Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1993-10-19 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session
~ _ - + „ f _ T l TO DA TIME. FRAM ~~l,a?- ~GS . ~ c~:r.,t ~ ~~a~x~ t 5 ~ 3~/L cn S 4~~~~ ~ q1~9 ~ ~9 ~scosS~ 1 . ~=d ~ (J1' a A ~CTl1A =0 f { C7LL I "!Ll. Cfi~L ~ l~hG`[D ~ ~ -'°`g ~J ~ ` i y~ ~ i / z. I ~ AMPAD A10 23-776 400~SETS =RECYCLED ~,~PER ~ ; r } ~'a. NAIL TOWN COUNCIL ~~~aU~~~ E~/EN9NG NIEE~f'IIVC, TWd~~7t~/~lfy ®VY®t3Gt~ ~~y tl.7~3 7.30 ~.~ft. tN ~®i/ C®lllt~tCtl_ Ct-BAI1~t3ERS AGEN®~ 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail sales taxes should increase $2,100,000.00 annually by the imposition of a new sales tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new safes tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning on January 1, 1994, and each subsequent year; the annual revenues shall be designated exclusively for the construction, marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; authorizing the Town of Vail to increase debt up to $14,400,000.00 by issuance of negotiable interest bearing bonds for the purpose of providing the construction, marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; providing for the cessation of such portion of the tax increase that is no longer necessary to service the revenue bonds; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing. 3. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 3.40.170 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail deleting the definition of "charitable." 4. Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993, first reading, an annual appropriation ordinance: adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses, and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1994, and providing for the levy assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 1993 tax year and payable in the 1994 fiscal year. 5. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 31 (Golden Peak House) and providing for a development plan and its contents; development standards; and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Nail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. 6. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 30, The Vail Athletic Club) and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vaif Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: JWT/1987 Vaif Limited Partnership, aka The Vail Athletic Club. 7. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning 7.710 acres from Agricultural and Open Space, Section 18.32 to Low Density Multi-Family, Section 18.16 located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. Applicant: Town of Vail/Nail Housing Authority. 8. Resolution No. 12, Series of 1993, a resolution renaming Kel-Gar Lane to Black Bear Lane. 1 ~ ~;..b 9. Appointment of Election Judges for the November 16, 1993, Regular Municipal Election. 10. Adjournment. 0 1~O4E REVISE® UIPCOMING MEE~BNG S'~AR~' DIMES BELOW: ~Hf~ NE31~ VAIL SOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON SUES®A~Y, 90/6/93, BEGINNING AT 4:00 P.M. IN TO!/ COUNCIL CHAMBERS. SHE E®LQ_OWING VAIL SOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON SUES®A~, ~ ~/~/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN ~OV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. VHE NEXT VAII_ V®WN C®UNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEE~fING WID_L [BE O(~I ~UD:S®A~, ~1/~JJ3, BEGINNING A~ 7:30 B.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C:WGENDA.TC 2 VAIL TOV1lN COUNCIL [~~~l1LA~ E~/EI~IIIVG ME~1°IIV~ y aa~~ ~®~11p~~~71 p®~i'~y'~lf y ®®Aps?T ®~p®pg/~~?6Ep ~q.7apy~1p.7p.7p~® .~T® tl'.tltll. 6p®®ytl ~/®i./pA~tl 4±i~L 6/9-9/11tlA®~P7~ IEXI~~?IN®~® MVl~ltl®M9 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance Tom Moorhead submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Steve Thompson Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail sales taxes should increase $2,100,000.00 annually by the imposition of anew sales tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new sales tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning on January 1, 1994, and each subsequent year; the annual revenues shall be designated exclusively for the construction, marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; authorizing the Town of Vail to increase debt up to $14,400,000.00 by issuance of negotiable . interest bearing bonds for the purpose of providing the construction, marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; providing for the cessation of such portion of the tax increase that is no longer necessary to service the revenue bonds; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on second reading. 7:50 P.M. ~ 3. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance Steve Thompson repealing and reenacting Section 3.40.170 of the Municipal Code Tom Moorhead of the Town of Vail deleting the definition of "charitable." Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on second reading. Background Rationale: This ordinance would remove present restrictive definition of "charitable organization" presently in TOV's Municipal Code. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, on second reading. 7:55 P.M. 4. Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993, first reading, an annual Steve Thompson appropriation ordinance: adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses, and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1994, and providing for the levy assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 1993 tax year and payable in the 1994 fiscal year. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993, on first reading. 1 1 8:15 P.M. 5. Ordinance fVo. 28, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance Mike Mollica establishing Special Development District fVo. 31 (Golden Peak House) and providing for a development plan and its contents; development standards; and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium AssociationNail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: Please see the CDD memo to the PEC dated 10/11 /93. On 10/11 /93, the PEC recommended conditional approval (by a vote of 7-0) of the applicants' requests. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, on first reading. 9:45 P. M. 6. Ordinance fVo. 27, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance Shelly Mello approving a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 30, The Vail Athletic Club) and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and Setting forth details in regard thereto. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance fVo. 27, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: On 9/27/93, the PEC unanimously recommended approval to Council for the establishment of an SDD for the Vail Athletic Club. The PEC's conditions are detailed in the attached memo to Council dated 9/30/93. Further, on 10/5/93, Council reviewed the project at a Work Session. During the discussion of this item, Council was concerned with the apparent deviations in parking. Staff has researched this item and has detailed the results in the attached memo dated 10/14/93. Staff Recommendation: The PEC and staff recommend approval of this item with conditions as detailed in the 9/30/93 memo. 11:00 P.M. 7. Ordinance fVo. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance Andy Knudtsen rezoning 7.710 acres from Agricultural and Open Space, Section 18.32 to Low Density Multi-Family, Section 18.16 located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. Applicant: Town of Vail/Vail Housing Authority. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance fVo. 21, Series of 1993, on first reading. . Backaround Rationale: Please see background and analysis of criteria in the staff memorandum dated 10!11193. On 10/11/93, the PEC recommended to approve (7-0) the requested rezoning with the conditions as outlined in the staff cover memo dated 10/14/93. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, on first reading. 11:45 P.M. 8. Resolution No. 12, Series of 1993, a resolution renaming Kel-Gar Tom Moorhead Lane to Black Bear Lane. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Resolution No. 12, Series of 1993. 2 Backaround Rationale: The property owners on Kel-Gar Lane have requested by petition to change the name of the street to Black Bear Lane. 11:50 P.M. 9. Appointment of Election Judges for the November 16, 1993, Regular Holly McCutcheon Municipal Election. Action Requested of Council: Appoint Kay Cheney., Karen Morter, Mary Caster, Pat Dauphinais, and Joan Norris as judges and Mary Jo Allen as an alternate election judge for the Regular Municipal Election to be held Tuesday, 11 /16/93. Backaround Rationale: By Charter, judges hired for Regular Municipal Elections must be appointed by Council. Staff Recommendation: Appoint the judges recommended. 11:55 P.M. 10. Adjournment. NGTE REVISE® UI~C®iUI1NG NIEETIIVG START TIMES BEL®W: i ~ THE NEXT VAIL T®WN C®UNCIL REGULAR W®RK SESSION !NILE BE ®N TUES®AV, 10/26!93, BEGINNING AT 4:00 P.M. IN T®!/ C®UNCIL CFiANABERS. TIDE E®LL®WING VAIL TOWN C®UNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSI®N WILL BE ®N TUES®A~f, 11/2/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.IlA. IN T®V COUNCIL CIiAMBERS. TIDE NEXT VAIL T®WN C®UNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL II~E ®N TUES®AV, ~ 1!2/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.AA. IN T®V COUNCIL CIiAMBERS. C:VIGENDA.7CE 3 OCT 19 '93 12:57 FROM HANIFEN IMHOFF INC ~ PAGE.002 ~ b~3# a-' Hanifen. Imhoff Ir1sd. Investment ~anker$ ~~~a~~~~~"'~Ji~, 1125 17th Street. Suite 1600 DeRVer, Colorado 80202 o 1303) 288.2300 1~~~®~~1~~~~ 'II'Os Caroline Tremblay ~ItOA~a John duck I~AT~e October 19, 1993 lR~e Pledge to Performance do Conference Center fond Issue Caroline, per your request, below is a brief summary of the Pros & Cons associated with pledging additional revenues other than the lodging and restaurant tax for the proposed bond issue for the Performance and Conference Center. Additional revenues will increase investor comfort hand rating agealcy and insurance companies) that the `gown will be able to service the debt on xhedule. This additional comfort can translate into a higher rating on the bond issue than if the additional revenues were not pledged. for the 'I"own of Vail, this opens the oossib~y that the bond issue could receive a rating in the "Aa category With an "l~" rating, the debt service on the bond issue could be lowered versus the debt service for an insured issue, further reducing the likelihood that the additional revenues would be needed. The benefit of the additional pledge simply gives the Town more flexibility in obtaining the lowest possible debt services on the bond issue. Cons If the additional revenues sire pledged, the Town will then be obligated to use the additional revenues to service debt if needed. Without tht; pledge, the 'T'own will not have such an obligat~o>9. The question really tomes down to whether or not the 'T'own would default on the bonds if the lodging and restaurant tax was insufficient to service debt. If the Town does not believe it would default, there really is no financial downside to the additional pledge. ppnwr a Glrnwovd Sp~lny0. L"olOTdO . r'Oq W.cMts. Ptansee M2enLN0 eM19 MpPO. New JefseY kpo Vork Nock Eachen4o. Inc. A~b~wQryve. McXko _ Angr~can 5lock Excnanpa, Inc. fASSOCIaIaI GMYen••f. N'YWPIinq OR®INANCE NO. 22 SERIES OF 1993 AI~I OR®INANCE SUBnAITTING TO THE REGISTERE® ELECTORS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL AT THE REGULAR Ii~IUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE IiEL® ON TOES®AY, THE 16th OF NOVEIIABER, 1993, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TOWN OF VAIL SALES TAXES SHOUL®INCREASE $2,1®®,000.®® ANNUALLY BY THE IIUIPOSITION OF A NEW SALES TAX OF 0.9% ON RESTAURANTS AN® BARS AN®A NEW SALES TAX OF 1.8% ON LO®GING BEGINNING ON ~?ANUARY 1994, AN® EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR; THE ANNUAL REVENUES SHALL BE ®ESIGNATE® EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, IV~ARKETING AN® OPERATION OF A PERFORnAANCE AN® CONFERENCE CENTER; AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF VAIL. TO INCREASE ®EBT UP TO $14,400,000.00 BY ISSUANCE OF NEGOTIABLE INTEREST BEARING BON®S FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVI®lNG THE C®NSTRUCTION, flAARICETING AN® OPERATION OF A PERFORIIflANCE AN® CONFERENCE CENTER; PROVI®ING FOR THE CESSATION OF SUCH PORTION OF THE TAX INCREASE THAT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO SERVICE THE REVENUE BON®S, SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE, PROVI®ING FOR NOTICE OF THE ELECTION; PROVI®ING F®Et CON®UCT OF THE ELECTION; PROVI®ING FURTIiER ®ETAILS IN RELATION TO THE FOREGOING. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council on the 20th day of July, 1993, passed Resolution fVo. 8, Series of 1993, establishing its support of the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center and placing certain contingencies upon such support; and WHEREAS, the contingency concerning the economic feasibility of the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center has been fulfilled; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council wishes to submit to the registered qualified electors of the Town at the next Regular Municipal Election for approval a 0.9% tax on restaurants and bars and 1.8% tax on lodging which revenue will be dedicated to the construction, marketing, and operations of a performance and conference center; and WHEREAS, consistent with the aforementioned tax, the Town of Vail would issue revenue bonds in the amount of $14,440,000.00; and WHEREAS, the portion of the tax that is required to finance the debt of the revenue bonds will sunset when the debt is retired; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned taxes if approved would be collected in 1994, and each subsequent year and be collected and retained for no longer than four (4) years before construction begins on a facility which incorporates a performance and conference center consistent with the total public and private funds available; and WHEREAS, the funds collected and retained will not be included within the general revenue of the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, the collection, retention, and expenditure of the full revenues derived from such tax and the proceeds of said bonds will not be limited by State revenue or expenditure 1 ~ Qrdinance No. 22, Series of 1993 limitation of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution; NOVV, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: SECTION 1. At the regular municipal election to be held in the various precincts and at the polling places of the Town of Vail on Tuesday, the 16th day of November, 1993, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., there shall be submitted to the vote of the registered electors of the Town of Vail the question herein authorized. SECTION 2. At the said election, the official ballot, including absentee ballots, shall state the substance of the question to be voted upon and so stated shall constitute the ballot title, designation and submission clause, and each registered elector voting at the election shall indicate his or her choice on the question submitted, which sha{I be in the following form: SHALL THE TOWN OF VAIL SALES TAXES SE INCREASE® X2,100,000.00 ANNUALLY 13Y THE IIIAPOSITION OF A NEW SALES TAX OF 0.9% ON RESTAURANTS ANf~ BARS AN® A NEW SALES TAX OF ~ .8% ON L®®GING ~E~",aINNING ON ~?ANUARY 1, 199, AN® EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR AN® SMALL THE TOWN OF VAIL ®EST SE INCREASE® UP $1,440,000.00 WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $27,617,69®.®®? THE ANNUAL REVENUES AN® ®EST SHALL SE ®ESIGNATE® EXCLUSIVELY FOR TI"IE CONSTRUCTION, IIIAARIKETING AN® OPERATIONS OF A PERFORMANCE AN® CONFERENCE CENTER. THE PORTION OF THE TAX THAN IS REQUIRE®TO FINANCE THE IDEI3T OF THE REVENUE SON®S WILL EXPIRE WHEN THE ®EST BS RETIRE®. THE REVENUES WILL SE COLLECTE® AN® RETAINE® FOR NO LODGER TITIAN FOUR (4) YEARS CONTINGENT UPOf19 THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION ON SUCH FACILITY AN® IF SUCH CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEGUN EY ®ECEMSER 31, 1997, A VOTE TO ®ETERfV11NE THE ®ISPOSITION OF TIDE UNSPENT TAX REVENUES WILL SE HEL® AT THE GENERAL Gi~UNICIPAL ELECTION IN NOVEI1AIgER, 1998. SHALL ®URING THE PERIO® OF COLLECTION AN® RETENTION OF THE TAX, SUCH REVENUE NOT I3E INCLU®E® WBTHIN THE GENERAL REVENUE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL AN® SHALL THE PROCEE®S OF SUCK SON®S AN® THE REVENUES FROINI SUCH TAXES AN® ANY EARNINGS FROG THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH PROCEE®S AN® REVENUES SE 2 Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993 C®B_~.(~CTI~® ~~N®~ ~SPEg~N®7y1' ~WBTpB-9®®~D,p~+Tp ~,@V~M@T~aT~B4®~pp ®Et ®Iltl®BTB®OCIy OCa® 11 tlY BT~IISTP4A~7®BOtl~ 6'41"O~By IL~ d'Oy S~li 0 B®®V' ~0~ Ah~®~9BTC-B®~DT B_BI~BTBBVG TBiE C®I_~ECTB®BV ®B~ SPEN®IBVC~ ®B= ®TIHI(E~ef~ 6~[I~:gN[~fiV@.9ES®~93 EUN®yySp~B3V/~T9~E T®®g~W6~®peFVya49B_~flp~ptp~®ER P9~~pB \~oplLpp~ dLy ~Sp~~TpB®p p9\~7~~®y 0 E--A~'lo®~®f'8P9®® V®I~STB 0 YLTB®B~ P9tlC1ll ®~If01E~ ILd+'~tltl~ BT BS p~~pWp~ BIIV` O ~ppO~yyTB®®®tl~TU~P9~®Tlf 9p,~p Tb0~8dY ®p~B=1r G~'L~®tl0pr~® P91~p®g tlp p~ I~IG f~B,DB_B_ ~B~~d"i N ~~ACIT ~®tl'T TA-7~ 1~®A~®S. B~ C1®®BTB®Ad/'11L B3®~IB~ C®llf~ReAC(le BS BCE®fl,DIB~E®, ®TB~EB~ Se4B_ES TAB B~IEilE~I~E C~~I B3E I~~.E®GE® AS B)ETB:FBB?ABBdEB) B3~ T®1N~'I C®4.DCNCB~. 11=®B~ '~B~E BlfdPe~S~BB~E ~CaeAIBVST ~'B~E BVIEa4SlJB~E~E SECTION 3. If a majority of all the votes cast at the election shall be for the measure, the measure shall be deemed passed, and the Town of Vail shall be authorized to collect and retain the full revenues in accordance with the approved measure and such revenues and expenditures will be separate and apart from any other expenditure of the Town which may be limited pursuant to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution and notwithstanding the passage of any other State of Colorado initiative limiting such collection or expenditure, and the revenues authorized for expenditure by the passage of this measure shall not be counted in any such expenditure limitation. SECTION 4. The election shall be conducted under the provisions of the Charter and ordinances of the Town of Vail and, to the extent applicable, under the provisions of the Colorado Municipal Election Code as set forth in Title 31, Article 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). SECTION 5. The Town Clerk of the Town of Vail shall give public notice of the election on the question. hereby submitted (a) by causing the notice to be published in the Vail Trail as provided by law, (b) by mailing to "all registered voters" at each address within the Town of Vail at which a voter is registered no sooner than twenty five (25) days before the election and no later than fifteen (15) days before the election a notice entitled "Notice of Election on a Referred Measure". This notice shall include only: (1) the election date and hours for voting, (2) the ballot title, (3) the text of the measure to be voted upon, (4) the office address and telephone number of the Town Clerk, and (5) two (2) summaries, not more than five hundred (500) words each, one (1) for and one (1) against the measure, of written comments filed with the Town Clerk no later than thirty (30) days before the election. No summary shall mention names of persons or private groups, nor any endorsements of or resolutions against the measure to be voted upon. The Town Clerk shall maintain on file and accurately summarize all relevant written comments. SECTION 6. The officer of the Town of Vail are authorized and directed to take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 7. The Town Council finds and declares that this ordinance is a matter of local 3 Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993 concern pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado. 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 the inhabitants thereof. SECTION 10. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings 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 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, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 21st day of September, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 19th day of October, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\ORD9322 4 Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993 . GR®INANCE N®. 24 SERIES ®F 1393 AN ®R®INANCE IREPIEALING AN® REENACTING SECTI®N 3.40.170 ®F TIDE I116Ut~IICIPAL C®®E ®F THE T®WN ®F !/AIL ®ELETINCi TtiE ®EFINITION ®F "CI°IARITABLE.°° WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail believes that it would be for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Vail if the definition of "charitable" is deleted from the provision providing for sales tax exemptions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAlL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 Section 3.40.170 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is repealed and reenacted as follows: 3.40.170 -Exemptions. The following goods and services shalt be exempt from sales tax under the provisions of this Chapter 3.40: , A. All sales to the United States government and to the State, its departments and institutions and the political subdivisions thereof in their governmental capacities only. B. All sales made to charitable organizations in the conduct of their regular charitable functions and activities. C. All sales which the Town is prohibited from taxing under the Constitutional Laws of the United States, the State, or the Town's Charter. D. All sales of cigarettes. E. Medical supplies as set forth in Section 3.040.020, subsection Y. F. All sales made to schools, other than schools held or conducted for private or corporate profit. G. All sales of construction and building materials, as such term is used in Section 29- 2-109 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, if such materials are picked up by the purchaser or if yhe purchaser of such materials gives to the retailer a building permit number. H. The transfer of tangible personal propert~r without consideration (other than the purchase, sale or promotion of the transferor's product) to a vendee located outside the town for 1 Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993 use outside the town in selling products normally sold at wholesale by the transferor. I. All commodities which are taxed under the provisions of Article 27, Title 39 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and all commodities which are taxed under such provisions and for which the tax is refunded, and the sale of special fuel, as defined in Section 39-27-201 (8) of the Colorado Revised Statutes,used for the operation of farm vehicles are being used on farms and ranches. J. Exempt commercial packaging materials as set forth in Section 3.40.020, subsection P. K. 1. All sales of construction and building materials to contractors and subcontractors for use in the building, erection, alteration, or repair of structures, highways, roads, streets, and other public works owned or used by: a. The United States government, the state, its departments and institutions, and the political subdivisions thereof in their governmental capacities only; b. Charitable organizations in the conduct of their regular charitable functions and activities; or c. Schools, other than schools held or conducted for private or corporate profit. 2. On application by a purchaser or seller, the finance director shall issue to a contractor or subcontractor a certificate or certificates of exemption indicating that the contractor's or subcontractor's purchase of construction or building materials is for a purpose stated in paragraph 1. of this subsection K. and is, therefore, free from sales tax. The finance director shall provide forms for such application and for such certificate and shall have the authority to verify that the contractor or subcontractor is, in fact, entitled to the issuance of such certificate prior to such issuance. L. 1. Sales to and purchases of tangible personal property by a person engaged in the business of manufacturing, compounding for sale, profit for use, any article, substance, or commodity which tangible personal property enters into the processing of or becomes an ingredient or component part of the product or service which is manufactured, compounded or furnished, and the container, label or the furnished shipping case thereof, shall be exempt 2 oro~~~,~» No. 2a. saw ~t 1 Y0 G ' from taxation under this Chapter 3.40. 2. As used in paragraph 9 . of this subsection L. with regard to food products, tangible personal property enters into the processing of such products and, therefore, is exempt from taxation when: a. It is intended that such property become an integral or constituent part of a food product which is intended to be sold ultimately at retail for human consumption; or b. Such property, whether or not it becomes an integral or constituent part of a food product, is a chemical, solvent, agent, mold skin casing, or other material, is used for the purpose of producing or inducing a chemical or physical change in a food product or is used for the purpose of placing a food product in a more marketable condition and is directly utilized and consumed, dissipated, or destroyed, to the extend it is rendered unfit for further use, in the processing of a food product which is intended to be sold ultimately at retail for human consumption. M. All sales and purchases of electricity, coal, gas, fuel oil, coke, or nuclear fuel, for use in processing, manufacturing, mining, refining, irrigation, construction, telecommunication services and street and railroad transportation services and all industrial uses. N. In any case in which a sales tax has been imposed under this Chapter 3.40 on lubricating oil used other than in motor vehicles, the purchaser thereof shall be entitled to a refund equal to the amount of the sales tax paid on that portion of the sales tax price thereof which is attributable to the federal excise tax imposed on the sale of such lubricating oil. The refund allowed under this subsection iV shall be paid by the finance director upon receiving under Section 6425 of the Internal Revenue Code of i 954, as amended a refund of the federal excise tax paid on the sale of such lubricating oil. The claim for a refund shall be made upon forms ° furnished by the finance department. O. All sales and purchases of refactory materials and carbon electrodes used by a person manufacturing iron and steel for sale or profit and all sales and purchases of inorganic chemicals used in the processing of vanadium-uranium ores. P. All sales and purchases of newsprint and printer's ink for use by publishers of newspapers and commercial printers and all sales and purchasers of newspapers, as such term is defined in Section 24-70-i 02 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. 3 Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993 Q. All sales of tangible personal property purchased or sold within the town if delivered " outside the town to the purchaser. R. Modified computer software programs in Section 3.40.020, subsection Z. S. The sale of food as defined in Section 2012(8) of Title 7 of the United States Code as of, and as it may be amended after, October 1, 1987, that is purchased by the medium of exchange commonly known as "food stamps", and the sale of food as defined in or pursuant to Section 1786 of Title 42 of the United States Code as of, and as it may be amended after, October 1, 1987, that is purchased with vouchers, checks, or similar certificates of exchange for the "Special Supplemental Food Program" for Women, Infants, and Children. Section 2 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 3 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 the inhabitants thereof. Section 4 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings 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 5 ° All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are 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, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 5th day of October, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this 4 Ordinance No. 24, Series of 199:1 0 e Ordinance on the 19th day of October, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Ostertoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:~OR09324 5 Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993 ORDINANCE NO. 26 SERIES OF 1993 ANNEAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE: ~aDOPTING A Bt1DGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN AID MAILING APPROPRIATI®NS TO PAY THE COSTS, EXPENSES, AND LIABILITIES OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORAD®, FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR JANUARY 1, 1994, THROl9GF8 DECEMBER 31, 1994, AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TOWN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES Dd1E FOR THE 1993 TAX YEAR AND PAYABLE IN THE 1994 FISCAL YEAR. WHEREAS, in accordance with Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Manager prepared and submitted to the Town Council a proposed long-range capital program for the Town and a proposed budget and financial plan for all Town funds and activities for the 1994 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the proposed Town budget and capital program was published on the 19th day of October, 1993, more than seven (7) days prior to the hearing held on the 19th day of October, 1993, pursuant to Section 9.5 of the Charter; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town Council to adopt a budget and financial plan for the 1994 fiscal year, to make appropriations for the amounts specified in the budget, and to provide for the levy, assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 1993 year and payable in the 1994 fiscal year. fVOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: 1. The procedures prescribed in Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, for the enactment hereof have been fulfilled. 2. Pursuant to Article tX of the Charter, the Town Council hereby makes the following annual appropriations for the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year beginning on the first day of January, 1994, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1994: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $14,154,686 Capital Projects Fund 6,979,594 Real Estate Transfer Tax 2,528,525 Parking Structure Fund 2,033,766 Heavy Equipment Fund 1,523,391 Police Seizure Fund 236,535 Debt Service Fund 3,129,618 Health Insurance Fund 942,860 Vail Marketing Fund 609,501 Booth Creek Debt Service Fund 41,856 Vail Housing Fund 30,000 Total: 32,210,332 Less Interfund Transfers: <6,626,829> Total Budget $25,583,503 1 • Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 3. The Town Council hereby adopts the full and complete Budget and Financial Plan for the 1994 fiscal year for the Town of Vail, Colorado, which are incorporated by reference herein and made part hereof, and copies of said public records shall be made available to the public in the Municipal Building of the Town. 4. For the purpose of defraying part of the operating and capital expenses of the Town of Vaii, Colorado, during its 1993 fiscal year, the Town Council hereby levies a property tax of 6.19 mills upon each dollar of the total assessed valuation of $354,702,270 for the 1993 tax year of all taxable property within the Town, which will result in a gross tax levy of $2,195,607. Said assessment shall be duly made by the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, as directed by the Colorado Revised Statutes (1973 as amended), and as otherwise required by law. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after publication following the final passage hereof. 6. 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. 7. 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 the inhabitants thereof. 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings 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. 9. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are 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, theretofore repealed: INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of October, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 2nd day of November, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk 2 Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 a READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\OFiD9326 3 Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1933 ' OR®INANCE NO. 26 SERIES OF 9993 ANINUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCEo AD®PTING A BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN AN® MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO PAY THE COSTS, EXPENSES, AND LIABILITIES ®F THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, fFOR ITS FISCAL YEAR .IANUARY 9, 1994, THROUGH DECEMBER 39, 9994, AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TOWN A® VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES DUE FOR THE 9993 TAX YEAR AN® PAYABLE IN THE 9994 FISCAL YEAR. WHEREAS, in accordance with Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Manager prepared and submitted to the Town Council a proposed long-range capital program for the Town and a proposed budget and financial plan for all Town funds and activities for the 1994 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing on the proposed Town budget and capital program was published on the 19th day of October, 1993, more than seven (7) days prior to the hearing held on the 19th day of October, 1993, pursuant to Section 9.5 of the Charter; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Town Council to adopt a budget and financial plan for the 1994 fiscal year, to make appropriations for the amounts specified in the budget, and to provide for the levy, assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 1993 year and payable in the 1994 fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: 1. The procedures prescribed in Article IX of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, for the enactment hereof have been fulfilled. 2. Pursuant to Article IX of the Charter, the Town Council hereby makes the following annual appropriations for the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year beginning on the first day of January, 1994, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1994: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $14, 111, 3 l~~ tSa ~ ~$b Capital Projects Fund 6,979,594 Real Estate Transfer Tax 2,528,525 Parking Structure Fund 2,033,766 Heavy Equipment Fund 1,523,391 Police Seizure Fund 236,535 Debt Service Fund 3,129,618 Health Insurance Fund 942,860 Vail Marketing Fund 609,501 Booth Creek Debt Service Fund 41,856 Vail Housing Fund 30,000 Total : 32, v~,~~ 3ggZ Less Interfund Transfers: <6.626,829> Total Budget $25,5-0,191 583, Sa 3 1 Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 ~ i 3. The Town Council hereby adopts the full and complete Ciudget and Financial Plan ' for the 1994 fiscal year for the Town of Vail, Colorado, which are incorporated by reference herein and made part hereof, and copies of said public records shall be made available to the public in the Municipal Building of the Town. 4. For the purpose of defraying part of the operating and capital expenses of the Town of Vail, Colorado, during its 1993 fiscal year, the Town Council hereby levies a property tax of 6.19 mills upon each dollar of the total assessed valuation of $354,702,270 for the 1993 tax year of all taxable property within the Town, which will result in a gross tax levy of $2,195,607. Said assessment shall be duly made by the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, as directed by the Colorado Revised Statutes (1973 as amended), and as otherwise required by law. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after publication following the final passage hereof. 6. 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. 7. 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 the inhabitants thereof. 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repeated and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 9. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are 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, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of October, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the grid day of November, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk 2 Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 0 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this _ day of , 9 993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk - C:\ORD9326 3 Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 1~1=~rtoR~nr®un~ . TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 19, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District, a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request, a minor subdivision request, a zone change request and a request for an encroachment into View Corridor No. 1 for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, located at 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B and C, Block 2, and Tract E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium AssociationNail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica On October 11, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) recommended approval of the Golden Peak House. The. vote was unanimous (7-0). The PEC's motion for approval did not include the applicant's request to add a retractable enclosure over a portion of the Los Amigos outdoor dining deck. The PEC's recommended conditions of approval included the following: 1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the construction of . SDD No. 31, the developer shall permanently restrict two off-site, two-bedroom, employee housing units per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. Each unit shall be a minimum size of 700 square feet. The units shall meet the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance requirements. 2. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the redevelopment project, the developer will contribute $32,000:00 towards the redesign and redevelopment of Seibert Circle. The $32,000 contribution towards the redevelopment of Seibert Circle shall be credited towards the Golden Peak House, should a future Special Improvement District be created for this project. 3. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the redevelopment project,. the developer, will dedicate open space to the Town. The minimum area of open space would be at least an equivalent area, to that of the area of the Tract E "overhang and deck" easements and the area of the new sidewalk to be located on Tract E. It was suggested that the Mill Creek stream tract or the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E be dedicated as permanent open space. 1 4. That the developer dedicate to the Town of. Vail, a public pedestrian easement, across Lot C which is located between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building. The dedication of the easement shall occur prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the project. 5. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the developer shall deed restrict two three-bedroom dwelling units (Units 201 and 401) to be included in the Golden Peak House short-term rental program, at all times when they are not occupied by the owner or his guests. 6. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the developer shall restrict, the remaining two lock- offs in the building, to be included in the Golden Peak House short-term rental program at all times when they are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests. 7. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the developer shall agree to restrict, and place into the short-term rental program, the two proposed accommodation units in the building, to be included in the Golden Peak House short-term rental program at all times when they are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests. 8. That the developer, or his successors in interest, shall participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any improvement district(s) which may be established by the Town of Vail for the purposes of constructing improvements as set forth in the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and/or the Vail Transportation Master Plan, if and when an improvement district(s) is .formed. 9. That the pedestrian arcade (which was originally proposed over the first floor retail windows on the north elevation), and that the original ground floor plan, which does not include the curved retail windows along the eastern portion of the building, be reviewed by the Design Review Board and included in the final building design, if required by the Design Review Board. 10. That the developer further articulate the first floor "retail windows", by adding divided lights to the large single panes of glass. 11. That the Design Review Board.review the proposed roof form over the main entry on the north elevation, and determine if the roof form needs to be lowered. 12. That the proposed tar and gravel roof for the building is acceptable. 2 PlIE~ORAtd®l9Afl TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department .DATE: October 11, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District, a Commercial Core I exterior alteration request, a minor subdivision request, a zone change request and a request for an encroachment into View Corridor No. 1 for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, located at 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots,A, B and C, Block 2, and Tract E, Vait Village First Filing. Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica I. PR0.9ECT OVERVIElN ~ ®ESCFtIPTIOFI OF TFiE FiE®UESTS The Golden Peak House was originally constructed in 1966, and since that time there have been only minor, cosmetic modifications made to the exterior of the structure. The project is located in the Commercial Core I zone district. Generally, this proposed redevelopment for the Golden Peak House includes a renovation of the entire building. The existing "butterfly" roof form would be removed, and gable roofs added. The proposal includes the addition of a new fourth floor (on the western end of the structure) and the addition of a new fifth floor (on the eastern end). Architectural modifications to the structure would include the addition of sloped roofs, a small area of flat roof, the addition of dormers, balconies, bay windows, and other architectural projections. ' The existing center area of the building, which includes the circular ramp, is generally used as common area for pedestrian circulation. UVith the redevelopment, the applicant is proposing to infill this entire central area and to add a full basement beneath the structure. Additional retail/commercial space would be added to the building. Specifically, at-grade retail shops would continue to be located along the north elevation, and the second floor restaurant (Los Amigos) would remain. However, the restaurant's public entrance would be relocated to the northwest corner of the building and ,the restaurant would be expanded with the addition of a retractable enclosure over a portion of the outdoor dining deck. The following is an outline of the major modifications which are being proposed for the building: Fourth Floor -The proposal includes the addition of a new fourth floor, which would be located on the western end of the structure. The proposed fourth floor has been designed to be set back approximately 12 to 18 feet from the face of the building 1 adjacent to Bridge Street. The roof ridge, in this area, has been reoriented so that it runs east to west. This new fourth floor area is designed to include one dwelling unit, with a GRFA of 1,834 square feet. By pulling the fourth floor back from Bridge Street, the applicant proposes to shift some of this new GRFA into the "overhang and deck" easement area (Tract E) along the south side of the building. The staff has calculated that approximately 410 square feet of GRFA would be located in this easement area. Fifth Floor -The proposal includes the addition of a new fifth floor, which would be located on the eastern end of the structure. As with the new fourth floor, the fifth floor would also be set back from Bridge Street, in this case approximately 10-14 feet, from the face of the north elevation. This new fifth floor area is designed to include one dwelling unit, with a GRFA of 2,763 square feet. The fifth floor unit would have asouth-facing exterior deck, which has been designed so that it would not project over the central portion of the structure, and therefore would not be visible from Bridge Street. The Tract E and Lot Cissues - Tract E is the large parcel of land located to the south of the Golden Peak House. The parcel includes a portion of the Mill Creek stream tract, Pirate Ship Park and the Vista Bahn ski base. Tract E is owned by Vail Associates. In 1971, Vail Associates granted easements to the Golden Peak House to allow for specific encroachments (such as roof overhangs and balconies) to extend into portions of Tract E. These easements have been referred to as the "overhang and deck" easements. The Tract E easement areas total 1,240 square feet. Tract E is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The Town considers these encroachments to be legal, non-conforming uses within the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, and as such, they cannot be enlarged or expanded, and if modified, they must be brought into full compliance with the zoning code. The applicant is now requesting that these easement portions of Tract E be incorporated into the Golden Peak House parcel and be rezoned from Agriculture and Open Space to Commercial Core I zoning. Generally, the easement areas are those areas which are labeled as Easement #1, Easement #2 and Easement #3, on the property survey. Part of Lot C is approximately 209 square feet in size and is zoned CCI. Lot C is located west of the Golden Peak House site and is also owned by Vail Associates. Lot C includes part of the skier access, between the Hill Building and the Golden Peak House. The applicants have entered into a contract with Vail Associates for the acquisition of the above described portions of Tract E (generally located to the south of the building) and Lot C (to the west of the building). 2 The applicants (including !/ail Associates, as co-applicant), have requested a zone change amendment for the easement portions of Tract E that are proposed to be incorporated into the Golden Peak House parcel. In order to allow for building additions and modifications in the easement areas, and to be in full compliance with the zoning code, the applicants have proposed the following: Rezone the Tract E easement areas from Agricultural/Open Space to CCI. Minor subdivision to incorporate the easement areas (Tract E and Lot C) into the Golden Peak House parcel. ~SDD overlay on the entire Golden Peak House parcel. As proposed, there would be approximately 71 square feet of above-grade commercial floor area located in the west "overhang & deck" easement area (on the basement, ground and second floors), and the south "overhang ~ deck" easement would have approximately 410 square feet of above-grade GRFA, (on the fourth floor) located in the easement area. There would also be approximately 775 square feet of beiow- grade commercial square footage in the south easement area. This below-grade space would be owned by Vail Associates and the proposed use of the space would be for the Vail Associates private ski school, customer lounge. Stireetscape irrtprovernertts -The applicant has proposed a contribution, to the Town, to be used specifically for the future redevelopment and improvement of Seibert Circle. The contribution would be in the amount of 0,000.00. Empl®yee h®usi~g -Two off-site, permanently restricted, two-bedroom employee housing units, are proposed as a part of the redevelopment. use Restricti®ns -The applicant has proposed to "restrict" two three-bedroom dwelling units (Units 201 and 401), to be included in the Golden Peak House rental pool. These units would be included in the rental pool at all times when they are not occupied by the owner or the owner's guests. The total GRFA for these units is 3,002 square feet. ~,®s Atrtig®s deck -Ron Riley, one of the co-applicants in the redevelopment and co- owner of the restaurant, has proposed a retractable enclosure over a portion of the Los Amigos outdoor dining deck, on the south side of the building. This enclosure would cover 580 square feet, or 53°/a, of the Los Amigos dining deck. The total deck area is 1,094 square feet. The proposal includes the addition of an overhead retractable (canvas) awning, with folding Rekord doors on the east side and sliding glass doors (which fold back into a pocket) along the west side of the enclosure. The south facing portion of the deck enclosure would consist of removable wood and glass panels. The applicant proposes to remove this enclosure during all daytime hours when weather permits so that the space may be used for year round evening dining. 3 General site improvements -The proposal includes the following site modifications, which would be completed around the perimeter of the Golden Peak House: 1. A concrete unit paver walkway, with an integral snowmelt system, would be added along the north elevation and along a portion of the west elevation. A flagstone walk is also proposed along the south side of the building. 2. The existing trash enclosure, currently located along the west elevation of the building, would be removed. Anew trash compactor would be located in the basement of the Golden Peak House. A small elevator would be added to transport the refuse up to the ground floor when trash pick-ups are scheduled. This would occur at the northeast corner of the building. 3. Improvements to the skier/pedestrian access, west of the building, would include the relocation of the existing fire hydrant (out of the pedestrian way) and the addition .of a permanent planter with a large specimen evergreen. The details of the specific improvements are described further in the Streetscape Master Plan section of this memorandum. Construction Codes -The entire structure would be brought into compliance with all of the current Building and Fire Codes, (the building. would be fully sprinkled). Zoning issues -There are currently 18 dwelling units (0 accommodation units and 0 lock-offs} located in the building. The redevelopment proposal would include 14 dwelling units (3 with lock-offs) and 2 accommodation units, for a total of 15 dwelling units. Please note that for zoning purposes, two accommodation units are equal to one dwelling unit. The existing Golden Peak House exceeds the CCI development standards in the categories of Building Height, Common Area, GRFA, Density (units}, Site Coverage and Loading. a) The redevelopment project would further exceed the existing conditions in the following categories: •Buildfng Height - An increase of 3' for the eastern portion of the building and an increase of 7-11' for the western portion of the building. •Density -GRFA - An increase of approximately 5,300 square feet. •Site Coverage - An increase of approximately 1,522 square feet. b) The redevelopment project would be brought more into compliance with the standards, than the existing building, in the following zoning categories: •Common Area - A decrease of 1,191 square feet of common area. •Density (Number of Units) - A decrease of 3 dwelling units. 4 c} Although the existing project does not meet the @®ading standard, the redevelopment project would not increase or modify the requirement, per the . zoning code. The project would continue to lack the required one loading berth. In order to accomplish the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, as outlined above, the applicants have made the following requests: 1. A reauest for the establishment of a Special DeveloQment District -This provides the overlay zoning which allows the applicant to design the project with some flexibility regarding the development standards, and it allows the Town the ~oifity to review the project with regard to overall community benefit. 2. A reauest for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration -Any project which is located in CCI, and which proposes to add or remove 100 square feet of floor area, must meet the exterior alteration standards. 3. A reauest to encroach into View Corridor No. 1 -The proposed redesign of the Golden Peak House will involve an encroachment into View Corridor iVo. 1. The vantage point of this view corridor is at the Vail Transportation Center central stairway. The view extends over the Village Core up to the ski mountain. At the maximum point, the existing building encroaches 12.1' into the corridor. At the maximum point, the proQOSed building would encroach 17' into the corridor. ' 4. A reauest for a rezoning. -The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of Tract E, from Agricultural and Open Space, to Commercial Core I. The area of Tract E proposed to be rezoned consists of 1,240 square feet. 5. A reauest for a minor subdivision -This request involves the inclusion of the rezoned Tract E parcel into the Golden Peak House parcel, and the inclusion of Lot C into the Golden Peak House parcel. . 5 II. GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE ZONING ANALYSIS 'UNDERLYING ZONING: EXISTING PROJECT 'EXISTING PROJECT COMMERCIAL CORE I (exisfrna tot area) (expanded lot area) 'PROPOSED SDD Site Area: 8,375 sq. h. 6,926 sq. h. 8,375 sq. ft. 8,375 sq. h. Setbacks: Per the Vail Village N: 0-6 h. N: 0-6 h. N: 0-4 h. Urban Design Guide Plan W: 0-7 h. W: 1-13 h. W: 1.11 h. S: 0-8 h. S: 10-15 h. S: 6-15 h. E: 0-2 h. E: 0-2 ft. E: 0-2 h. Height: 60%: 33 h. or less East: 46 h. max. same East: 49 h. max. 40%: 33 h. - 43 h. West: 36 h. max. West: 42 ft. max. Common Area: 2,345 sq. ft. or 359'° 6,627 sq. h. or 120% 6,627 sq. h. or 999'° 5,436 sq. ft. or 819'° of allowable GRFA -1,939 sq. h. or 35% -2`345 sq. ft. or 35% -2,345 sq. ft. or 359'° 4,688 sq. h. added to GRFA 4,282 sq. h. -added to GRFA 3,091 sq. ft. -added to GRFA GRFA: 6,700 sq. h. or 80% 8,958 sq. ft. 8,958 sq. ft. 15,855 sq. ft. +4,688 sq. ft. (excess common area) +4,282 sq. ft. (excess common area) + 3,091 sq. h, (excess common area) 13,646 sq. h. or 246% 13,240 sq. h. or 1989'° 18,946 sq. h. or 226°'° Units: 25 units per acre, 18 units (all Dus) same 14 DUs + 2 AUs = 15 units 4.8 units for the site {includes 3 lock-offs) Site Coverage: 6,700 sq. ft. or 80% 6,352 sq. h. or 929'° 6,352 sq. h. or 769'° 7,874 sq. h. or 949!° Landscaping: Per the Vail Village same same same Urban Design Guide Plan Parking: Per the TOV parking standards Required: 55.09 same Required: 70.11 Loading: Per the TOV loading standards Required: 1 same Required: 1 Existing: 0 same Proposed: 0 Commercial Uses: N/A 7,196 sq. H. same 14,031 sq. h, Gross Floor Area: N/A 22,781 sq. h. same 35,444 sq. ff. ' Afl development statistics, including lfte setbacks, have been calculated by steB end are based on the appltcanYs proposed new lot area of 8,375 sq. ft. This lot are assumes tha incorporetbn d portons of 7red E end Lot C Into the Golden Peak House parcel. The exlstMg Golden Peak House bt area b 0.159 ewes, or 6,926 sq. ft. The new areas (portions of Trad E and Lot C) proposed to be Included into the Golderr Peek Hausa panel consist of 1,449 sq, ft. for a total 01 8.375 sq. h. Gross Iloor area indudes common areas, GRFA, artd commerdal square footages. 6 oou. o~s~~~i~ ~o ~sr~® ~v~lsu~~'~o ~~is ~~o~os~?L As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as follows: "The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." The Planning Staff finds that the Golden Peak House application for the establishment of an SDD meets the Special Development District purpose as stated above. Specifically, we find that the Golden Peak House application furthers the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan (i.e Vail Village Master Plan, streetscape Master Plan and Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan}. The overall redesign of the project proposes to improve the design character, function and. overall quality of the development. Employee housing units are proposed to be provided as a part of the redevelopment as well as streetscape improvements. Two dwelling units would be "restricted" and placed in the short- term rental pool. Two new accommodation units and three new lock-offs would be added to the building. Overall, the staff finds that the redevelopment project meets many of the specific goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recognizes that the existing building exceeds many of the underlying zoning's development standards. !Ne feel that the project's overages have been handled in a way that minimize the impacts on adjacent properties and public spaces. !Ne also believe that there are a number of community benefits associated with this redevelopment. These benefits would include the provision of employee housing, streetscape improvements, the two new accommodation units, the two restricted dwelling units and the contribution towards the future redevelopment of Seibert Circle. Overall, we feel the project will further the Town's design and development goals, and we would specifically cite Goal rtlo. 9 and Policy iVo. 3-2 of the Vail Village Master Plan, which state: "Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity." "#3-2 Golden Peak House - Due to this building's gross inconsistency with the Urban Design Guide Plan and neighboring buildings, it is identified as a primary renovation site. Relationship to greenspace on south, Seibert Circle on north, as well as to mountain entryway, are important considerations. Loading and delivery must be addressed." 7 IV. SD® CRITERIA The following are the nine special development district criteria to utilized by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating SDD proposals. A. ®esign 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 staff thought that it would be helpful to provide the PEC with a summary of the architectural design issues that have been identified and addressed by the applicants over the course of the last four or five worksessions. The following comments should be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed elevation drawings for the Golden Peak House. In general, staff believes that the overall . architectural style is positive and would be compatible with the alpine character of Vail Village. The applicant has responded to, many of the PEC and staff comments regarding the architectural design. NORTH ELEVATION 1. The central connection between the east. and west halves of the building has been cut back to the east, and the roof forms have been simplified and lowered. The deck and hot tub, originally located on the roof of this central connection, has been relocated to the south side of the fifth floor addition, to a less visible location. 2. The originally proposed flat roofs have been redesigned, and are now pitched. The design is similar to the roof forms utilized at the Sonnenaip and Christiania. The roof design incorporates a truncated peak instead of the traditional ridge peak. The intent of this design is to remove all flat roofs which would be visible from the Bridge Street vantage point, and from the ski mountain. 3. The fifth floor building mass has been pulled back from the face of the • building's north elevation approximately 10 to 14 feet. In addition, the applicant has added three dormers on the north elevation of the fifth floor, to provide architectural relief for this portion of the building. 4. The staff believes that the first floor commercial spaces continue to be in need of refinement to create more of a pedestrian area and to bring the north facade down to more of a pedestrian scale. The staff has recommended the following: • Embellishing the design of the windows and doors through interesting detailing, such as subdivided window panes (to express individual window elements), articulated entry doors, .etc. • Lowering the roof form over the main entry. 8 Adding the arcade, or canopy, back into the design. This element was originally proposed over the first floor retail windows on the north elevation, and has recently been eliminated. 5. The staff has concerns with the recently modified ground floor plan, which includes a curved store front at the eastern end of the building. VVe believe the applicant should utilize the original ground floor plan, which provides a much more pedestrian-friendly environment along the shop fronts. The addition of the arcade along the north elevation would also be an asset to the building. EAST ELEVATIOi~ 1. The applicant has designed a peaked roof form that conceals the small flat roof section behind it. Architectural detailing has been added to this elevation. lflIEST ~LEVATIOft9 1. In order to diminish the "canyon" effect through the skier/pedestrian access to the mountain, the third and fourth floor projections have been decreased in size and floor area. However, a small area of the three lower floors (Los Amigos Restaurant and lower level commercial space) continues to project into Lot C. All other floor area has been removed from Lot C. 2. The applicant has proposed to relocate three of the four evergreens, located adjacent to the building along the west elevation, onto Tract E. In addition, the large aspen located at the southwest corner of the building will also be relocated onto Tract E. Because landscaping in this corridor is so critical, as it is a transition area between the Village and the ski mountain, the applicant has agreed to add astone-faced planter, with a 20' tall specimen evergreen, adjacent to the west elevation in the skier access. 3. The entry into the Vail Associates commercial space, on the south side of the building (under the Los Amigos deck), has been reconfigured by reorienting the entry to the north. Staff believe that this change provides a more accessible and inviting entry. Heated concrete unit pavers will be added in front of this entry. 4. The first floor retail windows have been changed to include smaller panes (divided lights) to add visual interest and to create a more pedestrian scale. S®~T~I E~EVATB®~I 1. The applicant has redesigned the roof forms and has eliminated all visible flat roofs as discussed above. 2. The fourth floor is proposed to have 410 square feet of GRFA located within the "overhang & deck" easement areas. Additionally, the new below-grade commercial area, located beneath the Los Amigos dining deck, would also be 9 proposed to be located within the Tract E easement areas. To respond to this issue, the applicants have proposed to mitigate the use of the Tract E ' easement areas by donating open space to the Town. Vail Associates has proposed to donate a portion of Tract E, to be used as permanent open space. 3. The roofs over some of the south facing balconies have been cut back to help decrease the mass and bulk of the building. 4. Landscaping along this elevation has been addressed by the addition of the three transplanted evergreen trees and the transplanted aspen onto Tract E. The applicant has also proposed to add shrubs along the base of the Los Amigos dining deck and a flagstone walkway. 5. As previously discussed in Section I of this memorandum, the applicant is proposing to add a retractable enclosure over 580 square feet of. the Los Amigos dining deck. As designed, the enclosure would consist of an overhead retractable (canvas) awning, with folding Rekord doors on the east side and sliding glass doors (which fold back into a pocket) along the west side. The south facing portion of the deck enclosure would consist of removable wood and glass panels. _ The staff believes that the applicants have done a very good job redesigning , and modifying the building to reduce the mass and bulk. We feel that this proposed deck enclosure, over approximately one-half of the outdoor dining deck, would add further to the mass and bulk of the structure. We strongly believe that an outdoor dining experience is what many visitors to Vail desire, and we seriously question the feasibility of removing the retractable cover and enclosure on a daily basis. Staff also believes that the design of the structure is not compatible with the design guidelines of the Village. Staff recognizes that, in addition to the deck enclosure, there are other portions of the building which would extend into the "overhang 8~ deck" easements. However, we believe that the design of these areas of the structure have an overall positive benefit on the building's mass and bulk in that the public's perception of the building mass would actually be reduced, and that view lines up to the ski mountain have been opened up. In the case of the deck enclosure, we view this as a loss of 580 square feet of "public space", in a prominent location in respect to the skier services at the base of Vail Village, and we can find no community benefit in the request. We also believe that approving the deck enclosure, when there is no means at this time to expand the deck onto other areas (Tract E to the south), sets a negative precedent. GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING 1. The detailing on the balcony railings has been modified and the railings now have a more ornamental feel and reflect more of the Vail alpine character. 10 2. The window detailing, such as the bay window, on the western portion of the north elevation has been carried through to the other parts of the project. 3. The proposed roofing material on the building is a tar and gravel roof. Staff believes that the originally proposed shake roof should be added back into the design of the building. We feel that a shake roof would be more in keeping with the character of the Village and would be more aesthetically pleasing. In summary, the staff believes that the building's architectural design is at a point where it would be compatible with the immediate environment and adjacent properties. We feel that the architectural style will be a significant improvement over the existing style of the Golden Peak House building, and we feel that the character of the design would be in keeping with the Town's Design Guidelines recommended for Vail Village, excluding the deck enclosure. With regard to overall mass and bulk, we feel that by shifting the mass of the fifth floor to the south, as well as the fourth floor (of the western-most portion of the building) to the south, the pedestrian perception of the structure will be one of a three and four story building. We believe the building meets the CCI review criteria for Street Enclosure and Street Edge, as we feel the building will provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. The fact that the grade changes approximately one level, from north to south through the site, will also help minimize the appearance of the structure. t9ses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. It is the staff's position that the mixture of uses proposed for the site is compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties. The uses proposed would meet the purpose and intent of the CCI zone district. With regard to density, the overall square footage of the project is proposed to be increased, (commercial and residential square footage). The redevelopment includes the addition of 5,706 square feet of GRFA and 6,835 sq. ft. of commercial floor area. A portion of this square footage is located within the central atrium area of the building. This area is 2,400 square feet in size. The "actual density" is proposed to be reduced. The number of dwelling units will be reduced from 18 to 15. The number of "keys", or rentable rooms will actually increase from 18 to 19, which is positive. Two new accommodation units would be added, which is also positive. Staff would recommend that the two new accommodation units be restricted, so that in the future, they cannot be converted into dwelling units via the Condominium Conversion section of the Subdivision Regulations and that the units be used only as short-term rentals. In addition, the applicant has proposed to "restrict" two three-bedroom dwelling units (Units 20i and 401) to be included in the Golden Peak House rental pool. These units have a combined GRFA of 3,002 square feet and would be included in the rental pool at all times when they are not occupied by the owner or the owner's guests. It should be noted that the applicant's proposed use restriction is not the same restriction that is 11 normally required by the Town. We generally use the Condominium Conversion - restriction, which is in the Subdivision Regulations, a copy of which is attached to this memorandum (Exhibit B). In addition to the proposed rental restrictions on Units 201 and 401, staff believes that the rental restrictions should also be placed upon the remaining two lock-off units proposed to be located within the building. This would include the lock-offs for Units 305 and 306. These two lock-offs would have a combined GRFA of 641 square feet. As indicated in many of the Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Objectives, increasing the availability of short-term overnight accommodations is strongly encouraged. The staff believes that it will be a benefit to the community to utilize these lock-offs as short-term accommodation units and we believe that by restricting these units, to be placed into the short-term rental pool, that we will further the community's goals. . Employee Housing Issues - As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, employee housing is a critical Town issue which should be addressed through the planning process for this type of development proposal. For the Golden Peak House review, the staff has analyzed the employee housing issue utilizing two methods. We have calculated the estimated employee housing demand using the Town adopted Employee Housing Report, and secondly, we have studied information provided by the applicant with regard to the individual business owners' estimates of employee generation, .due to increases in the sizes of their individual commercial spaces. The Employee Housing Report, prepared for the Town of Vail by the consulting firm Rosall Remmen and Cares, indicates the recommended ranges of employee housing units based upon type of use and floor area. For the Golden Peak House analysis, the staff has utilized the midpoint of the suggested ranges, for employees generated. A copy of the report's summary page is attached to this memorandum (Exhibit A). Utilizing the guidelines in this report, the staff has analyzed the incremental increase. of the numbers of employees (square footage per use), that the proposed redevelopment would create. The summary is as follows: a) Bar/Restaurant = 878 sq. ft.(@ 6.5/1,000 sq. ft.) = 5.7 employees b) Retail/Service Commercial = 4,436 sq. ft.