Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-11-20 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session , VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 1:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Town Council/Planning and Environmental Commission Joint Meeting to Discuss Revisions to Commercial Core I, Administration, the "250 Ordinance", and Parking Pay-in-Lieu Ordinance No. 36 2. Discussion of Vail Gateway Sidewalk Extension to Meadow Drive 3. Discussion of 1991 Budget 4. Information Update 5. Other VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1990 1:00 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 1:00 1. Town Council/Planning and Environmental Commission Joint Tom Braun Meeting to Discuss Revisions to Commercial Core I, Kristan Pritz Administration, the "250 Ordinance", and Parking Pay-in-Lieu Ordinance No. 36 Action Requested of Council: Offer comments on the information presented. Background/Rationale: A general overview of the Administration and CCI chapters will be presented. Specific alternatives for dealing with the 250 Ordinance will be discussed. 3:00 2. Discussion of Vail Gateway Sidewalk Extension to Meadow Leo Palmer Drive Kristan Pritz Action Requested of Council: Determine if it is appropriate to contribute money for the construction of the sidewalk. Background/Rationale: The owner of the Gateway Building, Leo Palmer, would like to construct a public sidewalk along the east side of Vail Road. The sidewalk would extend from the Gateway south to Meadow Drive. 3:30 3. Discussion of 1991 Budget Steve Barwick Action Requested of Council: Give direction to staff on appropriate methods for funding the Town's $90,000 contribution to a regional transportation system. Background/Rationale: Staff will present options for funding the Town's contribution to a regional transportation system. 4:00 4. Information Update Ron Phillips 4:05 5. Other TO: 'Town Council FROM: Community Development Department Tom Braun DATE: November 20, 1990 RE: Ordinance No. 36, amendments to the pay in lieu parking program Revisions to Ordinance No. 36 have not been completed in time to include the ordinance in the Council packet. The delay in completing these amendments is due to implications involved in drafting the revisions requested by the Council at the November 13th work session. A brief discussion of these implications and the proposed amendments is scheduled for the November 20th work session. Assuming no further complications arise, the revised ordinance will be scheduled for Tuesday's evening meeting. t4 M TO: Town Council/Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department Tom Braun DATE: November 19, 1990 RE: Amendment alternatives for the Commercial Core I zone district Amendments to Commercial Core I entail a comprehensive rewrite of the chapter. Major revisions to CCI were made in 1981 in conjunction with adoption of the Urban Design Guide Plan. Many of the amendments now under consideration are designed to clarify the relationship between the Guide Plan and zoning regulations. The following is a section by section summary of the changes that will be recommended for Commercial Core I. . 18.24.010 Purpose There are no changes proposed in the purpose section. 18.24.020 Permitted and conditional uses-basement or garden level 18.24.030 Permitted and conditional uses-first or street level 18.24.040 Permitted and conditional uses-second floor 18.24.050 Permitted and conditional uses-above second floor 18.24.060 Conditional uses-generK:.~,ly The five sections that regulate uses are in need of reorganization. Uses in the Village vary by floor level and, as such, understanding what uses are permitted where tends to be somewhat complex. However, the presentation of permitted and conditional uses could be improved simply by adding headings, clarifying introductions to the various floor levels and reorganizing the uses that are listed. Other specific amendments to these sections include: 1) All permitted and conditional uses should be evaluated. Eliminating uses such as "small appliance store" and "dog kennel" may be appropriate. 2) Clarify a conflict regarding a requirement that all uses be conducted entirely within a building and "outdoor dining decks", which are permitted as a conditional use. 3) The special criteria used to evaluate conditional use ; requests are located in section 18.24.070. These criteria should be relocated to the use sections, or be located immediately after them. 4) The conditional use sections should refer to the fact that there are special criteria used in CCI to review these requests. 1 tt ~ti 5) The removal of a unit on the second floor requires a conditional use permit, this should be expanded to include all floors above the first floor. 6) Definitions for determining various floor levels should be clarified and moved to the definition section of the zoning code. 7) Consideration should be given to making the removal of an outdoor dining deck a conditional use. 18.24.065 Exterior alterations or modificastions - procedures This section outlines the development review procedures in the Village and incorporates the Urban Design Guide Plan into this process. Design guidelines of the Urban Design Guide Plan essentially replace the prescribed development standards found in traditional zoning. Amendments to be considered include: 1) Submittal dates for major projects are limited to two days, the fourth Mondays in November and May. These dates were intended to allow a Y-eview process that would facilitate spring and fal]. construction. Experience has shown that these dates, particularly the November date, do not allow enough review time to permit construction immediately after ski season. The dates should be moved up, possibly to September and March. 2) The issue of ownership and who can authorize an application to proceed should be: clarified, particularly for condominiumized property. 3) Submittal requirements should be: added to the procedure section. 4) The 60/90 day review period should be abolished and the review procedure section should be drafted to reflect how the process is actually handled. For example, preliminary submittal is made, PEC is briefed on applications, staff/PEC provides applicant with final list of requirements, formal submittal is made, item is published, review commences, etc. 5) While not as extensive, changes similar to those outlined above are required for the DRB review procedures. 