The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-09-17 Town Council MinutesMINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING September 17, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 17, 1996, in the Council Chambers Ife Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Josef Staufer, Town of Vail resident and owner of the Vail Village Inn expressed his concerns about plans for employee housing units proposed at Red Sandstone on pr.Qoerty owned by the water district and land to be exchanged to the Town by the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Staufer s e supported employee housing and noted that he paid in excess of $10,000 per month to help provide such ho sing for his staff, but stated he objected to selling such units for private ownership. Staufer said that as an involved party in Action Vail, the group is opposed to public lands being sold for private ownership. He used Pitkin Creek as an example of units constructed for the purpose of employee housing, which, he said are now owned mostly by second homeowners and non -employees. Mr. Staufer suggested the Town of Vail retain ownership of the project and rent the units out. Town Manager, Bob McLaurin, explained that many decisions remained yet to be made with regard to the Red Sandstone project. He stated that Council would be reviewing details more thoroughly and would have an opportunity to make decisions during upcoming meetings scheduled throughout November. Next, Vail resident, Sue Dugan suggested marking the lanes of the roundabouts at the Main Vail interchange. Also, she said the issue of animal control needed improvement, in particular dog waste. Ms Dugan said she noticed improvement when "clean it up" signs were placed in her neighborhood and suggested the town erect more signs throughout the community. Finally, Ms. Dugan addressed the need for a bus stop between the Wren and Apollo Park, stating it was unsafe to walk that distance on South Frontage Road in the winter. Dugan then introduced the Wren's General Manager, Lisa Watts. Lisa announced she had scheduled a meeting with Public Works Director, Larry Grafel to address the concern. NJ&Watts said the situation was very dangerous due to the lack of a sidewalk. Additionally, she said the mwalk was not maintained in the winter and was too slick to be used. Sue Dugan then referenced a letter which had been faxed to Council members regarding the Buddy's program, and encouraged all to participate. Next, under citizen participation, Michael Jewett appeared before fellow Council members on behalf of the Common Sense for the Commons Committee. Mr. Jewett reviewed the history of the group and its initial purpose to persuade the Council to put the project up to a vote of the citizens. He said fundraising had always been an issue for individuals involved with the committee, and explained that members had wanted the matter to go to a vote. When it didn't, the committee wanted the project investigated for legal issues and retained Hugh Warder, a Glenwood Springs attorney, to investigate the original request for proposal (" RFP") process, and contract negotiations, among other issues. Jewett said he was before Council to announce that because of costs involved, and the potential of the matter being tied up in a lengthy lawsuit, his group would be dissolving the Common Sense for the Commons Committee and their fundraising efforts. Jewett was critical about the RFP process, and said he thought that many of the 50 RFP's sent out had been duplicated. He said he would have preferred a department store such as Target as an anchor to the project as opposed to City Market, one that would not have competed with retail business in West Vail. He recommended the issue of competition be taken into consideration by Council in the future. Additionally, Jewett expressed his disappointment that the Council failed to recognize a petition which was brought in, asking for a public vote on the project. He then announced the issue was over and seested everyone move on. Lars Berkhout, a resident of Sandstone said he worked with Mike Jewett and complimented the project, but complained about the huge wall of plaster on the west side. He said he hoped that in the future citizen input would be taken into consideration, and suggested that at the time petitions were presented, some motivations of Council Veil Town. Council Evening Meeling Minutes September 17, 1990" members seemed suspicious, Next, Dan Charboneau, camera operator for Vail Valley Community Television and a Vail resident, announced his departure from Vail to return to the East Coast. He complimented the Council for keeping the interests of the citizens in mind and thanked the Council for its support of Channel 5. Mayor Armour then commended Dan on his expertise, a job well done, and wished him good luck. I4k number two on the agenda was a status update on the Vail Tomorrow process. Bob McLaurin gave a brief update following the Imagine Vail Tomorrow Community Conference which was held on Saturday, September 7, 1996. He said more than 130 people attended the conference in which participants identified 11 goal areas for the project: world class resort, natural & built environment, growth management, safety and security, building community, economic diversity, affordable housing, cultural and educational opportunities, youth, family and regional cooperation. He said procedures had included drafting goal statements for the 11 areas and doing research, and that during the following month information would be gathered on each of the goal areas for Vail and three comparison communities (Aspen, Whistler, and Sanibel, Florida). The information would then be shared at the next conference, "Describe Vail Tomorrow," scheduled for Nov. 1 and 2. The purpose of the research would be to describe how Vail and other would -class resorts fare in each of the goal areas. Bob said it was important for people to understand the need to participate in the next conference to make sure their voices were heard on the issues that are important to them. After the November conference, teams will form around prioritized goal areas and action alternatives suggested and will begin making recommendations for action. Mayor Bob Armour commended all those who organized and participated in the recent conference. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, first reading of an Ordinance amending Special Development District No. 21, the Vail Gateway Building, and amending the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant, Vail Apartment, Inc. (Owners of Unit 5) was represented by Steve Riden. Town of Vail Planner, George Ruther prsented the item and described that pursuant to a memorandum from the Community Development Department o the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated August 26, 1996, the initial SDD approval allowed for honstruction of 12 dwelling units and consisted of not more than a total of 13,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. He said the developer chose to construct only seven dwelling units, utilizing a total of 11,999 sq. ft. , leaving 1,001 sq. ft, of the approved GRFA and 5 dwelling units which were not constructed. A remodel of a unit in the fall of 1995 added 356 sq.ft., increasing the total GRFA contained within the building to 12,355. George explained that the applicant was now proposing to modify Unit No. 5, adding another 460 square feet of new GRFA, which would result in a new total GRFA for the Gateway project of 12,815 sq. ft. He said such request would require a major SDD amendment, and the Council was asked to review certain criteria as follows: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. George then distributed a letter from Norman Helwig, attorney at law, representing the interests of the Vail Gateway Plaza Condominium Association, which stated that the approval of the Association for the approval of the addition to Unit 5 had not yet been received, but was expected at an upcoming meeting of Association members. The staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, on first reading with the following conditions: 1) that the applicant be required to provide Community Development with an approval letter from the Vail Gateway Plaza Condominium Association, prior to scheduling the second reading of the ordinance; and 2) prior to scheduling second reading of the ordinance, the illegal, neon illumination on the directory sign located on the west side of the Gateway Building, be removed and brought into compliance with the original DRB approval. e Riden, an behalf of Vail Apartments, Inc. (owners of Unit 5), stated he had no objections to the approval, as concerned with the condition of the neon sign being brought into compliance. He suggested it could be handled in a different manner, such as a citation, rather than including it as a condition of approval, as the owners of Unit 5 had no authority to require the removal of the sign. Sybill Navas asked Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead, for his opinion, and Tom stated there were are a number of different routes that could be taken. However, he felt that placing the condition as referenced above was the Town's first best opportunity to bring it into compliance. If it did not work, he said, then the town would proceed with the citation process. Paul Johnston moved to table Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, until such time as approval from the condominium association was received and the sign was in compliance. Rob Ford seconded the motion. Sybill said she was inclined to vote for passage of the ordinance on first reading with conditions stated. Ludwig said he felt there were too many inconsistencies and would go along with tabling the ordinance. Mike Jewett was in favor of staff's recommendation and moving ahead with approval on first reading along with the conditions suggested. Paul again moved to table Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996 until such time as the application was complete and an agreement reached to bring the illegal neon sign into compliance. A vote was taken and passed, 5-2, Sybil[ and Mike voting in opposition. da item number four was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1996, Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1996, second ng of an Ordinance Amending Title 18 Zoning, Sections 18.26.040, 18.27.030, 18.28,030, 18.28.040 and 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code to Add Brew Pub as a Conditional Use in the Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center and Arterial Business Zone Districts and Delete Brew Pubs as a Permitted Use in the Commercial Service Center Zone District of the Vail Municipal Code. Town of Vail Planner Dominic Mauriello Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes September 17, 1996 introduced the item and presented a modified version of the ordinance, which excluded the Commercial Core 1 area, as moved by Council at first reading of the ordinance on September 3. Rob moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, with a second from Sybill. Kevin Foley said the reason he was voting against the ordinance was because it excluded the Commercial Core 1 zone district. Mayor Armour also felt that staff could control establishments applying for a brew pub businesses on an individual basis, if the mercial Core 1 zone district was included in the ordinance. A vote was then taken and passed, 6-1, Kevin PWy opposed. Fifth on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin explained that the existing signage at the main Vail roundabout was temporary, and that new signage would be installed within the next couple of weeks which would comply with Federal Highway Administration and Department of Transportation standards. He also talked about Council goal setting, issues and strategies, and his feeling that the Vail Tomorrow process was an important component in achieving Council goals which were defined last February. He then encouraged all to stay involved. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m. Resp Ily submitted, • Rbbert W. Armour, Mayor A Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 0 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes September 17. 