007), Talisman (constructed in 1970), Sonnenalp (constructed in 1993 and 2005), 151 Bank (constructed in 1973), and the Holiday House (constructed in 1974). Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 24 APPLICATION MATERIALS Application materials submitted in support of this ap p lication consist of the following: Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 25 Description Notes 1. Application Form Submitted electronically 2. List of property owners adjacent to subject property Appendix A VI. *Stamped, addressed envelopes to be delivered to the Town upon request 3. Application Fee Submitted electronically 4. Title Report 5. Sun/Shade Analysis Plan Set Sheet A2.4A through A2.4E 6. Topographic survey prepared by Eagle Valley Surveying as Job No. 1213-2, signed by Michael J. Post, dated December 15, 2018 7. Site and Grading Plan Plan Set Sheet A2.0 8. Landscape Plan Plan Set Sheet A2.3 9. Architectural Elevations Plan Set Sheet A4.1 through A4.4 10. Architectural Floor Plans Plan Set Sheet A3.1 through A3.5 11. Lighting Plan Plan Set Sheet A2.0 12. GRFA Calculations See Section III.C. above 13. Site Development Standards Calculations See Section III.C. above 14. Exterior building materials list Plan Set Sheet A.4 and separate documentation 15. Exteriorcolor and material samples and specifications To be brought to meetings or otherwise provided upon request 16. Photos of the existing site and adjacent structures Plan Set Sheet A4.9 and 4.10 Avanti Lodge / 366 Hanson Ranch Road Major ExteriorAlteration Ap p lication Page 25 Cl) w 2 ± w 2 O U ®;\ /m}: 6! ©)m ;): 2: ) <<,00/) -- G) :g:w M W M )§%§§�k©!�*3:::::aa%%�� kJ�33<:��:m®«////mmGGoo -»(««§>&§wO-»----LwmM U) w§ k( ° of of - \:'.§Rb§§§§m§"w, ----\§!}e/Sw&m))))GG»»!\ ( § \j k/)§§/<<<<<</\22}22\\2\ ,wN,mN,mN0,wNwNw �=�_ �=oLL °sLL °sLL °sLL -IIVA d0 NMOL `NOISI/U48f1S O OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99C'6 10-1o - a N 39aOlIINVAVlo ,wN,mN,mN0,wNwNw �=�_ �=oLL °sLL °sLL °sLL -IIVA d0 NMO1 `NOISIN48f1S Z ED -_ OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99£ `b 101 z N U a Q IM 3JaOl IINVAV <3o oe, 1 1 i pr 1 1 i v 1 1 1 1 1 \1 1 1\ 1 \ 1 1 1 ---- � I,; Jl8, �i — _ — �A e 1— II—lo ------------- 4 � i �I - - _ -lIVA d0 NMOl `NOISIN48f1S EDOVON HONVN NOSNVH 99£ `6 101 - U N a EE@ - 3JaOlIINVAV - uE uo� v .�lcl Q Q �E �E = Jo = EgLL o oE� �om 0 - E oo EE _q 'Mi NE E - SEE -= F9 M O�Q,j - - - - - - ----- a 0 �< IT a - 0 ou� - - J I Y a ❑❑ I L� I I I I I I I I J I I I I - - - - - - - - - -- o -IIVA d0 NMOL `NOISIN48f1S OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99C'6 101 - U m Q ED H«@ 3JaOl IINVAV — o � v -o"Mi Q e oo < u" �uo I D I o o ads <I<ou o lo o<IIm a <� so 0 0 - w C o o = �w c gym" F I 10 8 �o A o0 f� 10 a Cl10 O <0WIM Id 4< e -- z 10 do<0, - 0 0, 88 ❑ ❑❑ s wn d El 0 ra j:7] -- L-- Q a o _ B I M■ W Z Eo -IIVA d0 NMOl `NOISIN(3sns Q M EDOVON HONVN NOSNVH 99£ `b 101 - vvi N a IM o — 3JaOl IINVAV - p Q ov a o"M NN \0 \mNIONEI 0, m o o F II N w � r i w,o� o o o oo am - VJ O ---------------- 2 _I --- ------------ a% L, Ll „ ------------------- zm=m 0 oa r ��zLL oz- o lo =58 i r o. I M■ ' l -IIVA d0 NMO1 `NOISIN48f1S - a OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99C'6 101 - N wm@ 39aOl IINVAV - v o Q /~ 0 z -IIVA d0 NMO1 `NOISIN48f1S m OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99C'6 101 u- C4 N wm@ 39aOl IINVAV - v o Q /� O / I i -IIVA =10 NMOl `NOISIN48f1S OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99C'6 101 - wm@ 39aOlIINVAV - 0 0 z N ?Q a Z 0 i - I 1 I z m � _ 1 P=4 I 0 0 z N ?Q a 0 0 z �� 0 z -IIVA d0 NMOl `NOISIN48f1S Q Q W OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99C'6 101 wm@ 39aOl IINVAV - v o Q a 0 0 z x O z � 2 o � N zQ x O z 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I� w la la -IIVA d0 NMOl `NOISIN48f1SEfi`oi OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99C'6 10-1 - w w a 2L OJW00Q wm@ 39aOl IINVAV - v J LL 3 a a w o — — — — - ----- --° odei�s�als oz w i ------ --4z I oa w I I -------------- a� I _ I z I I I k I I I _ � I I I I a I I d I I I I I � I � I I I o I o o .w I w� wo w I I m I I F= I I I 3 z I I I I of �I I i I — -�o I I z z I I w I m I o o � I I & I I I 1 IJ I I � I m/ I I I I � / I / W — — — — — — — — — I — — — — � — — 2tl SIDE SETBPGK - - - - - - I N I - - - - - - - - - - - - J Z W -IIVA =10 NMOl `NOISIN48f1S > � N -_ OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99£ `b 10-1 -J M zO Q �wm 39aOlIINVAV - v a 0 z a- _>ave�saais �oz zl I I �i--- - - -�-- m / I i I � I w� I J / / I I I i I (w Y I �I I o I - I =1 � m I I I /I I I I I I �3 a--------------------------- 77 ,�-- - - o — - - w � mid �O O /m D C ,3o do� d o _ 4w =-- J -IIVA d0 NMO1 `NOISIN(3ans j Z M -_ OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99£ `b 10� M CL Q UN- 39aOl IINVAV - v r -------------------i r---- r ----i I I IL--------J---J I L7 I I I I I I I ---->av--aai— I I I I I rJ I I I I I I I II L_ I _ I I I I I I II I I I ---------------- I II i i i rj I I l Il I I I I ll I I I I j1 I I i j Ij I I I I I I I II I I I I I I i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I s1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mi I I I I I wl I rJ �I Ln I I I l I I l i i I I I I I I 0 ----------'�------I / I I I / I _-_- — — — — — - - - - - 20'SIDETBPGK --------------------------J 0 Z -IIVA =10 NMOl `NOISIN48f1S OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99£ `L L0_1 - wm@ 39aOlIINVAV , I , , , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I / I I -- I I I F== / / 5 CO O 11 m I I]N3-----jI O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O Z -IIVA d0 NMO1 `NOISIN48f1S Q w CL�! ED6 mo`$a OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99£ `b 101 - 2 Jo M o __ - F0>Q .-H 3JaOlIINVAV - v W J I -Mi 2 rA�0 Z -- - - ��- N3V813S 3015.OZ o goo I m i 1 I I I I I I I I �� ------ - -- ------ Li ---- o f O T oo ------ -_ -- J o 1 w4 1 ed.�ldd., 1 r I I I i I m 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I Imo- ------ I I 1 � I I 1 ;9 ------------1-------- I ----------o-------- I a I [ 0 �a. oo�------ ----- ----w"s O J 1 O I I8. ---— m o N ISI 1 0' SIDE SET6A I o` I \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0C OF y LU ma • CL I LL O Q ■■■■■■■s 0 I ppb II � IH i i �■�111� H H rMTTAPO z dd I IBM ■■■■■■■�• III BOB■■■■■■■■.. �� hy';I� �ILItI��ILI�IL�I�I�I:L�ILlltr�ly�i'�Iy���lyil �■Irlf �l■I■itl�■I�■�'■I-■Irl'��1���1�71�iY.'��I'71.71 ■I�i�'■■■I�•I■I�I■■■II:11111�IMlj:lll�l .� I-_� �� I "�_ISL■'��fl�I��fI�GIiI■;IaI�I■;i �r� ii-■ r: �r'Iiir�tl�l���l� ��f:���"��� iii n.�A•Iw_RA■Iw_�A�Iw_�A��RA�IIw���lw_�A�I ■■ ri���nl���ri���rii��■ii��ri���rii�■ ioi �trJ•rk�Jir_t�JL�t�Jirt�JL�_t�JL�_t+jl ■■■■■■■■!■��■I•�inl■I■I�I�■I■I�I�I■I■I�I�I■I■I111I�L111IiI- ��� �' 1 ■ � � I ��1 lupi■-�■IRItVI.Irir�-ri��l■Irl�■■ill�l■I■Infill-hII* a in I I� I I�rq�unf'l�ll �Il���li•Il��fl�ll'I:Ii•I��fl•Il��fllpli�l',IIaIiI'I�� it■fl�i �IRt� i�ri■li. ��i�•I �i���l .I�r� ®�R■rte :I�r� :1� �����:I�r� �r � �il� �� R•�I'i�II��I�la�r*+i .Iger :R�r� rl-�I■'�I�lil■II�Iy:111�Ijlrir I�� li■ -r��i ■ i����l����l■I■I■I•+rr�■W� ■I�ir�-.±�I'�i�`��If�'�If�li�ll���,���il�l ll�l'fll�ll'f'I�';�I',Il�i�l�li ..rIR Irl! .IL! i IL! .Itr■ �l'Ifll ililil�l�ifl��I�IfI��l�1�1�71�1�1�j�ti1�7 �ILIt^ iILI���ILIt�llLlf����l■I■lyllat!II+'llil�l� 11■�■II nlr■Irl■■i■I�iil■i■Irirl.�hl�l��l lii«Iri,�i��li�i��ll���ilil��l��l��l�l�l��l+ llil�ll �ial�l��ik��:-Il�ia�i�llfal■rhlfhl■�Ifhl■I�If :I�r �r I��� rrr. r+ ��■I�I�i I, 11�I■I I�'I�In� �Ifl■I ■Ifl■I �If ��I I �.:.1��1l�-------,I ■el !I■i■Ir 11■if! ■Ir��l■■ifl If�l■I.1�1a71��lal�7 �li�• ��I�; ri,�Ir�Iiliia�a�'-Irl+l-hlrl•I-I■I.I: �Irfl�Ii ill�lf'll ��I�I�I`���I�I•II�If�ll• . Rr' li.. elr I� �Ir �-Ir ISI■r I�■■,;I ]I�nly �ft'�•ft� if�Vi�l�` i �,f�ll�l``!■If�ll�If�•11�71�17111�I� ■-■reea�r�liliia�'li���li�lnl.l■lilnl;l�l�lnll� rl■ Irl■ Ir Ir ii���l�li>�,<�Rli�f'�I�I',II•ly��;l•I�I Ir.■i1�71_i�Iw�A•I IaI�I';Iali'I�i +I■hI �AI'7�1�'il■Intel 111�I� l+ I .I■111 �I. I I■i I ilii Ip �� linl■�.�Ae LAT■ rl-_��RLR dlgrl I�r�l��■I�I�Illlljl::i�� �.��r■�� I��■ �� � I■I!I��■Ir��■Irk � ■_ IAfI�RI�■IR■.ryl inlrlA�.■—•I—n ■rte.-_�R■ rA��IrA��% I,}■•�w_��•�w_���IA�■A_w_��•�w_��•I �.A4�1_-r;��-irn _r��.-_�r■_.-_�F3_.-_rP■.H_�r■_.-_�R■_. �.�n��rn•:rn• rrinirinir ' dill �!•Ilur ir�dE�i -Ir-rJl rirl �r±■rr '1�■WJn rli■IYr err± I rrp II±r girl �ir.11�i �r±■rr �� I�i��lrl err± I �i�• i -■■IWC Ir..�l■ems. :rrl �•e�. irnerirn■irl Irl±i�lrrl±iir-± \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I y Cfl p / CL I LL O Q I I i 0 I a IH i i H H rMTTAPO z I \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cfl CL LL O Q o 0 a IH H H rMTTAPO z \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ■ a Emlo ■■ �n .k AMML i ■� �� I' III/I�r +1111 0 0 L�) Z Jp LU ma x< f; ■ 1.01 L all; 1 W-1 Nil NEW MAI I m NFL, 1.01 L all; 1 W-1 Nil 1.01 L all; -IIVA =10 NMOi 'NOISIAMens u o -1 OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99C'� 10 3E)CIO-1 IINVAV - z -I¥a=10 N«o `NO GnQgns aoHo�NNo�HeEi�� } ]OQO]IN¥A¥ \/ \/ \/ z\ �\ §\ = o o :lo z Z -IIbA d0 NMOL `NOISIAI(38f1S w z W) ER OVON HONVN NOSNVH 99£ `b 101 - N. Mm 39aOl IINVAV - v cn _j w W W W Q i W z 4 N W I 0 7 _ W F N Cz Lu _ - UI U i; 0 z - K hetl z U U _ C z z � z = - i m m m�`tl I Iz Lu Fm UU i i ur Z _ Q fL { I O/ i TLT-1 r �I, 2 U Z Q 2 0 U) Z Q 2 m M 0 0 0 Z J� �w Q' W� ma 0 tl ; Wwo- d \ \ \ It � R � o i i � o _1 ------ +sagaopeAoIo:)'peA � U 39401 IlNVAV � R � o i i � o _1 ------ 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIO June 25, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: John -Ryan Lockman 2. Site Visits 2.1. Site Visit - 2841 Basingdale Boulevard 3. Main Agenda 3.1. Executive Session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) to receive legal advise 10 min. on specific legal matters Re: parking issues. Applicant: Planner: Cancelled as Matt Mire unable to attend. 3.2. A request for the review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 15 min. 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of two (2) back of house offices to two (2) Accommodation Units, located at 715 West Lionshead Circle/West Day Subdivision (Vail Marriott Mountain Resort), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 18-0024) Applicantfliamondrock Vail Owner LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. The applicant shall mitigate the impact on employee housing of this development in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-23, Commercial Linkage, Vail Town Code prior to the issuance of any building permit. 2. The Transportation Impact Fee shall be paid to the Town of Vail by the applicant prior to issuance of any building permit. Planner Spence began by introducing the application and gave a presentation with the plans and drawings. Spence stated a major alteration is necessary when adding accommodation units. Spence added the project has ample GRFA for the conversion. The newly adopted transportation fee is applicable for the project. Dominic Mauriello confirmed altering offices to two accommodation units. He provided no further presentation. Kurz confirmed no public input. PEC Comments Kjesbo — The application is straight forward. No comments. Gillete —Agree Stockmar — No comments. Perez — No comments. Hopkins — No comments. Kurz — Believes the applicant is complying with employee housing and transportation provisions. Gaining two accommodation units is a positive for the Town. Brian Stockmar moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3.3. A request for the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3, 15 min. Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to incorporate a portion of Lot d-1, Block 2, Vail Village Fifth Filing and a portion of Tract E, Vail Village Fifth Filing into the existing property located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot d, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0025) Applicant'VailPoint LLC, represented by Pylman &Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence began by introducing the application and stated it would be best to discuss Items 3.3 and 3.4 together. Spence presented three correspondences provided to Staff through email. He then presented an overview of both items. Rick Pylman, representative of the applicant, provided a presentation to the PEC. Pylman provided history on 366 Hanson Ranch Road. Lot D was originally sold by Vail Associates in 1963, prior to zoning and subdivision regulations. Prior to incorporation into the Town, Lot D was subdivided. There are three parcels that were split off from Lot D. Pylman stated there has been a fence area around the Lot for a long time and many subsequent owners. Pylman clarified the areas around the Lot has been zoned Public Accommodation. The blue area shown is the original deeded property, the hatched areas, which are fenced, are outside the deeded area. Pylman stated the area will all be zoned Public Accommodation. Pylman stated there are covenants on D-1 and the subject property. The applicant stated the covenants remain unaffected. Spence added the covenants will remain unaffected per speaking with the Town Attorney as well. He added this is private space. Stockmar asked is there an anticipation of a potential expansion to the house? Pylman stated the lot becomes conforming to the minimum lot size. Stockmar stated the house is at its maximum for GRFA. Gillete asked if there is a such thing as Private Open Space Spence stated we should clarify the zoning of the property since 1971 has been as error since following the meets and bounds description. Staff believes the property within the fence is private side and backyard, not Open Space. Perez asked why is the applicant replatting but not replatting into the correct zone district. Spence — The request to plat is to combine the two lots. The appropriate zoning for this property per the adopted plans is PA. Hopkins —Asked why the zone district is changing with this application. Spence — Staff stated we do not allow properties to have multiple zoning. He also clarified the hatched area of the fence now has a legal description and is a parcel with the court's description. The hatched area is now under the ownership of 366 Hanson Ranch Road after court order. Perez —Are there any development agreements with Vail Resorts that affect private agreements? Spence — There was a workshop meeting with Town Council to discuss the covenants that existed at that time and present day. Pylman — Stated the client is looking at the possibility of building a lodging type use within the site. Stockmar —Asked if there is something happening in the background outside of the application, such as expanding GRFA. Spence — Clarified its current use as Single Family would not allow expansion. There are underlying covenants that severely restrict future development. Kjesbo — If the applicant were to build in the future, Kjesbo clarified the setbacks for the zone district. Kurz —Asked Spence to clarify the notice requirements of the PEC. Spence — Listed the recipients of the notice, which met all requirements of the Code. Pylman — Did add the newspaper notice was met as well. Public Comment Carol Krueger — Kruger was one of the email correspondents with staff. She asked what reasonable expectations for redevelopment could occur on the site. Kruger then explained the history of Lot D. She asked the Town to be clear what the expectations are as this property has been zoned Open Space. She asked does the Town intend for this property to remain Open Space in the future. Kruger stated a plat restriction was a viable option. Spence — Private covenants and zoning are two separate matters. As far as open space, covenants relate to above ground improvements. The expectation for a redevelopment is that the lot will be developed per the lot's zone district. The Town generally does not zone a private space as Open Space. Gillete — How is the private open space maintained through a development, such as Grand Traverse. Spence — It would not be a rezoning, but would be an amendment to the development plan. Hopkins —Asked what would happen if the Town did not vote to change the zoning. Spence — Explained the consequences of not voting for approval of the application. Spence stated the Town of Vail is a party to the covenants, including members of the subdivision and different layers. Gillette —Asked how the PEC would preserve the open space. Spence — Stated this has functioned as private property. It has the zoning of Agricultural and Open Space. The historic property line has existed for over 50 years and has been perceived