18.24.070 Conditional uses-factors applicable This section lists seven criteria used to :review conditional uses. They could be consolidated into four or five criteria. Issues not addressed by existing criteria, such as streetlife/vitality, mixed use character, tourism, etc., should be incorporated into these criteria. The criteria should be relocated to the use sections of this chapter. 2 18.24.080 Accessory uses This section should be relocated to the use sections. 18.24.090 Lot. area and site dimensions Minimum lot area in the Village is only 5,000 square feet of buildable area. 5,000 square feet is quite small, but this has been done for a reason - a small lot will generally result in a small scale building. There are no minimum dimensions (i.e., the lot be capable of enclosing a square area x ft. on each side, within its boundaries), required for lots in the Village. Minimum dimensional requirements should be established. 18.24.100 Setbacks The zoning code states that "there shall be no required setbacks . " in the Village. For nearly ten years, design criteria of the Urban Design Guide Plan have been used to review the setbacks of new buildings. This system was put in place to encourage, in certain locations and under certain circumstances, buildings to be located close to property lines. By and large, this system has worked very well. This flexibility in setbacks has facilitated many infill developments in the Village - the majority of which were encouraged by the Guide Plan in order to achieve urban design goals. The intent of the code is not to suggest that there are no required setbacks, but rather, that there shall be flexibility in determining required setbacks and the basis for determining setbacks shall be compliance with the Guide Plan. Over the years however, a perception has developed that there are simply no setback requirements in the Village. This misperception has often put the staff and PEC under pressure to justify why a building should maintain a certain setback - as opposed to the applicant justifying a building's location. In a sense, the tables have been turned in a way that at times puts the staff and PEC in a defensive posture. Establishing a minimum setback would certainly correct this misperception, but doing so would be in direct conflict with the flexibility of the Village's development review process and would be counterproductive. Avery subtle wording change to the setback regulations would address this situation. This amendment would simply delete reference to there being "no required setbacks". For example, "minimum setbacks shall be as determined by the PEC based on compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations". 3 18.24.120 Height Limitations on ridge heights and roof height percentages are presently outlined in the Urban Design Guide Plan. These regulations should be stated in this section of the zoning code. In addition, "minor deviations" to roof height regulations for towers, cupolas, etc., as mentioned in the UDGP, should be referenced in the code. While setback variance requests should be reviewed relative to urban design criteria, requests for building height variances should be review with standard variance criteria (requires physical hardship, etc.). There have been, and will continue to be, a variety of reasons for approving buildings with minimal setbacks. However, there is no reason four allowing such flexibility for building heights in the Village. Maximum building heights should be absolute and the best way to assure this is by reviewing variance requests reviewed relative to standard variance criteria. (It should be noted that this has been the practice for a number of years, amendments would merely state that this is the procedure in CCI) The manner in which building height is ca]Lculated should be defined, specifically with regard to how building height is determined on buildings with more than onE~ base elevation. For example, the Bell Tower Building and the ritzmark have frontage on Gore Creek Drive and the Gore Creek Promenade, a difference of 8-10 feet. The manner in which these different base elevations are to be reconciled should be establishect. Height regulations in the Village establish maximum ridge heights and also limit certain percentages of a building to a certain height. For example, up to 40% of a building may be up to 43' and 60~ a building cannot exceed 33'. This regulation is in place to encourage varied roof heights. While variation in roof height is achieved, a loophole exists in this regulation. In certain circumstances, it may be possible to add a dormer or similar feature to a non-conforming structure ;one that presently exceeds height limits), without increasing the degree of non- . conformity. This loophole has been utilized in the past without adverse consequences, however, the potential for abuse does exist. This situation will be evaluated as a part of revisions to this section of the code. 18.24.130 Density Control Twenty-five units per acre and .8 GRFA (80 square feet of GRFA for every 100 square feet of site) are permitted in Commercial Core I. Units per acre have never been considered a problem - in fact, many properties are well below the maximum number of units that could be constructed. In and of itself, .8 GRFA is not a 4 problem. However, .8 GRFA coupled with no limit on commercial square footage raises a number of issues relative to bulk and mass. The size and form of buildings in the Village is controlled primarily by the Urban Design Guide Plan. Streetscape framework, street enclosure and building height regulations that encourage varied roof heights are the main tools used to regulate the design of buildings. When the Urban Design Plan was implemented in 1982, it was assumed that buildings would have one floor of commercial space and the rest would be residential. Today, two and three floors of commercial space are not uncommon - with .8 GRFA (literally) on top of that. No limit on commercial development and allowable GRFA at .8 has put pressure on the design guidelines to "maintain the pedestrian scale of the Village". The impact of building mass is the same, regardless of whether square footage is commercial or residential. By and large, the Urban Design Guidelines have .been very successful in maintaining the scale of buildings. Two recent examples, a proposed addition to the Bell Tower Building and an addition to the Covered Bridge Building, demonstrate this. Both buildings include three floors of commercial space. The Bell Tower Building proposed an addition, within allowable GRFA, which would