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: The Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 1, 1996 SUBJECT: An appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision granting an approval of a request for a front setback variance to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 (Vail Point Phase 111). Appellant: Phyllis Mango, adjacent property owner Appellee: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther SUBJECT PROPERTY Vail Point Phase 111, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Llonsridge Filing #3. If. STANDING OF APPELLANT Pursuant to subsection 18.66.030 (B)(2) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, an appeal maybe initiated by "an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order, decision, determination, or interpretation by any administrative official with respect to this title." Staff finds that the appellant, Phyllis Mango, an adjacent property owner to Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge 3rd Filing, has standing to file an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision of August 26, 1996, granting an approval of a front setback variance. III. BACKGROUND On August 26, 1996, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, upon conducting a public hearing, granted an approval of a request for a front setback variance to allow for. the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. The Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to grant approval of the requested variance was based upon the findings that: • the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Medium -Density Multi-Famiiy Zone District. that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The variance to encroach into the front setback was warranted since the strict and literal enforcement of the 20' front setback regulation would result in an unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the goals and objectives of Chapter 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. • Upon making the findings, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously to approve, with modifications, the applicant's request for a front setback variance. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval carried with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant schedule a hearing before the Vail Town Council for review of the proposed site plan, prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board, as required in the Annexation Agreement of July 17, 1979; 2. That the applicant verify the vacation of the 15' wide, utility easement along the northerly property line prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; 3. That the applicant receive Town of Vail Public Works Department and Town of Vail Fire Department approval of the proposed site plan prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; 4. That the applicant install a construction fence, along the 40% slope line and the area around the existing landscape improvements, to protect these areas during the construction process, and that said fence not be removed until all driveway and building construction is completed; and 5. That any encroachment of Building #1 into the front setback be removed and the site plan be amended accordingly. A copy of the memorandum prepared by staff to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated August 26, 1996, and a copy of the approved minutes from the August 26, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting have been attached for reference. TANEFUMMI-Arala__ On September 4, 1996, the Town of Vail Community Development Department received an appeal letter from Jennifer Henise and Phyllis Mango, requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission decision granting an approval of a front setback variance to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 be appealed to the Town Council. The appeal has been filed pursuant to Chapter 18.66 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Ms. Henise and Ms. Mango filed the appeal as adjacent property owners. On September 5, 1996, the Community Development Department received a letter from Jennifer Henise requesting that her name be withdrawn from the appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. According to a written explanation of the reasons for the appeal, the appellant argued that the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision granting an approval of the front setback variance is inconsistent with Section 18.18.010, (Medium -Density Multi Family, purpose), of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. According to Section 18.18.010, the purpose of the Medium- Density Multi Family Zone District is, in part, to insure adequate light, air and space and to maintain desirable residential qualities of the district. According to the appellant's letter, she feels that adequate light, air, and space is denied, since the proposed triplex structures are too close to one another and the triplexes are too close to the neighboring Capstone Townhouse property, where she owns a unit and resides. The appellant further believes that the triplexes will be "touching" mature 20-year old Blue Spruce trees and some selected trees will be moved in order to build the triplexes. Additionally, according to the appellant, the proposed development for the four triplex structures completely take up all the buildable land of Lot 27 and provides no open space between the buildings and adjacent properties. The appellant further contends that the three-story buildings will be "towering" over Capstone, which is 1 U-20' lower in elevation than the appellee's property. Lastly, the appellant has expressed concern, and has requested that consideration be given to snow removal on Lot 27. A copy of the appellants appeal request and a letter describing the nature of her request has been attached for reference. V. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Uphold/ uphold with modifications/ overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision granting an approval of a front setback variance. The Town Council is required to make findings of fact on this appeal in accordance with Section • 18.66.030 (D)(5), Findings: " The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. The findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met." VI. 6JAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Vail Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision of August 26, 1996, granting an approval of a 12' front setback variance. Staff recommends that the Town Council make the following findings: 1. That the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on .the requested front setback variance in accordance with Chapter 18.66 Administration and Chapter 18.62 Variances, and has made the appropriate findings pursuant to Section 1.8.62.060 Criteria and Findings of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 2. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code have been met. 3. That the proposed development plan for Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3, has been approved by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and is in compliance with Section 18.18.010 Purpose, Medium Density Multi -Family Zone District of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. TO WN OF VAIL kIR REQUIRED FOR. F@WING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION A. ACTION/DECISION BEING APPEALED: (l oa, aticRS -�o �'jiow -f%tA Cjo►ti1Lir�JcfrD.�n + io�F/ �Yr ��2x i,;(,(r{r95 loe'G-4-rt Gf' IF-,?CF L•ohrra%�.n� L.nnO 7 - 2-1 51 oe- Z- / L/ Oh J^ %I � A jr, p(Gr,n B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION; v C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION: 1 j�o,A M 'A9 co rj V //}} D. NAME OFAPPELLANT(S):iekh, Uv � MAILING ADDRESS: Me doL, 3 2.d- 2a PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: J G rt z PHONE; 3 (05 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: J E. SIGNATURE(S): u Pagel of 2 F. Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? y.F-S If yes, please provide the following information: are you an adjacent property owner? Yes -X-- no U If no, give a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all owners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties separated by a right-of-way, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and stamped envelopes for each roperty owner on the list. H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. 1. FEE: $0.60 Page 2 of 2 We are appealing because Code Section 18.18.010 , Purpose, states that there must be intention 1) to ensure adequate light air and space, and 2) to maintain desirable residential qualities of the district. We feel that adequate light, air, and space is denied by 1) the triplexes are too close to themselves and 2) the triplexes are too close to the neighboring Capstone Townhouse Property, and 3) the triplexes will be touching mature 20 year old blue spruce trees and some selected trees will be moved in order to build the triplexes. The plan of four triplexes has completely taken up all buildable land allowing for no open space between buildings and inadequate space between neighbors. Three story buildings, 30 feet away, will be towering over Capstone which is 10 to 20 feet lower. Neighboring residences are surrounded by a great amount of open space. Another consideration is that drainage and snow removal will adversely affect the Capstone property. is 0 Jennifer Henise 1817 Meadow Ridge Road Vail, CO 81657 Phone (970) 479-0426 Fax (970) 476--4aa704 September S, 1996 , George Ruther Planning and Environmental :#¢;' Town of Vail o „ Colu"' is Vail, CO Dear George, I withdraw my appeal submitted yesterday concerning the Ginsler development of Lions Ridge Loop adjacent to our property. Please notify all to whom it may concern. Thank you. • Sincerely, (:-)lo+ A Jennifer Henise • P "E ORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 26, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 (Vail Point Phase I11). Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. General Descri t�ion� Ll Steve Gensler and Steve Katz are proposing to construct four, triplex units on Phase ill at Vail Point. Phase Ili is zoned medium density multi -family. The four, triplex structures will be served by a common driveway, 22' wide, with an emergency vehicle turnaround at the south end of the driveway. There will be a . total of 12 dwelling units comprised of 21,614 sq. ft. of GRFA . The units will range in size from 1,783 sq. ft. to 1,804 sq. ft. Staff will discuss specific components of the development under the analysis in Section IV of this memorandum. The applicants are proposing to construct two of the four structures in the required, 20' front setback. One of the structures encroaches up to 12' into the front setback, while the other, encroaches up to 9' into the setback. A total of 286 sq. ft. of building footprint area will be in the front setback. According to Section 18.18.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the minimum front setback for structures built in the Medium Density Multi -Family Zone District shall be 20'. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from Section 18.18.060, to allow for the construction of two structures to encroach into the 20' required front setback, up to 12' and 9' respectively. The applicants have stated that the location of Lionsridge Loop in proximity to the northerly property line warrants the granting of the requested variance. A letter from the applicants addressing their position on the variance has been attached for reference. The applicants had originally requested a building height variance to allow one of the four, triplex structures to exceed the allowable building height of 38'. The • applicants have since withdrawn their building height variance request. Therefore, staff will not be addressing the building height issue in this memorandum. B. Process When Vail Point was annexed into the Town of Vail, the Annexation Agreement dated July 17, 1979, (Book 428, Page 936) stipulated that there would have to be a review of each proposed site plan by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the Vail Town Council and the Design Review Board (DRB) for each phase of the Vail Point project. Though the process is similar to a Special Development District (SDD), the proposal is not an SDD. Furthermore, the annexation ordinance did not specify review criteria. However, applicable criteria for this project include the standards for the Medium Density Multi -Family Zane District, general goals addressed in the Town of Vail's long-range planning documents and the Design Review Board Guidelines (Chapter 18.54) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The annexation agreement permits 15 dwelling units and 19,462 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), plus credits of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for Lot 27. Under the proposed design, there are 2,700 sq. ft. of credits as there are 12 dwelling units. By adding the credits to what is allowed, the total allowable square footage for Lot 27 is 22,162 sq. ft. of GRFA. 11. BACKGROUND OF THE VAIL POINT PROJECT The Vail Point Townhome development (formerly Talon Townhomes), Phases 1, II and Ill, was annexed into the Town of Vail on July 17, 1979. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1979, addresses •the annexation. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lot 27 (Phase 111) was designated Medium Density Multi -Family zoning with the conditions outlined in the annexation agreement. The review process was defined at the time the project was annexed into the Town of Vail, as described in Section I of this memorandum. The Vail Point Townhome development is comprised of three phases. Phases I and II are located on Lot 1, Block 3, which is on the north side of Lionsridge Loop, and Phase III is located on Lot 27, Block 2, which is across the street, on the south side of Lionsridge Loop. According tc the annexation agreement, Phases I and II were approved for 48 dwelling units, while Phase III was approved for a maximum of 15 dwelling units. The list below summarizes the history of the Vail Point Townhome Project: Phase I Phase I, as constructed, includes 20 dwelling units having a total GRFA of 27,759 sq. ft. It is completed and final certificates of occupancy have been issued. Phase 11 As originally approved, Phase 11 called for the construction of 20 dwelling units having a total allowable-GRFA of 28,045 sq. ft. In September of 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a modification to the plan to decrease the number of dwelling units by one and increase the total GRFA • allowed by 750 sq. ft. This approval resulted in the overall total allowable GRFA for Phase 11 to be 28,795 sq. ft. The 150 sq. ft. of additional GRFA granted by the Planning and Environmental Commission to Phase 11 was required to be deducted from the total allowable GRFA for Phase III. On June 8, 1992, Steve Gensler proposed a modification to the approved plans for Phase Il. This plan was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and was subsequently constructed. It included a total of 28,682 sq. ft. of GRFA in 18 dwelling units. The difference in GRFA (113 sq. ft.) was to be transferred back to Phase III. A large portion of this was used at a later time by a . 96 sq. ft. interior expansion to the Katz residence in Phase li. The 96 sq. ft. expansion left only 17 sq. ft. of GRFA to be transferred back to Phase III. Construction in Phase II is not complete. Phase Ill Originally, there was 19,445 sq, ft. of allowable GRFA (plus credits) allocated for Lot 27 (Phase III). The total allowable GRFA has been increased by 17 sq. ft. to 19,462 sq. ft. plus allowable credits. There is a credit of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for units constructed in this zone district. On June 13, 1994, Steve Gensler appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a worksession to discuss the construction of four, duplex units on Phase ill. At that time, the applicant was proposing to reduce the total density on the property from the allowed 15 dwelling units to 8 dwelling units. The Planning and Environmental Commission discussed at length the site plan for Lot 27. Of most importance, was the preservation of the existing landscape improvements, constructed by the owners of the Cappstone Townhomes, along the southerly property line of Lot 27. Additionally, the Planning and Environmental Commission was interested in seeing the developer keep a minimum of 15' of separation between each structure constructed on the property. The Planning and Environmental Commission did discuss the possibility of • granting a front setback variance to allow several of the structures to encroach into the front setback, in order to preserve the existing landscaping along the southerly property line. It is important to note that the discussion was preliminary, and a more specific application would need to be submitted for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission was specifically concerned that the applicant needed to exhibit the existence of a physical hardship, allowing the granting of a variance at the time of final review. On June 13, 1994, a motion was made to table the discussion to the July 27, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. On September 12, 1994, the applicant requested that the item be tabled indefinitely, to allow the applicant time to address the numerous issues identified by the Planning and Environmental Commission. On August 12, 1996, Steve Gensler appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a front setback variance, to allow for the construction of two of the four structures to be built in the required, 20' tront setback. One of the structures was proposed to encroach up to 19' into the front setback, while the other structure was proposed to encroach up to 17' into the front setback. A total of 832 sq. ft. of building footprint area was proposed to • be built in the front setback. After a lengthy discussion on the proposed front setback variance request, which included public testimony from adjoining property owners, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously to table the applicant's request to a subsequent meeting, to allow the applicant time to redesign the site plan. The Planning and Environmental Commission members agreed that a hardship • existed on the property, thus permitting the applicant to encroach into the front setback, however, the Planning and Environmental Commission members did not feel that the hardship warranted a 19' and 17' encroachment into the front setback. The Planning and Environmental Commission requested that the applicant reduce the amount of encroachment into the front setback. A copy of the draft August 12, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission minutes addressing the applicant's request have been attached for reference. Ili. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No, 3/1894 Lionsridge Loop (Phase III). Zoning: Medium Density Mufti -Family (MDMF). Lot Size: 2.103 acres (per Eagle Valley Surveying) or 91,6372 sq. it, Allowable GRFA per Talon Townhome records: 19,462 sq. ft. of GRFA + a credit of 225 sq, ft. per constructed dwelling unit or 22,162 sq. ft. Development Standard Allowable Proposed • Height: 38' 37.5' Density 15 D.U. 12 D.U. GRFA' 22,162 sq, ft. 21,614 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 8' Side/Side 20' 23' Rear: 20' 24' Site Coverage: 450/6 or 41,236.7 sq. ft, 151% or 13,716 sq. ft. Retaining wall heights: 3'-6' 6' Parking: 2 per dwelling unit 2 enclosed spaces per dwelling unit IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: . A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 4 Phase III of the Vail Point Townhomes is approved, per the Annexation Agreement of 1979, for 15 dwelling units and 22,162 square feet of GRFA. The proposed density of Lot 27 (Phase 111) is compatible with the density of the other multi -family projects in the vicinity (Vail Point Townhomes Phases I & II and the Capstone Condominiums) The applicant has proposed to construct 12 dwelling units comprising approximately 