Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 Planning & Environmental Commission Agendas, Minutes & Memos Jan. to JunePEC Jan - Apr 1980 Jan.uar 28 -,1980 m LOTS 11 & 13, BLK 3, VAIL VALLEY 1st, -minor sub PITKIN CREEK PARK, - conditional use,commercial space LOT 10, BLK 2, VAIL VILLAGE 13,,setback variances LIONSMARE PHASE II, units 23 & 25, GRFA variance GETTY OIL SITE, REZONE PEC MEMBER TO DRB fFeb�ruar 11 1980 SIMBA RUN, preliminary and lot line vacation request SUNWOOD CONDO map LOT 10, BLK 2, VAIL VILLAGE 13, setback variance VAIL GOLFCOURSE TOWNHOMES PHASE I, plat map Februar _25 v _ 0 Apri�1 28, =1980 URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN V VILLAGE PEPI`S KITCHEN LOTS 2,3,4 Blk.8, VV 7th REDUCING NO. OF UNITS IN TOWN WEST VAT COMMON DEVELOPMENT BELL TOWER landscaping SIMBA RUN, preliminary plan and lot line vacation request 1ST BANK EXPANSION conditional use LIONSHEAD PARKING STRUCTURE,.'conditional use LOTS 11_ -and__13 -0,_B1 k 3,__VAIL. VALLEY 1st, mi nor sub �- - March 10;, 1980 SIMBA RUN, approval of plan and lot line vacation FOREST SERVICE property recently annexed MINIATURE GOLF COURSE LIONSHEAD CREST, - parking variance t4arch 24.,�, 1 80 FOREST SERVICE PROPERTY RECENTLY ANNEXED LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN PLAN AIR QUALITY REPORT April 14 .,l VAIL 21, parking and setback variance PANORAMA CONDOS; Lionsridge #3,:SDD V VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN ZONE CHANGES FOR CCI AND CCI January 28, 1980 LIONS MANE PHASE II, GRFA Variance Request for units 23 & 25. ` WEST END OF BIGHORN, ONE ACRE UNPLATTED, rezoning VAIL. VILLAGE lath, Lot 10, Block 2, underground garage VAIL VALLEY lst, Lots 11 and 1.3, Block 3, change lot line PITKIN CREEK PARK, INC., Special Development Dist #3, Commercial uses. February 11 1980 SiMBA RUN CONDO, LIONSRIDGE #1,BLOCK C, Lots 6 -9, Prt of 10, line vacate SUNWOOD CONDO MAP approval VAIL VILLAGE 13th, Lot 10, blk 2, NOTT RES., setback variance VAIL GOLFCOURSE TOWNHOMES PHASE I, plat map approval February 25, 1980 SIMBA RUN CONDO, prelim. approval of Bevel plan. IST BANK BUILDING, conditonal use permit., expansion VAIL.L.IONSHEAD PARKING STRUCTURE, condtai.onal use permit VAIL VALLEY 1st Filing, Lots 11 & 13, Block 3, change lot line. March 10, 1980 SIMBA RUN CONDO, approval of plan and lot line vacation request FOREST SERVICE, 8 parcels annexed, zoning \_ MINIATURE GOLF, conditional use permit - CREST, parking variance to allow additional..meeting space March 24, 1980 FOREST SERVICE,. (see March 10) VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN PLAN, public hearing AIR QUALITY REPORT,.Laura A.2ril 14, 1980 V4AIL 21, setback variance PANORAMA CONDO, Lionsridge, approval of development plan VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, continuation of consideration Special Meeting PUBLIC HEARING ON VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND ORDINANCES April 21, 1980 SPRADDLE CREEK LIVERY STABLE, discussion VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, continuation of discussion: S eciai Public Hearin VAIL VILLANGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN April_ 28, .1980 VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, continued public hearing VA -IL VILLAGE 7th, Block 8, lots 2,3, &4, resubdivision ASTOF GRAMSHAMMER kitchen, conditional use permit ■ - -- --. .. a. - - . . _ -qqw- < Y INDEX FOR PEC MEETINGS IN 1980, Continued May ,12, 1980 VAIL VILLAGE 11th filing, Lot 9, blk 3, approval of modifi. of flood pls; BIGHORN FIRE STATION, conditional use to allow expansion VALLEY - PHASE VI county referral items SELBY SUB, VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, continuation of public hearing May 27,1980 VAIL VILLAGE 6th FILING, Lot - ,7, .Blk: _ 1,.:,setback variance OLD GONDOLA I BUILDING, ONE VAIL PLACE, amended plat.:& condo map JUhe 9, 1980 V-RED LION expansion, condition use. MUNICIPAL BUILDING, lower Level, expansion June 23, 1980 VAIL MEADOWS FILING No. 1, Lot 31, setback variance for duplex RCELL'S exterior alteration JUG -14, „1980 BIGHORN 3rd, Lots 1,2,3, Blk 7, lot line.vacation MUNICIPAL BUILDING, conditional use permit for expansion Study Session of Fire in Vail Village, review of zoning amendments August 11, 1980 BIGHORN TERRACE, lot 13, addition variance Study Session, Urban Design Guide Plan August 25, 1980 LvIONSHEAD GONDOLA BUILDING, exterior modification VAIL VILLAGE 7th, lot 1, blk 8, setback.variance to build deck CHRIST,IANIA parking.variance for addition GOLDEN PEAK TENNIS COURTS, temporary structure VAIL MEADOWS SUB, #1, Lot 34, Blk 1, setback variance for addition \,�LLAGE CENTER D BLDG, '.density control variance and exterior modificatio INDEX FOR PEC MEETINGS IN 1980, Continued. September 2, 1980 FORD PARK AMPHITHEATER, South of Tennis Courts Se tember.8, 1980:`. LLAU CENTER BUILDING D, Tract C, Block 5E, density control variance LIONSRIDGE - CONDOS- Lot 1; .B7k' 3; Lionsridge Sub #3 DRANO'S, exteri.ox alteration for addition VAIL VILLAGE INN, ,UNIT 12B, conditional use to change to real estate office GARDEN OF GODS CLUB, rezone from PA to HDMF October 15, 1980 MISKELL GREENHOUSE, Lot 2, Blk 2, V Village 13th AGE CENTER .BLDG D, deniity control variance and exterior modification RED BRIDGE.STORE, new shop on 2nd floor GART carport and entry addition, iota 12, blk 7, V Village 1st ANDY NORRIS, amendment to height requirement for DS4 AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCES,HEIGHT, DENSITY, & WATER QUALITY October 27, 1980 MCDONALD, -si:te 15, Casolar Vail II, setback variance KNOX, "Resuf Lot A -7, Casolar Il, density control variance AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCES: HEIGHT, DENSITY AND WATER QUALITY AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE.CRITERIA OF ZONING ORDINANCES November 10; 1980 . ICN R Tt:esub lot 7" C `solar" T d i"t control variance GART GARAGE -.lot 12, blok 7, Vail Village Ist, front setback variance VAIL. GUIDES - PRINTERY BUILDING review of conditional use permit November 24, 1980 :VAIL. 'GUIDES (see above) KNOX, Resub Lot A-7.—Casolar II, density control variance LIBRARY:`conditional use permit TIME-SHARE from Conditional uses in Public Accommodations December 8, 1980 KNOX Resub Lot A -7, Casolar II density control variance CCI AND .CCII PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, January 14, 1980 1:30 Work Session -Site Visits to the Valley and Imperial Development. Condo Sites. Review of Plans submitted to the County for West Vail and the Valley 3:00 Regular Meeting - 1) Preliminary Review of Site Plan for Lots Al and A2, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. 2) County Referral Items A) Imperial Development Condominiums E. of Exxon Site in W. Vail B) The Ridge C) The Valley -Phase 5 D) The Valley Phase 6 3) Executive Session - Litigation PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA 40 January 14, 1980, 3:00 P.M. There is no official agenda for the Planning Commission on 1- 14 -80. There will be a work session for Board Members. The next meeting is January 28, 1980, • a. .7 L� -n._ so PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA 3:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of Minutes of 12 -10 -79 meeting. 2.) Minor Subdivision Request for Lots 11 and 13, Block 3 Vail Valley 1st Filing. 3.) Conditional Uses for Commercial Space at Pitkin Creek Park, Inc. 4.) Front and Side Setback Variance Request to construct an Underground Garage for Eve B. Nott on Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Village 13th. 5.) GRFA Variance Request for Units 23 and 25, Lionsmane Phase II. 6.) Rezoning of a one acre parcel at the West End of Bighorn (next to Pitkin Creek Park) from Heavy Service (HS) to Low Density Multiple Family /Special Development District. (Getty Oil Site) 7.) Selection of a PEC Member to attend Design Review Board Meetings. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 AGENDA January 28, 1980 3:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of Minutes of December 10, 1979 meeting. 2.) GRFA Variance Request for Units 23 and 25, Lions Mane Phase II. 3.) Rezoning of a One Acre Unplatted Parcel at the West End of Bighorn (next to Pitkin Creek Park) from Heavy Service (HS) to Low Density Multiple Family /Special Development District. 4.) Setback Variance to allow encroachment of an Underground garage into the side setback on Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Village 13th. 5.) Minor Subdivision for Lots 11 and 13, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing in order to change the Lot Line between Lots 11 and 13 which increases the Lot Size of Lot 13 so that it is in excess of 15,000 square feet. 6.) Conditional Use Permit to Specify Commercial Uses in Special Development District # 3, Pitkin Creek Park, Inc. 41 7.) Discussion of Board Member to attend Design Review Board Meetings. To be published in the Vail Trail on January 25, 1980. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of Meeting of 1- 28--80 is Page One Board Members Present Dan Corcoran Sandy Mills Gerry White Roger Tilkemeier Ed Drager Staff Member Present Jim Rubin Larry Eskwith Peter Patten Chuck Donley The Council person assigned to the meeting, Dr. Steinberg, was not present 1.) Approval of Minutes of 12 -10-79 meeting. 0 Ed Drager made a motion to approve the minutes of the 12 -10 -79 meeting. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 2.) Minor Subdivision Request for Lots 11 and'13, Block 32 Vail Valley 1st Filing. Chuck Donley explained this item. Jim Rubin said that Larry Eskwith had brought up the point that neither of the lots meet the minimum requirement, 17,500 square feet, for a duplex lot. Chuck Donley presented the plat. It was explained that right now under current zoning, they can build a duplex and a primary /secondary unit with -the long term erlayee housing provision. The owner wants to change the lot line so that they can build two duplexes. Commission members asked questions of the Staff and Rob Ford who was representing the owner who lives out of town. Roger Tilkemeier said the recent downzoning was designed to promote employee housing. We are defeating our purpose by approving this. We are accomplishing more of what we are trying to do by leaving the lots as they are. Rob Ford said the only difference in the square footage is 171 square feet. He doesn't think employee housing would be used on the Golfcourse. He doesn't think the Golfcourse will ever be an aspect of employee housing. He said the lot was bought before the downzoning ordinance. The owner is trying to make 49 the lots both above 15,000. The zoning was for duplex on both lots when he Purchased them. He has talked with the neighbors and they are not opposed to this change. Dan Corcoran asked about the driveway. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of Meeting of 1 -28 -80 • Page Wo Jim Rubin said this change is not contrary to the intent. The square footage has a minimum :impact. Roger Tilkereier said the impact is the fourth unit. Rob Ford asked if there are any employee housing units on the Golfcourse. He said these units will be long term or shor term rentals. The owner does not plan to sell them. Ed Drager said we are trying to stop short term rentals. Sandy Malls said she understands that they are trying to make the lots more conforming but also that the one unit is the one that makes the difference. Rob Ford asked what the process is if this is approved or disapproved today. Larry Eskwith said if approved, it will be referred to Council,.if denied, he may, they may appeal to the Town Council. Another alternative is that he may postpone this to a later date. Rob ford said he would like this tabled. • Ed Drager made a motion to table the minor subdivision request for Lots 11 and 13, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing for no longer than thirty days. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3.) Conditional Uses for Commercial Space at Pitkin Creek Park, Inc. Peter Patten explained this item. Roger Tilkemeier asked if there was a gas station planned. Jay Peterson said no. It would never get through Council. Ed Drager said a gas station would be a good idea. Roger Tilkemeier said Town Council doesn't know what the needs are out there. Sandy Mills said aesthetics of a gas station is not good. Roger Tilkemeier said there is a need. Jay Peterson said if the day care idea doesn't work, they will have to come back to the commission for another use. Dan Corcoran asked if these spaces would be open to the public. Jay said Go they would. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of Meeting of 1 -28 -80 Page Three Dan Corcoran made a motion to approve the Conditional Uses for Commercial Space at.Pitkin Creek Park, Inc. as per the Staff Memo dated 1- 24 -79. Sandy Mills seconded. The vote was unanimous. Ed Dra.ger said as long as Councilman Wilto is now present he would like to ask that consideration be given to a gas pump in that area. Bill Wilto said the Council is against a gas station out there. 4.) Front and side Setback Variance Request to construct an Underground Garage for Eve B: Nott'on'Lot 10 Block 2,'Vail'Villago 13th. Peter Patten explained this item. He said mare study is needed between the owners, the adjacent owners, the DRB, and the architects. Sandy Mills asked if we have enough information or need more. She said she feels there is definitely a need there for this type of thing. Peter explained that DRB has not lookded at Nott's proposal or underground parking on the lot next door. Eve Nott said she can't very easily work with the neighbors as it is a spec house. 0 Mr. and Mrs. Serafin said they are the owners and it is not a spec house. Ere Nott said the underground garage would be like Gordon Pierce's and would follow the natural contour of the land. Peter Patten showed what had been submitted for the proposal. David Peel explained the neighbor's proposal. Dan Corcoran asked why the Serafins object. The Serafins said they don't object, they just don't want this to impact their plans. They said the DRB told them they couldn't go into the setback. Mrs. Serafin said she thought this could be done without going into the setback on Nott's Land also. She doesn't want to look at a wall so close to their property line. David Peel said by passing this, it would be very precedent setting for this area. Gerry White said he, too,.feels it is very precedent setting. He feels it is a good plan in that it would restore the Land to the way it is now. He suggested the variance be table for two weeks so that it could be studied further. Peter Patten said both plans could be discussion items on January 31 with approval ion February 7 and then come back to PEC on February 11, 1980. Roger TilkEmeier made a motion to table the Front and Side Setback Variance Request to construct an Underground. Garage for Eve B. Nott on Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Village 13th. Ed Drager seconded. The vote was unanimous. Planning and Environmental Comnission Minutes of Meeting of 1 -28 -80 Page Four 5.) GRFA Variance Request for Units'23'and 25,'Liensrfreme Phase TI. Jim Rubin explained the history of this item. Sandy Mills asked Jim to clarify the current useage. Jim said it is classified as a one bedroom unit with a loft but there is evidence that the lofts have been occupied. Sandy asked how the Town is going to police that it is employee used. Gerry White asked if the units can be brought up to code. Jim said they probably couldn't bring it entirely up to code but closer than it is at present. Gerry White asked if the people are living in these units illegally, can the C of 0 that is currently on the building be resinded. Larry Eskwith said people are not supposed to be living 'there now. Chuck Donley said one of the ways they don't meet code is that the lofts cannot have windows. Jim Rubin said Appollo park had installed skylights to solve this problem. Roger Tilkemeier said even if the units do not meet code, they would be closer than they are now. Dan Corcoran asked if the Town approves the units when they are not ccletely to code, are liable if something happens? Larry Eskwith said he doesn't think they would be liable. Jim Rubin said there is a possibility they would install the skylights. Sandy Mills asked about the parking. Jim Rubin said it is presently not adequate and Mr. Simon has agreed he would work with the Town Staff, Engineer, etc. to change and increase the parking. Part would have to be in the Town right of way but we would have to work with Kent on this. 40 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of Meeting of 1 -28 -80 Page Five Gerry White said he has a problem in that the unit is currently illegal, there is inadequate parking and it will not totally meet code. Larry Eskwith said he just found out that if a person is doing a remodel of more than 40 %, then the whole building must be brought up to code. Sandy Mills said she thinks approval would just be compounding the initial problem. We are saying, yes, you can take storage and make living space if you keep at it long enough. She also asked how we are going to police the seven year employee housing clause. Dan Corcoran asked Ed Drager about the Condo Association. Ed said it is a separate association, not the same as his. Mr. Simon said there will be no change in assessment and the association is silent on subject of GRFA. Jim Rubin said this case is different than others that have applied to convert loft space in that the space is already there and is habitable. Jim also said they would be improving the space and to allow them to use it • properly is the best alternative. Marvin Simon said the units have always been used as employee housing. He said to look at the floor space and the lay out, you would see it was not meant to be a one bedroom unit. Sandy Mills said she felt that because no windows were planned, possibly that area wasn't meant to be occupied. Ed Drager said he has kept quiet because he represented Mr. Simon when he originally bought these units. He asked Mr. Simon if he could give some history on this. Ed said these units were built (before Mr. Simon purchased them) under a county building permit with the state inspector coming up here once every two weeks. At first they had a three foot loft approved but added five feet and had them approved that way. Dan Corcoran asked if they are structurally sound. Ed Drager said, "It's there yet." Gerry White said he feels it is better to deal with it as it is than to legalize it. He does not feel because it has a high ceiling, it should be made habitable or that it could be brought up to code. Marvin Simon said he is ,just trying to provide decent housing. • Gerry White said he doesn't consider it decent housing. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of Meeting of 1 -28 -80 Page Six 06.) • Sandy Mills said she felt granting this would provide economical gain for Mr. Simon. Mr. Simon disagreed. Dan Corcoran said he doesn't think they will be able to get more parking. Marvin Simon said he will work with the Town on bringing then up to code and providing more adequate parking. He agrees there is a definite problem with the parking now. Gerry White asked for a motion. Sandy Mills made a motion to deny the GRFA Variance Request for Units 22 and 25, Lionsmane Phase I.I. Gerry White seconded the motion and added some further remarks that there is definitely a parking need there, he doesn't believe they could be brought up to code, and he doesn't believe that employees like to be put together in this kind of situation. Dan Corcoran, Sandy Mills, and Gerry White voted for denial. Roger Tilkemeier voted against denial. Ed Drager abstained. The motion passed. Roger voted against it because the proposal was a reasonable solution to a difficult problem. Jim Rubin told Mr. Simon that he can appeal to the Council within ten days. next to Pitkin Chuck Donley presented this item. (Ed Drager left the meeting as he has a conflict on this item anyway.) Fritz Glade showed his new plans. He said he just picked up his packet and didn't realize that the Staff was recommending denial of this item. He said he has a discrepancy with what the Staff says was said at Town Council. He doesn't remember them saying the units would have to be deed restricted. He also does not think they recarumended RC zoning. He said under LEW he will get more units but he will use less GRFA than allowed. They are making the units smaller so local people can afford then. Jim Rubin said this has gone to Town Council three or four times for recommendation. The last direction was for residential. Dan Corcoran said this is the first time he has seen this project as he was not on the Board when it was presented previously. He would like to be on record as saying that he feel that the Office Building was more suitable or even a gas station. Roger Tilkemeier said he feels the owners have been jerked around enough. Planning and Environmental Comnission Minutes. of Meeting of 1-28 --80 .Page Severn Roger also said that he feels residential is highly improper. He said that the Town is already involved in a law suit because they took units away from someone who was entitled to them, now they are giving units to someone who is not entitled to them. It is blasphemy to contradict ourselves in public. It doesn't meet our growth management plans. Sandy Aalls said she doesn't agree in this case. People who live out there don't want a gas station or comnercial uses. She feels RC zoning would be better as it would cut down on the number of people. Jim Rubin said this will have to be referred to Council again. Dan Corcoran asked why not commercial use. An office would have less traffic than residential. Jay Peterson said the developers of Pitkin Creek Park feel the residential concept is right. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to deny the rezoning of the Getty Oil Site from Heavy Service (HS) to Low Density Multiple Family /Special Development District. Dan Corcoran said he won't second this because he feel the people have been ,jerked . around enough. There was further discussion. Jay Peterson said they fought the office concept because they felt it was inappropriate and residential is better. He feels it should be approved. Roger's motion dies for want of a second. Sandy Mills made a motion to deny the LDMF zoning on the Getty Oil site because she feels the density is too high. Her motion failed for lack of a second. Gerry White asked Fritz Glade if he would agree to LDMF zoning as long as the GRFA does not exceed eight units and 10,250 square feet as proposed. Fritz said he would agree. Gerry White made a motion to approve the rezoning of the Getty 0il Site from Heavy Service (HS) to Low Density Multiple Family /Special Development District with the stipulation that the development does not exceed eight units & 10,250 square feet. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. Sandy Mills, Dan Corcoran, and Gerry White voted for the motion. Roger Tilkemeier voted against. The motion passed. Roger Tilkemeier said he still feels a gas station is more appropriate. 7.) Selection of a PEC Member to's.ttend Design Review Board Meetings. There was a discussion as to who had already served. Sandy Mills made a motion that Jack Goehl be appointed. Dan Corcoran seconded. The vote was unanimous. Jim will notify Jack. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 25, 1980 RE: Zone Change Request for Woodbridge East (Getty Oil Site) from Heavy Service to Low Density Multi- Family The proposal is for eight units with 10,250 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area. What has been presented is a schematic plan showing the approximate locations and shpaes of the buildings. Also shown on the schematic plan is a small recreational amentity area. LDMF Standards would allow nine units and 13,422 square feet of GRFA. RC Standards would allow six units and 11,185 square feet. The Town Council last discussed this piece of land in early December. At that time they were very much split as to whether it should be used as an Office Building or for Residential purposes. Our recollection, however, is that those members that desired Residential Uses were requesting RC Densities. As far as the schematic plan itself, what has been proposed is two triplexes and one duplex resulting in a site coverage of 11% and 45% of the site being landscaped. Both of these standards are in conformance with what would be required under Residential character to it under this proposal than under the past Office building submittals. The Staff recommends that the Zoning Request for Low Density Multi Family be denied. The maximum allowable density should be six units, which would result in a straight Residential Cluster Zoning Classification. The Staff wuld consider the eight units only if at least 50% of the units were for low and moderate income long term residents under guidelines proposed by the applicant, which would require both Planning Commission and Town Council approval. �J MEMORANDUM . TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 25, 1980 RE: Minor Subdivision Request for Lots 11 and 13, Block 3 Vail Valley 1st Filing This request is to change the lot line between Lots 11 and 13, Block 3, Vail Valley lst Filing in order to make Lot 13 in excess of 15,000 square feet. At the present time, Lot 11 is 17,004 square feet and Lot 13 is 13,860. The proposed change in the lot lines would create two lots of an identical size of 15,432 square feet. The purpose for this change is to allow Lot 13 to be built as a straight duplex. Both lots are in a Two Family Residential (R) Zone District. If the lot was less than 15,000 square feet, it would have to comply with the new restrictions for lots of less than 15,000 square feet. • The new lot arrangement complies with all Zoning and Subdivision Requirements. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this request. u MEMORANDUM . TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 24, 1980 RE: Conditional Uses for Commercial Space at Pitkin Creek Park, Inc. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE See Sheet A CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends Approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Commercial Uses being requested should allow the creation of a • small neighborhood center in Bighorn, which we feel will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the Town. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation'fA dilities,'utilities, schools; parks and recreation facilities and other ublic facilities 'and ' ublic 'fa6ilities needs. A small neighborhood center should have a positive effect on public facility uses and needs by providing necessities within close proximity to Bighorn Resident and visitors. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety - and.eaxiven ence,'traffic'flow And control, access maneuverability, and 'removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed uses should decrease some of the automobile traffic from the Bighorn area into Town, which will help to decrease congestion. Effect upon the character of the area in'Which the proposed use is to be_ located, _indludirig 'the 'scale 'and bulk 'of the proposed 'use in relation to surrounding uses. At the previous public hearings, the Staff has requested that some additional attention be given to the exterior of the commercial building. • Pitkin Creek Park, Inc. CUP 1-24-80 Page Two We would still encourage this, but feel that it is a Design Review Board rather than a Planning Commission concern. Such other factors arid criteria'as the'Corrimission'deems applicable to the proposed use. There are no other factors deemed applicable. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact 'report 'is required_ by 'Chapter '18.56. No EIR is required. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department od Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be Approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Tha the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: We feel that the uses proposed are appropriate for the area and recommend approval. • .7 • r] Pitkin Creek Park, Inc. CUP 1 -24 -80 Page Three SHEET A In April of 1979 (Minutes Enclosed), the Town Council gave final approval to the Development Plan for Pitkin Creek Park, Inc., with two exceptions being the bus turn -off design and the Commercial Uses. The Commercial Uses Bing proposed are as follows: Day Care Center Laundramat Food Store Liquor Store Restaurant 1,200 square feet 600 3,000 1,200 2,500 8,500 These uses are identical to those that were discussed with the Planning and Environmental Commission on March 27, 1979. (Minutes Enclosed) The intent of the restaurant is to make it moderate priced (Similar to the Bully III). The.rest of the Commercial uses are primarily designed to provide basic services for the Bighorn Area. MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 10, 1979 3:30 P.M. The Vail Town Council convened at 3:30 P.M. for a special meeting on Tuesday, April 10, 1979, in the Conference Room of the Vail Municipal Building. The following Councilmembers and Mayor Rodney E. Slifer were present: Paula Palmateer Tom Steinberg Bill Wilto Absent: John Donovan Scott Hopman Bob Ruder Also present was: Richard Caplan, Town Manager The Council then undertook the matter of continuing the discussion of Pitkin Creek Park, Inc. in regards to the commercial space and the parking . Chuck Anderson stated that they were considering deleting the commercial space, if this were the case they would turn the space into 11 dwelling units. Steve Kirby reviewed a new parking plan. The numbers are as follows: Buildings 1- 4 32 units 50 parking spaces 1.56 spaces 5- 7 59 units 86 parking spaces 1.45 spaces + 27 commercial 8 -13 65 units 98 parking spaces 1.5 spaces The Council was agreeable to this parking proposal. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the bus turn -off and the uses of the commercial space. Jay Peterson then asked the Council to approve the plan but hold up the Conditional Use Permit. Jay also stated that he would be presenting to the staff a Modified inducement Resolution and an Ordinance designating specified use for the project. The general concensus of the Council was to approve the plan with the ex- ceptions of having a new design on the Bus turn -off on Highway 6 and further dicussion of commerial uses. Councilmember Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the plan with the exception of a bus turn -off design on Highway 6 and commercial uses. Councilmember Scott Hopman seconded the motion. All present voted, 4 in favor; 2 against (Ruder and Slifer), the motion carried. Councilmember Scott Hopman moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5 P.M. Mayor ATTEST: - - ___ Town Clerk '• it • 0 U MINUTES PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27, 1979 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Drager Sandy Mills Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan Ron Todd Jack Goehl STAFF PRESENT: Jim Rubin The first item on the agenda, Slaughter Residence -- Setback Variance Request, Lot B,'Block 1, Vail Village First`Filin g. Tom Briner, Architect was present to represent the owner of a house on 392 Mill Creek Circle who wants to add a one -car garage to his residence. As it will encroach into the side setback requirement, they are asking for a 712 foot variance. The owner has proposed a deck on top of the addition. He stated there is concern from one of the neighbors about the height of the addition, so a redesign removed the railing and pitched the roof. He showed the Commission pictures and drawings of the proposed addition. Jim Rubin advised.the Commission that the staff recommendation is for approval of this request, but added that the approval for the setback variance will somewhat impact the view from.the Caulkin's house which is behind the Slaughter residence. However, the staff feels that it would probably be more unsightly to have parked cars outside and that the addition fits well. with the existing house. Sandy Mills stated that she had visited the site and feels that the view corridor is down further from-the proposed addition and that the Caulkins would not lose their view of the Gores. . She also felt that the garage would clean -up the.area with trash storage and putting the car inside. Roger Tilkemeier asked about the view impact from the second floor of. the house behind the proposed addition? Mrs. Ellie Caulkins owner of the house behind.the proposed garage addition asked to be heard. She identified herself as the owner of the house at 304 Mill Creek Circle and that she is completely opposed to the construction of the.garage as proposed.. She stated that it wil-1 definitely impact their view and questions the validity of a one car garage, as she feels there will always be more than one car parked there when someone is in residence. A gentleman in the audience who resides in the Bass house on Mill Creek Circle also feels that everyone in the area may want to add garages and then all the views in the area will be impacted. Page 2 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting of 3- -27 -79 Ron Todd asked whether they could pick an alternative side of the house for construction? Mr. Briner stated that if they build on the east, it would block their own view. There could be the possibility of building it into the hillside of the front yard, but this really hasn't been looked into because it would be expensive and it would take the garage away from the main entry to the house. He also stated there are large spruce trees in the yard and some of them would have to be removed if this was done. After further discussion, Gerry White made the Motion for denial of the variance request for a side setback since the applicant cannot show a hardship, and there are no grounds to grant this variance.request. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the Motion and the Commission voted 5 for denial and 2 opposed to denial. The variance request is denied and the applicant was advised of the 10 day period for appeal. The second item on the agenda, Vail Racquet Club a lication for a Density Variance to Construct Employee Housing on an Un latted Parcel in Bighorn. Walter Kirch was present as applicant for this variance request. He asks that the garden level units that were given up voluntarily during the 1977 down zoning be returned so that he can construct 16 one- bedroom units for employee housing. He also 'advised the Commission that he may come back. with another application when the last two buildings are built to add another 16 units for employees which will bring the total to 32 units. Roger Tilkemeier asked Mr. Kirch how many employees of the Racquet Club will use the units? Mr. Kirch feels that somewhere between 10 and 16 of these units will be used by Racquet Club employees, and that any surplus could be used for other employees in Vail. Mr. Drager asked how long these would be used for employees and if there would be restrictions imposed on them? Mr. Kirch stated they would restrict the use of these units for twenty (20) years as long --term rental units for employees in Vail. Jim Rubin stated that the staff recommendation supports this application for a density variance and went through the reasons as stated in the memorandum prepared by the Department of Community Development. John Dunn, Attorney at Law, addressed the Commission as representative for the Condominium Owner'.s Association. He introduced himself. as President of their Executive Committee. The Condominium . Page 3 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting of 3- 27--79 Association represents 170 units and 500 to 600 residents of the Racquet Club. He stated that he is directed to inform the Commission that the Condominium.Association is opposed to Walter's application. He stated that he agrees with the need, but that owners are in disagreement with Mr. Kirch as to where these units are being proposed. They would like to see the employee housing placed all together in one building rather than in Building 1113." Building .1113" is in the center of the complex, adjacent to the "bubble" and the recreational facilities. This is the most congested part of the project, and it is a building that nobody wants. They want this building as small as possible and not a dormitory for help. Mr. Dunn continued that the Condominium Association has discussed Building 111511 as a better location since it is at the edge of the project and they feel this building would be the logical place for employee housing. Mr. Dunn added that he is aware of the voluntary downzoning, but that Mr. Kirch has to satisfy the ordinance and the variance procedures. He feels there are two concerns here: the first is a legal concern whether there is justification for this application just because of the addition of employee housing. It is laudible, but not a concern of the Zoning Ordinance. He cited a case to the Commission that reflected this concern. He also stated that the Town of Vail has not made employee housing a requirement as they have with parking requirements, etc. The second concern is that in regard to the Zoning Ordinance, � he feels that the increase of density is undesirable and will have an unfavorable impact on the neighborhood. He feels that employees would be more dense, as they would be full -time residents. He also does not feel that the parking is adequate for employee housing. It is his feeling that there would be two vehicles per unit in the employee housing. He also feels that the employees would be noisy. The owners want to:,see this variance request denied, but they don't . want to close the door to a compromise, and would consider having the employee housing all in one building, their preference is Building "15 ". Fred Distelhorst addressed the Commission as a neighbor of the Racquet Club. He asked to see where these building are to be located and looked at the site plan. He stated that he is against the increased density, and would like to see only 8 units added. Roger Tilkemeier asked Mr. Kirch whether he was at an impasse with the owners? Mr. Kirch stated that it is his feeling that everybody is for employee housing, but nobody wants it near them. He went on to say that the twenty year limitation will enable him to expense out his construction costs, but:that it would be financially unfeasible to put all the employee housing in one building. Gerry White asked whether there would be noise restrictions put on the long --term renters?, Mr. Kirch stated that he would insist on controlling the mode of behavior at the Racquet Club. He stated Page 4 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting of 3 -27 -79 that he does have a few employees living in the project now, but that most of the employees have to drive from Avon or Edwards. Chuck Anderson, who was present to address the Commission on Pitkin Creek Park Development, stated that he feels Walter should be applauded for including the employee housing on site. He also agrees with Mr. Kirch that financially a separate building would not work and that it is important that the community be integrated. He added that the employees of Vail are highly educated, responsible people, and that with available and attractive housing, this will make for happy employees, and happy employees are good employees. Ed Drager also feels that it is a plus that there is no.tax money involved in these employee units, and that a private development is interested in putting in employee units. Gerry White agreed, and stated that this should be considered as good density and positive growth. Sandy Mills made the Motion to grant the variance request for the 16 employee housing units at the Vail Racquet Club Condominiums in Bighorn and as presented in the Department of Community Development memorandum of March 23, 1979. Gerry.White seconded the Motion. The Commission voted unanimous approval. Mr. Dunn was advised of the 10 day period for appeal by Mr. Drager. . The third item on the agenda, Pitkin Creek Park Development Plan. Jay Peterson, Attorney at Law started the discussion by advising the Commission that staff has problems with the parking provided for the project. Dick Ryan, Director of Community Development stated that the staff concern is that this employee housing project have as few problems as possible and that the function is very important. It is felt that there are major deficiencies in the parking as far as location and distribution. He stated that one and one -half spaces per unit is a good base for employee housing and this would give additional parking for guests.. It was.the.feeling that the two and three bedroom units may have to have even more than one and one -half spaces. In regard to the Commercial area of the project, there will be 9,000 sq. ft. of commercial area, the restaurant has a seating capacity of 110 seats, but only 11 parking spaces are planned for the restaurant and Mr. Ryan fears that these would be used up by the employees for the restaurant. He advised the Commission that a common rule for parking for restaurants is 3 seats per space., He also questions the locations of the trash enclosures and that the asphalt is not broken up sufficiently. He also stated that the commercial space should not look like atypical "shopping center" and should be designed to fit into this area. . He recommended that the application be continued to let the staff and the applicant address some of the concerns. Page 5 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental.Commission Meeting Jay Peterson stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires • a specific number of parking spaces, and these are the guidelines that are followed in setting out the parking.in this project. It is his feeling that the project will need less parking than the numbers proposed for the project. Steve Kirby, Architect with Briner, Perkin & Scott stated that they have calculated the parking required by the Zoning Ordinance. They have planned for 232 parking spaces. He stated that he knows about the concerns of parking spaces per unit, and the turning ratio at the end of the lots. He went on to explain the site plan with the open spaces, trees and landscaping and the arrangement of the parking. He further explained that an alternative to additional parking (29 spaces) would be to use the highway right -of --way along old Highway #6, but that it would be very expensive because of the necessity to construct retaining walls and changing the access point into the project. He showed the location of the dumpster shelter's. They will be by paved areas where trucks can have access and will not be right in front of the units. He also explained that there would be snow stockpiling areas where it would not interfere with the parking spaces. Jay Peterson stated that they could look at increasing the parking during the phases of construction. Dick Ryan stated that the Town approved 198 housing units at the parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit, so they are not just requiring it.on this particular project. The Zoning Ordinance deals with minimum requirements, and it is his feeling that more parking is required for the Pitkin Creek Project. Jay Peterson feels that the Zoning Ordinance is the only tool the developers and architects have to work with and they have gone by these guidelines. He added that if the Zoning Ordinance is in error, that it should be changed. He stated they are willing to look at this problem.and if the Town Council wants it done, they will work it out. However, he feels strongly that this plan will work as is and that the Condominium Association can also put restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed per unit. Sandy Mills stated that she feels they should look into adding parking with each phase of construction if it looks like it will be necessary. Chuck Anderson feels that any more parking will turn the project into an urban apartment complex. He.feels that the restrictions as to one car per one - bedroom unit will alleviate the parking some- what. He is very concerned about aesthetics and would rather have people walk 50 feet to their parking space than have a sea of asphalt. He feels that most of the people who live here and want to live here are young, healthy people and are capable of walking this distance. He also explained to the Commission that the commercial space plans are not finalized and what they will be constructing will fit into the area. He feels that to put the project off to a later date would be an incredible hardship. They are on a strict timetable with the Page 6 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting 3- -27 -79 financing and construction. Jim Morgan feels that the parking is not adequate and the ratio should be 1.5. Jay Peterson stated that they will be assigning parking spaces and they don't want to encourage people to have cars, especially more than one. Sandy Mills cited Sandstone as an example, that locals are living there and the parking is adequate.for their needs. Craig Snowdon asked whether they had looked into covering a portion of the parking? Jay answered that this had been considered but that it would add to the cost of construction substantially and they are trying to keep the price of the units low for local people to be able to purchase them. Roger Tilkemeier stated that he likes the idea of restricting the number of cars. He feels that with the cost of gas and the expense of having a second car, that people would be amenable to restricting the number of cars they own. He feels this is an excellent experiment to try to reduce the number of vehicles, and they should be allowed to go with the parking guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance. A good selling point could be made of the fact that the project is on a bus route and try to loosen people's attachment to the automobile. He feels that this will be attractive to employees and could reduce their cost of living. He would like to see the plans approved, and if the parking situation becomes intolerable, they would have a relief valve in the highway right --of -way. The Town of Vail is in the process of acquiring old Highway #6, and would not need the 100 foot right-of-way that presently exists. Chuck Anderson added that the commercial space is not being developed to pull people off the highway, but as a convenience to the project and those people who live in the neighborhood. The commercial space will hopefully reduce the need for people to drive. The Commission was told that the developer will provide a bus pull --off at the front of the project. Mr. Drager stated that additional pull -offs for this area should be looked into and also areas for people who want to "share a ride." Roger Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the Development Plan for Pitkin Creek Park with the provision for a bus stop in cooperation with the Town of Vail and the provision for relief valve parking on the old Highway #6 right -of-way as discussed. Gerry White seconded the'Motion and the Commission voted uanimous approval. The fourth item on the agenda, a Minor Resubdivision of Lots 2 and 3, Block 8,_Bighhorn Subdivision Third Addition. 