have added a fifth floor. Based on urban design criteria and variance criteria (for the height variance request), the PEC was prepared to deny the proposal. Ultimately, the application was tabled. After preliminary review by the staff and PEC, the Covered Bridge proposal was redesigned to remove GRFA. This enabled the project to comply with urban design criteria and gain approval this past summer. The system does in fact work. The density control section states that "unless otherwise provided for in the UDGP, not more than .8 GRFA is permitted". This implies that square footage may be increased or decreased based on the UDGP. This provision should be amended to state that while the maximum GRFA is .8, permitted G:2FA may be less. Depending on how much commercial square footage is on the lot and and a project's compliance with urban design criteria, not all GRFA will necessarily be permitted. Put another way, GRFA is not considered a "use by right", the amount of GRFA approved must be earned, similar to the way a setback encroachment is earned. The staff has basically implied this same concept on a number of occasions, "If you want to maximize GRFA, take out some of the commercial space". This amendment would give the staff a stronger legal basis for taking this position. 5 18.24.140 Reconstruction of existing uses_generally This is one of two sections pertaining to the reconstruction of existing buildings substantially destroyed by fire or other calamities. These sections should be con:~olidated into one section and moved to the end of the chapter. 18.24.150 Coverage The intent of the CCI district is to have a "tightly clustered arrangement of buildings As such, the 80$ coverage permitted is appropriate. In CCI, ground level patios and decks are included in site coverage calculations. This raises some interesting questions, particularly with regard to non-conforming sites and outdoor dining decks. For example, a building with an outdoor dining deck that currently exceeds 80$ site coverage could propose an addition on the dining deck and no variant;e would be required the deck already counts as site coverage s~o putting a building on it does not increase the site's coverage. The manner in which site coverage is calculated, particularly with respect to outdoor dining decks, will be evaluated as a part of this amendment process. 18.24.170 Landscaping and site development; Landscape requirements presently state that "no reduction of landscaped areas be permitted unless sufficient cause is shown by the applicant or as specified in the UDGP". Minimum standards beyond just "no reduction" should be adopted, and should also outline more precisely what constitutes landscaping. Currently, patios and decorative pavers are included in landscape calculations. These areas are legitimate landscape features, but the portion of the total landscape requirement that can be satisfied by these features should be clarified. This will assure a minimum amount of soft, or green landscape area. These changes will be coordinated with site coverage regulations and may require a change to the definition of landscaping. 18.24.180 Parking and loading Reference to the parking exemption section of the code is wrong. This typo should be changed. 18.24.190 Location of business activity This section states that all business and ;activity permitted in 6 CCI must take place within a building, except parking, loading and the outdoor display of goods. Obviously, the first change to this section should be to recognize outdoor dining decks as a use that is permitted outside of a building. Secondly, the issue of displaying goods outside of shops has been discussed numerous times. If this is still an issue, now is the time to address it. 18.24.200 Reconstruction of existing uses-compliance with standards This section should be integrated with section 18.24.140. 18.24.220 Adoption of Vail Village IIDGP This section references the adoption of the UDGP. The only change under consideration is to relocate this section to the exterior alteration section of this chapter. Clearly, the Commercial Core I chapter is in need of much work While many changes will simply "clean up" the way information is presented, a number of important amendments should be considered: 1) Density, or more specifically, gross residential floor area should be amended so that the .8 GRFA is not a use by right, but rather a maximum amount: of GRFA that may be developed subject to other development on the property and compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan. 2) Site coverage and landscape requirements need to be clarified, both in terms of how they are calculated and the relationship between these two regulations. 3) To varying degrees, the implementation of setback, building height, coverage and landscaping regulations are dependent on quantified standards and the criteria of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The success of the Guide Plan can be attributed to the incorporation of design criteria into these zoning standards. However, there is some confusion over when urban design criteria should be used to evaluate a proposal and when traditional variance criteria should be used. This issue will be clarified for each of these development standards. 4) Clarification of issues pertaining to the calculation of building height. 7 TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 13, 1990. RE: Vail Road Sidewalks Over the past several weeks, staff has worked with Leo Palmer and Buff Arnold regarding a sidewalk connection from the Gateway to Meadow Drive. The DRB approved a design for the sidewalk on October 31, 1990. Below is a detailed description of the review process. 9/17/90 Applicant submitted project for DRB meeting on 10/3/90. 9/19/90 Plans sent to Jeff Winston for his review. 9/27/90 Staff met with Dennis Anderson, Buff Arnold, Todd Oppenheimer, Leo .Palmer, Jeff Winston, Mike Mollica on site. Applicant agreed to redesign sidewalk and table to 10/15/90. 10/2/90 Revised plans submitted to T.O.V. based on field meeting on 9/27/90. 10/8-10/12 Ongoing work with Amoco and Gateway regarding the median. 10/12/90 Meeting with Mike Mollica, Andy Knudtsen, Greg Hall with Buff Arnold and Leo Palmer. Agreed on curb location which would allow a median. 10/15/90 Staff met with Ron Phillips to describe sidewalks and median. 10/17/90 Project went to Design Review Board for approval.. DRB requested several changes and required that the applicant bring it back on the 31st. 10/31/90 Final approval by DRB: