Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-01 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes of April 3 and 17, 1990 Meetings 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 3. Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission decisions regarding the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building (conditional use permit, stream setback variance, site coverage variance, and an exterior alteration) 4. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1983, in order to modify View Corridor No. 1; and setting forth the details in regard thereto. 5. Ordinance No. 17, Series reenacting Ordinance No. Development District No. permitted, adjusting the dwelling units, and arch regard thereto. of 1990, first reading, an ordinance repealing and 32, Series of 1987, to provide changes to Special 16 that concern a reduction of the number of units gross residential floor area per unit, employee itectural guidelines; and setting forth details in 6. Adjournment VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1990 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Approval of Minutes of April 3 and 17, 1990 Meetings 7:35 2. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7:50 3. Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission decisions Kristan Pritz regarding the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building (conditional use permit., stream setback variance, site coverage variance, and an exterior alteration) at 304 Bridge Street, lots e,f,g,h, Block S, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Landmark Commercial Development Company and Retaserv Corporation. Action Requested of Council: Uphold or overturn the PEC's decisions. Background Rationale: On April 9, the PEC approved a conditional use permit (7-0), a stream setback variance (6-1), a site coverage variance (6-1), and an exterior alteration (5-2) in order to allow the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building. This review was prompted by the appeal of an adjacent property owner and the Council's recall of this proposal. One additional condition requested by the Council, and agreed to by the applicant, is as follows: The applicant agrees to pay any increase in the CCI parking fee if said increase is made within two years from the issuance of a building permit for this project. Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC decisions. 8:50 4. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, second reading, an Kristan Pritz ordinance amending View Corridor #1 as relating to the redevelopment of the Red .Lion Building at 304 Bridge Street, Lots e,f,g,h, Block S, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Retaserv Corporation. Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, on second reading. Background Rationale: This is the second reading of this ordinance. Refer to accompanying memos for background on this request. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, on second reading. 9:20 5. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1990, first reading, a request Mike Mollica for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley, Phase III) Action. Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1990, on first reading. Background Rationale: The PEC, on April 9, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of the amendment to SDD No. 16, and unanimously approved the preliminary plan for the Elk Meadows Subdivision. Both were approved by votes of 6-0. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1990, on first reading. 9:45 6. Adjournment MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 3, 1990 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 3, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss None Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The meeting began with a ten year employment anniversary award to Charles Wick. Ron Phillips gave brief background information on Charlie, Director of Administrative Services and Assistant Town Manager, and then presented Charlie with a Town of Vail silver belt buckle. After a few words of commendation by Ron and Kent, Charlie thanked everyone. Next on the agenda was approval of the minutes of the March 6 and 20, 1990 meetings. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, and Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A .vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The third item was a consent agenda of the following: A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, second reading, amending Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village Area D, Glen Lyon office site to provide for changes to parking provisions, micro-brewery building, and east building. 6. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1990, second reading, amending the Town's sales tax code. Mayor Rose read the full titles of the ordinances. Larry Eskwith stated there were no changes to either ordinance since first reading. Kristan Pritz and Larry then answered questions from Council. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance relating to smoking in public places and places of employment was next. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Susan Scanlan gave brief background information on how the ordinance had come about. After some discussion regarding posting outside of buildings, Susan answered questions of Council. Matt Carpenter felt this was a watered down policy and that the ordinance should have been worded much more strongly. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the ordinance, and Lynn Fritzlen seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Fifth on the agenda was Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, first reading, rezoning Lots 3, 4, and 5, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a part of Sunburst replat from Primary/ Secondary Residential to a Special Development District. Mayor Rose read the full title. Kristan Pritz reviewed the SOD request and gave background information. She reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the proposal and explained why staff recommended denial. Kristan noted the Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously 7-0 for denial. Robert Warner, the applicant, gave reasons why he felt the SDD should be granted, and explained why the pool area under the garage would not affect the floor area. Jim Junge, architect for the project, gave further reasoning why the request should be approved. Kristan and Robert answered questions of Council. Mayor Rose felt that since the Warner's were offering over 2,000 square feet in three employee units, maybe Council could approve as an incentive because it was a benefit to the Town. Robert Levine made a motion to approve the ordinance, which was seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. Tom Steinberg requested Mr. Warner to deed restrict the pool so it would remain that way permanently, and to deed restrict the employee housing units so they are permanently employee housing; also, to ensure the employee units would not be for sale, but remain rentals only. Robert Levine amended the motion to include Tom's suggestions, and Peggy amended the second. Peggy Osterfoss stated she wanted it included in the ordinance that the reason for approval was for a gain in employee housing. Kristan commented it would be added somewhere in the beginning of the ordinance, in the "Whereas" sections. There was then some discussion by Council regarding enforcement and control. Dalton Williams, of the PEC, remarked that all members of the PEC felt it was a good design, a good proposal, but they were concerned about using an SDD as the mechanism to do this and setting a precedent. Jay Peterson added he felt the SDD should be granted because it was a very creative way to add three employee units. Peggy Osterfoss commented Council was concerned with providing additional affordable housing for the community and it was appropriate to approve this SDD. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Item six was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, first reading, a request for an amendment to SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz stated the SDD had been approved and the final plat approved, but not recorded with the County yet. She noted this was an amendment to the original SDD and that the final plat was also being revised. She reviewed the changes requested, and commented staff recommended approval with the conditions shown in the ordinance. Buff Arnold, architect for the project, gave further explanation of the amendments to the SDD .and reasoning for approval. Mr. Pat Dauphinais addressed the item of number of driveways. There was then some discussion by Council regarding additional curb cuts. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve to provide changes with the finding that the changes are in accordance with the SDD criteria conditions as listed in the staff memorandum to the PEC dated March 26, 1990; except under employee dwelling units, the wording "any lot" should be used; a letter of credit should be provided for a bus stop, so one can be provided once a school or Town bus schedule is established within five years; add the PEC recommendations that 1) each phase of development shall include a minimum of one employee unit until the six employee unit minimum is fulfilled, 2) garages for employee units shall be connected to the main structure, 3) the developer shall construct a sidewalk along the north side of Lionsridge Lane beginning at the cul-de-sac and extending to the main entry to the subdivision, and 4) at grade, unroofed, unenclosed decks may extend five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1-14; including conditions 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the staff recommendation; and the four additional curb cuts not be approved. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. Robert Levine was concerned that employee housing figures were not included in the total GRFA, and wanted them shown up front, because they should be addressed and not ignored. Kristan Pritz remarked they would be added in the density section. Peggy Osterfoss suggested they be added in the preamble like the last ordinance, in the "Whereas" sections, which Kristan agreed to. Dalton Williams, of the PEC, stated the PEC voted on the curb cuts 4 for and 3 against, and explained their reasonings and concerns to the Council. Tom Steinberg stated he would vote against the ordinance as presented because of the lack of safety for children on the sidewalk; the curb cuts belong on the north side only. Jim Gibson agreed.. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Tom Steinberg and Jim Gibson opposing. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, first reading, a request for a Special Development District at the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village 5th Filing, and a portion of P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing, at 365 Gore Creek Drive. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz gave chronological background information of the SDD request to amend the original SDD. She reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the request, explained why the staff recommendation was for approval with the eight conditions and three recommendations to the DR6 as shown in the staff memorandum to the PEC dated March 26, 1990. Don Hare, representing the owner, reviewed again why this SDD amendment was before the Council. Pam Hopkins, representing the architect, explained changes in the building footprint plans. Art Carroll, a resident in the Vorlaufer, was against the SDD because it would block the view of Vail Mountain. After much discussion by Council, Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve the ordinance with findings based on the evaluation of the proposed SDD criteria are appropriate, with all conditions in the staff recommendation as shown in the staff memorandum to the PEC dated March 26, 1990. After some discussion by Council, Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3, with Merv Lapin, Lynn Fritzlen, and Robert Levine opposing. At this time, Mayor Rose asked that the next few agenda items be placed on a consent agenda: -2- ~- ' A. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance changing the order of business at Council meetings. 6. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1990, proclaiming the week of April 21-27 as Earth Awareness Week. C. Resolution No. 9, Series of 1990, setting rules for Council public hearings. After some discussion by Council, Merv Lapin made a motion to place Ordinance No. 15, Resolution No. 8, and Resolution No. 9 on a consent agenda. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Mayor Rose then read the full titles of Ordinance No. 15, Resolution No. 8, and Resolution No. 9. Robert Levine made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Next was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1990, a resolution opposing mandatory Social Security and Medicare coverage for public employees. Lynn Fritzlen stated she would not support this resolution because she felt public employees should be subjected to the same programs as the private sector. There was some discussion by Council and Ron Phillips. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the resolution, and Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1, with Lynn Fritzlen opposing. The Jackalope Cafe & Cantina sign variance request was next. Shelly Mello gave background information on the variance request. She reviewed the four criteria used in evaluating the variance and explained why staff and the DRB recommended approval of the request. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the request for reasons and findings as shown in the March 7, 1990 staff memorandum to the DRB. Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. There was no Citizen Participation. Merv Lapin commented Councilmembers had received a letter from Woody Beardsley regarding the Beartree lot. He requested Ron Phillips write a letter to Mr. Beardsley requesting detailed information; Ron replied staff would follow up on the request. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -3- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 17, 1990 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 17, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item was the Uail Metropolitan Recreation District offer to return $25,000 to the Town of Vail; reduction in Town of Vail recreation subsidy. Tim Garton, UMRD Chairman, read a letter regarding this subsidy from the VMRD Board to the Council. He further stated that if projected revenues materialize, the additional $25,000 will be returned to the Town of Vail by the fall of 1990. Following limited questioning, this check was accepted by Mayor Rose. Item two was a presentation of the Colorado Tourism Board 1989 Urban Tourism Award to Council from the Vail Valley Marketing Board. Frank Johnson, Chairman of the VUMB, reviewed current and future projects of the Marketing Board for summer marketing. He stated the Urban Tourism Award was one of seven awards given; he listed several other Denver area advertising awards won by the VUMB. Frank thanked the Council for their support. Mayor Rose felt the thanks needed to go back to the Marketing Board for their time and effort. Third on the agenda was a consent agenda of the following items: A. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.32 of Title 8 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify Code provisions relating to smoking in public places and places of employment. B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance re-zoning Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Vail Valley Third Filing, a part of Sunburst replat, to Special Development District No. 24, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. C. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1988, to provide changes to Special Development District No. 22 that concern lot size and corresponding GRFA; and curb cuts; and employee dwelling units; and architectural guidelines; and setting forth details in regard thereto. D. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 40, Series of 1987 and approving Special Development District No. 19, Garden of the Gods, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. E. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 2.04.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail changing the order of business in regular and special meetings of the Town Council; and setting forth details in regard thereto. F. Resolution No. 11, Series of 1990, a resolution ratifying the Articles of Association of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. h Mayor Rose read the full title of each. Merv Lapin moved that a consent agenda of only items E and F be approved; all others be pulled off for discussion. Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Therefore, the next item was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance relating to smoking in public places and places of employment. Ron Phillips stated the ordinance had not changed since first reading, and staff did not have anything to add. Matt Carpenter questioned one section of the ordinance, to which Larry Eskwith responded. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance, which Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance rezoning Lots 3, 4, and 5, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a part of Sunburst replat from primary/secondary residential to special development district. Tom Braun stated there was one minor change to the ordinance, which he discussed. He then very briefly reviewed Council requests from first reading. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve, which was seconded by Robert Levine. There was a short discussion regarding this SDD use as setting a precedent. Merv Lapin was concerned about using the SDD process in a low .density residential area, and would change his vote from how he voted at first reading. Lynn Fritzlen agreed the SDD was not the best mechanism, but the only way right now until housing guidelines were in place. Mayor Rose agreed, and would vote in favor of the ordinance tonight. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2, with Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin opposing. Next was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, second reading, a request for an amendment to SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Kristan Pritz quickly reviewed changes Council had requested be incorporated into the ordinance since first reading. There was some discussion regarding a bus stop, to which Mr. Pat Dauphinais stated he would provide a letter of credit for one. Council felt that was agreeable. Tom Steinberg then made a motion to approve the ordinance as amended, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, second reading, a request for a special development district at the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village 5th Filing, and a portion of P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing, at 365 Gore Creek Drive. Kristan Pritz addressed questions of Gretta Parks and Council. A motion to approve the ordinance was made by Peggy Osterfoss and seconded by Robert Levine. Connie Knight, a property owner, aired her concerns over the possible approval of this SDD request. Kristan then answered questions of Council.. There was some discussion by Council regarding building size and mass. Tom Steinberg requested an annual letter regarding employee housing use. Peggy amended the motion to include this request; Rob amended his second. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with Lynn Fritzlen opposing. Item eight was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending View Corridor No. 1. Mayor Rose read the full title. Tom Braun reviewed an architect scale model of the request. He then noted the Planning Commission's 6-1 recommendation for approval by changing the photo and not the line. Tom then reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the request noting views from other buildings were not included. He stated staff supported the project with two conditions: 1. The photo depicting View Corridor No. 1 be modified to reflect the new Red Lion Building at a time when the expansion is completed. 2. The specific reasons justifying this request be included in the preamble of the ordinance authorizing this amendment. Tom then reviewed the ten conditions required by the Planning Commission for their approval, which were itemized in the staff memo to Council dated April 17, 1990. He added there was also an eleventh condition to be added, which stated the Red Lion would participate in a streetscape special improvement district if and when formed. There was some discussion by Council and staff regarding notice of action on the Red Lion improvements. Larry Eskwith commented he would have felt more comfortable if all the items were included on the agenda mentioned the appeal of the PEC action, and recommended Council table the item until the next Evening Meeting. Tom Steinberg felt it was alright to table the item, but we should take comments so staff can be working on Council concerns before the next time. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated this was the first he had heard of a notification problem, and with the construction season so short, the delay would put them -2- r behind. Gordon Brittan felt Tom Braun's presentation was hard to understand and asked to see the scale model up close and hear the presentation again. After Tom Braun ran through it again, Jay Peterson gave reasons why he felt the Planning Commission approved, and why the Council should approve. Jim Morter, architect for the project, presented photos to Council of the view line. Jay added reasons why the project was good. Jay, Jim, and Larry answered questions of Council. Yvonne Mullaley made comments on the roof design. After more discussion by Council, Connie Knight asked for the view corridor to be specif ically dealt with separately from the Red Lion improvements. After much more discussion by Council, Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance on first reading, and directed staff to place the ordinance on the May 1, 1990 Evening Meeting agenda directly after the Red Lion application. Mayor Rose seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2, with Tom Steinberg and Lynn Fritzlen opposing. Next was the National Velvet Dry Cleaners sign variance request. Shelly Mello reviewed the request and criteria used in evaluating the request. She stated staff supported the height and location variance requests, but not the one square foot increase in size. Shelly noted the Design Review Board unanimously voted 5-0 for approval for all three requests. Bill House, the applicant, requested the one square foot increase to match the liquor store sign. After some discussion by Council, Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to approve the height and location variance requests of the sign, but not the increased size, for reasons presented by staff and finding the same as staff as noted in the staff memo to the Design Review Board. dated April 4, 1990. Robert Levine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. At this time, it was felt a motion should have been made to table the call up of the Red Lion conditional use, variances, and exterior alteration to the May 1, 1990 Evening Meeting for adequate notification of the public. Merv Lapin made the motion, and Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. A side and rear setback variance request for Lot D-7 Bighorn Terrace was next on the agenda. Shelly Mello explained the variance request and discussed staff's recommendation for denial, while the Planning Commission had voted in favor of the request. She then reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the requests and answered questions of Council. Eric Hill, architect representing the applicant, explained the one foot side setback. Lynn Fritzlen suggested staff look into rezoning of the subdivision. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve the side and rear setback requests, because there was not a significant intrusion beyond the original footprint, and stating a hardship was the result of the building already being in place when the setback was determined. Robert Levine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with Lynn Fritzlen opposing. Tom Steinberg then made a motion for staff to address the local neighborhood into the total zoning issue, to which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Next on the agenda was the Lions Ridge rockfall amendment. Tom Braun reviewed the hazard ordinance standards for rockfall zoning changes within the Town. He stated staff had no recommendation and asked the applicant's consultant for a report on why the area should be rezoned medium severity instead of high severity. Robert Irish, an engineering geologist, representing Jill Down and Bruce Canton, discussed his review letter on the Lions Ridge hazard area. He and Tom then answered questions of Council. Mayor Rose remarked he agreed with Mr. Irish. After some discussion by Council, Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to reclassify the area from high. to medium severity rockfall, accepting Robert Irish's study, and directing staff to amend the Town's rockfall records. Robert Levine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Action on the ABC School lease agreement was the twelfth item. Larry Eskwith commented the lease was almost a duplicate of the Learning Tree's agreement which was before Council two years ago. He added there was no Exhibit A, however, and asked Council to approve the agreement contingent upon having ABC School provide a survey of the area including the addition after construction was complete. Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to approve the agreement as presented, with the stipulation that the ABC School provide the Town with an improvement survey after the alterations have been made. Robert Levine seconded the motion. Merv Lapin suggested wording be added that the school be run by a Board of Directors that is elected by the parents of the students. Lynn and Rob amended the motion and second. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. -3- ,, The last item on the agenda was action on Vail Village Inn space lease agreement. Larry Eskwith noted the lessee was not prepared to discuss the item tonight, and requested it be postponed to the May 1 Evening Meeting. A motion to table the item to .the May 1 Evening Meeting was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0, with Merv Lapin abstaining. There was no Citizen Participation. There being no further public business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -4- TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: April 25, 1990 RE: Appeal of PEC decisions on consideration of Ordinance Coordination No. 1. Red Lion redevelopment and No. 16, amending View The first of two separate items to be reviewed by the Council is a recall of the Planning Commission's approval of the Red Lion redevelopment. The background information on this request is provided on the April 17th Council memo and the three PEC memos. One modification to this proposal, that was agreed to by the applicant, is that the owners will pay any increase in the parking fund rate if the rate is changed within two years of the issuance of a building permit for this project. The second item pertains to amending Vail Village View Corridor No. 1. The accompanying memos provide background information on this request. In response to the Council's discussion of this amendment, the staff has requested additional information from the applicant and has discussed the view corridor with Jeff Winston. 1) The applicants have provided a cross-section of the Village from the parking structure to the Golden Peak House. This was done to demonstrate whether any other properties would encroach into the view corridor if they were redeveloped within the 43 foot height limit. Because of grade changes on Bridge Street, the Red Lion property appears to be the only property that .could redevelop within 43 feet, encroach into the view corridor, yet remain below the ridge of the Golden Peak House. 2) Jeff Winston was the lead consultant involved in establishing the Village view corridors. Jeff has reviewed this project and concurs with the staff recommendation. He reiterated that the purpose of this view corridor was to maintain views of the mountain, the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower. It was his feeling that the line could have been drawn at the Golden Peak House ridge and the objective of this corridor would be met. The proposed Red Lion ridge would not diminish any view of Vail Mountain. TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 17, 1990 RE: A request to amend View Corridor No. 1 and the review of the proposed redevelopment of the Red Lion Building. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building at their April 9, 1990 meeting. This approval involved: 1. A site coverage variance to permit a .25$ increase in site coverage. (approved'6-1) 2. A stream setback variance to allow a two foot encroachment into the required 30' stream setback. (approved 6-1) 3. A conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck on the east side of the building. (approved'?-0) 4. An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area to the building in Vail Village. (approved 5-2) Commissioner Warren requested that the Council be aware that she supported the project with the exception of the proposed infill of a portion of outdoor dining patio on Bridge Street. The conditions of approval applied to these request include the following: 1. As a part'of this redevelopment, the applicants agree to point and repair the brick wall along Bridge Street and in the area of the small plaza at the north-west corner of the site. Improvements to this plaza. may also include upgrading existing benches, planters, newspaper box and trash receptacle locations and landscaping. 2. The streetscage improvements shown along Hanson Ranch Road are considered conceptual, and the applicants shall agree to work with the staff and Winston Associates in refining this design relative to the Vail Village Streetscape Plan. This condition shall also apply to the plaza area referenced in condition No. 1 and the landscape improvements proposed adjacent to Mill Creek. ,t 3. All windows located on stucco wall planes shall be recessed a minimum of 3". 4. State of the art venting shall be used to reduce negative impacts (smell, smoke, etc.) emanating from the site. 5. The owner/developers of the residential development on this site shall agree to permanently restrict Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), building height and density on this site to what is permitted by this approval. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this restriction and the restriction shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorders Office at Eagle County. 6. Any trees damaged or killed within two years of the completion of this project shall be replaced with similar size and type tree. 7. The Red Lion logo shall be retained as a part of this redevelopment in approximately the same size and location. 8. The developers/owners are strongly encouraged to participate in developing solutions to traffic, loading and delivery problems in Vail Village. 9. The Rekord doors (or other type of window system installed) to the Red Lion Restaurant along Bridge Street shall remain totally open during business hours between June 15 and September 15 of each year. These windows may be opened at any other time during the .year at the discretion of the restaurant management. 10. The applicants shall complete stream-bank stabilization work on both sides of Mill Creek over the entire length of the Red Lion property. The final design and implementation of these improvements shall be subject to review by the staff and the Design Review Board. 11. The owners shall agree to participate in and not remonstrate against, a special improvement district if and when one is formed in the Village. All of these approvals are the authority of the Planning Commission. The amendment to View Corridor No. 1 requires approval by the Council. With regard to this amendment, the Planning Commission recommended by a 6-1 vote to recommend approval for modification to this View Corridor. Their support was predicated on two conditions: 1. That the Zphoto depicting View Corridor No. 1 be modified to reflect the new Red Lion Building at a time when the ,expansion is completed. The Commission preferred this alternative as opposed to modifying the line that delineates the View Corridor. 2. That the ',specific reasons justifying this request be included 'in the preamble of the ordinance authorizing this amendment. While the staff was supportive of this approach in amending the View Corridor, legal complications have developed that prevent this from occurring. As written, the View Corridor Ordinance prohibits any encroachment above the line indicated on the photo. To allow this development to proceed and simply rephotograph the view would be a violation of the Ordinance because the new ridge does in fact encroach into the View Corridor. Without changing the wording of the Ordinance, this approach is not feasible. To change language in the Ordinance that would allow building encroachments over ',the line could create greater complications for future development in the Village. The staff feels that the only feasible alternative is to modify the actual line on the official photograph of View Corridor No. 1. The staff would recommend that the View Corridor be amended by allowing this development to proceed, and after the building is completed, a new photograph will be taken and the line depicting the View Corridor will be relocated and resurveyed to run directly above the building's new ridge line. While this approach does alter the line depicting the View Corridor, it provides the greatest assurances against future encroachments into the View Corridor. The accompanying Ordinance outlines conditions that would be applied to this amendment. Y .. EAST ELEVA 1/8 inch to wEST ~~EV~ .1/8 inch to .~~~~: . -,~, ,~ ~~ ;~;., ~~~~ EAST ELEVATION 1/8 inch to 1 foot R. .,,, ~ ' , I '~,rh,, n-x,.a, ~;~`~ ~~~~ ti ~ =~ i ~ • Y TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: March 19, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior alteration to make additions to the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The redevelopment of the Red Lion Building involves modifications to ground floor commercial space and a major remodel of the upper floor residential space. The main elements of this plan are: 1. The development of three condominiums totaling 9207 square feet of GRFA. The property currently has one condominium with 5231 square feet of GRFA. 2. Modifications to the existing Red Lion deck enclosure on Bridge Street, including the enclosure of 100 additional square feet of patio at the north end of the existing deck. 3. Modifications to the Red Lion Restaurant to include a dining patio on the east side of the building along Mill Creek. 4. The development of a public walkway along Mill Creek over the length of the Red Lion frontage. This proposal entails the review and approval of five separate requests by the Planning Commission. These request include the following: 1. Exterior alteration. 2. A stream setback variance for a small building addition, dining patio, and public walkway. 3. A site coverage variance for a small building addition and the new dining patio. 4. A conditional use permit for the dining patio. 5. Modification to adopted view corridor #1. (Vantage point from the steps of the parking structure over Vail Village to Vail Mountain.) -~ :~ ,~ .. - ..r ~ „, - `t +~ Applicable elements of this proposal are reviewed relative to the " criteria found in each of these requests. While each must be considered on their own merit, it is important that the Planning Commission view this project as a whole when evaluating the proposal. This exterior alteration memo will cover each of the major elements of this proposal, and will also address the requested modification to the view corridor. The other 3 memorandums provide additional detail relevant to those specific requests. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REVIEW CRITERIA The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements that establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as The Guide Plan, which includes a number of sub-area concepts. These sub-area concepts identify areas for potential development and improvements in the Village. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations cover large scale land use/design issues. Finally, architectural/landscape considerations provide information on the detailed design elements of a proposal. In addition to these three elements of the Guide Plan, traditional zoning considerations are also considered as a part of this review. The three accompanying memorandums cover the majority of these zoning issues. One additional zoning consideration has to do with parking. Any additional parking demand generated by this proposal would be met by payment into the parking fund. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN Sub Area No. 8: Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. Path completes linkage from Pirateship Park and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive. This proposal includes a walkway along Mill Creek over the length of the Red Lion frontage. Ultimately, this section of the path will connect with the path constructed on the back side of the A & D building. It is a long range goal to improve pedestrianization in this area to strengthen the role of the Mill Creek building as a part of the Village. The proposed walkway is 3'6" wide. This width is unacceptable for what will become a significant walkway. The staff would like to see this element of the plan revised to include a walkway between 6 to 8 feet wide. s i ~ A ea No. 10: Seibert Circle. Feature area paving treatment. Relocate focal point (potential fountain) to north for better sun exposure (fall/spring), creates increased plaza area and/or backdrop for activities. Separated path on north side for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods. The applicants have stated that the owners are prepared to discuss their role, or involvement, in the relocation of Seibert Circle if and when those discussion begin. The staff believes this sub-area concept has merit, however, there are currently no plans to initiate the relocation of the circle. Improvement proposed for the Red Lion building will not impede or prevent the re-design of Seibert Circle. Sub-area No. 12: Future midblock connection to further tie Mill Creek Court to core area. Entry reinforced by pocket park created on Bridge Street. Of all the sub-area concepts outlined in this plan, this sub-area could provide one of the most important improvements to the Village. This connection existed at one time. Unfortunately, a ground level addition to the Rucksack building eliminated this pedestrian corridor. Improvements to the Red Lion Building do not change the existing situation. It appears that the redevelopment of the Rucksack building will be required before this sub-area concept could be implemented. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Pedestrianization Introducing another segment of the Mill Creek walkway is a very positive step in expanding the Village's pedestrian system. However, the staff feels strongly that this improvement should be redesigned to provide a path 6 to 8 feet wide. Vehicular Penetration t affic than Three condominiums will clearly generate more r the one existing condominium. However, it must be pointed out that zoning on this property permits up to 8 units. In this respect, impacts of vehicular penetration are not as great as they could be. Streetscane Framework While not a street, the concept of dining activity along Mill Creek is extremely valuable in generating activity in this area. As mentioned in this memo, and in other memorandums, the design is not adequate at this time. The area has the potential to provide both the dining activity and an adequate walkway. l,. f~s~"TI U~ "Rekcr~rz_-r3~nrs are proposed for the north, south and west sides of the present Red Lion Deck enclosure. Operable doors will a an improved situation over what is existing. ~~ he staff has serious concerns over the existing d~.*+~^~ peck. Annroved ~n 1982. is~de~}~enclosur wa~early a e on the Bridge Street Pg~mework. o consider adds i -nclosure of this deck on the north side is unaccep e. n addition, a staff ee s the existing roof sho- u~T~e pulled back over its entire length of Bridge Street frontage to allow for a row of outdoor tables along the Bridge Street. Street Enclosure The enclosure along Bridge Street Plaza Lod a building. It may be s i e mass of the building or towards the south. This has the things: relates well with the appropriate however to provide additional mass potential to accomplish two 5 n~~~° Shifting the mass to the south may lessen the impacts on the Rucksack building. Extending the mass of the building to the south could serve to consolidate the existing mass and roof forms of the building. Street Edge Proposed landscaping along the north side of_the buildinQ_ will dramatically improve the existing str e~.tiedc~e. As proposed, a series ers and lanter areas would line 1 submitted is considereel~.~.^rrceptua~_'rL, The staff has just begun working on a Vi eetscape improvement plan with Winston and Associates. The intent of this plan is to evaluate the public spaces between buildings with regard to• street improvements. The applicants have a reed to work with the staff and Winston as this protect evolves ,n or er to design their improvements accordingly. This will assure de ign an materia compatibility with o er future streetscape improvements. he_~s~-Banc road side of the building. This de _~ u i l d in He i ht t S ~"' ~ ~ ~ l`'`'~ ~ S ~- ~,r'~-.~-~~''~~`° uildin hei hts allow 40$ of the structure to be between 33 B g q and 43 feet with the remaining 60~ of the .structure below 33 feet. As proposed, 66$ of the building is below 33 feet and 33.9$ of the building is above 33 feet but below 43 feet. At its highest point, the proposed ridgeline is1 42.7 feet. Views and Focal points -~~ ~~tC~~ ~~ ~°~~ ~~~~~~ The a licants have rovided a n of hoto overlays emonstrating the relationship of this buil~di-n~ to many view nnrri me ccc n n nc Aamnnstrate that tllE DrODOSal 15 generally responsive to most public a_ nd private view corridors. s rom Rucksack bu Tdin-` g w~rl be ama ically im a e r an Design Guide Plan to rotect these riva corri ors W i e the staff can certainly sympathize with ners of the Rucksack building, the fact remains that the Red Lion building has development potential that can be built. The role of the Guide Plan is to ensure that the development is designed in a way that is responsive to the numerous design considerations of the plan. The roposed ridgeline will enc into ado ted view corridor No. i_ is view corridor is from the steps o the existing parking structure over Vail Village. It is intended to provide unobstructed views of Vail Mountain and key architectural features such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower. As a general rule, the staff feels strongly that these view corridors should not be disrupted to accommodate new buildings. However, circumstances specific. to this view corridor line support modifications of this line. The ~2LOposed ridge line of the Red s.ion zedeveloDment is ti.,e~„~ ~~e ov;ct;nrr r;~~P line of the Golden Peak House. _However, the view corridor line "dips" below the Golden Peak House rid e. It is clear to the staff that the t nt of the view corrido uld be met t,~ie re drawn at the Go en Peak House roof rid e. For this reason and ec im rovem Red Lion buildin are below the Golden eak House ridge and behind the Clock Tower ucksac Tower, s a can suppor i amen went rest This amendment would relocate the view corridor line to the Golden Peak House ridge line. A condition of this approval will be that the applicant's resurvey the view corridor and provide all materials and production of the revised photos. It should be noted that the redevelopment of the Village Parking Structure will eliminate the exact vantage point from which this view corridor was taken. Efforts will .have to be made to ensure that a comparable vantage point is available to reposition this view corridor line. ., ~~, , _ ~. _+ _ , ~.. j.Y :_ , i i Service and Deliver As with many properties in the Village, there are no back doors to provide service functions. Introducing dining and the walkway along Mill Creek perpetuates the problem of not having enough space for these operations. The existing location of trash facilities is adjacent to Gore Creek and remains unchanged. However, this location conflicts with the dining deck and walkway. Unfortunately, this appears to be the only solution available. Trash is typically re~yed in the early morning hours thereby minimizinq_go~ential impacts on diners. Given the f?~~?-t ~~':=°="~ T•'-"'-' L'1 ~ 1 }'-° ,operating the dining decks one can assume that they will insur~Tia any impacts of this trash facility are minimized on ere own i`ning ec ~~ ~u~ Sun/Shade The proposed expansion will cast increased shadow a tern on the stream tract end the Ruc y. Locating the new building mass on this property is a very delicate balance. The guidelines encourage the building to be pulled back from Bridge Stree an~_~~~ _ ~ , ~ "e~~-- s i ing mass to the north and east. The obvious result is increase s adow patterns a ong Mill Creek and the Rucksack building. The staff is willing to accept the shadow pattern on Mill Creek as a trade off for maintaining proper street enclosure along Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road. However, it would be worth while to see how shifting the mass of the building to the south could minimize any shade impact on the Rucksack building. Architectural/Landscape Considerations Roofs The staff has serious concerns over the composition of the r esoor d roo .e exis ing proposal is very similar to graphic elements in the Guide Plan that demonstrate what should not be done. There are certainly a variety of roof forms throughout the Village. However, in general the roof forms along this area of Bridge Street are very simplistic. The roof height regulations do encourage varied roof heights, which this proposal does in fact do. However, there are a number of areas in the building where roof lines could be consolidated to simplify the roof form. ~• t ransoarency As discussed at the Planning Commission work ~ssion, the degree of transparency proposed on the second and third floor of this building is not consistent with the Urban Design Guide Plan. As a general rule transparency should decrease on the u er oors o e buildin Some c anger have een made to the elevation that are in fact positive. However, the staff is still uncomfortable w e emen along Bridge Stree . STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff can not support this project at this time. In fairness to the applicants, this site is a very difficult one to redevelop because of the many issues and concerns that must be addressed to during the design process. There are a number of ositive elements of this plan that not a over d. Among e e im rovements along Hanson Ranch Road, the introduct-; on of ~ ~ ^ ~ *+g an e walkway along Mill Creek, and t e fact that development on the s~-is not~eing maximized. However, the staff feels strongly that many elements need refinement. Among these are the new dining and walkway along Mill Creek, the overall massing and roof forms proposed on the building, and the proposal to completely enclose the existing Red Lion dining deck. Staff recommends denial of this -_•quest as currently proposed. The Urban Design Plan is based on achieving a balance between rivate develo me ainta nin 3esign con~in ~ It is no e purpose of this plan to have every building in the Village look alike. There is considerable variety in design throughcut the Village. The key is to ensure that new develo went res and ~, to the surroundin built environ ~bui ing, par icularly the massing and roof forms departs from the vernacular. For this reason, and for other reasons re ~~in this memo, the staff recommends denial of this request. t TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 19, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a stream setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Red Lion building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The 30 foot stream setback is measured from the center line of Mill Creek. The existing Red Lion building is located within this 30 foot setback (encroachments range from one to eighteen feet}. Proposed improvements within the required stream setback include a small addition to the building, a portion of the proposed dining patio and the public walkway. The building addition adds between one to five feet of encroachment. The walkway and deck would encroach between seven to ten feet. As defined in the zoning code, setbacks apply to both buildings and structures. As such, all three of these proposed improvements must be considered when evaluating this variance request. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon 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. Stream setbacks have been established to ensure buffers between buildings and stream tracts. However, the expansion is a minor one and the building is already located within the stream setback. The building addition will not impact existing or potential uses in this area. t. r l P .+.t f. t ~~ The on grade walkway is consistent with the existing and potential uses in the stream tract. Indeed, the walkway will provide access to this area to maximize its use. While the proposed dining deck can also add life and vitality to this area, the proposed deck seriously constraint the design of the stream walk (see Exterior Alteration and Conditional Use Permit memos). 2. The_dearee to which relief from the strict and literal interpretatior. 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 building expansion is a part of a redesigned entry to an upper level condominium. The degree of encroachment ranges from one to five feet, and accommodates an entry vestibule, ski storage lockers, and a small portion of a proposed elevator. Given the existing location of the building, the relatively minor encroachment, and the recently approved A & D redevelopment, this request would not be a grant of special privilege. As outlined in the conditional use memorandum for the dining deck, there are significant public benefits that could result from both the dining deck and stream walkway. However, as proposed the dining deck expansion is limiting the size of the public walkway to 3'6". While some degree of encroachment for the dining deck is acceptable, tie deck proposed is excessive when considering the stream tract and its relationship to the public walkway. 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 dining deck and walkway must be considered collectively. The walkway does have the potential to provide a positive affect on public facilities by opening access to Mill Creek. However, the extent of the dining deck proposal seriously confines the dimensions of the walkway. Both of these improvements will necessitate the relocation of existing utility meters in this area. The applicants' would relocate these meters as a part of this redevelopment. ! .~ III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Sub area 3.8 in the Vail Village Master Plan encourages the development of a stream walk in this area. The dining deck and walkway are potentially very compatible. However, as has been stated, the design proposed is not sensitive to the needs of the public access. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grantinv a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 Staff recommendation for this request is denial. Some degree of encroachment for the walkway and deck is warranted. However, the current proposal is unacceptable. The Staff can support the slight building expansion, however, our recommendation for this element of the proposal is denial until a revised plan for this area is submitted for our review. 3 f TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 19, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance in order to add additions to the Red Lion building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED Permitted coverage in Commercial Core I is 80•°s of the lot area. In Commercial Core I, site coverage means "a portion of a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios and decks". Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83$. This proposal will add site coverage in two areas: 1. 50 square feet for a building addition along Mill Creek. 2. 173 square feet for a proposed dining deck along Mill Creek. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon 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. The proposed dining deck is directly adjacent to this building expansion. While some degree of site coverage variance may be acceptable for the dining patio, the extent of dining deck proposed is directly affecting the potential development of the pedestrian walkway along Mill Creek. (See stream setback variance memorandum.) The 50 square feet of additional site coverage for the building expansion is partly offset by a deduction of 27 feet of building in this area. this amount of new building will not impact adjacent uses or activities in the area. - ~. s 2. The dectree to which relief .from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified recLulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without ctrant of special t~rivilege. Including patios and dining decks in site coverage calculations is~somewhat of a hardship for applicants in that these elements are encouraged throughout the Village. For this reason, staff could support some degree of site coverage variance to accommodate the dining patio. However, the dining deck proposed is not acceptable because of the impacts related to the pedestrian walkway along Mill Creek. The building site coverage variance is a net increase of 23 feet with no appreciable impacts. However, there is rjo ~ipparent physical hardship to warrant this request. 3. The effect of the requested variance on licrht and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. As discussed in the Exterior Alteration and the Conditional Use Permit memos, the deck and walkway will affect the public enjoyment of Mill Creek. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN There is one element of the Vail Village Plan that is directly related to this proposal, Policy 3.4.1., which reads: "Physical improvements to pro~~erty adjacent to stream tracts should not further restrict public access." The proposed dining deck would limit the space available for a public walkway along Mill Creek to 3'6". This is an unacceptable width for what will vne day become a significant pedestrian corridor. IV. FINDINGS A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 RECOMMENDATT_ON Staff recommendation for the site coverage variance request is denial. The design of these improvements will have direct impacts on the area surrounding these proposed improvements. The Staff encourages the applicant's to consider design changes to this element of the proposal. . ' ~f r~~ ~r rev., TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department March 19, 1990 SUBJECT: A request to construct an outdoor dining patio at the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL REOUESTED This outdoor dining patio is proposed for the Red Lion Restaurant on the east side of the building directly adjacent to Mill Creek. The proposed deck encompasses 237 square feet,. 101 square feet of which are located on Town of Vail land. The applicants have received permission from the Council to include Town land as a part of the request before the Planning Commission. "Rekord" type folding doors will be installed on the building to allow the existing dining room to open onto the dining deck. A 3'6" public walkway is also proposed between the deck and Mill Creek. II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL Commercial Core I outlines 7 specific criteria to be used in evaluating conditional use requests. These include the following: A. Affects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District. This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I. This proposal should not appreciably reduce vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I. C. Reduction of non-essential off-street Darkina. Not Applicable. D. Control of delivery pick-up and service vehicles. The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway. Directly adjacent to this walkway is a Town of Vail loading zone. This loading zone will remain unchanged by this proposal. ' T As proposed, trash dumpsters for the entire Red Lion Building are located next to the proposed dining deck. The physical relationship between these two uses is certainly not compatible. However, trash pick-up in the Village has traditionally occurred during the morning hours prior to restaurant openings. This situation is unfortunate, but the nature of the Village is such that there are no "back doors" to provide for these operations. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians As stated, 101 feet of this deck is proposed for Town of Vail land. This has limited the width of the proposed pedestrian walkway to 3'6". Staff feels strongly that this width is inadequate for what will one day be a major pedestrian walkway. The redevelopment of the A & D building began the development of a public walkway along Mill Creek. The continuation of the walkway along the Red Lion Property would leave only the Rucksack property as the missing link in establishing this corridor. While the staff is supportive of the dining activity in this area, the existing building and the Mill Creek flood plain seriously confine the space available for these two uses. An acceptable width for this public walkway would be between 6 and 8 feet. F. Continuance of the various commercial residential and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to maintain the existinq character of the area. The introduction of dining activity, and creating access to Mill Creek in this area, is positive. It is a goal of the Vail Village Plan to establish more pedestrian activity in the Mill Creek area. The two ways to accomplish this are to increase retail and commercial activity in conjunction with improved pedestrian circulation. While this proposal is a step in the right direction, it is in need of further refinement in order to accomplish both of these objectives. G. Control ouality of construction, architectural design and landscape design in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Current plans indicate existing trees will be relocated in the MI11 Creek area. This may or may not be appropriate depending on the final design of this area. If this element of the application is to proceed, additional detail and refinement will be necessary in order to design an appropriate deck and walkway while respecting the features of Mill Creek. .. . ,r t .. LY 1 III. i~'nFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this conditional use permit is denial. While this concept is desirable, the design proposed is not responsive to the needs and requirements of a public walkway. Space is confined, however, it is possible to accommodate both of these activities as a part of this design process. Please refer to the exterior alteration memo for additional comment on this element of the proposal. ~. F' TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 1990 RE: A request for an exterior additions to the Red Lion Applicant: Frankie Tang alteration in order to make Building. and the Landmark Properties. This application was last considered by the Planning Commission on March 19, 1990., At that meeting, this request was tabled by the applicant in order to allow them the opportunity to respond to issues and concerns raised by both the staff and the Planning Commission. A number of changes have been made to this proposal over the past three weeks. This memorandum will outline the staff's response to these changes. A StTMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES Based on input received during the March 19th meeting, the following items highlight the major areas of concern relative to this proposal. Dinins Deck Enclosure alonci Bridge Street As proposed, this element of the project has remained unchanged and would enclose an additional 100 s.f. of dining deck along Bridge Street. The staff remains strongly opposed to this element of the proposal. To allow for the continued enclosure of this dining area is contrary to the fundamental goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan in the Village. While there are positive aspects of installing the rekord doors on the walls of the existing restaurant area, this door system cannot justify the continued enclosure of this dining deck. In every case where rekord doors have been installed to restaurants in the Village, legitimate outdoor dining area has remained in front of the enclosure. Operable doors do open up the interior space to the street, but they do not duplicate the vitality of outdoor dining. along Bridge Street. One additional factor to be considered is the enclosure's relationship to the adjacent pocket park. This portion of the building will create an uncomfortable sense of enclosure in the pocket park and cast increased shadow pattern in this area. rtr The use restriction on Red Lion windows The 1982 approval that permitted the original Red Lion deck enclosure required that the windows be removed between June 15 through September 15. This condition was applied to ensure that the deck remain open during the summer months. The staff would recommend that this condition be modified to allow the Red Lion to close up the windows during non- business hours during the summer hours. Little has changed with this space to justify modifying this condition of approval. Given the existing solid roof enclosure over this dining deck, requiring the windows to be open is the minimum that can be done to replicate the experience of outdoor dining. Transparency Considerable changes have been made to the fenestration on the upper levels of this building. A major improvement is that all windows on stucco wall plans will be recessed 3-4". The current proposal is now much more consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. As was stated in the previous memo, this design element is typically the purview of the Design Review Board, and any final approvals concerning window treatments will be made by the DRB. Given the changes that have been made, the staff would recommend the final decisions pertaining to fenestration be dealt with at the Design Review Board level. Entry to Bridge Street Condominium Concerns were raised regarding the proposed condominium entry that impacted an existing planter adjacent the pocket park. While the original design has been modified, the revised entry still affects the existing planter area. Maintaining the existing stairway to this condominium would have no affect on the planter area. Staff would recommend that this alternative be used in lieu of the current proposal. Restaurant Vents The proposed venting solution will consolidate the three vents that serve the-two restaurants in the building. The duct system will be totally enclosed and the fans themselves will be screened with siding to match the building. The fans will be located approximately 10' above their existing location. This location should help the dispersal of odors emitted from these fans. ,ter n:: ~- ~•,, _. `s .f Views from the Rucksack Buildinq A number of Commissioners encouraged the applicants to study design alternatives that would reduce the view impact of this proposal on the Rucksack building. The applicants have responded by pulling back the east face of the building between 8 and 9 feet directly adjacent to the Rucksack property. This design change will lessen the view impact of this proposal on the Rucksack Building. Roof Forms Very positive changes to the building mass and roof form have been made on the south-east side of the building. This design change consolidates the building mass and entirely eliminates one roof plane. This has reduced what the staff has considered to be a "busy" roof form. Portions of the west elevation will still have a "stair-stepped/wedding cake" type of look. However, the staff feels this is acceptable given the many design parameters that have had to be addressed as a part of the design process. Dining Deck/Walkway along Mill Creek A number of changes have been made to this element of the proposal. The dining deck has been significantly reduced in size and is located entirely on Red Lion property. The proposed walkway along the stream has been deleted, however nothing is proposed that would prevent this walkway from being constructed at a later date. The existing pine trees along the back side of the Red Lion will remain in their current location. In lieu of the walkway, the applicants have proposed an informal open area in between the dining deck and the stream. This should provide a small, but pleasant informal seating area along the creek that can be accessed from the existing sidewalk on the east side of the building. The staff remains a strong supporter of a walkway along this side of Mill Creek. However, we understand the difficulty in developing this portion of the walk without a design solution behind the Rucksack property. The staff considers this proposal a very positive improvement for this area. The rekord doors and outdoor dining will still provide activity along t:e creek, and the design does not preclude the development of a walkway in the future. Restrictions on Remaining GRFA At the March 19 meeting the applicant offered to place restrictions on the property that would prohibit the development of any additional GRFA beyond what is approved by this plan. While the staff had not contemplated imposing this restriction, they would certainly be willing to work with the applicant to facilitate this restriction. Amendments to View Corridor No. 1 As stated in the March 19 memorandums, the staff supports proposed modifications to View Corridor No. 1. After evaluating the wording of the Ordinance and the other four view corridors, staff feels the most prudent way to facilitate this amendment is to adjust the line on the photograph that depicts View Corridor No. 1. To modify the wording in the Ordinance would create further complications that may threaten the integrity and interpretation of other View Corridors. Simply resurveying the line to run directly over the top of the new Red Lion roof ridge (this line would still be below the existing Golden Peak House roof ridge), appears to be the most appropriate way to modify this corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Located on Bridge Street in the heart of Vail Village, the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building is certainly one of the most high profile projects to be proposed in the Village over the past decade. Numerous issues and concerns have been discussed by the staff and Planning Commission in response to this application. Many positive modifications to the design have been made in response to these concerns, and the staff is now supportive of the proposed design that is before the Planning Commission. Our support, however, is predicated on two changes. These included: 1. The deletion of the 100 s.f. of additional deck enclosure along Bridge Street. 