0 Jim Rubin explained this to the Commission. They are Page 7 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting - 3- 27--79 . proposing removal of the lot line and creating one lot and are proposing the construction of 5 units. He stated that the staff recommends approval of the replatting and removal of the lot line. After further discussion, Sandy Mills made the Motion to approve the minor resubdivision of Lots 2 and 3, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision Third Addition with the stipulation that the eastern section of the lot be left as open space. The Motion was seconded by Gerry White and the Commission voted unanimous approval. The fifth item on the agenda is a Preliminary Discussion of the Conditional Use Permit Request for the Schober Building in. Commercial Core I. Craig Snowdon was present representing the owner of the Schober Building and advised the Commission that he has reapplied for the Conditional Use Permit and will be coming in for a formal presentation on April 10, 1979. He explained his second proposal in relation to the first proposal that the Commission turned down. He showed them drawings of the second proposal and explained that on the first level, they are revising the entry and on the stream side there will be an addition of underground storage with landscaping on top. This will give them more green space around the building. The enclosed restaurant patio is stall planned as a greenhouse effect, but they have pulled-it back 10 feet so that it meets all requirements. It will curve around the building corner and makes this space much more attractive by removing the dirt catching area that is there now. On the ski shop level, they have pulled the front back 5 feet and developed the arcade along the front of the building: On the third level, they plan to build over the dock. The first proposal asked for an additional 992 sq. ft., and this proposal is adding only 715 sq. ft. On the 4th level, with the existing large condominium and the two accommodation units, the owner is now requesting two large condominiums rather than the first proposal for three units. The units would share the back deck where there would be saunas and a Hot Tub. On the fifth level, there would be a storage area (which would not count as GRFA) and they would be adding a bedroom (loft). He showed the Commission the site plan with the improvements proposed and stated that the owner is interested in a joint effort with the Town of Vail on the landscaped areas, etc.., around the Creekside steps. He stated that as far as the Commission's concerns with the.location of the loading zone, the relocation of the elevator would prevent parking of vehicles here. He advised the Commission that in regard to the additional sq. ft.., the first proposal was for a total . of 2,900 sq. ft., the second proposal is for 1,793 sq. ft. Page 8 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental Commission Meeting - 3 -27 -79 Pepi Gramshammer was present to speak.to the Commission. He is concerned about the parking and delivery vehicles. He has had alot of trouble with this around his building and feels the congestion will worsen if the Schober Building is enlarged. He advised the Commission that he could add more footage to his own building, but.he thinks this is the wrong way to go, that open areas have to be retained in the Core and that buildings should not be built to their maximum. Craig Snowdon feels that this proposal eliminates the problem with delivery vehicles, that with the official loading zone as established on Gore Creek Dr., there will not be a problem. He also advised the Commission that owners of units in the Village. Centre have talked with him and are very interested in seeing.these improvements done because this will definitely improve their view across the creek. Larry Rider, Town of Vail Attorney, addressed some of the concernz- that the Commission has had with proposed additions to buildings in Commercial Core I, specifically the applications for Conditional Use Permits in the Core. He stated that this is a problem that plagues Conditional Use Permits and that courts have said they do not create a precedent, but there is the problem of being consistently inconsistent and the court may look at this and say it is unfair. He stated that a Conditional Use.Permit is given for .a permitted use, but because of potential adverse impacts, they have to be reviewed. If these adverse impacts can be alleviated, the Conditional Use Permit should be approved. If they cannot be alleviated, it should be denied. He:went on to explain that the criteria attempts to specify the adverse impacts, such as, if the increase will cut off light and air, or if there will be more traffic congestion. If there is no alleviation of problems created by the expansion, the Conditional Use Permit should then be denied. But, if they can be alleviated by design alternative or other conditions, it should be approved. He also feels that if the Planning & Environmental Commission does not want to see any expansions that they should look to amending the Zoning Ordinance. Craig Snowdon feels that the owner is very positive about making his building a better building and that he is not forcing the maximum for this building at all. Gerry White thinks that this decision may impact the entire community with future build outs. Sandy Mills asked whether the decision should be to.-keep Commercial Core I the same forever by eliminating expansions through . the Zoning Ordinance. Craig Snowdon asked the Commission whether they can comment if it is worth it for the owner to come through with his Page 9 - MINUTES Planning & Environmental. Commission Meeting - 3- -27 -79 formal presentation. Pam Hopkins, Mr. Snowdon's associate, reels that the Planning & Environmental Commission has to have guidelines for incentives to clean up and improve the buildings in the Core. Craig Snowdon feels that the Planning & Environmental Commission has to look at the proposal in regard to its pluses and minuses, if the pluses outweigh the minuses, they should consider it a good proposal. Sandy Mills and Eton Todd spoke positively about the revised proposal. Gerry White said that he thought the proposal did make some positive changes to the building. Ed Drager and Jack Goehl had no further comments. (Jim Morgan and Roger Tilkemeier had left the meeting before this time.) With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:55 P.M. � 40 C7 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 28, 1980 RE: Front and Side Setback.Variance Request to construct an Underground Garage for Eve B. Nott on Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Village 13th. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant wishes to construct an underground two -car garage encroach- ing 12 feet into the western side setback and approximately three feet into the front setback. The applicant feels that building the garage. as far west as is possible is the most advantageous due to the preserva- tion of numerous trees to the east and for safety reasons (avoiding poor sight lines to the east from the curve in the road). CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Munici al Code the De artment'of Commuri t DOVOIP ment recommends tabling 'of the 'requested 'VariancO 'based upon the 'following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of there uested variance to other existing or potential uses'And 'structures'in'the'vicinity. The adjacent lot to the west was recently approved for the construction of a duplex. At the time of DRB submittal, it was unsure whether or not the parking for the proposal was to be underground or surface. Since DRB can only loop at one plan the surface parking proposal was chosen. There was considerable discussion regarding design considerations for the parking solutions along the north slide of Bald Mountain Road in the immediate area now under consideration. The feeling of DRB was to work toward a design solution which would avoid a continuous string of garage doors right off the road. The Department of Community Development will be receiving within the next few days a resubmittal for the lot to the west of the Nott's for underground parking garages (one of the original proposals). We feel more study is needed at this point to work toward a unified design for these two parcels because of their impacts upon each other. The degree to which relief'from'the struct or literal interpretation and U • Nott Variance 1 -28 -80 Page Two Enforcement of the fifteen foot setback on the west side of the property line would necessitate removal of several Aspen trees to the east. We feel the saving of trees and natural topography on a site is good reason to grant a variance. However, upon site inspection it was noted that a 12 foot variance may not be warranted. It appears there is enough room to reduce the side.setback variance and still not remove any trees. This should be investigated. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation arid'traff is facilities public facilities and utilities,'and public safety. Although the sight lines are poor looking down the curve toward the east, it does not appear there is ample area to construct a back in so that backing on to the road could be avoided. Siting the garage as far to the west as is feasible aids the safety factor. Such other factors and criteria as the 'commissiori deems applicable to the ro sed'variarice. Staff feels that in general., underground parking, well.- designed, is a superior solution to surf act parking. The proposal will complement the site by retaining natural topography and vegetation. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a' variance: That the granting of the variance will not consititute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,.or materially injurious to properties or improvemtns in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical, difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Nott Variance 1 -28 -80 Page Three RECOMMENDATION: We recommend tabling this request so that time is allowed to study and adequately solve design problems occurring between the Nott's property and the lot adjacent on the West. • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 22, 1980 RE: GRFA Variance Request For Units 23 and 25, Lions Mane Phase II DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Variance is to allow the improvement of the two remaining upstairs loft areas in Lions Mane Phase II with the condition that two of the four upper units owned by Marvin Simon remain as Employee (Long Term) Housing for a seven year period. The present situation is that there is upstairs space in both units that is habitable from a height and size standpoint, but.is not from an access and fire safety standpoint. The space preexisted when the building was annexed into the Town. At the time of annexation, three of the seven upper floor units had the space already converted into living areas. Building permits werer also granted by the Town for two of the remaining four units, to finish the improvements already started. The request is to allow the same improvements of the two remaining units. This adds approximately 300 square feet consisting of two bedrooms and one bathroom to each unit. ( A total history of this project is enclosed in your packet.) CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon-review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structurss_in the vicinity. There is no other building in the Lionsridge area that has been brought to our attention as having liveable space as accessible as that in the upper level units as that in Lions Mane Phase II. The decree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve conipAtibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without graAt of special rivilege. The hardship is that this space is and will probably continue to be used as habitable space. It is impossible to coninually police a situation like this, and it is probably in everybody's best interest • Lionsmane Phase II Page Two • especially with the employee housing restriction, to make the space truly safe for occupancy. The effect of the requested varia of population, transportation an_c and utilities and public safety. but ion facilities One potential negative impact of this request is parking. There is presently only one parking space per condominium unit (which does not include seven lock -off apartments). Marvin Simon, however, has agreed to work with the Town of provide more parking by cutting into the front bank along Lionsridge Loop and parking cars vertical to the building. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. There are no other factors deemed applicable. F TNnTNC,q The PlanninE and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of i special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same distract. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,.or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the.vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development is recommending approval. We feel that it is improving an existing dangerous situation and is not precedent setting in that there is a unique history which goes with this space. A major factor in recommending approval is the employee housing provision. We are supporting a seven year time period which was the maximum time period acceptable to the owner, since we feel that the space is there and would probably continue to be used as living space anyway. The improvements being requested will mainly make it safer for future occupants. We also want to pursue the creation of the • additional parking.spaces, and would consider that to be on appropriate condition of approval. LIST 'OF 'MARVIN SIMON 'DOCUMENTS 1.) Lionsrnane Phase II-- History 2.) Memorandum Explaining Units in Question 3.) Floor Plan 4.) Court Decision 5.) PEC Memorandum 6.) PEC Minutes July 11 and 25, 1978 7.) Gerry White Letter 8.) Town Council Minutes August 1 and 15 9.) Jim Rubin Letter • C� J � 0 • LIONSMANE 'PHASE ' H i- HISTORY December, 1975 Lionsridge annexed Early, 1976 Condo Association requested Pierce and Carlisle to inspect to discuss smoke detectors Spring, 1977 Simon requested inspection prior to purchase (Pierce & Ziegler) July, 1977 Stop work order issued Aug. 5, 1977 Inspection by Pierce and Toughill 2 or 3 days later Toughill meeting with Simon Memo delivered by Simon Aug. 8, 1977 Bldg. permit issued for 22 & 24 Aug. 9, 1977 Agreement signed by Simon 23 & 25 Nov. 30, 1977 Reinspection Dec. 5, 1977 Letter -10 days to comply Feb. 17, 1978 Summons and complaint - -Dist. Court June 2, 1978 Court Decision (requiring Simon to go through Variance'Proceeding) July 25, 1978 Simon Variance Approved by PEC by Default (in excess of Time requirement) August 15, 1978 Simon Variance denied by Town Council by a 4 -3 vote. r� MliMORANDUM • Mr. Marvin Simon acquired 10 units located in Lions Mane Condominiums, Phase II located in vail, Colorado on the 14th day of-June,' 1977• Among those units were four, namely numbers 22, 23, 24 and 25. Each of these units consists of a main level with approximately 950 square feet of usable floor space, • separate lockoff unit with full kitchen and bath facilities in • studio apartment configuration and a second floor area of approximately 350 square feet. The main unit was designed and fixtured for use as 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, living room, kitchen and utility room and dining area. At the time of construction by the developer, the-second level of each of these four units was partially finished in the following manner: #22 This unit had been remodeled prior to Simon's acquisition due to a fire on November/27, 1975 in the unit, but at the time of purchase by Simon had straight stairway, carpeting, drywall, closets with doors, deck rails, no bath but plumbing .in wall and the second level space was wired. It had been being used as living space and a permit was first granted to repair the fire damage and subsequently to Simon to upgrade the existing second level space and install a bath to accomodate the improved living space. #24 This unit had never been remodeled or improved since construction, which was prior to annexation, but had drywall, carpeting, wiring, deck rails, bathroom, closets and was all finished on the second level at the time of Simon's acquisition. A permit was • • _.....granted to .Simon to open. up several wall, areas . to .improve the 1. headspace and access to the circular staircase which'Iia7d' • in a closet and to make other interior repairs and improvements. This unit had at the time of Simon's acquisition.a skylight in one upper level bedroom. It had been used as-bedroom space since its construction. 423 This unit at the time of acquisition by Simon had its second level space carpeted, fully drywalled, but no room divider wall as in #22 and 24, a steep straight stairway, deck rails, wiring, a fire exit popout skylight, no bath, but plumbing extensions. in the wall. This unit's second level as was the case with #22 and 24 had from the time of its construction been used as living space and a permit was requested to merely improve the existing nonconforming . use to make the space more desirable. it was a request to upgrade a stairway that was dangerous and in no way would.have increased density, but by improvement of the physical faculty into fully finished first class space so the unit could be rented to a family unit, rather than a group of singles. #.25 With respect to unit 25, Simon was requesting a permit to make interior modifications to the second level such as would bring -unit 25 into a similar condition as units 21, 22, 24, 26 and 27 all of which have fully finished second level space. He was requesting the right to put in a legal stairwell for ingress and egress, a conforming deck railing, doors, closets, a bath, adequate inspected wiring, carpet and to finish the space to a habitable infact, condition. It would have contained nothing additional over what was in several units prior to annexation or what was permitted by permit in units and 24. The space has h0torically been used as sleeping -area left and due to the unfinished nature of . the unit, has rented to groups of singles who increase density, 0 • parking and all other problems which exist in Lions Ridge. Prior to acquisition-of the ten units, Simon discussed the matter with the Town Building Inspector and was advised that certain repairs could be made, certain modifications would need a building permit and certain-modifications were not permitted by the Town under its building code and zoning ordinances. This later group of modifications included putting lofts in several of the studio units. There is some dispute as to actual requests and.affirmative responses with respect to modifications and improvements to the four main unit second floor areas in question In any event, building permits were issued for construction in units 22 and 24 which has been completed. The work consisted.of stairwell improvement, bath- room installation, general repairs, wiring and the like. This work made historically used bedroom space more habitable and upgraded it to the condition of units 21, 26 and 27 in the building. With the completion of that permitted work only.23 and 25'now are in an unfinished condition and requested repair to 23 is no different than that already permitted. Denial of that permit is discrimination without distinction. Unit 25, although it needs more work to bring it to a truly quality habitable level is not requesting anything not permitted in 22 and 24 and the permit would only allow 25 to enjoy the privileges, albeit some illegally converted, that all other second level units in the building currently enjoy. A request for a review of the denial of permits on units 23 and 25 is requested for the following reasons: 77­1 1. Modificat4ns requested merely improve the uses Y P to which the space .has h_..i. .s.tcricall __. been. P Pr_i o... r_ construction, aloei -t._ . not to code or according to filed plans, had been for bedroom use in the second levels. The areas have been accessed by make - 9 shift; non -code stairways and have been carpeted and had deck rails in the case of 23 and were plumbed for bathrooms. 2. To deny the owner the permit to upgrade the space historically used as sleeping space,on these two units,when all other second level units in the building have been either converted before annex ation,by the developers or owners; would result in a strict or literal enforcement of the regulations depraving Simon of privileges all owners of similar units in the same building. 