(@6.5/1,000 sq. ft.) = 28.8 employees c) Lodging = 1 room lr7a 0.75/room) = 0.75 em~lovees d) Total = 35.25 employees •35.25 employees x .15 housing multiplier = 5.2 employees. •35.25 employees x .30 housing multiplier = 10.5 employees. In summary, the staff estimates that the Golden Peak House redevelopment would create a need for six to eleven additional employees. This range is due to the housing multiplier that varies from 0.15 to 0.30. The 0.15 housing multiplier is suggested to be 12 utilized when projects do not exceed allowable density and GRFA. The 0.30 housing multiplier is recommended for use when projects are over on density. The existing and proposed .Golden Peak House is over on density. Depending upon the size of the employee housing unit to be provided, it is possible to calculate up to two employees per bedroom. For example, for atwo-bedroom unit in _ the size range of 450 to 900 square feet, it is possible that this unit would be capable of accommodating up to four employees. Atwo-bedroom unit, with a size less than 450 square feet, would only be considered capable of housing one employee per ~ bedroom. The applicant has provided letters from the "major tenant space owners" in the Golden Peak House to address and evaluate. the employee housing impacts of the redevelopment. Paul Johnston, representing Christiania Realty, Inc., has addressed the hotel/condominium expansion in the Golden Peak House. Paul believes that there will be no increase in the staff for the lodging needs of the building, given this redevelopment. Michael Staughton, representing. the Los Amigos Restaurant, also does not believe that there will be any need for additional employees as a result of the restaurant's renovation and expansion. Lastly, Jack Hunn, representing Vail Associates, Inc., has indicated that two new employees would be needed to operate the new Vail Associates space proposed to be located on the ground floor of the Golden Peak House. Overall, the applicant has estimated that a total of two additional employees would be generated as a result of the Golden Peak House expansion. To mitigate this impact, GPH Partners, Ltd. had originally proposed that one two-bedroom condominium unit, located in Pitkin Creek Park, be permanently deed restricted as an employee housing unit. Since the September 13, 1993 PEC worksession, the applicant has agreed to provide one additional two-bedroom employee housing unit as a part of .the redevelopment. According'to the analysis above, two two-bedroom units (in the 700-1,000 square foot range) would provide housing for up to eight employees. The staff believes that the applicant's provision for housing up to eight employees is reasonable. VUe think that the 6.5 multiplier, for the retail/service commercial use, may be slightly high, given the type of commercial expansions associated with this project. Overall, the staff believes that with the two two-bedroom housing units provided, the project would now satisfy the Town's employee housing requirement. The employee housing units would be located off-site, however, the exact location of the units has not yet been identified. Both units will be required to meet the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 9 8.52. The staff has determined that the incremental increase in the required parking, due to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, would be 15.02 parking spaces. Because this property is located in the Commercial Core I zone district, which does not allow for the provision of on-site parking, the developer will be required to pay into the 13 Town's parking pay-in-lieu fund. According to Section 18.52.160 (B,5) of the Municipal Code, "the parking fee is $8,000 per space. This fee shall be automatically increased every two years by the percentage the Consumer Price Index of the City of Denver has increased over each successive two year period." At $8,000 per parking space, the current amount required for the Golden Peak House pay-in-lieu fee would be $120,160, excluding the C.P.I. increase which would be calculated at the time a building permit is requested. Although the "existing Golden Peak House does not meet the Town's loading standard, the proposed redevelopment for the site does not increase this nonconformity. Given the location of the Golden Peak House, and the fact that there is po service alley or rear vehicular access to the building, vehicuiar loading cannot be accommodated directly on site. Loading for the building currently occurs at the Hanson Ranch Road loading zones, located adjacent to the Christiania Lodge. This method of delivery is proposed to continue. The staff will work with the applicant on the issue of the possible formation of a special district, concerning a central loading/delivery facility, adjacent to the Christiania Lodge. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. 1. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The Vail Village Master Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House, as indicated in Sub-Area Concepts 3-2 and 3-3. Said concepts read as follows: "#3-2 Golden Peak House Due to this building's gross inconsistency with the Urban Design Guide Plan and neighboring buildings, it is identified as a primary renovation site. Relationship to greenspace on south, Seibert Circle,on riorth, as well as to mountain entryway, are important considerations. Loading and delivery must be addressed." ",~~=u.u i \ 1'~' ~ ; ~r i'vi ~,.r: .LACE t-rJ , ~ `•\r"~'~ •f' J~ . 14 "#3-3 Seibert Circle Studv Area Study area to establish a more inviting public plaza with greenspace, improved sun exposure and a focal point at the top of Bridge Street. Design and extent of new plaza to be sensitive to fire access and circulation considerations." eeo~ae `~J'~ \ 11~ ~ Ote©. ' .a w otD twm e ~ aa~g[wp r~oa. ~ ! 6~ i ~ X1111 1 . J ~ , a.. l? +\1 ,~..~jj ' r ~ y .,t e,~e., } ~ ~l . r-1 ' , p.,E ran e0~oc. .~.a i~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ t. ll~ t'LAE~ ~ .J ~'~4. . The staff believes that the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak House would further the above sub-area concepts. Staff agrees that the renovation of this building is needed, and we feel the proposal relates well to the Tract E open space to the south, as well to the Seibert Circle/Bridge Street public spaces to the north. The loading. and delivery issue has been addressed in Section C above. Additionally, the staff believes the following goals and objectives, as stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal: Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. q.~ ®bjectide: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. ~ .3 ®bjectide: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. a.a ®bjectide: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village. ~.a.9 P®licy: The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to presence the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2.3 ®bjectide: increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. 15 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: ` Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.5 Objective: • Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. ` 2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3:1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. ~ 16 l 3.~.~ ~®licy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. x.9.3 ~®licb: UVith the exception of ski base-related facilities, existing natural open space areas at the base of Vail Mountain and throughout Vail Village shall be preserved as open space. The staff believes that the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak House would further the above Vail Village Master Plan goals and objectives. As previously indicated, the staff believes that the character and style of the proposed design would be in keeping with the Town's Design Guidelines recommended for Vail Village. The Vail Village Conceptual Building Height Plan has included the Golden Peak House in the 3-4 storycategory. A building story is defined as 9 feet of height (no roof included). V1/ith regard to overall mass and bulk, and. building height, we feel that by shifting the mass of the fifth floor to the south, as well as the fourth floor (of the western-most portion of the building) to the south, the pedestrian perception of the structure will be one of a three and four story building. In addition, the grade changes approximately one level, from north to south through the site. This site topography will also help minimize the appearance of the structure. Overall, staff believes the project would meet the intent of the "3-4 story building height category", acknowledging that the building would actually be in the 4-5 story range. 2. 1R~LAT7~® 1~®LtC6ES 6N THE VAIL VILLAGE UFiSAN ®ESIGN GUI®E PLAP9 The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House, as indicated in Sub-Area Concepts 9 and 10. These concepts read as follows: Concept 9 - "Commercial expansion (ground floor) not to exceed 10 feet in depth, possible arcade. To improve pedestrian scale at base of tall building, and for greater transparency as an activity generator on Seibert Circle. Concept 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 are the backdrop for activities. Separated path on north sides for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods." 17 ~:'s•ge~:4~ f 9 'j ° r As indicated earlier, the staff believes that the pedestrian arcade (which was originally ' proposed over the first floor retail windows on the north elevation), and the original ground floor plan, which does not include the curved retail windows along the eastern portion of the building, should be added back into the design. We believe that these modifications will bring the project into compliance with Sub-Area Concept 9 listed above (Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan). aua-Area Concept 10, Seibert Circle, is discussed below, in the Streetscape Design section of the memo. 3. RELATED POLICIES IN THEE STREETSCAPE (WASTER PLAN The Streetscape Master Plan specifically addresses the Golden Peak House area as follows: "Seibert Circle is proposed to be replaced by a large planter that is surrounded by low steps for informal seating. A large "specimen" evergreen tree should be maintained in the Circle. Seibert Circle's focal point could be a fountain or an artwork feature that will be visible from much of Bridge Street. Seibert Circle's ability to be used as a performance site should also be considered." "The primary paving material for the right-of-way area of the Village Core is recommended to be rectangular concrete unit pavers, in the color mix specified in the Guidelines for Paving section of this report. The herringbone pattern, which is proposed for most areas, is edged by a double soldier course. The intent is to satisfy the need for a simple streetscape treatment without being monotonous." "Focal points -such as the Children's Fountain, the intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive and Seibert Circle -will receive special paving treatments." Streetscape Design Issues - The Town's Streetscape Master Plan lists numerous improvements which are recommended to be installed adjacent to the Golden Peak House. These improvements, some of which are described above, generally call for the upgrading of Seibert Circle and the upgrading of the pedestrian/skier access to the Vista Bahn ski base. Some of these improvements are directly related to the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House and are included in the project's work plan, however, all improvements are tied to the mitigation of the project's impacts on the Town and the adjoining public spaces. 18 Prior to the September 27, 1993 PEC worksession, the applicant and the staff met on- site and agreed to specific modifications regarding the project's landscaping and streetscaping. The applicant's redesign would now include the following: Three of the existing four large evergreen trees, located in the skier access west of the building, would be relocated onto Tract E. These trees would be relocated north of the Pirate Ship Park area and immediately north of the Town's recreation path. The fourth evergreen is not proposed to be relocated because of its poor condition. The existing aspen located at the southwest corner of the Golden Peak House would also be relocated onto Tract E. Due to the tree's close proximity to the building and the configuration of the tree's root system, it may not be possible to relocate this aspen without significant damage to the tree. The condition of the roots will not be knowri until excavation of the root ball has begun. However, if the tree cannot be relocated, then the applicant has agreed to install two new 3-inch caliper aspen trees onto Tract E. ~A permanent stone-faced planter would be added in the skier access immediately adjacent to the western elevation of the building. The type of rock used for this planter would match the stone that is in place in the Seibert Circle planter, as well as the existing planters along upper Bridge, Street. The planter wall would be approximately 18-24" in height, with a stone cap, so it could be used for seating. A 20-foot tall specimen blue spruce would be added to this planter. The existing fire hydrant, which is located immediately off of the southwest corner of the building, would be relocated into the new planter described above. This would remove the hydrant from the pedestrian area. ~A flagstone or brick paver walkway would be added along the south side of the Los Amigos deck to provide for pedestrian access along the south side of the building. A 2'-6" wide planter would be added between the walkway and the dining deck. The applicant has proposed to contribute $10,000.00 to the redesign and redevelopment of Seibert Circle. The staff believes that the future redesign of Seibert Circle needs to be very carefully studied and that a Landscape Architect, in conjunction with the neighborhood, should analyze the design for the Circle. In addition to the surface paver treatment, the staff believes that landscaping, public seating and perhaps a performance area should be provided for in the design. Drainage work around the Circle also needs to be addressed. The staff has reviewed the applicant's monetary proposal and we would suggest the following. We have estimated that if the Golden Peak House were to be required to add stone-faced planters along the north elevation of the building, similar in design to the planters along upper Bridge Street, then the 19 cost of these planters would be substantially more than $10,000. The Town Engineer's cost estimate for 49 lineal feet of planter along the north elevation of the Golden Peak House is $32,000. Staff believes that this is the amount that should be dedicated towards the redevelopment of Seibert Circle. We believe that if the Circle were not in place, the Town would request the north elevation planters. In summary, the staff believes the proposed streetscape improvements would make a positive contribution to the quality of the area and would be in compliance with the Town's adopted Streetscape Master Plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natura! and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, or floodplain that effect this property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. As discussed extensively at previous PEC worksessions during late 1992 and early. 1993, the staff and the PEC have expressed concerns regarding the addition of floor area located in the "overhang and deck" easement areas. At the January 1993 PEC worksession, the applicant had modified the redevelopment plans to remove all above- grade floor area within the "overhang and deck" easement areas. As currently proposed, the west "overhang & deck" easement would have approximately 71 square feet of commercial floor area located in the easement (on the basement, ground and second floors) and the south "overhang ~ deck" easement would have approximately 410 square feet of GRFA (on the fourth floor), and 580 square feet of "covered" dining deck (on the second floor), located in the easement area. This issue.was discussed at the September 13, 1993 PEC worksession and the Commission expressed a level of comfort with the additional GRFA proposed to be located within the easement area, with the understanding that the applicant would work with Vail Associates regarding the dedication (of at least an equal amount, and preferably more) of open space to the Town. Staff agrees that this amount of encroachment into the easement area is acceptable as it has allowed~for the mass of the structure to shift out of the view corridor. It was suggested that the Mill Creek stream tract or the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E be dedicated as permanent open space to the Town of Vail. In summary, although the proposed site coverage wilt further exceed the development standards for the CCI zone district, the staff believes that the project's design sensitivity to the site planning and open space issues has been positive. We find that pedestrian access adjacent to the building will be improved and open space maintained. Again, we do find exception with the proposal for the deck enclosure. 20 Nllith regard to building height, we acknowledge that the existing and proposed building _ heights are over the maximum allowable height for the CCI zone district. However, we feel the overall massing of the structure, and the configuration of the roof planes mitigate the overage. ~ circuiation s~stern designed f®~ both vehicles and pedestrians addressing ora and off-site traffic circulation. The Golden Peak House redevelopment will not impact the vehicular circulation system surrounding this site. Staff believes that the pedestrian circulation around the perimeter of the building will be improved as a result of the project. Improvements to the skier access will include steps, adjacent to the southwest corner of the building, which will tie the skier access to a new flagstone paver walkway south of the dining deck. This area is particularly slippery and dangerous in the winter. Staff believes that the stair and walkway will enhance pedestrian access. ~I. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Landscaping issues have been discussed above in the Streetscape Design section of the memo. Sun/Shade Analysis -The sun/shade analysis, which is indicated on Sheet A15 in the attached drawing set, indicates by the use of across-hatched pattern, the additional shading of the public spaces north of the building during the equinox (March 21 /September 21). This additional shading, consisting of approximately 112 square feet in area, would encroach into the Seibert Circle area, as well as cast additional shadow on Hanson Ranch Road. The proposed building design would also eliminate, or reduce, the amount of shading on some other areas of Hanson Ranch Road and Seibert Circle. The reduction in the amount of shading would total approximately 160 square feet. Sheet A15 also indicates the shade and shadow line at the winter solstice (December 21). Although this analysis is not required per the Vail Village exterior alteration criteria, staff feels it is important to understand shade impacts during the winter solstice, as this is a peak time for our guests. Clearly, the proposed expansion of the western portion of the Golden Peak House would increase the shade and shadow on upper Bridge Street during this time period. Because the applicant has pulled back the proposed fifth floor of the eastern portion of the expanded Golden Peak House, the winter solstice shading in this area has been reduced when compared to the existing building. However, it should be pointed out that the reduction in the amount of shading in this area would actually reduce the shading on the roof of the commercial spaces in the Red Lion Building. Some improvements will also occur with the new building when compared to the existing shading on portions of Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road. 21 I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has not proposed a phasing plan for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak House, as it is their intention to complete the entire renovation in one phase. V. COMMERCIAL CORE I EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA The nine criteria (listed below) for Commercial Core I Exterior Alterations shall also be used to judge the merits of this project.. Staff believes these issues, or criteria, have already been addressed in the SDD review criteria above, and in other parts of this memo, so we will not reiterate and address each item here. A. Pedestrianization -See Section IV,G. B. Vehicular Penetration -See Section IV,G. C. Streetscape Framework -See Section IV,D-3. D. Street Enclosure -See Section IV,A. E. Street Edge -See Section IV,A. F. Building Height -See Section IV,D-2 and IV, F. G. Views and Focal Points -See Section VIII. H. Service and Delivery -See Section IV,C. I. Sun/Shade -See Section IV,H. VI. ZONE DISTRICT AMENDMENT CRITERIA The zone district amendment criteria (zone change) are listed below: A. Suitability of the Proposed Zoning. The staff is supportive of the applicant's request to modify the zoning of the "easement areas" along the south side of the Golden Peak House building. We believe that the request to modify the zoning from Agricultural and Open Space, to Commercial Core I, is justified given the extent of the development currently in the easement areas. This property is currently encumbered with an easement which allows for roof overhangs and decks to project out over the property. Staff does not believe that this portion of Tract E currently functions as an "open space property" and that the rezoning to Commercial Core I, with the SDD overlay, provides the Town the opportunity to change the zoning so that it allows for development which already exists in this area. The SDD overlay also allows the Town to carefully review the uses in this area. B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with. municipal objectives? Again, the staff believes that due to the fact that the property is encumbered with the "overhang and deck" easements, and because the property does not currently function 22 as an open space property, we believe that the proposed Commercial Core I zoning would be more in keeping with the existing uses on the site. !!Ve also do not believe that the zone change request, for the easement portions of Tract E, would be precedent setting. liNe believe this property is unique, and not like other open space zoned properties, in that it is encumbered with easements which allow for roof overhangs and decks to project out over the property. C. ®oes the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable corr~rnunity? The staff believes .that the rezoning proposal would provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. We feel this can be accomplished by "cleaning up" an existing situation which allows for improvements to be constructed over an open space zoned property. !/li. i1~INOR SU13®IVISION CRITERIA The minor subdivision criteria are as follows: A. foot Areas -Chapter 18.24.090 of the Town's fUlunicipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the CCI zone district be 5,000 square feet of buildable area. As proposed, the new lot area of the Golden Peak House parcel would exceed the 5,000 square foot requirement. The new lot area would be 8,375 square feet. E8. frontage -Chapter 18.24.090 of the Town's 11Aunicipal Code requires that each lot have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. The applicant is not proposing to modify the frontage of the Golden Peak House parcel. The existing frontage is approximately 115 feet. C. Purpose -Chapter 17.16.110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations states that the PEC shall review the minor subdivision application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies which relate to~subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses. Staff does not believe that the applicant's request for this minor subdivision would have any negative effects upon the above-mentioned criteria. VVe believe that the issues regarding aesthetics of the Town and environmental integrity have been addressed through the SDD review criteria. In addition, we feel that the criteria regarding compatibility with surrounding uses and densities proposed has also been addressed. 23 In summary, the staff believes that the applicant has met the criteria for a minor subdivision. In essence, this minor subdivision request would vacate the lot line currently located between the existing Golden Peak House parcel and the "overhang and deck" easement portions of Tract E. Should this minor subdivision be. approved, the "overhang and deck" easement portion of Tract E would be incorporated into the Golden Peak House parcel. VIII. VIEW CORRIDOR ENCROACHMENT CRITERIA A. Purpose of the View Corridor Ordinance The applicant has requested an Encroachment into View Corridor No. 1. Because the staff believes that the original intent and purpose of the View Corridor Ordinance is very important to the Town, we have included it here for review: "The Town of Vail believes that preserving certain vistas is in the interest of the Town's residents and guests. Specifically, .the Town believes that: The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views and other significant views from various pedestrian public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and is in the . public interest of the Town of Vail; It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment of the residents and guests of the Town; The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes; The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town; The preservation of such views is intended to provide for natural light to buildings and in public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors; The preservation of such views will include certain focal points such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent landmarks within Vail Village and contribute to the community's unique sense of place." B. Description of View Corridor Encroachments View Corridor No. 1 is the view from the Vaii Transportation Center south to the ski mountain. The existing Golden Peak House currently encroaches into View Corridor No. Y. The extent of the existing encroachment varies with the ridge lines, building outline and architectural design of the building. However, the general range of encroachment is as follows: 24 The eastern portion of the building currently encroaches approximately 9.0 to 1.1 feet into the View Corridor. One area of the central portion of the building encroaches approximately 12.1 feet into the View Corridor. The extent of the western portion's encroachment into the View Corridor ranges from approximately 0 to 8.1 feet (at the very western edge of the building). As currently designed, the Golden Peak House redevelopment is proposing to encroach into View Corridor No. 1 as follows: The eastern portion of the structure would encroach approximately 3 feet. The central portion of the redeveloped building's encroachment would range from approximately 4 to 17 feet (elevator tower). The extent of the western portion's encroachment into the View Corridor would range from approximately 9 to 13 feet. When reviewing the view corridor encroachment request, staff believes that it is important to analyze, or visualize, the request in three dimensions. The proposal would encroach further into the view corridor, versus the existing building, in some areas. However, due to the design of the structure, with much of the upper level mass shifted to the rear (or south), the perception of the encroachment from the public spaces adjacent to the building, would actually be less than that of the existing building's encroachment. View Corridor Rlo. 2, the view between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building, (skier access to Vista Bahn area) will not be impacted by the redevelopment. C. review Criteria for the View Corridor rEncroachment The review criteria for the View Corridor Encroachment request are as follows: "iVo encroachment into an existing view corridor shall be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the encroachment meets all of the following criteria": That the literal enforcement of Section X13.73.030 would preclude a reasonable development of a proposed structure on the applicant's Band. The staff has extensively reviewed the applicant's request for an encroachment into View Corridor #~1. We have weighed the pros and cons of the request and we should point out that, as with any view corridor encroachment request, it is not an exact science in the determination of whether to support, or to not support, an encroachment. There are numerous variables, and it should be noted that the review of a view corridor encroachment is not like the review of a request for additional density or GRFA, as one cannot simply run numbers to determine acceptable levels. With regard to the Golden Peak House, understanding that many of the Town's Master Plans promote the 25 redevelopment of the site, and also understanding the ownership issues related to the building, the staff believes that the strict and literal enforcement of this section of the Town's regulations would preclude a reasonable development on the site. 2. That the development of the structure proposed by the applicant would not be such as to defeat the purposes of this Chapter. The staff feels that the purpose and intent of the View Corridor Ordinance is extremely important to the protection of certain views and vistas in the Town. Again, we have very carefully reviewed the applicant's request to encroach into View Corridor #1 and we believe that the applicant's proposal would not defeat the purposes of this chapter, as specifically outlined above. We do not believe that the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak House would negatively effect the protection and perpetuation of View Corridor #1, nor would it negatively effect the amount of natural light to buildings and to public spaces in the vicinity of the structure, nor would it negatively effect or modify the views of established focal points. Staff believes that the project would actually. open up more views, from the Seibert Circle area, of the immediate ski runs. This is primarily due to the removal of the butterfly roof form, which currently projects out in an east and west direction and blocks views of the mountain. 3. That the development proposed by the applicant would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of public pedestrian areas, public ways, public spaces, or public views. The staff is of the opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak House would not be detrimental to the enjoyment of the adjacent public pedestrian areas and public spaces and views. We feel that the applicants have done a very good job of modifying and redesigning the building so that views of the Riva ski run, when viewed from the Bridge Street area, would continue to be visible. In fact, with the elimination of the existing butterfly roof, more views of the immediate mountain would be opened up from the upper Bridge Street and Seibert Circle areas. 4. That the development proposed by the applicant complies with the applicable elements of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town Policies, urban Design Guide Plans, and other adopted master plans. The staff believes that the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak House generally complies with the applicable elements of the above-mentioned Master Plans. We feel that Sub-Area Concept #3-2, of the.Vail Village Master Plan, is applicable to this criteria. This concept identifies the "building's gross inconsistency with the Urban Design Guide Plan and neighboring buildings, and has identified it as a primary renovation site." Staff agrees that the Golden Peak House building is unique, due to its degree of nonconformance. We 26 believe that the fact that this project is specifically called out as a prime site for redevelopment and our opinion that the new design brings the project into more conformance with the Village Design Guidelines serves to distinguish this proposal from other future view corridor encroachment requests. In summary, we fee! that the project's relationship to the Comprehensive Plan issues have been discussed in depth under the SDD review criteria listed above. 5. That the proposed structure will not diminish the integrity or quality nor . compromise the original purpose of the preserved view. The original purpose of View Corridor #1, with its vantage point located at the central stairway of the Village Transportation Center, is to frame the Rucksack and Clock Tower, with the mountain and ski area located behind the Town. From the viewpoint, the Golden Peak House is nearly imperceptible. In the staff's opinion, the proposed modifications to View Corridor #1, as viewed from the viewpoint, would not diminish the integrity or quality, nor compromise the original purpose of this preserved view. As specifically stated in the View Corridor Ordinance, "the purpose of Viewpoint #1 is to protect the views of Vail fi~iountain, views of Vail Village, and to maintain the prominence and views of the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower as seen from the central staircase of the Transportation Center." STAFF REC®~fli~flEPB®ATB®~ The staff recommends appr®dal of the applicant's requests. These requests include a request for the establishment of a Special Development District, a request for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration, a request to encroach into View Corridor IVo. 1, a request for a rezoning. and a request for a minor subdivision. We find that the redevelopment proposal, over the course of 11 PEC work sessions and approximately 2 years of review, has developed into one which is in compliance with the objectives and purpose section of the SDD zone district as well as the other Comprehensive Plan elements described in detail above. The staff's recommendation of approval is based on our understanding that the following are included in the redevelopment: 1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the redevelopment project, the developer will provide two off-site, two-bedroom, permanently restricted employee housing units. Each unit shall be a minimum of 700 square feet in size. The units shall meet the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance requirements. 2. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the developer will deed restrict two three-bedroom dwelling units (Units 201 and 401) to be included in the Golden Peak House short-term rental pool, at all times when they are not occupied by the owner or his guests. ~ . 27 3. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the developer will contribute $10,000.00 towards the redesign and redevelopment of Seibert Circle. 4. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the applicant, or Vail Associates (co-applicant), will dedicate open space to the Town. It was agreed that the open space area would be an equivalent amount, when compared to the.amount of floor area proposed to be located in the "overhang and deck" easements. It was suggested that the Mill Creek stream tract or the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E be dedicated as permanent open space. The staff's recommendation for approval does not include the applicant's request to add a retractable enclosure over a portion of the Los Amigos outdoor dining deck. We believe that the applicants have done a very good job of redesigning the building to reduce the mass and bulk and we feel that this enclosure, over approximately one-half of the outdoor dining deck, would only add to the mass and bulk of the structure. Further, we strongly believe that an outdoor dining experience-is what many visitors to Vail desire, and we seriously question the use of a retractable cover and enclosure in respect to the Design Criteria for CCI. In addition to the above, the staff recommendation for approval carries with it the following conditions: 1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the applicant agree to restrict, and place into the short-term rental pool, the lock-offs associated with Units 305 and 306. 2. That the pedestrian arcade (which was originally proposed over the first floor retail windows on the north elevation), and that the original ground floor plan, which does not include the curved retail windows along the eastern portion of the building, be added back into the design. 3. That the applicant further articulate the first floor "retail windows", by adding divided lights. 4. That the applicant lower the roof form over the main entry. 5. That the applicant utilize a shake roof on the building. 6. That the applicant contribute a total of $32,000 towards the redevelopment of Seibert Circle. 7. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the applicant restrict the two new accommodation units, so that in the future, they cannot be converted into dwelling units via the Condominium Conversion section of the Subdivision Regulations. c:\pec~rnem os\goldpeak.fin 28 Golden Peak House Spuare Footage Analysis ..Misting Conditions Commercial Common GRFA Office Basement Levef: 1,932 2,460 0 0 Ground Floor: 3,963 1,237 0 292 Second Floor: 1,301 1,332 2,466 168 Third Floor: 0 1,480 3,749 0 Fourth Floor: 0 118 2,743 0 Totals: 7,196 6,627 8,958 460 5~otal square footage (gross area) = 23,241 sq. ft. Proposed Conditions Commercial Common GRFA Office Basement Level: 5,270 1,652 0 122 Ground Floor: 6,094 993 0 0 Second Floor: 2,667 1,358 2,577 0 Third Floor: 0 765 5,272 0 Fourth Floor: 0 626 5,243 0 Fitch Floor: 0 42 2.763 0 Totals: 14,031 5,436 15,855 122 Total square footage (gross area) = 35,444 sq. ft. 29 Golden Peak House Dwelling Unit Analysis Existing: DU AU . Basement Level: 0 0 Ground Floor: 0 0 Second Floor: 8 0 Third Floor: 8 0 Fourth Floor: 2 0 Totals: 18 0 = 18 DUs Proposed: DU AU Lock-off Basement Level 0 0 0 Ground Floor: 0 0 0 Second Floor: 3 0 ~ Third Floor: 6 2 2 Fourth Floor: 4 0 0 Fifth Floor: 1 0 0 Totals: 14 2 3 Note: 2 Aus = 1 DU Total DUs = 15 30 Golden Peak House Parking/Loadina Analysis Existing Conditions -Required Parking Spaces Loadina Berths Retail Commercial/Restaurant 23.25 1 Residential 30.00 1 Office 1.84 0 TOTALS: 55.09 2 (minus 1 for multiple use credit)=1 berth required Proposed Conditions -Required Parkina Spaces Loadina Berths Retail Commercial/Restaurant 41.699 1 Residential 27.923 1 Office 0.488 0 TOTALS: 70.11 2 (minus 1 for multiple use credit)=1 berth required 31 • pgp L10N INN ~ a+ ONDOµ1N1UAt ~ g 4~ ~u , ~ rww'T a,, . CYAANO'S 4~ " BUILDING y., i / / ~ µ1LL BUILDING ~ ~e i~ ~Q ~ Tana ~WM wa,-WW,6 `f ~i'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~~"/r~`;{ ~~,,~"~',...w 'PROPOSED. ~ ~y,~ `,l 1' • .GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE / ~ (n MOH 4{mow IlytP rWm y.~,rt,.w ' 1 71rY 11 0'~ M/ ~ O Vwv Wit' ~iw~ `I//rrorsHYl.r~a ~ .•/C ~irrh!~ O Q ` ~ / ~ ~~1 .,I, ~ ~ ~ u1WN'1^~w^r~, ~ ~ f~. ~ K ~y~t ~ ~ C[ Q / l W~~O d _J ~'T '~._~'ti ~ ~ ~ N ~-mow, tro ~r+s•. ~w W J 1?~ rya f,<,•cw'I+ w.T.....w , ~M / .....~rNYrw"'M~ Q. O ~.,r a ry,.~.6as f yryc ..~~y,~J. •pro / \ ' ~ / / tay/(~ ~YY\~~ ~ ry 1 ~,eN / K ~ r/_~X , O a7. J I `C~ Y y • /~PIPClIf ~P'"/lGy' ~ I ~ M / k / ~ ~ ~ / ! e, ? s s, .w ~ ~ ~ f ~ / / / / 1 f ~ ~ J 817E PLAN . N j ( ~ r ~ ` ~ art ~ ( ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ i rMY ~wna 1.44'{' p~'ttl r 11or1 ~ rn 1 .1 / a ~d ~S ~ EI ~ ~ A. rLWL liNYI'via 4+W 1 • PCYL 1 KW41 f ' /i/•9l M+aar~ J • 4t 1 • rrr~.- \ I l ( ~ l ~ wn-.rv~ ~ - J om~a °~"'0 L11 O tw..•• r•~•~+ l1J . was ne•.a l1J !EXISTING GROUND' FLOOR PLAN °a°'p ~ ~dr ernes won T ~ d O, a 0 LIJ NW ~»~or ..ver. Q taws utw.•.•rco J ^.1 O Q .wn ~ C7 • ? N O A n EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN ~ h ' m .A2 ~ . --r 13 s' A ~d Y ~ a~ r« u,.~r M~~MI ' rµwY ' J w a~.r ~ ~M~r 1 vrmf p. ~iur _ w /y. Wtt( i w. L. ~ r. w wwK Q ~ ~WY . , >3 w J Pry K .EXISTING THIRD FLOOR PLAN }"'°"r O p j ~ a a o w a o veer a.~ R Z U ~ W_ Y ~ o ~ _ a a .~Y,rb Y 'wr r+v..~ r (cMiw+va aai) S o 1~? i+ro4w' ou+'- ' L _ ' k 'EXISTINQ SECOt1D FLOOR PLAN A3 E3 9• i~ ~j ~ s~ i' O ~i r . i 0 o o , C o ~i:i ~ O ~i~~ II. ~ ~ o ~ ~ r w ~ N _ ~ 'EXISTING ROOF PLAN ' O ~ . . r.r ~ _ ~ ~ a ~ Q O < - 1' W J ~ a o ~wr W U / J . O o \v! ~ ~ I t n ~ S ;EXISTING FOURTH FLOOR PLAN p q . z ii A ' ~I o 0 a a n rn?o?m LJ u~~= n IEa:n lau " - ~Imal~mul~lmmneiui~ I © ~ ~ ~ .ar ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ F~ rn~ om m'~ ~ a o ~ t''~•. C t_._1 uu ~..C..:~xcCl lIm1~7".~ ..rlll:'C' `r-a "y ~0~ ~ T."i :1:_~:7`: 7 tCY •..U' 111 61Q111!{~IIAlII1FlUll~ C__, CC:: 111:11 UIIII~ E`-'"' . ~ I _ - East Elevation. existing South Elevation ex~ating W S>d•.~~' eye=_~ . _ _ A O f ti: - ~ w ~1 i~ ~ N ~Q ~ooaaoomo = 4 " nuut. ~:~law~ Y ~ c ~ r• Q L, ~~~~~m~ aao~ ~ o mo moo - lu~u^ I, u:1~.p: aka:: tluonpual: tonal 7:::1 ~ululwlnlnIDUm~ m ul~ inn uuun • W _ ~ , °rn~"~° Cl~~~ 0000 ~ I° ~ I i I ~ I ? ~ ==S ! I ~ -----5 North Elevation ezlslinq_~-- _West Elevation" exiscing r ~ a E'd~ - BM.ry, o ~q N M O A5 ~ a~ ~raa?+ ©e. ~ _ a2 .ei+?ae a5 m i p4 ~ ~ s 5' ~ W / ~ OtMm®@ ~ t W ~ 1rpaU b _ fl + _ oT ~ off` ``~v' \ of o4 ae ~ ~RiYtComm:.atOra9a ~ ~ ~~,~~t~ CL ' J ~ ~ ii~^ ~o_ m ~ M SLAW e ~~+!F ~ . O e 4~~ ~ ~a v~ d` ~ W 0 ' o < ~ a W ~v ~ ° W ~ 1obbY N P v i 'l/ A, ~ O ~ ~ a O _ ~ uMe W Q ~s ~ z U U ~ - W n O 7 .~_„_..J- C3 a ..i' + iy ~ • i _ ~ ~ ~A? p1-~N o ~ ~ ' aRpUNa~F aO~ j 6~8®9/868 9' ~q.u:. ~ e - w '"li Dttynp' land - - = o Y ~ - - qtr ~ ` ~18otaUerq e . 809/804 ~ Aroa _ I Cori 04®ted Lobby aNi 808• ~i \ ~ ~e Ing' 11 otaon' P boa Bar' Sooting' _ / _-3~- - 4 O o n - I . Loti Amlpou Pntlor ~ ~ d - potl ~ • 1184 a . J Q 01 q O_ ~ O N OI • [~E~®RID.F~®R PLAR1 ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ • 1/D'~t'_or si~~n pp _ P9 ~ a $a . i~ ~ ~ \ ' i. ~G" dl 701(70i' 1 d.Y: \ dl a /707' / ~ T.u.~ ~/1~ -t r._ _ i uoil aoa ~ J W .ri soi O ' ~w'soi W W n V ~ , u N _ . - ~ O ii aNl' a06 a!! 10 ~ O I I ~ ~ ~ Z V i~ W ~ J " O ~ > o a s~ W THIRD FLOOR PLAN ~ ~ ~/a'- V-~' ~ .stye A9. . ' ~ ~ p GD • ' , j %i' :D 6u: ~ .fi- - a0 I \ LL8 I ' i ~l~ ~ I n ali . j ! _ ~ _ !Ld ~ • \ Q?il 408' . ~ ~ ~ ~ . J / ~ e a ta.s i ~ ~ C} . ~ • N -A O G ~ ~ m ~~QU6iTH-~6®o0~ Law ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ D ~ . W O Lt 4 ~ O / - ~ / ~ ~ ~ _ / ~ ~ ~ - o r P N G t _ ~ A11 01440 ' z . ~ Y ~ \ ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ / / ~ ~ O _ ~ \ \ "r~.aa ` 1 ' ~ ' K ~~1 ~ j ~ .i / ~ ~ h_Y i UJ ii"sS~: imp y `".f,;~i~ o~ ? W o. ~ N Q 0 ~ O O 2 ~ 4 O -A ^ • I s i j ~ -'---~I i I I , ~ , ~;,r 4~QIi rP~C? 1~iFPF~ rr.;°~,.: ~ j i •I ~i i I~ ' ~ i.. li ui - ..I!'' Ij j H iil ' I I~ ;I~ i lj1~ )!IIII~6~~,1 ~I' P I ~ ' II~IIII~I I I~ ~ , iI I~ I II ?I I "+s*~ r-ri II I ~ I sul.a.+s ..'?s,I I ~_~:i ' i j 11 1F6__~ ~ II J M q' i ~•'t• I III I~'- ~ W --G--- s, «F3----:--------~------= ~u ~ ~i i ~ u~~gL81/AY10lf' 6AS'f 6LEVATiON O W W' N ~•O O . - _ .D a - - ~ a o ;;JJyyyy ,'I~~,'I,,~,,,''''I'I I' 'n'' ~I, II { ' C9 i~3~iiiiad I,I I I, 1r ~ - ~ ~ , X61• -li' .I ~ ~ ~ 1 i N ! I - . u oo Qa~QOQaau ~ ~~~~I~•~~,~',~,. X19 9?~, - . I , ~ _ ij7n L~ f~ ~ v "r ~ ~ i I I WLLq•y?YpYr7~ ~::e`::':r,./•: I I I I i I L~I ---UIr-----~-------1--~ ~---1-----=-L----~---1 ~ ~ • ~IORTH_ELEVATION; '1MHST ELEVATION ~13_i . ~ ~s yrrHy,,,T g~ •b prp pMDhiV~T / ~ Nr1E ° 1y o. bf3~ L@1D nMT PW LME ~ JS L7YI is ~ ~ ~ r 1.71..r1 g is 1 409' I W i 409 ~v~M eecdE~ ~p~ J I L T _ I ~ f ~..1b+~s~~ g I ' _..H I ..._:818 I I .98f1' it _011 w.i I I I~ iPoUo _ _ . :AaUa .Loo Aroi0os ~ I loo Ard0oo n II~~ I p9 ~_bfel II I _®a: ~.S9ov,.Y. p ~aPalsr. ; I.' SJA~ r:~D 1~ . B I II --.~otoo9Seo0~ II ~A' otorooo. ~ I I !I ; ~.utoropo 'I ~ ~ECYIOPS:Ti9RlPlOBBY f 8E~1®f~ '6FIR11 A.®3 AA91®OS W W ' ~ ' ~T/ /JJ ~ ~fi~9Olnnr PHOOnuit/i/ I `u..t T ~ 1oa CCi/'~11 W~u ldC !.a - _ ~ ~ _ f'~ I--~- - ~ '(q1~ ~ .per JII ao; I ~:II08~ I~ ~ SAO b~. . ~ p tl ~ i ~ N I 1 ~ Y p yI~' ,I w :008' I II 907 Ip N , n I r 004 ~ I :909 II I v O ~ . ~ r R JI } r r y6 IpI1 ~ gttd lPottoro~ ~ I I Y07' ~ ~ ~ I i 804 I I Y09 i ~ I 4, I~ i I .bAf ~ ISporY Slolhor' ( Ovdt' Stolhor ~ I o ~ tly~lyIy rI¶Iy ppp I ~ ~ tbNs(.otdenpo obtl nAdr 83 rantrm YYY ~ t .001 o0J' owr/ravoir u I cwoB o0 `ao mo oro _ `tl. ~ II ~ 610 ~I. ~ ( - I I _ _ .I ~ ~ N . II I _ .I~. ~ , ' ;SECglO~ YI~VRIJ PEtJTHOUSE4IR/ESY SECYIm~ TFORU 9~E~YFUBIDSE-EASY • ~ ~ ta+v~rluituHti i~ ~ t i \ b L 0 I~ / sr~«v~ e\ / HNiK si?~f st i rtcwnwa q ~ ~ ` t1 i r' ~•IGh ~ i ~ I ~ ° i%Nr~ J ~ ;r~` t1J . ~.~wcH~~srt w O ~e ~ I _ w+nH cYMhda Ixlll.al'1q • HILL. 1.41~pr1q ' + ~ 1~. t ~`•'"~u ~ ~ LI.1 I ~ t.. =O O. ~ ? = o Q r - ~ Y oc ~ a O ~ ~ \ V (•hG r0 n G P i' Z ~ / / . Q ...1 ~ i ~ Q ~ ~ 1 - - - - , ~ / .a 0 ~ Q ~ ~ m 317E PLAN -SUN /SHADE ANALYSIS I • Nnwma ww.oa r .c • a ---~I ~ - g : _ - *~i' -~-~.D„~,,,~ :..~I~I.:.. ''fi`n $ j~ D~ I • ~ 'n• i:'i r I IIIIII ~ III III ~ ~I . • li IlIII I ~ I I II•~i ! i.• I ~.II'~I F~I i I I' - .Q.~~o r L• ..-hl~~l, " I ~ i I ..I.II , III I~ ~ : 'III III' I li, II L.• iV VV ! V 4p ~ I 1Q;;;~ pr~ . I ~ I I fin'' ~ _J L_ p~Q~~i7?V..'rL1 ~ ~ - ~nn r I I ~ r Jit I ~ IIII ~ I ~------1------• 1 ---------'---J lib _ _ • VDa a (~-d I/de 1'-a~ . lii p~a~ n~ ua.9' - ~ .n. -a=, fli8 sA ~ q-71! ~ ' _p - * ~~-!~i .F- I.1a0 c? owanr+q pnmreq ~r - - - - - ~ p tl IIIP'I I.. " ~ . _ I •,I ,~~I 'rl 'r~ trr I ..e~~ E~ E;~00 Q~ . r - -I ~----~--~------~----1--------~--~ ~ ~ ~~~~i n S 4.%, ' l q~ ! ~JJ Y • .~~0 I 4 ~'y t y~.,`i.; Y. . ~ ^ t 'J ~ `1. s ~ ~ 4tf~~ a ~ ( 1 _ , Y' l t ~ i g~_ ~ ~ h '"J1 ft ~ e~~T~ i(1 .y; s r V~ ~.j f'~i.~-~ . ,r _ _ ~ to ~ ' ~ ~ A. . . - ;k .~y„,t~_ q<~~~K.r'.P.: •'j'? .e-' a '=1r 1 [^ri- •1.V,~yt+y N+: J, ^i~3~~ 4{ Y,., l •k'•S. C *,'._`Yt';_•~'.~F. ,.9 :1'i,•....~i.4:. ~,'b Y_,. _ y ~.r. "•~•',~~:`!T'.t'~:'~i~;i7l~ J~1t ''fti` ai C' ` ( sj x a;c~' ~ ~ v (iii (":-az ' fi. 1~-, ~ % rz 9 L S p S ,:'id _ ~ •.V ~ ~ • t - Q =:x1 y d . a ` i .1. `~J ~ I 4 PaD ,C,. R .~~.~'~t' Rl~:~_: 4 '}p~ ~.i- r ' ~ f ~a1 d ~ e! ua,h I i ~~+i~ + T_ - I . • ~ _ `°r,7 ~ ~•.f1,>, ate. t , . ` ~ ra . s "i 7'r * ~ II i i L 1` i(~ , ~ _ .A : ~YJI ~ t]~ T t ~s _ .1 h i _ ~ Vtl i4® • _ - - ~ ~ ~ I ° k~ _ ~~/1... - ? ,,~~j~j,' ` ~l 'rte _ ° „ate ~ . ~ ~ - ~ . °f 4' -~2~y - _ _ Y ~ ~ ^ , - _ z,r -'ZR:.`'r ;L~y ' , .a-~'~~•'-~ ~ ~ ~'-`r+~ `..:,,~otf?14:81~~'~zo:y~ 'S,,'~J':`. - "-t w.. ° ~ J ( r 1 r~'.T r.: ,cy • ,-i i.r _ `.a.•~.:.~ ~ v"`."'..'R`~~f~ ;'-~-~~14~"tir :~'1 b'~.?R~.~=I 1~-:'-%. '~-4'J'•~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ V~~~-es-~ "'r:.j''-~-s '~'-,it.'~~='~"+w. r <w~.~y~. ;.o~j~~ ~..~~ip~+pvai:$.~~ ~`r~>~:.. ~ ~'.-.r -:'+t~~••f. .1.~, .1_.Sf~S:t?4 ~1'~.~}~- 1~~+~~.~"~ ,iv~d~ Tcr W y!. t' ~.J'~~ ~p J a.r _ , ` "A~!:~ j%'.`>t:.' ~;~s`.?~ i. ~i~:~~,~?;''!d fq!JF~~~,,~y+~~G7S'T f W1~k [ ~:'~`~'L~~t' • •i'• ? t~,~9 ((LjL . , ,a_~ !i~s•'.`.r.{trw=:+ru~~,`-^+'!"C,',:;,.`'~t'~,,,`.~.`~"~'•~',;;r~+a'-O!~'~~~~'^"'_".~^ .~.{d'~, '1q' ~J.,D>~"„~ .k: ~'.;,g,, f' ~ F.~`y`gr.~PaS.~.~~?~>.. ~:y. ~~c.. o . ~RO!:.~.%3' p'N V', ''t. `a .''V-. ~ni A-~+. Y,. s..~i^'-y t~:,oKb ~'~}°y7+ ~ ~ a:^f{~d S,.' ~ ~ -7 :3. n. _ _~a~ ~h t. ~.+a:y' ~!_i.: •iL i~a..~`~ a . _ _ _ _ _ ~y~,~y~~ I~Fy'Ai a .i, J~; v?~'it~~ ~~1`;7M~F ~ .,~(,~,tir` , ~ ~~/(jr-'+~ .cam' A.'•?.Tj i • ~(~{`•Ni~~ ~ ,Jtba~ ~,4'•i ~~~1' f/~~-~ `.z, r~~ :'rte"~+1,~~~.~;.r ..rte=~-' ~TT"~;~"_ i= t" t ~ 7r• ~ '''`~~~~~^1~ rx t~~r: • ' ju.'ys- "Olyr:t ~ d ^.,1 j.,{jJ-~I~'~,irirf(~(~~~`` iD • \ Y" ' ~ ~'h.~{''"r~y`.i"~- .'"'1''~r t ,~i~~'^~n -'~b~' ,'X; :~:+'~~:?`~4~.: t~,';~' re•. ,:?a .W 1 G• S_.~~~.'~,:a.~rs;,•~tijy,tyy-,•! ''1 it:`~ r•.,s.. .t> u`'~~f~y~ ~'y- ^:~>^Y),~s~~ rAt'¢V-C`~" ~ }~~cr"'q;~i,.i<~ t~'o9~}Cr:, ~ , r '4r^~; ~ qc'~~ '~-v.-+.-'... ~ ~~~~~p ...`7~1~ l 't cYt i~ 7•'-" Z~~C°' `~JS'Llt ' r•{.;r . r•r•r `~7'i• 'L• \ w y.~ -~`-rr~'"' r r• ' V ~ , ry - Y- .C : .i. } . Z,1-.• ~ • 1 J ~ r.~ fin, ir.-~ ~ ;yam 1•,...~!1` ,y ~ 4 5~. J,r•. V•"~ ? !~G, ~~+~';.r^ r:~~ ~v ~~^~4~! i• " ~U-• `n ~ ~y l' ~l 1.i ~N~""~JI ~~;q r?p; `Y~y .t' ~ j~~!~ =4r l~~ , 1~. ti Z`~rr, .~'1 1. . r ..,a. ~ .17~~9~ rb~ ,Y.1 ~ ~ ~ { _ '4• r/"'-\ .~,~aV~i~ _ '.r~i-a d` ~ fi~~~. i.1 ~~of'F:?xrn.',•'11- Ir /!i•;~~ :'jf.11'Z(~ l+. ^ Y 1.•ct' l"'~ `r.r ? '!•.'f ~ :J~j,S. ~ ~r~lr~^ s'• ,:<f' r c, v.~c1".~R,-',`~h7~:~?~ .~yr" ~.y>~`~" • ~ t~ ' a a 1"•~ (~}(~~1,f~, • ` ~~;~d, ~ ;~~7F+,"?~^ '.a•;^r ~ i~•~G.~;4•~"! j';., ` ` ~ • 7~- Z• Y~ ! { ! I c 1114 1~ / rJ ~y~ :•./-r ~1 h~~ .~'r ~ - .C.~ k ? ~v /g, f1: ~ ~ 1 s'R- .riTr. i ~r~ l ;f,{tt~~~~ ' ~ ~j~ • '~liii',~.> '~1,.•C~~ - Z•t- i ~t•`.3 ,;:,V c1~Jf'~ ~,.sj f,.~~,1,~ - .scrrr~'•"~ ~ , • ~L'~i ~ C • ` ~ ,~.-+c .s/~- i ~~7:. Y.,; ran"~r~'r.%9Z:.7'i :•t ~ r. l~ ~r~ tL~;'!!,- . pr - 3 - - r ~ J Y .p ~i.~~_",i~" y~..~~~ ! tltl . •Zf i ~J ' r ~?j~ MC ~ .I'~ 7K:s; 'y.` rl/" " ~ A - :'~Y, ~ 1^~c`^. ^ ~1 r~ "~'.3=''S+-1 ~ J `flt ~ .,~°~'`~~,;~7~~r3J;:- . ~ -~i'I~"i, t~1~Ik {~r E"-_-= ~ - ~ - ~ ~ R ~~.~;~,y ;T--Q - j r . r °'.t :,',t~~'N•'`~ ':'15 '~1 4~~..1,,,,*.~~.~.-..-- e"- - ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~i.'!r •{..S!F. _ i ;"rr ,.Y,•+~ r~- 1/~ .c~,~ i 'r Ij a 1 ) • i..,4'r7i''''~+ ~_:n ~ - 'i' - / k.;' _ yt'r r'te'' :7" r-~ ~•^4~~ ? C Y "~j~p` +.rdYq; a ft Cy :t~et::f ~ - r corn 'Yl:.'~r4~ ,.a. / ti i:.'i^.. :~U~7! ;j ~ re1;~ ` ''C Y' ;;t"~~ ~ i 6 r1 ~ ~rJ'J. ~ ' ~'(r• ~~C id''~ ~'-i -S~/.^ .•~'i~~"~ • Vy ~.•,-~•~i~~• f `'~Y 1•r + /-~l'~i ` ci ' y~5a}.'~t~ti?4 ! 1 Q ~ ~ ~ v r ti' !.(I 'Vt ° ~f'~"~~~^j,'.~L - ~.r~xcc. y~ ` •F!' -(1? ~}^~-i~ F~. f~ ~ y _ ~_l~i. ~iS~~'~ I'..? Jrc: r.1t i ~Y . i~ ~,~r z'~~ a ~r. . i1 t i~l: ; r. i' ~.s! ~ 0 ; .-~;-c. 47~. ~`-./,l:o+ ~1-' . :-,/~-j N..c.~ Jt~.: 1~ - t~ ~ 'SyJ " ,~i. ~ 1 T~ .,,f •r ~ T r ~ n~r~,"~ ~~r., ~ `''~y.'~~ _ ..fir- ~ .~f'r''•'(; % j~ t r.~~~.• 4~r)f^~J~~~()`}~yb i 1~ F~1~•~{I~ ~`~,~-',(~`f':~ `R^ ~l~ L t~• ~`r~'? r~ ~.~a??"•;.~ vi~'r~~y*~.~~~c~' b~~•~{~'~2','~iy~(t• - j• "~;F'~~+' f r ~j c :,~{}!~[[!p {I i f iQ71~R. ~ Z1 ~/U ~ rr"•+ 1 't~_ 7{ - V ' . ~R~'-^•'P,.-jam) -,JJ' ~•!~i! 3 ~ ~ Y^v,'.,4~f- ~^•~-.='.F~~,~t~vu=i~ - .'X'/ `~'`'J : f'F~!*•~ ; 1~ i ~~y.,~~ " ti "1/.JE9l~- ~~~~"--~r_ .~i 'r~~. ~ y`. 4. -_j- ,c f'[~~~`, f;/(*;,'r<+}• ~~.~1"~" ter'! -C•r~ (.~r;'tJ.' f~~.. 17:1 4 1 ~c/4 .~'t.".~~~ .j/ c-- ri - T - yr-?J-~'~. i ~ . f ~ t~11,-~~ r. .,1. ~ 7 .'D .~~T,+rx ~t~~ ...h..~ i~.` r . 1 .`Y.~•dy ..L{r r ~°4 ~-,t _ - r - - - •"~'I' L ' ^ ~''•'r~Y• ~ t'~ , - L. L..^;!Y! i~ ~ - 1 • 'C ~ +=t •'+~»c ~~:d - r'r' .+.li:r.r ~.L ~lt-~_ - 1 4< dr/~• ':f ~?ry>).r r'j`_~; f. : f 1! •t (~q• ? .-r, ,~5.?f~ °/ti,:~iV: _ «:•.~,..;,4 ~-.f oY:~S"' ,yl.+~`yr. •r-!'. -,.rte y:. ~ u +~-'L''•s_.r,.~j~,'+. .(:r .nOr(~:_r; ^~.:,r'/:•_-- ~y -f ~%'~f ~F'~' !~`•M Is q1~ _c~7 )1 _ 1 r 'r,r~ •r:"-ar~ - "r r i3 ~ '9' ~;T,•,•r.. 7C'L: ':wi..•.? - ^C_"f:.~~ ;a\~ • ''k`~~--if r'f ~ ---,.IJ' ~ { ^ Jw' ~ ^ ' t~ ~ \ 0' - j~ ~ 3 t i lr \ ~ . r V ~ 1 ~C-~ . , - ? - { Y r ~ - r 1~ _ 1-ri 1 1.. :.rte -6r" .1Y-- ~ _j~~ •.".r•-•^' r_ - ir~3h~: -~11i1.1,. ~„7 ),~_1l ~ "~i• t (Sr..,., ~ •t".'' ' ~'JI, P .tC }"rc^ r "~-r-~ ra<~^-'-.,~%' a t _ f1 r , . 7 ~ ~~~yyyy,,,...--- .r .,r:•., '•L1..-~-1 -[7 /t Y ~ ~ t? Yc~ 77•x. 1 ~ '~~r'~1Cf'.. r 1~ >:.C' i r ~,~51 ~ .~i., r~ r~ ~ r f. ,.,<~=il ~-?~~,.ti.~' )`7=;~:c~•I.r .,,,,t_fc.a' 4•:. rS, IZ~ t1?:- ~ r3'~ f.-. Z ~ al 11.i : x ~ rr.., ,o- w l'. _ r _ . ~ -y.7~., --~,cf C 1.~...:ai ~ ~ "b i-:'.~: r ~ ~ v.CA n• . a ~ ~ ~.lr. U: ~ .F~t..f r ~ ~ j ~^F..: ~ ~,'1C~' C ~ :.L ~ d "6 f 1i ~..c.~.1 "r,;--•~,: !'~~.-~+:t yh .r. L`'• ' . _ , . ; . r-~ y: / r.1 ~ ~,~7 ~ .....i. ` { - fy- ~ r ~ I' Y~ • , ,v r . ~i _ ~ i 3 J ~ ~ 1 1 _-i?~~ J • " y,:r? ~ liS'~. L' r / N; ~ . ~ ' ~ _ , ~~T''•~"`Ti{'~"' •'s' ~ ^-.t~.."^- Y~a• r. ~ 1 ~o+ '',:_:J~a;r•~ ~1.; :1 r~ ~ ~GJ' ~L•f • `~/'%t rr_ ~...-'ma'r- ~ , .r;r: ~~1!•„r~.-' ~;tj;'"~~~'' or~-:~r,:• iY I ~ .'t • - i/!EV!! ~~R®M BRI®GE STREET _j'~ ' ~l J~^r1 t- ` '1~~~~' ~~-r,~;- . _J'.-.• ..r.. •-c}.'".~:~~-•v 1:1~;±.• - .cY:":~~.`=tai-N~t.''~. ~~ti_';~i;f~' r %i`Y-~4.• _ 1'. th' _ -t } a_ . : ~.%<~c.:iC'+.". r; a•r~ .,;,y N ~'r-1'-b~Cr..v\..,.r-':'_ i.- - ~ ~Vr~~ .`~a•%l i'<;:ia_;,,° " ;..r. i.pv .~.i~rF .•:'.=p}~r-a 1.• -r y±l ,\«+•r ~ t".. . " 'S •^~h:.• l/S':~ •1 - : , EMPLOYMEI.T GENERATION RATES IE%I-iIBIT A SUGGESTED EAII'LOI'14IENT CATEGORIES AND x~At~GES FOR MAIL EXPRESSED AS JGA'~PLOYEES PER 1000 SQUARE Fit a RRC RESEARCH OVERALL SUGGESTED AVERAGES RAAIGE Bar/Restaurant 5.7/1000 s.f. 5-$/1000 s.f. Retail and Service Commercial 5.9/1000 5-$/1000 Retail: Grocery/Liquor/Convenience 1.$/1000 1.5-3/1000 Office: Real Estate 7.6/1000 6-9/1000 Office: Financial 3.1/1000 2.5-4/1000 I Office: Professional/Other 6.6/1000 5-$/1000 Conference Center I A1A 1/1000 Health Club ~ I 1~A 1-1.5/1000 Lodgings I 1.3/room .25-1.25/room Local Government I 6.5/1000 5-$/1000 Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.) 10.6/1000 9-13/1000 Multi-Family N/A 0.4/unit I Single Family ~ I 1V/A 0.2/unit Other: To be determined through the SDD process, upon submission of adequate documentation and a review of the application materials. Lodging/accommodations has particularly large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and level of service/support facilities and amenities provided. The standards present a wide range of employment, but it is anticipated that a definitive report will be submitted by eatih lodging property requesting an expansion, which would then be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ROSALL REA~lEN CARES - - - - - PAGE 6 EXHIBIT B SUBDIVISIONS C. Plans and descriptions showing how the following will be performed: 1. All site work shall be brought up to current town standards unless a variance therefrom is granted to the applicant by the town council in accordance with the variance procedures of this Title 17. The town council may, if it deems necessary, require additional parking facilities to meet requirements of owners and guests of the condominium units, 2. Corrections of violations cited in the condominium conversion report by the building inspector, 3. Condominium projects shall meet current Uniform Build- ing Code requirements for heat and fire detection devices and systems. (Ord. 29 (1983) § 1: Ord. 2 (1983) § 1 (part).) 17.26.075 Condominium conversion. Any applicant seeking to convert any accommodation unit within the town shall comply with the requirements of this section. The requirements contained in this section shall not apply to structures or buildings which contain two units or less. A. The requirements and restrictions herein contained shall be included in the condominium declaration for the project, and filed of record with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. The condominium units created shall remain in the short term (Vail l I-IS-83) 298-'4 CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public. ~ Se~soN I. An owner's personal use of his or her unit shall be restricted to twenty eight days during the seasonal iils-g - '/t period of December 24th to January lst and irebruary !st to March 20th. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's alt - 3lao personal use" shall be defined as owner's occupancy of a unit or non-paying guest of the owner or taking the unit off of the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than for necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which may make the unit unrentable. Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manaQ,er or staff emoloved by the IodQe, however, shall ?not be restricted by this sect i4.a 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association of three times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which may be collected by foreclosure, on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium associa- tion's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restric- tionshall give the town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds collected as a result of such enforcement. In the event litigation results from the enforcement of the restriction, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney's fees incurred. . 298-5 ~ { - • (Vail 12-I-87) SUBDIVISIONS ' 3. The town shall have the right to require from the condominium association an annual report of owner's personal use during the high seasons for all converted condominium units. 4. The converted lodge units shall not be used as permanent residences. F-or the purposes of this section, a person shall be presumed to be a permanent resident if su~1~ person has resided in the unit tor~six consecutive month~oiwithstandin~_ from time to tini~'j~; such six month period the person may briefly dwell in other places. B. Any lodge located within the town which has converted accommodation units to condominiums shall continue to provide customary lodge facilities and services including a customary marketing program. C. The converted condominium units shall remain available to the general tourist market. if unsold thirty days after recording of the condominium map, the unsold con- verted condominiums shall be required to be furnished and made available to the general tourist market within ninety days after the date of recording of the condo- . minium map. This requirement may be met by inclusion of the units of the condominium project at comparable rates, in any local reservation system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the town. D. The common areas of any lodge with converted units shall remain common areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its previous character. Any changes, altera- tions or renovations made to common areas shall not diminish the size or quality of the common areas. E. Any accommodation units that were utilized to provide housing Cor employees at any time during the three years previous to the date of the application shall remain as employee units for such duration as may be required by the planning and environmenla! commission or the town council. F. Applicability. All conditions set forth within this section shall be made binding on tlic applicant, the applicant's successors, heirs, personal representati~~es and assigns and shall govern the property which is the subject of the application for the life . 298-6 j - . IE~s~ ~~~,~.Ac~~ ~~~~~~~~~s Ass®ciA°rI~, I~c~ OFFICERS: PRI'.SIpL'.\"I' - Bob Galvln SECRETARY - GCEC[a Parl(S TRr•.nsuaFa -Dolph Bridgewater DIRF.CI'O RS - llwight Bess mer - Patrick Gramm - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder - Olive Watson ~~~~0 V~® p C T 1 ~ 19~~ To: Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council Members From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Dated October 18, 1993 REe Golden Peak House Special Development District Application A protest is hereby submitted on behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association of the application requesting designation of the Golden Peak House (GPH) as a Special Development District (SDD). It is the position of the Homeowners Association to oppose the creation of Special Development Districts thate 1. Exceed zoning standards for established zone districts. 2. Violate established or proposed view corridors and open space lands. 3. Becomes a grant of special privilege, not generally available to all property owners. 4. For existing buildings, any provision that would cause an already exceeded zoning standard to be further expanded. The Golden Peak House Special Development District application does not conform to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. * The GPH SDD proposal exceeds all zoning standards for the Commercial Core I zone district, according to planning staff memoranda. * The existing building exceeds all zoning standards, according to planning staff memoranda. * The expansion of the building beyond zoning standards or an expansion of a non-conforming condition is a grant of special privilege not generally available to all property owners. * Unfashionable architecture or failure of the property owners to properly maintain a building is insufficient cause to exceed zoning standards. The Homeowners Association recognizes that the zoning code provides for the right of the property owner to replace the structure to it present configuration should it be destroyed. Therefore, it is recommended that any alteration PosT OFrICF Box 238 Vnn., COLORADO 81658 ~(~CEe~/ED ©C~ , ~ 999 To: Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council Members From: ~7im Lamont, Planning Consultant Date: October 18, 1993 RE: Golden Peak House Special Development District Application Page 2 to the structure be done within the confines of the existing building envelope. As a consequence, the building would qualify for the required variances necessary to reconfigure the interior space and upgrade the building exterior. It is recommended, in order to achieve the building's exterior upgrade and reconfiguration of the interior space: a. Roof domers on the 5th floor East Wing, North Elevation should be removed. The sloping roof should be retained and brought into conformance with the Vail Village View Corridor. This approach would have the net effect of reducing GRFA, as well as reducing the building's bulk and mass of the building. b. Ceiling heights on the 5th floor East Wing Penthouse, South Elevation should be reduced to eight (8) feet, using domers to reduce the flat roof areas. The resulting effect will reduce GRFA, as well as the bulk and mass of the building. Also, it will bring greater compliance with the Vail Village View Corridor. c. Ceiling heights on the 5th floor West Wing Penthouse, South Elevation, should be lowered, thus reducing the bulk and mass of the building. The double pitch of proposed roof should be maintained. The resulting effect will further open view of Vail Mountain from Bridge Street and bring greater compliance with the Vail Village View Corridor. d. Drip Easement/Open Space Tract should be used only to improve the building's compliance with zoning standard. 1. The estimated 410 sc~. ft. of GRFA proposed to project into the drip easement/open space tract land should be eliminated. The effect would be to further reduce excessive GRFA as well as reduce the bulk and mass of the building. 2. Balcony projections proposed to project further into the drip easement/open space tract land should be eliminated. The effect would be to further reduce the bulk and mass of the building. 3. Deck covering proposed for restaurant deck located on the drip easement/open space tract should be eliminated. The effect would be to further reduce the bulk and mass of the building. P ~~~~IV~'~: v:~ ~ 1 ~ 1993 To: Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council Members From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Datee October 18, 1993 RE: Golden Peak House Special Development District Application Page 3 In addition to the forgoing, the following conditions should be attached to any approval of the project. e: Streetscape improvements should be a proportional amount of the GRFA in excess of the underlying zone to that required of the Christiania Special Development District. The Christiania requirement was for 19% in excess GRFA allowed. A condition of approval was $40,000 in landscape/streetscape improvements on public and private property. The GPH GRFA requested, exceeds the standard by 139%. If approved as proposed, the GPH SDD should be required to pay, at a minimum, for $280,000 of new landscape and streetscape improvements. A specified amount should be a condition of approval. Streetscape improvements should not be condition upon the formation of a Special Improvement District. An escrow fund should be established for the construction of Siebert Circle, to be spent when sufficient funds are available from neighboring property owners and other sources. f. Acquisition of Mill Creek Stream Tract and Space/Pirate Ship Park should be required in exchange for the appending of the drip easement/open space tract to the GPH site. The cost of acquiring the park should be credited to the Streetscape escrow account. The applicant should be responsible for the care and maintenance of the open space/park according to approved standards. g. Employee housing requirements should be met either on-site or off-site. h. The °°Pay-in-lieu Loading Space Fee should be required for the absence of a required on-site loading space. A minimum of $50,000 should be set aside in an escrow account. i. A central storage room within the building, large enough to provide short term freight storage for all on-site uses should be required. The storage room should be directly accessible to a freight elevator that must have direct and adequate access to the street. Additional comments, concerns, and recommended conditions may be forthcoming, subject to further review of the proposal by the Board of Directors and membership. ORDINANCE NO. 28 Series of 1993 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 31, GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE; ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 31 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE; REZONING A PORTION OF TRACT E FROM AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE ZONING TO COMMERCIAL CORE I ZONING, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, the developer, Golden Peak House Condominium AssociationNail Associates, Inc.lGPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. or the successors in interest, has submitted an application for the establishment of Special Development District (SDD} No. 31 which includes a request for a Commercial Core I exterior alteration, a request for a minor subdivision, and a request for an encroachment into View Corridor No. 1 for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legally described as Lots A, B and C, Block 2, and a portion of Tract E, Vail Village First Filing and commonly referred to as the Golden Peak House Special Development District; and WHEREAS, the developer has submitted an application to rezone a portion of Tract E, Vail Village Fifth Filing, more specifically described in Exhibit A, from the Agricultural and Open Space zone district to the Commercial Core I zone district; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with the surrounding and immediately adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort will better reflect the actual use of the land; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is for the benefit of the community as it meets the municipal objectives identified in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission, on October 11, 1993, held a public hearing on the establishment of an SDD and the rezoning, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish SDD No. 31; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF Ordinance No. 28, 1 Series of 1993 VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: SECTION 1 The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied. SECTION 2 Special Development District No. 31 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space, employee housing, streetscape improvements and other amenities, and promote the objectives of the Town's Zoning ordinance. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning districts on the area. SECTION' 3 Special Development District No. 31 is established for the development on a parcel of land comprising 8,375 square feet in the Vail Village area of the Town; Special Development District No. 31 and said 8,375 square feet may be referred to as "SDD No. 31 SECTION 4 The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. SECTION 5 The Town Council hereby rezones that portion of Tract E legally described in the attached Exhibit A, from the Agricultural and Open Space zone district to the Commercial Core I zone district. Ordinance No. 28, ,Z Series of 1993 SECTION 6 The Town Council finds that the development plan for SDD. No. 31 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the development plan for SDD No. 31 is approved. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects, and consists of the following documents: 1. Sheet No. A-1, dated September 29, 1993 (site plan).. 2. Sheet No. A-6, dated May 31, 1993 (basement plan). 3. Sheet No. A-7, dated September 29, 1993 (ground floor plan). 4. Sheet No. A-8, dated September 29, 1993 (second floor plan}. 5. Sheet No. A-9, dated September 29, 1993 (third floor plan). 6. Sheet No. A-10, dated August 31, 1993 (fourth floor plan). 7. Sheet No. A-11, dated September 24, 1993 (fifth floor plan). 8. Sheet No. A-12, dated September 29, 1993 (roof plan). 9. Sheet No. A-13, dated September 29, 1993 (building elevations). 10. Sheet No. A-14, dated September 29, 1993 (building sections). 11. Sheet No. A-15, dated September 29, 1993 (sun/shade analysis). 12. Sheet No. A-16, dated September 29, 1993 (View Corridor No. 1 analysis). 13. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the Special Development District. SECTION 7 In addition to the approved development plan described in Section 4 above, the following development standards have been submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission for its consideration and recommendation and are hereby approved by the Town Council; these standards are incorporated in the Approved Development Plan to protect the integrity of the development of SDD No. 31; the following are the development standards for SDD No. 31. A. Lot Area -The lot area shall consist of approximately 8,375 square feet. B. Setbacks -The required setbacks shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plans. Ordinance No. 28, 3 Series of 1993 C. Height -The maximum height of the Golden Peak House Building shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plans. D. Density Control -The maximum GRFA for the Golden Peak House shall not exceed 18,946 square feet. This figure includes 3,091 square feet of excess common area that has been included in the GRFA. The approved density for the Golden Peak House includes fourteen (14) dwelling units and two (2) accommodation units, for a total of fifteen (15) dwelling units. Three of the dwelling units are approved to have lock-offs. E. Site Coverage -The maximum site coverage for this Special Development District shall not exceed 7,874 square feet, or 94% of the lot area, and shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plans. F. Landscaping -All landscaping shall be in accordance with the Approved Development Plans. G. Parking - As provided for in Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Off- Street Parking and Loading, all properties located within the Commercial Core I zone district shall not be allowed to provide required parking on-site. Parking shall be provided by the developer paying into the Town's parking pay-in-lieu fund. The required number of parking spaces, in accordance with the Approved Development Plan for SDD No. 31, shall be a total of 15.02 parking spaces. Payment into the parking fund shall occur at the time of Building Permit, according to Section 18.52.160(6,5) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. SECTION 8 The developer agrees with the following requirements, which are a part of the Town's approval of the establishment of this SDD No. 31: 1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the construction of SDD No. 31, the developer shall permanently restrict two off-site, two-bedroom, employee housing units per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. Each unit shall be a minimum size of 700 square feet. The units shall meet the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance requirements. 2. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the redevelopment project, the developer will contribute $32,000.00 towards the redesign and redevelopment of Seibert Circle. The $32,000 contribution towards the redevelopment of Seibert Circle shall be credited towards the Golden Peak House, should a future Special Improvement District be created for this project. Ordinance No. 28, 4 Series of 7993 3. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the redevelopment project, the developer, will dedicate open space to the Town. The minimum area of open space would be at feast an equivalent area, to that of the area of the Tract E "overhang and deck" easements and the area of the new sidewalk to be located on Tract E. It was suggested that the Mill Creek stream tract or the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E be dedicated as permanent open space. 4. That the developer dedicate to the Town of Vail, a public pedestrian easement, across Lot C which is located between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building. The dedication of the easement shall occur prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the project. 5. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the developer shall deed restrict two three-bedroom dwelling units (Units 201 and 401) to be included in the Golden Peak House short-term rental program, at all times when they are not occupied by the owner or his guests. 6. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the developer shall restrict, the remaining two lock-offs in the building, to be included in the Golden Peak House short-term rental program at all times when they are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests. 7. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, the developer shall agree to restrict, and place into the short-term rental program, the two proposed accommodation units in the building, to be included in the Golden Peak House short-term rental program at all times when they are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests. 8. That the developer, or his successors in interest, shall participate in, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any improvement district(s) which may be established by the Town of Vail for the purposes of constructing improvements as set forth in the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and/or the Vail Transportation Master Plan, if and when an improvement district(s) is formed. 9. That the pedestrian arcade (which was originally proposed over the first floor retail windows on the north elevation), and that the original ground floor plan, which does not inc{ude the curved retail windows along the eastern portion of the building, be reviewed by the Design Review Board and included in the final building design, if required by the Design Review Board. Ordinance No. 28, 5 Series of 1993 10. That the developer further articulate the first floor "retail windows", by adding divided lights to the large single panes of glass. 11. That the Design Review Board review the proposed roof form over the main entry on the north elevation, and determine if the roof form needs to be lowered. 12. That the proposed tar and gravel roof for the building is acceptable. SECTION 9 The Town Council's approval for the establishment of SDD No. 31, does not include the developer's request to add a retractable enclosure over approximately 580 square feet of the Los Amigos outdoor dining deck on the south side of the building. This enclosure is indicated on Sheet No. A-8, dated September 29, 1993. SECTION 10 Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. SECTION 11 The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3) years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the developer does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District, the developer 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. SECTION 12 If any part, section, 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; Ordinance No. 28, 6 Series of 1993 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 13 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 14 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 its inhabitants thereof. SECTION 15 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision 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 provisions or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1993. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the day of , 1993, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Mayor Attest: Town Clerk Ordinance No. 28, 7 Series at 1993 INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS DAY OF , 1993. Mayor Attest: Town Clerk Ordinance No. 28, 8 Series of 1993 i . EXHIBIT A ~ • PRCP~F~`I`~ ~ESCR~P'~'~d23 ghat part of ~rgct iTai1..V~.IZageo Fa.fth F~.~.ing, acoord3.ng to the map thereof reoord~d in the office of the Sagle Cow~tys Colorado, . ~~.®rk aad R~carderP ~ d.~6cribad as £ol],ow$ o C,,,.aawe~a®inc~ the ~dZ/l6 corner of Section 8a ~'oatra+~hsp 5 SouthP Range 90 ~To~t of the Sixth ~rinoipaZ NleridianB said point a9.so be~.nQ the nosthwesterl.~ corner of said ~raCt thence, along the northarl.y 5.in~ of aa~.d ~x~ae~. N89 ° 00"E 9 0 00 feet to the ~'gue P®i~at o£ ~egiazazngg thexace, conti~a~~.nq along said northerly lane, . ~i8~°~~°OA"E X000 feet to tho ~duthw~stex~l~r oarnar of Golden Feak Meuse {A Con.do®.i.ni.~ Pgo~ect' according to the rap thereof recorded ~.n tt~e office v£ the ~agZe Cauntyp Colorado, C1,e~ck end ReGarc~ery th®nce th® fo~.lowing two courses along the coon line of said ~~t E axed sa~.c~ Gogder~ Peak Houses (1j kTB~°~4Q00~'~ 84o0Q f~eto(a? ~t5~°~5°00"E a~°50 £~et to the southeasterly comer o£ said Gold®n ~ea~s $AUS~~ thence, ~apsstipg said c~~...orb line, 830° ~5 ° OA"~ ~ 0 90 £eetg th~tac~ S5~°~5°09"W 52°~0 feetg thence 53~,°~2°35°W 5066 feetP thea~c~ S 8~ ° 0 0 "9d 9 & a 09 feet thar? 6 ° og u 9~ the ~rrae Poi~at of Beginning o za siri~ing l2~ 0 squas~ feet r wore or les ' Stan RogfeaM Cal®xadc~ P°S+oS° ~65~8 ge~~.e®d ~arct of tract ~ tc golden pew house AREM®R~?Ci~l®Utifd TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 30, 9 993 SUBJECT: Request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club located at 352 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Vail Athletic Club Planner: Shelly Mello •:a:::........ l.::v 1:tv':;:~::;: v::..~ •t.~}.........n.n............v::::::v: v.:: x..::?1:~..:vi: . n J?: is i::;:. 4i }y~.~:•: nt~?..:'':::::: j~.ii ii: is On September 27, 1993,-the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed a request from the owners of the Vail Athletic Club for the establishment of a Special Development District. This meeting was the final hearing after a series of three worksessions with the PEC and Design Review Board (DRB) beginning in June of this year. Attached please find a copy of staff's memorandum dated September 27, 1993 regarding the details of the applicant's request. The PEC voted unanimously to approve the project with Jeff Bowen making the motion and Dalton Williams seconding the motion. In addition to the staff's conditions which required the following: 1. The applicant permanently restrict the proposed 52 AUs as short-term rental units and that the 52 AUs shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual ownership. The Condominium Declarations shall be amended to include this point before an occupancy permit will be released for the project. 2. The applicant provide one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom employee housing unit and restrict them per the Town of Vail Employee Housing Ordinance. The employee housing restriction agreement shall be signed and submitted to the staff for approval before a building permit will be released for the project. The proposed employee units shall provide housing for a total of 6 employees. The units shall meet the minimum standards specified in the Town of Vail's Employee Housing Ordinance. Further, the PEC recommended the following conditions: 1. That three of the parking spaces currently being proposed on the site for the incremental increase in required parking shall be removed and the applicant shall pay into the parking fund for these three spaces ($8,000 per space =$24,000). With this provision, the applicant shall remove the two exterior / parking spaces adjacent to the structure entry and this area shall be designated . 9 r for loading and delivery. An additional space within the interior of the parking structure shall also be removed from the proposal. This condition was due to the PEC's concern with the ability of the parking structure to function with twenty-seven interior valet parking spaces. 2. That the applicant work with the DRB to develop a landscape plan on the south side of the building between the building and the streamwalk with the goal of returning this area to a more natural condition. This work includes improving and allowing public access through the property via the existing bridge and path on the southwest comer of the building and removing the existing sod and reseeding the area with a natural grass seed mix and possibly adding additional planting. The area to be returned to a natural condition begins just south of the willows adjacent to the VAC and extends south to the streamwalk. 3. That the DRB review the architectural details of the building further to insure that there is adequate architectural relief in the window mullions, trim, etc. 4. That the applicant.work with the DRB to improve the signage, landscaping and general of East Meadow Drive as it intersects with Blue Cow Chute particularly the north side of East Meadow Drive. The objective of this effort is to not only to improve the pedestrian character of this area, but to also deter unnecessary vehicular traffic from entering East~Meadow Drive. c:\s helly\memos\vac.930 2 AHEM®~A1d®tJM TO: Planning Environmental Commission I=RON: Community Development Department DATE: September 27, 1993 (C®r~ecti®r~s made September a79 9993 aPe in b®9d.) SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as folbws: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79°46'00" W along the Northerly line of Vail Village, Frst Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.66 feet; thence S 06°26'52" W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest comer of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79°04'08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast comer thereof; thence N 62°52'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27°13'37" W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89°29'22" W a distance of 12.60 feet to the Northeasterly comer of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40°30'00" whose chord bears N 53°40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73°55'00"Wand along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 85°10'21" W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02°18'00"Wand .along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45°13'53" E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less. Applicant: Vail Athletic Club Planner: Shelly Mello U. l~R®.BEC~' ®VERVBElAI The applicant is requesting a review of the proposed establishment of a Special Development District (SDD) for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club located at 352 East Meadow Drive. The Vail Athletic Club is located on the southwest corner of Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive at the bottom of Blue Cow Chute. The property is currently zoned Public Accommodation and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to development standards. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of requesting a SDD for this property is to improve the appearance of the building and site as well as make it a more viable hotel. The proposal includes the deletion of six dwelling units, the addition of twenty-four 1 accommodation units, a decrease to the Club Area, a decrease in total restaurant area, modifications to the elevations, a decrease in common area and the addition of nine underground parking spaces. The four existing employee units will remain on-site and will be permanently deed restricted. The deviations from the Public Accommodation development standards include: 1. Density. The proposed density for the project will be 30.33 dwelling units (DU), which will include 52 AUs, 3 DUs and 4 employee housing units. The existing density for the project is 24.33 DU and the allowed density for the project 17.5 DUs. The total density increase is 6 DUs over the existing development and 12.83 DUs over the allowable density. 2. GRFA. The applicant is proposing a total of 32,282 square feet of GRFA. In addition to this, there is an overage on common area of 8,456 square feet. When this is added to GRFA, the total GRFA for the project will be 40,738 square feet. The allowed GRFAlCommon Area for the project is 32,924 square feet. Currently, there is 33,902 square feet of GRfA in the project which includes overages on common area. This results in a total increase of GRFA/Common Area of 6,836 square feet above the existing development and 7;814 square feet over the allowable GRFA/Common Area. 3. Common Area. The applicant is proposing to reduce common area, however, the existing project is in excess of the allowed common area by 13,541 square feet which is added to the GRFA. The proposal would exceed the allowable common area by 8,456 square feet. 4. Height. The existing building is 67 feet in height on the south elevation and 59 feet on the north elevation. The allowable height is 45 feet. The applicant does not propose to increase the ridge height, however, dormers will be added to both the north and south of the building where the ridge heights exceed the 45 foot height allowance. 5. Site Coverage. Currently, the site coverage for the project is 20,796 square feet. The application will increase this to 21,350 square feet. Which includes the underground parking and service areas. The allowed site coverage for the site is 16,767 square feet. 6. Accessory Use. The accessory use allowance is 10% of existing GRFA. If built as proposed, this project would have an accessory use allowance of 3,228 square feet. As proposed, the allowable accessory use will be 3,426 square feet. This is a reduction from the existing 4,066 square feet. However, there is still an overage of 198 square feet. 7. Setbacks. The applicant proposes to add building along the north side of the project. This will be in the area of the entry and the restaurant. The addition of the entry will result in a 1 foot setback from the property line. The existing parking structure has a o foot setback. On the south side of the project, the applicant is proposing an at grade terrace which will have a minimum setback of 2 feet. The required setback in this area would be 10 feet. In addition, other areas of the building which are currently in the 2 setbacks gill be infilled. This inGudes an area on the northwest comer as well as decks along the rear of the building. The dormers will also be increasing the amount of building in the setbacks. The applicant has proposed to do the following with the application:° 9. Decrease the amount of GRFA allocated towards dwelling units and increase the amount of GRFA for accommodation units. 2. Decrease the number of dwelling units and increase the number of accommodation units. 3. Encroach further into the front setback with entry and second-story accommodation unit as well as an addition to the restaurant to the east of the entry. 4. Increase common area while decreasing the area allocated towards accessory uses and athletic club use. 5. Add dormers to the building on the north and south side which do not exceed the existing ridge height of the building. Insert decks into the roof structure on the south elevation. 6. Increase the amount of site coverage as a result of the new entry and restaurant addition (554 square feet). 7. Add terrace and expand dining deck on south elevation. 8. Removal of deck on the south elevation which currently encroaches, onto public land. 9. The applicant is proposing to meet the incremental increase in parking requirements. There is an existing deficit of 58.44 spaces on the site. The new parking is located in the following manner: °2 spaces built underground below the entry °2 spaces added by relocating an existing ski storage area ~2 spaces added by relocating the laundry room ~1 space added along the south side of the parking structure °2 spaces in central area of parkins structure 9 total 10. Change exterior materials of building. This includes stucco, wood trim, deck railings and a wood shake roof. 3 11. Add streetscape improvements. These include: a 6 foot heated concrete paver ' walk along West Meadow Drive, an 8 foot heated concrete paver walk along Vail Valley Drive extending over the Gore Creek bridge and street lamps. The pavers on the bridge will not be heated. 12. Relocation of existing trash area and removal of the existing trash facility which ~ . is encroaching onto adjacent properties. 13. The applicant proposes to provide one two-bedroom employee housing unit within the Town of Vail which will be restricted according to the Town of Vail ' employee housing requirements. 14. Additional landscaping on the north and south sides of the building. 'For further details on the deviations please see Section III, Zoning Analysis, of this memorandum, which specify the changes in development standards for the project. Also, please see applicant's description of proposal for .specific details. 11. BACKGROUND A. Project History The Vail Athletic Club was originally developed in 1977 and included a mixed use building with condominiums and accommodation units as welt as the health club facility and offices. Twenty on-site parking spaces were provided for the project and a variance was received for the remaining required spaces. Per the file records, it appears that the variance was granted in order to facilitate the construction of hotel rooms which were needed in the community at the time. In 1977, it was felt that it would be reasonable to grant a parking variance for the sixteen parking spaces for this property due to the proximity of the Town parking structure. Parking variances for four additional spaces have been granted for the project since that time. In addition, while variances were not granted for height or density, the project was allowed to deviate from these standards. Setback variances were granted in 1977 for the development of the project. The property has been the subject of numerous redevelopments over a number of years and subsequent parking variances. At the time of the project approval in 1977, it was discussed that possibly a portion of the property which the Vail Athletic Club had acquired would not be counted towards their developable site area. Research has been conducted regarding this issue to determine whether or not that was actually done. The staff has found no definitive information which. would indicate that this was completed. B. Previous PEC reviews ~ ~ On June 28, 1993, a joint worksession was held with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and the Design Review Board (DRB) to discuss the establishment of an SDD for this site. At this time, the applicant was directed to work with the existing volume of the building. It was also indicated that it might be acceptable to expand the building adjacent to the Mountain Haus. It was stated that some expansion would be acceptable on the 4 southwest comer and that no additional development should be proposed on the north side of the building. In addition, there was a concern with the additional shade/shadow being cast on R~eadow ®rive. In regard to parking, the PEC indicated that the applicant should strive to accommodate parking on-site. On Tuesday July 13, 1993, a worksession was held with the Town Council regarding the parking for this project. ®uring this discussion, three of the Town Council members were open to discussing further the possibility of pay-in-lieu parking for this site. Three of the Town Council members felt that the applicant should accommodate parking on-site due to the already significant overage of parking which is not provided on the site. o4s a result of this discussion, the applicant has provided an additional nine parking spaces on the site which will accommodate all of the increases in parking generated by the renovation of the building. On July 26, 1993, an additional worksession was held with the PEC. Please see the attached minutes which detail the discussion 5 III. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis for the Vail Athletic Club SDD proposal. ALLOWED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT Site Area: 30,486 sq. ft. 30,486 sq. ft. 30,486 sq. fl Setbacks: 201eet north: -0- north: -0- sotnh: 2' - 26' south: 2' - 26' o' (daclks} -o-(dates) east: 12 - 20' east: 12 - 20' west: 12' west: 12' . Height: 45 feet 67 south; 59 north 67 soth; 59 north Site Coverage: 16,767 sq. ft. 20,796 sq. ft. 16,300 sq. ft. + 5,050 sq. ft. - 21,350 sq. K. includes garage and below grade service area on east side. Landscaping: 9,145 sq. ft. 9,071 sq. ft. 9,730 sq. ft. (including at-grade decks) Units: 25 units per acre 28 AU + 9 DU - 23 DU(2 LO)"" 52 AU + 3 DU = 17.5 units + 4 amp units" = 24.33 DU(2 LO)' 29 DU (2 LO) + 4 amp units = 30.33 DU (2 LO) GRFA: 24,388 sq. ft. (80%) 10,927 AU + 8,122 DU 24,647 AU + 6,252 DU = 19,049 sq: ri. - 30,899 sq. ft. + 1,383 + 1,312 amp units - 20,361 amp units = 32,282 + 8,456 + 13,541 common = 33,902 common overage a 40,738 Accessory Use: 10% of e>asting GRFA 2,036 sq. ft. (Allowed) 3,228 sq. h. (Allowed) Restaurant: 3,606 sq. ft. 3,285 sq. ft. Club Retail: 460 sq. ft. 141 so. ft. Total: 4,066 sq. ft. 3,426 sq. fl. Common Area: 8,536 sq. ft. (35%) HaIlsRulech: 19,235 sq. ft. 14,265 sq. ft. Conference: 2,842 sq. ft. 2,727 sq. ft. Tota! Common: 22,077 sq. ft. 16,992 sq. ft. (13,541 sq. ft. overage} 8,456 sq. ft. overage) Club Area: 22,257 sq. ri. 20,881 sq. ft. Parking Garage: 4,131 sq. ft: 5,512 sq. ft. Tota! Building Square Foobge:"' 72,892 sq. ft. 78,093 sq. ft. 6 ' Parking: 20 on-site due to 20 29 (242% compact) approved variances. McIlsMlech: ~ Gub Area: -0- -0- Retail: 1.84 parking spaces .47 parkin s aces . 9 P Conference Area: 11.8 parking spaces 1129 parking spaces Restaurant: 22.5 parking spaces 20.3 parking spaces AU: 21.8 parking spaces 44.75 parking spaces DU: 16.5 parking spaces 6.5 parking spaces Emp Units: 4 oarkina spaces 4 oarkina spaces Total Parking: 78.44 parking spaces 87.31 parking spaces (8.87 or 9 space increase) ° A Eockoff is an accommodation unit which is attached to a dwelling unit and is no larger than one-third of the total fbor area of the dwelling unit. ~ Required by the Vail Town Council in 1977. Units are to remain on-site for the life of the building. Each employee unit counts as,333 units towards density. Indudes GRFA/Accessory Retail/RestauranVGub/Common/Parking. There is a total increase of building area of 6,201 sq. ft. The memorandums on the Vail Athletic Club condominium conversion process indicate that 24 AU and 5 DU were rental restricted and 2 DU were approved with no restrictions. There are no file records which indicate the approval of the 4 additional AU's and 2 DU's currently on-site. tVa ~C~ITERI~ ~E I~SE® IN EVALUATING `THIS PR®P®SAL As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as follows: `The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use: to improve the design character and quality of new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to provide the natural and scenic .features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements guiding development and uses of property included in a special development district." . The staff finds that the application meets the purpose of the Special Development District: Specifically, staff finds that this application furthers the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The project proposes to improve the design character, function and quality of the development and provide additional short-term units within the Village which is a specific goal of many elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The staff as'well as the PEC have identified in past reviews that this site is appropriate for increased densities as well as a variety of uses due to the location and proximity to the Village core area. In addition, employee housing and streetscape improvements are proposed which provide overall community benefit. Staff recognizes that the existing building exceeds the underlying zoning requirements, but believes that due to the site and location it is suitable to allow for such deviations as proposed in the application given the goals and policies in the Town's Land Use Plan, Vail Village NNaster Plan and Streetscape Plan. Please see Section VI for further details on these plans. 7 V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The following nine criteria should be used to review the project. A. 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. Massino The staff feels that this criterion is especially important to the review of this project. While this application does not propose to increase the maximum ridge height, the proposal includes adding dormers to the existing roof. The amount of building area is increased with building infills and the introduction of a series of dormers. On the south side, roof cut outs are being used for the three central top units. Otherwise, dormers have been added to both sides of the roof form in order to utilize existing "dead" space. The applicant has also modified the roof form on both the east and west elevations of the building. The east elevation terraces back from Vail Valley Drive and additional windows have been added to this elevation. Terracing has also been accomplished on the west elevation adjacent to the Mountain Haus. The low eave line which is maintained with this proposal and the landscaping of the site bring the scale of the building down to a pedestrian level. The staff feels that maintaining the pedestrian character of this area is important as it is seen as a major corridor to Golden Peak and the Village from the parking structure and is also used by pedestrians to access Ford Park. The Vail Village Master Plan calls for this building to have a maximum of four stories. From the original application, the applicant has lowered the building to the existing ridge line in all locations and decreased the scale of the dormers in order to decrease the shadow on East Meadow Drive.' Sun/Shade The proposed building increases the amount of shade on East Meadow Drive • by 5 feet 6 inches in the area of the entry, 24 feet 6 inches on the west wing and 5 feet on the east wing on December 21st (See attached sun/shade analysis). The impacts on shade on September 21st will be an increase of 1 foot 6 inches in the center of the building, 11 feet on the west wing and 2 feet 6 inches on the east wing. The amount of shade is determined by both the angle of the sun and the height of the ridge or eave line. While the December 21st date creates the most impact, the September 21st date is what is specified in the code for sun/shade analysis in the CCI zone district. Although this property is not in CCI, the shade impact is important to address for this pedestrian area. 8 The greatest impact in shade is seen on the west wing of the building. On December 29 st, the proposed building will cast shadow onto the sidewalk. On September 29 st, the increase in shade in this area will be 9 9 feet and does ' not cast shadow onto the sidewalk. It should be noted that the existing building casts shadow beyond the sidewalk into the street in the center of the building and east wing. In the center and east wing, the additional shade cast will be 5 feet 6 finches and 6 feet accordingly as a result of the dormers. The applicant proposes to heat the paver sidewalk which will make this area safer for the pedestrian. The staff feels that the increases in shade have been minimized to a point that is acceptable. Entn~ On the north side of the building, the applicant proposes to add a two and a half story entry area to the building. The entry has been lowered by two floors from the original proposal. The design of the entry minimizes the massing impacts of the element and does not add any more shade to the street. 13uildina Footprint The applicant proposes to increase the building footprint by 450 square feet to allow for the restaurant addition and entry. Staff does not have a problem with the restaurant addition as no landscaping is removed. The entry will remove two to four trees which the applicant has agreed to relocate or replace. Streetscane The applicant has proposed to install required streetscape improvements discussed in section VIII of this memo. This includes a heated paver walk along Nail !/alley ®rive as well as a heated paver walk along the south side of East Meadow Drive. The driveway to the garage will also be heated. In general, the project is sensitive to adjacent properties through the use of appropriate architectural design and massing as well as landscaping. B. uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density , The applicant proposes to increase the total density of the project by six dwelling units. This includes the removal of six dwelling units as well as the addition of twenty-four accommodation units. ®Y the nine dwelling units ®n~site, sip are currently restricted per the Condominium Conversion requirements. There are two existing units which are free market and the applicant wishes to retain one additional unrestricted unit. The staff feels that because this unit is already restricted that it should remain available for short-term rental according to Section 9 7.26 of the Subdivision Regulations, Condominium Conversion, or an employee housing unit should be provided in place of the restricted unit as was allowed with the Vail Village Inn Goodes space. The staff would prefer to see an additional 9 employee housing unit versus the restricted DU provided as we believe the employee housing unit also provides an important community benefit. The staff feels that the applicant's desire to increase the short term hotel units is very positive. The GRFA attributable to dwelling units has been decreased by 1,870 square feet. 13,270 square feet of f RFA will be added to increase the amount of floor area for accommodation units. The additional GRFA has been gained by using existing dead space within the building, using common area more efficiently, and the addition of dormers and infiAing.portions of decks on the south side: Art additional 6,201 square feet of total building area will be added with this proposal. !n order to insure that the AU's remain as short- term rentals, the staff requests that the owner agree to not subdivide the units in the future per the Condominium Conversion section of the Subdivision Regulations. Emplovee Housina Currently, four employee housing units are required on-site per the 1977 parking variance. The applicant proposes that these units remain on-site and has agreed to restrict these units on a permanent basis: Due to the requested increases in density, the applicant has indicated that there may be an increase of two to four employees on the site. Utilizing the Employee Housing Guidelines, based on the nei increase in development over the existing building, two to four additional employees would be generated by the expansion. The staff would require that one two-bedroom or two one-bedroom units be provided to address the increase. The summary is as follows: a) Bar/Restaurant = 321 sq. ft. 06.5/1,000 sq. ft.) = 2.08 employees (decrease) b) Retail/Service Commercial = 310 sq. ft. (@6.5/1,000 sq. ft.j = 2.015 employees (decrease) c) Dwelling Units = 6 units (~a .4/room) = 2.4 employees (decrease) dl Accommodation Units = 24 units ((a .75/room) = 18 emalovee (increase) e) Total 17.5 or 12 employees •12 employees x .15 housing multiplier = 1.8 or 2 employees •12 employees x .30 housing multiplier = 3.6 or 4 employees . •Assumina two emplovees Qer bedroom, the proposed one two-bedroom unit would be needed per the employee generation formula. The staff has used the higher multiplier due to the overages in density. The Employee Housing Report does not differentiate between the provision of on-site or off-site housing. As 10 stated above, the staff would like to see one more employee unit provided in order to lift the use restriction on the proposed dwelling unit. C. ~®mpBlanoe c~ith parking seed loading requirements as ®utlined In Chapter ~~~a. Parkins Parking has been a long standing issue on this site. In researching the history of this project, the staff found that there were a number of variances granted to this project. In December of 1977, twenty underground parking spaces were approved for this site. At that time, it was recognized that surface parking was not appropriate for this site and that these spaces would be the maximum number that could be placed on the site. Different arrangements have been made over the years for parking on Town of Vail land as well as other properties for this project to address the deficit. Variances have been granted for a total of twenty spaces over the life of the project. Using today's standards, there is an existing deficit of 58.4 parking spaces for the project. There would be a nine space parking requirement increase as a result of this expansion. This is based on the difference between the required parking for the proposed project and the existing development. The applicant is proposing an additional nine on-site parking spaces which would bring the total on-site spaces to twenty-nine. All of the parking spaces would be valet. Currently, the applicant valet parks eighteen parking spaces in the existing structure. The parking structure will be expanded which will accommodate the nine additional spaces. Due to the type of use of this facility, valet parking is appropriate and has been approved for other projects of this nature. With the full-time concierge and valet, this type of parking solution is feasible. In addition, after reviewing the function of the existing facility, it appears that the proposed plan is~reasonable and, the additional nine parking spaces can be accommodated. The two existing exterior spaces will remain adjacent to the . entrance to the parking structure on the west side. No additional square footage has been added to the health club and therefore ttie staff does not feel that it is appropriate to assess a parking requirement for this facility. Parking for a health club is determined by the PEC. There is no parking standard for this type of use. Rio parking requirement has been assessed in the past and the staff is not assessing any additional parking nor do dve recommend to the PEC that a parking requirement be set as no club square footage is being proposed. 11 Loading and Delivery - The applicant is providing a loading facility with apull-out from East Meadow Drive. This will accommodate the short-term parking needs of the project. Loading and Delivery will also be accommodated in this pull-off area. The . applicant will no longer be allowed to unload deliveries along Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the restaurant entrance. This is a very unsafe practice which the Town does not encourage and will not allow to continue. In addition, the applicant proposes to remove the existing trash facility on the west side of the project. This enclosure encroaches both onto Town of Vail land as well as Mountain Haus property. The applicant would propose to . include the trash facility inside the building in this same area. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. There are three other elements of the Comprehensive Plan which apply to this application: The Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan and the Land Use Plan. Please see Sections VI, VII, and VIII of this memo for further descriptions of these plans. Many elements of the Town's Comprehensive Plan encourage the development and preservation of hotel=type units. The applicant proposes to add an additional twenty-four AU's and delete six DU's for a total of fifty-two AU's and three DU's. This is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's objective to increase the hotel bed base. Please see Sections VI, VII and VI(I that identify the applicable goals and objectives of the plans. E. 