2. Further modification to the entryway to the condominium along Bridge Street. With these changes, the staff would recommend approval of this exterior alteration. The staff would also recommend the following conditions of approval: v t 4~;-:f `-- .. 1. The proposed landscape/streetscape treatment along the south side of the building is considered conceptual. The applicants agree to work with Winston and Associates and the staff during the development of the Vail Village streetscape plan and will agree to modify this design as necessary in order to comply with the Vail Village streetscape Plan. 2. The rekord doors (or other type of window system installed) to the Red Lion Restaurant along Bridge Street shall remain totally open during business hours between June 15 and September 15 of each year. These windows may be opened at any other time during the year at the discretion of the restaurant management. 3. The applicants shall be responsible for all improvements shown to the Town of Vail stream track between Mill Creek and the Red Lion Building. The final design in this area shall be subject to a review and approval by the Design Review Board and Town staff. 4. The applicants shall be responsible for re- photographing and resurveying view corridor #1 after the building ridge has been erected. this work shall be coordinated with the Community Development staff and shall be completed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a stream setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Red Lion building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The 30 foot stream setback is measured from the center line of Mill Creek. The existing Red Lion building is located within this 30 foot setback (encroachments range from one to eighteen feet. Proposed improvements within the required stream setback are limited to a small addition to the building. The building addition adds between one to five feet of encroachment. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon 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. Stream setbacks have been established to ensure buffers between buildings and stream tracts. However, the expansion is a minor one and the building is already located within the stream setback. The building addition will not impact existing or potential uses in this area. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified rectulation is necessary to achieve_ compatibility and uniformity of treatment amonct sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without ctrant of special ~rivileQe. The proposed building expansion is a part of a redesigned entry to an upper Level condominium. The degree of encroachment ranges from one to five feet, and accommodates an entry vestibule, ski storage lockers, and a small portion of a proposed elevator. Given the existing location of the building, the relatively minor encroachment, and the recently approved A & D redevelopment, this request would not be a grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of copulation, transcortation and traffic facilities, cublic facilities and utilities, and public safety. This building expansion would not affect any of the above considerations. III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Sub area 3.8 in the Vail Village Master Plan encourages the development of a stream walk in this area. The building expansion would not preclude the development of this walk. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: A. 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. B. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 Staff recommendation for this request is approval. The slight building expansion will have no appreciable affects and is not considered a special privilege. ~~ ~z. ~~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance in order to construct an addition to the Red Lion building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED Permitted coverage in Commercial Core I is 80~ of the lot area. In Commercial Core I, site coverage means "a portion of a site covered by buildings, and ground level patios and decks". Existing site coverage on the Red Lion lot is 83~. This proposal will add site coverage in one area: 1. 50 square feet of building expansion along Mill Creek. Construction in this area will actually eliminate 27 sq. ft. of existing site coverage, resulting in a net gain of 23 sq. ft. of coverage. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance. based upon 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,. The 50 square feet of additional site coverage for the building expansion is partly offset by a deduction of 27 feet of existing building in this area. This small amount of new building will not impact adjacent uses or activities in the area. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified rectulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob-iectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The site coverage variance is a net increase of 23 square feet with no appreciable impacts. While there is no apparent physical hardship to warrant this request, the .2 g increase in site coverage is certainly negligible. .~ 3. The effect of the rectuested variance on light and air distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are no affects on any of the considerations listed above. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN There is one element of the Vail Village Plan that is directly related to this proposal, Policy 3.4.1., which reads: "Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts should not further restrict public access." This design would not restrict pedestrian access to this side of the Mill Cree stream tract. IV. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance- A. 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. B. 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 tree vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. ~`..,. _. c.~~:- ~~ Et V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for the site coverage variance request is approval. The proposed expansion will have no negative impacts on the surrounding area and the amount of increase is negligible. ~.: :~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an outdoor dining patio at the Red Lion Building. Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL REQUESTED This outdoor dining patio is proposed for the Red Lion Restaurant on the east side of the building directly adjacent to Mill Creek. The proposed deck encompasses approximately 100 square feet and is located entirely on Red Lion land. "Rekord" type folding doors will be installed on the building to allow the existing dining room to open onto the dining deck. The deck will be accessed by an existing walkway from Hanson Ranch Road. II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL Commercial Core I outlines 7 specific criteria to be used in evaluating conditional use requests. These include the following: A. Affects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District. This proposal should not appreciably increase vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I. B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I. This proposal should not appreciably reduce vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I. C. Reduction of non-essential off-street marking. Not Applicable. .~ ,. D. Control of delivery wick-uA and service vehicles The area for the proposed dining deck is connected to Hanson Ranch Road by an existing pedestrian walkway. Directly adjacent to this walkway is a Town of Vail loading zone. This loading zone will remain unchanged by this proposal. As proposed, trash dumpsters for the entire Red Lion Building are located next to the proposed dining deck. The physical relationship between these two uses is certainly not compatible. However, trash pick-up in the Village has traditionally occurred during the morning hours prior to restaurant openings. This situation is unfortunate, but the nature of the Village is such that there are no "back doors" to provide for these operations. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. Improvements along the stream and adjacent to the deck will be accessible to the public. This area will provide a small, but pleasant informal seating area along Mill Creek. Staff would encourage the placement of a bench or large boulders in this area for public seating. F. Continuance of the various commercial,_residential and public uses in Commercial Core I District so as t_o maintain the existing character of the area. The proposal will strengthen the pedestrian character of the Village. The proposal does not include the development of a streamwalk, but nothing in this proposal would prevent the future development of this walk. The staff still supports the concept of this walk, but does recognize the site constraints involved in "connecting" this area with the A & D building segment. This proposal is a good interim solution until a design for the entire length of the walk can be developed. G. Control duality of construction architectural desian and la-~dscace desian in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existina character of the area. This criteria is addressed in the exterior alteration memorandum. -, III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this conditional use permit is approval. "opening" the restaurant up to the creek with this dining deck is a positive step towards improving pedestrian activity in the Mill Creek area. The informal landscape treatment along the creek will increase public access in this area. i 1~''7E~M! ~ _ f.~s~~ '71.. "~. ~'R I'~ dr .o-.~~'dt~+r$~+'~at+1i?. ....=: bn~. '. ~ ~ ~~,i ~. ~_.~. ORDINANCE NO. 16 Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13, SERIES OF 1983, IN ORDER TO MODIFY VIEW CORRIDOR NO. 1; AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that the preservation of certain view corridors is essential to protect and preserve the unique mountain character of Vail; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1983 formally adopted four view corridors; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1983 recognized that circumstances affecting view corridors may change necessitating the review and if necessary, the revision of view corridors; and WHEREAS, the redevelopment of the Red Lion Building has been proposed and said redevelopment is consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and with permitted Commercial Core I building height limits; and WHEREAS, the highest ridge of the redevelopment of the Red Lion building will encroach into View Corridor No. 1; and WHEREAS, the encroachment of the Red Lion Building will remain below the ridge line of the existing Golden Peak House and will not alter views of Vail Mountain or other focal points within Vail Village; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The surveyed line delineating View Corridor No. 1 shall be amended to be redrawn directly above the ridge line of the redeveloped Red Lion Building as depicted in plans by Morter Architects, dated April 3, 1990. The realignment of this line shall be limited to the precise location of the Red Lion ridge; all other points of the line delineating View Corridor No. 1 shall remain unchanged. Section 2. The owners and/or developers of the Red Lion redevelopment shall fund and complete the modifications of View Corridor No. 1. This work shall include, but not be limited to resurveying the line depicting View Corridor No. 1 and rephotographing View Corridor No. 1. This work shall be completed after the highest ridge line of the Red Lion Building is constructed, and completed before the issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by declared invalid. Section 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 2 Section 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON April , 1990, and a pub Ordinance on the 17th day of in the Council Chambers of the Colorado. Ordered published in full this FIRST READING THIS 17th day of Lic hearing shall be held on this April , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. Vail Municipal Building, Vail, 17th day of April , 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk #~ .. V 3< ,t r ~~~ ~, ~ ~"~~x' ' ',;~'" ,,: ~ ~, c~ 1 1~~y~J Q~ ~,~:+~ ~%ail Town Council Vail Iirrlunicipal Building Vail, CU. 81 h 57 ~rlartin J. A~Iutlally 2Sfi Bridge Street Vail, CO. 8165 April 1 ti. 1 X90 Dear Sirs, I un filing an appeal to request that the Council fully review the decision of the Fsannil^g and En:Tircnmental Committee regarding the remodeling of the Red Licn Building. ~'4larti~l J ~iullally Yvanne ~r1u11a1:~T l /~ raiartin J.1~Iullall;r, I~~i.D. ~~~, BI'id~fe ~tre~t V ail, Co. 81 ~ 5~ 7 Th{~~ma. I. ~`.einber`;, I~;~i.D. 1 c~ 1 jaT .1~ti ~=:~ S;n*,~ Ir+r . ~a~r~l 1 ~, 1 y~au T ~~'' ~!'fyi' }i~': 1 r. r..?T-. i`i ~y~ D i ~~~ /t f. 7 n ~ ~ n} v e.,~ ~ T 1 1~~1.': C ii .. i21 t1a~s tl~'t,.~.r 1•• 'Cl~ •.I 5..110 1.11-~;~Ci a. V~la.~~lil:~ :~1 ~•rll~.-~.. :rl.~i~' ~. il.f rlltlaa~! n `+~4Y~ Iyi1'~ T' • `` ~-t}~YS• ~~t *1f7 { 1 ~ ~V~ }y,1r TTY':°.t ~•}y r~,f1 Y.#}y, r. ~.1~ ~ i11 ~„" ; -a ~. r~v a . L (.; ~,l ~1 al ~, C~.llw a a~;rll 'a '1 Wll:r ~ ~_~ I •:: t•L•C'11 ..1 li 411 • ~K.larlln~ +:.u :} ..n +' .1 -~i1Ti1~11 i~~.l S~~~iTir1'il:_fJi"t Ii1:?~'t2nTMO Gf t1i v' TV vVTi ~?f ~! ~ 11. I attx:nd5?d the=~ ' ty. c~ , rrc~ ;_f ~-•- ,~f :? F 11 `.,;?r ralSin~ ~~I the Pef~ I.it`;l 81111diP_~ r~:ti''•?~, ;rthich 111.: .~n,;, .ia11,:>v ~~. r~. ~ .~ ?~7f~1t1f ::cc;rr~ri-:~ljzr t<~t:~11'* elirilin:~t? the tlr~k?~;+r,trt:.f~ 1 ~ti ~~enree jricL~r nt t~1e °Y1 :wrY_~.:~ri~:3 nl':;~i.ntaln~ jr~rlii~':l-! yt7.. ;'j;_;~:N ni~~l+%?ror~l ~?L'~r h~±nl?. 1 1:'ia~~ ~~c,~:~, ~..l.~ttt,.~,r tllY ~!•Ic2 7 the Flclri2lin~ :~Gnlrill:::~if~n iltiietttln-a'i~; r11~.~I r 3:eelllt~ll v tli:• rC:Clt.1'-.~'2111Yw' LAY~":~t"'-i: I,+lallcl Ir+;,~'zlar~tli, t<l~ ti.~':ti'n ~'1aI12i~r~~, aui~ lIl tiiv ~::a;:.~ Gf tl~~ R~i.:3 ;,i~.~ri, _.`~:~:.rne~ j~;r Frter~ vn _tnd ar~vhite~~t jiLi I~vie~rt.~r. 'I~ie :~~~~..~;;~ ~-rtlrriti~::~n~d ~....~,:1~ ill F.._.11: ln`, i:.:~nanil.,~i~1n mlePtin`,; ar ~?<':lr t0 funC~.15~n ~~ One ~ic-_, h.aj:',r,;• far~:il;?. Th~:~ ar? nf} suk~~~ntitr? dilferen~;4~• in the=ir ~~~inians and r~nz ~~1~ t.~ '?Fr;? <:;~Ilni*~ <?~'i1n1<?n that the rr':,F,~~~~;~ ~rn~F?.~,te are "dine deals" T~Jh~n fir,:>r;,~,~;~t ~v- av -J ~: A {tn~~3 thr Ir~1~=+.nnin~,f ~_amniis~i~~r1 i~ j~1~:t g~;,in~ ~nr~~lgh the ni~,tat~nfi tc5 n1~t1:Y e~r~r;T~.hin legal. This T~,7~ fii'ue nest Gnl`* in tlid' ease 02 t}le Red Lien, ~llt also In tllc di~t:u~ien c~i ether pr~:,p~~e{~ ~r5:.~jef.:.-t~ t?y the Flt~i'iniilb %vrslitiis~ii~ii ttlat I '~itne~sed T•. .T.1. Tti/ r r r ~i ± h •-~{u~ ~ ~ ~ }T LT~~r T~ 1 i iii 1ritE-'21:1~~?- ~ytt rlannin +v~~lti:Illa..1•.~ri m:-etarl7~. t11at I au, n:3ea te~~r i il....nc.. 1 ('t^. i. F, } T. Tll't err n ~ t ,- ~ 1MfJ t. *'`(1lr. .. DS n ..:.~.n, t~..: ~A vv'il ~ .. nn ~ ~ and e;,p Cla.l,~ Jima aY~Ort2r .:ll..i Ja;' Fete• . al :Y~.i iIuL1'=:e~?t~2?~. :' h?r? i'~ 3 t~;,t.Zl lafvr f,2 ~ Fi-f,f~'ss:~:'I?~'l :~tt1tL't~Y w~~T all ~~rlevr~t~:,:: tc~r}tea r4 ilk' i ~ 2c r?~. SF r~flYt ~1y1 -]t? i?~"i7l ri~~~:i?I"iJi'~ ~~? ~i] T(ltftiTtr: hj ''Tali L-'1 i~i1 ut: ~:~.: e . l; ..r; imt.: ant j.. chat thy: ; a~'e 1.i.~ ... f t ~_ : Lt 5 Tilr;r ._<<:t:±.~ .~ :riut»a1 tr:3271iratii7rs s~elet~t W~'lt~ ::",cln~' sell-serviri~ ecm~~l~ents ~:ilir?~7 c~ile ,zilt~ther -~,ti_:~t a ~t~d joy they' all are dain~. T~. .,r_`o __`..5 tom' Y it i ~ ~T i 5i ~ 2T ~~ ~ f" tit ail' 1li~:' :,a ~ ~~.•~:. ra t,l tl1C 1 1:~iCn b1 1_ib~.i ail~~ thc~ c.Ii"Illlctrl l~f its d:, •~t thr claiaa.L., +v~;;:Tlri1?_.~li:~ri ~~>+/5.111~,:~ I..Liat I att>Cnded ~vay S~ ~rrat that lt. ~'T~ta vit>~n ~..-1fli:'u~~., .~ ni:~t i2T1~~~::s;~~lu'1-, ~.:.' (.:r~.--iii1 c' -r:'la'.' •r~"•~.v .r•'~;1Cti•C'111,1i ` vvh~, UC't ~~ niltSlin~ 5?1 'vYlicl: th~~.' real i~st~.?~ ~S~ere. ~~/ strarlner ~~1k~n~Y into the ra::=etin,Y~ that I attenr~ed ThT~uld net ~• by t? till' ~jJr?? ~~:~??•11 ti3 1+~F1':1'~ ~=.ti.~,'.: ~.f1 'it Z;i [? i] C >; -•~ c)1' lY rd:~ (~~? i .. . - - - - - . 1- . - ._ th=:. _ ; F. ter can :~~as d.: t.: minin., r li : ; i ._~r the Ir+lant Ir'vi1V~'aIi, ~~tS l,licl?r~~t~rc~t721 i~I t2ie F1aSlill2is +~OIfi2711s31~?il, rune. It lil a ;rert' 1:e;1 f'V- lic:Ii;-~eCl ill~IL'1e. :%'~~ :_. -c 'it~f;' ii},i'rif:.~Lic~ lei' ilri' S' ~~ - r~lt;3 t~~ile f,;,j T1~e'il~'~•', ail:: G~f~f~~~- ~ lr, _lC r,!: ,ti:~ ': ~:'nl*? he~rtl~-i~inal?? t~~lerates -,r itieai in~,Ltt If+~n1 +:lt.l~:?n5 }t,h~tt t~i' ~,r;.`} ~r,,r1, ~,rr;,e<:t;; ad-: er~el;'~ affr<:t. Her attitude t~ vvarc~ the puk~lic in e~pre~.sing their upir;ionti i2i ni~trl;T c:a~e~: Borders on ridicule Grid in~tut, eT'T~Ii t~'itYi long - 1 + _~v+t T 1~ YL~. L' Ir1 1 ~ ( Tr _ ^ Yr.. f; :1 } t ITT FN +~ 1 Stali:~li_ ;~'~i= :.t~ aai.w ~itlclIi..... ~ •,J~l• .Jf ail. .:,Pi~ app~'.ar, ~~: h~.. li.:.r aI.ind slit~`..~`r 1 ` L`11'w 1. `:iC` - /' `~ " `~ ~ .~". TT ~ r ," ~ i ~i^, 1 -+~ .} r r } l • 'r : t ~ .1.1 _'rl li; ~ .. f cri tef .;r , a pr ~p~4.._~ pr :~a -..:4 '~ V 1~-., ~}• ~'w 1 <.:In:~lfa~r•~ ~ 1u. n~ i~*~r; Dt•:. +-, ;s ^ t1~•a 1~•~~ t'IC:. r~~.?ry1 cy t1 t"~[: G:::`i 17'= i~t:tt +t" . _ .. ; .. ~:1::: r'_- •:aa _~.fY.. Ia a.ct a .:la : m~! ~t . --j- ~, Sur.. t.. ~.t. t.. nl+/_: _ .a?2y;_ -., 1/`yr.-. _1 fir:.. ,~ r:? } 1: tai 1 i ~ it ~ 1_ '~ t ri11_,! 1 'a fi r. 111 r.` ~ ~. =~ c -~nt:~ 'T1~:ISli 1. x:-111 Y1 Z :-+r i 'll~ r;;n ~ ~ ~1 t~1! ~r I~F!1~^~ ,~ f i _j • ~l'~. IT L.: r',i SSI s~`1.;.. I n,•.i r t ~:itu ll~' ^'~ - l.h:J 1, Since the let, 2 C1? llle 1t ^J t}t t,~~-Iry '~ 1~J rZl. l:r-~ 1.11 .Lit: :` T~ T,T 1~T~' Y'.~! ~' T ~ 7T T 7 I11 ~ TT Vt•§'ri 11~ r :ill vvaa Ili)t ~,1:•i• ~'Ii L.r.1ctC ari . 1 l r;.4 ..: Oi~a v, n~~t /vitll:::tandlI~r tYly' ,Tla~l; TT^ r1'~ - ~ ~ TT TT -. TT - TT -. TT ~T aria2ii,~s w:. ~ ~.:~.r~' u:~t t~~l; : i2i •.111 •: ~ti ~it:li e , ter; pr~je;:;t and are u;~uall 13 rar~tv`:~ in a n~utin~ rr:~^nvr ~~ tr'ir ~•lanning ~ ommi.:sion. Fvrhap~- th= n_urse `_'f thr tlinniri t~ommiw ion sl.ould be char.~ed to the "~'ommi::.sion to Grant ~Y ariance," inasmuch a~ variance rA:~uevtr apt~ear to Granted as requested. Re;;ardin~ '_:;e<::ifir_._t11y t,1ir Reti Lion e ~~pansion: 1. The Plariain~; ~-i;,~22irtii~:,ion rfieetin~ o2i isle Red Lion Project T'~Tere i7elt.i arl rely. ~f , ~1 Y' ~ 4 1 I? Ir+ 1 A Y'~ ~,I}}ri~li 1~}}, a:d a~.prii ~`, ci 1~+~+c?. The projrt Tau:, ap~:iwT e<i .~t th~ l~i~iil {^ ~..~ti;n. i .~ .i TT r ~ T..w. .. f TT r T J T i~'.~. ~~, lri ~i F`e::=.P.. `.,~ or~l~ ,~iG 7Y~C1:~, a zT~'ry major prl~ject aflal.:tin~ mangy peon=~:. ie~i•.~, -st tnli~lit and n: ~ tur:?.l li` ht, to say ncthir.`},,of the e~*~: emel;, si~nificClnt il^:pact ~ 1 T;; r 1 4 TT~ T AL. ~1Si'h• ~ t'1 unh acid r.`•i ~ na:~.~ •_ lt. n'•; {'~ h1r i iJu~it.41n y, 12i thc~ CF-^+rT,7 cenU^r ~JI J ~ il• 7;F,'_t ~ a ,~y~~ ..yya..,, `~ may, a :Ir,r--, r'.r?E;(y 1'-,q t)l-+ 7'^'~ T y1 in17 ~Yil t ~•_ (1 *'?7 f ~.t 2'~Iri f.~` I.aY _:~_, r : : :..r ,: , .~_ I':aalla:_:`, : n12r.i~.~i. r. In r3 ire: ,, .dui::: a ..:~._'t ril:~nn ~:: . ~. ~lajrT:lirll2`s~ 1=r~~rr-*:+0*.::71er::j.- Y4ere n~.lt i1~~~.121e1:~. I k•rleT,~~ nl::ltiiin~ of the j=r~je<:t until a ~-' ~ Y`r Wl~ ~ =vi11yY`•: 4~.r LSI f'1~?l .~ 1.~~: alti' jlrJ L•`~i t+~l vl R v' i ~~`v'll T 1:11 f _t+• ~ C' rl ,~ 1 YTT .'=t . !_ i t . ~i i. 1 1 ;~f ~: tIl+'t_tl ~• t }1 ., . ~t •~i11•.: IiSA`•~~ .-_ Ivl`:',r`Ii lr : ~i2 ~\i J }i~1 ~t MJ. ~ T 1t T T i 1 • ~ 1ya~.•1 ~ ~ l4f tv 1 tXi~i T 1 : j +~ t t;, i.i To +r21 ~:f ~ c 1 . 1'i,. of _ _ , p..' ;,1~'ii.`_-Cti ~.r=1 `-.Il ~"•: l- :,'t.= ~'ti=.: _'•.r Ar',,' :' a ~v=) 1 -~ +,;' Jrl F=` rtt';: t 1 :Yl l:~ ~ ~I y!: '. th Fs nl ins . mmis._i Jn, t<; ~ s t-ti2ri 1.:ir1:t _ T.T ..L. .~ T.T.. 1..1 1w ..:. ~ T~ TT + MrT ,,7 r ni ..~ ni.+1 M ~ e (~ li= i 1 t ~i= ~ `" ~ rl+ t ~ ivirC.'~ I./ •. tht' ,CCU L1tln it+Jj!'i.,,l ~.1„Ljj J -~ vv n :, ii.. ;'s •1 ~.t~a ~.:. . r~.' ~.e v e 1 v 1221 '%I 1' _ :17.•.: r ~ i S'1t~~' s+P1 +~i~.*itir,;`1 C ill,^,f,J Y1~ C , e ilr`. :% ..1. f. 1~i.'1i i;- ,..1: e. ...:-..:a:.:..r. hi_. t1Y ...~ in ,..Fit f th~ Iact that th~. :u::~=a. r.. :1_ :=..+any 1~: rTr r; 1 i? t'll t2c?(`rt.:~ i1 c: ::.(~ T rl 1! 17 r~ :. 1?~'?l +1 ` i>+ '~ r'1 ,1i1~ _r' ~'f 1? r} ph, i a 1 ::.n .: .r t. th.: ..: _ a.i n huil~.Tin;~ an._r th:: 5::~.:._i.:a2 t.n... r~:: al~:."1;~ i tai:: ~,e1:~ Li~~r, i~ oni;r :+ fe~,~ feet from ~(~llrrr ~~e livt~_ 3. Jay Peter~::~2i Stated that ttie t~T,N2'ie2''S a~SSO~riation of the hIill Grc".k Court Bttildin~,, im22iediL~t:l^ tcl tt7e sUtith of the Red Lion a21d another huildinti ~.~'~'erely ir~ipactvd bf tl`ie ne~~,, ti.-d Lion, had approved the prl~=ject. This' is nothin but z blattiRnt li?. The otrvTner~ of the units in the ~•iill ~:~reelt Building YaTere, a~ of ~ pril '?, 1!~~?G, not even notified of th? proj~:t and td this day most of them are n{Jt e~7en a'~Ta2'e of the pro~;~~se<:i rai~n~ of tl,e Re.~ Lien Building. The same can he said for all of the other living ~.n~a ~~~?~mer~:ial units iri the core of 4'ail ad Y'YrSely affected ~y the proje~:t. 4. The arcliit`~ctural eie Y atican_. mere put up on Jan. ~ 2, 1 ~+<?~ and takers doT~(~rl Jan. 5, 1 ~~~). nurin_ this t:niv iii:,= one from tllr Tci~v7i c`f tr ali ~'ir~~*ed tlieni fr~:IL""i our lit?ins l~ua; <.::. ~. F~.Lt~" llirrribers cif th~'Mail Tc~T~rrl Council brieflp vie'~r~~~i t~;iY rle'7ati~~2i~. i72i pril 1C~, 1~~~ iir11 r fr~~Yli ULli" detiY. Ttlcl dId nrJt Cvrii~ Intii iitll' 11"ln',~ r.~Uai'te:'; 's~r~iwre t21 11.,'t~ ~ 'J iJ'tru!. liG1~ ~~ i .,'.:. ?~:: TT T ~-ir r ~ 1t~= } 1„ =~ v T.:~ ~~ n dramatically ~Ycr~ In a~~!.~lti'_~n, bec~. _~ the elecation~ had been up f<;'r ~eT?veal ~~a~T:~, the m~~.t important r~ne~ hack been big tiY~n dc~rn b;t the ;alind; thus nit gi~rin~ a true picturA of the se~rere a~.zrertie impact cn the Rucksack buildin h. jim rvlor`~r, the archi r'::t pushing ttl~: Red Lill e~':pallsic'n, has said t'lat it dc~s :iC't reati'f' tfI~ct uc:. iliii I,flr,:'rter Yia: rle'fN2" born in oLlr 'au~ttrrs. H'~T,Y t+,~c't_il~i he krtc'T.~~? P1~itxi~r 11a3 ja' ~etvr:~':~rt. Unf'~rturiatvlr ,tile sii'vk; uiadel~ G'f tliw prc'j~;t that titt.' j ~h'TiY' 3t ~.ilv' Fl~:..ririlrt^ t`~:'nlml~c•ltiln meet.,li"1~~ ~t~ n~~t ~riL'vv' itt' rIIvllntt:ln5 J ;1115-} •~_ii~ t.~i~t i~~Y 1jiJ S Y 1.I't1l 1-• tj Jt 1 ~`~+~ Tf r~~~a .mot- ~~.Vht ZY`~ . t 1 , 1 :3n ~ the ;, tl, diminilt - a .:l nli j..a .~....~ natural 1 j ,-r i~ + .~~_- L. 1~? i.Y:w i iY i"i::C: ~i irt'i:: ~.j 11 'l. ~T i } -. i - }- - :~.: _.1 ~:.rit.. t::.: ,f.:. _ t: ~..:1. Jran.~'_i, 1r1~;1L1';lill`-, _t rrt'':'~:ilfk~ati~v'n ~;~I s ,~,. rr~;,.iry T T' ' T Y1 71e'a? l.c'rrld~:'?" I'1~:'. 1. ti:.' ~.c~:~ii!'::'i~~i.t: • tl'i~ jlr; *•,:;T 1Ti, V•tX Ll'~'n i~uiltiiln!Y hr~~j G2' ?a i ~~Iit:ES V~ ~; ;~}- s,Ycr; T T:.-; e r.~ ,. ._,e:a ;~ lrlatt~r ~f 4~tr-~-'. Litt1:. - - };:..•i '•~•~tc: ~Yi'7e11 ~ ~:t as t~:v _• Yv r ju,:.. ~:a~;_ ... a.. ..~r ~ ;r'n~:i':irr:<<~~~. J ~.. 1T. ,' • ~ .iLl:~. liiaL~;:, v~f tlir ~iI ~,~"::':cad ~d Llv''Ii adi~ltlt:'rt ;il':-kiilti Llp ili ~i'~ ';:~:itr ':rf +r'ail ?'itTll~l '.~ htlli'.~il !"~ ~ iY~f }• ~„ ~ ~.j~ ` ~ r` r~l tYT~. f~iV. ~:~t T- rTT~ T~~~t' ..:i_:. ~rt..u~.~r.a_ f t~~t~ri .t`: ~-_t.• • ju,:.4 z ,.~ ~.: t a . -.r. ~ rr .~ (1 a~:t-':~'-.h {.1 th~"', t~ru'J tr'Sr~.,'~. i~ -.~. l - 1'~ l ~A ~Y l~titt~ cc ~vl ~N t ~-re th~:a _~t- r n . n _,l~,r:..~3 Flallnin;, C< ~~ i~ ,i n m . t<n~.s, ..~_ RL'~i Lirn issue ~~TM~s• Iasi cn tll? agen~:ia. r~it :=ach'~f tYi'=1--? lii~stin~s pe<;'j 1':~ ha~~ 1 gp?n~.tijrt tlfi to V(7ic;Q th~lr I/pr,~s~lti~.~n t~.~ t.~'2r R~ti Lh~n pr~~~.l.:t. ,fit t,h? ,~pr11 a nl~,:t1IIW man; pe~.~c'le in opr.~;s~t~~n had shc't'vn up. The I~rd Licari pr~~ject ~~ nC't addressed until r pert. and 'Yt'r~t~ apF~r{ave<:: at 10 prti. Aleei~lY:s tv say', mangy pee~~ie could nvt sta;' until this late hi:'L1T' ~'ri:citl~~ ~}f prier C~mmlttmentS..~t alI thr~~ Iii-r%ili~~ the late +~ime ;~f dis!:u~•~,ic'n rr=~tl;- rr'~u'~ed the cpp~~siti~~n ~ the Re~~ Li~:'n r~r':~ject. ~Tas tale f.~.c± that the Re<~ Li~11 iS~ue 4r:'as al'vv~y'S last 4n the agenda cell;' coincidence Or ultentsanal~? It made a tremend4t.~s impact on the opp~.'sitior.'s input. t;~ the pr~}jeet. ~. The Ruck~ck Est?i1~:tinG is a landmark in ~r'ail; iridred its tt1? c~nl'~ ori~~inal building c'n R~ridge ;trret that has nit been remodeled. it. is the object ~f many' photo~~raphs from the I~~iill Creek and Gore Creek Uri v r side by' tc}uri~.t`=. E~eirl~ }:;''11:".~; IIi the ii~~'~+tJ~r1T iif the r ~~~ Lii21 mill fiir~Vrl' ~ilIiilllatr~ this Unli~urli~~~. Ii). F: _~;u=~ir i:J~n-~ ~.~ ~ ;..~ *- ~f the prono~pd Ret~ , , , ; -, y~~ ,,..,. T.w~j ~, the d.: ,..1 ,e. ,,. .. L:cn additicn, ..~1:..... ~~., °Yj1e and m sell tc meet'Anth her. she e~~uest~?t:~ tom? Sl^'r a S~~CLL'17?nt ::tatin~ that shz t~,~ul~ ?1117:in;t~ giz f:;?t. ref t}ia~2.`. ~ pal't':?I the nA~.~~ ad~:iit1~?n ~lll~:h T:iT''?t~l~ pre~~.*tr? c~?nl~ ~tii ~tittr 6i~~q, ''~I C*ol'.~rn Feak frOftl the C':~rn?r or 'at?r liTlnv, r~:~c?m if W? 4~t~Olll<:i .:ease i~u2' i}ppc'Sit..1Ln t~ ller project. ~j'E relllSEd ti? $1'~'ll the di;i;linlerit. She e`;~~e.ttiall~. t:>ld us "t,~'1a;~li", and tii~tt Slie ~Vt~uld do wli~tte;?rr ..he ~varitea; y~rith no ~:~v'n~,idcratzc'ri ;+,~hat~Ge', er t<:' ~v~ur t~:'tal clinlination t:'i ~TirT:~~, stulli~_'ht, an'~ natural light. 1 2. It is mT1 understanding that tape To~vri Council has caller: for the potential t-: ~~ t r.-.. T r p;:.~:.si:i,~ ~:i t'ise :.~.'.. I.i~•21 ~'i'J2c{;t at its ~i~'ril 1; , 1 ygt;~ meeting. ,e gain, YVh ~ the big liL~ri rT ~~ r~ii-t',':1 a pr':';Y~:t':~f this sigrlifi'~ance ~tr~ci rr~_tgt..i~cle thr~~ugh in ;~ peri.~fi +~ ~ Jr,T 1 • ` F'Eti.^'r • .. T+ !' (~ ^ i''r (r~.'J ^ : +JrG ~ r ;,=i ,..ni , .. e: . ~:a~ith m,~.n; hiohl;• ,~».. stivnahlC Fa .,....:ureJ tc ~..t it to tT.:: T''1~h.*na I~il f'Y"1) t~h r+.lY- T~« i r • ~T Vii' 4 r~ '- ~uil?T ~<<.I~T~'r~4'~ljj's~jjY(`tJ""-d ~~7 14 t `t u:.~,. 1 J J~.ut l• .~1. ~ji~` p .~p1C 9't11J ~3.rC ifl ~ ~ ~ f". ~.~t7c] rT T, T rr T 1 '~Y't if ~_ _... ~:'r.1. .T~r T re~: ctltt he3j d :3j': otlt 1t an~~ S~~r:I~? still h,~ t, e n ~ t hey., ~} ak~4t_ i t ~.t ~~. ?'~~ tre he~,t.'.jf rrv ~ni~~lle~:j!~e, there has been no ment~l~.''ri rJf lt. in the e2t~iier ~?il ~ J pr~.per a~i<-.": ire•r:'}?22i the+?t <~IIlt:icti tAt~r'IIJinOrA.1C~'c. Lt?ntrr~.St th1S to tj3.a pur_~ji~: ~;o21;r;,~TPr~~~: Z} Y Yr tji~ 1~1 ~~ IJu ll~~li~ N~ ST ~.r~ ~'T~CAS J 1..1~V. '~ ~ ~~ TT 1. T1}}~~ p j ~ ~ } 1.:.. iilrCri'. ~, YY.t.a.a t.~hC Rt-`.1 I.1'.ln F1r:'~Cv4 n~Jt -:TTCu llt1Ct11 Y {t~~~1r'JV w'~ ~"T:"f., Thera iv y~ mud+ll ~~'~1tL~i~~.+C iZj~ ~.'I ~C'T4Tpa al othFr buil!~ings ire t11 in~rea^inb therr hey; lt~ to tie m._:~mum in Con~~ier':ial Core I of Vail, vdith conse{~~~e.^.tral neb?ti~e ~~~=a~tv on ~~i~=T~iT ~:orri{+~,'r i~Ir~. 1 an':~ n~~tvra.l ji~ht and sunlight in the rn~~t prominent part in the Tozr,~n of ~Tai1. Po we really .nt high-rises in th? he:~rt of Vail? I would like to think tjiLtt there are ethical con~:ider;~tions ui a governmental matter irf thiti kul~~. TrioLr,~Fiy tT-~ j- it ctpp~ars that athics l1I t iiis %:~~e h~ v e taken ~. b~Cl~, ;eit tG ~:~~;:Y,~ien'~;r b{ certain pe':~pla for pro2ittzbilit?~, as thc~ L~~empt to push thr'.~ugh ?Ii e~`xemely ~en.~ti,~e project in the very heart of do*fYTnto~-n Vail in a quicU and ':~uiYt manner. It. is c:bt7ious that the; a*e attem},~:n` to minimize public afi~.enton, t~~hi~'h I :~SI~ ct~ra urn^~it j~~ jib c'~nsi'~ierabje if It ~a*cr~? pilt?ll<.' YnO~:tTj~~;7a nI the prnpnwr; 11:tIl -~Ti:'Ll ii>; yiiL'•.~ ~.I'!~~' =tI1'=:1 k:Ilti ~.olitil~::E'ratlt?I1 C)f ttllc~ iii;lttt'r. ~.irirerel?, I~;.ar~~in j. A~itall?l1TT ~fi.yt. If.:;. ~ vu li;i ~ e rti y perrnis~sion to copy this letter at pour discretion to w~i~~rraeTTer ~~~.'~ S~t'Clrl ap~.'i l.'prl~t~ . ~~ ~ls~ ~-~ a ~-~ c z w ~ to du ~, cr ~j y~~~ 1 ~/J io ~ r,~ S Q~i . y e' Q. / ~UW~t S /q fv~e S rlq S `juf ~-e e`/ S~~tS ~-~e~ lhas~v~ ~ h u S /~fC ~lCjil~liK9 ~ p~,,,~H'1 ~1S1~7 ASSPc! G ~ ~,~ p!~ Gf Jjl~, ~ CI l 940 G N ~ %f ~ S 11 r ~ ~u w yr ~U ~ c i ~ o ~ /-~ (~y,- j y° y ~4 ~xa»~~ ~c r~h~s~~ ~ -/~1 /pro -. J`S~ ~~U e,>{o~~ f1~,J D YV p'G~ ~ ~ I. 0 ~ e ~ w1 ~ ~ ~i,~ S, ~~ JO ~i't~ IhJB~s/J w~/ eX~~p~1n~a ~ S~-rte ~ a y~ Gl~f ~1Pss Gti ~ oh J ~ ~ ~9~r ~ fi~~.7'oU cl'~a~c~ a =~!~ .S. 1~uz~fc~ J~. Cn. Lox 1?~0 ~UQiL, %'otoza.do 8168 April 9, 1990 To: The Planning Commission Town of Vail Vail, CO From: Marge Burdick P.O. Box 1268 Vail, CO 81658 I am writing concerning the proposed addition to: The Red Lion Inn Apartment 304 Bridge Street, Vail, CO 81657 Mrs. Oscar Tang, owner Morter Architects, architect The blueprints and model were just shown to me and I was told the GRFA of the proposed addition is 9,327 S.F., well under the allowed 11,166.32 S.F. The massing is attrac- tively done and has a graceful flow to it. There are three units proposed in lieu of eight units allowed. Frankie Tang has shown her usual good taste in design, which pleased m e. My deep interest in this project stems from the fact that Larry Burdick and I built the Red Lion Inn in 1962, and that apartment was my home. This plan brings a proud legend of a building back to lif e. The present owner of the apartment and the lessees of the restaurant seem to be working well with one another in the corporate plan of the front of the restaurant and the new expansion of the apartment. It was brought to my attention that a small amount of space on the front, northwest side of the building is t c'L~a¢9a~~f ~~. Lu,c~ic~t J~. (~ . Lox 7250 ail, ~o~ozac~o fs165& needed to be included in the covered patio. I understand that need and hope you will be able to allow it. The lessees will have a short time to recoup the loss of funds expended for the improvements, due to the remaining time in their lease. It is commendable to me that they are willing to make so great a contribution to this plan. Bridge Street was Vail's first street, our first block. The Red Lion Inn was the first privately owned restaurant and skiers from Vail and the world met there. It is part of Vail's history and did not deserve .the shabby treat- ment it has recieved since being sold. Now, this proposed plan should bring Bridge Street the style it used to have and if it is acceptable to you, T, for one, will be filled with gratitude. Sincerely, Mar aret S. Burdicti g >a ~asthvf Gramshammer, inc. Te to p h o n e: 303 /476-5626 Pepi Gramshammer Sheiks Gramshammer April 9, 1990 Planning Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: 231 East Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Vail has become a very successful ski resort. We're constantly working to improve our town and mountain, and it is a wonderful place. Now is a critical time for us, and we must take the right steps to maintain the unique qualities of our town and control the growth of the Village that everyone loves. As many older buildings in Vail Village are remodeled, we must be careful to maintain the scale on which the Village was originally designed. The issue we're talking about today concerns the Red Lion's request for variances to add two stories to their existing building, which would almost double their square footage. If this is allowed to take place, the precedent will be set for the expansion of other buildings, which would add many, many square feet to the Village core. Where does it stop when so many variances are granted upon request? With increased density will come many negative impacts, in terms of deliveries, parking and trash removal. These will be long term, not temporary, problems. For so many years, the Village has been a construction zone in the summer. Just when we thought all of the construction was completed, we're starting again! And, let us not forget that enormous increases in property taxes for all Vail Village business owners will result from such expansion. If the Red Lion construction project - with 4 stories - is approved, other buildings will follow suit, and Bridge Street will be like a shaft of high rises, with only a narrow walkway for foot traffic. With increased deliveries, etc., if there's one car parked on Bridge Street and another attempts to pass, there will be no room for pedestrians. I urge you to consider all of the implications of the Red Lion's request carefully, so that our town can grow gracefully .and function properly. Sincerely, ` ~~~ 'T`.'° Pepi Gra::~.ar..:_:;r f3r~ncJ~ss - Cadmus f~~c~l CsE~E~, Inc. 281 BRIDGE STREET • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 - April 13, 1990 Tc;wn Council Members 'own of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Cou~:cil riembers: On behalf of the owners of the Bridge Street Building, we are opposing the proposal under consideration to raise the height of the REd Lion Building. A rough out- line of the proposed str~acture has been erected on the roof of the building, alerti.lg ,~s about the upcoming project; however, no notice was ser_t to this Association. The sending of such notic?s to :.eighbors is, I believe, a requirement. The Bridge Street Condor..inium ~.~~:,ciation is strongly opposed to a~zy amen-9.xlE?~.t t;~.? *_ 7:•Y ~ be gr. anted to the proponent wish retard to ciisruprior. of view corridors. If variances cf this sort are granted new and in the fu~Lure, tr.e village will :? only ~.~se its charm and sunlight. If we rant see the mountains, we may as well work in New York or Cr~icagc.~ . t,7e urge the Council to deny any por-~iox: of this and ~uture proposals that contradict Vain Master Plan guide- lines concerning building height and view corridors. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, BRIDGE STREET B CON SSOC. b // ~ Craig Gra i~nd CMG REAL ESTATE (303) 476-1450 • DENVER TOLL FREE 893-3101 RESERVATIONS 1-800-222-VAIL • FAX (303) 476-3188 Martln Mullally 288 Bridge Street v ail, CO 81657 hls. Kristan Prig Director/Senior Planner of Community Development Vail ~4unicipal Building 7 S S. Frontage Raad ~ Vail, CO 81657 P,e; Progosed raising of Red Lion building roof Dear Ms. Pritz: Feb. 14, 1990 ~ ~ ~ - i •~M~~ ~v.~~ I'~' I have owned and lived at 288 Bridge Street in the upper levels of the Rucksack Building for many years in the winter and also in recent years in the summer. The Rucksack is lacated immediately north of the Red Lion Building; indeed the Red Lion is within three feet of my home, directly between us and Fail mountain. Only recently, it has come to my attention that there is a movement underway by the Tang's to enlarge the present, long-standing, one large condominium on the upper Hoar of the Red Lion into three new units to sell on a speculation basis. {In spite of the fact that ibis has been known by the Town of Vail for sometime and that I live within three feet of the Red Lion, I received na official notice whatsoeti er of the proposed action until Feb 12, 1990.) This proposed enlargement will require very major renovations, including raising the present high-point of the red Lion aver ten feet. In addition, there will be another entirely new Red Lion roof Viand vertical supporting wally built only 21 feet from our home. This new roof and oval! will be otter ten feet high and is directly between us and Vail mountain. as is the entire Red Lion roof. old and new. Zfi'e mould have then in effect two much higher roofs Viand one new wall) an the Red Lian. All of this greatly would greatly cut dog n on the sunlight and natural light to our home and would give us the very definite effect of living in a dark cave and loojring into a blank wall only 21 feet from our home. Also, on the Bridge Street side of the Red Lion roof, a new five to sig feet wall is to be built only seven feet from our bedroom which eliminates our view of the south end of Bridge Street. Fe-r all these years u-e had a panoramic view over the present Red Liun reef. from ~~cli ease «l' GL>1Jcn Pewit, up Vail ?~Iuuntain tv Riti-a's Ricike, continuing to the west o;-er the Vista Bul1i1, and then to a full View of Gia*;t Ster=, Inter~l~tio~.ai, o~i~ the sc;uth end of Br edge Street. BY RAISING THE RQOF OF THE RED LION, THESE PRICELESS MOUNTAIN VISTAS ARE TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, IOOX OBLITERATED. I have been in Vail since it opened in 1962. I fully realize that in matters of this type, seldom is anything black and white- especially in Vail. But if any- situation approaches it, this is surely the one. The proposed raising of the Red Lion roof does not diminish, decrease, or restrict our view of the mountain and ski area to the south - IT TOTALLY WIPES IT OUP'. The Tang's have very r.,~n~,er.ie?'.tly .!pft themselves a view mrrid;;r throug,'t the proposed new Red Lion roof' so that their view to the east oi` the Gore Range is preserved fron their condominium in the Plaza Lodge. In the earl>- 135'=, a similar attentpi was made to raise the roof of the Red Lion. The project ~-as rejected by the Town of Fail due to vigorous opposition by m~~°self and other. ~'h?n tLe T2rg's cnntpi?ted their mndontinium on the t~~li floor al' the l;!aza l:ocj;e ~n !'~~~`, this greatly decreased our view to the G-est. again, t.h~.~ u~as dr>z1e v~Jithout any pritjr notification whats~teti°er to us by the Town of Vail. Fi,ur years ago, t1-ie a & D building was constructed immediately tU the north of us on the southeast corner of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Dri ~ c. Pre~•ious to this, there wws a single story building there, and we had an unobstructed ~-ie~.- to the north, including the Clock Tower, the mountains to the north, northeast, and northwest, Bridge Street, and Gore Creek Drive. The A & D building has essentially totally eliminated these views. The A & D building was bunt without any prior notification to us whatsoever by the Town of Vail. This b-.~il:ling is actually built tc: within 16 inches of our building, and its roof-line actually overhangs our building. I hatie been advised that the A & D building is illegal according to the statutes of the Town of Fail at the time it was built. Enough is Enough? ~'"°n ~~e bought this residence 12 years ago, we had unobstructed views to the north, south, east, and west. The north and west have already been taken away. Now, for purely monetary gain by certain individuals, the irreplaceable mountain view to the south is again beinK threatened. It is impossible for me and my family to even begin to understand how the Town of Vail could be so insensitive chat it would even seriously begin to consider the proposal to raise the roof of the Red Lion wish all the adverse effects on us and many others in the heart of Vail Village purely to satisfy the greed of a developer when it does nothing else for the Town of Vail. At this point I do not even like to think what totally blocking the mountain view would do t~ the Rucksack and other property values in the area. I vu can be sure that this blatantly selfish and totally insensitive proposal will be fought by me and many others by whate~-er means is necessary to stop it. Enclosed are photos taYen from our home when the architectural plans and ele~~ations were put up on the Red Lion roof the week of tan. ??, 14~Q. The pic;.ures are `e1-e~planatr~r-~~ in regard to what the prr,~,o:eci c~.-nstru~:Tic~n wc?uid c~a to Dear sunlight. natural light, and view. Thank-}~c;u fc~r your hind consideration of this matter. Sincerer-, ~ , i'v(~~--I~~C~~~~~ ~ Martin Mullally MMlmbtn cc: lent Rose -mayor of Vail Diana Donovan -Chairperson of Planning anti Envirinmental Commission. Thomas de C:-~ene Peter Jaffe -atty. Ivei! G. Mullall}~ -atty. kiembers of Vail Town Council TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and for a major amendment to SDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III) Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST The applicants are requesting a major amendment to SDD No. 16 and a major subdivision for the Valley, Phase III, also know as Elk Meadows. The requests will require two PEC decisions: 1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major subdivision request. 2. The review of the SDD amendment request. The recommendation of the PEC on the SDD will be forwarded to Town Council for final review. The applicant's requests are summarized below: 1. The current proposal is for the subdivision of the 3.6 acre parcel into five building sites, or "envelopes". The "envelopes" would range in size from 3,397 sq. ft. to 6,141 sq. ft., and. each envelope would be allowed one single-family dwelling, plus one employee- restricted, rental unit as defined in Section V,B,2 of this memo. At a minimum, one of the five lots will be required to provide such a rental unit. The remainder of the site would consist of 25,700 sq. ft. for roadway and parking, and 2.5 acres to be dedicated as open space. 2. The total Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) designated for Phase III in The Valley is 16,000 sq. ft. This would allow each dwelling unit within the project a maximum of 3200 sq. ft of GRFA. 3. Access to Lots 1-4 would be via a private, 22' wide common access drive off of Lionsridge Loop Road. This road is currently roughed-in place. Access to Lot 5 would be from an individual driveway cut from Lionsridge Loop Road. The individual driveway cut will minimize the amount of asphalt paving in the open meadow. 1 II. The Valley project was originally designed as a planned development of 150 units on 61.2 acres. On July 26, 1973, the Eagle County Commissioners approved a preliminary plan with a Planned Unit Development zone designation. The approval of the preliminary plan was valid for three years. In July of 1976 the original preliminary plan approval expired. However, the Planned Unit Development zone designation remained on The Valley. The zone designation for Phase III allowed for 10 dwelling units and a total GRFA of 16,000 square feet. The developer was required to resubmit a sketch plan and preliminary plan once the approval had expired. From the Town's planning files, it appears that several requests to extend the approvals of the preliminary plan were granted by the County Commissioners. In March of 1980, the PUD plan and protective covenants were filed with the County. Once again, this document indicates that 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000 square feet exists for Phase III. In 1980, the West Vail area was annexed to the Town of Vail. The Town accepted the 10 unit and 16,000 GRFA as the allowed development for Phase III of The Valley in March of 1981. Subsequently, The Valley was de-annexed from the Town of Vail and re-annexed in May of 1987. (Please see the enclosed summary of events relating to The Valley Phase III attached to this memo.) The Town's information indicates that it is very clear that Phase III is allowed 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000 square feet. In 1981, the Town of Vail accepted the zoning of 10 units and 16,000 square feet of GRFA as the .development standard for the property. Ordinance 13 of 1981 acknowledges the land use restrictions of 10 units and 16,000 square feet of GRFA but states that, "for any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements, or actions, the development of parcels of properties specified in this subsection (E) shall be zoned Residential Cluster." For this reason, the Special Development District has been compared to the underlying zone district of Residential Cluster which serves as a guide for the development standards of this phase. 2 On July 7, 1987, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1987, which approved the development plan for SDD No. 16, Elk Meadows. Nine dwelling units were approved. On September 15, 1987, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1987, which amended SDD No. 16 by reducing the project's density to seven, single-family dwelling units. All other aspects of the development remained the same. However, the developer has failed to record a Final Plat for the project. III. EVALUATION OF CRITERIA FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in Section 17.16.110 of the Town's Subdivision regulations and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies, and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other applicable documents, environmental integrity, and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the town, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses." A. Public Agency and Utility Company Reviews: Notification has been mailed to the following agencies, and as of this date no comments have been received by the Town: 1. Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District. 2. Public Service Company of Colorado 3. Holy Cross Electric Association. 4. Mountain Bell. 5. Heritage Cablevision. 6. National Forest Service. 7. Comments from the Town of Vail Public Works, Fire and Police Departments have been incorporated into this memo. 3 B. Relationship of ProQosal to Town of Vail Policies: Staff believes that the design of the subdivision and the recommendations made in the environmental impact report will create a project that meets the intent of Vail's subdivision controls. The .density is actually less than what was originally approved for the site by five units. The EIR states that the potential negative impacts of the proposal include the "visual impacts and impacts associated with the location of the site within a rockfall hazard area" (see attached rockfall study). Staff's opinion is that the developer has designed a plan that protects the open meadow area as much as possible, given the high severity rockfall hazard and slope constraints on the northern portion of the lot. In addition, design guidelines are incorporated into the SDD zoning which will "ensure architectural and visual continuity with regard to building design and materials." The Public Works and Fire Departments have also reviewed the request and the proposal meets their standards as far as road design, drainage, fire protection service and adequate fire truck turn- around areas. The staff finds that this proposal does meet the major subdivision criteria and actually is a significant improvement from the original sketch plan for Phase III that was reviewed under the County in April of 1980, as well as the existing SDD. The main area of improvement is the preservation of the primary natural feature of the site--the large, open meadow. This has been accomplished by proposing the building sites on the north side of the access road. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Staff did not require an additional environmental impact report for the changes requested. We believe that the proposed changes do not necessitate a revised EIR. This is based on the fact that the proposed development plan is very similar to the development plan addressed in the original EIR, the overall project density has been reduced to 5 dwelling units, plus five optional employee units, and that updated rockfall reports and drainage reports have been included in the new submittal information. 4 V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW A. Reasons for SDD Zonin The proposed SDD allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the underlying zoning of the property. In order to help preserve the natural scenic features of this site, building envelopes will be established which designate the areas upon the site in which development will occur. The establishment of these building envelopes will also permit the phasing of the development to proceed according to each individual owner's ability to construct a residence. Staff believes that the SDD provides an appropriate development plan that maintains the unique character of this site given the difficult site constraints which have been addressed in the overall design of the project. (Please see Section VI, which relates the proposal to the underlying Residential Cluster zone district.) B. Design Standards Section 18.40.080 of the Town's zoning code lists nine development standards that a proposed SDD development plan must comply with. The purpose of the review is to show how the development meets the standards or to demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The design standards are listed below: 1. 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. The proposed SDD is actually much improved in respect to overall design and density of the project. Although the general site layout is similar to the previous SDD, the lot sizes are slightly larger than originally proposed, and the density has been reduced from 7 units down to 5 dwelling units. It should be noted that each of the five dwelling units would have the ability to add one employee, rental unit and that even if every lot included an employee unit the project will not exceed the 10 unit density maximum. 5 Previous SDD Lot 1 0.0647 Acres Lot 2 0.0617 Acres Lot 3 0.0534 Acres Lot 4 0.0483 Acres Lot 5 0.0929 Acres Lot 6 0.0641 Acres Lot 7 0..0498 Acres 0.4349 Acres Proposed SDD 0.095 Acres 0.089 Acres 0.078 Acres 0.093 Acres 0.141 Acres 0.496 Acres The developer is also including specific architectural guidelines for the SDD (see attached). The guidelines have been reviewed by the Design Review Board and have received conceptual approval. The design guidelines will ensure consistency in the use of building materials, roof forms, general colors and landscaping. The northern property line of Phase III is approximately 25 feet from the edge of the pavement of Lionsridge Loop. Many of the existing trees in this area will remain. However, approximately 2 dozen trees will be removed. Staff's opinion is that this area provides an adequate buffer on the northern portion of the project. Phase I to the east provides access to units directly off of Lionsridge Loop. Staff prefers maintaining the public right-of-way in its natural state, as opposed to having paved access and parking areas adjacent to Lionsridge Loop. It should be noted that this Special Development District will require that no structure be located less than 3 feet from the northern perimeter line of the building envelopes, nor less than 2 feet from the east and west building envelope perimeter lines. On the east side of Phase III, the nearest building, The Valley Condominiums, is 190 feet from the easternmost building envelope. On the west property lines for Phase III, approximately 25 feet of open space is maintained between the building envelope and the western property line. No lots or structures are proposed on the south hillside of the project. This area is to be designated as open space. 6 2. uses and activity. The proposed SDD amendments are essentially similar to the previous SDD with regard to uses, activity and the relationship with surrounding uses. The permitted uses for Lots 1-5 are limited to single-family residential dwellings, with an optional employee, rental unit and customary accessory uses. The major amendment to this SDD is the applicant's request for a reduction in the project's density. Staff is very supportive of the request to reduce the density down to five dwelling units. We believe that such a reduction will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. In order to assist in the additional. employee housing need in Vail, the developer has agreed to provide one employee dwelling unit within this subdivision. The developer may provide up to five employee dwelling units, including the one required dwelling unit, if so desired. Employee units shall meet the following criteria: Each employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum square footage of 400 square feet not to exceed 500 square feet and is allowed to have a kitchen. The number of employee units shall be listed under the allowable density section for Special Development District No. 16. GRFA for the employee dwelling units will come out of the total GRFA for the project. No additional GRFA is requested to allow for the employee units. The employee dwelling units may be located on any of the lots within the subdivision providing all the development standards are met for each lot. Only one employee dwelling unit shall be allowed per lot. An employee dwelling shall be incorporated into the structure of the primary residence and shall not be allowed to be separated from the primary unit. Each employee dwelling unit shall have one enclosed. garage parking space. This parking space shall not be detached from the single-family garage or structure. The employee dwelling unit shall be prohibited from having a wood burning fireplace. 7 The employee dwelling unit shall be restricted as a rental employee dwelling unit permanently. .The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than 30 consecutive days, and that if rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours. per week. An employee dwelling unit shall not be divided into any form of time-share, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership. The employee dwelling unit shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the single family unit. The owner of each employee dwelling unit shall be required to declare in writing on an annual basis to the Town of Vail that the employee dwelling unit has been rented as a long term rental per the requirements outlined in this section. This declaration shall include a written statement from the owner listing the renter's name, place of employment, and length of time the unit was rented. The declaration shall be required to be signed by both the lot owner and renter. A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed on record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in the form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to ensure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land before a building permit is released for the construction of any employee dwelling unit. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this employee housing agreement. 3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. All parking requirements will meet the Town's standards, as outlined in Section 18.52 of the zoning code. This includes the required parking for the employee units. 8 4. Plans. The Land Use Plan identifies this parcel as one which is suitable for medium density residential uses. Medium Density Residential is defined in the Land Use Plan as follows: "The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as parks and open space, churches, and fire stations. " The following are the applicable land use policies regarding this proposal: 1.6: Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis.. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 5.1: Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3: Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demand for a full range of housing types. 5.5: The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The proposal complies with the above policies. 9 5. Identification and mitigation of natural and or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. This site is located within a "high severity rockfall" zone, as shown on the 1984 Rockfall Study Maps and as adopted by the Town. The applicant has had geologic studies completed and the results of such are listed below: A. Study by Donald G. Pettygrove, PE.; Project Manager with Banner Associates, Inc. (2/23/87) Mitigation methods: 1. The structures should be situated so that at least six vertical feet of wall is exposed on the uphill side. The exposed face should be designed (preferably of reinforced concrete integral with the foundation) such that it is capable of withstanding a force of not less than 2000 pounds applied over an area of approximately two square feet. The face of the wall should be protected, as before, with 6 inch timbers for impact absorption and replacement. The design of these walls should be similar to those shown in my letter of July 3, 1986. 2. All other areas with uphill exposures should be designed to withstand a 2000 pound force as well. No windows should be placed in walls with uphill exposures. It should be understood that there exists the possibility that falling rocks could impact Lion's Ridge Loop Road above and be launched into the air sufficiently to impact roof areas, although the probabilities of such an impact are significantly lower than those which will impact the wall. 3. Insofar as possible, it is recommended that rooms with the greatest occupancy be located away from the upper stories and to the downhill side. A terraced floor arrangement appears to fit quite well at this site and will blend into the side of the hill better while providing less cost through reduced excavation. A layout of this type will also provide for maximum southern exposure to take advantage of solar heat gain. 10 B. Study update by Donald G. Pettygrove (3/12/90) "As a result of computer simulations, we believe that our original recommendations are basically sound but the impact force should be increased to 4,000 pounds." The development of each building envelope, or lot, will need to comply with the design recommendations cited by Mr. Pettygrove concerning design mitigations for rockfall hazards. Each individual lot owner will be responsible for completing the rockfall mitigation measures. The mitigation measures will be reviewed at the time of building permit for each lot. This requirement will also be stated on the Final Plat. 6. Site plan, buildings desictn and location and oven space provisions designed to Qroduce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vecLetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The applicant has made a strong effort to preserve the open meadow area and the wooded hillside as open space. In fact, over 69$ of the site will be designated open space. Staff supports the site plan design as we believe the layout of the lots and the access road will preserve the most significant features of the site. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The access drive has been designed to adequately serve the traffic needs of the development. The project meets Fire Department and Public Works' design standards. Staff believes that a project of this size, and in this location, does not require a separate pedestrian circulation system. 8. recreation, views and functions. Although a review of the specific landscaping for each lot will occur at the Design Review Board level, a conceptual landscape design has been included in the design guidelines for the project. 11 Landscaping will be strictly controlled by the Homeowners' Association as well as the Vail Design Review Board. Prior to review by the Vail DRB, each lot owner shall first obtain approval from the Homeowner's Association. Landscape provisions have been included in the proposed covenants and are as follows: The concern of the Committee (Homeowner's Committee) shall be to improve the natural appearance of the subdivision and the maintenance of such appearance. Owners and their representatives or builders will be required to: a. Minimize disruption from grading. b. Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosion and appearance reasons.. c. Use indigenous species of plant materials as established by the Committee. d. Select the man-made elements that blend and are compatible with the land. e. Use existing or natural drainage paths whenever possible. f. Conserve and protect topsoil, rock formations and unique landscape features. g. Sod such areas as determined by the Committee. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable functional and efficient relationshi throughout the development of the special development district. Elk Meadows subdivision is proposed to be developed in two phases, as follows: Phase I - The construction of a single family home on Lot 4. Improvements include the installation of one fire hydrant and the paving of the access road to Lot 4. The remainder of the access road will be covered with top soil and reseeded. 12 Phase II - The market will dictate completion of this phase. However, with the first building permit in Phase II the developer has agreed to install a required second fire hydrant, and to build and pave the extension of the access road (including fire-truck turn around). VI. PROPOSED SDD IN COMPARISON WITH UNDERLYING RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER ZONE DISTRICT The proposed SDD varies only slightly from the underlying Residential Cluster zone district. Due to the fact that building envelopes are being used as opposed. to lots, it is difficult to compare the SDD to Residential Cluster zoning in respect to lot size. The density is actually five dwelling units less than what would be allowed under the original approval and does not exceed the original density of 10 units if the employee units are counted towards density. Site coverage is also difficult to compare in that the building envelopes will be covered by buildings, but to what degree the coverage will occur is impossible to determine until the units are constructed. However, staff believes that there is adequate open space around the building envelopes to maintain an aesthetically pleasing amount of open space and separation among the units. The minimum separation between building envelopes is 35'. Setbacks also vary from those that are required in a Residential Cluster zone district. The separation among the building envelopes varies from 18 feet to 21 feet. Staff believes that this separation provides adequate space between the units. All other development standards meet the underlying zone district requirements for the Residential Cluster zone district. PROPOSED SDD PERMITTED USES• -Single-family residential dwellings. -Optional employee dwelling unit/building envelope. RES CLUSTER -Single-family res. dwellings. -Two-family res. dwellings. -Multiple-family res. dwellings, w/ no more than 4 units/bldg. 13 LOT SIZE: Lot 1 = 4,138 s.f. - single family lot 15,000 s.f., Lot 2 = 3,877 s.f. - single family lot containing Lot 3 = 3,398 s.f. - single family lot no less than Lot 4 = 4,051 s.f. - single family lot 8,000 s.f. of Lot 5 = 6.142 s.f. - single family lot buildable area 21,606 s.f. Total for building envelopes SETBACKS: East & West sides = 2' fr om bldg envelope line front = 20' North side = 3' from bldg envelope line side = 15' rear = 15' HEIGHT: 33' sloping roof 33' sloping roof 30' for flat roof does not apply as design 30' flat roof guidelines requires sloping roof SITE COVERAGE: no standard for bldg envelopes 25$ of site GRFA: 16,000 s.f. or 3200 s.f. per building envelope. 16,000 s.f. per annexation agreement. DENSITY: 5 dwelling units + 5 employee dwelling units. 10 dwelling units per annexation agreement. LANDSCAPING: Tract 1: 2.5 acres will be dedicated open 60~ of site space; or 69~ of the total site. shall be landscaped. PARKING: At least one enclosed parking space, per Requires at dwelling unit, will be provided. least 1 enclosed space per dwelling unit. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the preliminary plan for the major subdivision and the revisions to SDD No. 16 for Elk Meadows. Staff believes that the request meets the intent of the major subdivision regulations and special development district's review criteria. The proposal basically follows the underlying Residential Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning originally approved under Eagle County. 14 A) The staff recommendation for approval of the preliminary plan for the major subdivision includes the following condition: 1. The development of each building envelope will comply with the rockfall mitigation reports prepared by Nicholas Lampires, Project Geologist, and Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E., Project Manager with Banner Associates, Inc. Such reports are dated February 23, 1987, February 25, 1987, June 12, 1987, June 15, 1987, July 22, 1987 and March 12, 1990, and will be kept on file in the Town's Community Development offices. Each individual lot owner will be responsible for completing the hazard mitigation for their lot, per the above named reports. This restriction shall be noted on the Final Plat. B) The staff recommendation for approval of the major amendment to SDD No. 16 includes the following condition: 1. That approval of this major amendment to SDD No. 16 be contingent upon PEC approval of the Final Plat for the subdivision. 2. That the developer construct a minimum of one employee dwelling unit, and that said employee dwelling unit be a part of either the first or second building permit for the project. All employee dwelling units shall meet the criteria listed in Section V,B,2 of this memo. *For information purposes, the staff would like to note that the major subdivision regulations require the completion of general improvements for the subdivision as outlined in Section 17.16.150 to be installed within three years of the date of PEC approval or the plat shall become instantly invalid. All right to improve or develop the property on the part of the owner or subdivider shall thereby be relinquished. This requirement is stated in Section 17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, a written agreement between the Town and the subdivider will be required in order to guarantee the construction and maintenance of the proposed improvements. This agreement shall be in accordance with Section 17.16.250 of the Town's Subdivision Regulations. It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals, the applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 3 years from the time of the project's final approval according to Section 18.40.120 of the Town of Vail zoning code. 15 \\ ~~ ! .. ~/ ~elE v4rlfv . EJN[~JMINIUM~ 1:~:- y i `\. - -./ - // / ` ` ~-~ -HIGH SC VCRITY ROCvtA:.L - ~ LOt ~ ~ ~~, ~~ r:~NG vii z :C`~ .-_ i~ C ~ ~~-~/ .~ ~`/' // i / _ _ .... ... ___ ~ _ L T _~_~~ ~~. '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~J ~ ~~~; .~ .' ~- ~ ~ ~ ._ __ -__ ' _ ___ - _-' ~° _~--.~ -_ ._ ~ ~~ ~/jam /%e.tv[N•/ - /,~/ j. _ - ~ j' ~ ~' j ~ n'TE. S~AOEU AREA 1095 AC I :uDIf tTES ans.: '°f '. - / i / / u9 AROVE i __ '/~ /: i' ,~ ~ // /~f - I ELK MEADOWS SUE3DiVISION {~ PRELV~IINARY PLpN ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES To accomplish this goal, the owner has developed a protypical building design as well as specific design guidelines for the site. The owner's intent is that these guidelines be adopted as a condition of approval and that they be utilized along with the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines to provide the necessary visual continuity necessary to provide both existing and future residents of The Valley with a pleasing visual experience. A Homeowner's Association will be formed and, along with the Town of Vail, will be responsible for enforcing these Design Guidelines. A copy of the Declaration of Protective Covenants for the Subdivision are contained with the Appendices of this Report. The prototypical building site plan and building elevations are shown in the Appendix. The Design Guidelines are proposed to be as follows: 1. Roof pitch shall be between 4 feet in 12 feet and 6 feet in 12 feet. 2. Roof material shall be Cedar Shakes. 