3. Simon by acquiring the ten units has taken effective control of the Condominium Association and has caused the building to be completely redecorated to better compliment the neighborhood • in a high visibility area. The building has resurfaced its parking area, improved the visual appearance and is in the process of being sold to viable owners who will either live in the moderate priced units or rent to individuals or family units who are employed in the Vdil community. Simons influence has had a positive impact on the neighborhood and community by taking control of a real eyesore and improving its appearance and taking a literal slum and upgrading it to-an owner use project at least as good as any in the neighborhood. Further landscaping will bring trees, bushes and more vegetation to the site. Several solutions are under consideration to reduce the visual impact of the dumpster. L 7��_­I r 4 The Condominium, Association__ is, in ..title. -to, lot A-4, - -- __ to the East of the building and is in a position to donate that ground to the Town for open space. 5. The general upgrading has increased the general tax base of-the community and hopefully, especially if 23 and 25 can be upgraded to the state of all other Lions-Mane II second level units, eliminated the town's last flop house. You are respectfully requested to reconsider the denial of building permits to Marvin Simon for units 23 and 25 Lions Mane Phase II. If the' permits are not granted, the units will be sold, with only the second level being drywalled off as storage lofts. The future owners without a doubt will make the loft conversion without permit and not up to code. This is the inevitable result of denial, and granting the permit will allow only logical, code conforming construction and retain the upgraded character of this building. 0 • Is o � u � i u o u I � � c Rl 1 fi 0 14 ,3' -i 3 D C Lu 0 9 0 Z • • 0 • - -- __.11�l_TILE.._.hI STRI C'L COIJRT - - - - -- -- - - - - -- IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EACLE STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 3597 THE TOWN 'OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation, Plaintiff, vs . MARVIN B. SIMON, Defendant. REPORTER'S PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BE IT REMEMBERED that on Friday, June 2, 1978, . the same being a regular juridical day of the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Eagle, of the State of Colorado, the above - entitled cause came on for Hearing -on Preliminary Injunction, the HONORABLE WM. L. JONES, District Judge, presiding in the District Court in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. A P P E A R A N C E S: MR. LAWRENCE ESKWITH, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 1294, Vail, Colorado, 81657, appearing in the place of LAWRENCE RIDER, Attorney for the Town of Vail, P.O. Box 100, Vail, Colorado, 81657, appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff Town of Vail. MR. TERENCE J, QUINN, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 1110, Eagle, Colorado, 81631, appearing on behalf of the Defendant. WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were had and entered of record: N • • THE COURT:_^ All right, gentlemen.' The Court will • find, based on the definition of the Code--and whether you like it or not, the Town is stuck with it- =that the area in question, Units 23 and 25, was not habitable space. With that finding in mind, I think it then comes about that there is a building permit necessary, and accordingly, I would enjoin the defendant, his agents, contractors, servants, employees, and attorney from proceeding any further with actual construction until such permit is obtained. The Court recognizes full well that a variance may be required. The Court also fully recognizes that the zoning applied to this structure-is an absurdity in itself. To put a place in which already has three - quarter times the allowable • density doesn't really solve many problems. I would point out, Mr. Esqwith, in the section that you referred to about non - conforming uses, which I never can find - -if you will look at 18.64.040, entitled Uses, and read the entire paragraph, I think you will find it enlightening. Begin about the fifth line down. "No such non - conforming use shall be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or building floor area than is occupied on the effective date of the ordinance." That doesn't say to me residential floor area, it says building floor area, which means to me that we are concerned with that particular section of the ordinance. Density is not the number of rooms of a structure or the number of bathrooms or the number of people that are going to live there. What we are concerned with is how much of the site area we are going to be consuming with the structure, and this Court would think it appropriate for the defendant in this case to apply for a variance, and assuming that he otherwise complies with 1 W the applicable building codes, electrical codes, et cetera, that i are.all in effect these days, - that- wilLbe appropriate to P8ran � a variance under a situation such as this. That precise issue, is not in front of me at this time, and I can't rule on it at this time. For what it's worth and in the hopes that I won't be hearing this problem again, I will tell you that that's the way I feel about it. so, Mr. Simon, you will have to proceed to get a building permit. The Court recognizes that there is a lot of regu- lations in one's life any more, but I feel that building and zoning is necessary, and for what it's worth, Mr. Esqwith, in response to your argument, these things. are probably necessary in some people's minds so that it doesn't get to be any bigger mess, as opposed to getting to be a mess. I will permit the withdrawal of the ordinance, the adoptive ordinance, and the building code book, since I'm sure that you would have more use for that than_the Court has in its file. Exhibit 4, being the zoning map,can be withdrawn, and Exhibit S, being the building condominium map, can be with- drawn. Mr. Esqwith, do you wish to pursue further injunctive relief in the nature of a permanent injunction, or did the Court take care of that problem? MR. ESQWITH: your Honor, it's taken care of, once Mr. Simon applies for variance and somehow waives the position that it's a valid non - conforming use. Could we just say that if he applies for a variance, we'll see how that goes. THE COURT: He can reserve his right to petition again, if he wishes. It's obviously a non - conforming use. MR. QUINN: But a valid pre- existing non - conforming use. THE COURT: 1111 right. (Whereupon, the above matter was concluded.) • r �J 0 MEMORANDUM FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' TO PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION DATE 6 July 1978 REIN' Marvin Simon, LionsMane Phase 11, Units 23 &. 25 - Request for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance. Units 23 and 25 of Li.onsMane.Phase II have been the subject of a legal dispute since July 1977. Construction on lofts commenced without a Building Permit or Zoning approval and work was officially stopped. When construction then continued, a Summons and Complaint was issued and the issue was heard in Municipal Court. The Court dismissed the charges on a technicality. Our Department then requested permission from the Council to take the matter to District Court for a ruling. The Town requested an injunction to prevent use of.the portion of the units in vio- lation of Uniform Building Code and the Zoning Ordi.nanc'e, which preliminary injunction was granted with instructions given to Simon by Judge Jones to apply for the Variance and seek a Building Permit. The part of Lot 5, Block A on which the building is located contains 17,791 sq. ft. and the Medium Density Multiple Family zoning allows a maximum of 6,226.85 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area (GRFA). The existing building contains 16,801 sq. ft. excluding any of the "questionable" Loft areas. The proposed Variance would increase this non- conforming GRFA by approximately 300 sq. ft. Chapter 18.64, Non - Conforming Sites, uses, structures' and Site Improvements, is very specific about enlargement of non- conforming structures. Section 18.64.050 states that: "Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this title for the district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements may be enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations: Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the pre -- existing non - conforming structure." Larry Rader, in a previous memo to the Planning & Environmental Commission cautioned that we should deviate from these :standards only in unusual and extreme circumstances. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS (SECTION 18.62.060) 1. The relationship of the requested Variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Page 2 Memorandum - PEC Marvin Simon, LionsMane Phase II, Units 23 & 25 Request for Gross Residential Floor Area Variance. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed Variance. When the Lionsridge area was annexed to the Town, our Department, the Planning & Environmental Commission vandthe Council an felt the existing density was far too high, 35 units per acre, and zoned the existing buildings Medium Density so that no additional density could be added on the developed sites. The adjoining undeveloped sites were zoned either Residential Cluster or Low Density in an attempt to bring the overall density somewhat closer to the balance of the Town of Vail. The Growth Management Report confirmed that overpopulation is the biggest threat to the Gore. Valley. The requested Variance does not seem great; however, an average sized bedroom is only 120 sq. ft. If a proportionate amount of GRFA were added as bedrooms to each unit in Lmorerihaxe, our. peak population in this area could be increased by 25% Increases of this size thatulationb if term have a disasterous impact on pop number of multi - family units is considered. There have been no other GRFA Variances granted in the Lionsridge area. Two Variances of 80 sq. ft. each that added living space and not bedrooms were denied in Sandstone. Due to the extent that this building already exceeds the GRFA allowable, we do feel that this would be a grant of special privilege. The additional square footage would result in the GRFA exceeding what is allowed by almost 3007a. FINDINGS 1. That the granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations rties classified in the on other prope same District. s • Page 3 Memorandum -- PEC Marvin Simon, LionsMane Phase II, Units 23 & 25 -- Request for _ Gross Residential Floor Area Variance. 2. That the granting of the Variance could be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting this Variance could set a negative precedent by allowing excessively large multifamily units to be built or allowing additions on units which already exceed the GRFA requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Non - conforming structures should not be allowed to become more non -- conforming, particularly density. 3. That the Variance is not warranted for the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would nct deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same District. The applicant states that the hardship in this case is the number of people who have been using the space and the possible reduction resulting from the expansion. (See attached application.) We feel this is an absurd argument. The Department of Community Development strongly recommends denial of the Gross Residential Floor Area Variance sought for the reasons stated above. We also feel there has been no hardship shown in the request. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a physical hardship be demonstrated in order for a Variance to be granted. • 0 • APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE And /Or CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ordinance tlo, 8 (Series of 1973) Y Application Date June 9, 1973 Publication Dame Hearing Dame_ - — hearing Fee Final Decision date for Town Council P. 0. Box 733 I ibi;o • rrlarvin Simon - of -1-463 Va i 1 Vi ew i)r-Lve -, _:.. (Applicant) (Address) - Colorado , -- VgT'I Phone .426-4111 (Sta.te) (City) do hereby request permission to appear before the Vail Planning Commission to request the following: ( X } Variance from Article , Section ( ) Zoning Change from to ( ) Parking Variance ( ) Conditlonal Use Permit to allow Zone . For the following described property: Lot /tract , 8,lock Filing Number Clearly state purpose'and intent of this application To comU7_ete and finis`-) t'' ^e second 1eyel of un.i.ts_ &23 L��2 with t'-: e bu i 1 d i n S code lAon's 'M.nne Phase Il Condominium,s was annexed_ to t1 n _ as non- conformim,' since te& densi t exceed .d tie r ss resi(�entir L. .floor a.re.q. thRt t%:en wou'l_d be permitted-. • What do you feet is the basis for hardship in t•h i s case? '1?gese unf is hqd T)yyy ous ly been — -?� Used nV Ps Ilan A.S PIf?'1t U � 21,e, z'06 Uc"J tPd 00T!)1 e- an 1TJ.T11)rovrid e ') 'Z -' r .-per z.ons wit'-i their owm bedroom a.nd two_ba.t',is for ea.c -1 apartment. A1.1 of t lE, . ot'ler um)er l.(-vet Units' ' -bile been prE'yic)usbr COMI .eted exce�.)t t',ese two units. 140 ndd.1tiona.l f'l.00r sPace Wii1. be added. I L AGENDA PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COHMISSIGN July 11, 1978 work Session - 1:00 p.m. 1. Discussion of environmental goals and long -range planning. 2. Discussion of proposed PUD ordinance. Public Hearing - 3:_99__p_m- 1. Lionsmane Phase II, Marvin Simon - Request for GRFA variance for units 23 and 25, Lot 51 Block A, Lionsrid 'ge Filing No. I. 2. Alfred Uihlcin - Request for setback variance, Lots 4 and G, Bloc': 2 Vail Village Third Filing. 3. Learning Tree - Request for Condi�ional Use Permit to allow a private school in an Agricultural Zone District, Aiountain Bell Site. 4. Spa, Uri.da, N.V. - Requ.est. for parking variance, Lot 1, Block 2, I u Vail Lionshead Third Filing. 5. Canadas of Vail - Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow real estate office on first floor in a'Commercial Core 2 zone • district. G. Alder -- Request for Gross Residential Floor Area variance to allour�nh��„ a(Iditioii to Bighorn Terrace unit. I 7. Tiikemcier -- Request for setback variance to allow expansion of residence located on Toimhouse Site 1, a portion of Lot 2, Core Creek Meadows Filing No. l.. Noto to I'laimin" Ca�i�mission: B:1lazice; of 1ilelnDs will be roady Monday aft 'rnoon if you Want to pick thorn up. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Cathie J DATE: 1 -25 -80 RE: PEC Member to attend DRB Meetings Ed Drager has now attended Design Review Board for three months. We will have to decide who will start attending the meetings in February at Monday's meeting. Of course, Ed might volunteer for another three months. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 AGENDA February 25, 1980, 3:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of Minutes of 2- -11 -80 Meeting. 2.) Preliminary Approval of the Development Plan and Lot Line Vacation Request for Simba Run Condominium Project located on Lots 6-9 and Part of 10, Resubdi.vision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. 3.) Conditional Use Permit to allow an expansion of the existing 1st Bank Building located on Lot G, Vail Village Filing No. 2. 4.) Conditional. Use Permit to allow the construction of a Parking Structure and Transportation Facility on Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing and Lot 3, a R.esubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1. Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. 5.) Approval of a minor subdivision for Lots 11 and 13, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing in order to change the Lot Line in order to change the Lot Line between Lots 11 and 13 which increases the lot size of Lot 13 so that it is in excess of 15,000 square feet. (Withdrawn at request of applicant) 6.) Selection of a PEC member to attend DRB meetings. Ll To be published in the Vail Trail on February 22, 1980 • Minutes of the Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting of 2- -25 -80 Page One Members Present Ed Drager Dan Corcoran Sandy Mills Roger Tilkemeier Gerry White Jim Morgan (came in during Simba Run Slide Presentation) Town Council Person Present Staff Present Larry Eskwi.th Jim Rubin Chuck Donley Peter Patten Dick Ryan DRB Members in Audience Craig Snowdon Kris Sivertson Lew MesKimen Fritz Glade Since there was a problem with the Slide projector for the Simba Run Presentation, Item #3 was taken first. 3. Conditional Use Permit to allow an expansion of the existing lst Bank located on Lot G, Te Filing No. 2. Jay Peterson was present to represent the 1st Bank. He said he really doesn't have anything to add to the Staff Memo. Previously the Villa Cortina people had objected to this proposal but they now agree. Chuck Donkey made the presentation from the Staff. He said the CUP for this was approved over a year ago and has expired. He talked with the Villa Cortina people and they have withdrawn their objections. The proposal is improved. The Design Review Board looked at this conceptually and suggested more land- scaping and that has been incorporated into the current plans. Gerry White asked about the parking access. Jay pointed out on the plans how it would work. Dan Corcoran asked about employee parking and street parking. Darrell Lathrop said the employees would park behind the Chapel and the street parking will remain the same as it is now. Minutes of PEC Meeting 2 -25 -80 Page Two Craig Snowdon asked to see where the DRB suggestions had been incorporated and Chuck and Jay pointed them out. Gerry White asked if anyone had anymore questions. Sandy Mills asked about the uses of the new area. Darrell Lathrop said it would be for lobby, parking and storage. Ed Drager said he thought the loft area was for an.office. Darrell said it will be for storage. Ed asked if they would have to come back for another approval if it was to be used for an office and was told they would have to come back. Chuck Donley said DRB will have to see this again officially. Sandy Mills asked how many spaces will be where the existing parking is. Darrell Lathrop said they will have 18 where there are 20 spaces now. Sandy Mills made a motion to grant the Conditional Use Permit to allow an expansion of the existing 1st Bank Building located on Lot G, Vail Village Filing No. 2 as per the Staff Memo dated 2- 20 -80. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 0 Item #2 was now discussed. 2.) Approval of the Develc ment Plan and Lot Line Vacation Request for Simba Run Condominium Project located on Lots 6 -9 and part of 10 R.Pc,iffirli v; si en of Block C. Lionsridae Filing No. 1. Tom Briner and Gary Swetish gave the slide presentation again. Tam pointed out the reasons they had positioned the buildings the way that they have. He explained all the parking, landscaping. He explained the phasing. Phase I would be built first. That is the eastern most building. Phase II is the northern most building and Phase III is the Western most building. Gerry White asked what percentage of the parking is enclosed. Diana Toughill said 857. is enclosed. Gerry White asked the development schedule. Diana said they plan to start Phase I in the Fall of 1980 and complete early in 1982. Phase II, they plan to start in the Summer or Fall of 1982. Phase III, they plan to start in late 1983 or early 1984. Peter Patten explained the Staff's recommendations on this. He said the Staff has requested that they have 18 employee units instead of 10. Diana Toughill said they are agreeable to this. Peter explained that 18 when this Special Development District first came through the PEC, it was planned for Time Share Units. Under this new plan, some of the requirements would not be necessary as the impacts are different. • Minutes of PEC Meeting 2- -25-80 Page Three Peter said since Simba Run plans to run a shuttle system, the Staff does not feet that the Bus Turnoff is necessary. He and Diana met with Skip Gordon, Bus Supervisor, and Kent Rose Town.Engineer and they all came to this conclusion. They all felt the bus turnoff would not be necessary as the impacts are different, they will be providing shuttle service, the Sandstone Stop is not that far away, and additional stops would slow the service. The Staff feels that the ETR Report is accurate, the assumptions are correct and adequate. The Staff recomwnds approval based on the four conditions set forth in the memo of 2- 20 -80. Peter also mentioned that the Staff has requested that the five parking spaces on the surface be changed. Gary Swetish said that would be no problem as the Charter Bus parking which was required under the Time Share Plan, has been eliminated under this plan. Roger Tilkemeier asked what control there is over the shuttle system. What will stop the developer from stopping it as soon as they are finished with the project or the condo association from stopping it whenever they decide they don't want to pay for it anymore. Ed Drager said the owners will be taxpayers and have a right to public bus service. Peter said bus service could be provided if required and the developer is agreeable to providing a bus turn around, however, the Staff did not feel it was that far to the Sandstone or Valli Hi Stops. Sandy Mills said using a bus on the back side of the project would not be that inconvenient. Drager said even if there is a Shuttle Service, people are still going to use the public transportation system. Ed Drager said with a private system, it is usually very convenient for the developers or condo associations to sell the bus when they no longer find it necessary. Larry Eskwith said the.Special Development District regulations require that the developer provide the private system but there are no controls after the development is completed. Roger Tilkemeier said with the potential of the units being occupied at one time, (the developer is estimating that the units will only be occupied 6--5 weeks a year), he can't see saddling the developer with required times etc. to run the private system. Public Transportation should be provided. Jim Rubin said the Special Development District requires that a private bus system be provided. The Town Staff feels that the nearest bus stops are not that great a distance. With the density being as low as it is anticipated, they do not feel another bus stop is necessary and would only over burden the existing system. By not providing another bus Spull off, we would be encouraging than to use the private system. Minutes of PEC Meeting 2 -25 -80 Page Four Ed Drager asked if Jim is saying we should make it inconvenient to use the public system. He thinks this is counter to the purpose of the system. Jim Morgan asked how we can enforce the keeping of the private system. Jim Rubin said what he was saying was that to provide a public system, discourages the use of the private system. Diana Toughill said they are willing to do whatever is required of them. They will put in a bus stop if necessary, they will work to keep the shuttle system in the private decal-rations. Larry Eskwi:th said private decalarations can be changed. Roger Tilkemeier said there may.not be a demand for the system, then what happens? As taxpayers, they have a right to use the system. Diana Toughill said the two existing bus stops are only 800 feet east and 1200 feet west. Roger Tilkem ier said the foot paths to the Valli Hi bus stop is probably not plowed. Dick Ryan said the bike paths are all plowed for the school children. Ed Drager said none of the bike paths /foot paths are connected. Dick Ryan said they will be this summer. Roger Tilkemeier reiterated that the service should be provided to them. Ed Drager said there is already enough traffic on Lionsridge Loop. The problem at Vail Run certainly needs.to be relieved. Dick Ryan said Kent Rose is working on a solution to have a plowing system there with parking on one side three days a week and parking on the other side the alternating days. Dan Corcoran said they are parking illegally at Breakaway West. If the Police just enforced the no parking there, there would be no problem. Ed Drager said they are putting a lot of traffic into an already bad area. Roger Tilkemeier asked if the developers had worked with the Town Engineer to see what the impacts would be. When Potato Patch started, they had to work with the Town. Engineer. Roger thinks this needs to be addressed here. He thinks the Town Engineer needs to say whether that road can accommodate that much more traffic. Gerry White said before the Board can vote on this item, there needs to be qualifications in all of these areas. Ed Drager asked Ron Todd haw many cars would be generated on that road from the Selby /Tofel development. Ron said half of the cars would use Buffer Creek and the other half would use this road. iRoger Tilkemeier asked if a curb cut would be required to make the cut on the Frontage Road. Jim said it would be required by the State Highway Dept. r 1 Minutes. of PEC Meeting 2 -25 -80 Page Five Diana Toughill said they are not generating that much more traffic. Sandy Mills said they are trying to imagine what the worst possible case would be. She realizes what the developers are aniticipating as purchasers but the Board is think ahead to who the owners might be in five years down the road. Perhaps it would be all front range people who would generate a lot more traffic. Ed Drager made a motion to continue this item for 30 days so that further study can be done. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was five for the continuation and one abstention. (Dan Corcoran) Sandy Mills said she thinks they should discuss the problems they would like resolved at this time. Ed Drager asked to hear from Jon Eberle who had just come in regarding the bus problem. Jon said this was rather new to him. Peter and Chuck had met with Skip Gordon of his Staff to discuss the bus turn around. Ed Drager asked when the Environmental Impact Statement had been submitted. Diana Toughill said it was in early January. Jon Eberle said he didn't feel they would use the Valli Hi stop if they had to walk that far. He also feels there would be problems with another pull off on the Frontage Road in that area. There would definitely be an impact on the road behind. Jim Morgan asked if Jon is encouraging private shuttles. Jon said there is no real answer to that. Ed Drager asked if it Jon's opinion that they make the public system inconvenient so the private system is convenient. Jon Eberle said he would give an example. He said if the Town were to annex West Vail and the Roost wanted to continue their private system, he would not put a stop there. If the Roost discontinued their private system, he would put a stop there. Jim Morgan asked if he is saying we should encourage private systems. Jon said we should encourage private systons but provide public service. Gerry White said we should increase the public system and at the same time encourage private. He said he thinks we should have a special.work session to discuss all the problem areas discussed on this today. The attorney for the developers asked to speak. He said Diana Toughill . had gone to check on the date of submittal of the EIR and that they do not want this to be delayed any further. The impacts have been considered and the developers are willing to do whatever is required to get this approved. Diana returned and said they had submitted the EIR on January 21, 1980. Minutes of PEC Meeting of 2 -25-80 Page Six Lew MesKimen asked the attorney if he lived here. He said he did not. Lew said he should live up there and know what the traffic problem are. Ed Drager said the EIR only considered the traffic of a certain type of owner and not the second generation people. Kent Rose had joined the meeting and Ed Drager asked him about the impacts on the road. Kent said the road can handle the project. He said the problems of the older projects should not have to be taken care of by the new developers. He said they are going to implement a no parking procedure so that the road can be plowed better. He said he can do a study of the road if the Hoard desires, but he is sure he will come to the same conclusion that the road is adequate. Ed Drager asked about the Selby property. Kent said he did a study on the impact on the road by the Selby project. He concluded that the road is adequate as a lot of the people will use Buffer Creek Road instead. Gerry White asked DRB if they have anything to add. Fritz Glade said he speaks for Kris Sivertson, Lew MesKimen and himself. He said they don't want to see another Vail Spa. They had questions on the materials, massing etc. After the 1panema issue, they questioned the flat roofs. They questioned the reality of the landscaping. Is Craig Snowdon said he is the opposing vote of the DRB. He likes the Vail Spa and the massing of the Buildings. He likes the way it is setback from the highway. He feels we need relief from the Frontage Road. Roger Tilkemeier said that what Craig is saying is just reinforcing the statement Eldon Beck made a few years ago about buildings being perpendicular to the valley. Craig said he would like to see all three phases have different materials. Kris Sivertson said he likes the landscaping but would like to see more mature Plantings than three foot aspens. Ed Drager asked what phase the landscaping would be done in. Diana Toughill said the landscaping would be done in each phase if it would not be destroyed by the construction of the other phases. Sandy Mills said she likes the idea of the heavy trees along the Frontage Road but in the winter, Aspen trees are not going to hide a 60 foot building. Sandy Mills asked about the employees housing square footage. Diana Toughill said orignally they had planned the required 10 units and they were all to be two bedroom units of 850 square feet each. The Staff requested that they change this to 18 units and have a mix of studios, one bedroom, etc. Dick Ryan said the Staff felt this was a better mix. Sandy agrees it is a better mix. She asked.if they will rent to other than their own employees. Diana said they would have the same restrictions as the Valli Hi development. Dan Corcoran asked who will own the employee units. Diana said the developer will. L J Minutes of the PEC Meeting of 2 -25 -80 Page Seven Gerry White asked if anyone wanted to reverse the previous motion now.that some of the questions had been answered. Larry Eskwith said the EIR had been approved as a part of the total Special Development District so it didn't really matter when this revision was turned in. Dan Corcoran said he felt the issue was just being delayed by all these questions. The questions seemed to have been answered. Roger Tilkemeier said that he was not trying to delay the development but would like to questions answered. He would like a letter from Kent stating that the road would be adequate etc. Dick Ryan said if they do delay this, he would like to know what other information would be required before the next meeting. Diana Toughill said the EIR that was approved with the Special Development District in 1978 was for more density. Gerry White said the problems have been clarified somewhat and we could proceed. • Jim Morgan said he thinks this merits further study especially on the phasing of the landscaping. Dick Ryan said the final landscape plan should go to DRB, not PEC but the Planning Carmission could recommend some conditions. to the DRB. Diana Toughill said they are willing to set a dollar amount such as $250,000 for the landscaping and they would split it among the phases. Craig Snowdon asked what the PEC is approving. Jim Rubin said they are looking at the overall. concept. Roger Tilkemeier said he as not asking for the final landscaping plan. He is requesting that mature trees be planted. Jim Morgan said the PEC needs to know that the landscaping plan is an element of the design. Diana Toughill said with what.they have in their view corridor, they need to screen and they definitely have to have a good landscaping plan. Gerry White said this is all very confusing. He thinks the PEC should let the developer know what the definite problems are. He asked each member to state his feelings on the development plan. n U Minutes of the PEC Meetings of 2 -25-80 Page Eight Ed Drager said he two basic concerns. He thinks a bus sto p should be provided. Also he would like to see a more specific landscape plan. Diana Toughill said they are willing to live with whatever is required of them. Gerry White said "Ed, do you have any problem with the site or development plan ?" Ed Drager said he dial not. Roger Tilkemeier said he does not want to hold up the.developer. but he thinks the Staff and the Transportation. Department should review this again. He would like a letter from Kent Rose saying that the road is adequate. He would like a comnittment from the developer about putting in mature trees, not just a dollar amount. Sandy Mills said she thinks Skip and Jon should get together and come up with a definite reccnmendation. She thinks the stop on the back side is adequate. She thinks they need to get a committment Fran the developer about the landscaping plan and a written report from Kent Rose about the road. She would also like to see the Breakaway West Problem solved. She thinks the employee housing mix is good. She thinks the amenities should be open to the public even though she knows the developer prefers not to. She would like them committed to having the amenities open to the public. Diana Toughill said they prefer not to have the amenities open to the public but will do whatever is required. They will be under construction for two years and that can be decided during that time. Sandy Mills said she feels a limited membership is important. Sandy is also concerned with the flat roofs and the height of the buildings. Jim Morgan said he has a problem with the parking for the amenities. He doesn't agree with the EIR. He has a problem with the height. He feels the landscaping is a very important issue. Dan Corcoran said he doesn't feel a written report is necessary and if it is meant as a delay, it is a poor move. He thinks they should make the bus pull off as a condition of approval. Roger Tilkemeier said he is not trying to .delay anything by requesting the letter. It can be a condition of approval'if necessary. Ed Drager made a motion to resind his previous motion and move that this item be postponed until the 3- 10--80 meeting at which time the following items would be presented: 1. A resolution of the bus situation. 2. A statement form Kent Rose on the adequacy of the road. 3. Definite statement on the landscaping and a committment to plant mature trees. 4. Public usage of the amenities 5. Agreement to the Staff Conditions in the memo dated 2-20 -80 Jim Morgan seconded the motion. Jim Morgan asked Tom Briner if he could look at the height problem before the next meeting. Tom said by decreasing the height, they would have to cover more of the site. u Minutes of the PEC Meeting of 2 -25 -80 Page Nine The vote was taken. Ed Drager, Roger Tilkemeier, Jim Morgan, and Sandy Mills voted for the postponement. Gerry White voted against. Dan Corcoran abstained. Diana Toughill said she objectSto this postponement. Roger Tilkemeier said it just entails writing a letter committing to all these things. He doesn't understand why a two week delay is that important if they don't plan to start until this fall. Diana said they are already on the Town Council Agenda for March 4. Lew MesKimen said they shouldn't have gotten on the agenda without PEC approval. The attorney for the developer said they can't afford a delay at this time because they depend on presales and must get their marketing program under- way . Sandy Mills said the Board has been criticized in the past for approving projects just because the developer is in a hurry. She does not feel two weeks is an inconvenience or a hardship. Gerry White said they must move on to the next item. Item #4 was discussed next. 4.) Conditional Use Permit to allow the - construction of a ParkinE Structure and Transportation Facility on Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing and Lot 3. A Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1. Vail Lionshead 2nd Filinv. Gerry White said this is going to happen. Kent Rose made the presentation and answered questions of the Board and audience. Gerry White asked about the Landscaping. Kent said he didn't think it would be completed this sunmr. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a Parking Structure and Transportation Facility on Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing and Lot 3, A Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing as per the Staff Memo of 2- 20 --80. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous with the exception of Dan Corcoran who abstained. Item #1 was now discussed. 1. Approval of Minutes of 2 -11 -80 Meeting. Sandy Mills Made a motion to approve the minutes. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Minutes of the PEC Meeting of 2 -25 -80 Page Ten is6. Selection of a PFEC member to attend DRB meetings. Ed Drager agreed to attend the DRB meetings until May 1, 1980. Gerry White was chosen as alternate. Sandy Mills made a motion to adjourn. Jim Morgan seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 P.M. .7 LJ ' I n U 40 AIMky, �'7d Il� 11iIk I M PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ��� I DID A. • MID • i _. OMARr e� DATE: 2 -20 -80 RE: CONDITIONAL USE FOR lst BANK OF VAIL, A PORTION OF LOT G, VAIL VILLAGE 2nd FILING DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The lst Bank of Vail is reapplying for a Conditional Use Permit for an addition of 5060 square feet to their existing building. The previous permit expired last August and the bank has required full ownership on an additional.connecting parcel so they can expand an additional 2260 square feet over their original proposal. of 2800 square feet. The building is Located on a portion of lot G, Vail Village 2nd Filing which is zoned Public Accommodation (PA). A joint parking agreement is still in effect between lst Bank and the Vail Interfaith Chapel. This parking is being included as part of the requiarement needed for the proposed expansion. The zoning ordinance permits offsite parking as long as it is located within 300 feet of the user served. In this instance, the furthest parking space is approximately 200 feet from the nearest corner of the lst Bank Building. The last proposal also received a covered parking variance but this has been rectified with the inclusion of underground parking in the proposed addition. The last proposal received substantial protest from condominium owners in Villa Cortina (west of the bank). According to Will Obexing, President of the Villa Cortina Condominium Association, those problems have been resolved. The Association now supports the project. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS .x Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Cormunity Development recommends Approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and igpact of the use on development objectives of Town.-- - - , _ ._ ..�. By improving the existing facility, the Bank will be able to continue its service in its current centrally located facility. This will promote the development objectives of the Town. n • PBC Memo 1st Bank -Page Two 2 -20 -80 The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of - population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, And other'public f;,cil.ities and public facilities needs. The new proposal creates more landscaped areas than either the original plan or the existing situation. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion automotive and ne_dPstrl an Aa.fAty and awl nrmtrni ' 6,,ncc This.proposal will improve the current traffic situation at the lst Bank, however, it will also generate more bank staff (15 -16 people) and more customers. The Interfaith Chapel's parking problems should be alleviated. On the whole the proposal is a positive step toward improving traffic in the area. Effect upon the character of the area in which the be located including the scale anl'bulk'of'the p r to surrounding uses. )ro bsed'use is'to )used use in'.!-elation The character of the building conforms to the architecture of the surrounding area. DRB has given conceptual approval to the design. Such other factors and criteria as the Cc mission deems ap2licable to the r sed use. ,_...,-- • -• - -•— 'Ilse Design Review Board has conceptually approved the entire proposal for the lst Bank expansion. Their only suggestion was with regard to parking configuration and this idea has been incorporated into the plan. The environmental im environmental impact report. is the pK2pased use if an Chapter 15.56. No EIR is required. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be Approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the porposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PEC Memo Ist Bank Page Three 2 -20 -80 That the Proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. rI IUTIg l'XMrk,11 Ju rm: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF SIMBA RUN CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (FINAL PHASE OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5) AND IX7T LINE VACATION OF LOTS 6 -9 AND A PORTION OF LOT 10, RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK C, LIONSRIDGE FILING NO. 1. APPLICANT: Samba, Inc., represented by L.& M Professional Consultants, Inc. -- Diana Toughill ZONING: Special Development District 5 (Development Area B) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: East Vail Run, Special Development District 5 (Development Area A) West Valli. Hi Employee Housing Project North- Casolar Vail Subdivision, Approximately 25% Developed South -North Frontage Road, I -70 Interstate LAND USE STATISTICS: Site Area of Samba Run Building Utilization Areas Residential: Dwelling Units (GRFA) Common Area (Circulation) Amenities (pool, racquetball, etc) Parking: 171 Covered spaces 28 Surface spaces Service Yard Total Site Utilization Areas Building area at ground floor Percent of site Open Space Percent of Site 6.3 acres or 274,428 sq. ft. 139,000 square feet 25,000 square feet 11,500 square feet 51,300 square feet 7,200 square feet 6,300 square feet 58,049 square feet 21% 202,879 square feet 74% Total 274,248 square feet or 6.3 acres PEC Memo Simba Run -Page Two • 2 -20-80 Dwelling Units �. - Condominium Fmployee Rental TOTAL Average Simba Run SDD5 SDD 5 No. Sq. Ft./D.U. Sq. Ft. Total Sq. Ft. Total No. Total 129 19000 129,000 2029000 213 18 555 10.,000 10,000 18 147 139,000 272,000 231 The Simba Run project will complete the development of Special Development District Five (SDD 5). It is the third generation of development ideas for the site since SDD 5 was conceived in 1977. In October of 1978 an amendment to SDD 5 was adopted which allowed the site to be developed with interval ownership condominiums. Certain requirements and stipulations relating to interval ownership -type uses were included in the ordinance at that time. The number of units allowable was also reduced from 155 to 139, with 10 of those required to be employee housing units. The developer's prposal currently is not to have owner condominiums. Also, through meetings with the number of employee housing units proposed is It should be noted that the former proposal for units of 10,000 GWA, where as, now the proposal area. The advantage is a variation in sizing of 12- Studio Apartments 3-0ne Bedroom Apartments 3 -Two Bedroom Apartments interval ownership units but single the Conmmity Development Staff, 18, rather than the previous 10. employee units were 10 -two bedroom includes 18 units of the same floor the unis as follows: Rather than putting an individual that is here for the season in a unit with a stranger, he/she would have their own small apartment. Also, under this scheme, going by a ratio of one person /bedroom, one more person could be housed. SITE PLAN The 147 dwelling units will be constructed with three buildings consisting of three construction phases. Major recreational amenities (open to the public on a limited membership basis) are three tennis courts, two racquetball courts, an indoor swimming pool and jacuzzi. The intent is "to creat a luxurious resort complex with a corresponding high - quality amenity package" (Simba Run Environmental Impact Report, January, 1980). Construction of Phase I (the easternmost building and covered parking) will begin in Fall of 1980. Phase II consists of the center building and the recreational amenities while the westernmost building comprises the third phase. • L� PBC Memo Simba Run Page Three 2 -20 -80 The site is vacant with a mi.nimun of ground cover or trees. With the exception of some steep slopes on the northwest portion of the property the site is basically flat. The buildings have been oriented toward views.of the Gondola (SE) and positioned to the rear of the property. An aggressive landscaping plan is proposed to create a park -type atmosphere between the Frontage Road and the buildings. A tot lot and bicycle path will be located in this area. As required by SDD 5, 85% of the parking is underground (171 Spaces). There are 28 surface parking spaces, also with the required total of 199 being mt. A requirement under SDD 5 when it was.felt the Units would be time - shared was to provide for charter bus parking. The developer has included this area north of the tennis courts but it is felt by both the Staff and the developer that this will not be needed now that the units will not be timeshared. This will increase the amount of green space in the project. Another stipulation of the ordinance is that no parking be located on the south side of any building. The developer has proposed a.short- team -- five -car lot in front of the main office which will have to be removed. These spaces could be put into the surfact lot on the Northwest corner of the site. Another requirement in SDD 5 is the construction of a public bus shelter and turn -off. After discussions with the Transportation and Public Works Department, it was felt that the with the close proximity of the Sandstone bus stop and the Valli Hi bus stop it was probably not necessary.to include another turn -off on the Sirrba Run property. Moreover, the ordinance requires the developer to provide an on -going shuttle system for the occupants of the project which further decreases the need for Town of Vail bus service. Thus, when peak occupancy is reached around Christmas and Easter, the private shuttle service can be correspondingly increased. The design of the buildings is such that the lowest heights are realized closest to the Frontage Road, the area of highest visual impact. Driving west on the Frontage Road there will be a.large visual impact of continuous buildings. The opposite effect is experienced upon driving in an easterly direction. The impact going west is addressed through heavy planting of Aspen trees. The facades of the structures are. "broken up" through protusions and insets. This is an attempt to reduce the visual impact of the size of the buildings. All other remaining aspects of the SDD 5 are met in the development proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Staff feels the EIR filed for the project is thorough and, for the most part, well- documented. There are many asswnptions made as to the behavior patterns of the future owners of the units, however, these types of hypothesis are an inherent and necessary aspect of any EIR or EIS. A conscientious effort has been made by the developer to include all relevant information needed to assess the impacts 1. of the proposed development. The Staff feels that the EIR is an adequate document for this type of analysis. PEC Memo Samba Run Page Four 2-- 20--80 RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Camrnmity Development reccmmnds approval of the Simba Run Condominiums subject to the following conditions: 1.) A public bicycle path be constructed to Town of Vail standards through the property frcm the Western edge of Vail Run to the eastern edge of Valli -Hi. 2.) That 18 employee housing units be constructed according to the sizing square footage as this memorandum indicates. 3.) The developer provide the private shuttle transportation service in sufficient form so that a high degree of service is provided to the occupants of the project. 4.) The five parking spaces in front.of the main office be removed and replaced to the south of the buildings or underground. • sli�fy� f ::111 Ist . TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: COM11+1(NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 2 -20 -80 RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDEfiATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PARKING STRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD AND EAST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE WA1PT.WT(1,q e APPLICANT: Vail Associates, Inc. AREA: Approxi.ma,tely 5.23 acres ZONING: (P) Parking and (HDMF) High Density Multi Family PROPOSED USE: Parking Structure, Information Booth, the two buildings for transportation related uses and an information center. PROPOSAL Proposed is the construction of the LionsHead Transportation Center that will contain approximately 1120 parking spaces, 18 bus parking spaces, and informa- tion building, and two possible buildings for similar facilities and services as the present transportation center. The top deck closest to the frontage road is being structually designed to handle buses. Approximately 30 buses could be parked on this area or 180 automobiles. Design of the information center and two possible buildngs on the south side will not be done until later in the spring. The architect has been working to get the structure design completed. The plans have been under review, by the Town Staff since 'December and we consider many of the problems have been resolved. 0 1TE31s�;� C : ►ft lu • 10: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMM OF COM&WITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 2 -20-80 RE: APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR TOTS 11 and 13, BLOCK 13, VAIL VALLEY lst FILING IN ORDER TO CHANCE THE LOT LINE IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE LOT LINE BETWEEN LOTS 11 and 13 WHICH INCREASES THE LOT SIZE OF LOT 13 SO THAT IT IS IN EXCESS OF 15,000 SQUARE FEED. (WITHDRAWN AT REQUEST OF APPLICANT) Rob Ford who had submitted this application called Jim Rubin on February 14 and said they are withdrawing the application. • VON u10Ti7 .111[ m TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1980 RE: SELECTION OF A PEC MEMBER TO ATTEND DRB MEETINGS. Jack Goehl has resigned from the Planning and Environmental Commission and therefore, we need to select a new person to attend the Design Review Board Meetings. Ed Drager has been good enough to attend the meetings the last two weeks in Jack's absence. 0 TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Dick Ryan, Ccffamity Development Director DATE: 2 -29-80 RE: Vail Village Urban Design Plan Last Tuesday Town Council reviewed and discussed the Vail. Village Urban Design Plan. In addition, the Design Review Board reviewed a preliminary draft of the Architectural Guidelines for Vail Village. The DRB will be having another meeting on the guidelines on March 13, 1980. At the study session on March 4th, Town Council will be requested to provide the Staff and consultant with director to proceed on developing the final urban design plan and other tools necessary to implement the plan. On the following page are five components of the Vail Village Plan that we need you to sign off on. Most of the Town Council members have received a copy of the.goals and policies, architectural guidelines and the service and delivery report. Enclosed in this packet are a copy of the goals and policies and for the • three Council persons who did not attend the work session last week a copy of the service and delivery report. As I see it now, the final product of the Vail Village and Vail Lions - Head study will consist of the following for Town Council review and approval. 1. A detail Urban Design Plan for Vail Village 2. A detail Urban Desing Plan for Vail LionsHead 3. Ordinance changes in Vail Village and Vail LionsHead dealing with: 1. Height 2. View Corridors 3. Sun /Shade 4. Street Enclosure 5. Building Expansions 4. Architectural guidelines for Vail Village, Vail LionsHead and the transition area. This would be used by the Staff and Design Review Board for projects in all three areas. 5. Requirements for construction in Vail Village and Vail LionsHead. (A draft of the requirements are enclosed. ) 41 Memo to Town Council 2-29-80-Page Two is 6. An ordinance for the control and restriction of vehicles in the Vail Village core. 7. in addition, the staff would propose that there would be a review of the Urban Design Plans each year to see what updating if necessary is needed. If needed, the staff would then hold workshop meetings for corm7unity input similar to the current process and then present the proposed changes to Town Council at a study session. The staff is also looking at having two times of the year when applications for proposals in Vail Village and Vail LionsHead would be accepted. This would allow the Staff, Planning Commission and Town Council to review and see the impacts of several proposals on both Villages and the Community. • r � 10 0 VAIL VILLAGE PLAN COMPONENTS GOALS /POLICIES -- Council guidelines to enable staff implementation ❑ FRAMEWORK PLAN - Graphic expression of general objectives e. Circulation -- Bus /Auto /Truck • Pedestrianization e Character Districts e Building /Open Space a Major View Planes n.SERVICE/DELIVERY - Workshop /study report & recommendations for action URBAN DESIGN PLAN - Schematic diagrams to express detailed planning & design objectives e Bridge Street /Gore Creek Drive e East Meadow Drive e West Meadow Drive ( e LionsHead ) ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES - Key architectural character elements identified, described and documented 1. Context criteria - views, sun, service, etc. e Building Height & Missing a Windows e Setbacks e Trash e Facades a Accent Elements e Roofs e Landscape Elements ® Balconies e Lighting 2. Review procedures. GOALS AND POLICIES TOWN OF VAIL . URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK 1. Vail has evolved to its present form as the result of common assumptions about character and function implemented through private individual decisions. As such, while the Town has achieved a certain consistency and quality, the potential and even need for change still exists. Change which builds upon and enhances the existing character, quality and vitality of the Town will not be discouraged. 2. ' The Town, with citizen input, will take an active role in the development of an urban design plan to guide future development in the core areas. Such a plan, and its various components, will represent the development objectives of the community and will serve to identify, and express a general direction in the resolution of major development concerns in the core areas. o The Urban Design Plan Framework Plan -- Town -wide planning objectives Policies -- General policy and goal statements to implement the Plan Sub -area Urban Design Guides -- Specific planning objectives for sub -areas Architectural Guidelines -- Key architectural elements generally prescribed e Adoption of the Plan and incorporation into ordinances as appropriate • Public R.O.W. expansion • An annual process with citizen input to periodically review and amflend the Plan 3. The Town of Vail is comprised of two interrelated core areas, and a transition zore, each with its own general visual character reflected in architectural and urban fcrm. All-development in these areas shall be consistent with the general character of that area. e Architectural guidelines 4. Pedestrian circulation is to be encouraged in the core areas and an interconnected network of pedestrian ways will be developed to link the core areas and provide a pleasant, safe, continuous experience for pedestrians. i Designated pedestrian system and levels of pedestrianization s Development standards for ' Building height, massing Patios Sun /shade Activity .generation /land use Infill /open.space Levels of pedestrianization Pedestrian scale Service agreements • Time zoning and service parking to reduce conflicts I,* TOWN OF VAIL I&- C] • o Improvements to vehicles, to the Frontage Road area (minimize intrusion into core). ® Consistent design character for improvements in Town R.O.W. and other public spaces. 5. Vail's mountain valley setting is an important part of its identity, and should be recognized in the planning and development of the Village, Lionshead and the connecting area through sensitivity to views, climate, and other physical characteristics of the environs. 9 Important view planes identified and preserved a Sun -shade restrictions * Use of native or complementary materials. e Emphasis on Gore Creek, fill Creek February 29, 1980 TO: Dick Ryan, Cormmity Development Director FROM: Steve Patterson, Building Official RE: BUILDING CCWS°IFU TION IN VAIL VILLAGE AND LiONSBEAD CORE AREAS 1. Exterior work may be done from November 15 thru April 15 and from June 10 thru September 30 as long as a decorative fence, approved by Building and Planning departments, is erected around entire construction project. 2. Exterior irk from April 16 through June 9 and from October 1 thru November 14 will be required to provide nominal fencing around project. To be approved by Building and Planning departments. 3. All fencing is to be approved by Building and Planning departments as to design and locations prior to any exterior work. 4. Interior work on any structure will have no additional restrictions, other than those already in effect, for the entire year. 5. A maximum of 1 permanent job vehicle — location will be determined by the Town of Vail - at all times between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. only. 6. Delivery vehicles for construction supplies will be allowed a maximum of 30 minute delivery time on job site. 7. All building material must be either stored inside structure completely or if material is too large to be stored inside then said material will be located inside fenced area. S. No permits will be issued for either core area unless a time schedule is received and approved by Building and Planning Departments. 9. When sidewalks, walkways, vehicular alleys, or any pedestrian area is to be altered (temporary or permanent), then temporary facilities will be provided prior to construction after approval has been given by Building and Planning departments. 0 t • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA February 11, 1980, 3:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of minutes of January 28, 1980 meeting. 2.) Preliminary discussion of Development Plan and Lot Line Vacation Request for Simba Run Condaninium Project located on Lots 6 -9 and a portion of 10, Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. 3.) Approval of Sunwood Condominium Map. (Located in East Vail) 4.) Setback Variance to allow an underground garage on Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Village 13th. (Nott Residence) 5.) Approval of a Plat Map for Vail Golfcourse Townhom°s Phase I To be published in the Vail Trail on February 8, 1980 p PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting of 2 -11 -80 0 Members Present Members Not Present Roger Tilkemeier Jack Goehl Ed Drager Gerry White Sandy Mills Dan Corcoran Jim Morgan (came in during Simba Run presentation) Staff Present Peter Patten Chuck Donley Dick Ryan Larry Eskwi.th was in building and available if needed. Ron Todd, the Council person assigned to the meeting was at a County meeting. Ed Drager chaired the meeting in the absence of Gerry White. Item #4 was taken first. 4. Setback Variance for the Nott Residence to allow an underground garage on Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Village'13th. . Peter Patten explained what had happened at the two Design Review Board Meetings since the last PEC meeting. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to approve the Setback Variance for the Nott Residence to allow an underground garage on Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Village 13th. Sandy Mills said she would second the motion but asked if the plans are now acceptable to the neighbors. Peter explained that representatives of the neighbors had been present at the DRB meeting and that Mrs. Nott had worked with David Peel, the Mullin /Serafin architect, to.satisfy everyone. Peter also explained that this must go to Design Review Board again for final approval. The vote was taken. Ed Drager, Roger Tillceneier, and Sandy Mills voted for the approval. Dan Corcoran abstained. Jim Morgan had not yet arrived. The motion passed. Item #2 was taken next. 2. PreliminM discussion of Development Plan and Lot Line Vacation Request for Simba Run Condominium Project located on Lots 6 -9 and'a 122 rtion of 10 Resubdivision of Block C.'Lion.sridg Filing No. 1. This is only a preliminary discussion of this item. Official publication of the Public Hearing on this item is for February 25, 1980. Diana Toughill, representing the Developer, introduced the architects and mechanical engineer for the project and gave a brief history of the project. • PEC Minutes of 2 -11 -80 Page Two • Diana explained that they have planned 129 units plus 18 employee housing units. Originally only 10 employee housing units were planned because that is what the zoning required. However, the staff requested that additional employee housing units be added if possible. Torn Briner and Clary Swetish gave a slide presentation of the Project. The Board looked at the model and asked questions. Everyone agreed that they should work to improve the bus stop area. There were questions raised about the height of buildings. The average height is 45 feet with the highest building being 60 feet. The Board discussed the location of the tot lot. There was a discussion about the potential owners of the units. The developers feel they will have the same kind of buyers that they have at the Spa which is people who will only be spending about six weeks a year here. There will be a minim= of short term rentals and very few cars parking there. Jim Morgan expressed a concern that he thinks that the developers are assuming that everything is going to be the same as at the Spa and he doesn't think this can be assumed. There was a discussion about encouraging developers not to build to their maximun. Diana said they had not built to their maximmn on the Spa; they built 55 units where 98 were allowed. However, they feel they need to build to the maximum in this location. Dick Ryan said downzoning would have to be drone before development plans are brought in or planned. Ed Drager asked about cutting down the size of the buildings. Tom Briner said they had reduced the height as much as possible. They had ended up with the buildings much closer because Valli Hi is 182 feet on their property. He feels the trees will hide a good portion of the project. There was a discussion of the landscaping at the Spa and what had been presented to the DRB about it. Diana said that should not be brought up in regard to this project. She also said they had been misrepresented at the Design Review Board. Sandy Mills said she would like the Town Council and Design Review Board to be notified that this will officially be discussed at the February 25 meeting so that anyone interested could attend and therefore, not cause problems for the developers later on. Everyone agreed that it would be best not to shuffle people back and forth between boards as has been happening lately. Sandy asked Cathie to see if a notice could be sent to the Council and DRB. 171 n LJ PEC Minutes of 2 -11 -80 Page Three Joe Lewandowski asked if the enployee housing would be a dormitory or individual apartments. Gary Sweetish said that they had originally planned ten two bedroom apartments. However, the staff requested that they break up the units making some of them studios, some one bedroom and sane two bedrooms. They have not increased the square footage but have changed the units from ten to eighteen. Joe Lewandowski asked if the employees would be able to use the amenities. Diana said they would. Jim Morgan asked about public usage of the amenities. Diana said they would rather not have them open to the public but will work with the Town to do what they are required to do. The access roads were discussed. Kent Rose had joined the meeting so Ed Drager asked him about the roadway system in the area. Kent said the whole roadway system an the Lionsridge area is inadequate and becomes more so as the density grows. The whole system will eventually have to be upgraded. . It was pointed out that the official publication of the item.is for February 25 and motions for preliminary approval or disapproval will be made at that time. Diana said they would be prepared to do their presentation again. Item #1 was discussed at this tame. 1.) A royal of the minutes of January 28 1980'meeting. Sandy Mills said she had a question about the sentence on the Marvin Simon issue. It reads, "At first they.had a three foot loft approved but added five feet and had them approved that way." She does not think they were approved that way and wants it to read that they were built that way. Sandy made a motion to approve the minutes with the one above exception. Roger Tilkemeier seconded. The vote was unanimous. Items # 3 and 5 were discussed next, plus some additional plat maps. Golfcourse Townhoms Phase I Plat Ma Roger Tilkemeir made a motion to approve and sign this plat map. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. Everyone voted for approval with Dan Corcoran abstaining. Sunwood Condominium Plat Map Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to approve and sign this plat map. Sandy Mills seconded. The vote was unanimous. PEC Minutes of 2 -11 -80 Page Four • Pitkin Creek Townhomes Phase I Plat Map Sandy Malls made a motion to approve and sign this plat map. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The Board then brought up some questions they had. They requested that the staff write a letter to the Valli Hi developers requesting that they finish the staining; and painting and landscaping there as soon as possible. Cathie said she would talk with Jim about it. The Board was reminded about the 2:30 meeting Tuesday, February 12, with the Council on Zoning changes. Roger Tilkemeier asked a favor of the Board. He explained that the Forest Service is meeting at 7:30 P.M. on Thursday, February.14, to discuss uses of the land at Meadow Mountain. He owns the livery operation that has been operating there for years during the summer and asked the Planning Commission to support that use there in the form of a letter to the Forest Service. Jim Morgan made a motion to have the Staff put a letter together to send saying that the PEC supports the livery use at Meadow Mountain. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Peter Patten said he would draft the letter the next day. Sandy Mills asked Peter to check on the uses that were permitted at Potato Patch. She and several other members of the Board thought that the restaurant there was to be a small hot dog stand type operation and they.are now advertising for full time chefs etc. Peter said he would check on it. Jim Morgan asked if there is water for the Simba Run Project. Ed Drager said the way they are phasing the project, the Water District will be ready for them. They are in the process of upgrading the system. Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Sandy Mills seconded. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. The Board stayed for an informal discussion for a few more minutes. MEMO • TO: TOWN COUNCIL, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DATE: 2- -14 -80 RE: SIMBA RUN PRO= At the 2 -11 -80 Planning and Environmental Comnission Meeting, Diana Toughill, representing the developers of the Simba Run Project, made a presentation to the Board of proposed plans for the Simba Run Project located between the Valli Hi Employee Housing and Vail Run. The project will carne before the Board on February 25, 1980 for official preliminary approval. Some of the Board members requested that the Town Council and Design Review Board be invited to attend the February 25 meeting or let the Board know if they have any problems with the project, so that the developers will not be shuffled bank and forth between Boards as so many people have been lately. • Wt0lTXI .'1yl7i1r 0 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: 2 -8 -80 RE: Nott Residence Underground Garage Lot 10, Block 2, Vail Village 13th The Design Review Board reviewed the proposal for the Nott residence underground garage on February 7, 1980. No official action was taken but the Board's reaction was favorable. The Nott Is next door neighbors, the Mullins (Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 13th) proposal for an underground garage received final approval (4-0). Their design called for feathering back the road cut along the common property lines. The Notts have incorporated this into their proposal and they will be responsible for matching the Mullins contours since the two surveys do not match exactly. The Design Review Board favors the design concept for the garage, but they request that the Notts come in with a final proposal once the PEC gives its approval. r1 U n f,J TO: TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF CO11M/fWITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 2 -11 -80 SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TCiWN OF VAIL ZONING ORDINANCE A. HEIGHT We are proposing an additional height restriction to limit the height of a building at any point of the structure. Thus, in addition to the averaging system we now use there will be a maximum height at any point for a structure in each zone district. Also, we are proposing to eliminate the section in Supplemental. Regulations concerning exceptions to the height limit for sloping roofs. Zoning Ordinance Revisions are proposed as follows: DEFINITIONS: 18.04.170 HEIGHT (AVERAGE) "Average height" means the average of the vertical distances between the finished grade of a structure at the lowest point, the midpoint, and the highest point of each exterior wall more than twenty feet in length. Vertical distances at each point of each wall shall be to the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest ridge of a sloping roof. 18.04.175 HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) Maximum height shall be a vertical distance at any point of a structure measured from finished grade to the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the highest ridge of a sloping roof. 18.10.080 SR- HEIGHT, 18.12.080 R- HEIGHT, 18.13.075, R P /S- HEIGHT, 18.1.4.080 - HEIGHT: In the SFR, R, RP /S District, the average height of buildings shall be thirty feet. The maximum height at any point of the structure shall be thirty -five feet. 18.16.080 LDMF- HEIGHT, 18.18.080 MDMF- HEIGHT, 18.24.120 0C1- HEIGHT, 18.26.090 - CSC- HEIGHT, 18.30.080 HS- HEIGHT, The average height of buildings in the LDMF, MDMF, CC1, CC2, CSC, and HS District shall be thirty -five feet. The maximum height at any point of the structure shall be forty feet. 18.20.080 HDMF HEIGHT, 18.22.080 PA- HEIGHT • The average height of buildings in the HDMF and PA District shall be forty -five feet. The maximum height at any point of the structure shall be fifty feet. 18.32.080 A- HEIGHT The average height of buildings in the A District shall be twenty -five feet, except for accessory farm and agricultural buildings which may not exceed forty -five feet in height. The maximum height at any point of the structure shall be thirty feet. B. GRFA REDUCTIONS Concern has been expressed that the GRFA restrictions are too lax for larger residential lots. One duplex lot in Bighorn could have 10,328 square feet of habitable floor space and 70 lots could have a GRFA in excess of 5250 square feet. Addressing this concern, tends to be problem- atic, with the formula being manipulated to serve the Town's purposes. A maximum GRFA should be established and smaller lots should generally remain as they are. Listed below is an inventory of existing undeveloped lots and their present square footages. LOT AREA (SQUARE FEET) 0- 15,000 15,000- 25;000 25,000-30,000 30,000 & over Nunber of lots 41 198 29 65 of lot area 25% 10% 10% 5% Allowed GRFA 0 -3750 3750 -4750. 4750 -5250 5250 and over C. SLOPE There has been concern expressed over the scarring and visual problems with the development of steep slope areas in the valley. The staff has researched various ways of regulating hillside development and feels the following modifications to the zoning ordinance would lessen the aesthetic and environmental problems with the development of steep slope areas. The Staff is recommending two specific changes to accomplish the above objective. First, we feel it would be beneficial to eliminate the provision for lower density zones wherein building on any area of 407. or more slopes is allowed. Secondly, we feel there needs to be some fairly stringent hillside development policies on hillsides between 25 -407, to insure that safe and aesthetically - pleasing development of these important and easily disturbed areas. The following is a brief overview of each reccamendation and the reasons behind it. The hillside impacts of a large duplex built on 40% slopes can be severe. Any development in areas of.407. slope can potentially scar hillsides with large cuts and fills, destroy aesthetics of hillsides and /or cause the triggering of geological hazards such as slope failure and severe erosion. Thus, we feel allowing development on these slopes cannot be justified in light of these potential problems and the planning objectives of the Town. However, in no case will a lot with any reasonable development potential be denied at least 0 one unit. The Staff feels slopes between 257, and 407. often possess characteristics which warrant controls over their development. When a develont proposal . is presented for parcels containing at least half of the area with slopes over 257., we would propose two new regulations. First, there would be required a series of data and information commonly accepted throughout the country as mandatory background information for hillside develop- ment. Required would be information on.soils and geology, drainage, structural engineering, grading (cuts and fills), view impacts, roadway design, revegetation, retiinage and possibly an environmental impact statement (for larger projects). This last is an expansion of the restrictions for development on sites in excess of forty percent slope in lower density zones which is presently in the hazard regulations (18.69.050). Under this new scrutinization of hillside development, creative site and building designs minimizing negative environmental impacts would be encouraged. Secondly, the Planning Staff feels that it would be beneficial to lower hillside densities, thus lessening all of the impacts of their development. We would like the PEC and Council to examine the following system for reducing densities on hillsides which we feel could be an effective control. Various municipalities in California have pioneered hillside regulations. One of the most common controls is a sliding scale where density decreases as "average" slope increases. Average slope of a parcel is calculated by an accepted formula. We would propose to retain the rule that area over 407. is unbuildable and eliminate that area off the top. if the remainder of the parcel possesses an average slope . between 25% and 407,, the sliding scale would kick in. The density allowed would then be determined from the sliding scale. This scale would not allow for a more than 50% reduction in the number of units now permitted. Thus if the average slope is at 40 %, a 50% reduction would be in effect. It should be noted that the numbers for such a system are totally flexible and can be arranged to reflect the amount of density reduction the Town desires. The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA would be proportionally scaled down so that the allowed units were not excessively bulky. This could be accomplished through a similar sliding scale for this purpose. Here is an exaMle of how this system works: 0 • Wit_rt,lf,1NI� .l "Olt • PM F FT"( UAC. f/S 0 F"-PA Jj A < • ov LE 4- -Tb"Y'A I.- A -:,A 5f 5 5 7, �5 UAC. f/S 0 F"-PA Jj A < • ov LE 4- -Tb"Y'A I.- A -:,A D. Change Conditional Use Section in MDMF and Permitted and Conditional Use Section in HDAT to remove'Commerc al and Professional Office Uses 40 as either Permitted or Conditional Uses in both Zone DI trictS. The MDMF and MW Zone Districts are residential zone.districts generally used for Condominiums. We feel that commercial and office uses which are allowed by right in HDMF and through a Conditional Use Process in MDMF could have a detrimental impact on developments in those zone districts by allowing the spread of nonresidential uses into the residential zones. E. The percentage of non - residential uses should also be reduced from 207. to 101. and professional and business offices should be removed as Conditional. Uses in the PA Zone District. F. In the Residential Cluster Zone District, we would recommend changing the Density Control Section so that no more than four units would be allowed in any one building. (This would decrease the size of buildings in this Zone District.) G. On parking, we would suggest that the existing parking requirements for residential units be removed and replaced with the following: Accommodation Unit l space and Studio Apt. 1 bedroom 12 space 2 -4 bedrooms 2 spaces 5 bedroom 22 spaces (We feel that number of bedrooms is a better parking determinant than square footage) . H. The following is a list of larger parcels that remain undeveloped or partially developed at the present.time. We would like your input as to those that you feel should be investigated for potential downzoning. UNDEVEfAPED OR PARTIALLY DEVELOPED PARCELS (RC AND UP) Number of Units Residential Cluster 123 Potato Patch Club 18 Carnie Parcel g Sundial 30 Lionsridge Al & A2 13 Casolar I 13 0 Bighorn 3rd Additional (8 Lots) 30 Vail Village Inn 184 Accommodation Mansfield Village 150 Accommodation 156 Dwelling The Mark ( III ) 101 Accommodation 20 Felling Vail Run (II) 139 (Unless otherwise noted, the Units listed above are dwelling units which have kitchens) 0 Number of Units Low Density Multi Famil 221 Timberfalls (Present Phase) 1s Tinaberfalls (Future) 35 (Approximately) Racquet Club Townhomes 41 Golf Course Townhcmes 39 Pulis 25 Stm Vail (Lazier) 36 Casolar II (Lot A -7) 9 Bighorn 3rd Addition -4 Lots 18 Medium Density Multi FamijZ 201 Racquet Club 46 Hall A (Potato Patch) 8 Hall B (Potato Patch) 30 Snow Fox (Snow Lion -Phase II) 16 Lionsridge Filing No. 3 (3 parcels) 101 High Density Multi - Family 34 Old Firehouse 9 Willow Circle Parcels (4 parcels) 25 Additional dial Development District 435 Accommodation 415 Dwelling Pitkin Creek Park 100 Vail Village Inn 184 Accommodation Mansfield Village 150 Accommodation 156 Dwelling The Mark ( III ) 101 Accommodation 20 Felling Vail Run (II) 139 (Unless otherwise noted, the Units listed above are dwelling units which have kitchens) 0 The Staff is also presently looking at developing criteria for remnings, changing the appeal procedures so that they are more consistent throughout the Zoning Ordnance and trying to better clarify the call up procedure on Design Review. Board and Planning Commission matters appealed to the Council. We hope to have information on these utters to you shortly. • • • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRWMENTAL CONMISSIGN FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMi7NITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 2 -11 -80 Listed below are a series of options of GRFA restrictions. These forndas are not the only options available and they can be manipulated to suit the Town's needs. OPTICK LDT AREA (Square Feet) PEWENTAGE OF LOT AREA GRFA (Square Feet) 1 0- 15,000 25% 0 -3750 15,000 - 30,000 10% 3750 -5250 30,000 & Over 0% --___---------------------_---------------------- __- __-- ----------- - - -- -5250 -_ - -_ 2 0- 15,000 25% 0 -3750 15,000 - 25,000 10% 3750 -4750 ^25,000_& -Over 0%_ ____ ___ _____ __ ---------- _- _-- ---------- - - - --� - -- 4750_ -____ 3 0- 15,000 25% 0 -3750 • 15,000- 20,000 10% 3750 -4250 20,000 - 30,000 57, 4250 -4750 30.000 & Over 0% 4750 4 0- 15,000 251. 0 -3750 15,000- 30,000 5% 3750 -4500 30,000_& Over 0% 4500 5 0- 15,000 257. 0 --3750 15,000 - 20,000 10% 3750 -4250 25,000 & Over 01 4250 6 0- 15,000 25% 0 -3750 15,000 - 25,000 5% 3750 -4250 25,000 & Over 01 4250 Department of Comnunity Development Staff recomnends number four. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMTAL COMMISSION . AGIMA March 10, 1980 1:00 -3:00 P.M. Work Session on Vail Village and Lionshead 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1.) Approval of Minutes of 2- 25--80 Meeting 2.) Approval of Development Plan and Lot Line.Vacation Request for Simba Run Condcminium Project located on Lots 6 -9 and part of 10, Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1. 3.) Discussion of.Zoning on eight parcels of property presently owned by Forest Service which were recently annexed into the Town of Vail. by Ordinance No. 7, Series 1980. 4.) Conditional Use Permit to allow installation and use of an 18 hole miniature golf course on Lot 4, Block 1, Lionshead 1st Filing and Tract H, Lionshead 3rd Filing.. 5.) Parking Variance for the deletion of eight parking spaces underground to build additional meeting space at the Crest located on Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing No. 2. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting of March 10, 1080 Minutes Page One Manbers Present Gerry White Ed Drager Dan Corcoran Roger Tilkemeier Sandy Mills (carne in after Staff Presentation of Sumba Run) Member not present Jim Morgan Council Person Present Ron Todd Staff Members Present Peter Patten Dick Ryan Jim Rubin Item #2 was taken first. 2.) • Peter Patten gave the Staff Presentation. Peter said that the Board had been sent copies of letters and other information regarding the concerns on this project from the last meeting. Diana Toughill had met with Skip Gordon of the Transportation Department and Peter and they had gone out to the site and found the best place for the bus turn -off. Skip also felt a swelter would be best at the location and Diana, Toughill had agreed. Peter said at the time of the meting, Diana had said she would have to check with the architects regarding the location of the bus turn -off. Diana Toughill interjected here that there is no� problem with the turn -off and shelter at that location. They have not had time to draw it on the site plan, however. Peter said Kent Rose had sent a letter saying that he finds the road to be adequate. Peter also said the PEC had received a copy of the letter from the architects on the landscaping and a copy of the letter from the developer addressing the conditions raised at the 2- 25--50 meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission . 3 -10 -80 Minutes- -Page Two Simba Run continued Diana Toughill, representing the developer, asked if anyone had any questions regarding the material presented to them. Ed Drager asked who will pay for the private shuttle, public bus turn -off, and bus shelter. Diana said the developer. Ed also said that $250,000 is $1.25 /square foot of open space on the site. He does not feel that is adequate. Tom Briner said they had used that figure after consulting two qualified landscape architects. They both felt the dollar amount was sufficient. They also both said the planting of trees over 10 -12 feet tall would be difficult as they would not have continued growth. Ed Drager said that still does not satisfy him. Tom Briner said they don't want to hire a landscape architect until they Mow they have an approved project. Ed Drager said the project was presented and "sold" to the PBC as being heavily landscaped and his doesn't feel $250,000 worth of ten foot trees is adequate. Diana Toughill said two people who are experts in their field, said it was adequate. Peter Patten said he wanted.to point out one more condition that he forgot to mention earlier. The developer would like to offer 200 memberships in amenities. 129 would be for owners and the balance open to the public. Sandy Mills asked Ed Drager if he still feels the landscape plan is inadequate Tom Briner said larger trees will not grow. Roger Tilkemeier asked to be excused to call a landscape company in Denver. Sandy Mills asked if by adding another bus stop on Lionsridge Loop, the service will be of a lesser quality. Diana Toughill said that at their meeting at the site, Ship said by adding this stop, it might solve the problems that exist there now. Roger Tilkemeier returned and said he had called Rocky Mountain Tree experts and they had said a tree 16-18 feet tall (Cottonwood) would have no problem with continual growth if planted correctly. Tom Briner said they had planted large cottonwoods at the School Board offices in Eagle and they had all died. He said they would be glad to get them. He said he wanted to point out that you can get more trees at 12 feet than you can at 20 feet. He said this could be discussed further during the DRB process. Planning and Environmental Commission. 3 -10 -80 Minutes- -Page Three is Simba Run continued Dan Corcoran said that since the landscaping is to be done in phasing, the problem of whether 20 foot trees will grow could be Dandled during the phasing. Gerry White said spruce are much sturdier than Cottonwoods and would like to see those too. However, he does realize the cost. Ed Drager said he still has a concern that they are limiting themselves to $250,000 and that by the time they get to their last phase, that amount will have run out. Roger Tilkemeier said the condition should be phrased $250,000 or more. Diana Toughill said they had used that figure so that the Board would know that there is money. If more is required, they will use more. Sandy Mills said she still has several problems with this. There are large buildings here with a great impact and they need to be screened.. There is a need for a lot of Blue Spruce. She said perhaps PEC'should give a directive to DRB. Dan. Corcoran said the plan is what is important, not the dollar amount. Tom Briner said it is recommended that 1 3/4 to 2% of the total budget should go to landscaping. They are allocating more than that. Gerry White asked for a motion. Diana Toughill said at the completion of Phase I, they will need the site landscaped very well to sell Phase II and so on. They are going to make sure it looks good. Ed Drager said that is still not adequate. Gerry White asked for a motion. Since no one made a motion, Gerry made a motion to approve the Development Plan and Lot Line Vacation Request for Simmba Run Condominium Project located on Lots 6 -9 and part of 10, Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge Filing No. 1 including the conditions set forth by the staff in the 2 -25 -80 PEC packet and based on the letters in the 3 -10 -80 PEC packet with the modification that the landscaping be $250,000 or more as required to fulfill the plan that will be approved by the Design Review Board. Roger Tilkemneier seconded the motion. Roger Tilkemeier, Gerry White and Ed Drager voted for approval. Sandy Mills voted against and Dan Corcoran voted against. Sandy felt she still has problems with this project. 0 • Planning and Envirommntal Commission 3 -10 -80 Minutes- -Page Four 3.) Peter Patten made the staff presentation. This property was recently annexed into the Town and at that time the Forest Service was told that it would be zoned as close to the County zoning as possible. This would be Agricultural and Open Space. Peter went over the land on the map. Dan Corcoran said most of these were enforcement problems and were asked to be annexed by the Police Department. Jim Paxon of the Forest Service said the Federal Government's zoning overrides all other zoning. They are having this rezoned because State Law requires it. Agricultural and Open Space is the closest to the County Zoning that was on.these parcels prior to annexation and is closest to the Forest Service's Multiple Use Zone. Gerry White asked if they shouldn't be zoned Green Belt as Agricultural and Open Space permits residences. Jim Paxon said there are structures or roads on all these parcels now. 40 Ed Drager said if anyone were to negoitiate a trade in.the future, they would be able to build a residence under Agricultural and Open Space and they would not be able to build under Green Belt. Jim Paxon said he would like to see the Zoning allowed on Green Belt. He said the minimum lot size on these parcels is five acres. Roger Tilkemeier said the current zoning is 1 unit for every 35 acres. under Agricultural and Open Space, if a piece is under the 35 acres they are still allowed to build a unit. Ed Drager said if the land were zoned A & OS and were traded, then a unit could be built on it. Jim Paxon said he would like to see the Town acquire some of these lands. Gerry White said the intent is to restrict the zoning to the least dense use which he feels would be Green Belt. Roger Tilkemier said the zoning needs to be multiple use with grazing permitted. The Forest Service is only going through this rezoning because it is required by State Law. The Forest Service doesn't have to recognize Town Zoning. Planning and Environmental Commission 3 -10 -80 Minutes —Page Four Forest Service continued Ed Drager said Public Use District Zoning would be appropriate on some of the parcels also. Gerry White said he doesn't think each parcel should be considered separately. All the parcels should be zoned one thing and if it is necessary later, they can be changed by rezoning or variance. Roger Tilkemeier said he thinks we should get the Green Belt zoning to the Forest Service. Dan Corcoran said he thinks the PJD should be given to the Forest Service to read also as it is more flexible. Roger Tilkemeier said Peter should get together with Jim Paxon to look at the different zones. Ed Drager asked if there is time under the annexation rules? Dick Ryan said there is as we have 90 days fran annexation. Ron Todd said we are not locked into one zone district for all the parcels. Gerry White said zoning each parcel separately would require a study session. • Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to postpone the Zoning on eight parcels of property presently owned by the Forest Service which were recently annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 7, Series 1980 until the March 24 meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission to give the Staff time to work with the Forest Service. Ed Drager seconded the motion and Roger Tilkemier, Ed Drager, Gerry White and Sandy Mills voted for the postponement and Dan Corcoran abstained. 