21,614 square feet of GRFA. The applicant has proposed to construct the four, triplex buildings as far to the north as possible to maintain an adequate separation between the Capstone Condominiums to the south, and to preserve the existing landscaping and landscape improvements encroaching on to Lot 27. This has been proposed as a result of worksession meetings with the PEC in June of 1994. In order to maintain the existing landscaping and provide an adequate separation between the proposed structures and the existing condominiums to the south, the applicant has proposed to encroach up to 12' into the 20' front setback. Staff believes the requested variance is reasonable, as the applicant's lot is severely impacted by steep slopes and encroachments onto the property. Approximately 1.265 acres (60%) of the total 2.1037 acre lot has slopes greater than 40%, or is within required setback areas. Staff further believes the requested variances will have minimal, If any negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Lionsridge Loop is constructed within a 70' wide right-of-way. The actual width of pavement is 22' to 24' . The road, as constructed, is all the way to the north side of the right-of-way, and therefore, approximately 50' of right-of-way is located between the edge of existing asphalt and the applicant's north property line. Staff believes that the 50' of vacant right- of-way will act as a sufficient buffer between Vail Point Phases I and II, Lionsridge Loop and the proposed structures. 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 grant of special privilege. Staff believes the applicant has requested the minimum amount of relief necessary from Section 18.18.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to attain the objectives of this title without resulting in a grant of special privilege. Setbacks are intended to provide, in part, minimum separation between structures and uses, and to insure adequate light, air, and open spaces and maintain desirable residential qualities. Staff believes the requested variance to encroach into the front setback up to 12' is in concert with the intended purposes of setbacks. Staff further believes that there are extraordinary conditions and circumstances (steep slopes, • existing landscape encroachments, proximity of Lionsridge Loop) that apply to the applicant's site warranting a granting of a setback variance. Staff has had conversations with the applicant regarding the slight shifting of structures to reduce the encroachment into the required setback area. Staff would suggest that the PEC discuss with the applicant the ability to • reduce the amount of setback encroachment through slight site plan modifications. 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 staff believes the requested variance to encroach into the front setback will have positive impacts on existing development in the area. Staff believes the variance will allow for greater separation between the proposed structures and the Capstone Condominiums, without negatively impacting Phases I & II of the Vail Point Townhomes to the north. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a varianfg 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. V. STAFF_ RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's • request for a variance from Section 18.18.060 to allow the construction of two structures to encroach into the 20' required front setback up to 12' and 9' respectively. Staff believes the applicants have met the Findings necessary for the Planning & Environmental Commission to grant an approval of their request. Specifically, staff finds that the applicants have met Finding B.1 in that the granting of the requested variance will not result in the grant of special privilege. Finding B.2 has been met, in the opinion of the staff, since 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; and that Finding B.3(b) has been met since there are extraordinary circumstances, in the form steep slopes and existing landscape improvements, which precludes the applicant from developing the lot to its full potential. Additionally, Finding 8.3(c) has also been met, • since the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the other property owners in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested variance, staff would suggest that the PEC find that; That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified the same zone district, and; 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, and; That the variance is warranted since the strict literal enforcement of the front setback regulation would result in an unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Chapter 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant schedule a hearing before the Vail Town Council for review of the proposed site plan, prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board, as required in the Annexation Agreement of July 17, 1979; and 2. That the applicant verify the vacation of the 15' wide, utility easement along the northerly property line prior the appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; and 3. That the applicant receive Town of Vail Public Works Department and Town of Vail Fire Department approval of the proposed site plan prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; and 4. That the applicant install a construction fence, along the 40% slope line and the area around the existing landscape improvements, to protect these areas during the construction process, and that said fence not be removed until all driveway and building construction is completed. • t�' t 11 • LOT 27,BLOCK 2, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 3 TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO I-19'Z1'00' /0j. R-M7.Zal.M721 Ze.ffi / R-85.00 Zt L• 58.98 wn. 60.x9 f va.m L.1 1.-01 iC.sa.27 \ `pt Lc-xEa-7 CB-N 1S]a't!' 1 ESaB.M- W w CD-N E s f N 58'1a'43' W w� 111.88 wTl� c9 � F�1 f \ - oo e-B131 8a.0E Mn / Marc t-ab.zs tc-me'-Esao GB.-p5 39'V'Ot' O- o� :J N 21'21W w E309 \ LOT 20 —e1oo� �- oix LOT 21 a .. RESUBOM$ION OF BUFFER CREEK S LE- LOT 26 \ LOT 25 X\,``(\ 1. SITE PLAN r - 30.-0. 63'37'3F E to 9Fc I c i ffill;; Q Pi FIGHT ELEVATION SULDING B I," - I.-V 77� E MWLEVAR?j, 0 ref 1V&MR -Mcmi v Wo OGIE 0 I ��.a ..,.o m, o, :o, �a -- � ... � �' � � ... ro .., 'f�++I��I ar-+jlj - � I I � I � i y�sa.. ...or-_a.�._. �.. I _ a ��- -- "�i � � � � i� � 4 1 1 � �� _ _ � II —._ ..-- .--- — a r �' g {� � �� s� �� r li aa r 1 �$ ,a�-- - J �j _�I i rr'____ — � a � !i i � a t � 1 � � I � p�i r � k �� ! i 1 �.