3. Siding material shall be either log or stucco with log perlins, log railing, or other log members, natural rock, or a combination of the above and shall be applied hori- zontally as indicated on the prototypical building elevations. Only ligi~t colored stain shall be applied to siding. 4. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to exposed concrete foundation walls. If stucco is utilized it shall be light in color. 5. All windows shall be white metal clad or wood windows, and will be "divided light" style. 6. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least 1 foot in order to protect walls and wall openings from rain and snow and to contribute to the building's character. m ~( ~a } ~ /~~j~l ~,~~~~` '~` o i~ ~ ~~ \ ~~~~ ~ `' ...~` - t` ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .\ .1lr. ..11~~ `~ I ~~ . 6~~ i~ ~ \ ~ i .~ ~~ .~ I \~~ I~ a~~ ~~ ~ ~ ` ~~ I ~~ a' K ?~;~4~-W= SUfSDMS QFJ J Ir'~ ~~ ~~ i ..~ _ '~ - - - ~IIJI-' I.JL.JLJI.J~ ..--_.`,4,b~ ~ ~ ~ Fri~nw -v- ~~ ,` --~__ ~ I ~~ SY `` _~I 5t"~'O1.,.~ Y~fTT11 .1~j1U~ .: L .-. _ __-_. _ _ G~.~E~ To N~AT~-i ' ~~ ~- __ _ ~~ ~~ I __ I .1S hltj~'.11s~ ~I 1S~hl Si~UT7CFiS ~ ~ I. N' ~ .. \ ~ II ( I I ` II} ', :I 1' II + ~ II I II it ~ i .. f'.c~0 15.5. FACV. \ I , ~ ~~ I I~ ii 1~ ~~ n ~ I ~ '~ i~ ~I 1~ ; F. I ( r { I ~ ~I I~ ~~ 1 II i~ ~~ i~ II ' ~ ! 1 ~I j! rgcNL T.o.1.~. \ ~ i-_' (.. 1, a _y' _~_~~ ,` i 1: II •: i ~ ~~ I~ I~ is i. ~"` ~ a wu~li ~wu ".:v" eo...ro y.;! 5suo puau-+~ \ i .r - ._ - ~,~..> , _~ - ` ! 40'~ t To P o F ~ ~ is ~ Fb~T . _ _ _ ' ptapGH cu~E~ tcp ' 4nd~~.W'S~ .~ ~ u ,:~ . ~,- °--~-------'-'--- -~ ~~~ I alo'~ t Top of - --- - -- ~l - °` -_-- y. __'- -' r - _-~,-._~~-s a.~~..~~.~ '~ P~H ws~,LL. RiR,I.~N'S -- ~f0 .b EACE'q t84 -- , -` *=i \ I ~ ~- 1 ~. ~ ~ I ffl~ I I' ~ - '~ I t _ 1 ., .--rte :h ` ``, ~ ~!-_~' I ( ~ _~ ~J ~ ~~ -~ l I `II ii'~! ~''; : I I ~ I I _' i i\ ' v _ , ..- -- - _- ~ ---t - - ---i ~ . 1' _ ~~ ~ I I r ', : P ~-+ _ ~ ~ i' :.I ~it .j I I { I - GY, ~- ..r ~ I~t I ' ~ ' I ,~, ~ ~ 1 ~ I .I, I ice; ,I _ ~ i~211 R Ga-!G. ` I { ~_ ~ ws. G Roe _, . _ _ - - ~- r ~ I I ~~ - - ~J _.. . SOU TN EAST ~ ~LE~/AT ION ~®~. ~~~ GtLfRLPS f ~'" ~ . ~p~~'~T `'`. ~ \\ .,. '~ ,` ,, _- ~ 12 ` 1~ t { ~ ~ ;I I IG ~il'~' i~ ~ ~ ~j ~~ ~~ '' I ~' i ~ it l /. ~TuP_~ P4R~:N5 - 1 1 i1 iI ~~~ {I iI I' I~ ~1 ~ { j~ i ~~ ~ li 1. ~ ~.1 '.{ ~ I ~ I~ ~l f ' /// ! `°S.JU' 'r 0.{..1. _~~ { y I t~ ~ '~ _ r ®,s~,. r~.-_. -- -' ~`_`~ _..~._; ~ ~ -cuTrER w~row~t~rdl.tT ctYr.J «s ~' i { ~'~ ~ f~ - . -~ ~ T-- r-~--~--- ... T- _ ._ _ ~ -- __~- _ Appsac. {:12 ~ ~ , ~ LALL V'G1S .a- ~.,_z--= ~~..~.~-.~~ ~~ -- - cr----- ~.PEP, P ~ i 10 _ .~~,_ e~ .a.~,.e,. _-- . ~.. -_ ~ ~_~. __ . _~-.....~ 3 3iD!5 - ~.. - _~ - W4 F vL'H~ - _~- , _ ~ ^EJ~:1~:IN4 hJ~t-1- - --_ --- - - _ -- -- - - - ---- - I - ~. z ~ ~~ CA. 1r9 ------- - .~ y .. :_ _. .'--- -- ~d ru>,t - _ - _ - 'riPnc~epPPClnrl _ - -- _ _. _ - -- -- - .... _. - - - ~L-J T C~.Tr.S _ . _ .~ T _ '- --- -- ----- - -- - - I ...~ I -___- _,__ ..f y'~T - <,: - ~ - ~:* .. M 'y i~ _.. ~{ An ~_/ ~;y ~lot~T N~~ST ~~E.~n~T i o~i :.t ;y ,7 :, ~~~ ~®~3 SKY~Y~ FFf -- 'G~'JaA.F1 _ _ . • - _---- ~SHa.KE.~ - - --- - • - - -- I ~ .. ~ - ~- i '_'" -.~ -_ 2: IG~i~t Tor OF -- ---a~~. ~a '~`- Igo n '` q I I f 1 ~ '~~. ~ o~ loG C~TUM ` ~ ' ~- ~~ .~ - ~.~ ~ '' _ 1 ` ~ ~ ~--,- I .,rte '' _e. ~_ ,• / __ ,.--r • , .. , 'ti. i P~TAINING bJAtt , ~ '~ 1 }--- - ----r - - - - - --i ~ ~ 1 .--- r~- - - 1 NOf~TN ~.5~" ~LEUAT'IO~. t r- 12 APf"~sx. ia2 TTP_R 3 5~c~3 I~se.JUNI-~=r wu.c. ~.. _ `` :~~' • ~ .'~: ~r:.~ `: -~°~, EsYY 's'' .=' • I L..4Ti.X GHiiJ KtlJGj F ~~ ,~~ i 4:. _ _ ~ .. N. .. • ~• , . r;~;i ~ -- _ ~~ ~ i ' ~~. :, i ~ x ~ ~ ~ }~ t~ ~ .. a r. ,,,v. , ~ . L_ _ _,~K -'~ _- _. i -_, i r .~ d > ~~x - L-- - - - - -~ 1 - - - - L 1- -+- ~'I ~ ~M Y; ; ' ~~= .. T L1 p;.,~- ~3~~ , yc1~ s l~vATto 50UT ~I T ~. _: ~, ~... .:. WPPED I~aL~ K. s. 5%=•~~T . `~ +~i. ~ v. ~~. x; BANNER March 12, 1990 Mr. Bradley Tjossem Post Office IIox 2975 Vail, CO n1657 RE: Elk Meadows Subdivision Geologic Hazard Mitigation BAI Job No. 8095-U5~01 Dear Brad: In response to your request fvr revie~•~ of our recommendations for geologic hazard mitigation, we have reviewed our original work and i_n addition have performed a computer rorkfall simulation analysis using CRS" (Colorado Rockfall Simulat:.ion Program) which was develUped by tYie Colorado DcpartmPnt of Highways and Colorado School of Mine. This computer software was noi~ available when we performed our original analysis, however, we k;eliove it i, prudery, to check past analysis with the latest; state-of-the-art methods when afforded the opportunity. As a result of these computer wimulatians, we believe that our original recommenda*ions are basically sound but the impact fore should be increased to 4,000 pounds. This Should be applied to an area of approximately two square feet. The attached drawing has been included for information since only the impact force has ct-r3nged. Tf you have any questions, please feel lr.ee to call. Very truly yours, BANNER ASSOCIATES INC. Donald G. Petty grove, P.E DG P/ bg file: [GRJ.9003.BLGJTJOS~EM.LET Enclosure BANNER ASSOCIATES, Qtc. BA?:N~t ASSGc';A7E5. !NC CUNSLR3RVG ENGMEERS & ARCHfTf_CTS C.ONSLR.ifNG ErrCrIN[-F:.ftS 6r AR('NI7ECTS 277) CkOSSROADS BOULEVARD SUfTE ~~ ~' FAST'tAQ~ GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • 1:3(!31 2.13-2242 /15t'~N, (;CLOi~n(~c> 8261! • (?+~3( 92S•5A57 BANNER July 22, 1987 Mr. Michael Lauterbach P.O. Box 3451 Vail, CO 81658 Re: Elk Meadows Subdivision BAI #8095-05 Dear Mike, I have enclosed a reproducable mylar of the drainage plan for your project with the change made from "Preliminary" to "Final", as requested. With regard to your question about the building configuration above the 12-foot height, the structure above that level may be vertical wall, pitched roof or other construction. It really doesn't matter what is above the 12--foot level from the aspect of hazard mitigation. Windows are acceptable above that level as well. It must be remembered that all of the hazard mitigation is based on a reasonable level of protection against the probability of an event occurring. The probabilities are low so the level of protection can be commensurately low also. If the design were to protect absolutely against all Possible events, it would be prohibitive to build at this site, as it would be in all of the mountains. Should you have any questions, plea;~e feel free to call. Sincerely, BANNER ASSOCIA , INC. Donald G. Pettygrove, P.,E. DGP/rlg Enclosure BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (303) 243-2242 U ~r~! 5 i2- ~~CaE.. Lcr~~+ .-r o ~ ~~ Sz~~ 1ooc~` t M-}~GT 1.-n~L . awes ~~~1, ~~ ,~ ~~i ~.* ~' p2oT EGT ,~./ ' ~ tJ o tM'?~G.T {~~~ vs.r~yJ~rnt~/S SLo~ ~ ~` M ~ N t-l-T, ~~~ `~ T 1 N~~G 1Z'S '.. ~ _r- J~1t! L L~uT~~-~~~-N ~F c`am'. ~Y ~~7-1 N~-`~- ~ SSc c. t ~-T~S , t 1J G `30-~~ ~~1.3- 2242 2 G-t'~--~ Lo L-~1 G 4~ ~~.~'c~-~ ~ t T 1 ~ ~ Tl ~~1 ~,.T. S, .Z, 1 -~.CL ES ~ -~-o-~L~ BANNER June 18, ]. ~'3~' Mi i_hael ~7 . Lautt~r-bach F'. ~. LjC]:: ?~51. R.E: E11- 1`ieadows Sut,~~ivisi.r=,r, fit.., (_: t::~ti'~ill Clear I`1r. Lauterbar_ti: In response tca one of thEr i. seises rai=_ed i n the Collins letter-, I feel `eery comfortable o-~ith t,aviny no mii:igation for patenti al rock:f al 1 into cc;mrnon , open =pace areas within tt-,E' proposed deVel opment. T~>'p i cc.l..l y , {_h~~ intent of o~aen areas . a5 long as therec'ire no p~~rrr,aner,t_ c:ornmr_(~ity structure=_ such c7.S Caff.lCE~_'~ or- m~~c?ting p1aCf_'..~~ 1=:> j~_i:) F]Y-O'/7.df? SpaC.e fOr f~rctV].tV rC?7. cit t'd QECal O(:] 1 C: phE?n OrTl ~'I-, ~i t! i r_t C:: C:: l..(r t°J 1. ttl nC] Cj dfTidCa C= t<:i - - I- -.. -- s{:ruct.urc~s, a.l;d m:LnlO,ctl C.}l:dl'li_(=' Cai- {';. .t_!'_ot_Ir(:? tCl I:a(:_'rsC)nctl. l.ll_lU.r'y. IJt,Gn I pr-etaare a repor-i:. i or c. 1. i. t:~r-,'=s or•:n i nq , for- instance , ~i one ar_r-E~ par-ct~.l for thi= d(=.vi~lor~mc~nt of onF- •~in~a7.e family residence, the site is E~ithEr- located a.alay tr-om a 1-~a~ar-d, ;nr1(_tding perhat.~s rot_k.fraa 1. , i~r- rn:it;.gat=ion tcc_hniq~.re= ar-e °f(i[].io:'r'ca tt~ d1rE'Ct ;='.ri':' F-iC]'LE?n~:1.ctl C_~If'?(.71t:;Ca7.C Oi_Cl_!1•"r-C?nCF' c+.rGl.ll'id 1-h,-- hc)me-:i. t.e i nta L:.I-~i~ open '_~pa(_:e:~. "i },i = i. s tI-)e most pr-1_tdent ?.1, p r- Li a r_ t' i , <=i 5; 4U ii' c.:~t. r_I r, ct i.. t:, r- c:, i., i:^ i:: ~_ i_ ''J i;? f- `J ;:3 C~ I_l •-i 1- ~ ~ r j ~_y % C) # i7 r Ct C' E 1" t ''.' ;;a r, t.! s L :i. 1 1. 7. i. ~'.~ (~ i. n . I , c r) ca ._ ri t- 1 tiC'!Eat' I },Fi`.'E? ~t(:j~_C:II_iiai:.r='1V ~:'t.rJCir-E't'~.4:?r:{ 'hl-!1-3 p:-ar-t.iCl_ll~il- CijriC`:`r-rl, F-' 7. (? c?. S i2? (= Ca r'i i_ ct l= t i ft t3 1 '~ I_. t, F• t" r _~ ;=t I' t-: 't' l.U" ~' }l Cis F- C-J I_I E' .5 t 1. O n _> . II f r- r i"~ ~` l~.II~,Ji 1i . I~~i~ ~~:: ~I_~ 7 I i..lt ~/~il~ )~' i ~ t_7 ..~} r•~' (: 1. t:J'.~~ 17 i. ll (:I 1. `- ~:. ~..1 i _ .: '.. 7. ~:: f. Br,rvNER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS SC11TE 6, 6(15 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (303) 243-2242 BANNER June ice, .19F;: t~lichar~l J. Laui_erba~_.h F'. D. Ro:: "4~ 1 Vail, CO. 816° F;E: Elk: Meadows Subdivision f;ock:fall Dear Mr. Lauter-bach: I have reviewed the reports prepared the weeF:: ending 3une i^, 1987, by Don F'ettygrove, our structural engineer, concerning the roc E::f al 1 mi t i gat i on for the E1 E:: Meadows Subdivision. As pre•iiously mentioned, potential ror_E::fall into this ~it~ ari.ll. be very infrequent aver the ye~~r-s, but this type of n-;iti~~ation i= still. pri_~dent. ? f the engineered deli. qn criteria presented b•.~ Don F'ett~.~yr-ovF~ i:-; his above r~=fer-enced repart i.s f~~llowed, th~~e r-ack:fall h.~.~ar-d to ~r_cupants a1i thi n structures to be 1 ocated ~:~i thi n E1 ~: Mee~do~•~s Sub~d i vi si on wi I I be mi n i mi ed . Further , i f i.he r- ecomrnended eng i. nee~ri nq i s accan~;pl i shed dc.ir i r-;q the i_:onsi-.i-ucti.on of <_.t.i-r_)cti-tro=s u{~an t_he proposed I:~c.rildi.ny rnveloG~es, tliE•re should be no increased hacard to othr._•r F:,roper-t:v or- str-u~_tur-es, or tc~ pub.li.~ buildings, r-oad~>>, '>trE'4.~t_-,, rJ.q_i'It'-af-W~+}~, e~<<;Frrterlt5, Lltll ltle~ Gl~ 1.=tC111tJ.e~">. rc yi)u. have an•.~ fc~ri_hr~r yur~=_ti.ons, I_~1ea e do noi_ Iii=si t:~tt-~ tip Sincerely, E:ANn1ER ASSOCIATES , I hJC . t~~~~ "`~ ~/ ~ ••, ~~~ ~ ' I'Ji chat. a.s L_~~rr;pi. r i ~z, F•r,r.., Project C7eologist Bh~.~~ER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCI{ITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & AKCHITECTS SUITE 6, 6(15 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 31506 • (303) 243-2242 BANNER June 12, 1987 Mr. Mike Lauterbach P.O. Box 3451 Vail, CO 81658 Re: Preliminary Drainage Plan/Geologic Hazard Mitigation Elk Meadows Subdivision - Lion's Ridge Subdivision (The Valley), Filing #2, Phase III - BAI #8095-05 Dear Mike, I have reviewed the revised roadway drawings developed by John MacKown as well as the Preliminary Plan developed by Eagle Valley Engineering with respect to the existing and proposed drainage conditions. We have developed the enclosed Preliminary Drainage Plan from the grading contours provided by John MacKown. Drainage Plan The existing drainage path through this valley carries the runoff of approximately 178 acres. The peak flow from this area (as previously submitted) is calculated at 8 cubic feet per second. The flow through the drainage path is generally wide and shallow with velocities of less than five feet per second. The construction of this subdivision will separate an area of approximately 0.84 acres north of the access road from the main flow pattern and recombines the flow from these two areas at the 18" CMP culvert located at Station 1+65. Any access walks to the buildings on the north side should have an 18" CMP or equivalent in order to allow for the passage of flow to the west. The maximum flow from the smaller area is 2.0 cubic feet per second for which the minimum 18" culvert is more than adequate. The maximum flow (8 cfs) along the south side of the roads will be adequately transmitted by the typical ditch section in all areas except the small, four car parking area at the extreme west end. It will be necessary to install approximately 55 lineal feet of 18" CMP at this location in order to convey the surface waters beneath the parking area and avoid forcing them onto. the adjacent property. The 18" CMP will carry the full 8 cfs with a headwater/diameter ratio of less than 1.5. It is my understanding that all areas of the site, except the seven building locations, will be dedicated to open space uses which will include use for surface drainage. This will eliminate the need for any specific drainage easement. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (303) 243-2242 Mr. Mike Lauterbach June 12, 1987 Page Two BANNE(~ Natural Springs During the geological hazard investigation, the site was thoroughly inspected with no signs of natural water springs appearing on the ground surface. Any marked increase in vegetation in isolated areas would indicate the likelihood of natural springs. None of these indicators were observed.. Ground Water The Preliminary Subsoil and Geologic Investigation prepared by Chen and Associates, Inc. in May 1972, indicated that no free water was observed in any of the 10 test pits excavated. The primary drainage channel is an intermittent water-course without significant year round flow. Geologic Hazards Mitigation With regard to the recommendations made in my letter of February 23, 1987 for the mitigation of the geologic rockfall hazard, I offer the following clarifications. My recommendation for a six foot vertical height of wall exposure on the north side is a minimum and refers to the reinforced concrete wall with timber impact absorption. If walls on the north (uphill) side are to be taller than the minimum 6 feet height, then they should be capable of withstanding a 2000 pound force, although the structure above the six foot level and below the 10-12 foot level, recommended by Mr. Lampiris, need not be of concrete or have the timber impact absorption. The difference being the frequency of anticipated rock hits and subsequent damage. Below the six-foot height, more frequent strikes can be expected for which damage should be minimal. Above six-foot to the 12-foot level, rock strikes can be anticipated but need. be protected against significant structural damage only. If a roof area will be constructed with uphill exposure, that portion below the 10-12 foot height and above the 6 foot height should be designed to withstand the 2000 pound impact force as well. Reference is made to the attached sketches for the areas of consideration. The heights discussed above are relative to the natural ground elevation at the uphill extreme of the structure and projected along the slope not at the edge of roadway. Mr. Mike Lauterbach June 12, 1987 Page Three BANNER The terraced floors to which I made reference. in my earlier correspondence was intended to allow for offset floor elevations in order to provide buildings which better fit the natural slopes of nearly 2:1 in places. Should you have any questions please feel free to call. Sincerely, BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. V Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E. Colo. P.E. #16543 DGP/rlg Encl: 14 copies - Preliminary Drainage Plan & Geologic Mitigation Hazard cc: Kristan Pritz - Town of Vail Lebruary C5, 1SG7 Mich:zel Lauterbach Lamar Co:T~pani es/CF: Development Inc. F'. 0. Po>: .451 Vail, CO. E1658 RE: Geologic Hazard Mitigation E1 (: Meado~•:s Subdivision Vail, CO. Dear Mi k:e: I have reviewed your most recent plans and also r-evi er•:ed the report by our structural engineer, Don F'ettygrove, concerning tf~e r-oc(::tall mitigation for the Eit: hleador•:s Subdivision. I agr-2e, tha.t i f the design cri ter-i a presented by Don rettygr-ove in his letter of Febr-uarv ?:~, 1^87, are folloa:~d, r-ock:fall hazard wi 11 be 4;ept to a minimum for this develnpment. F'c~tenti al rock:f al 1 into this site r•:i 1 1 be very i of r~yuent o•.er the y~_ar-s, but this t}~pe of mitigation is ti.till prudent. T~:e mitigative dGsi gr. a~i l l not advtreel y affect any ether- t/e':~elopment in the ar-e?.. If you have any f~_tr-ther q!testions, please de not hesitate to contact us. Si ncer-el y, LiAtdt•!ER taS~SUC I RTES , I PJC . i,'.' / ~ n Nicholas Lamp,i r-i s , F'hD. F'ro iect Geologist ~!L/cl -:: BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC. (~t~,`:Sl~1.Tl\'G E\GI\EF.HS fi :'1KCIIITECTS C(l\~t;l.Ti~~, E1(5i\r-ER~ K ARt:r?ITFCTS tiUITE G, 605 FAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD ASPEN, COLORADO Slbl l • (303) 925-5357 GRAND JUNCTION, CO fi1506 • {303) 243-2242 February 23, ].9(37 `'~' ~' " • " ~ R Mr. Michael Lauterbach Lamar Companies/CR Development Inc. ['.O. Oux 34:)1 t/ail, CU t11G:,f1 Re: Geologic Ilazard Mitigation - - F.lY. Meadows Subdivision Vail, CO Dear Mike; As requested, I have reviewed the appropriate measures for the mitiyati.on of the rockfall hazard at the subject site. The current location for. t:he lots does not allow for the mitigation to be handled as easily as before, however, it appears that it can be accomplished with a Lew considerations. 1) The structures should be situated so that at least six vertical feet o£ wall is exposed on the uphill side. The exposed face should be designed (preferably of reinforced concrete integral with the foundation) such that it is capable of withstanding a force of not less than 2000 pounds applied over an area of appr:oxiurately t-wo square feet. The face of the wall should he protected, as before, with 6 inch timbers for impact absorption and replacement. The design of these walls should be st.lllllar tU those shown in my letter of July 3, bII6. 2) All other areas with uphill exposures should be designed to withstand a 2000 pound force as well. No windows should be placed i.n walls wi t:h u]>hi :Ll. exposures. 7t should be understood that there e:;i.sCs the possibility that falling rocY.s could impact l,i.an's Ridge hoop Road above and be bunched into the ai.r suff.icient.ly to impact roof areas, although the probabilities oC such an impact are signi.f.icantly lower than those which will. impact t:he wall. 3) 7n:;Car as possible, it: is reconun~,nded t:haC rooms with the greatest occupancy be located away from the upper stories and t.o th(~ dnwnhi7.1 side. A ter. raced il.oor arrangement appears to f.it gni.t.e wc].]. at this site and will blend into the side of 1.he hill bet trr while providing l(~s ~ coe;l. t hrouyit reduced excavati.vn. n ]ayvut oL t:hi:; type wi 1.1 also prov.i<le -for maximum southern exl,<)sul.-c t:o take advantage of solar. heat gain. BANNER ASS( )i'IA I CS, INC. CONAULi1NG LNGI~I CRS R~ AIiCIIIrrCTti '1717 (:RO~SROAn5 ROULCVAI{D GRANn.ILINCiION, CU NISOfi 130'(} 243-'242 Mr. Michael. l.aul:erltactt [~ A N N C - Pehruiry "l3, 1rJ87 [`;tyc Two 'I'hc utn_Lhc~r] oL' hanrilinrl ::Ir,rm w;tf_cr runc,ff ,hc~ul.d again he rs~enlially tltc .:amc a:; I,rr•vinnsly urcnl_irrncrl i.tt my letter cif ;:~Irtemlx~t Ili, 1)IIG. ['ruvi:;irnrn wi i I In: nr•rxr.;sat:y to allow fur an 111" c7ianu~l:ct: cul.vcrt I,enr•:rl_ir Lhe r:u.l--rie--mac al_ the ea ,t earl, I,c~ncal.h Lhr~ main r~nl.r:,ncr, r u:rrl :rnrl ac:cr•r::: rrrarl to 1oC:: G :utd 7 nt,<i I,r-nr~al.lt Lhr: f r,ur Ir:,t k i nrl :;Ir,rr:r•:: .rl Ihr• r•r.t remr wr:;L r~nrl of 1 I, r• {rrrr jr~r.l I n :,rlrl i 1 ir,n, I hr. r rr.rrlw.r)• ::hr,u 1 rf l,r: r:un:;I,ruCtr2rl at. 1ca:;L 1'-9" al,r,vc• i.lr<~ Irtw I,rrint r,I Ihr• Irr im:rry rlra.inayc [utl.h Lhtourlhrntl_ thr• Ic•nrJllr ul Ihr• Irrrrjr~r:L. I1 i:: nut. :rnticilrtCeri that. :: .i.rln i.fic:anl. r.ilr-r:rl, wi I I Irr• nr•r:r•:: r.:rry ::i nr•r• I.hr• rlra.i nnyc i,:tlh i:; to rr:mai.n Jaryr~ly ttnrli:;l.url,r•rl. Sheu.lc7 you have any yucst.icnt, [,lr,:tse LeeJ Lree to call.. Sincerely; [1nNlJlilt ASSUCIA'1'1;;, 1NC. ~\ I)onalrl G. I'ett-yyt:ovc, 1'.1:. Project Planaycr cc: Ni cY. Latn[>i ri.s file: ElU7`.i'i1t.r.2Ja SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE VALLEY PHASE III April 25, 1973: Conditional approval of the preliminary plan by Eagle County which zoned The Valley Planned Development (PD) July 26, 1973: County Commissioners approve The Valley preliminary plan and PUD. This approval is good for three years. The approval included 150 units on 61.2 acres. July 30, 1973: Eagle County Commissioners' special meeting to confirm Valley approval. July 26, 1976: The Valley preliminary plan and PUD approval of July 26, 1973 expires. Some of the units are under construction. The 120 units that have not been built will require a new submittal starting with a sketch plan and preliminary plan review (letter from Ms. Susan Vaughn, 1977). May 20, 1977: The Vail Town Council sends a letter to the Eagle County Commissioners in favor of extending the Valley's approval as long as development is carried out according to the preliminary plan and recreation amenities are provided. May 24, 1978: The Eagle County Commissioners grant an extension of the Valley preliminary plan approval. This approval would expire on June 1, 1979. If the approval expires, it would be required that sketch plan and preliminary plan review informtion be submitted. Also, if any change in the present plan, it would have to be reviewed by the County Commissioners. November 13, 1979: Eagle County Commissioners review a sketch plan and have several concerns. March 26, 1980: A PUD plan and protective covenants docu- ment is filed with the County which indi- cated that Phase III was subject to the land use restrictions of 10 units and a total GRFA of 16,000 square feet. March 27, 1980: Resolution No. 80-20 allowed the phases of The Valley to be sold separately without any further compliance with the subdivision regulations. April 16, 1980: The Eagle County Planning Commission reviews a sketch plan for Phase III. The Planning Commission suggested that the units be tucked into the hillside on the northeast side of the project and that the developer use berming and landscaping to buffer the project. Staff recommended approval of the sketch plan. April 16, 1980: Town of Vail staff sends letter to the Eagle County Planning Commission which recommends more tighter, clustered layout of the buildings toward the hillside. Vail staff also recognizes the steep hillside and sensitivity of the meadow area. Letter from Peter Patten and Dick Ryan. April 30, 1980:. The Eagle County Commissioners reviewed the sketch plan that the Planning Commission saw on April 16, 1980. The sketch plan showed 10 townhomes on Phase III. May 5, 1980: A resolution was passed by the County allowing three years for the developers to file preliminary plans from the March 26, 1980 PUD plan approval date. December 1980: Ordinance No. 43 annexed the West Vail area including Phase III of The Valley. March 17, 1981: The Town of Vail Council applied zoning to The Valley which was recently annexed. The ordinance was No. 13, Series of 1981. March 15, 1983: Resolution No. 6, Series_of 1987, the Town Council approved .rezoning of The Valley. Sept. 11, 1985: The Valley is de-annexed from the Town. Summer 1986 A development proposal is .submitted to Eagle County by Lamar Capital Corporation. The proposal begins with a sketch plan/preliminary plan review. Nov. 5, 1986 The Lamar Capital Corporation Phase III proposal is withdrawn from the County due to complications with the time lines for review and how they .will relate to the property being re-annexed to the Town of • Vail. ~` May 16, 1986 A grading permit is released by the County for an access road into Phase III. The applicant was Lamar Capital Corporation. May 6, 1987 The road work on Phase III is red-tagged by Eagle County. May 7, 1987: Red tag removed by Eagle County. May 11, 1987 The Valley is re-annexed into the Town. May 11, 1987; The Road is red-tagged by the Town of Vail May 11, 1987: The Road is red-tagged by Eagle County. May ll, 1987: Lamar Capital Corporation submits a major subdivision and special development district zoning request for Phase III. ORDINANCE NO. 17 Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 32 SERIES OF 1987, TO PROVIDE CHANGES TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 16 THAT CONCERN A REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS PERMITTED; ADJUSTING THE GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA PER UNIT; EMPLOYEE DWELLING UNITS; AND ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1987 establishing Special Development District No. 16; and WHEREAS, Brad and Susan Tjossem have requested to amend the existing Special Development District No. 16, Elk Meadows, for a certain parcel of property within the Town know as The Valley, Phase III, part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2; and WHEREAS, there is an identified need for employee housing in the community; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has not adopted formal policies to encourage the development of employee housing units; and WHEREAS, the Special Development District provides for creativity and flexibility to allow for the development of employee housing; and WHEREAS, the Town Planning staff and Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended that certain changes be made in Special Development District No. 16; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and reenact Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1987 to provide for such changes in Special Development District No. 16, Elk Meadows. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 32, SERIES OF 1987, IS HEREBY REPEALED AND REENACTED WITH AMENDMENTS TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for Special Development District No. 16. 1 Section 2. Special Development District No. 16. Special Development District No. 16 (SDD 16) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Phase III, The Valley, part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, within the Town of Vail consisting of 3.6 acres. Section 3. Purpose. Special Development District 16 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town, by the Town Council, and meets all design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal code. As stated in the staff memorandum dated April 9, 1990, there are significant aspects of Special Development District 16 which are difficult to satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the Residential Cluster zone district. SDD No. 16 allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. In order to help preserve the natural, scenic features of this site, building envelopes will be established which designate the areas upon the site in which development will occur. The establishment of these building envelopes will also permit the phasing of the development to proceed according to each individual owner's ability to construct a residence. SDD No. 16 provides an appropriate development plan that maintains the unique character of this site, given the difficult site constraints which must be addressed in the overall design of the project. Section 4. Development Plan. A. The development plan for SDD No. 16 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Brad and Susan Tjossem and consists of the following documents, which will be finalized at the major subdivision final plat review: 1. Elk Meadows Subdivision Phase III, The Valley, Preliminary Plan, a resubdivision of part of Parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, Eagle Valley Engineering and Surveying, Mr. Dan Corcoran, Surveyor. 2. Final DRB Landscape Plan, Elk Meadows, Phase III, Dennis Anderson Associates, February 26, 1990. 3. Prototypical building design plans, Alpine Log Homes, August 21, 1989, sheets 1-6. 2 4. Environmental Impact Report submitted by Mr. Peter Jamar, Associates, Inc., August 5, 1987, which includes the rockfall mitigation requirements. Such rockfall reports are dated February 23, 1987, February 25, 1987, June 12, 1987, June 15, 1987, July 22, 1987 and March 12, 1990, and will be kept on file in the Town's Community Development offices. 5. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the Special Development District, dated March 10, 1990. B. The development plan shall adhere to the following: 1. Acreage: The total acreage of the site is 3.619 acres 2. Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for the site are proposed to be: a. Single family residential dwellings b. Open space c. Private roads d. Employee dwelling units as defined in Section 5, paragraph C of this ordinance. 3. Conditional Uses: a. Public utility and public service uses b. Public buildings, grounds and facilities c. Public park and recreation facilities 4. Accessory Uses: a. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family uses. b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. c. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. d. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58. 3 5. Parcel Acreages and Uses: a. Building Envelopes: as set forth on the Final Plat. 1. 0.095 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit + one optional employee unit. 2. 0.089 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit + one optional employee unit. 3. 0.078 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit + one optional employee unit. 4. 0.093 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit + one optional employee unit. 5. 0.141 acres, 1 single family dwelling unit + one optional employee unit. b. Tract 1: 2.5 acres, open space. c. Tract 2: 0.59 acres, private access road. 6. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of structures in relation to building envelope perimeter lines shall be as follows: a. No structure shall be located on any easement as so designated on the final plat of the subdivision. b. No structure shall be located less than two feet from either the east or the west building envelope perimeter line. c. No structure shall be located less than three feet from the north building envelope perimeter line. d. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove to the contrary, roof overhangs and decks may encroach into the setback areas described in b and c so long as such roof overhangs and decks are totally within the perimeter lines of the building envelope. No portion of the unit, decks, walls etc. shall encroach beyond the building envelope. 7. Density: Approval of this development plan shall permit five (5) single family dwelling units, plus five (5) optional employee dwelling units. A minimum of one (1) employee dwelling unit shall be constructed, and said employee unit shall be a part of either the first unit's or second unit's building permit for the project. All employee dwelling units shall meet the criteria listed in Section 5, C of this Ordinance. 4 A building situated on a single unit residential building envelope shall not contain more than 3,200 square feet of GRFA. 8. Building Height: Building height shall not exceed 33 feet for a sloping roof. 9. Parkinct: Parking shall be as required in Section 18.52 of the Vail Municipal Code. At least one enclosed parking space, per dwelling unit shall be required. Each employee dwelling unit shall have one enclosed parking space. 10. Landscaping: The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the preliminary landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. The Design Review Board approved final landscape plan shall represent the subdivision's general landscape requirements. The entire portion of every building envelope, not covered by pavement or buildings, shall be landscaped as well as any areas outside the building envelope disturbed during construction. 11. Design Guidelines: The Design Guidelines .shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their Final approval. The DRB final design guidelines shall represent the approved design guidelines. Design guidelines for SDD No. 16 are as follows: a. Roof pitch shall be between 4 feet in 12 feet and 6 feet in 12 feet. b. Roof material shall be Cedar shakes. c. Siding material shall be either log or stucco with log perlins, log railings, or other log members, natural rock, or a combination of the above, and shall be applied horizontally as indicated on the prototypical building elevations. Only light colored stain shall be applied to siding. d. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to exposed concrete foundation walls. If stucco is utilized, it shall be light in color. e. All windows shall be white metal clad or wood windows, and will be "divided light" style. 5 f. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least 1 foot in order to protect walls and wall openings from rain and snow and to contribute to the building's character. 12. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreational amenities tax shall be assessed at the rate for the Residential Cluster zone district. 13. Protective Covenants: Prior to major subdivision final plat approval, the developer shall file protective covenants on the land records of Eagle County which will provide that each owner who builds a structure on a designated building envelope shall comply with the design guidelines and rockfall mitigation requirements as outlined by the EIR by Jamar Associates August 5, 1987. Copies of the guidelines and mitigation requirements shall be available at the Town of Vail, Community Development office. The covenants shall also provide in regard to the covenants dealing with design guidelines, rockfall mitigation and employee housing that the Town of Vail shall have the right to enforce the covenants and that the covenants may not be amended or deleted without Town of Vail approval. The protective covenants shall be approved by the Town of Vail attorney, prior to major subdivision final plat approval. Section 5. Conditions of Approval A. Special Development District No. 16 shall not be effective until the major subdivision is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and is recorded by the Town of Vail at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorders Office. B. The major subdivision shall be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office before a building permit is released for any construction on the subdivision including common improvements as well as individual residences. C. The development of Special Development District No. 16 will have impacts on the available employee housing within the Upper Eagle Valley Area. In order to help meet this additional employee housing need, the developer of Special 6 Development District No. 16 shall provide employee housing on site. The following restrictions shall apply to all employee dwelling units within SDD No. 26: The developer shall build a minimum of one employee dwelling unit within the subdivision. Each employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum square footage of 400 square feet, not to exceed 500 square feet, and is allowed to have a kitchen. The developer may provide up to 5 employee dwelling units, including the 1 required dwelling unit, if so desired. The employee dwelling units may be located on any of the lots within the subdivision providing all the development standards are met for each lot. Only one employee dwelling unit shall be allowed per lot. An employee dwelling shall be incorporated into the structure of the primary residence and shall not be allowed to be separated from the primary unit. Each employee dwelling unit shall have one enclosed garage parking space. This parking space shall not be detached from the single-family garage or structure. The employee dwelling unit shall be prohibited from having a wood burning fireplace. The employee dwelling unit shall be restricted as a rental employee dwelling unit permanently. The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than 30 consecutive days, and that if rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full- time employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week. An employee dwelling unit shall not be divided into any form of time-share, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership. The employee dwelling unit shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the single family unit. The owner of each employee dwelling unit shall be required to declare in writing, on an annual basis to the Town of Vail, that the employee dwelling unit has been rented as a long term rental per the requirements outlined in this section. This declaration shall include a written statement 7 from the owner listing the renter's name, place of employment, and length of time the unit was rented. The declaration shall be required to be signed by both the lot owner and renter. A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed on record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in the form approved by the Town Attorney, for the benefit of the Town, to ensure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land before a building permit is released for the construction of any employee dwelling unit. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this employee housing agreement. D. The developer and Town shall enter into a developer's agreement which shall provide that no Final Plat for subdivision shall be signed by the Town unless security is provided by the developer to ensure completion of the improvements as designated in the applicant's phasing plan for the project, per the staff memorandum, dated April 9, 1990, Section V, 9. E. The architectural and landscape design guidelines shall be incorporated into the subdivision covenants before the Final Plat is recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office. The Town of Vail shall be party to these agreements. Section 6. Amendments Amendments to SDD No. 16 shall follow the procedures contained in Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 7. Expiration The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 3 years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the Special Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. 8 Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 9. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. Section 10. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 11. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed. to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. 9 INTRODUCED, READ AND 1990, Ordinance on the in the Council Chamb~ Colorado. Ordered published in PASSED ON and a pub _ day of ors of the full this FIRST READING THIS day of Lic hearing shall be held on this 1990 at 7:30 p.m. Vail Municipal Building, Vail, day of , 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1990. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 10 TOPIC 8/8 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN ANNEXATION (request: Lapin) 2/20 JOINT MEETING COUNCIL/VMRD 2/27 SATELLITE POST OFFICE (request: Osterfoss) 3/13 TRIANGLE OF GREEN SPACE ADJACENT TO VILLAGE CENTER 3/27 COMPENSATION FOR PEC, DRB, LIQUOR AUTHORITY 4/3 WOODY BEARDSLEY LETTER (request: Lapin) 4./10 CML CONFERENCE/Colorado Springs 4/17 REVIEW UNDERLYING ZONING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ANNEXED WITH COUNTY ZONING IN PLACE, I.E., BIGHORN, WEST VAIL, INTERMOUNTAIN, ETC. (request: Fritzlen) 4/24 DOBSON ARENA/WWCG USAGE WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP N LARRY: Proceedi~~g w/legal requirements for annexation. Caroline: Prepare to clarify any misunderstanding about the Town's continuing road improvement projects and the County's disinterest in repaving in West Intermountain in conjunction w/our summer project. PAT: Apply in writing to Council re: ground lease of Booth Creek 9 hole par 3 golf course. RON: Pursue sta°Lion "in town" and/or increase summer bus service? RON/LARRY: Contact re: possible gift to the Town? RON/KRISTAN/LARRY: Should additional compensation be considered for appointed, standing Town boards? RON: Request further detail on 6 parcels available for land trade with Forest Service. COUNCILMEMBERS: Conference will be held June 20-23 this summer ° reservations should be made as soor as possible. 4/26/90 Page 1 of 2 UP SOLUTIONS Petitions are being circulated, but not successfully. Flyer delivered to residea~ts 4/26/90. Kent sent letter outlining proposed process to Tim Garton. VMRD has reviewed and TOU/UMRD commi°~tee will meet in May. Meeting to be set up with Ernie Chavez. Fred Hibbard and Ron have talked. Fred is doing a survey and examining his options. Will prepare alternatives and recommendation for Council. Staff needs a copy of the letter. Ron and Tom signed up so far. KRISTAN/LARRY: Review current zoning in Bighorn an Staff will prepare alternative ways of dealing with this other older residential areas where at the time unique area for discussion with PEC and Council. of annexation to the TOU, buildings were already constructed. RON/SYLVIA BLOUNT/UMRD REPRESENTATIVE: Negotiate Will meet with WWCG representatives on May 9. usage of TOU's yearly 20-day allowance to accommodate WWCG. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP TOPIC QUESTIONS 4/24 SPECIAL WORK SESSION RON/BRENDA: Set special work sessian on M^nday, April 30, 1990, at 1:00 P.M., in Council Chambers vc review VTRC bids submitted and select alternate deducts. 4/24 PARKING/TRANSPORTATION TASK COUNCIL: Meeting has been set in the Library FORCE MEETING (request: Osterfoss) Room at 1:30 P.M., on Thursday, May 3, 1990, to review current task force recommendations and study impact, alternatives, etc. FOLLOW-UP SOLUTI Done 4/26/90 Page 2 of DAN SCHAEFER ENERGY AND COMMERCE 6TH DISTRICT, COLORADO COMMITTEE 1317 LONGWORTH BUILDING WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 SUBCOMMITTEES: (202) 225-7882 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND FINANCE 3615 SOUTH HURON STREET, x101 ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80110 TRANSPORTATION AND (303) 762-8890 ~II1t~rP,~l3 Df #~E ~1~itP~ tt#P,~ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .'~ID1iDP D~ iRP~1rPDPIt#tt#tUPD ~ tttt~ington, ~ . (ZL. April 16, 1990 The Honorable Kent R. Rose Mayor, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mayor Rose: Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the proposed trade of Colorado lands for an acre of Forest Service property at the base of Vail Mountain. I appreciated hearing from you. Land trades are routinely used by the federal government to obtain new properties, or to dispose of property it deems undesirable. In many situations, it is an effective means of accomplishing a goal which otherwise may not be met. There is not any formal legislation in Congress to accomplish the land trade you are referring to. Until that time, it is not pertinent to discuss the relative merits of this particular land exchange. Given the local disagreement on this matter, it is unlikely that this trade will be given serious consideration in the near future. Again, thank you for getting in touch. Please feel free to let me know of your additional comments on this or any other matter. Best regards. Sin rely, DAN SCHAEFER Member of Congress DS/tdt BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL PLEASE REPLY To. 3D DISTRICT, COLORADO ^ WASHINGTON OFFICE: 7724 LONGWORTH BUILDING WASHINGTON, OC 20515 COMMITTEES: (~/~~~- ~ AGRICULTURE ~1/ongre~~ of t~je ~tttteb ~tate~ (2021 225-47 6 7 DISTRICT OFFICES: ^ MAIN ST 720 N INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS . . t ib o f ~ SUITE 400 e~ uge o e~re~en at g PUEBLO, CO 81003 ~agfjington ~~ 20515 (7 1 91 54 3-962 1 , ^ 835E SECOND AVE. April 1 2, 1 9 9 0 SUITE 128 DURANGO,CO 81307 (3031247-9300 ^ 225 N. STH STREET Mr Kent Rose SUITE 311 . GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 Mayor (303) 242-2400 Town Of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Rose: Thank you for your letter regarding a proposal to swap one acre of Forest Service property within the town of Vail, Colorado, for property elsewhere. I appreciate your concern about this exchange. I have not seen the actual proposal, and first learned about it after reading an article in the Rocky Mountain News. As a member of both the House Interior and Agriculture Committee's, I realize that land exchanges are an important tool in acquiring valuable private lands within forests, parks and monuments. Congress has been attempting, unsuccessfully, to keep up with the demand for land acquistion through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. An exchange of this nature would require legislation, and no such legislation has been brought to my attention. More important than the need for land acquisition, however, is the need to respect the wishes of the community. After reading about how adamantly Vail opposes this proposal, I cannot imagine the proponents will continue to seek congressional help. Thank you again for your letter. Sincere y, t Ben Nighth se Campbell Member of Congress BNC/dm