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 adjacent to Gore Creek. No portion of this proposal encroaches .into the 50 foot stream setback or the one hundred year floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Buildin4 Design While .the changes to the site plan through this proposal are limited, the building design changes significantly. In respect to the south or Gore Creek side of the building, the applicant is proposing to change the character of the elevation with the. enclosure and redesign of balconies and to change the window design. Dormers will be added to the east and west wings and decks will cut into the roof form in the center area. The applicant has adjusted the south elevation to break up the facade per PEC and staff comments. Initially the applicant proposed to increase the height of the western section of the building. 12 Currently, the applicant proposes to maintain all of the existing ridge lines and not increase the ridge in any area of the building. The staff feels that this is very positive. In addition, the applicant is proposing to add a terrace at the lower level on the south side of 4he project. This will encroach into the 20 foot setback and result in a 2 foot setback a the tightest point from the south property line. On the north elevation, the applicant proposes to infill an area on the east wing adjacent to the restaurant and add an entry. In addition, balconies will be added to units on the east wing. Dormers will be added in all three areas on 4his elevation. This will allow for the additional accommodation units on the upper level. These additions will cast additional shade onto East Nteadow Drive. Landscaping has been proposed along the retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk on the north side of the building. This will increase the landscape buffer between the building and the public area. The staff feels that this . additional landscaping is very important to the project as it will screen the building and mitigate both the existing and proposed impacts of the building. f~uildinq's inn®act on open s®ace and veoetation The application impacts the existing landscaping on the north side of the building. Approximately two to four large evergreen trees will be lost as a result of this proposal. The applicant is proposing to landscape along the new stone retaining wall adjacent to the west wing in order to better screen the building in areas where landscaping does not currently exist. The staff feels that while it is unfortunate that these evergreen trees will possibly be lost, the addition of landscaping which includes evergreen and aspen trees along the sidewalk, will mitigate the impact of the loss of these two to four trees. The applicant will attempt to save these trees. However, in the event that they cannot be saved as a result of this construction, the applicant does agree to replace the trees. The applicant has also added a 3 foot planting step to the . east of the existing at- grade parking on the west end of the building in order to help screen the parking. The step will also reduce the height of the wall in this area. On the south side of the building, the applicant will be removing an existing deck which is currently located on Town of Vail land. The applicant proposes to add additional landscaping in this area which includes shrubs and aspen trees. This will buffer the building from the public area. Due to the amount of land and landscaping between the streamwallc and the building, adequate buffer areas are provided. The proposed landscaping adjacent to the building will be positive and will not hinder the use of this open space area on the south side of the building. The applicant has also agreed to provide a maintenance agreement to the Town for this. open space. 13 G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The applicant proposes to add nine underground parking spaces. By adding additional on-site parking, the vehicular traffic on East Meadow Drive will be increased. While it is an objective of the Streetscape Plan to make this area more pedestrianized, it is also an objective of the Vail Village Master Plan to have properties in this area provide on-site parking. The staff feels that the provision of on-site parking to meet the additional requirement is important given the constraints on parking our community must deal with. The applicant does propose to install an entry and pull-off in order to facilitate the drop-off of guests and loading and delivery. The installation of a drop-off area will be a benefit to the area as currently there is no off-street drop-off area for this building and the existing situation creates congestion along East Meadow Drive as guests and trucks park in the bus lane on Meadow Drive. The Town Engineer has signed off on this solution.. With this application, the staff recognizes that it would be difficult to completely restrict East Meadow Drive from vehicular traffic, but would strive to limit the number of vehicles which must access East Meadow Drive. We also believe that by providing safe well designed sidewalks, pedestrian circulation can also be accommodated. The applicant's proposal improves both pedestrian and vehicular circulation in an area that.currently must provide for both uses. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Due to the installation of the pull-off and entry and relocation of the retaining wall in this area, two to four evergreen trees could possibly be lost. The applicant has agreed to attempt to save these trees, however, it would appear that this may not be possible. The applicant does agree to replace these trees in addition to increasing the landscaping along East Meadow Drive between the building and the roadway adjacent to the sidewalk. Trees in the 30 foot range will be required to replace the trees that may not be able to be relocated. The new landscaping in front of the building includes evergreens that range in size from 10 to 15 feet and aspens having a minimum of a 3 inch caliper. To the east of the main entry to the building, the applicant is proposing to redesign the sidewalk as well as the landscape area. This will involve cutting back the existing utility grate and bringing the landscape down to the same grade as the sidewalk. This is accomplished by moving the sidewalk and curbline to the south from the existing location. Landscaping will also be added on the south elevation in the area where the existing deck is being removed. Aspen trees and shrubs wiA be added to this area and the grades will be redone to match the existing topographic conditions. 14 4he landscaping ®n~site will ~ increased as a result of the removal of an shove grade deck. nth this application, the project vArill he in compliance with the landscaping requirement for the site. I. f~hasing plan ®r subdivision plan that wilB maintain a workable, functionaB and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special developmee~t districg. The applicant has not proposed that the construction of this ,project be phased. X91. MAIL LAN® ~S~ PLAN The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. The Land Use Plans Goals/Policies applicable to the Vail Athletic Club redevelopment are as follows: 1_1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 9_2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 9_3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 3_2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to • serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3_3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 4_2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 4_3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 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. 15 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 application meets .the goals and policies in the Land Use Plan. The addition of short-term hotel rooms is a very positive addition to this area. Item 4.2 specifies that increased densities in the core are acceptable if the character of the area is preserved. The applicant proposes to change the character of the building by changing the materials and design details of the building. While the proposal increases the size of the building, the staff believes that the applicant has attempted to utilize the unused interior spaces of the building to minimize the expansion on the exterior of the building. The scale and design of the building with the addition of new materials and landscaping maintain the alpine character of the development. VII. VAIL VILLAGE WASTER PLAN . The proposed redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club carries out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals and objectives are as follows: Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. • Objective 1.2 -Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Objective 2.1 -Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.3 -Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policv 2.3.1 -The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels • are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term ovemight rental. Objective 2.5 -Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Policv 2.5.1 -Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. 16 Objective 2.6 -Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. Objective 2.6.1 -Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. ~®aY ~3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the village. Objective 3.4 -Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. ~®al -Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Policv 5.1.1 -f=or new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. Policv 5.1.5 -Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. Objective 5.2 -Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. Although this location is not addressed in any sub-area concept of the Vail Village Master Plan, it is discussed with regard to the height of buildings. The Vail Village Master Plan specifies that buildings adjacent to Gore Creek should have a height of four stories. The existing building is four stories along East Meadow Drive. The proposal builds into the existing roof to form a fifth floor. This is being accomplished by adding dormers, infilling portions of decks on the south side, and using existing common area and dead space in the roof form. Rlone of the ridge lines will be increased and all of the existing eave lines will be maintained. This application addresses the four Vail Village Master Plan goals which are applicable to the site. It also meets the twelve policies and objectives which are applicable. V6tU. STREETSCAPE CASTER PLAf~ The Streetscape Master Plan points out that traffic on Vail Valley Drive is very heavy throughout most of the year. It is especially heavy in the morning and late afternoons during the ski season, and evenings and weekends during the summer months. Pedestrian traffic has increased because of the expansion of the Village Parking Structure and the creation of a new eastern exit portal from this facility at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail Valley Drive in the area of the Vail Athletic Club include the addition of an 6 to 10 foot wide heated concrete unit paver walk on the west side of Vail Valley Drive extending over the 17 bridge at Gore Creek and a 6 foot wide concrete unit paver walk on the south side of East ' Meadow Drive. The applicant has included these improvements in this application with the exception that only a 6 foot walk is being proposed along Vail Valley Drive due to site constraints and 8 feet along Meadow Drive. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the application. We find that the proposal has developed into one which is in compliance with the objectives and purpose section of.the SDD zone district as well as the other Comprehensive Plan elements as described in the memo. The approval includes the following understandings: 1. That the owner will permanently restrict the 52 Aus as short-term rental units and that the 52 Aus shat! not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual ownership. The condominium declarations shall be amended to include this point before any occupancy permits will be released. 2. In addition to the one two-bedroom permanently deed restricted employee housing unit, the owner shall provide one-bedroom employee housing unit to allow for the use restriction to be lifted from the restricted dwelling unit. The employee housing unit restriction agreements shall be signed and submitted for staff approval before a building permit will be released for the project. 'one following items will need to be addressed further as the project develops into working drawings. . 1. Engineered drawings will need to be submitted which address the streetscape improvements for review by the Town Engineer before a building permit is released for the project. The.staff feels that the application is a positive one and does meet the goals and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. These include the Land Use, the Village Master Plan, Zoning Code and SDD Criteria. We recognize that the proposal deviates from the existing zoning. We recognize that it is important to increase accommodation units as well as maintain and improve existing buildings in town in order to maintain the area. We feel that . this is a site which can handle increased density and deviations from the site development standards which include height, density and site coverage while maintaining the existing scale and character of the neighborhood. c:\pec\memos\vac.927 78 _ wr _ Or.K ~ I GMiy° ' ~ ' 111'--'~~111• ~ - O 11' a..: j I ~ .•~w..w ~ ~ I ; r .may \ ~ fM 1 ~y . ~ 1 fir,:, ~ '!r - J~~ 1~ J \ d ~ i ~ ~ ~ \ I / I . ~ °f re w a.s a°o au.. AMlnfw cwa ~ rwr«.av \ oe ' f j f \ ° f \ • ~ tr ~ r ~ y r °r \ , .w : ~ \ _ / ~ BAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Slle Place . \ / 2..ww.o.. as cn.as ~ 1 . 1 nncfwln.«Iq AnMbti M.•^ Vlor. f•P u1 d Iro 1....V. M N! ~f , /i fl0.0P HAlt k«IL LLM'~B-~. pta WAa o~;a'M10. ¢2a: Rm 1.9.9'. I i i^wvJ pRw~ rte.. • a+N,,,.w v (./rM. `r.w~ rr"o .r rr fir' f,_'~„~, • •f _ try • .:C• fit. `w Yisb r + ~ \ . ~ ~ae << f•r L t~.r ~ r M..~ "a"w e ' r t to te.~et•+• r' ,e.r i Sice Dian ~ `r ac a-u8 .P.._ su i r i _ - - K _ . . _ _ ~ _ ~ n~1~1.... us:.. 1' - _ - - ~ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ ,-~.~.t ~ - _ _ _ p'9~ 'j''~~f' fl1(~,~'--y~~ ~/un/y1~-{',I1lTT..'11 ~ ~ ~ t'~II„IyW''',~1110 ~~#~~~11A~ ~ M 1 N' 1, ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1 ~ ea^f• ~i i ~ ~ I ~..dai~ar~n~-ncca~u~ S~uUe F~vatE~a i ~ l0bfro ~~r MIM IRi - : ~ ' I ! I I ~ j w~at. : ~s•n•.'m.. r^ / I, H_ _ 1 _ _ ~ _ w,,,R - _ ' IJt~t LLtv.~.I~orJ S~•~t CLtv.~hol. VAIL ATFQEI7C CLUB F1CN8[IOAS ~ ~../.r.n..waorr • ~i.s"w~i i~~ra~ir rw for ~n• - ~•-v • Ire LJ Jp It p ii p ~ O/a 9. 1~ • ~9 • ~ / / r,••. /:a. a ~ '~o~ ~•i _ ~ r~9 ~ ~ ~ i ~ I 1 1 II I I I I ! ~ \ / ~ ~ • e.. ~ ~ ~ , leD as Mo Lky~.-•si 01J ~ ~ III n Oq ' i . - _ N IfJI ~ ° •N~ N~.C~ Ci ~ ~ ' la0 A OCb ~I ~ 1 Ole CnOp ' Ml Coq pm 1 ° ~ Ob l~ n cacao aoe ooeex ~ I f i i I • , a.wrn I Aw:p~f• t -~I M., 1 • ~ pp Qe4potl.;7Ca.C~s+. ~!•l 11 ~ y e4aao..~. I~ 3.. _wsa~on. aMS ~ . m • . , I~4~ION P.A ~ 66N MH R•D _ _ _ A ~I l 0I~6 ' 1q..0'WeIY • Y ~ _ b0 06 • LeD W C6 ~~~1 I ~"+i •p I1~~1h o.r bD M i • ' ~ . 'CrO. W • 47~ C^{1 9eey ,}vim W0 M Cyo.' ' . + r I I ~ 11 II ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a...ae+.o ~Iw{~ w1ao ~erY otl ~ ° I ~ 1 _ 1..1'x. ` ~ 1 ' M; /0~6• 5wuy a.u - gaa.IVM n.e 4. ~ ' 1 dAILATF~TICCLUB SeC[lDOS i ~ \ ~ j ' 1 1~ ~ - ' ° I • l,.i ae..~na se oa P*n+a.o cee q•n•aV 'c• •~r:. w , r r~ fr/w IM/• N/M f/lA1 i .0 1 ~ , , I 1 i ` I ~ ~ M,t I \ `MU.cY ,.l ~ f \ diuve 1 1.--. ~ _ r 1 ~ • . ~ ` hlre ra.~.a ~ ~ ` VtAr .y j~Ai ~IYNL VAILATHLEfICCLUB ~/s~ ..p Is/si ~wlv.w .?~„o,ea r.....w. Ilr c~rr aeue ee~m>. Nce,.xt sole Y.• . r•.• n+...,..,..,.... ma rr ,m ,r.: w iw r4 ~ Ma a err Os / f~ • 1? I _ I ~ r------ . 1 II F- _ . a o j; 4 0 b ~ 9 0 9 ~e a ~ n ~I~''- r - - s~~ JL_ ~1 I i 1•r ~ n i to I e..vie• I em.oo (a9ew°^~"~- 1 w I , i1••fM1Lr --7'- r- ~eva~q t, I~fJpl r---' t..--_ r~ a. ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ o..r~~o.o. ~ I ~ f a_ r.e.ec,. I ~ I~ ee al•l ef) ~ " .e. • 1 _ / la• w.i 1 swvnsr 1 f _ n[• woeeo 1 roLeL.ee ~ I "O ~ ' wq exs we fn. I LN•f. a? rte' ~~n~ ?i ~ o ~ I 1f~ I) (a.o r+f~ (I (A'a +>t (wf r) (ae.il I (s7<P) 7 I`--_ ~1 I F I ~ ~ 1 ~ a 1 r i ra,. it r ~ tnoow•• lo•al - - '1-- ra eaen. ' a I , ' ~I K.I ~ If ~ i,u.,~4•n u~wew i L ~ .,w ......o ~ y let 14 ' i~ ~ , - awe ~ ooeo.• / i. / L I I ~ 1 ~ k~ ~ ~ I / •I my .n9 ,I, I rao 1 rag tam ~ 1 Do :~I ~ _ L ~ ' ~ ! • ~ 1 ' ~ ~ a.. e.,ai cyan u. aw.o' ~ a ee•.w' ~ ~ ~ f - nu K. PM.1' I _ ~ ye w a•-rw//.erelw ' ~ ~ _ _._w_s - _1 Nr•.Q 000 011•/• .4eD f0b.O.ee ~ I I - ' - ~ r •a gars ~ ~ I 1 Aroe0wo Lt. a. C. acM' o Loa _ . _ O Owe L m....e e..s ...o ede.. ~ p o ' rtie.J ' ~ o • ! r I 1 i I I _pgyLL ~p~' _~_p ' _I~~.,.1~0~ `Oa6w..u•• ~W ~w rv...+5.s Rar•wpt~_ aoeH 1Yfrt AaLA fARa r.16 (IHHLNf4 ~~A1Y feL L1[LLLC 6.LVID y~~~fI~ALW W(tLY 4b w w 9•.o a a.os V • a~.9r ..tease •.a.r.v. 99n. +t a ~ - _~aA • .r ,~\`T•.`~_ 9 LV• •w'. 6.1 a. ~ • lo. o s.ww /.eae0 1911 .rf Y Aalw <,•...e~,L+rLVi•b ~+~l (y,s ~ ! .9 a.vuaoe 9 9 0 ~ g ' fI.A/Hlr. tl.0 U.o -O.B • _ _ Lwo m, elo+1 O ~a~`•.. . r:~~ti. ~ ~.dri~ L F•~'tl•r. trMew.aG ri.ol v.a.r -a.ao • melal•®LraablblM e-~ _ .mama c~ •49 oelro~ I.a .s - bto Ptvw. wl t? .qb ge.oA _ .5..-5.- _ ~^~r~ e o - _ :>~t - ~ a~ . qow. root rNw.ws Ron•o 9.o apww (gwaa.~'l.. _ ' Y,`, _ _d'- . y.s,.99 . P•.• H+a A aw ~ il•-.•. o ITS-- i ~ ~ ~ , 11 1 r-{-- rr w~ ~ •p J-~~~ •1 ` ~ yI s~ ~ r ..t r., /~In ~fIra 1•t rwt •.r••••V •w ~ •o•rt f ~ % ' •s ~ t j (V•1Il Iw rl (1•.. rl li.trl L.. J.-~-~.~_r=•. ~~~/Gl-G -l r~ / . ~ a i ! ~ • • +t . ~ Ll' G O % 1 - Irwrl ~ _ - ~ rt~-----~ ° ar\~ r ro f 1 1 w ~ ~ ~t ~ 1 _ _ . r~~~ 6Rfw fRa]aa~ LlAlr Daw~ttY /aHAaY^1~ .~++.~•a r-•~~•v. ~•+•+..~r- NAILATFILETiCCLUB FIrStF{OOrPlan'~ '•?nw.. tt.1t111•....•r'1gl M)1ax fa•rr•a• bw.,LLw'.1 tOw•r(N.1 aa.a. ,7 .vim ~lrr •ro••.. a~.....t?..w rrr ' ? tw.. 1 t ut• • fa.a • 1t« . Nl +I q•+t•.a•. p ,•..r • N a+~a • or'. r ~ wra• , a •~s.v at. « • ~ ?ir0•a/ /•Rbf. Nrdrt ~ ?err IT • 1+• ~ t••fa•..a •wr• - IM4 of Yr at•.••• L W'.. .`Nl 0/,r• 1lr(M A/ ~/~~~/n••a 4fa ~ l11 (r lla }•,•MoMYf IaY rr.: 7.11.11 wawa +•a air. h,•tt - a.w . M,a•Ir lc!itad. L!tFUI~. L•ret~_.._--- •u. l.•• (tart v/t•. v/•ns.l tus•+¢I•. afar o.e ?••••rw .asa r••.+r•~. q~•q- N~Na• hllx a•••~ tw 1 ••s• wv . r•• a.•• r t~ -u.. u-•/r.~M ba• « •..•1 (a•a. r/nr.v irw.l a ' 1•• - Nw ( 1` •~~•1 - Han? r • Nea t.•a~.yy s ~ . ICOq, I; ~ r' ~ l~, 1 ~ aw w _ r I u,..+ L.. an w M. m oaY enw QQs~•,o t •.w) ~ ~ 1 fohwl I hb 1 ~ Lae«l Oveb«1 I~"_.^1 1, ~ ~ .ode nta ~I ~I . 1 ~ ~ ~ i~ I G~ I v,arp..aa, 1) ~II7II ~~.-~---1 1 - 1 ~ a~~ ~ r I~ p w p I o ~ , i ~ ' ~ ~ y ~.e 1 fete, - (+:an, ~ (wtll [MM I; 1 .I qy,.w bar ~ a...o -.mow yb 1• 1.aW ~ I Man ~ tM41 ~ (ow41 ENV , I, ~ I I ~I IMO Wm i va.r L ~ r} 1 T ~ _ ~ ' ~ I / ~frpal M1ar1 ( ~M1aow 1 1sesA ~ I ~1~. ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ b..w 1.... .+.a. .-a.w. .....e..r+ _ . o/A1L AT9{L£77C SeCOHId FIQa~ P12u1 • L 4i99+v II.N 0 9.w. (w brl,~ .sl C~<a`a ~ C on,s+~,~e~(~~N0,101•~ • OvwMaavy ~ 91 I.M 040 for ~ OC"rlv~l Gticlq', NWC[I la=s 1~• f •O' >b m rro fwn 19s rol pr ca' • 4+w.a~rw+f 11eo 07 0 . ~-s 7L A C.'A Cs tff d O Q_-'S p ' 97 pa. 9• na•99 wr- IN•II (w..n G • _ t.Mi•'n ~ .lw:\ Iv:. i....ll ~ I®~ LI L ' I ~ O _ If_ y..r Ww ~ ~ land fY. ..1 l Wawti wv~ Ory IMrf MI.A No•I\ w !e~ i) _ _ a.~, . ~ . ~ , a...., ~ - ~ . ' I ( I I I I I I ~ I I • I....r. s..».w.+ . ,yAl4 ATHLEi1C CLUB •Ih11'd FIOOf PIaA .1 ww•, H.7v lw ty 1w..+M t?Lw,1..aY rr,y.~..aai 4`.e i fJ . tow v/..~ ll.. ,r Iw ~••n.1w.. a..( .yam 4rtr~i..M h'rr Ier tN'.yr 1 I a..M ru a+. v v ~ Ia•••• as M r4 N Yl w ~ t\•n 1 `4 •41 1 ~ ~ y...w./.lwt Nal .r I. - • ~ I° I. I - ~ ~ • y a a.,t ? I . ~ . ~ ~ ..Flftli Floor PIa4n, a _ ~ ' . • ~ ~ fir; ° ` . ~ ~ , ~ _ / ~ i...w ~ :M. ~ j/•; /lam t 110 X01 1 / 1.i ~e~ / , 11e 1 ; ~ I 1 /1..">~~il~/< '1 / 1.1..x. _01 . . . d _ ~ Jam,., ~ ~ ' ~ . f ~ l-' 1„ . /d ~ Qi w x ex as ~ ela wea C Oa now ~ ; //i%: x:o_. ~ 1• . I ( I I i I 1 I I~ I 1 . ~ . ~...._v- ~ vAILATHLFrICCSUB Fo~erc?e Flaar Plarn . ~ w•• 9119 ea 0.7 M.1.~ 9ew~, 1. ~,.Ir..~ 6e..1d4aM Ga.s ( . . a.. I.ew,a~o.~• I . ~ Ia 1111r 4e r..e~ Oe. (IMr).ObeO y~yy„e ~,,,~M„~~ smb vr~1~0 I h~rrl,aq M.l a I:.. ,i, a en p w a o = txo 1 • tt • 99 1 VAIL ATIiLETIC CLUB September 11, 1993 - STA i ~n~INT (7F PSQ~~ . The Vail Athletic Club (VAC) a~~Ces as part of the implementation of our SDD proposal to make the following improvements: . Iandscag~ - Fit' 1~~[eadow Tlrive / V~jl Vallev Drive The VAC will extend the curb and sidewallc 6'-0" along East Meadow Drive and 8'- 0" along Vail Valley Drive to create a continuous, heated, rectangular concrete paver sidewalk extending from west end of the VAC service/parking drive on East Meadocv Drive to the Gore Creek Bridge onVail Valley Drive. This will be coordinated with the town engineer. VVe will re~~ise the curb_line at intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive in accordance with the "entry feature" concepts put forward in the Vail Village Master Plan and as sho~m on the site plan. At the "entry feature" and partially along Vail Valley Drive, we will eliminate the existing retaining wall to bring the landscape down to the level of the sidewalk. tie will reface the existing landscape retaining walls along the garage and Vail Valley Drit-e with stone. tti'e ~ti~ill incorporate signage to inform vehicles that East Meadow Drive is a ".pedestrian area" open only to vehicles on "official business" with the VAC and the T7ountain House. V~~e ~ti7ll ~~~ork with the Design Review Board and AIPP to supplement the existing streetlainps along the VAC side of Vail Valley and East Meadow Drives. ~~~e will create a ne~v car pull-off guest drop-off area directly in front of the new hotel health club entry. This area will be paved with granite pavers and heated. We will need consent from the tom's authorities that short-term parking in the opposite direction will be permitted here. The creation of the new hotel health club entry and car pull-off along East Meadow Drive should result rpinimal disruption to the existing vegetation in the landscaped area above the existing garage. All necessary steps will be taken throughout the course of construction to protect the existing vegetation. New drainage grates will be introduced to handle melting runoff at East Meadow . Drive. This will be coordinated ~~vith the town engineer. We will replace the existing wood transformer grate with a new steel grate. ~n~i~a~~ e ~~re C'reel~ ~ou~~h ~ir~e ~Ve will work with the town to fo ° e an informal ffiaintenance agreement regarding the town°s property between the VAC and the pedes path along (pore Creek. ale will prune the dead brush in the area between the VAC and Gore Creek. ~Ve will reffiove the existing wood sundeck that is partially on town property, as well as the existing wood utility shed by the hot tubs anti the existing wood trash shed at the service/garage driven ~Ie will create a landscaped path froffi the end of the existing service drive fire lane through to the town property on the south side of the VAC° ~Ve will construct a new stone terrace at the existing upper health club/s~~~~~g pool level along the south side of the building as shown on the site plan. VVe will restucco the entire outside of the building. The stucco color will be light, natural color. 'T'here will be a stone base by the new entry. VVe will be installing a new wood shingle roof throughout ~Ie will be intl-oducing new wood trim and roof overhangs as shown on the elevations. VNe will be revising the existing porches, balconies and decks with new wood t~-inn to create the more traditional porches shown on the elevations. V~Ie will be extending the existing dining deck along. the south side of the restaurant to connect with the new hotel lounge. VVe will be constructing a new on-grade hotel health club entry on East ~teado~ Drive. We will be extending the north wall of the restaurant 6'-0" to the north and filling in an existing fig' x 9' "indentation" along the south side of the dining terraceo dVe will be installing new wood windows and doors throughout . Mlle will be adding new dorffiers at the fourth floor level along both the north and south sides of the existing st~cture. ale will be adding new chimneys throughout for the new gas fireplaces. Interior Imnrovementc - ~ll~ ~ - - The improvements to the health club will not be extensive, they will focus on increasing the spa and cardiovascular capacity of the club and adding new doors and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more natural light into, the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are. We will be adding new floors at the upper health club level above the weight room and the existing racquetball court We will be treating a new staff locker/lounge area at the lower health club level. Interior Im~rovemPnrc - f~g~ Our SDD proposal will create the need for an additional ~ cars to be parked on site. We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3 additional cars and eliminating two storage rooms to create room for an additional 4 cars. The rem fining 3 cars will be accomodated within the existing garage . through a valet parking arrangement. Interior Im~ovP~Yc - Hnt~j We will be creating a new double-high hotel lobby and lounge area which will connect to the new hotel health club entry. There will be a new open stair to a balcony above the lobby at the second floor. We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on the first floor, adding a new boardroom at the second floor and creating a new meeting room along the south side the first floor of the building. We will be relocating two employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor. The other two employee units will be relocated to the third floor. These units will be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure. We will be eliminating 6 existing DU's and adding 24 new AU's to create a new room mix of 3 DU's and S 2 AU's. The average size of our new hotel room (AU) will be increase by 54 square feet to 478 square feet from 424 square feet All of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated. All of the bathrooms will be renovated and made larger. Interior Imnrovementc - Health C1Lb The improvements to the health club will not be extensive, they will focus on increasing the spa and cardiovascular capacity of the club and adding new doors and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more natural light into the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are. We will be adding new floors at the upper health club level above the weight room and the existing racquetball court We will ~be treating a new staff locker/lounge area at the lower health club level. jn riQ,r TrnDroyementc - r o~ Our SDD proposal will create the need for an additional ~ cars to be parked on site. We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3 additional cars and eliminating two storage rooms to create room for an additional 4 cars. The rem ' ing 3 cars will be accomodated within the existing garage through a valet parking arrangement. Interior _Tmnrovements - Hn~j We will be creating a new double-high hotel lobby .and lounge area which will connect to the new hotel/health club entry. There will be a new open stair to a balcony above the lobby at the second floor. We will be renovating and revising the eazsting conference room on the first floor, adding a new boardroom at the second floor and creating a new meeting room along the south side the first floor of the building. We will be relocating two employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor. The other two employee units will be relocated to the third floor. These units will be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure. We will be eliminating 6 existing DU`s and adding 24 new AU`s .to create a new room mix of 3 DU`s and 52 AU's. - The average size of our new hotel room (AU) will be increase by 54 square feet to 478 square feet from 424 square feet , All of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated, All of the bathrooms will be renovated and made larger. r 0 ~~eY' T~x9roy ~ host of the existing ffiechanical systeffis will renovated and relocated to a plenum above the existing doable-high space at the rests t or to a new ffiechanical roogn at the lower health club level ale will be installing a new ~~storyy hydraullcy passenger elevator within the existing shaft to serve the hotel and health clubs We will be installing a new ~-storyy hydraulic freight elevator for °'back ®f the house" serdices> The existing dunlbwaite~ at the west end of the building will reffiaino l/Ve will be installing a trash coffipactor and roll away trash containers to handle the hotel/health club trasho The restaurant grease and trash will be handled ~ a~ similar wayo Trash storage will be at the west end of the building and at new trash st1-orage closet at the garages VVe will be adding a sprinkler syste%n to the hotel portion of the buildings The entire building will be brought up to the current handicap requirementse ~nealule ~rle hope to start construction in the spring of 1994 and open the renovated ~lAC in by the start of the 1994-5 ski seasono . • request. The PEC asked staff to pass on to Council that they supported the Council's efforts to permanently restrict the_six existing employee housing units. 4. A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Cobrado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Tract 8; thence N 79°46'00' W along the Northerly line of Vail Village, First Filing, and abng the Northerty line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 06°26'52' W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest comer of that parcel of land described fn Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and tiled in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said comer also being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79°04'06' E and along the Southery line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast comer thereof; thence N 62°52'00" E and abng the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 b the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 teat to the Northeasterly comer of said parcel of land; said comer being on the Westerly right-ot-way Tine of Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27°13'37' W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89°29'22" W a distance of 12.80 feet to the Northeasterly comer of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius - curve to the left having a central angle of 40`30'00' whose chord bears N 53°40'00' W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73`55'00' W and along said tangent 166.44 teat; thence N 85°10'21" W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly comer at the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02°18'00' W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly comer thereof; thence S 45°13'53" E a distance of 38.70 feet to .the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less. Applicant: Vail Athletic Club Planner: Shelly Mello ' Shelly Mello made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that her presentation would focus on the changes that had been made to the proposed Vail Athletic Club expansion since the woricsession with the PEC and DRB on June 28, 1993. Stan Cope stated that they were trying to create a hotel. He said that the proposed fifth floor would consist of loft bedrooms. He stated that he would like to see this property become a small hotel concentrating on suites. He said that they have decreased the dwelling units in order to increase the combination accommodation units. He stated that their goal was to have forty-nine accommodation units. He stated that the modifications that they had made were an attempt to address the concerns that the PEC members had from the June 28, 1993 worksession. Kathy Langenwalter stated to the PEC members that she would like them to comment on whether the SDD process was appropriate for the project. Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 4 ~ J D Michael Barclay, the architect for the project, stated that they were proposing to drop the height of the dormers 95°. He said the peak of the dormers would be about 4 feet above the ridge line, about 46. feet above the street. He said that because of the way the building sits on the site, the west section was much further from the street. He said that they were hoping that raising the existing ridge line 5 feet was reasonable. He said that the dormers would be recessed more into the roof. He said that by doing this, they would be able to eliminate one of 4he fifth floor bedrooms and that this would help reduce the GRFA for the proposal. He said that the final area that he focused on was the impact on the shading of Meadow Drive and that they were moving the shade line 3 feet further back on the east side of the building and two feet back towards the building towards the west - and center portions of the building. He said that the existing building casts a shadow well into Meadow Drive. Diana Donovan stated that she wanted Michael Sarcley to discuss the patio on the south side of the building,and its proximity to the property line. Shelly Mello stated that they could-have that the deck portion of the site staked for the next site visit. Jeff Bowen stated that it was a shame that the athletic facilities had to be reduced in order to accommodate the parking. He inquired whether there would be a way to reduce the new parking requirement to five or six additional parking spaces so that the athletic facilities would not be reduced. Stan Cope stated that in his discussions with the Town Council concerning the parking pay-in-lieu program, that Jim-Gibson had said that some of the parking spaces should be provided on-site. Dalton Williams stated that he was trying to look ten to fifteen years into the future, and see how the different boards would be able to pedestrianize Vail. He inquired whether the applicants would be willing to pay into the parking fund for all their parking in order to reclaim Meadow Drive as a pedestrian area. He said that this would help reduce traffic congestion in the area and that on-site parking could be restricted to loading only. Shelly Mello stated that there are already fifty-six parking spaces that have not been provided on-site and that Town Council was concerned about increasing the number of parking spaces to be located off-site in the parking structure. Stan Cope stated that they have spent time trying to devise a workable solution to the parking issue. He said that he realizes that the conflict of people and vehicles in this area needs to be addressed. He added that he felt that the more pedestrianized that this part of East Meadow Drive becomes, that this will be better for all parties involved. Planning and Environmental Commission Juy 26, 9993 5 a Dalton Williams stated that he felt that this was the only site in Town where this type of , parking scenario would be acceptable. Conceming employee housing, he said that he felt that additional employee housing units should be added. He felt that the building mass was acceptable in this location. _ Allison Lassoe stated that she disagreed with Dalton's comment about the massing and that she felt that it was excessive. She did feel that the changes in mass and bulk were a step forward. Conceming paring, she stated that she feels that parking should be required on-site. With regard to the employee housing, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housing units added. She said that she felt that this project should not use the SDD process. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the proposed bulk and mass was acceptable and he appreciated the applicant's effort to work with the PEC. He said that the applicants work to save the large trees on the site was positive. He said he liked the idea of the Porte cochere, but was also concerned about how the Porte cochere would effect pedestrianization. He said that he felt that the additional accommodation units were positive. Jeff stated that he felt that possibly one additional employee housing unit should ' be added on-site. He said that he felt that this project did not fit the SDD concept. Michael Barcley inquired about the SDD concept. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the SDD concept was devised basically as a zoning designation. Kristan Pritr stated that the variance process is often much stricter than an SDD, individual arcumstances will dictate whether it is appropriate to request an SDD. Greg Amsden stated that the new access via the Porte cochere is positive. He said that he liked the original exterior design of the building better than what was currently being proposed. Greg stated that he was in favor of the SDD, primarily because there would be numerous variances which would not have hardship reasons to justify variances. Diana Donovan stated that she was not in favor of an SDD for this proposed redevelopment as SDD's areaway to break the zoning rules. Conceming employee housing units, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housing. She said that she would (ike to see the bulk decreased. She said that the changes the applicant has made are positive. ~ She said that the parking issue still needed work. She wondered whether it would be possible to actually connect the parking Structure via a tunnel to the Vail Athletic Club and the Mountain Haus. She said that she would like to see this entire area pedestrianized. Kathy Langenwalter stated that Bill Anderson is still not comfortable with the mass and bulk of the building, particularly the height. She said that she felt that this redevelopment proposal did not meet the criteria for an SDD. She said that she felt that additional employee housing was necessary for this site. She said that density was not a big Planning and Ernironmental Commission Juy 26, 1993 0 concern to her, but that GRFA was still an issue. @Cathy stated that parking was still a significant issue. She stated that the mass and bulk was getting be4ter, but that the west side still needed to be decreased. Jim Lamont, a representative from the East Village Homeowners Association, stated that he had attended the Town Council meeting and that the overall Town policy concerning parking was discussed. He said that the Council was concerned with grants of special privilege. . Shelly PAello stated that the athletic club faalities were not originally counted as common - area when the !/ail Athletic Club was designed in 9977 and that staff felt that it would be unfair to the applicant to penalize them by considering the athletic club facilities common area at this time. Jim Lamont stated that he did not yet know where the Homeowners Association stood on Yhis project. He felt that the SDD concept was becoming overused by developers. He stated that the public was becoming dubious about special development districts. He stated that the Town needed to further develop the ,SDD criteria. He said that the Homeowners Association would support an SDD that did. not exceed existing zoning standards. Kristan Pritz asked Jim Lamont whether the Homeowners Association would accept an SDD as long as the underlying zoning standards were not exceeded. Jim Lamont stated that this was correct. Stan Cope stated that this project would be over the allowed standards, but that a full service hotel (i.e. The Sonnenalp) did not always conform to the standard that common area be 35%. Dalton lh/illiams stated that he was on a task force that discussed this issue and that they felt that their could be exceptions (i.e. a modest hotel versus a five star hotel) when justified to increase square footage for common area. Kristan Pritz stated that the staff has struggled with this issue and that they were trying to look at it broadly and look at what type of operation the applicants were proposing with the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club. In general, requests for additional square footage for common area have been supported by staff. Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see a redevelopment proposal that would be a benefit to the Town,. Jeff Bowen stated that he sympathized with Jim Lamont's comments, but that in this instance, there is a problem that exists and that maybe this constitutes a hardship. He stated that the existing building may not have been built with a lot of foresight and that it currently does not meet the Town's needs. He said that the rules may need to be bent Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 9993 in this instance because it is in the Town's best interests for this site to redevelop. It should be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 4:00 p.m. Greg Amsden stated it would be helpful to have the numbers in a format that lent themselves more easily for comparison purposes. Diana Donovan inquired what the percentage of 'dead space" was on the site. Jim Lamont stated that the special circumstances of the Vail Athletic Club should be clearly stated. He stated that it needs to be clearly defined that the Vail Athletic Club has available GRFA. - . - Kathy Langenwalter stated to the applicant that there would be a significant number of variances required with the project as proposed and chat these need to be looked at and minimized or eliminated wherever necessary. Stan Cope stated that he did not know what to cut back on and how much_to cut back. He asked the PEC to give him direction as to what they should be focusing on before the next meeting. Diana Donovan stated that the applicant was on the right track and that Michael Barclay had done a good job in addressing the PEC's concerns. Kristan Pritr summarized the PEC's feelings that the variance process was being recommended over the SDD process and that at this point, approximately five variances would be necessary. She said that the SDD concept applies to undeveloped as well as developed sites. Kristan Pritr stated there are some limitations as to what is possible to approve with the variance process given the criteria and findings. She said that the PEC - and staff needed to discuss what the members thoughts were concerning special _ development district criteria in order for the staff to be clear upon the PEC's expectations. Diana Donovan stated that the existing building does not conform to the zoning standards and that consequently any subsequent development will not be in conformance with the zoning regulations. She said that is why she feels that this project could qualify for variances. Kathy Langenwalter stated that both the PEC and the DRB members like the existing architecture of the building. 5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates vehicle maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section fi, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M.Nait Associates. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tm Kehoe and Jack Hunn Planner. Jim Cumutte Planning end Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 S ~w~~o~a~®uiw TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Parking history for the Vai{ Athletic Club (VAC) On October 5, 1993, the Town Council reviewed the proposed Vail Athletic Club SDD. At that time, the Town Council requested additional information on the parking history for the project. After researching the issue, the staff found that the parking requirement as calculated in 1977 appears. to be less than the parking requirement which would be assessed for the same plans today. The following shows how they compare. 1 2 3, 4. Required Parking over the years based on Parking required for Parking required for information in the original building permit existing building permanent file 1977 plans per 1993 per 1993 parking Proposed i.e. variances, etc. requirements' requirements Development Retail ~ 1 1 1.84 .47 Conference Area: 0 1 i .8 11.8 11.29 Restaurant: 12 18 22.5 20.3 AUlDU 36 38.3 38.3 51.25 Employee Units: 4 4 4 4 Total 53 73.1 78.44 87.31 "Provided On-site/ Approved Variances: 41 4i 4i 41 Deficit: 12 32.05 37.44 46.31 • Staff is unclear as to why there are differences between column 1 and column 2. l1 appears that the methods for calculating required parking differed. As an example, it appears that parking was not counted for conference space in 1977. However, in 1993 staff does include parking for this use. Variances include a 16 space variance approved with the original project, 4 spaces for employee housing units and 1 space for retail use for a total of 21 spaces. 20 parking spaces are provided on-site. Originally an architect's office was approved in the building with a parking requirement of 12 spaces. During the construction of the project, a restaurant was added and the parking allotted to the offjce was used for the restaurant as the office was removed from the building. There is a net difference of 5.39 parking spaces between what the staff calculates on the 1977 plans (column 2) and what was calculated for the existing building (column 3). 1 X~ ; M LAW OFFICES ~~C~~~E® OCT 9 5 9993 T~'~~ ~ DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JOHN W. DUNN VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE: ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN SUITE 300 (303) 476-0300 DIANE L. HERMAN 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST TELECO PIE R: ROHN K. ROB BINS (303) 476-4765 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH 15 October 1993 Town of Vail ATTERTTIORT o Dee Dee 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado HA1~D DELIVERED Dear Dee Deeo Enclosed please find 18 copies of an objection to allow expansion of The Vail Athletic Club. Please distribute these to the members of the Town Council and members of the Planning and Environmental Commission prior to the Tuesday council meeting. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, DUNfRT, ABPLAIVALP & CHRI STEI~SEN, P . C . ~ lc- a-L.~e9:, Rohn K. Robbins RKRaj Enclosures ~~~~g~~~~? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~3 LAW OFFICES DUNK, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JOHN W. DUNN VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE: ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN SUITE 300 (303) 476-0300 DIANE L. HERMAN 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST TELECOPIER: ROHN K. ROBBINS (303) 476-4765 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH October 15, 1993 Town Council of the Town of Vail and the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail Vail, CO HA1ND DELIVERED Re: Application of Establishment of a Special Development District to allow expansion of The Vail Athletic Club This office represents Mse Joan Lamb in association with the application of The Vail Athletic Club for a Special Development District in order to expand the premises of The Vail Athletic Clubs While we speak specifically for Mse Lamb, we believe we speak too as the voice of the community and on behalf of the general welfare in voicing objection to the application as proposede The Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended to Council that the application be approved despite nonconformance with both the spirit and the intent of Special Development Districts and despite the fact that the Vail Athletic Club already exceeds zoning limitations in most, if not all, particularse We accede that some of the goals stated by the Planning and Environmental Commission voiced in its minutes and reports are admirableo We must contest, however, that the "balancing of interests" to which the Commission is specifically beholden swings in favor of approval of the proposed new massing of The Vail Athletic Clubo As you are no doubt aware, the express intent of Special Development Districts within the Town of Vail is to permit an assembly of uses where zoning might otherwise disallow such "mixed" uses The intent of Chapter 18x40 is not, and has never been, to provide a convenience to circumscribe applicable zoning ordinances in order to benefit the commercial advantage of the applicant to the disadvantage of the community aesthetic, the environment, the general welfare of Vail°s citizens nor to detriment its tourist trade. Key to the Vail experience, as you well know, is maintenance of its "Alpine" feel and village atmosphere. Huge massings on the scale proposed, portend the swift erosion of those attributes which course the lifeblood of this community, both in diminution of the quality of life and in paling its luster as a tourist Mecca. Ede do not take issue with the good conscience of the Planning Commission in arriving at its recommendation. We do, however, believe that the light of reasonable perspective should illuminate its findings. As you are aware, The Vail Athletic Club is currently zoned Public Accommodation and is nonconforming with regard to most, if not all, development standards. Despite its current nonconformance (addressed with greater particularity below), the club proposes to increase its overall capacity by an additional 18 units, an increase of 44~ percent. As the same time, it proposes to diminish its recreational amenities, in that it proposes to reduce its restaurant area and to decrease the overall square footage of the athletic club itself. The current deviations include a 39~ overage above allowable zoned density, a 3~ overage in GRFA, a 49~ height limitation overage, a 24~ site coverage overage, and setback noncompliance so egregious as to mock the zoning ordinances entirely. What the Applicant now proposes, and sets before this Council for consideration, is to take an even bigger bite. Should the SDD be granted, the density overage would swell to a whopping 73~ above the well-conceived allowable zoning density and would boost the GRFA to 23~ above allowable limits. Additionally, although the roof height, as proposed, would not exceed the already substantial 49$ overage, by the addition of dormers, on both the north and south sides of the building, it would vastly increase that proportion of the building reaching excessive heights. This vast increase in both mass and bulk will undeniably impede visual corridors, adversely impact property values of adjoining landowners, increase the scale along this key largely pedestrian corridor and, via increased shadowing and creation of a canyon-like effect, darken East Meadow Drive, making it less "friendly." The severity of such consequences cannot be overstated. As regards the problem of increased shadowing and creation of a canyon-like effects, the Applicant offers to "remediate" the problem by dedicating a strip of heated sidewalk. While admirable, the mitigating effect is inconsequential. The shadows 2 and darkness will remain, albeit with less ice along the dedicated strip of sidewalk. Nothing the Applicant will, or can do, will remediate the "boxing" effect and icing along East Meadow Drive. In addition to these significant problems, there are others. Parking and traffic circulation are prime among them. As you are aware, the parking problems associated with The Vail Athletic Club are monumental. Currently the site has only 20 on site spaces, a deficit of 58. While under the proposed SDD, the Applicant proposes to add another 9, with the other hand it proposes to add a net of 18 units, effecting a net increase in the deficit by at least another 9. Already lacking 75~ of the spaces it should be obliged to maintain, the Applicant, in its proposal, asserts the proposition that it should be excused another 9. Clearly each space not provided, places greater strain upon the parking structure and other municipal services which, in turn, impact directly upon tourist satisfaction and thence, upon the tourist industry itself. As significant as these effects are, the numbers do not even address the impact of the Athletic Club for which no spaces whatsoever are provided. Certainly use by the Athletic Club members compound the already substantial strain. As a corollary to the inadequacy of parking, which the Applicant, by way of its proposal, means to exacerbate, traffic circulation and "pedestrianization" of this vital thoroughfare will be severely compromised. The Applicant proposes a "drop- off" to accommodate is valet parking service. It does not however, take an Einstein to deduce that more cars means more traffic and more shuttling of vehicles to the parking structure, particularly in light of the fact that the Applicant has no place to park them on site. It is undeniable that, despite the express goal of the Vail Village Master Plan (Goal #3), "To recognize as a top priority, the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the village" [emphasis added], such experience will be constrained to yield to the reality of increased vehicular traffic, noise and confusion. Goal # 2 of the Vail Village Master Plan (Policy 2.5.1) articulates that recreational amenities "shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties." In contravention of that goal, the Applicant proposes to effect a reduction to the health club and, likewise, to trim the capacity and square footage of the restaurant. Similarly, Goal #5 of the Vail Village Master Plan specifies that buildings adjacent to Gore Creek should have a height limitation of four stories. Despite the current 49~ height 3 v overage, the Applicant proposes, again in clear contravention of the Goal, to add a fifth story (albeit within the existing heights), to its structure. The Vail Village Master Plan goals were not formulated without keen deliberation nor without thoughtful reasoning. Essential to the continued viability of this community is the maintenance of its village atmosphere. That cannot be accomplished by yielding to individual commercial interests. The economic welfare of all depends upon providing unimpeded vistas and in keeping the scale and bulk of village "enhancement projects" within reasonable constraints, particularly within sensitive areas such as along East Meadow Drive and in close proximity to the landmark Covered Bridge. We urge the Council to deny Applicant's proposal to grant the SDD. Alternatively, and at the very least, we ask for elimination of the dormers on the north side of the building as they create the greatest, impediment to view corridors, impact adjacent property values most severely, create the greatest visual insult, and, reason counsels, most fully impact the shadowing and "canyoning" of East Meadow Drive. Sincerely, DU1~RT, ABPLAIVALP & CHRI STEI~ISERT, P . C . Rohn IC. Robbins RKRerr ccc Ms. Joan Lamb Mr. Art Abplanalp 4 ir~v ur~~erox lelecupier '1021 ~1U-18-9~ ~ 8~13P(~i ~ CGiTT EGh1-?DUNNABPLANALPCFiK15~IN~~ 1 ACC , 1G LG ~1, a?.~~ aencv~sA arrab~tussa ANC. 1160 1'~rlc f~vcnue• Suite #1X7 A1ew York, lVew fork 1012.8 (Z12) 534-2111 xown Council ,og~ Vait Plannbng and Environmental Commission Vail, Colorado 81657 Delivered ~ viand Re: Speca.ab Psvelopment District application by .the Vail Athletic Club. I am writing to you as Z am unable to appear at your mesti.ag on October 19,1993. Attozney Rohn Robbins and Architect Jim Marter will appear on my behalf to seek dismissal of the proposed VAC zedesign. Mr. Robbins will discuss w'hy the entire project shou3.d be denied and why specifically the North portion of the design should be denied. Mr. Morter wiJ.l show how the. proposed design impacts specifically upon my apartment. i spend between four and six months annaallq at the Mountain H~us and hope to eventually become a Colorado resident. I am an interior designer and have done a lot of work bn Vail. and eventually plan to make Vail my home. I am not just a transient investor and I have a great interest in the Vail Valley and the quality of life afforded to its guests and residents. Y aerve on the Board .of Managers of the Mountain Hans, although I address you as a resident, and take great pride in working for the greater good of the.Va-il community. I feel strongly that .Mr :.Robbins . speaks not omly for me but for the greater good of the community specifically in regard to the• prohibition of increasing. the. mass on East Meadow ..Drive. Traffic congestion is already a Large problem; the development of the transportation structure which we all needed,began to create a tunnel.. effect .on the~•~~drive•.~and the mass or bulk of the proposed redesign will solidify that effeete I urge you to deny the application as proposedo I recognize Competing ineerests and the need for hotel rooms, ..but .I think another gray must be sought. .As a designer;'Z urge the ree~raluatfon af..the VAC`project...As a part-time. resident and concerned citiaen, I urge you to deny the application. Thank you for your attentiotao Very truly yours, ~G~~ ~ ~ a ~ •~l \\\\J n M. Lamb 1$ October 1993 ]E~~~r ~g~~~~ I~®~~~w~~~s mss®crA~i®~, I~c® 'Orriceas: Parsior•.x-r -Bob Galvin Se:car:Tnav - Gretta Parks TaansuaEa -Dolph Bridgewater DiaECroas - Uwight Bcssmcr - Patrick Gramm - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder Olive Watson - G~~CEIV~D 0 CT 9 9 999 Toa Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council Members Frome Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Datea October 18, 1993 ~RE-:---Vail -Athletic Club Special Development District Application A protest is hereby submitted on behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association of the application requesting designation of the Vail Athletic Club (VAC) as a Special Development District (SDD). It is the position of the Homeowners Association to oppose the creation of Special Development Districts thate 1.-Exceed zoning standards for established zone districts. 2. Violate established or proposed view corridors and open space lands. 3. Becomes a grant of special privilege, not generally available to all property owners. • 4. For existing buildings, any provision that would cause an already exceeded zoning standard to be further expanded. The Vail Athletic Club Special Development District application does not conform to items 1, 3, and 4 above. * The VAC SDD proposal exceeds all zoning standards for the Public Accommodation zone district, according to planning staff memoranda. The existing building exceeds all zoning standards, according to planning staff memoranda. * The expansion of the building beyond zoning standards or an expansion of a non-conforming condition is a grant of special privilege not generally available to all property owners. * Unfashionable architecture or failure of the property owners to properly maintain a building is insufficient cause to exceed zoning standards. The Homeowners Association recognizes that the zoning code provides for the right of the property owner to replace the structure to its present configuration should it be PosT Orrlcs Box 238 ~ VNL, COLORADO 81658 r~ RE~EI!/E® ~ ~ t 9 9 199 Toa Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council Members Fromo Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Date: October 18, 1993 RE: Vail Athletic Club Special Development District Application Page 2 destroyed. Therefore, it is recommended that any alteration to the structure be done within the confines of the existing building envelope. As a consequence, the building would qualify for the required variances necessary to reconfigure the interior space and upgrade the building exterior. It is recommended, in order to achieve the building's exterior upgrade and reconfiguration of the interior space: a. Domers should be replaced with roof indentations, in the same fashion as the proposed units located on the 5th floor, South elevation. This approach would have the net effect of reducing GRFA, as well as the bulk and mass of the building. b. Expansion of the restaurant area on the North elevation should be denied, thus reducing the percentage of site coverage as well as the bulk and mass of the building. In addition to the forgoing, the following conditions should be attached to any approval of the project. c. streetscape improvements should be a proportional amount of the GRFA in excess of the underlying zone to that required of the Christiania Special Development District. The Christiania requirement was for 19% in excess GRFA allowed. A condition of that approval was $40,000 in landscape/streetscape improvements on public and private property. The VAC GRFA requested, exceeds the standard by 59%. If approved as proposed, the VAC SDD should be required to pay, at a minimum, for $120,000 of new landscape and streetscape improvements. A specified amount should be a condition of approval. d. A Open Space/Garden Park should be created in the area of the present garden located on stream tract lands, adjacent to the VAC site. The applicant should be responsible for the care and maintenance of the area according to approved standards. Consideration should be given .to the dedication of the Open Space Garden Park in honor of Mr. and Mrs. Fitzhugh Scott, the creators of the garden. f~~~~J~~~-~ 1 ~ ~~9~ To: Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council Members From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Date: October 18, 1993 RE: Vail Athletic Club Special Development District Application Page 3 . ea Parking and employee housing requirements should be met either on-site or off-site. The "Pay-in-lieu Parking Fee should be required of all parking located off-site. Additional comments, concerns, and conditions may be forthcoming subject to further review of the proposal by the Homeowners Association's Board of Directors and membership. , o~®INANCI= No. 27 Series of 1993 AN OR®INANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL ®EVELOPi~ENT ®ISTRICT (KNOWN AS S®® N®. 30, THE VAIL ATHLETIC CLlDl3) AN® THE ®EVELOPiVIENT PLAN IN ACCOR®ANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 ®F THE VAIL 11~lJNICIPAL CO®E AN® SETTING FORTH ®ETAILS IN REGARID TIiERETO WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, the developer, JWT/1987 Vail Limited Partnership aka The Vail Athletic Club, has submitted an application for a Special Development approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as The Vail Athletic Club to be known as Special Development District No. 30 ("SDD No. 30"); and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD No. 30 will insure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish such SDD No. 30. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: 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 SDD No. 30. Section 2. Special Development District No. 30 SDD No. 30 and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the redevelopment of The Vail Athletic Club. Section 3. Purpose SDD No. 30 is established to insure 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 the design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. As stated in the staff memorandum dated September 27, Ordinance No. 27, Series of 7993 1 ~ 1993, there are significant aspects of SDD No. 30 which are difficult to satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the Public Accommodation zone district. SDD No. 30 allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. SDD No. 30 provides an appropriate development plan that maintains the unique character of this site and the surrounding area. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD No. 30 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by the developer and consists of the following documents: 1. Site Plan by Michael Barclay, Architect, dated September 24, 1993, (Sheet number 1). 2. A survey completed by Inter-Mountain Engineering dated June 8, 1993. 3. Elevations by Michael Barclay, Architect, dated September 11, 1993 and September 27, 1993, (Sheets numbers 2 and 3). 4. Floor plans by Michael Barclay, Architect, dated September 11, 1993, (Sheet numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9). 5. Building Sections by Michael Barclay, Architect, dated September 11, 1993 (Sheet number 10). 6. Shadow Studies for September 21st and December 21st by Michael Barclay, Architect; dated September 23, 1993 (Sheet number 11). 7. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the Special Development District. B. The development plan shall adhere to the following: 1. Acreaae: 30,486 square feet 2. Permitted Uses: a. Accommodation Units. b. Dwelling Units. c. Employee Housing Units. d. Health Club. e. Restaurant/Retail. 3. Accessory Uses: All other uses accessory or incidental to the allowed uses. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993 2 4. Setbacks: The setbacks shall be those shown on the site plan. 5. Density: Approval of this development plan shall permit fifty-two (52) Accommodation Units (AU), three (3) Dwelling Units (DU) and four (4) Type IV Employee Housing Units. The developer shall permanently restrict the proposed 52 Aus as short-term rental units and the 52 Aus shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual ownership. The Condominium Declarations shall be amended to include this point before an occupancy permit will be released for the project. 6. Building Height: Building height shall be as indicated on the elevations. 7. Parking: A minimum of twenty-six (26) parking spaces shall be provided within the existing parking structure. The developer shall pay into the parking fund for an additional three spaces ($8,000 per space = $24,000 + Denver CPI). With this provision, the developer shall remove the two exterior parking spaces adjacent to the parking structure's entry and this area shall be designated for loading and delivery use only. An additional space within the interior of the parking structure shall also be removed from the proposal. 8. GRFA /Common Area: The GRFA allowed shall be 32,282 square feet with 24,687 square feet for Accommodation Units, 6,252 square feet for Dwelling Units, 1,383 square feet for Employee Housing Units and a total of 16,992 square feet dedicated for common area. 9. Site Coveraae: The site coverage shall not exceed 21,350 square feet per the approved site plan. 10. Employee Housing: The developer shall provide four (4) Type IV Employee Housing Units on the site which shall be restricted per Chapter 18.57 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code prior to the release of any building permits for the project. The developer shall provide one one-bedroom and one two-bedroom employee housing unit and restrict them per Chapter 18.57 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993 3 employee housing restriction agreement shall be signed and submitted to the staff for approval before a building permit will be released for the project. The proposed employee units shall provide housing for a total of six employees. The units shall meet the minimum standards as per Chapter 18.57 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 11. Landscapinq: The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. The developer shall work with the DRB to develop a landscape plan on the south side of the building between the building and the streamwalk with the goal of returning this area to a more natural condition. This work includes improving and allowing public access through the property via the existing bridge and path on the southwest corner of the building and removing the existing sod and reseeding the area with a natural grass seed mix and possibly adding additional planting. The area to be returned to a natural condition begins just south of the willows adjacent to the Vail Athletic Club and extends south to the streamwalk. 12. Streetscage: The developer shall install a heated concrete paver walk and lighting per the Town of Vail Streetscape Plan along the perimeter of the Vail Athletic Club property continuing south across along Vail Valley Drive across the Gore Creek Bridge as indicated on the site plan. In addition, the developer shall work with the Design Review Board to improve the signage, landscaping and general pedestrian character of East Meadow Drive as it intersects with the Blue Cow Chute particularly the north side of East Meadow Drive. The objective of this effort is to not only improve the pedestrian character of this area, but to also deter unnecessary vehicular traffic from entering East Meadow Drive. Stamped engineered drawings shall be submitted for these improvements to the Town of Vail engineer for approval prior to the release of any building permits for the project. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993 4 Q 13. Design Requirements: At the time of the DRB submittal, the developer shall submit drawings with architectural details of the building. Section 5. Amendments Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shalt be required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. Section 6. Expiration The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3) years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the developer does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District, the developer 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. Section 7. 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 8. 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. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993 5 s INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993 6 ~ ~~~®IRAI~B®~~ TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Summary of Planning and Environmental Commission action on the proposed Housing Authority rezoning. On October 11, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) recommended to approve the rezoning request for the Mountain Bell site with a vote of 7-tJ. In their motion, the PEC included six recommendations which the housing authority must incorporate into their project. The last one has been included in the ordinance as a condition. The PEC recommended approval of the rezoning with the strong recommendations that: 1. All future designs for the site protect the aspen grove at the eastern portion of the site or provide a strong landscape buffer in this area; 2. The drop-off and pick-up areas for the daycare centers be separated from any housing development; 3. The development includes pedestrian connections to the Village and Lionshead; 4. The Housing Authority return to the PEC for comments about the specific design of the proposal; 5. Parking and buildings be heavily screened by landscaping and berms; 6. The new zone, Low Density Multi-Family (LDMF), be applied to the site with the condition that the only use to be allowed in this new zone is employee housing. The two pre-schools, as conditional uses, would continue to be allowed and uses that are accessory to the housing and schools would also be allowed. In addition, the PEC required that the Town of Vail must retain control of any future housing development. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 11, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open Space to Low Density Multi- Family for an unplatted parcel located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B for the purpose of allowing an employee housing development. Applicant: Vail Housing Authority, Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST The Vail Housing Authority and Town of Vail are proposing to rezone the area of land located east of the Mountain Bell facility from Agriculture Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family (LDMF). There is a map attached to the end of this memo showing the specific area proposed to be rezoned. This area is 7.71 acres. The total site area is 25.18 acres. This area includes the two daycare centers, the playgrounds, the new access road, a portion of the accel/decel lanes as well as the area for the housing development. The steep part of the slope north of the housing development would not be rezoned and would remain as Agriculture Open Space. The Mountain Bell site and the western portion of the parcel are not included in the proposal and would not be rezoned. Since the worksession on September 27, 1993, the Housing Authority has decided to delete the subdivision request, the proposal to rezone the west half of this parcel, and the variance to allow parking in the front setback. Staff believes that the mass and bulk of the proposal, access, and parking are issues which will influence the discussion of the rezoning request. At this time, the extent of the development includes twenty-four to thirty-two dwelling units. These would be located in two buildings. The building footprint is approximately 120 by 55 feet. The proposed zoning would allow structures 38 feet tall. Parking for these units would be located around these buildings and possibly to the west in the area of the current access road. The proposal includes new acceleration and deceleration lanes and a new roadway into the development. The new access point is approximately 215 feet to the west of the existing access. This new roadway would cross Middle Creek and a culvert/bridge would be required. The site has been identified as a rockfall area as well as a debris flow area. Site specific analysis by Arthur Mears has shown that the rockfall does not require mitigation. The debris flow affects the portion of the site adjacent to Middle Creek. Any bridge construction would have to be designed to accommodate debris flows; however, there is .no other portion of the site which would be affected by this hazard. Please see the attached Hazard Report prepared 1 ti by Art Mears, dated November, 1992. B0. f9ACB~GR®tJl~® The reason the Housing Authority is no longer requesting a variance to allow parking in the front setback, a subdivision, or a rezoning of the remainder of this parcel is that the Housing Authority has tried to simplify the project. The Housing Authority had the opportunity to meet recently with Vail Associates regarding this proposal. The previous proposal required financial .support not only by the Town Council but also by private companies to make it financially viable. After reviewing the plans with the representative from Vail Associates, it became apparent that the amount of subsidy required to make the project financially sound was more than what could be generated. As a result, the Housing Authority has now shifted the development plan from an all-rental project to a for-sale project. This will allow individuals to purchase condominiums as permanent residences. The mortgage payments will actually be less than the rents would have been, and the amount of subsidy required to develop this project will be significantly less. As a result of this change in financing and programming, the architecture of the project will change in the future. At this time, the Housing Authority would like to focus specifically on the rezoning request.. The plans reviewed at the worksession (which are attached to the end of this memo) are important in that they should be used to determine if the site, under the proposed LDMF zoning, can support the level of density which would be allowed. The Housing Authority would like to provide detailed architectural solutions later, once the zoning is established. Since the September 27, 1993 worksession, the Housing Authority has focused on the site planning and the issues raised by the PEC. These included: leaving as many trees on the site as possible; reducing the parking area; conditioning the rezoning so that the employee housing is the only use that can be built on-site; breaking up the buildings; and showing the accel/decel lanes. It seemed to be the general consensus of the PEC that the site was ~ . appropriate for housing and that the size of the buildings was acceptable, as long as the architectural details broke up the mass and bulk of the buildings. In response to the PEC, the proposed site plan shows alternative parking plans: The accel/decel lanes have been shown on the plan. Concerning the architecture, the Housing Authority has proposed to address this in greater detail when the floor plans and building plans are changed to reflect the ownership approach instead of the rental project. The Housing Authority is willing to bring this proposal back to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for a worksession, once the architecture has been completed. Concerning the deed restriction, staff has found that in some cases the rezoning may be conditioned to restrict future uses. Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, will discuss this more with the PEC on October 11, 1993. It is important to note that the land is owned by the Town of Vail and that future uses will be determined by the Town in accordance with zoning. 2 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis which provides a comparison between Agriculture Open Space zoning, LDMF zoning, and the conceptual housing development. Existing Zoning: Agriculture and Open Space Proposed Zoning: Low Density Multi-Family Buildable Area: 190,000 square feet or 4.36 acres in rezoned area Total Area of rezoning: 335,847.6 square feet or 7.71 acres Total Site Area: 25.18 acres Agriculture Conceptual Open Space Allowed per LDMF Housing Plan Density: 1 unit if site 9 units per acre 32 units has one acre of or 39 units buildable GRFA: 2,000 sq. ft. max. 57,000 sq. ft. 28,914 sq. ft. Common Area: 0 19,950 sq. ft. 8,254 sq. ft. Wall Heights: 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet Parking: 2 parking spaces 64 parking spaces 64 parking spaces Setbacks: front: 20 feet 20 feet 50 feet' side: 15 feet 20 feet 225/200 feet rear: 15 feet 20 feet 400 feet Height: 33 feet 38 feet 38 feet Site Coverage: 5% or 35% or 4.8% or 16,792 sq. ft. 117,546 sq. ft. 16,030 sq. ft. Landscaping: N/A 40% or 80% or 134,339 sq. ft. 270,017 sq. ft. ° A variance for parking in the front setback may be requested in the future. In addition, there may also be wall height setbacks for the road and parking area. 3 III. EVALUATI®N ®fr ZONE CHANGE RE@UES~' 'A. Is the Existing Zoning Suitable? This existing zoning is not as suitable as the proposed zoning, in staff's opinion, as the site already carries quite a bit of development which includes the Mountain Bell facility and two daycare centers. As these uses are not typically found in open space zone districts, staff believes that the zoning could be changed to better reflect the actual use of the land. The two daycare centers under the Agriculture Open Space zoning are allowed as conditional uses. Under the proposed LDMF zoning, the schools would continue to be conditional uses. The housing is not currently allowed under Agriculture Open Space zoning; however, the proposed zoning would still allow the existing uses as well as the housing development. It is important to note that the remainder of the parcel will continue to be Agriculture Open Space zoning. B. Is the Amendment Preventing a Convenient. Workable Relationship with Land Uses Consistent With Municipal Objectives? The municipal objectives that relate to this site are the Housing Study adopted by Town Council on November 20, 1990 and the Land Use Plan. The Housing Study was done by Rosall, Remmen and Cares and evaluated the need for employee housing. The rezoning request would be consistent with the Housing Study as it calls for the generation of housing units. Other municipal objectives can be found in the Land Use Plan. Staff has taken the relevant goals from the Land Use Plan and listed them below: 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 5.3 Affordable housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. ' Staff believes that the requested rezoning is consistent with the first three criteria listed above. The first goal is met as this would be a "development of Town owned lands by ~ . the Town of Vail" where the rockfall hazard does not exist. The second goal is met as - this proposal would make employee housing available through a combined effort between the Housing Authority, the Town of Vail and possible contributions from the 4 private sector. The request is also consistent with the third goal listed as this is the first effort to locate employee housing on various sites throughout the community. Staff believes it is important to bring up all pertinent criteria, which includes Goal 2.7. The request is not altogether consistent with this goal. However, staff believes that taking a portion of the Town owned land next to the daycare centers and developing it is reasonable. A majority of the parcel zoned Agriculture Open Space will be left as open space and the area of the site which is to be developed already has the Mountain Bell facility and the daycare centers around it. (Please note that the Mountain Bell Building is not in the area to be rezoned.) Staff believes that exempting this area from the request made the most sense given the timing of the project and primarily because working through the corporate structure of US West for the appropriate signatures was more complicated than originally thought. Concerning the criteria requiring a workable relationship between land uses, staff believes that there needs to be a buffer between the daycare centers and the housing project. This would include landscaping between the structures and the playground. In addition, staff believes that the future design should be consistent with the one currently shown, which provides a separate driveway to.the housing site. This driveway skirts the daycare center parking lot and pick-up and drop-off area. Staff believes that it is important to provide a safe location for children to be picked up and . dropped off. The new road will impact the playground on the south end of the Learning Tree and the trails on the east side will be effected by the building and new landscaping. The Housing Authority has discussed these impacts with the Directors of the Learning Tree and ABC Schools. There will be visual impacts from this development, if the rezoning is approved. The building envelopes, as designed at this time, do not encroach into any 40% slope area. .Although the parking and buildings will be visible from the four-way stop and I- 70/Frontage Road, staff believes that landscaping and berming could be created on the perimeter of the project to provide screening. .The mass and bulk of the project will be similar to Solar Vail. The building footprint on the proposed structure is approximately 120 ft. by 55 ft. The proposed zoning would allow structures to be 38 feet tall. Solar Vail's footprint is approximately 130 ft. by 45 ft. Basing the measurement from Solar Vail's parking slab, the building is 38 feet tall. The proposed buildings will be terraced in a way to help them blend into the site. The rear portion of each building is designed to step up with the hillside to reflect the existing grade. In addition, the~portion of the building closest to the daycare centers is stepped down a story so that it provides a transition: The site planning has been done in such a way as to cluster the existing and proposed buildings together in one portion of the site. Having the proposed housing located close to the other buildings will reduce the visual impact by using less of the site. The site disturbance will extend up. the slope behind the buildings approximately 15 feet. It will come out to the south of the buildings approximately 100 feet and will extend into the Frontage Road right-of- way approximately 15 feet. 5 e Staff would like to see as many parking spaces as possible relocated from the area around the buildings to the western end of the site. We understand that this remote parking will not be able to have very many parking spaces. VVe still believe that it is worthwhile to try to reduce the parking area as much as possible and protect and enhance the aspen groves on the east end of the site. The access issues include the new road, the new culvert/bridge, and the new road cut. We believe the new access road will improve the situation for the daycare centers as well as the housing development. Currently, the road is an average of 9.2% with some portions as steep as 12.5%. The new road is proposed to be 6%. Staff understands from the schools that many times parents cannot make it up the road during the winter to pick up their children. The new design should alleviate that problem. Staff would like to look closely at creek impacts when the design for the culvert/bridge is done. 1hle would also like to see a bridge option investigated. At a minimum, an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit will be required. Impacts to the stream bank will need to be minimized. The new road cut will involve new acceleration and deceleration lanes. This will require widening the Frontage Road. Staff believes that any widening should not result in any slopes steeper than 2:1 at the edge of the road, unless steeper slopes save more vegetation. In general, we believe the rezoning is consistent with municipal objectives and that the rezoning and subsequent development will provide a workable relationship among land uses. C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly. Viable Community? Staff believes that the rezoning helps provide for the growth and viability of the Vail community. Staff believes that the need for housing is being addressed with this project. More importantly, staff thinks that providing, housing within the Town of Vail helps solve the transportation problem. We believe that housing in this location will allow residents to walk to jobs in the Village and Lionshead. The Housing Authority should include pedestrian connections to the sidewalk and underpass at the four-way stop and the sidewalk overpass in Lionshead to insure pedestrian access. D. Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan designates this area as Semi-Public, which is defined as follows: "Public/Semi-Public. The Public and Semi-Public category includes schools, post offices, water and sewer service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other public institutions, which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of the residents." Staff has checked with the Town Attorney regarding this definition and understands that a residential development for employees. is consistent with this land use designation as it will serve a specific need of the community. 6 r IV. OTHER A. Public Works: 1. CDOT access permits will be required. 2. Coordinate the pedestrian access with improvements to be made on the Frontage Road. At this time the Frontage Road is designed to accommodate a 10 foot shoulder on the north side to allow for bikes and pedestrians. B. Fire Department: 1. All Fire Department concerns have been addressed. The buildings will be sprinklered, will have a fire alarm system, and will be constructed with Type V standards. V. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposed request is reasonable. We support the rezoning change from Agriculture Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family. We believe that the criteria are fulfilled as discussed above. We also believe that the Housing Authority has shown that the density associated with LDMF can be located on the site. In the future, it is likely that variances will be required, particularly for the parking in the front setback and perhaps for retaining wall heights. Even if no variances are needed, the Housing Authority is still requesting to return to the PEC for their comments on the architecture, road, and landscaping. Staff supports the rezoning with the strong recommendations that: 1. All future designs for the site protect the aspen grove at the eastern portion of the site or provide a strong landscape buffer in this area; 2. The drop-off and pick-up area for the day care centers be separated from any housing development; 3. The development includes pedestrian connections to the Village and Lionshead; 4. The Housing Authority return to the PEC for comments about the specific design of the proposal; 5. The parking and buildings be heavily screened by landscaping and berms. c:\pec\memos\hous ng 10.11 7 1 U.S. FOREST SERVICE 'a ' N 89°2i'21° W - 2633.76 N 1 EXCEPTED PARCEL 1.096) ~caES ~ _ N 68°34' W Z ~ / S 88'34.00' E - 679.63 143.67 s so°os• w 4 S 2o•oa•39' K 107.00 87.84 S 88°30'Od' W m Z m C S 79'56.28- E _ S ee°3o•o0' w 2eo.59 / 120.00 ~ 32.25 0 ~ Q6 N 424.40 S 36°23' Or W j ~ ~ 3 83°36'3p" ~ O 3 B 65.24 ~ ~ ccES µp ~ ~'7~ 11.93 ~7 9°SS?fie mry ; eY1 ~ uElNr~ SI aourr of W fTl E~ 3 °o N .i6-'J~V'L/~~ U BEGINNING N W INrERSrgrE o32 p /J~~ ~ JB ~ o y ~ 4.7p E / < ! Hl cyW 4Y ~ s Ba°36'29' E - 826.30 m I 77 96,TpSe E vaNr of BEGINNING NoRrH FRONrq~E ` - - RO'~o> PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ccROSS-HATCiED AaEa~ A t~ert nF Innd ~n fh° Cn. ~t6 f /7 ne ~ be Crv.~FSnH I /4 c,.e v_•ne t. I.4h Cnln~~n..l Ven ~rl~nn ' DEBRIS FLO'PY AND RO CKFALL HAZARD ANALYSIS `~iYlUU1V lA'.'li`l liLLL`t j11L VAIL, COLORADO Prepared For M[r. Duane Piper Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado November, 1992 ° ~ 1 SUMMARY AND RECOIviMENDATIONS The follo~.vi:i~ summarizes the findings of this study and provides recommendations. Additional detail is given in Sections 2 - 4 of the report. ROCKFALL . Rockfall is not a potential hazard to the proposed development as shown on a conceptual site plan prcparc:d on 3-19-92 by Alpine International. This conclusion is based on the following observation:~: a. F:ockfall source areas do not exist about the eastern portion of the proposed development (the "East Parcel"); b. Although rockfall may occur above the "Vest Parcel" it will consist of moderate-sized, rare rockfall events that will not reach the proposed building. DEBRIS FI.O~VS Debris flo~ti~s ~vi11 not affect the East Parcel but can overrun t c 'Vest Parcel. This conclusions are based on the follo~~~ing observations: a. ']'hc East Parcel is not in line with debris flows, b. The West Parcel is located on an alluvial fan produced by debris-flow deposition as evidenced b}' 1) granite boulders 1 - ~ feet long on the surface, 2) depositional lobes ~ feet high, and 3) a large source area; c. 77~e flows may be deep as they are channelized through the canyon eroded into the bedrock directly above the site. RECO~iM):~'DATIONS The following recommendation alternatives are based on the conclusions outlined above and on my experience with the debris-flow process in Vail and at other locations: a. ~woid construction on the West Parcel; or . b. Design structures on the West Parcel for impact and depositional forces from debris flows; or c. Proceed with the development plans as shown on the 3-19-92 conceptual study, build no mitigation, and accept the risk of flows with return periods of ` approxir,~ately 300 - 1000 }ears thai would damage structures. _ ~ 1 ' The return period of debris flows can only be estimated, based on the observational evidence discussed above. An order-of-magnitude (nearest factor of 10) return period estimate for debris flows at this location is 300-1000 years (annual probability range of 0.1% to 0.3%). 3' DESTRUCTIVE EFFECTS OF DEBRIS FLOWS Debris flows affecting the West Parcel will probably be relatively slow-moving deep flows, similar to the debris flow that occurred in Booth Creek in May, 1934, but probably of smaller volume. On the fan near the proposed building site, the debris flow conditions that should be considered in design will be: Velocit}~: 1 - 5 feet/second; Densit}~: 125 1bs/ft~; Flow thickness: 4 - 8 feet; Boulder size: 1 - 5 feet diameter. Because of small velocities, depositional loads, rather than impact loads will probably govern design of structures. The depositional pressures may exceed 500 - 1000 !bs/ft2 on exposed wall and roof surfaces, which is many times the loading capacity of ordinary structures. This means building walls probably would be crushed if a major flow reached the site. In addition to depositional loads, debris flog;~s will divert stream water (the tributary drainage will probably be in flood at the time), to unpredictable directions on the fan. The diverted flood water could erode foundations and J:~ndscaping and flood buiidirig`s. Even if the building is completely protected by structural reinforcement, (Section 4), considerable damage to the surrounding terrain and landscaping would occur during a major debris-flow episode. 4 MITIGATION ' ~ ~ i~ If the risk from debris flows with a return period o 300-1000 }ears with the dynamics - characteristics listed in Section 3 is unacceptable and' the site will be developed, structural mitigation should be used to protect buildings. Buildings must be specially designed to resist design loads. Design loads should be derived from the loading characteristics discussed in Section 3 of this report. Loads will depend on the following architectural details: - Building shape; - Building orientation; - Landscaping details and grades near the building. The required design loads will depend on exactly how adebris-flow deposit is distributed against . building surfaces. Landscaping and building structure should be designed, therefore, so that large, thick deposits do not accumulate on building walls or roofs. Window and door openings must be avoided on the,uphill sides of buildings. Final design-loading details cannot be provided until architectural details are known. 3 `6 ~ v • y,,.. iiS.k.~?' ;.:a.•.:L~..!~t. ! 'P%!•i„~ {}t•;, •T..1r.• .p. _ - .;y. ~s.wr?M~.I:.~ .•i• 'J= ";1 1:,,C .y.,..r eS~'••.~: '."ary: :C' a4`e'!V.'i V`:'•'~~(i13ryJ,. .;.t, ei. .e.y.,1CA. .v =t+ .,J„.~ . l r-<' = :B- :a.. - Z '•i=. 3 . ; , 'r'-~ r.(.~~ ivy'. .•.r.: ~r •J. fir: Zvi: r : t :;v'' r'P.41 :t ''Y '.i:.: ~ ~ .,J . '.i•' ` . , .i•~ J.' iC ir: _ `t • ~ . i• r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 . _ ~ e.v.-3~vo.. a....~.~. ' _ _ ~ - . . - . _ . - F- ~.i . . ~ ~b J • s . . . i i } • ~ _ Iu - - - - - - , f:- ` _ _ _ • . _ 1 _ _ _ ~ Wit. -~:~•~±-'1 ~ T ~ 1 - - _ ~ - - =r . . . _ . _ . . - _ . . . - _ . . . r • . E _ - _ _ _ LJ - - _ - . • r ,:i%:i f . =~h ~ o ~ . . . - _ . ~ ~ _ , . . ~ _ =ill ~r ~ _ ~ ~ 1 ~ • GIs . " i i~ , ...w. ~ ~ ~ . ' _ - ~ . _ . 1. ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •t1' • _ • L • • J_..- , . • . ~ r %r'`".x. ~ Vr , - ~~S'~ ~II.I~~~ Q~ME~~N~ERS ASS®CIA'TI®N~ INCe Of rici:as: Par_sinrn•'r ~ Bob Galvin SecaErnav - Gretta Parks TarnsuaFa -Dolph Bridgewater Uiar•.croas - llwight Bessmer - Patrick Gramm - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Riddcr - Olive Watson RE~~IV~~ ~ ~ ; ~ 9 .993 To: Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council Members From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Datee October 18, 1993 REo Rezoning of Agricultural and Open Space Tract Mountain Bell Parcel to Low Density Multi-Family A A protest is hereby submitted on behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association of the application requesting the rezoning of a portion of a publicly owned Agricultural and Open Space Tract to a Low Density Multi-Family zone district. The Homeowners Association encourages the provision of employee housing in appropriate locations. It is the position of the Homeowners Association that the above cited rezoning proposal be rejected based upon the following: 1. It is an inappropriate use of a publicly owned Agriculture and Open Space tract. 2. It is an inappropriate site to locate a large scale building project. 3. The proposed use diminishes the aesthetic quality of the site as it presently exists. 4. The incursions that presently exist on the site are minimal and temporary. 5. There are other more appropriate sites for the proposed use having the appropriate zoning that are intended for higher density development. 6. The proposal is precedent setting and endangers other Agricultural and Open Space tracts. 7. The tract was acquired from Vail Associates to provide a open space corridor and park land at the entrance to Vail. The tract is to provide a contrast to the urban density of Vail. It was intended that it was to be a statement to the community's commitment to preserve and enhance publicly owned open space. Also, it was to be a statement of the community's environmental commitment and sensitivities. 8. The tract along with all open space and undeveloped tracts is under review as part of the Open Space and Park Plan. It is premature to remove this tract from consideration as it is an integral part of the Open Space and Park Plan. PosT OrricF Box 238 ~ Vnn., COLORADO 81658 f~ECEI!!E® 4 ~ 9 99~~ To: Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council Members From: Jim Lamont, Planning Consultant Datee October 18, 1993 REe Rezoning of Agricultural and Open Space Tract Mountain Bell Parcel to Low Density Multi-Family 9. The approval of the rezoning will further undermine confidence in the Town of Vail's commitment to preserve and protect open space tracts. 10. The conversion of.Ac~ricultural and Open Space tracts for publicly owned housing will undermine confidence in the Town of Vail's employee housing program. Additional comments, concerns, and recommended conditions may be forthcoming, subject to further review of the proposal by the Board of Directors and membership. M ~4 . ®R®INANCE PB®. ~1 SERIES ®Ia 1993 A~ ®R®IIVAPICE RII~®~IING 7x71® ACRES I°R®M AGRICULTURAL AI11® ®PEI~ SPACE, SECTI®Idl 19,32 4® ~,®V19 ®ENSITY INULTI-PANAILY, SECTI®RI 18.16 L®CATE® BETdYEEtNI TRAC~4 C, SL®CIIC 2, MAIL P®TAT® PATCI°'I AN® PARCEL S. MIHEREAS, the Town of Vail is the owner of an unplatted parcel generally located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B which is more fully described as: A tract of land in the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4, Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 !lest of the Sixth Principal AAeridian, Eagle County, Colorado described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the easterly line of said Section 6 and the northerly right-of-way of Interstate Highway No. 70 whence the southeast corner of said Section 6 bears S00°28'16"E 686.60 feet; thence the following four courses along the northerly right-of-way of Interstate Highway No. 70: 1) N71°33'45"!A! 196.10 feet; 2) N83°36'29"!N 826.30 feet; 3) N74°21'35"UV 204.82 feet; 4) N69°55'21 "!A/ 170.00 feet; thence, departing the northerly right-of-way of Interstate Highway iVo. 70, fV20°04'39"E 87.64 feet; thence iV88°30'00"E 280.59 feet to a westerly angle point of a parcel of land described in Warranty Deed, Reception No. 114010, Book 218, Page 419 recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder; thence the following three courses along the westerly, southerly, and easterly lines of said parcel: 1) S36°23'30"W 65.24 feet; 2) S83°36'23"E 411.94 feet; 3) N00°00'00"E 180.11 feet to the northeasterly corner of said parcel; thence, departing said easterly line, S88°34'00"E 679.59 feet to the easterly line of said Section 6; thence, along said easterly line S00°28'16"E 421.99 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 7.710 acres, more or less. The above description is based on a written metes and bounds legal description and not a field survey; and WHEREAS, the Vail Housing Authority and the Town of Vail have submitted an application to rezone an area of land from Agricultural and Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with the surrounding and immediately adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort will better reflect the actual use of the land; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is for the benefit of the community as it meets the 1 Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993 P A municipal objectives identified in the Housing Study adopted by Town Council on November 20, 1990, and the existing Land Use Plan; and WlHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission had a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendmen4 and has submitted its recommendation for approval to the Town Council; and NNHEREAS, all notices required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and lMHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NONV, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. Section 2 The Town Council hereby rezones the property from Agricultural and Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family Residential for the exclusive use of Town of Vail controlled employee housing in addition to the existing public uses on the site. 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 be 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 the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 2 Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993 D commenced, nor any other action or proceedings 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 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are 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, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the _ day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Ostertoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\ORD9321 3 Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993 ~ESOt_fl~Tl®IV N®. ~ ~ SE~6tES ®F 19936 ~1 IPES®L~D5~1111®~ I~ENAIRAItP~Ca DEL-GAF3 LANE 4® ~ILACfK ~EA{~ I'~ANE. liNHEREAS, the propert~r owners on Kel-Gar Lane, Vail, Colorado have requested by petition to change the name of the street to Black Bear Lane; and 1AlHEREAS, the agencyldepartment approvals from the Town of Vail have been received; and 1AlHEREAS, those agencies and departments outside of the Town of Vail have indicated their approval as required for the change of the name; and NNHEREAS, all requirements of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1985, providing the procedure for requesting a different address have been fulfilled. NOlIU, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. Kel-Gar Lane, which is located in the Gore Creek Subdivision, is hereby changed to Black Bear Lane. 2. The Community Development Department will assign the appropriate change to the current address map on file. 3 This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of October, 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:~iiESOLU93.12 Resolution No. 12, Series of 1993 MEMORA~DVM TOe Towaa Couancal FROMe Bolly McCutcheo~n DATES Ocgobeg 7, 1993 ICE a Appoia~~tanea~t off Regular Municipal Election Judges It is my pleasure to suggest the following five prospective appointees as judges for the Regular Municipal Election. to be held Tuesday, November 16, 19930 Karen Morter 2985 Booth Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Kay Cheney 2754 Basingdale Blvde Vail, CO 81657 • Mary Caster PoOo Box 1427 Vail, CO 81658 Joan Norris 141 We Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 Pat Dauphinaus PeOo Box 1515 Vail, CO 81658 Mary Jo Allen (Alternate) PoOo Box 861 Vail, CO 81658 ae e4 ' T®i~ ®F VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21 DD FAX 303-479-2157 F®R I(~flAl]E®IATE ff3E~E~aSE October 19, 1993 Contact: Russell Forrest 479-2138 IpIIBLIC ®IA~®~UE ~®UPHT ®N ®PEPD SAN®~ P~H ~T , H®VEflABER 9TH MEETING (Vail)--Efforts to develop an open lands plan for the Town of Vail will continue next month when an update on the project will be delivered to the public and Town Council at 5:15 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 9, in the Town Council Chambers. The presentation will be made by the town's open land consultant, Design 1lVorkshop, a Denver-based firm. Russell Forrest, the town's senior environmental policy planner, has been working with the consultant and a citizens committee in development of a plan for the past five months. "We're specifically looking for feedback on our proposal which provides additional open land for outdoor recreational opportunities, environmental protection, trails, and development of a land reserve for unforeseen future public needs," Forrest said. He estimates that only 10 to 15 percent of the land in Vail is undeveloped. Community interest in an open lands plan has been high, Forrest said, particularly because of controversial projects {ike the Par-3 Goff Course and the proposed Trapper's Run project. (more) OPEN LANDS PLAN/ADD 1 "Public input is extremely important to ensure that the open lands plan meets public needs and expectations," said Forrest. Two public meetings have been held previously on the topic. The top issues identified during those meetings include protection of environmentally sensitive open areas, improving recreational trails, and improving recreational opportunities, Forrest said. Specifically, the plan includes a proposal to purchase several open land properties and recommendations for improvements to existing trailheads, new trails, and ideas on how to expand the streamwalk from the Village area to Lionshead, as well as a land reserve for future public needs. Adoption of a final open lands plan is expected by the end of the year following a series of additional public meetings, Forrest said. For more information, please contact Forrest at 479-2138. # # # ie e4 T0~ OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2100 FAX 303-479-2157 F®R U~flfdE®9ATE ~E~.~ASf~ ®c$oB~e~r ~ 8, ~ 993 Contact: Annie Fox 479-2183 ~(!BRAR~ ~®®6~ fRET~1R~ T® BE 9R9 ~~ACE BY TH~4INKSG9!lI~BG (Vail)--A new book return for the Vail Public Library is expected to be in place by Thanksgiving following a decision on where to put it. Library patrons are currently being surveyed regarding two site possibilities: the island next to the Lionshead Information Booth, or outside the Safeway store near the mail boxes. Library Director Annie Fox said a site decision will be made in two weeks following completion of the survey. "This is something our users have been asking of us for some time," said Fox. "Our existing book return isn't convenient for people who simply want to drop off their materials," she said. That's because the return, located near the entrance to the library, does not function as a drive-by drop. To cast your site preference by phone, call the library at 479-2183. # # # y ,I ~~~a~ ~®~~~c~ ~TAIY. T®WN C®IJNCIDL l~ET~T~ 5CIiEIDIlJII.E (as of 10/14/93) ®C~®]BEI~,, 1993 In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance and charter requirements, Council meetings are scheduled at the following times: EVE1~1G 1bIEETIIVGS Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month, starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation and public audience for conducting regular Council business. 9~1®RI~ SESSI®NS Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before the Council, will now be scheduled to begin at 2:00 P.M. (unless otherwise noted) on every Tuesday afternoon. 'x'tir; ItE~IISEID ®CT®BER. 1993, F7~. T®WN C®UNCIL 1VIE~~xidG SCHEIDULE IS E1S F®LL®6VS: Tuesdav. October 5. 1993 Work session 11:®® A.I~Ii . (starting time determined by length of agenda) Evening meeting 07:30 P.M. Tuesdav. October 12, 1993 Work session 11:®~ IP.I~iI. (starting time determined by length of agenda) Tuesdav. October 19, 1993 Work session 12:®® lP.l~il. (starting time determined by length of agenda) Evening meeting 07:30 P.M. Thursday. October 26. 1993 Work session 04:0® 1P.1~i1. (starting time determined by length of agenda) TOWN OF VAIL Pamela A. Brandmeyer Assistant to the Town Manager