as private open space as the backyard of the single family home. Sarah Baker (Attorney for the applicant)— To enforce the covenant is the best way to verify the area is not developed in the future. Stated the Town has enforceable covenants which it can enforce. Gillette —Asked if the applicant would plat the area as Open Space Stockmar — Stated the PEC has not seen the covenants. Spence —Added the covenants should not influence the PEC's decision today. Sarah Baker — Explained the three covenants. Kurz — Stated the PEC is asked to review what is before the PEC today. The PEC is now faced with cleaning up something that was created 50 years ago. Kurz stated the PEC look at the two items (3.3 and 3.4) together and vote on the direction that the PEC has been asked today or table if the public has not been provided enough information. Stockmar —Stated this is a difficult parcel with much time that has passed since this has been done. Spence — Clarified that Commissioner Stockmar is referring to one owner. Stockmar — Wants to know the history and what is going on present day. He is trying to figure out what is going on and cannot make a decision based on uncertainties. Spence — Stated you are being asked today to vote on a consolidated exemption plat and a recommendation to Town Council for a rezoning. PEC Comment Gillette —A split rail fence should not dictate the Town of Vail zoning Code. Stated it should remain the way it is today. The intent that the area was intended to be Open Space and should remain as open space. Stockmar — Stated the PEC look at tabling the application and have the applicant provide the applicable covenants. Perez —Asked for the "linked commitment" Baker — Stated she could read the three covenants. Baker then read the applicable private covenant recorded July 8, 1963, which references the south area, not D-1. Baker then read the covenant for Tract E. Baker read the covenant from 1971. Gillette — The PEC cannot enforce the covenants, but can enforce open space. Kjesbo — Stated he believes it should be consolidated. The PEC cannot deal with private covenants, but they are in place. He stated he would like to see the application approved. Hopkins — The zoning was implemented in 1971 around the Tivoli. It was intended for the area to be open space and she wants to preserve the area. Hopkins wants to enforce the covenants around D-1. It is one of the few cut through points to the mountain during the winter. Kurz —Agrees with Kjesbo. Stated he had a concern earlier with notification and stated notices were given appropriately and on time. The fact that the PEC received three letters today, means the PEC should not table today due to the notice. Nuebecker — Stated the PEC should focus on the zoning criteria. Perez —Asked who is in violation to the view corridor. Spence — Confirmed there is no view corridor on site. The existing covenants and zoning would provide development standards and protections. Hopkins —Asked about the potential to build a 24' wide drive aisle near the trail. Stockmar — It appears the applicant has met the requirements that are necessary to be met. Kurz — Stated the PEC should not ignore the findings provided by Staff. The decision should be based on Staff's findings and the criteria provided. Gillete — Motioned for denial based on Goal #4 of the Vail Village Master Plan. The motion failed without a second. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (4-2). Ayes: (4) Hopkins, Kjesbo, Kurz, Stockmar Nays: (2) Gillette, Perez Absent: (1) Lockman 3.4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 20 min. boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of two parcels of land located in the vicinity of 366 Hanson Ranch Road; A portion of Lot d-1, Block 2, Vail Village Fifth Filing and a portion of Tract E, Vail Village Fifth Filing. The rezoning will change the Zone District from Agriculture and Open Space (A) District to the Public Accommodation (PA) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0022) Applicant'VailPoint LLC, represented by Pylman &Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it failed (3-3). Ayes: (3) Kjesbo, Kurz, Stockmar Nays: (3) Gillette, Hopkins, Perez Absent: (1) Lockman 3.5. A request for review of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713- 45 min. 7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a new multifamily structure with below grade parking, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2 and 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0016) The applicant is returning to the PEC to discuss discreet elements of the project. No request for formal action is being made at this time. Staff requests that this item be continued to the July 9, 2018 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Applicant$attle Mountain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OanGZnfflns&t=11s (Video of automated parking system) Planner Spence began by introducing the application and gave a brief overview. Tom Braun then spoke on behalf of Battle Mountain LLC. Braun wanted a follow up to what happened at the previous PEC meeting. The applicant made refinements to the plans and intends to present the revised plans today. Braun walked the PEC through today's agenda covering discussion topics from the 6/11 staff memo. Today's follow up discussion will cover live beds, setback variance/west wall, and roof and wall interface. Setback Variance — The site plan shows unified development at the site. The setback allows for the sites to be merged together. Braun showed several different solutions to the large western wall, including a mountain graphic profile. Kurz — Stated Braun has addressed the PEC's original comment. Stockmar agreed. Roof/Wall Interface — Stated the applicant looked at a lot of different solutions. The south elevation was shown. The dormer brought out to edge and removed large eave line Stockmar — Stated the applicant accommodated the PEC's request and is moving in the right direction. Spence — Staff has had the opportunity to review what the PEC sees before them today. Staff is supportive of the changes. Roof Material and Snow Shedding — Braun shared photos from other examples of buildings in Town showing the material. North Elevation — The rendering shows changes to windows and the dormer added. This shows the reduction in balconies and windows to reduce intrusion of the property to the north. Automated Parking —Automated is used to increase efficiencies, particularly when working with a small lot and dense areas. There has been a rapid increase in automated systems in the United States. Braun then shared a video of the automated system. Braun stated two cars can move simultaneously with two elevators. The technology will either be ticket based or fob based systems. Gillette — Asked if a traffic study would be completed to study the demand ratio to number of cars would work in the Town of Vail. Braun — Stated the system can park a car within 90 seconds. The parking is not for retail parking. Gillette — Asked if City Lift has dealt with a large amount of silt and salt during the winter months. Braun — Maintenance occurs quarterly, but the rate can be increased, if necessary during the winter months. A system has been installed in Wisconsin and has been running well, even during the winter months. On the operations side, most issues are fixed on a computer in LA. One example is a switch goes out, then a local service provider is sent on sight. Stockmar — Confirmed access will be taken from the existing alley, which is a nightmare currently when traffic backs up. Braun —A good portion of the alley is in the shade. The alley will be heated to address the past ice issues. Stockmar — Asked how will parking violations be avoided in the future along the alleyway. Braun — Both parties will remedy the situation in the future. Kjesbo —Asked if a ramp system would work? Kit Austin — Pierce Architects looked at ramp systems and the ramp would be inefficient, if not impossible. Braun — Confirmed there will be two elevators for the cars. Stockmar —Asked if there will be a connection to the property to the west Braun — Confirmed there will be no connection. Pay in Lieu Parking — Parcels in green are the Village Core Area and a few areas to the eastern side of Lionshead to be within the zone. Parking cannot be located on the sites within the zone. Braun explained the rationale for the amendment for the area to be removed from the pay in lieu area. Existing/Interim/Proposed Parking — Braun presented existing parking spaces, including the following: Launch — 52 spaces Lazier — 91 spaces • Total — 143 spaces Proposed Parking includes a total of 71 spaces or more. 91 spaces are currently shown on plans. PEC Comments Kjesbo — Asked can the PEC provide the applicant how to allocate parking. Spence — No Stewart McNab — Stated there is more than the Launch application. Requested a Condition of approval — parking should match at least the number that is there currently. Spence — The review of the demo of the top deck is not under the purview of the PEC and there is no time limit of when it should be replaced with redevelopment. Stockmar — Stated staff provided the PEC with parking plans during the interim highlighted in the memo. Dale Bugby — Stated parking in Lionshead is in high demand and of high value. The original letter than talked about 69 spaces needed to be protected on the site. There are now four buildings without parking spaces that cannot be utilized today. Concerned about closing ramp, which is an access point for his property. Gillette —Asked if Matt Mire will be at the next meeting. Spence — Stated it will be an executive session and specific questions should be highlighted before meeting with the Town Attorney. Bob Lazier — Stated 69 spaces for Lift House is not the correct number. Parking will be covered in the future by replacing what is there currently with the same number, if not more parking. PEC Comment Kjesbo — The applicant reviewed the PEC's questions. He is still mixed on mechanical parking, but understands why the applicant needs to do it. Still questions the north side from a design perspective, but the DRB will review the elevation. The applicant addressed the roof very well and looks forward to the final design. Gillette — No comment. Stockmar — Thanked the applicant for resolving the lid issue. The north facade is still boring, but it is outside the PEC's purview to address. He has seen the automated parking work over the years, even in bigger buildings. Perez — Thanked Staff and the applicant for addressing concerns. Concerned though over the size of the parking garage due to the large number of visitors. Perez asked for clarification over size of vehicles and if the garage can accommodate most vehicles. Kjesbo — Worried about sludge and maintenance of the automated garage. Asked how long it could take to fix an issue with the garage. Hopkins —Appreciated the changes and the plans are getting better. Kurz — Believed the building is more appealing today than at the last meeting. Kurz would like to see more in terms of the automated parking video and how it would work in Vail's environment. Additionally, how the winter climate will impact the garage with slug and build up. He stated there are 69 spaces for Lift House and others state this is not correct. He would like to see the parking issue agreed to by all parties. Braun — Stated he and the applicant will return with more information on the parking system. Braun stated he wants to focus on Launch's property today, not Bob's project. Kjesbo — Stated if the applicant meets the parking requirement, the PEC should not have to review private agreements. Staff requests all four items be tabled to July 9 meeting. Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to July 9, 2018. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3.6. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor 5 min. Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a subdivision to reconfigure the property lines between two (2) development lots located at 500 & 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0017) Staff will not be providing a staff memorandum for this item. Staff requests that the Planning and Environmental Commission continue this item to the July 9, 2018 meeting. Applicantiazier Lionshead LLC & Battle Moutnain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to July 9, 2018. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3.7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 5 min. regulations amendment to Section 12-10-16 Exempt Areas; Parking Fund Established, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to remove Lot 1A, Lot 2A and Tract K of a Resubdivision of Vail Lionshead, Block 1, from the "parking pay -in -lieu" zones for parking regulations purposes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18- 0019) Staff will not be providing a staff memorandum for this item. Staff requests that the Planning and Environmental Commission continue this item to the July 9, 2018 meeting. Applicantiazier Lionshead LLC & Battle Moutnain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to July 9, 2018. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3.8. A request for the review a variance from Section 12-7H-10, Setbacks, Vail 5 min. Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rear setback of zero feet (0') where ten feet (10') is required for a new multifamily structure, located at 534 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 2 and 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0018) Staff will not be providing a staff memorandum for this item. Staff requests that the Planning and Environmental Commission continue this item to the July 9, 2018 meeting. Applicant$attle Mountain LLC, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to July 9, 2018. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 3.9. A report to the Planning and Environmental Commission on the 5 min. Administrator's approval of an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-813-3, Conditional Uses; Accessory buildings (permanent and temporary), Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing golf starter shack with a new starter shack building at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1655 Sunburst Drive, a collection of platted and unplatted parcels (a complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department Office), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 18-0023) Applicant'Vail Golf Course, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Justin Lightfield Kjesbo recused himself as a member of the Vail Rec. Board Planner Lighfield explained the project and staff's action. Kit Austin explained that it would not impact the course or play. Stockmar questioned the heaviness of the roof. No formal action taken. 3.10. A request for review of a variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in 30 min. Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0020) ApplicantUichael & Yoshimi Moore, represented by Visual I mpax Planner: Justin Lightfield Variance 1: Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes 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 contingent upon the applicant obtaining Eagle River Water & Sanitation District approval for this proposal. 3. The square footage of the hammerhead driveway shall be reduced and landscaping shall be added between the hammerhead and the public road. 4. Curb and gutter shall go from the western corner of the subject property to the eastern corner of Rush Condominium lot. The improvement costs shall not be borne by the Town of Vail. 5. The parking spaces shall be labeled for each individual condo owner at the Rush Condominiums (1-4). 6. The plan to be approved by the Design Review Board shall incorporate all practical measures to prevent additional parking anywhere to the east of the proposed garage. Brian Stockmar moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman Variance 2: Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Curb Cuts 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 contingent upon the applicant obtaining Eagle River Water & Sanitation District approval for this proposal. 3. The square footage of the hammerhead driveway shall be reduced and landscaping shall be added between the hammerhead and the public road. 4. Curb and gutter shall go from the western corner of the subject property to the eastern corner of Rush Condominium lot. The improvement costs shall not be borne by the Town of Vail. 5. The parking spaces shall be labeled for each individual condo owner at the Rush Condominiums (1-4). 6. The plan to be approved by the Design Review Board shall incorporate all practical measures to prevent additional parking anywhere to the east of the proposed garage. Planner Lighfield spoke to the changes since the last meeting. The applicant, Scott Handler with Visual I mpax walked the commission through the changes, primarily to the parking layout. A brief discussion of the fire hydrant was held. Hopkins asked about the location of the stairs and trash in relation to the parking and garbage containers. The applicant provided clarification. Stockmar asked about the existing parking conditions, double parking etc. Tom Kassmel spoke to it occurring elsewhere in town and feels that the proposal will be an improvement. Spoke to the possibility of curb and gutter. The applicant spoke to the solution to the double parking situation. Hopkins asked about snow removal. Gillette spoke to the purpose of the variance and one parking space per unit. Hopkins spoke to the lack of a hammerhead and the excessive amount of pavement to the west. Gillette clarified the request to remove pavement and replace with landscaping. Kassmel spoke to the number of parking spaces required and vehicle movement. The applicant spoke to his willingness to change the plans but thought it would not be approved by the Town Engineer. Hopkins asked that the DRB be directed to address access to the condos and the west pavement. Perez is struggling and feels that the project has gone backwards. Too much parking. Recommends a reduction in pavement. Stockmar- Applicant has responded to requests. Recognizes challenges. Concurs about a reduction in pavement. Gillette -Would like a COA regarding labeling the parking spaces Kjesbo- Recommends further design changes to restrict parking and allow adequate snow storage. Stockmar-Would recommend negotiating with Rush condos to solve the parking situation. Kurz- Concurs with Rollie that design solutions are needed to prevent unwanted parking. Appreciated applicants response to Commissioners concerns. Brian Gillette moved to approve with conditions. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Lockman 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. PEC Results June 11, 2018 5. Adjournment 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 13, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of variances from Section 14-3-1: Minimum Standards, Table 1 Driveway/Feeder Road Standards, Entry Angle Minimum Deflection, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the entry angle minimum deflection for first 30 feet of driveway length to facilitate the development of a single- family structure, located at 2698 Cortina Lane/Lot 11, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-00013) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Cortina Lane Staff memorandum.pdf Staff Memorandum Attachment A Vail Ridge Block B Lot 11 - 2698 Cortina Lane - Variance Review.pdf Attachment A Vicinity Map Attachment B PEC narrative 4-15-19.pdf Attachment B Applicant's Narrative Attachment C Plan Set DRB19-0160 approved plans Part1.pdf Attachment C Plan Set DRB19-0160 approved plans Part2.pdf Attachment C Plan Set 3-25-2019 part 1 of 2 Attachment C Plan Set 3-25-2019 part 2 of 2 TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review a variance from Section 14-3-1: Minimum Standards, Table 1 Driveway/Feeder Road Standards, Entry Angle Minimum Deflection, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the entry angle minimum deflection for first 30 feet of driveway length to facilitate the development of a single-family structure, located at 2698 Cortina Lane/Lot 11, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-00013) Applicant: Benno Scheidegger, represented by Berglund Architects, LLC Planner: Ashley Clark I. SUMMARY Benno Scheidegger, represented by Berglund Architects, LLC, is requesting the review of a variance from Section 14-3-1: Minimum Standards, Table 1 Driveway/Feeder Road Standards, Entry Angle Minimum Deflection, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the entry angle minimum deflection for first 30 feet of driveway length to facilitate the development of a single-family structure, located at 2698 Cortina Lane/Lot 11, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision. 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 of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting the review of a variance from Section 14-3-1: Minimum Standards, Table 1 Driveway/Feeder Road Standards, Entry Angle Minimum Deflection for the proposed driveway angle entrance at Cortina Lane. The variances requested are summarized below: Required I Proposed Entry angle minimum deflection for first 30' of 450 21.4030 driveway length Site Plan Cortina Lane — Portion shared by all parcels, with existing/proposed degree angle: 3"8, 1�1 3 ' 2 ' - R SERVICE LINE TO CURB STOP J CURBSTOP AT PROPERTY LINE � a 115'-5 314" 8 6 0 I%\ / 811$.42 Exhibit from Title 14 Chapter 11: QW Was: tow= pm _ •FOR MI ME FALiY, M- Fri LY. PIDW*y ��couc n` mYEu rfix, TWERE dHAL� BE A dL� Q.r' Side b�!lE ffi T1lE mRi7ij rt rao� { f TNS MW* FOR h LtlN�idElia �3i�'Ta5k�1: r 49 MM gr Z MW Ff.¢T. THE 4ME YQLL 9£ 64ML RED =ROIL rM 9•ux EDGE. V Shit CRNCR-W Derv£.1-0)4. PL�Jfr A1:A�IKlx. - Town of Vail Page 2 A Vicinity Map (Attachment A), Applicant's Narrative 4/15/2019 (Attachment B), and Plan Set (Attachment D) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND In February of 2019, Berglund Architects applied for a conceptual review of a proposal to construct a new single-family home at 2698 Cortina Lane. During that review, the Public Works Department noted that the existing driveway does not meet code in terms of driveway grade and angle of entry and upon redevelopment will need to meet code. Staff from Pubic Works and Community Development met with the applicant to discuss the existing site constraints. The applicant agreed to review the driveway conditions and explore alternatives. In March of 2019, Berglund Architects submitted a formal DRB application with a driveway that was in compliance with maximum allowed grade of 12%, however, did not comply with the angle of entry standard. The DRB reviewed the proposal and approved of the design; approval is conditioned on the grant of a variance for the driveway angle. The applicant subsequently applied for a variance to the PEC. The Public Works Department is in support of this variance, given that the configuration of the driveway has existed for over 30 years and the topography adjacent to the driveway does not allow for a modification of the driveway entrance angle. The location of the driveway is at or near the end of Cortina Lane and the volume of traffic is minimal. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: 14-3-1: Minimum Standards.- This tandards:This section (tables 1 and 2) specifies the access, driveway and parking standards for residential and commercial development. These standards are subject to all conditions and exceptions described herein. These standards shall be considered the minimum standards. When two (2) or more standards conflict, the more restrictive standard shall apply. TABLE 1 DRIVEWAY/FEEDER ROAD STANDARDS (in part) Standard Single -Family, Two- Multiple - Family, Family Primary/Secondary - Access to not more than 3 - Access to 4 dwelling units (including to 11 EHUs) dwelling - Structures and all portions units thereof -Feeder within 150' from edge of road only Multiple - Family And Commercial - Access to more than 11 dwelling units and/or commercial Town of Vail Page 3 rstreetment Driveway/Feeder Road Entry angle minimum 450 deflection for first 30' of driveway length (detail 5) Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: properties - Feeder road only 70° 70° 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. 12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION.- Within CTION: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. Town of Vail Page 4 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same 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 generally apply 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. Town of Vail Page 5 V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: 2698 Cortina Lane Land Use Plan Designation: Legal Description: Vail Ridge Current Land Use: Empty lot Subdivision, Block B, Lot 11 Geological Hazards: Steep slopes Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential StandardProposed Site Area Min. 14,000 sq. ft. 15,943 No Change Front — 20' Front — 20' Setbacks Side — 15' n/a Side — >15' Rear — 15' Side — >15' Rear — >15' Height Flat or Mansard Roof — 30' 33' 33' Sloping Roof — 33' Density 2 DUs 0 units 1 DU GRFA Max 6,623 sf n/a 4,775 sf Site Coverage 20%/3,189sf n/a 19%/ 2,964sf Parking/Loading :52,000 GRFA=2 spaces n/a 4 spaces 2,0002_4,000 GRFA=3 spaces Landscaping Min. 60% of site area n/a >60% VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING 2698 Cortina Lane is situated in a Primary/Secondary Residential Zoning neighborhood. The underlying land -use for the PS zoning district is Low -Density Residential. It is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and shares a driveway with two other parcels. Town of Vail Page 6 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed single-family home conforms to all zoning criteria. Furthermore, it has been reviewed and the DRB has approved the proposal, pending PEC approval of the needed variance. The entry angle of the driveway is an existing condition and will have no impact on the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The location of the driveway is at the end of the cul-de-sac and will thus have minimal impact on traffic conditions. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed variances conform to this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The proposed single-family home at 2698 Cortina Lane shares a steep driveway with two other parcels. From staff's review, this is a unique condition in the Primary/Secondary zoning district. Staff located one other driveway that shares driveway with three other units in the vicinity. Generally, in this district a driveway is not shared with multiple separate structures. Additionally, the steepness of the driveway down to the lots is also a unique condition. Many driveways and parking areas in the vicinity take advantage of the steep slopes privilege of having a garage in the front yard setback and therefore have very short driveways. The applicant has worked with the existing driveway to bring the grade into compliance, which was identified as a safety concern by the Public Works Department. The angle of entry is an existing condition that will not be exacerbated with this proposal. In reliance on the engineering expertise of the Public Works Department, the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the topography and existing constraints of the lot would create a situation in which the lot would become undevelopable and potentially increase safety concerns if required to meet the 45 degree angle. Town of Vail Page 7 Staff therefore finds that relief from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the angle of entry regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity without the grant of special privilege. Staff therefore finds that the proposed variances conform to this criterion. 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 the development of an existing lot for a single- family unit where it is zoned to accommodate two units. A transportation impact fee will be assessed to mitigate impact on transportation. As noted by Public Works Department, the driveway is located at the end of the cul-de-sac and is therefore will have minimal impact on traffic safety. The proposal will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, staff finds the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff will provide additional information on any other factors and criteria the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve a variance from Section 14-3-1: Minimum Standards, Table 1 Driveway/Feeder Road Standards, Entry Angle Minimum Deflection, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the entry angle minimum deflection for first 30 feet of driveway length to facilitate the development of a single-family structure, located at 2698 Cortina Lane/Lot 11, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision 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 14-3-1: Minimum Standards, Table 1 Driveway/Feeder Road Standards, Entry Angle Minimum Deflection, Vail Town Code, in accordance Town of Vail Page 8 with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the entry angle minimum deflection for first 30 feet of driveway length to facilitate the development of a single-family structure, located at 2698 Cortina Lane/Lot 11, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated May 13, 2019, 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 surrounding Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District.,- 2. istrict., 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District. ", and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity map B. Applicant's Narrative 3/25/2019 C. Plan Set 3/22/2019 Town of Vail Page 9 B E RG L U N D ARCHITECTS, LLC April 15, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, Benno Scheiddeger, owner of 2698 Cortina Lane, Vail, CO 81657 (Vail Ridge Subdivision, Block B, Lot 11), proposes to build a new single-family home on the lot. An existing shared driveway that accesses the two existing homes to the west of Lot 11 is located along the top/north side of lot 11. It is proposed that lot 11 will be accessed of this same shared driveway. Alternate driveway access has been studied by the Owner and his Architect, Berglund Architects, but this is by far the most logical and practical access to lot 11. The existing driveway does not comply with the Town of Vail's minimum driveway standards. In areas the driveway slope exceeds the 12% maximum allowable grade for a heated driveway and the entry angle is less than 45 degree off Cortina Lane. The plans for developing Lot 11 propose to modify the existing driveway to comply with the Town of Vail's 12% maximum slope and improve the angle of entry of the driveway. However, due to complex existing site conditions, which include a significant site slope, there are significant practical difficulties to comply with the minimum entry angle. This has been reviewed with the TOV Public works and they feel the proposed modifications are the best possible solution based on existing conditions and provide a safe driveway, even though it does not meet the Town of Vail's minimum driveway standards. The existing driveway enters the Lot 11 at the lowest possible elevation on Cortina Lane which is the most ideal location. Moving the driveway entrance farther up Cortina lane would raise the driveway entry elevation and increase the slope of the driveway and exceed the max slope further. Therefore the driveway entrance needs to remain in the proposed location. The current driveway descends onto the site to the existing home on Lot 12 at varying slopes with areas that exceed 12%. Due to the existing home and auto court on Lot 12, the driveway elevation where vehicles enter the auto court is required to remain as is to allow for a safe slope transition before entering the lot 12 auto court. These fixed points at the top of the driveway and the bottom of the driveway limit how much the driveway can be modified. The proposed driveway modifications between the fixed points noted will be regraded to have a consistent 12% slope with an upgraded snowmelt system and new pavement to meet Town of Vail standards. The entry angle is slightly improved from existing condition, while achieving the 12% slope, but does not meet the Town standards 14-3-1 of 45 degrees for Entry Angle minimum deflection for first 30'of driveway length. Site studies have been conducted to understand the difficulties of increasing the driveway entry angle. The hillside where the driveway enters the property is very steep and drops away from Cortina Lane quickly. This presents extraordinarily difficult conditions that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. In order to achieve the required entry angle, the driveway would have to be pushed farther down the hillside on Lot 11 and rebuilt using unsightly tall retaining walls to construct a driveway high above existing grade. The driveway would then encroach into Lot 11 in a manner that would make Lot 11 virtually undevelopable. Benno Scheiddeger and Berglund Architects have consulted with Town of Vail Public works and have determined regrading the existing driveway to be within the Town of Vail's driveway slope standards and applying for an Entry Angle variance would be the best course of action. Sincerely, [/�� F� Li Hans Berglund P.O. Box 2378, Edwards, CO 81632 Tel: 970 926-4301 fax: 970 926-4364 fVlLyfa ©� e -11VA • U10-1 --- 00 `a moo-is'NOISIAiaens 3oaim -11VA 3NVI VNIINOO 969Z 0 z LU LU ALL LUpOp LU n E -2 LU 0 0 IL 0 LU 0 CO) LL Lu NJ@ 0 IL 0 z LU LU ALL LUpOp LU n E -2 LU 0 IL 0 LU LU LU >w O= CO) Mj MM A M'.' o 000 'm LLI 0 o PRIX 0 LU 0 IL Mj MM A M'.' o 000 'm LLI 0 o PRIX gfVlLyfa 0 -11VAU10-1 0 `S MOO18'NOISIAiaenS 3E)aim -11VA o CE 3NVI VNIiNO3 8692 tl IL N 0 LU tl 0 0 fVlLyfa ©� e •w o =R Q e IP OO 11` A `LL 101 `8 X OO18 `NOISIAiaenS 3J4RI livA N s a 3NV-1 VNIINOD 869Z 0 W Z 02< C14 OvWia Q a v H N CL LU v H � A aha O \ d A V V\ V A V \ V I x V A V A Q A A\ V A V• A A A VAVAA �V A A ' gfVlLyfa 0 -11VA `66101 `S MOO19 'NOISIAiaens goon -11VA o CE BNVI VNIINOO 8692 cl Lu (n C� o IIVAi � 10-1 `S MOO-18'NOISIAIaens 9001H ,in \\ 3NVI VNIINOD 869Z .h q fVlLyfa ©� e •w o =R 6 r.iaxn�fa�^ ee 0.7-11VA `LL 10 -1 ` `8 MOO18 `NOISI/UaenS 3Jaim-11VA � o CE 3N` I `dNUN03 8692 - �o - m n e ` � U Z N w � vv�v`'�vvv-vvv` � _ a z r2 LU U�Z Nt a �wN a �C7J v yZa Q v Z — a h vv�v`'�vvv-vvv` � gfVlLyfa a� e • OJ I4A lO e `8 MOO18 `NOIsINaens 3Jaim -11VA o � 3NVI VNIINOO 869Z o I I I - I rl of �I �I II I I I I I I I aloa I I _�IL—__=___ �I I -------- -- m L—iI�--Ir--------- �_III ISP --I — -17-,--II I�l �i 'I 1I�I I 1 i i A ioa� .,. � I I,�,xv v I I I vvv I J I, I a l l} w � � a l I✓ I vm , vv � - � I I vv v vv 1 I I vv I l vv I soo �1 I �G: D✓ I �I v� vv v .LL I I \ I I �ti I I 1 � I � I i I �TI� it +i- ����� la $❑ ✓i A ��V A\ - IIIS v1�_ t J Z r lL LU O > O OLULLa J Q I I I - I rl of �I �I II I I I I I I I aloa I I _�IL—__=___ �I I -------- -- m L—iI�--Ir--------- �_III ISP --I — -17-,--II I�l �i 'I 1I�I I 1 i i A ioa� .,. � I I,�,xv v I I I vvv I J I, I a l l} w � � a l I✓ I vm , vv � - � I I vv v vv 1 I I vv I l vv I soo �1 I �G: D✓ I �I v� vv v .LL I I \ I I �ti I I 1 � I � I i I �TI� it +i- ����� la $❑ ✓i A ��V A\ - IIIS v1�_ t gfVlLyfa a� e •W e o =R Q `iaxnna�^ m�' O`J ll`dA `LL lOI `a MOOna `NOisiniaens 39aib nron o� 3NVI VNIIMOO 869Z m _ r Z Wz N �W�a Q ttl U ❑ U' 2 — Y � Z O = LL J F ° .°... s. Q A I IV F71 I I Z - ,, I I I I �I ml wl ILII ill wll � ml I II I I fl I I III I I I I YY I_ \ III___ I I 11 11 III III p4 lwl -'--_-_ ..—_—.Ei t— II - -�4 411 I I irl a g s Im I� I I �<❑I �I ❑ �' � I �� Ixx fVlLyfa ©� e •o`iaxnna�^ m=�R' 071 1 A L101 WQ e `8 X10018 `NOISI/Uaens 3Jam 11` A c 3NVI VNIINOO 869Z o OGS N N UZLU M <o�T_ Qao a gfVlLyfa a� e •W e o =R Q OO llb'A ° L L 101 `S X OO18 `NOISI/Uaens awim -11VA � o� 3NVI VNIINOO 869Z - o ' �1 `35'� E 134! 13' I II \ 1 v❑_ I x I I I 1 I Y z l o O I Z a > M 0.Lu Q chez j rrea � I I I o ' �1 `35'� E 134! 13' I II m ego <gt II - 1 v❑_ I x I I I 1 I Y z l o O I Z chez j rrea � I I I r a _ s0000 � I I I T 1 177 IL-E� IT a I � 4 a R 1u I rirz 1 II —,7--�— II I \ \ \ aI "I OOOO2 k I I I I I I \ I II El m.r �J i—�— ' I.vr r -z S chez j rrea � I I o.r r V I T 1 a I \\\ /\/ 1 II —,7--�— II I \ \ \ I I I I I I \ I II \ \ �J i—�— I \ �J fVlLyfa ©� e •W e 0 IIVA'6 L 101 `S M0018'NOISIAiaenS 3oaim -11VA c 3NV-1 VNIIMOD 9692 000 iNHoo omF o To. S-- - o I T L-4 / \ 7 —1 - o)� z 0LL 0 I T L-4 / \ 7 —1 - o)� p'v A&,. -11VAU10-1 00 8 M00-18'NOISIAiaens 39aim -livA 3NV-1 VNIINOD 869Z c cc c c c cc 5 cc cc c'c cc" cc 'N R �'PAW CO) �T- qav LU 4 CO) qav LU 4 � S 03 -11VA 10-1 T g a moois'NOISIAiaens 3oaim -livA .1 z 3N'V-I'VNI-11100 11692 'MI n. o-oo \\\\E/\\\\«\\ ( lo. \\\\\\\\` \\ M CO) z 2 CN > LU CO) z 0 > LU pEVIEWE a©A o • 4 e moots `NOISIAiaenS 3J4R111` A N o� 3NWI VN112i00 869Z o - 3 - a° n �u - M �i a ,zy - 300 i °z �¢°3 rc ppp w�z> op ow 3o w �J a azo ¢ - w3� rc a'�or z3° ers sm w o� oworci � ox �z ui Sow - LLop, w oco °i 3�%zwowJz oo„ °a°zz o a F6fp w - oapw w° m8 x iSa .'ba Gia �x 3w �i°z �2 woz °wu°i hN 3h H o°04z rcu`�u`i x oz RN I i r I ,I (S - -/ - - - r m Z t o---- t _ - > a I Fle mg II r m Z O � > a pin: I � fl�II- I li II III ILEI� l� —I—I IF I— - LT_ I m p �— III I-1 III I_ I IIF — — — — — — — I� I — I I I I =1-1—� I IIII I -!I I II I I I! II I II_ I- I I'I I I� I IIII I �I IIII I I� I I I 1I- -— 1I- �I —I�I —$ �II,III II I, I illi I�illil I' iI% —i�iI—I�I illil—�i III I � IIII-= _IIII-1 IIIIII 1-11I I I—I CI IIII III_' —i- fVlLyfa 0 zap w6 w� 1 A `4410• 07 ° e ZW Q `8 MOO18 `NOISIAIaans 900IN 11` A N o� 3NVI VNIINOD 8692 o ° °-° www wwm o� a;a ° w w fop K K fop _ z :oma :oma p ° Qoo m Z.Fawwm°x allo ow `zz oQo a�mo �arm_aa za w�'� ° � �� Z55wm�w w°uow z aoo woo. - - a oQLL ozmo5. �zW�w ° _ o - zozQo�oaawo�iu,�z oa�oo� w��aww �w�o z zaJm mbo J_ as 30 pop4 pow.4 a a px c wa z Jaazwz�o �O ow ��Nazw JoaNaN �ooaaz =o�Q�w h h�=3 - -h�=3 y LLFWFwU Q_aN". woa=Qa oawa�m �ay�a;mow oa - �s°°mwaomaz>°z�Z PIN r 0 zap a w� aJ = a cc <�w� ZW Q N 0 s za�momooz�a oo°oom oQammwmJ IIS o- ���°�a°aoo°c�i�aw°zN °zzza°azowmNQ — yaa�� °mooxF°xo woc� xs �w = w ��z°�LLwaow��°w� wao oazm�<m J�wm- awa as Qi�awziw��LLa�>a�nw00-o.. � m wok - wa mmo wwazwOz"oaw°izW"�ammw U�wz Jaz Ua�nm z o roK mown N m W ww WH ... Q °w°ww°wx °N z°�Nzzzwwwzyoawoaam��a ... .. z www o° oz o oam°x"oww�w°ox - - w zw zw�z mwo az a �jUz �Jarn�ww�°�nw°FEW � III III III III III _ za�a a�¢wm wmz —III .III III III — III awwo �N wo°ww��mammam Qa�aom YNm Wwmcwim w�°>o°°>oxwN i LL m w o 0 0 > IIII 1111111 III IIII III III III VIII IIII III IIII III - ' ^ w C am wazaama�wzz aam LL z ata asa wMwzma ah 6y = III—III—III—III III III—III=III III= w� cw o °� II I II I II� I I I lil I I �oLL�� �e o IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII II ��� � II III III II LL� �AMU pI ¢w zap 8p � w� <�w� °g PIN G °� II I II I II� I I I lil I I �oLL�� �e o IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII II ��� � II III III II LL� �AMU pI Iliroom I I 0 _ ¢w zap 8p � w� <�w� °g Iliroom I I 0 _ ¢w <�w� I I 0 _ ¢w <�w� fVlLyfa ©� . •W 6 o =R r"taxnfa�^ ee 0.711` A `44101 ° e `8 X10018 `NOISIAIaenS 900IN 11` A N o a 3NVI VNIINOD 8692 o w Ns Na ao Ep3 a a-�� JN N aaa o�wF�< w °�==w=;LL�w«N=aaa�N� w w=�===Na=�wyNw=�°�=mw�mw=<�<=�=w� �mNa��LL<awN N N" mwww=Nm=°LLa=waN° w °«aw�N��w <a==�w=Baa=°� °°°a�< ww°www= w wa°w��JmaLL< lw�=�a= �NN�w� ° LLww w s ay �=J �� �Nao°a=LLN<a o 0 g ° °w oe e II III IIIIII��IIIIIIIIIIII��I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III I111� e —-- c� 11111 IF IIIIIIIIIIIII I F a a o — poi o HN2 ip pW 171, OR OEM N Z LU 0 oe e II III IIIIII��IIIIIIIIIIII��I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III I111� e —-- c� 11111 IF IIIIIIIIIIIII I F a a o — poi o HN2 ip pW 171, OR OEM fVlLyfa -11VAU10-1 ---©� e • 00 `S M7018'NOISIAiaens 3o4im -11VA 3NV-1 VNIINOD 869Z ■ CP foo ■ m CP m \\)\}\/\/\ }} / o IIVA'10-1 `S MOO-18'NOISIAIaens 9001H -11VA 3NVI VNIINOD 869Z (n LL Lo 0 92 - 0 F- LU } }{/} w (n LL Lo 0 0 F- LU } }{/} w f i o ,in` , MOO ,ewasmQen 3oaim ,in )( \ \� 3NV]VN|1NO0869Z /( 2L Lul$ « _ h I MO \)()\\)( I 03 OVA ate, `S MOO-18'NOISIAIaens 9001H ,in E 3NVI VNIINOD 869Z 2 rig H a E to to go M 11 in Hl-' I �}\\\\\/\} [}[\)\\I I ce \` 3: owl 00 - Do< 00 LU �}\\\\\/\} [}[\)\\I I MY�sa^ &e as szca�sr smc 3xnio3iix�xe 3eros�xr� eca e ao� o3'pe1 8 J30!g 'uo!s!n!pgnS aop!d il VI!LAp� "TT lol - < g� g 3 �j N U � _ J auel eullJOD 8692 � d 3 < g� ww � o� w U � _ p a= < $0 6W H H 8 � 2-L-- vG• 869911 (OC61 OZ918 OJ `u 0, s�,o9od »1 `8uiAanmS a2ueb aiog OaVNOZOa `AI.NnOD A-19Vd ZI`dA AO NMO.I. JOCIIN ZI`dA `S NDO78 `ii 10-1 d` W aIHd` 'dDOdOl � �o � t33 �'lLL-8l oNe Js a d tl0 {fin E ER t� aG o:ov0 fa City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 13, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 36, Four Seasons, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plan in order to permit a non-residential addition totaling 980 square feet to accommodate a glass enclosed seating area located at 1 Vail Road/Lot A — C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0014) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0014 SDD 36 Minor Amendment (Flame Kitchen).odf PEC19-0014 Staff Memo TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road West Community Development Department Vail, Colorado 81657 970.479.2138 va ilgov. corn April 24, 2019 Dear Planning and Environmental Commission members and adjacent property owners: Re: A Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 36, Four Seasons, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plan in order to permit a non-residential addition totaling 980 square feet to accommodate a glass enclosed seating area located at 1 Vail Road/Lot A — C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0014) Applicant: Ex Vail LLC Extell Development, represented by OZ Architecture Planner: Erik Gates The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Town of Vail Community Development Department Administrator has approved an amendment to the existing Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons, to allow for an increase in approved nonresidential floor area of less than 5% (980 square feet), located at 1 Vail Rd. The increase is due to an enclosure of the Flame Restaurant's outdoor patio using a glass covering, as seen in the following exhibits: o ..t V "I ... .. / ... . . . . . . . . . . . Vch- nz a I I 2 LE L3 FLOOR PL -FLAME RE A RANT (�1 TERRACE YERSPECINE TTI OaAERESTAUR—SUILOMSECTION The Administrator's approval includes the following conditions: 1. Approval of this project shall lapse and become void three (3) years following the date of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and is diligently pursued toward completion. 2. Approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of this approval pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code. 3. No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). The Town of Vail Administrator has determined that this amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons, meets the review criteria prescribed by Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code. This approval of a Special Development District minor amendment will be reported to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission at its Monday. May 13, 2019 public hearing at 1:00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road West. The Planning and Environmental Commission reserves the right to "call up" this administrative action for additional review at this hearing. This administrative action may also be appealed by an adjacent property owner, any aggrieved or adversely affected person, or the Vail Town Council as outlined in Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at 970-479-2440. Erik Gates, Planner Town of Vail Page 2 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 13, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of variances from Section 12-6D-9-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback of 20 feet to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-00010) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Staff Memo 5-13.pdf Forest Road 706 Staff Memo. Attachment A Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B Previous Variance Relief.pdf Attachment E Letter of Support.pdf Attachment D Plan Set.pdf Attachment C Applicants Narrative Part3.pdf Attachment C Applicants Narrative Part2.pdf Attachment C Applicants Narrative Part1 of 3.pdf Description Staff Memo V2 5-13-19 Hearing Staff Memo Attachment A Vicinity Map Attachment B 1998 and 2000 Variance Record Attachment E Letter of Support 3/26/2019 Attachment D Plan Set Attachment C Applicant's Narrative Part 3 of 3 Attachment C Applicant's Narrative Part 2 of 3 Attachment C Applicant's Narrative Part 1 of 3 TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of variances from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Section 14-10-4 Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback and side setback to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0010) Applicant: Paul and Danita Ostling, represented by SRI Architects and Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Ashley Clark Paul and Danita Ostling, represented by SRI Architects and Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Section 14-10-4: Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6. At the April 22, 2019 hearing the PEC heard a staff presentation and a presentation from the applicant. During deliberation, the applicant requested to table the hearing to the May 13, 2019 hearing. The applicant has since significantly altered their application and have removed all variances requested for the west side unit. The proposal requires two variances for the east side unit: (1) for the front entry relocation and (2) the roof pitch change over the third cantilever. Neither requested variance will not further exacerbate existing setback conditions. While staff appreciates the effort on the applicant's part to reduce the variance, design is not contemplated under the criteria for the review of a variance request. Staff's previous analysis in and finding recommending denial in the memorandum to the PEC dated 4-22-2019 of the variance remains. TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of variances from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Section 14-10-4 Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback and side setback to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0010) Applicant: Paul and Danita Ostling, represented by SRI Architects and Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Ashley Clark I. SUMMARY Paul and Danita Ostling, represented by SRI Architects and Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Section 14-10-4: Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback of 20 feet to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6. 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 denial of this application, subject to the findings noticed in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6: Setbacks and Section 14-10-4: Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1 Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the front yard setback requirements at 706 Forest Road West and a variance from the front and side yard setback requirements at 706 Forest Road East. The applicant is proposing to demolish the primary unit and rebuild a 4,189 GRFA unit, and to remodel the secondary unit with a total of 3,978 GRFA The variances requested are summarized below: ariance Request Summary* Emk I West Unit - Primary Unit (demo) 1 st Level - GRFA front yard setback Dimensional Criteria Required Proposed 1st Level- Entry Stair front yard setback 10' 5.5' 2nd Level - Deck front yard setback 15' 11.5' Roof front yard setback 16' 2' East Unit - Secondary Unit (renovation) 1 st Level - GRFA front yard setback 20' 9.5' 1 st Level — front entry stairway front yard setback 10' 1' 1s' Level- column features front yard setback 20' 4.5' 2nd Level - GRFA front yard setback 20' 9.5' 2nd Level - deck front and side setback 5' 7.5' 3rd level - GRFA front yard setback 20' 9.5' roofl front yard setback 16' 1/2' *A 20' setback required indicates a variance from 12-6D-6, any other required setback indicates a variance from 1410-4 A Vicinity Map (Attachment A), 1998 and 2000 Variance Record (Attachment B), Applicant's Narrative (Attachment C), Plan Set (Attachment D) and a Letter of Support (Attachment E) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The parcel at 706 Forest Road was annexed into the Town of Vail by court order in August of 1966. Based on a staff report written in 1998, the existing duplex was constructed at the north edge of the lot in 1980, at a time when the front yard setback requirement was 10' due to the steep slopes. The code subsequently changed and the duplex is therefore a legally nonconforming structure. A variance for the front yard setback was granted in June of 1998. The variance allowed for the enclosure of an existing deck and did not extend the building footprint further into the 9' setback. The PEC placed a condition on the grant of this variance that states, "The applicant shall maintain a limit of disturbance line as shown on the site plan. No building additions shall be allowed beyond this line in the future. This limit of disturbance Town of Vail Page 2 and any associated variances will become obsolete if the duplex is demolished and rebuilt." In March of 2000, another variance was granted. The new variance permitted a trash enclosure located underneath an existing deck. The side setback was decreased to 6' from 15'. A variance was also granted for an entryway that did not extend past the footprint of the existing building in the front yard setback. The PEC placed a condition on the grant of this variance that states, "a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development is to occur beyond this line in the future." No additional variance applications have been pursued since 2000 for this property. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 —Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 6, Article D, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two- family primary/secondary 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 maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12-6D-6: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: 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). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: 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 Town of Vail Page 3 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; V. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance.- That ariance: 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. easons: 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 generally apply 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. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: 706 Forest Road A and B Legal Description: Vail Village Filing 6, Block 1, Lot 9 Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Duplex Geological Hazards: Steep Slopes 1 Existing setbacks are a rough approximation based on the closest condition. Town of Vail Page 5 A PS I Site Area Min. 14,000 sq. ft. 58496.7 No Change Front — 20' Front — 4' Setbacks' Side — 15' Side(W) — 3' See Variance Request Rear — 15' Side(E) — 4' Table above Rear— >200' Height Flat or Mansard Roof — 30' 33' 33' Sloping Roof — 33' Density 2 DUs 2 DUs No change 1 Existing setbacks are a rough approximation based on the closest condition. Town of Vail Page 5 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING 706 Forest Road is situated in the middle of a Primary/Secondary Residential Zoning neighborhood. The underlying land -use for the PS zoning district is Low -Density Residential. The map demonstrates general uniformity within this PS district. The lots on the south side of Forest Road are narrow and long. They also have steep slopes in common with one another. The properties on the north side of Forest Road are also narrow, but not as long and do not share steep slopes as a feature. The homes along both sides of the street are close to their front property lines. The homes on the south side are located towards the street due to the steep slopes toward the rear of the lots. 706 Forest Road Zoning Map 125 6�i5 i 62 Town of Vail Page 6 Max 8,167 sf 8,167 sf** GRFA 4,189 sf (primary) NA 4,189 sf (primary) 3,978 sf (secondary) 3,978 sf (secondary) Site Coverage 20%/11,699 sf 6.6%/3,866 sf 7%, 4,119 sf Parking/Loading :52,000 GRFA=2 spaces 4 covered spaced No change 2,0002_4,000 GRFA=3 spaces Landscaping Min. 60% of site area or > 60% VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING 706 Forest Road is situated in the middle of a Primary/Secondary Residential Zoning neighborhood. The underlying land -use for the PS zoning district is Low -Density Residential. The map demonstrates general uniformity within this PS district. The lots on the south side of Forest Road are narrow and long. They also have steep slopes in common with one another. The properties on the north side of Forest Road are also narrow, but not as long and do not share steep slopes as a feature. The homes along both sides of the street are close to their front property lines. The homes on the south side are located towards the street due to the steep slopes toward the rear of the lots. 706 Forest Road Zoning Map 125 6�i5 i 62 Town of Vail Page 6 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. While the proposed additions and projections will exacerbate existing nonconforming setbacks, relative to the overall size of the existing duplex and nonconforming nature, staff finds that the proposed additions will not have a detrimental impact to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The direct abutter to the east at 696 Forest Road submitted a letter in support of the variance (Exhibit E). Prior to any final approval, the final design will need to receive approval from the Design Review Board. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed variances conform to this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The proposed additions and projections will result in an exacerbation of the existing nonconforming setbacks. As discussed in Section VI, this lot is not unique among sites in the vicinity. The abutting properties share similar lot constraints, size and topography. Therefore, staff finds that there is not sufficient evidence or hardship unique to this lot to support that the grant of variances for redevelopment of this property. The grant of variances is not necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Archived PEC minutes indicate a desire to bring nonconforming decks and projections into conformance, as evidenced by conditions imposed both on the subject property, as well as properties within the vicinity that condition conformance to the setback standards upon redevelopment. A variance is not necessary to achieve uniform treatment among sites in the vicinity and this proposal will result in a grant of a special privilege. Staff finds the proposed variance does not meet this criterion. 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. Town of Vail Page 7 The proposed variance will facilitate the redevelopment of an existing duplex and will not increase the density on the lot. Additional parking requirements will not be triggered. Therefore, the proposal is not expected to alter the population; 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 finds 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 Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission deny a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Section 14-10-4 Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for a variance to front- and side -yard setbacks to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing duplex, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, Block 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and 14-10-4 Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front and side setbacks as presented to facilitate the redevelopment of a two-family residence, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 8, 2019, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: Town of Vail Page 8 1. The granting of this variance will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the surrounding Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District.,- 2. istrict., 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and 3. This variance is not warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District.'; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity map B. 1998 and 2000 Variance Record C. Applicant's Narrative 3/25/2019 D. Plan Set 3/22/2019 E. Letter of Support from 696 Forest Road 3/26/2019 Town of Vail Page 9 r� 1 is 'Aw Mo tel. I . It N s ---------------;--. ------ ------ - -------------------------------- ------------- A- / ' 1 --------- --- - . oA _.��'_''.'� ---------- - IV • ,7 #7 IAt ,� _• i �.4f& dd r--------------- ASO i� ���,ti .a., h�.� III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCEBE—QUEST Upon review of Section 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Veil Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested front yard setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to ether existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed encroachment of the deck enclosure on the third level into the front setback will have minimal impacts on existing'or potential uses and structures in the area. Bulk and mass will not be increased by the proposed enclosure as it is currently substantially enclosed. The project will not impact adjacent property owners as the house will remaina residential use. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literat 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. Due to the existing steep slopes on the property, staff believes that this proposal will not be a grant of special privilege. Many of the homes in the area are built close to the road in order to reduce the impact to this site and these changes will be minor. If an addition was done in the rear of the house, unnecessary site disturbance would need to occur.. Limiting disturbance in the area of steep slopes to the rear of the structure will reduce the potential for erosion and damage''to the. environment. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and, air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues. This proposal maintains the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. B. The elanning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings, before grantina,a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district: 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation. would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance :that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. 'The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same: district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of Title 12, Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development department recommendsapproval of the proposed variance, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute: a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following condition: 1 That the applicant shall maintain a limit of disturbance line as shown on the site plan. No building additions -shall be allowed beyond this line in the future. This limit of disturbance and any associated variances will<,become obsolete if the duplex is demolished and rebuilt. f;/everyone/pec/memos/98/Adam.608 r_ 141 Updated 6109 1 dam MOTION: Galen AaslandSECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE 5,0 APPROVAL FOR RECOMMENDATION TO TOWNCOUNCIL- MAJOR SUBDIVISION MOTION: Galen AaslandSECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 5-0 APPROVAL FOR RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL WITH 3 CONDITIONS SDD 22 MAJOR AMENDMENT 1. That the maximum garage credit for each of the pri,rnary units constructed in the development not exceed six hundred (500) square f et, unless and EHOJS , constructed on the lot, in which case, an additional 600 sq. ft. garage credit be allowed. 2. That the maximum number of outdoor lights permitted on each of the lots in the development not exceed 15 lights total. . A request for a front setback variance, to allow for a proposed residential addition, located at 700 Forest. Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Griner Architects, Planner: Christie Barton MOTION: Ann BishopSECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 4-0 (Tom Weber recused) APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the applicant shall maintain a limit of disturbance line as shown on the site plan. No building additions shall be allowed beyond this line in the future. This limit of disturbance and any associated variances will become obsolete if the duplex is demolished and rebuilt. 9. A request for a v orks scion to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District 0; Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, looted at 100 East Meadow Drive, tots M and 0, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Rather FABLED UNTIL JANE 22, 199 % A request for a side setback variance, to allow for the construction of an additional garage, located at 813 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriella FABLED UNTIL JUNE 22,1998 3 MEMORANDUM it TO- Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 18, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6; Town of Vail Code, to allow for an addition and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road/Lot 9. Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine, is requesting variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6`h Filing. The addition is proposed for only the secondary unit and includes two dormer additions at the back (do not require a variance), a dormer addition in the front. a trash enclosure beneath an existing deck, an extended entry, and deck expansion. The existing duplex was constructed in 1960. Because the lot has slopes in excess of 40%, the house is built into the front setback, which was allowed at the time of construction. The primary side of the duplex received a variance in June of 1998 to allow for the enclosure of a deck within the front setback. Originally, the primary side applied for a variance which would allow for a dormer addition in the front setback. A motion was made by the Planning and Environmental Commission to deny the variance requests. However, the motion failed due to a lack of a second. The applicant then requested to be tabled and the dormer addition in the setback was removed from the proposal_ The variance for the deck enclosure was then granted with one condition: That a limit of disturbance line be established at the rear of the unit and no development was to occur beyond this line in the future. The following is a description of each of the variance requests: • Dormer: adds mass in the setback, but does not alter the existing footprint of the building. (12-6D-6) • Trash Enclosure: decreases side setback from 15' to 6', but is beneath an existing deck. 127.5 sq. ft. of GRFA is added in setbacks. (12-6D-6) • Deck: expands existing front deck around to meet the existing side deck and adds approximately 122 sq. ft. of deck area into front setback. Does not change existing front deck setback, (12-14-6) • Entry -way: increases foot print of building, and adds mass in the setback. Does not extend past existing building and is in the location of an existing deck- 64 sq. ft. of site coverage and approximately 120 sq. ft. of GRFA is added in the front setback. (12-6D-6) • The proposed dormer additions at the rear of the unit do not require a variance. Approximately 350 sq. ft. of GRFA is added from the additions. Reductions of the plans, along with the applicant's statement of request have been attached for reference. Correspondence from the adjacent property owner has also been included for reference. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variances (Section 12-6D-6 and 12-14-6) to allow for the entry addition, trash enclosure; dormer addition, and deck expansion subject to the following findings.- That indings: That the granting of the setback variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the Primary/Secondary 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 because 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 Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, staff recommends the following condition: 0 That a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development is to occur beyond this line in the future. III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRS is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures; the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11- Provision of outdoor lighting IV. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 58,498 sq. ft Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Hazards: Slopes in excess of 30% Allowed P/S Existing GRFA: 7,525 sq. ft. 6,951 sq. ft. Primary 4,430 sq. ft. 4,232 sq. ft. Secondary 3,095 sq. ft. 2,719 sq. ft. Setbacks Front. 20' 9 West Side: 15' 15' Rear: 15' 175' Deck: 15' 8' Site Coverage: 8,775 sq. ft_ (15%) V. CFUTERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: Proposed 7,303 sq. ft. no change 3,071 sq. ft. 9' 6' 172' 8' 3,866 sq. ft. (7%) The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff feels that there will be no detriment to other uses and structures in the vicinity. All of the proposed additions are minimal and will only serve to enhance the surrounding uses and structures. This proposal will also help to match this unit with the improvements done to the other unit in 1998. Currently, the stain of the siding does not match, nor do the deck railings. The applicant is proposing to match all materials and colors of the other unit. Staff feels that these improvements will be a benefit to the neighborhood. 40 3 In addition, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the plan at its Larch 1. 2000, meeting and had no negative comments. The DRB has directed staff to "staff approve" the proposal should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance requests. 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. Due to the extremely steep slopes in this neighborhood, staff feels that there are extreme circumstances which warrant the requested variances. Staff feels that it is important to minimize site disturbance to these extremely steep slopes at the rear of the house, which pushes development to the front of the house. The house was originally allowed in the front setback due to these steep slopes. There are other residences in this neighborhood that encroach into setbacks, via either variances or built under regulations which allowed these encroachments, including lots 10, 12, and 13. The other unit at this location received a variance to enclose an existing deck in the front setback. While staff recognizes that these requests are beyond a deck enclosure, the proposal does not encroach any further into the front setback than the existing building. Staff does not believe that this is 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. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above -referenced criteria. B, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 2. That the developer records an amended plat for Lot 4 with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6" Filing. Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development is to occur beyond this line in the future. 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-C/Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 15t Filing, Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf MOTION: Tom Weber SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 4-0 TABLED 4. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building)/Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION —NO VOTE 5. A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit for a fractional fee club and a parking variance, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive/A part of Tract B, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: VML, L.L.C. Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 8 CONDITIONS: 1. That the developer submits a complete set of engineered plans for the required streetscape improvements. The plans shall be required to comply with the applicable Town of Vail Development Standards. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final review of the streetscape improvements. The plans shall receive final approval prior to the issuance of a building permit 2. That the developer records a deed -restriction for the new Type ill Employee Housing Unit in the Vail Athletic Club & Spa with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 March 26, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission C/O Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81658 RE: Variance request for 706 Forest Road To Commissioners: We own the home at 696 Forest Road, which is adjacent to 706 Forest Road. As we understand, the owners at 706 Forest Road are requesting a variance to allow for redevelopment of the property. At this time, we would like to offer our support for their proposal. The existing home is in need of sprucing up. The design and architecture of this existing home is dated and not up to par with the remainder of the West Forest Road neighborhood. We are very excited to the see that the plans that have been submitted for the variance and for conceptual review by the DRB are much more reflective of the Town's Design Guidelines and the architectural integrity of the more recently remodeled homes in the neighborhood. We believe that the requested variances are appropriate, particularly because the encroachments into the setbacks are actually a reduction over what exists today. Many of the homes in the neighborhood, including ours, have been granted similar variances in the past. We have reviewed the plans along with the justification for the variance, and believe that it meets the criteria of the Vail Town Code. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. We greatly appreciate the work that you do, and trust that you will agree that the home will be a huge improvement, benefitting the entire neighborhood. Si cerely, Crai Ii Manager - Cu o G z0LU d' Q F-- C7 0 1 F7 71 17 El I I - I I I I � I rcl o'I �I s, I � Cai- I I I� I` I " I a I L a I � I � Ll I ' I ' NI x� I p, m' o I p I � pl ry l I � I I I ' I I , I I I I I — — 1 - Cu o G z0LU d' Q F-- C7 0 1 F7 71 17 El I I - I I I I � I rcl o'I �I s, I � Cai- I I I� I` I " I a I L a I � I � Ll I ' I ' NI x� I p, m' o I p I � pl ry l I � I I I ' I I , I I I I I — — 1 9900'-(O[6)xe3• 9699 -(Oa) OQ V dO'IOD ',kIN 11OD J'ID V J "IIVA A AO NAAOI 0Z9180J u�tl JNI'IId HIXIS `AJV'I'IIA DIVA ,o9od »�'8ui (anmS 1 XDO'19 `610I 00 IWVd V) a2ueb aiog avw OIHdvIdDodol � £Z!/-6/ oNe £3/C-6/ .oN ONxrr JS we a�w \ JS � � W \ �KER�'"'1�S1s+ �2l✓ Se QM �1 v v 1� op ,1 e 1 �5 1 \�o '1 A 1= A 1� 1 U d r 1— \ �1 v v 1� op ,1 1 �5 1 \�o '1 A 1= A 1� s 1 � 1 v 1 1 i I 1 I - I I 1 I I I I� { U d r Criteria for Review: Variance The criteria for review of a minor subdivision refers to the criteria provided in Section 13-3-4 Commission Review of Application; Criteria and Necessary Findings. These criteria are the same as those used to review a major subdivision, so many are not applicable to the proposed minor subdivisions. The following section provides an analysis of the proposed minor subdivision with these criteria: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant Response: The West Forest Road neighborhood is zoned Primary/Secondary, with all lots allowed two dwelling units plus a type II employee housing uint. Lots along the uphill side of West Forest Road generally follow a similar development pattern, with homes located close to the front property line. This is primarily due to the steep and relatively narrow lots. The majority of these lots have received some degree of setback relief due to this condition. Because if this, the proposed variance is consistent with the uses and structures, both existing and potential, in the vicinity. The site is also adjacent to Vail Mountain, owned by the USFS. The adjacent property is located in unincorporated Eagle County and zoned Resource Preservation. The proposed front setback variance will have no effect on the ski resort. The Town of Vail Zoning Map indicates that all lots along West Forest Road are zoned Primary/Secondary. The adjacent property to the south is owned by the USFS, zoned 'Resource Preservation" by Eagle County. 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. Applicant Response: Numerous variances have been grants to homes along the uphill side of West Forest Road. The following table indicates each property that has received a variance and what the variance was granted for. The information was gathered from the Town of Vail GIS. The blue stars indicate where variances have been granted. 7 As indicated above, most of the homes along the uphill side of West Forest Road have been granted setback variances. In all of these cases, the Planning and Environmental Commission found that this criteria had been met, and that granting these variances was not a grant of special privilege due to the existence of steep slopes or an existing structure needing to be redeveloped but located within the setback. 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 Applicant Response: Due to the nature of this variance, the above criterion is not necessarily applicable to this request. There is no change to the allowable density of the property, and therefore there is no increase to the impacts on population, transportation, utilities, and public safety. As a result, the proposed variance complies with this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Applicant Response: The applicant will address any additional comments at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing. .01 Variance Granted 798/796 Forest Road side setback 1/26/2004 756 Forest Road front and side setback 8/12/1984 716 Forest Road side setback 4/25/1993 3/26/1989 706 Forest Road (subject property) deck in setback, front setback 3/12/2000 6/7/1998 696/694 Forest Road front and side setback 5/31/1987 1/23/1978 670 Forest Road side setback 5/26/1980 586 Forest Road side setback 1/12/1992 As indicated above, most of the homes along the uphill side of West Forest Road have been granted setback variances. In all of these cases, the Planning and Environmental Commission found that this criteria had been met, and that granting these variances was not a grant of special privilege due to the existence of steep slopes or an existing structure needing to be redeveloped but located within the setback. 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 Applicant Response: Due to the nature of this variance, the above criterion is not necessarily applicable to this request. There is no change to the allowable density of the property, and therefore there is no increase to the impacts on population, transportation, utilities, and public safety. As a result, the proposed variance complies with this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Applicant Response: The applicant will address any additional comments at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing. .01 Adjacent Property Owners List Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81631 LSC 27 LLC 4514 COLE AVE STE 1175 DALLAS, TX 75205-4183 BISZANTZ, FRANCES 3030 NEWTOWN PIKE LEXINGTON, KY40511-8499 OSTLING, PAUL J. & DANITA K- 1196 1196 SMITH RIDGE RD NEW CANAAN, CT 06840-2332 HATHORN, MARY M. - ENGLEMAN, JOHN 655 FOREST RD VA14 CO 81657-5517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W 6TH AVE & KIPLING ST LAKEWOOD, CO 80225-0546 RUMFORD, THEA J. 675 FOREST RD VAIL, CO 81657-5518 COLMAR LLC In Care Of MAHER 105 SAGO PALM RD VERO BEACH, FL 32963-3702 MILLERS LIONSHEAD LLC In Care Of JEFF FENTRISS 12770 MERIT DR STE 300 DALLAS, TX 75251-1402 TREE LINE LLC In Care Of BECKETT, TACKETT & JETEL, PLLC 7800 N MOPAC EXPY STE 210 AUSTIN, TX 78759-8959 BURGER, ALEXANDER S. & AMY R. 113 SKYVIEW LN NEW CANAAN, CT 06890-6035 EPGT LLC In Care Of CORPORATION TRUST CENTER 1209 N ORANGE ST WILMINGTON, DE 19801-1120 KAUFFMAN, JULIA IRENE 5955 MISSION DR PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208-1206 VAIL HOLDINGS LLC BW S DOUGLAS RD FL 12 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134-3125 THOMAS S. IRWIN AND CECEUA J. IRWIN REVOCABLE TRUST 2018 16 VITTORIA RDG BOERNE, TX 780064702 716 VAILCO LLC PO BOX 586 OXFORD, FL 34484-0586 9 West Side The west side is proposed to be largely in compliance with the setback requirements of the P/S zone district. The only variances proposed to the west unit are to allow the entry stairway and second level deck in the front setback. The entry stair is proposed at 5 ft. from the front property line. By code this encroachment would be limited to 10 ft. The proposed second level deck will be approximately 1 1.5 ft from the property line. By code this encroachment would be limited to a 5 ft. encroachment or 15 ft. from the property line. The current second level deck is currently 7.8 ft. from the property line, a greater variance than is being sought. There are also associated roof overhangs that encroach into the front setback. The proposed variances on the west side are to allow for the following: • First Level: 80 sq. ft. of front entry stair which will be 5.5 ft. from the front property line; • Second Level: 86 sq. ft. of deck which will be 11.5 ft from the front property line; and • Roof: roof overhang which will be approximately 2 ft. from the property line. As part of the proposal for the west side, the following is removed from the setback: • First Level: 96 sq. ft. of garage and 82 sq. ft. of GRFA are removed from the front setback; and • Second Level: 280 sq. ft. of GRFA is removed from the front setback and 190 sq. ft. of deck is removed from the front and side setback. On the west side, no GRFA is proposed to be located in the setbacks and the only variance requested is to allow for the entry stairway and portions of the second level deck, along with associated roof overhang in the front setback. The proposed encroachment of this deck is the less than the current deck encroachment that exists on the structure today and allows for a more useable deck and to provide for architectural interest to the front facade of the structure. The proposed garage is being pulled back into home so that the footprint complies with setbacks, though the code allows the garage to have encroach into the setback on lots with slopes in excess of 30%. The proposed west unit has less encroachment into the setbacks than what currently exists today on the property. Also, because the east unit is remaining in place, providing a deck along the front of the west unit helps tie the two units together and appear more as one architectural form, which is desirable from a design guidelines perspective. Proposed north elevation of 706 Forest Road. The duplex is much more cohesive than the current design. 0 East Side Because the east side will not be demolished and rebuilt, and instead is undergoing an addition and remodel, more of the existing approved encroachments will be maintained. The east corner of the unit is proposed to be enclosed on three levels of the building. This addition to the building maintains the existing, approved setback along the front of the structure and does not extend habitable area any further into the front setback. While there is additional bulk and mass proposed in the front setback, the building is not any closer to the front property line. The proposal includes significant upgrades to the architecture. For architectural quality purposes and to improve the overall look of the building, there are two column features, which do not contain floor area, also proposed to encroach into the front setback. The proposed variances on the east side are to allow for the following: • First Level: 75 sq. ft. of GRFA in the front setback, approximately 9.5 ft. from the front property line. On this level, the current home is within approximately 8 ft. of the property line, the front entry stairway which will be 1 ft. from the front property line, and column features which will be 4.8 ft. from the front property line; • Second Level: 75 sq. ft. of GRFA is added within the front setback, approximately 9.5 ft. from the front property line. On this level, the current home is within approximately 8 ft. of the property line. In addition, a portion of the deck extends 7.5 ft. into the front and side setback; • Third Level: 73 sq. ft. of GRFA is added within the front setback, approximately 9.5 ft. from the front property line. On this level, the current home is within approximately 4.5 ft. from the property line; and • Roof: roof overhang will be approximately 0.5 ft. from the front property line. As part of the proposal for the east side, the following is removed from the setback: • First Level: Patio and trash enclosure will be removed from the front setback; and • Second Level: 70 sq. ft. of GRFA is removed from the front setback. The total net new GRFA proposed to be located within the front setback for the east unit is approximately 77 sq. ft. In addition, the front stairway and columns, along with the associated roof overhang are located in the front setback. Consideration of the Entire Duplex The Zoning Regulations look at a duplex property as a single entity for the purpose of applying regulations (i.e, site coverage, GRFA, etc.). The same is true with this site. The analysis above was provided on a unit by unit basis based on the complicated nature of the application. Considering the entire property, below is the net effect of all of the changes proposed: Garage floor area in front 96 -96 269 0 -96 setback GRFA in front setback 362 -362 950 77 -285 Deck, patio, or stair in front or 432 -190 247 130 -60 side setback (beyond allowable) As indicated above, there is generally an overall reduction of impact within the front setback and side setback with this application, thereby overall improving compliance with the setback requirements. Zoning Analysis The zoning analysis is provided below (the variance request is indicated in red): Lot 9 Zoning Analysis Lot Area 1.3429 acres / 58,497 sq. ft. Minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. No change Setbacks 4 ft. (front) Primary unit cantilever 20 ft. front 4 ft. 15 ft. (west side) 15 ft. side and rear 15 ft. 15.5 ft. (east side) 15 ft. >200 ft. (rear) >200 ft. Height 33 ft. 30 ft. (flat) 33 ft. 33 ft. (sloping) Density 2 units 2 units + EHU 2 units (no change) GRFA* NA 10,160 sq. ft. 8,167 sq. ft. 6,096 sq. ft. (primary) 4,189 sq. ft. (primary) 4,064 sq. ft. (secondary) 3,978 sq. ft. (secondary) Site Coverage 6.6% / 3,866 sq. ft. 20% of site area / 11,699 sq. ft. 7% / 4,119 sq. ft. Landscape >60% Minimum of 60%/ 31,807 sq. ft. >60% Parking 4 enclosed, additional surface spaces 2 spaces (<2,000 sq. ft.) No change available 3 spaces (2,000-4,000 sq. ft.) 4 spaces (4,000-5,500 sq. ft.) 5 spaces (>5,500 sq. ft.) N Introduction The applicants, Paul and Danita Ostling, represented by SRI Architects and Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting a variance at 706 Forest Road / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 to allow for a major remodel and addition to the existing duplex. The proposal is to remodel the east half of the duplex, while the west unit will be demolished and rebuilt. The requested variances are from Section 12-6D-6: Setbacks and Section 14-10-4: Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc. History and Background of the Property Lot 9 was originally platted in 1964 under Eagle County jurisdiction, and subsequently annexed into the Town of Vail in 1966. The duplex was originally constructed in 1980. The home was constructed with a 10 ft. front setback, which was allowed under the regulations in effect at the time of construction. In the late 1990s, the primary side underwent a major addition, and was granted a front setback variance by the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 8, 1998. In 2000, the secondary side underwent a major addition which included front and side setback variances. The duplex owners at the time did not get along, and there were major disagreements between the owners, with years where the units did not match and each appealing the others' approvals. The Ostlings purchased the primary unit in 2003 and the secondary unit in 2018. As a result, the design of the duplex can now be considered in a more comprehensive manner. E Proposed Variance Both units of the existing structure are located within the front and side setbacks. The west unit is 7.8 ft. from the front property line and currently has approximately 162 sq. ft. of GRFA and an additional 97 sq. ft. of garage located in the front setback. The west unit also has a trash enclosure beneath a deck which is located within the side setback. The east unit is 4.8 ft. from the front property line and has approximately 885 sq. ft. of GRFA and an additional 340 sq. ft. of garage located in the front setback. The east unit also has a trash enclosure that is located within the front and side setback. Both units have decks and patios that encroach beyond the allowable setbacks for decks and patios, in addition to roof overhangs that encroach beyond the 4 ft. allowed by code. All encroachments into the setbacks have been granted by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission through the variance process. Both units currently have garages located in the front setback, which is permitted by Section 12-21-12: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes. One unique feature of this property is the distance between the front property line and the edge of roadway. There is a minimum of 16 ft. between the road and the property line. This is not always the case in the Town of Vail and in this instance it assures that the duplex is setback a minimum of 21 ft. from the edge of payment. Under the current proposal, the east unit will include a remodel and addition, while the west unit is being demolished and rebuilt. The following outlines the extent of the requested variances for each half of the duplex: COINC RET_ PANsu T�8130.69 un / \ / / I�ER WAL� ___---- x8129.21 i CONCRETE _\_C NCRETE FOUND No. 5REBAR WITH DRIVEWAY A 1 .' ALUMINUM CAP 8130 / I.L.F. No. 37902 / p' (ELEV. = 8138.09') � CONCRETE / 8132. DRIVEWAY - CANTILEVER \ a _ �- _ ASH ENCLOSURE _ 8731- � 40.4' - COVERED ST00P GARAGE SLAB -LEV. = 8133.5' 8146 - - --8132g2� - 0146 DECK PRI 1.7 N 08*49'36" W CANT LEVER / 8150 B13i� 21.7' I _/ 8.05' 7.5' I DECK' _ g152 III L _ �i`kV f GARAGE SLAB 1 -8136.- ELEV. = 8133.3' OUTLINE OF PARCEL B 1 1 y 8158 e16D,. ANI REE-\ OUTLINE OF o O S 1} LE � g162 PARCEL C OUOF 8164 _8138— II —DECK 1 DUPLEX RESIDENCE 1 / 0j66' o x0 I o x816 _g168 L O o e,4o� I 1 00 / JDICATES A UOUS TREE \ CONCRETE I Z - x8163 8110 STEPS - - 8171 — 20.2 8142/ 20.5 / \ x8164.08 — 0.5x816321 � 1.2 11.9 g164 CONI WALK X6163.06 / // 01A0 � 06 <NDIDATES ASTONE VENaL CONCRETE OD STEPSJ � I Portion of a survey of the existing duplex at 706 Forest Road. The survey indicates the encroachments into the setbacks, which have been approved through variances granted by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. 3 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: April 22, 2019 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 042219.pdf April 22, 2019 PEC Results PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VA10 April 22, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman Site Visits 2.1. 1309 Elkhorn Drive - Town of Vail Public Works 2.2. 224/226 Forest Road 454 Beaver Dam Road 54 Beaver Dam Road/95 Forest Road 2.3. 706 Forest Road - Ostling Residence 3. Main Agenda 3.1. A request for review of Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor 20 min. Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for removal of the platted building envelopes, located at 694 and 670 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0009) Applicant: Frances Biszantz & LSC 27 LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence introduced the project. Staff agrees with the history presented by Mauriello. Staff is in support of this subdivision. Dominic Mauriello, (Applicant) discussed the property history. Applicant presented slides showing the properties. Purpose of the subdivision is to eliminate envelopes created in 1997. No plans to build or alter properties at this time. Applicant continued with the development history. Notably, staff and PEC in 1997 required the building envelopes, despite no code requirement for it. Plat note restricted most everything to be built within the envelopes. Gillette: Asked if construction would conform to current setback requirements? Applicant: No, when initially built a setback variance was allowed. Gillette: How are the building envelopes more restrictive than the setbacks? Perez: Concurred and asked if the footprints were created with respect to lot size and coverage requirements. Applicant: That may be, but people have been able to build with more flexibility due to not having these envelopes. Asks to be treated the same as everyone else Gillette: Is the only encroachment in the front setback? Garage only? Applicant: Suspects more than the garage is in the front setback, but it was approved legally with a variance back in the day. When first constructed, Applicant suspects that garages could be allowed in the front setback. Spence: Staff would not allow the garage placement outside the building envelope without an amendment to the plat. Gillette: Was the intent of the envelopes to constrain the bulk and mass? Applicant: This may be the case, but doesn't think there was a direct link established to bulk. Without the envelopes, PEC and DRB could still deny based on such concerns. Reiterated fairness with surrounding properties. Mauriello: Speaking to the criteria for the subdivision application and how the proposed subdivision complies. All surrounding lots are zoned the same and have consistent size and shape. Neighboring property has submitted a letter stating their support for this change Public Comment: None Perez: Understands the goal of the applicant, but feel like this is bootstrapping. Building envelopes are generally done for specific reasons. These lots transferred GRFA and other requirements between each other and the envelopes were a condition of this. In conte)d of the history, this may be a grant of special privilege. Building envelope is in proportion with the size of the lots. Applicant: The two lots that ended up being created in 1997, but the lots were conforming to the code regardless. Spence: Since GRFA allowances scale with lot size, the ultimate transfer of GRFA was a small amount. Gillette: Somewhat torn on this. However, since any development has to go back to boards for review anyway, he is in favor. Kurz, Kjesbo, and Stockmar also concur with staff. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (4-1). Ayes: (4) Gillette, Kjesbo, Kurz, Stockmar Nays: (1) Perez Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3.2. A request for the review of variances from Section 12-6D-9-6 Setbacks, 20 min. Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback of 20 feet to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-00010) Applicant: Paul & Danita Ostling, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Ashley Clark Planner Clark introduced the project Clark: Directed commissioners to the memo to see all proposed changes. Small correction that the primary and secondary units were switched in the memo, everything else is correct. Two previous variances for the property exist on the property. One had a condition that no further encroachment into rear setback would occur. Provided surrounding property context with regard to other variances provided. Clark: Staff could not support the idea that this lot is unique to the surrounding lots. All lots are long and have an extensive amount of steep slope hazard. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Dominic Mauriello (Applicant): Introduced the project team. Presented current conditions of the lot and properties. Presented proposed designs for redevelopment. Presented the history of the property, which was built when front setback requirement was smaller. This lot has also received front and side setback variances. Plan is to demolish the secondary unit and redevelop the primary unit to match later. The change will result in less GRFA in the front setback. Stated that DRB was happy with the architectural direction. Nothing proposed will come out any further than the front deck. Detailed what is being removed and added to the front setback. Gillette: If this is a teardown and rebuild, why can't it all be rebuilt in the meeting the setback? Mauriello: The steep slopes in the back yard push the property forward. The unit may be able to be pushed back, but the units will be inconsistent with secondary unit being visibly pushed back in comparison to the primary unit. Mauriello: Detailed what is being added and removed from the east setback. Presented a number of slides showing the proposed changes to the building footprint and decks. To build further up the hill would require significant expense and excavation. Applicant argues that the number of surrounding homes (5+) that have had front setback variances due to the slopes shows that this would not be a special privilege. Perez: Had a question regarding existing setbacks along the street where this lot is located. Planner Clark was able to provide this information in her memo. There is a letter of support from a neighboring property Public Comment: None Kjesbo: The goal should be to minimize the variance. However, on the east side of the property the encroachment will be worse. Has an issue with the east side setback. Likes what is being proposed on the front. Is livable square footage moving further out front? Mauriello: No Gillette: In support. Should be comparing this property to those that don't have the steep slope hardship. This kind of proposal is what variances are for. Kurz: Split. Has concerns about this becoming more non -conforming than it already is. Since one side will be more conforming and one less, isn't sure whether approval would be worth it to the town. Leaning toward voting in favor. Neubecker: It is the commission's job to interpret whether this application fits the code criteria. Whether the town will look better with this proposal is less of a concern for the commissioners. Please focus decision on the variance criteria. Perez: Also somewhat torn. Has an issue with this not being necessary for the property. Looking at other properties can be good, but is a bit of a red herring in this case. The conditions of past variance approvals were very clear that the setbacks should not be pushed further. Feels this would be a special privilege. Stockmar: Has gone back and forth. The commission has tight constraints to work in. This is not a unique issue to the area since surrounding lots have faced similar issues. Ultimately feels this is not unique beyond the shared hardship that most properties have on that street. Mauriello: Compared to everything else in the same zoning district, these conditions are quite unique. Gillette: If every property on the street got variances, why is this variance locally unique and a grant a special privilege? Perez: Argues that you need to look at the property on its own. Also, variances should be granted as narrowly as possible. Stockmar: Still does not see all necessary criteria being met. Mauriello: Sees that all the other houses have been able to get this to work. Perez: This property could be made to have a smaller variance, however. Mauriello: All properties on this street could have built something without variances, but they were building properties appropriate to the neighborhood. Could still ask for and potentially get a variance even if this was a teardown and rebuild. Perez: Agrees that a variance could be given, but doesn't feel this variance is truly necessary. Stockmar: You have been able to pull back from the west, but encroach on the east. Acknowledges that the slope is different on each side but expresses discomfort with this approach. It is time to call the question. Perez moved to call the question, Kurz seconded. Applicant: Requests a tabling and asks for direction from the commission. Kurtz: It is not appropriate for the commission to give direction, but tabling is ok. Perez and Kurz remove their motion to call. Ludwig Kurz moved to table to May 13, 2019. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 90 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, concerning an update to the Master Plan for the Public Works Department site, Unplatted, Section: 9 Township: 5 Range: 80 PCLIN N1/2NE1/4-N1/2NW1/4, located at 1309 Elkhorn Dr. and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0006) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Planner Neubecker introduced the project and introduced the Public Works Director, Greg Hall, and architect representatives, Chris Juergens and Mark Donaldson. Neubecker: The goal of this application is to update the old Master Plan. Wants to give a formal hearing for the PEC and to point out changes since the last work session to the PEC. Also wants to take in suggestions and changes from the community and the PEC. Master Plan assesses future growth and needs for Public Works. There was a review of existing conditions, natural and built environments on the site, zoning, hazards, as well as wildlife habitat. Town feels there is an opportunity to add more employee housing on the site. Also an opportunity to install solar panels to offset the Town's energy use. There are also proposed improvement to transportation concerns, recommendations in the Plan on wildlife, and a phasing timeline. Neubecker: Presented the proposed analysis and layout of the site on overhead slides. There is some wildlife habitat range on the east side of the property, so this will need to be considered throughout the process. Talked about the conditions and need related to transportation. He discussed the needs for administrative offices. Site is oriented well for solar energy and the Town plan recommends that solar be considered for Town buildings, so solar is being seriously considered for this site. Stockmar: Is there also battery storage for the solar being proposed? Greg Hall (Representing the Applicant): The buildings will have some battery storage, but still needs to be looked into and researched further Neubecker: Some current buildings are quite old and should be replaced at some point regardless. There is a greater need for storage for other departments such as the police and events department. This area could potentially fill that need. Spoke to the need and proposal for additional employee housing on the site. If housing is expanded beyond 24 additional units, which is anticipated, an expansion of the underpass entry to the site beneath I-70 would be required. Gillette: Would the entry expansion be able to handle the maximum proposed housing units? Hall: Yes Neubecker: Began to describe changes to the plan since PEC last saw it introduced at a work session. Revised plan added some new wildlife information, including a recommendation on banning dogs from the site, and new wildlife studies planned for new proposed buildings. Gillette: Expressed concern over the public having an issue with development in wildlife habitat. Hall: This is just the master plan; all new buildings will need to go through the board review process as well. Expects more pushback may happen then. All information is publicly available currently as well. Stockmar: While the public may not be as invested at this stage, Stockmar stressed that the PEC should look into this and be kept aware of public concerns through all stages. Neubecker: Revised plan adds information on traffic capacity as a result of additional units. Also, plan recommends a bus stop on the site for the added housing. The other plan change was just an estimation of time for each phase. A cross-section of the site was also added to the plan. Neubecker: What questions does the board still have that staff and the plan have not yet answered? What does the PEC recommend being want added to the plan? What additional information does the PEC still need to make a recommendation to Town Council? Kjesbo: Many citizens don't realize what is back there. If the need for housing continues to grow on the site, will that remove the ability for Public Works to add to its own facilities on site, due to site constraints? Is extensive housing appropriate for this site? Gillette: In the master plan, Kjesbo's concern should be addressed. Stockmar: Also stressed the fact that Public Works will continue to grow, so growth needs to be carefully considered. Recognizes the need for housing, but expressed concern over the quantity of housing needs to be on this site specifically. Kurz: Also concurring, wonders if the housing should only be available to Public Works employees, or at least prioritized to them. Also concerned with the safety of the underpass even if expanded, especially when considering adding new living units to the site. Kurz: What other consultants have you used? Hall: Architects, a variety of engineers (traffic, civil, electrical, mechanical, traffic, etc...), a wildlife biologist, also hired a solar consultant. The additional housing proposed is meant for Town of Vail employees, the demand exists. Employees can only live in the same Town housing for 2 years as well, then they need to move out. Stockmar: Could the housing be designed to be easily added too? Hall: Housing should be scalable in this plan. There is some flexibility built into this plan. Gillette: Make sure the solar consultant is also asked to look at a variety of potential build out scenarios, and payback time. Perez: While on the site visit, Perez asked how many employees worked on the site. Was told it is over 100. What is the rule for the Housing Authority as it relates to the site? Hall: Housing is all rental, not for sale. Perez: Where would the funds for the housing come from? Hall: Normally, the Town of Vail pays for it. Perez: Asks that the Town looks to the housing authority to find every opportunity to reduce cost. Asking since this is Town owned, not owned by a third party. Neubecker: Since this is intended to be Town of Vail employee housing, it would still need a covenant/ deed restriction. Perez: There are ways to prioritize Town of Vail renters without violating any Fair Housing laws. Gillette: (Summarizing) There are 3 concerns. Housing funding options raised by Perez, Public Works and housing needs tradeoff raised by Kjesbo, and having consultants look at a variety of build out options suggested by Gillette. Ludwig Kurz moved to recommend approval with a condition that the three issues summarized by Commissioner Gillette be addressed in the plan. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3.4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 15 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, to add a definition for sloped roof, amend the definition for flat roof, and add a definition for parapet, and to amend Section 14-10-4, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to add regulations for parapet heights, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0011) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Ashley Clark introduced the proposal. Staff seeks to update the zoning code to clarify definitions of sloped roof and flat roof. Current code also does not define parapets. Staff presented to DRB at 3 meetings, and the DRB has provided a recommendation on the proposed language. Staff provided notice to local architects on the proposed text amendments. Clark reviewed the existing code and proposed text, and also provided some background on legislative history. Existing code allows 33' height for sloped roofs, and 30' for flat roofs in most low-density residential zone districts. Parapets are currently measured to the same height as roofs, and not allowed any additional height. Code exemptions on Architectural Projections does not work for parapets. A recent development with a flat roof brought these code concerns to staff's attention. Proposed language is that a sloped roof is a rise of greater than 2" rise over 12" run. Proposed text amendment would allow a 30" parapet in addition to the height limit of 30'. Stockmar — That means that a perceived height of 33' height with a parapet, even though 30' is what code allows. Clark —An applicant had a proposal for a low sloping roof with 33' height. There was no clear standard in the code, and so staff referred to the Building Code for direction. Staff recommends improving the code with more precise descriptions of flat and sloping roofs. Other communities staff researched have definitions in their codes. Perez — How does a Mansard roof fall into these definitions? Clark showed examples of a Mansard roof. Public Comment Pavan Kruger, Architect —A flat roof with 30" parapet, would that be allowed? Could a small guardrail be added on top of the parapet to meet building code? Clark indicated that the guardrail would need to be reviewed by the DRB Gillette — Every board will review or interpret codes differently, so if we need clarification it should be added to code. Mike Suman, Architect — I attended the DRB for the discussion. The flat roof membrane was measured to 30', and a guardrail would not be allowed more than 30" above the membrane. Gillette —Add language that guardrails shall be measured the same as a parapet. Mike Suman — There was discussion that 2:12 and greater would be better to meet definition of flat roof, rather than greater than 2:12. 1 support proposed language. Ludwig Kurz moved to recommend approval with additional language that guardrails shall be included in the allotted height for a parapet. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3.5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 45 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 14-10-6: Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to add a paragraph pertaining to the unified architectural design requirement as it relates to existing separated duplexes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19- 0012) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Erik Gates Erik Gates introduced the proposal on Separated Duplexes. The separation of dwelling units is allowed under the current code, subject to review and approval by the DRB, with special conditions on the property. There are several existing properties in town that have separated duplexes with different architecture, which is not currently allowed by the code. This results in property owners facing very expensive upgrades when minor work is proposed, in order to meet the current code. Staff recommends amending the code to allow different architecture only for existing separated duplex, and staff will maintain a list of qualifying properties. Gates discussed some of the separated duplex properties that exist in Town. He reviewed some properties where architecture is very similar, but do not fully meet the current code. He also showed examples of separated duplexes with extremely different architecture between units. Stockmar — Is it right that there are about 40 separated duplexes in town, but only 15 have different architecture? Gates — That is correct Stockmar — We are trying to solve an existing problem with more than a band-aid. Gillette — What is the hardship that these properties have? Gates — These properties would not meet the criteria for a variance. These problems are not related to the land. Mike Suman — I am working on two of these properties. They have architecture from completely different decades. One was built in the 1960s and the other was built in the 1990s. The Venturi house is another good example; you are not going to tear down one to make it look like the other. Staff is in a tough spot, and they and DRB need some direction. Right now D RB can't approve projects with different designs. Gillette — Still not sure why we are not adding the list of properties in the code. Mike Suman — DRB should be the ones that determine the list. They are the ones to determine separated duplexes, and should be the ones that review design. Gillette — Before this comes back to us, the DRB should determine the list of properties, then present the list to the PEC. The Administrator should identify the property, then the list approved by the DRB. Stockmar — Sounds like it would be possible for the list to be maintained by staff, and available for inspection by the general public. Will you have that list by the time this is presented to Town Council? Mike Suman — I would love for the PEC to give direction to keep this process moving forward, and allow staff to develop list before review by Town Council. Gillette — For me to support this, I recommend photographing all the separated duplexes, and creating your list of qualifying properties. Present the list to DRB for their approval. Kjesbo — I am familiar with 167/197 Rockledge which will be torn down. When they are torn down, is the new home allowed to have completely different designs, even when rebuilt? If so, we are perpetuating this issue, and essentially creating single family lots. Gillette — There will be no need to meet required setbacks between units. They could be built very close, almost connected. Stockmar — There is a small number of properties that this will apply to. Mike Suman — We will still need to get Joint Property Owner approval, and there are already a number of protections in the code. There are a small number of properties that can take advantage of this proposed language. Perez — It would be nice to have the issues addressed that were previously recommended. I could live with staff going to DRB with the list, before going to Council. Kurz — Comfortable that staff does not need to come back to PEC. Brian Gillette moved to recommend approval with the added requirement that Staff present the inventory of qualifying properties to the Design Review Board, which shall approve the inventory for approval prior to first reading by Town Council. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. April 8, 2019 PEC Results Brian Gillette moved to approve. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 5. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Ad #: 0000414897-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the 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 forjurisdictions 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 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 4/26/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 4/26/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 5/24/2019. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 5/24/2019. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1Er�E �YM!J MEp!RdF r rnI, pug FiATf Oi CUlzORA€70 NOTARY til RgiOg9i9A g`/ vCfi3.¢SGDM;XplRIGAk3Gil57et,20K' THIS REM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning antl Environmental Commission of the Town of Vall will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12- 3-6, Vail Town Code, on May 13, 2019 at 1:00 pm In the Town of Vail Municipal Build ing. A work—sion to discuss a Melo, Exterior Altera- tion, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alta- I,,, lta - All— !!an, or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a u n (7) Its ornate lodge antl staff apartment with related sit improvements, located at 366 Han - on Ranch R-diLot D, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setling forth details in regard the— (PEC19- 0006) Appplicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Be a', PC Planner: Jonathan Spence A request for the review of variances from Section 14-3-1 Minimum Standards, Table 1 Driveway/Feeder Road Standards, Erma, Angle Mln- m Deflection, Vail Town Code, in .... Mance with the provisions .t Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Cale, to allow fora variance to the entry snag le minimum deilecllon for iia 30 feet of drive - w y length W facilitate the development of a ergle- tamlry sirudure, located at2s99 Cortina L-11-st 11, Block 6, Veil Ridge Subdivision, antl setling forth details In regard therein. (PEC19 W013) Applicant: Benno Scheidegger, represented by Beryluntl Architects Planner: Ashley Clark A Report to the Planning end Environmental Com - n of an administrative action regarding a quest for a minor amendment to Special Develop- ment District (SDD) No. 30, Four Sad— , pursuant In Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the ap- proved development plan in order to permit anon-- esidential addition totaling 980 square feet to .I- comm odate a gglass enclosed seating area located et1 Vail Roa atA– C, Vail Village Filing 2, and sening forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0014) Applicant: Ex Vail LLC Ertel) Development, repre- -arl by OZ Architecture Planner: Erik Gates The applications and Information about the propos- ilabe for p blic inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Commun'Ty Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is nvited t..nand site visits. Pleasecall97U479- 2138orvI it www.vailg.v.c.m/planningforadtliti.n- al'mf.rinn= Sign lerguage Interyratation available upon request with 24-hour notit'mation, dial 711. Published April 26, 2019 in the Vail Daily. 0000414397 Ad #: 0000421097-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the 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 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 5/10/2019 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 5/10/2019 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 5/10/2019. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 5/10/2019. Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission Expires: November 1, 2019 PAMELA J. SCHULTZ NOTARY P" WAG. 5 ATS OF COLORArc NOTARY ID g199940308T5 k4y Co.mnusslcn Exrres N,wsmhar1.201H PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 13, 2019,1:00 PM Town Council ChnmbeLe]5 S. Fr tege Roed - VRII, Cdo , 81 65] oad - Pai 1poi rt 1. J.. �.. 9.698 Corti+e lone - 5..+e�degger aes'i den oe Age ,da o des ss a p�re�f L nodif.aaceo�a� v- coaec - - - e pri �e Le lodge4a+dTs apo 11.enLl.. eedes mmptowemen Lse%1 -Led Poad/Lot C, 31ock 2, Vail Pillage Filing 1,baydl set ting fost_i details in �.gard Appli�a­ilp.i SLC, represen Led 'ay S.,ah S 3akex, PC _laynex So�at_ian Spence - . ay/9eeder ao.d 5 ander F A+g1. rvl Code, Lhevprov i sio_ns of S-... 12-1]-1, V- .7 CodeonL 1­1 for c m deflection f - C 30 --�dri--y 1—gchet - e aeve lop. a .d a 9698 C - -ne/r 1 lack ail n'i dgef6 a lMl�ls o end . LL, thereto. (PEC19-00013)20 min. a/T.1 9, v - i lege 8 19 6, and s 19 f h deL.'i regard L Appl to — i1g, represen Led by 111r,e110 1lon1'119 G .1p the applications ayd i - oho the proposals 1— t t yt pity 1-1 opment ---t,, ea L e,a� C­itypm�n, and o ) a. .ea - - - Wise. dere. e 101 9.138 f t",.I - - i,.". 11— pre 48 h ,rgomryu9itg,0evelopmem Depadment Publlehed In the Vell Daily May 10, 2019 000042109]