___ � s i� � i € ' �� i f i it � —i _ _ I _ p 1 � '- t � �i 9 J -—1�)--_ __-' �--' J`� pp f J_ �b 1 _ i + I O O ��_.._ -- � N' Y 1 f I �� -- �� - ' I � s. ,, q �, � � jj II � �i I �+=�= � �� i w i� � ��i ,1 i � �, � t a■ y it j i �� t 1 `\` � 1 �� I 'J. ii — �� e e �_�.. --•; —� 1 Lb • -,v _i---- 1 1 I I I I 1 e I 1 1 I I 1 II — yl I 1 I � I 1 1 I f I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ! 55 11 I 1 0 -- ------II i 6EOROON q 9 — l (� - -- f x � UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 6uNDINOA 1ri•+1'-0` LOT 27, LLC VAIL, COLORADO July 15, 1996 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attn: Mr. George Ruther Re: Property Line Set -back Variance Dear Sir: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing users or structures in the vicinity will have no adverse effect whatsoever. I am requesting the ability to maximize the buildable area of the site. Lionsridge Loop when constructed is outside the road right-of-way to the north. Therefore, Lot 27, Block 2, Filing 3 northern most property lines are in excess of 50' off the road. • Our request is to be able to build up to the northern property line which will allow for more spacing between four triplex buildings being proposed. The 20' set -back requirement is to provide some buffer between roads and developments. Allowing this variance will still provide a 50' set -back from Lionsridge Loop. In this case the variance will actually improve spacing and allow more buffer from Cap Stone, which is along the southern property line of Lot 27. The property is zoned medium density for development of up to 14 dwelling units. Our proposal is reducing by two the number of units while using the GRFA square footage allowed. Enclosed for your review is the site plan with improvement elevations. As this request relates to property line set -back variance the exterior design of the units will add some Gables to the front of the buildings. This will be shown in the design review board submittal. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. . Sincerely, XStev4eAMsolera� APPROYEDSEp 98 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 26, 1996 • Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ASSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Henry Pratt Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Mike Mollica Galen Aasland Dominic Mauriello John Schofield George Ruther Gene Uselton Judy Rodriguez Diane Golden PMblic Hearinq 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz • Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. At the August 12, 1996 PEC meeting, the applicant had requested variances of 17' and 19' respectively, to encroach into the front setback. After a lengthy discussion, the PEC voted unanimously to table the request until the applicant redesigned the project with less encroachment into the front setback. The PEC was generally agreeable to permitting some form of encroachment, but agreed that the amount requested was excessive and needed to be reduced. George went on to explain that the applicant had come back with a reduction from 17' and 19', to 12' and 9' of encroachment. Buildings have been shifted on the site plan. One of the concerns from the 1994 request and the August 12, 1996 PEC meeting was the emergency vehicle turnaround at the southerly portion of the site. The developer.has pulled the turnaround out of the setback area, in order to provide snow storage, which the Fire Department has approved. There are three 10' tall Lodgepole trees that need to be moved. It is up to the PEC to decide a location on the site that would work, so the trees can be preserved on the property. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant was here. He was not present. Greg then asked for any public input. Phyllis Mango, owner of Capstone #1, reviewed what happened 2 years ago when the Commission met. Mr. Gensler has not increased the space between the buildings, nor has he stayed away from the gardens. He wants to move trees, that are 15' tall, only 5', which is not much of a move. He plans to put them on boulders. Trees do not grow on boulders. We would like to suggest not moving the trees. In 1979, Rocky Christopher planted those trees as a barrier to benefit both parcels. I have a letter herd -from him and from Mr. Toffel to do so. Capstone has an implied easement to use that propertv,* Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 26, 1996, Greg Moffet asked if the document had been recorded? Phyllis said, no. Greg Moffet said then that was a legal issue between the parties and that the PEC could not recognize anything that was not recorded. Phyllis Mango said at the last meeting it was implied that we were trespassers. We were granted the licensed easement from Mr. Toff el. We spoke with him in Tucson. Those are our trees. You can't take away someone's license. I ask you to search your conscience. This is an issue of only 5', but it has a huge impact. I ask you to stand by your environmental titles. Greg Moffet asked for any other input. Steve'Gensler said we have tried to redesign the project to get as far away from the front setback as we could. As far as Capstone, we readjusted the buildings and only need to transplant one tree. We went over the new drawings with the Vail Point owners. We wanted Buildings 7, 8 and 9 to slide into the setback. We are only taking away the highway view from the Lionsridge Loop homeowners. The problem with the homeowners is the tot lot. They don't want it, but prefer to store snow there. The tot lot is sitting right next to a cliff. The only way to get a CO is to get signatures from the homeowners stating that they don't want the tot lot. They deserve to have COs. We would like to put snow next to Building # 7, storing it on our property down below instead of building more units there. We have tried to listen to comments from the PEC in our redesign. Galen Aasiand stated there was a hardship because of the steepness of the lot. With regard to • Units 1, 2 and 3; there is no hardship and therefore, no way to support a variance. I would like to see you address the trash issue and snow storage better. You can't put all the snow in the hammerhead. A suggestion for Unit #7 might be to take off the dining room . I feel sorry for the Capstone units. The Capstone owners have been given a gift for many years. It will cost Capstone some money to deal with this, since Mr. Gensler has a right to develop his property. I would like to see as much landscaping maintained there as possible. Diane Golden would rather have the front variance and leave 7, 8 and 9 where they are. Phyllis, with regard to Capstone, it is beautiful back there and lovely and I feel they will be able to keep everything, except some of the trees. I agree with Galen as it is the developer's right. John Schofield echoed the comments. Rocky Christopher knows enough about real estate to have recorded the document. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are ok. Gene Uselton asked the developer if he considered interchanging Units 1, 2 and 3, with 11 and 12? Steve Gensler said 1, 2 and 3 don't bother anyone. I would like to use wider units for profit reasons, but If narrow units are the only way to get this approved, I will do narrow units. • Gene Uselton asked if snow storage would be a problem down on Buffer Creek and how is garbage removed from each unit? Steve Gensler said, yes, garbage will be �—pmoved from each unit. Planning and Environmental Commission h Minutes August 26. 1996 2 Greg Amsden paralleled John Schofield's comments regarding rearranging 1, 2 and 3. You must architecturally modify the product to keep it out of the setback, based on the developer's desire. Greg doesn't have a problem with 7, 8 and 9. • Greg Moffet said specifically 10, 8 and 9 reduce the total variance. Now you need to make the Unit 1 encroachment go away. Building # Ts encroachment is ok, because of the hardship. Regarding the landscaping in the back; if Phyllis thinks they have an easement, then they must go and find out. As it stands here, it's a straight case of private property. Mr. Gensler has a right to do what he wants. I get the feeling from the commission that Unit #1 has an encroachment that must go away. George Ruther said the location of Buildings 1, 2 and 3 becomes a ORB issue. The 3 trees that are proposed to be moved on the site plan, can be moved 5'. Is that plan acceptable, or would the PEC desire the trees to be moved somewhere else? Greg Moffet asked for inch for inch tree loss mitigation which is appropriate for the ORB to handle. Greg Amsden asked Phyllis if she might want the trees moved onto the Capstone site. Phyllis Mango said the purpose of the trees was to be a shield between the parcels and would just like them to survive the move. • Steve Gensler said we would work with Capstone to move the trees. Greg Moffet said the trees need to live, or be replaced. Diane Golden asked if the trees could be moved anywhere on the property or on Capstone's property? Greg Moffet said it's up to Steve where the trees go. Phyllis Mango wants a working solution and would like to have the trees higher up on the wall to benefit the new owners. Steve Gensler said since they are Capstone's trees, Capstone can move them wherever they want. He doesn't want to be responsible for the trees. Phyllis Mango asked about the bonding issue. Greg Moffet said we require a bond sufficient to have the trees live, or be replaced. We do transplaht a lot of trees; it's not uncommon. Phyllis Mango said it negates that idea, if he's putting it in our laps. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval to grant a variance for Unit # 7 for only a 12' encroachment, because it meets the variance criteria . Before the applicant goes to the DRB, they need to submit a snow removal plan, bond for 3 evergreen trees for a period of two growing seasons, assure no stone wall, on Mr Gehsler's property, be at a height greater than 6'. k Planning and EnV]P0IIIDCnt31 Commission Minutes '� August 26, 1996 Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Galen Aasland amended the motion to add that the staff recommendation, on page 7 of the staff memo, be included in the motion. Gene Uselton seconded the amended motion. • Greg Moffet stated so included and so moved and asked for any other input. Gene Uselton said that It was reasonable and equitable for the Capstone residents to have the opportunity to move the trees where they like as an alternative to the bond. Galen Aasland said the bond was required of Mr. Gensler, if he moved the trees. George Ruther said It Capstone wants to move the trees at their own expense, Steve Gensler would grant them the right to come on to his property to do so. Staff would not enforce the bonding on the developer, if Capstone moved the trees onto their property. Galen Aasland asked if Mr. Gensler would be subject to the replacement of those trees on his property, if the trees were removed from his property? Greg Moffet said we are referring to the trees as Capstone's trees. We are not making a judgement as to who owns those trees. John Schofield said we would allow Capstone to move the trees at their own expense. . Greg Moffet said that that was implied in the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Phyllis Mango asked who will move the trees? Mike Mollica said that Steve Gensler would determine that and present it to the DRB. 2. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for the enclosure of a roof deck located at 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Applicant: Vail Apartments, Inc. Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request and presented the two main Issues; the view from the'roundabout and the compatibility of the addition with the architecture already existing on the Gateway Building. We have received an approval letter from the Vail Gateway Condo Association for Unit 5 to enclose the exterior deck. The Association has no objection to this proposal. Greg Moffet said because it Is an SDD, there is not a cap on the GRFA. • Planning ind Environmental,Connnission Minutes August 26, 1996, i West 'fail Interchange Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate Item Item Cost Roadway $7309000 Retaining Wails $6309000 Bridge $19090,000 Drainage & Utilities $4409000 Surveying, Design & Permits $4009000 . Construction Management & Testing $5459,000 Landscaping $7509000 Construction Traffic Control $250,000 • Mobilization & Contingencies $6659000 Project Total $595009000 1997 I 1998 ` Task Name S Io INID J IFIMIAIMI J I J IA I S IOINIDI J IF I M I A I M I 7 J I A I S I0IN. Notice to Proceed 0 10/14/96 Preliminary Design Field Inspection Review (FIR) Final Design Final Office Review (FOR) Advertise Project Award Construction Contract Begin Construction Phase 1,2,and 3 Construction Complete Major Construction Phase 4 Construction ♦ ME •, 11/29/96 1/31/97 O 3115197 4/1/97 C♦ Project Completion West Vail Interchange 6/15/98 0 Ar 0