4.) Conditional Use Permit to allow installation and use of an 18 hole Tract H. Lionshead Roger Tilkemeier asked to be excused as he has a 4 :00 P.M. meeting. He said he would like it to be known that he is in favor of this it�m- Peter Patten made a presentation from the Staff. Bud Benedict passed around the materials on the Golfcourse. He showed a site plan and gave his presentation. All the holes will depict buildings etc. in Vail. They will be custom made. There will be such things as the Vail Chapel, the Gondola, the Skiers Bridge, the Covered Bridge, the Eisenhower Tunnel, etc. They are going to keep the cost minimal- - $2.50 for adults and $1.50 for children. It is basically to encourage people to come to Lionshead during the summer. • Planning and Environmental Commission 3 -10 -80 Minutes - --Page Five . Golfcourse continued Sandy Mills asked if the land is owned by the Antlers. Bud Benedict said it is owned by VA and showed where it is on the map. He explained that he is still negotiating with them_for a five year lease. Gerry White asked if there will be piped music. Bud said there will not. He showed where the lighting will be and explained how it will be done so that it will not be too bright. Bud explained. that VA had a meeting this morning regarding his lease. They still have two problems with it. They want a structural engineer to look at the plan to make sure it is safe. They also want to make sure the access is adequate for their employees. Ed Drager asked about the signage. Bud said it will be very minimal and showed a sketch. Peter Patten.said the whole project including the signage will have to go to Design Review Board. Ed Drager asked if the Board is approving this for an indefinite period of time. He would have a problem with it if that were the case. He feels he would like to look at it again after the first year. . Bud said he is hoping for a five year lease with Vaal Associates. He would hope the Conditional Use Permit would be for a similar period of time. He said the monies generated from this will be enough to keep everything in really good shape. His intent is to do this in a first class way. Bud said he has a petition signed by all the merchant and condo owners who would be impacted by this except B.J. Britton who was in favor but was out of town when this was signed. He said they plan to advertise to bring people from the Village to Lionshead and enhance the business liability in Lionshead. Sandy Mills asked if the Board should put a time limit on it. Ed Drager said he would put a one year limit on it and have them come back next year. Ed Drager made a motion that the Conditional Use Permit to allow installation and Use of an 18 hole miniature golf course on Lot 4, Block 1, Lionshead ist Filing and Tract H, Lionshead 3rd Filing in accordance with the conditions listed in the Staff Memo of 3-6 -80 and with the addition of the condition that there be no piped music or public address system and that the Conditional Use Permit would expire on 12- 31 --80. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. .0 Planning and Environmental Commission 3 -10 -80 Minutes- -Page Six 5.) Parking Variance for the deletion of eight parking spaces underground to build additional meeting'space'at'the Crest located on Lot 2 Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing No. 2. Peter Patten made the Staff Presentation on this item. He explained that the Crest's parking was built before the current parking formula was started. They have 12 excess spaces according to the current formula. By adding the meeting room, they would need 5 more spaces than currently required and they would have eliminated these spaces. The Staff is recommending denial of this and that they could build the meeting space if they were willing to make it smaller and include the required spaces. Ed Drager asked if the spaces they now have are used. Nat Harris, representing the Crest, said they are not. Sandy Mills said these unused spaces could be leased by the Town or someone else as there is a great need for parking in Town. Nat Harris said with the rise in gas prices, there is less travel by car and more and more of their guest are coming by plane etc. The meeting space will not create a need for more parking spaces. Sandy Mills asked why if the addition of a meeting room is such a plus, they just don't take two hotel rooms and make them into meeting space. Ed Drager said the rules say they have 12 in excess but need five more if they . add the meeting room even though they probably won't use the five spaces. Nat Harris said they do have room on top for the five spaces. Dan Corcoran said they can't exceed their site coverage on top. Gerry.White said he feels that meeting space does attract more cars. Granting this vaxiance would be a dangerous precedent to set. Nat Harris said they can't convert two hotel. rooms. It just wouldn't be appropriate. Gerry White said he feels this would be a very difficult thing to grant, Dan Corcoran said if parking wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be building a new parking structure. The manager of the Crest said people are already parking in their excess spaces. Dan Corcoran said if people are parking illegally there, the Town of Vail will tow them. Ed Drager asked about the size of the meeting room. The plans were shown to the Board. • r�L Planning and Environmental Commission 3- -10-80 Minutes- --Page Seven Ed Drager asked Jiro Rubin about the parking study he did a few years ago. Jim Rubin said it did show the Crest parking was never at capacity. However, the Ordinance does require this parking. The concern with putting more spaces on top is that more asphalt is added. He said if the Board wants the Staff to look at changing the Ordinance regarding the parking required by Meeting Space, they could do that. Peter Patten said he would like to point out that if they did put the spaces on top, they would have to come to DRB. Jim Rubin said the staff feels the best solution would be to take out less than twelve spaces to make the meeting room. Nat Harris asked how you calculate how many they could take out. Jim Rubin said he thouot they could still remove about eight spaces but he would have to go through the mathematics. . Ed Drager asked Bud Benedict what his opinion is. Bud said he is prejudiced. He said to believe that meeting rooms require more parking is totally unrealistic. They have more than they need. People are not driving in this season. They are now 100% occupied and still have 10--15 parking spaces. He said the Zoning Ordinance and the PEC have to keep up with the times. We are going to see fewer and fewer cars coming here. He said the viability of Summer Vail is the ability to bring conventions here. He said there are tithes when you will have too many cars, but by an large, you will not. Gerry White said his experience is different. He believe the people are still going to be in the auto. He said Colorado people are the prime summer visitor and they.are going to drive here. He said the bus and Rocky Mountain airways have proved to be unreliable for a lot of people this winter. More people are renting cars. They have had a need for nore parking this winter at the Ramshorn. Bud said his experience is different. Gerry White said trends change and hates to see everyone give up their parking spaces. The future is unpredictible. Gerry asked if there are any other cormients. Sandy Mills made a motion to deny the Parking Variance for the deletion of eight parking spaces underground to build additional meeting space at the Crest located on Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing.No. 2 as per the Staff Memo of 3 -10 -80 as it would be granting of a special privilege. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Gerry informed the applicant that they can appeal this to the Town Council. Planning and Environmental Commission 3 -10-80 Minutes - -Page Eight • The Crest continued Sandy Mills asked if the Board feels the Staff should look into whether the Ordinance should be changed regarding the requirement of more parking for meeting space. Ron Todd said he feels some of the assumptions stated today were wrong. Dan Corcoran said he feels a study would have to be done before any changes could be made. Nat Harris said he thinks they will try to put the additional five spaces on top. Dan Corcoran said they will still have to go through DRB. Item #1 was then heard. l.) Aaroval of Minutes of 2 -25 -80 Meeting. Sandy Mills said she had a question regarding a discussion on the 1st Bank. Ed Drager had asked about the use of the loft space. It was stated that it was to be storage and maybe scmday office. Ed asked if they would have to corm back to the Board if they changed it to office space and the answer was yes. Sandy said it is her understanding that since the meeting, it has been discovered that that space was originally considered for office space and they would not have to come back to PEC. Jim Rubin said that is correct. However, he also added that the approval of the 1st Bank item has been appealed to the Council by the Vail Religious Foundation. Jim said that at the 2 -25 -80 meeting he didn't realize that the loft space was included in the numbers and it is and they would not have to come back to use that space as an office. Cathie Jarnot said that will not affect the minutes and the Board said it would not. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the minutes. Ed Drager seconded. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M. 49 hll`Jlit� C : 11 h, TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMISSION FROM: DEPARIWMT OF COWNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 3 -1 -80 RE: INITIAL WNING OF EIGHT PARCELS OWNED BY THE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE RECIISMY ANNEXED INTO) THE TOWN OF VAIL The eight parcels are as follows: Parcel Size in Acres A 10.995 B 40.243 C 11.498 D 5.006 E 10 F 14.818 • G 5.182 H 40 I7 J General Location NW of Potato Patch Club NE of 4 way stop intersection So. of Forest Rd. West Seibert Circle So. of Ptarmigan Rd. So. of Vail Valley Dr. (Golfcourse Area) No. of Booth Falls Rd. No. of Alain Gore Dr. (East Vail) East of Present East Boundary of Town So that zoning on these parcels ranains consistent with present County zoning, the Department of Community Development recom ends Agricultural and Open Space Zoning on these parcels (1 unit /35 acres). Peter has a map of these parcels in his office if you v,Tould lake to look at them before the meeting. 13 1 PON i . w I Dili u • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIROM=AL COMMISSION FRC7M: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 3-7 -80 RE: SIMBA RUN Attached are the letters and other information you required on the Simba Rim Development Plan. .7 • t lowl box 100 department of public works veil, colorado 81657 (303) 476.5613 March 4, 1980 Ms. Diana Toughill L & M Professional Consultants, Inc. Box 726 Vail, 00 81657 Dear Diana: I have reviewed the carrying capacity of the local roadway system serving the proposed Simba Run development and find it adequate to • absorb the additional 147 units added. In making this review, geometry of the roadway including grades, stopping sight distances, vertical and horizontal curves and width was considered. The same criteria used in the creation of the Bighorn Street luprovement District to establish trips generated per dwelling unit was also used. The only deficiency in the local roadway system is proper signing and policing of no parking zones. This should not be a concern of this developer and will be addressed by the Public Works Department immediately. Very truly yours, P, Kent R. Rose, P.E. Director I cc: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission • iMarch 6, 1980 brimrscott Ms. Diana Tough i l l, Vice President architects L & M Professional Consultants, Inc. Box 726 143 a meadow dr. Vail, Colorado 81657 vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476.3038 Dear Diana: Regarding the landscape plan for Simba Run 1 thought we had addressed that aspect of the project in the manner prescribed by the 5D5 ordinance. Our present preliminary landscape plan shows existing and changed contours, thus indicating "existing landscape features to be retained or removed ". Our plan further shows the location of bicycle path, outdoor paved areas, and a tot lot. The plan shows the extent of open space as well as proposed extent and location of tree planting. I believe that our present plans provide the Planning Commission with a concept and scope of landscaping to the degree of detail intended by the ordinance, which requires that "features" of the landscape plan be designated. Because of the always nebulus status of projects at this stage of the • project's design and because i thought the planning commission and town staff were only to review the project in concept form I did not retain explicit landscape architecture consultation but have described the project to two landscape architects either of whom would be interested in this project. The landscape budget of $250,000 has been established with input from a landscape architect - such a budget would allow for a planting scheme that includes "mature" trees depending upon your definition. It is unreasonable to expect success if trees beyond 10' - 12' high are transplanted. Curiously, larger trees, if they survive the transplanting can not be expected to grow much beyond their size when transplanted! We would not suggest planting trees all of one size. We believe that in some areas of the site, particularly the south east corner at the Frontage Road, we can raise the existing grade 6' - 8' by way of terracing. The effect would be like a berm in that it would block the view from the Frontage Road. With trees planted on these terraces a barrier height could be 16' to 20' above the road. We would not want a harsh man made form in this location. That is why "I refer to the term "terracing" rather than "be rm" . The palette of tree materials as discussed with the landscape architects would include lodge pole pine, balsam poplar, narrow leaf cottonwoods and _aspen. All of these can be transplanted up to 10'-12'. We have discussed spruce and certain ornamental trees as Norway maple and hopa crab as compli- ments to the larger stands of pine, cottonwoods and aspen. As noted on the preliminary plan we would hope for ornamental plantings adjacent the pool terrace assuming our exposure will allow it. r � March 6, 1980 Page 2 . We believe that landscaping can be most efficiently handled in two phases see the accompaning sketch. Phase I would provide screening from and of the Frontage Road. Aside from the planting of materials noted above the landscape budget of approximately $125,000.00 for this phase must include irrigation, planting of pool roof, and construction of the bicycle path. We are concerned that substantial planting beyond what is shown would be endangered by construction of the north and west buildings. Phase 2 landscaping would provide screening along the west property line and Lionsridge loop. There is an extensive amount of shallow terracing between the north and west buildings and I believe that most of the ornamental planting would take place during this phase, with some of these materials going back in to the Phase i area. Finally, if construction would permit, we would like to start some tree planting i-n Spring of 1981 possibly designating a portion of the site as a "nursery" from which we could transplant as building construction progressed. • I hope this gives you enough of an outline on the issue of landscaping. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. Yours truly, • T�W"X�W� Thomas A. Briner TAB /cg I D ■ 4 WL i' 11r.k L & M PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 5333 Mission Center Road, Suite 310 . San Diego, California 92108 (714) 297 -5480 Telex: SDG 69 -5032 March 3, 1980 Gerry White, Chairman Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail P. 0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Approval of Simba Run Condominium - Special Development District 5 Dear Gerry: At the Planning Commission hearing 9f February 25, 1980, The Commission required that five conditions be addressed in order for approval to be granted at the March 10 meeting. Our response to the conditions is as follows: 1. Transportation and private shuttle service - SD5 requires that we provide private shuttle service to serve the trans- portation needs of the project. SD5 further requires that the developer provide a bus stop. Our proposed development plan and environmental impact report include both of these requirements; however, we have been requested by the Town staff to delete the bus stop from our project because the the planned stops are at Vail Run to the east and Valli Hi to the west. There also seems to be some disagreement among staff members whether to make the public transportation easily accessible to encourage its use, or to discourage use of the public system in order to favor the private transportation service provided by the developer. As we indicated at the hearing, we are more than willing to work with the Town staff to arrive at the best solution for both the public and private transportation systems for the project and the Lions Ridge area. 2. Public street system -- Kent Rose stated at the public hearing that the present street system is adequate to handle the traffic generated by the proposed project and that the current problems are created by improper or illegal on- street parking which policing. The Planning statement be in writing Public Works Department the required documentat -2- can be controlled by signing and Commission required that this and we have requested that the provide the Planning Commission with ion, which they have agreed to do. 3. Amenities - SD5 requires that the amenities be open to the public on a fee basis favoring condominium owners and guests. As we expressed at the meeting, L & M would prefer not to have the facilities open to the public; however we will comply with the requirement if the Town feels it is necessary. If the facilities must be made available to the public, we would propose to do so on a limited membership basis with a maximum of 200 memberships, 129 of these given to condo- minium owners. Owners would have priority for reservation of tennis and racquetball courts. Employee housing resi- dents would have access to the amenities at non -peak times. d. The Department of Community Development outlined four conditions in their 2 -20 -80 memo which we have agreed to and have incorporated into our development plan: a. A bicycle path will be constructed from east to west through the property. b. 18 employee housing units as outlined in the memo and illustrated on our development plan will be provided instead of 10 apartments required by the ordinance. c. Developer will provide private shuttle service for the project as outlined in item 1 of this letter. d. The five parking spaces on the south side of the main entrance will be removed. 5. Landscaping - As we indicated at the hearing and on the landscape plan, submitted as a part of our development plan, extensive landscaping will be provided with each phase. We have budgeted $250,000 for landscaping and will hire a landscape architect to design the detailed landscape plan to be submitted to Design Review Board. We will provide mature trees which will be incorporated into our final landscape plan. A separate letter from Briner /Scott is attached regarding landscaping. Our architects, Briner /Scott were also requested to in- vestigate decreasing the height. The design as submitted meets the height limit outlined in the zoning ordinance r -3- and we strongly feel that the proposed design results in the best site plan. if we were to reduce the height of the project to meet the proposed new ordinance, it would result in additional site coverage and less green area. Phase I contains the only portion of the project which is E stories in height. Phases II and III contain no portions of build- ings over 5 stories in height. Again, we want to assure the Planning and Environmental Commission that we are more than willing to work with the Town to make Simba Run a project that we can all be proud of AANA ly, . TOUGHI LL Vice President enc. cc: Pendleton, Sabien & Craft Briner /Scott Leon Deicas DST /kjb 1 BUT •' + Dili . TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: March 6, 1980 RE: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BID AND MAWET BENEDICT TO ALLOW INSTALLATION AND USE OF AN 18 HOLE MINIATURE GOLF COURSE ON LOT 4, BLOCK 1, LIONSHEAD 1st FILING AND TRACT H, LIONSHEAD 3rd FILING. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicants wishes to install an 18 -Hole Miniature Golf Course Facility in the area Southeast of Monson's Sun Deck in Lionshead. It would be operated June through early -- mid October. A 48 square foot ticket booth structure is proposed. The facility would be in operation from approxi- mately 12 noon to 10 P.M. A fence consisting of wood poles and wire mesh to stop the golf balls is also proposed. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends Approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. — One of the development objectives of the Town is to increase commercial usage of the Lionshead area. The Staff feels this proposal greatly enhances activity and creates a more lively atmosphere in this currently "dead" space. The effect of use on light and air. distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,_parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The proposed use adds another dimension of public recreational opportunities for Vail's residents and guests. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety acid convenience ttaff ic'flow' and control, access maneuverability, and removal -of sno`iv from the street and parking areas. The proposal creates no adverse impacts in these regards. All pedestrian walkways will be kept open so no existing pedestrian traffic will be impeded or changed. n CUP- Miniature Golf Course 3-6 -80 —Page Two • Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the'sca.le' and bulk of the "proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposal significantly imporoves the existing character of the space. Surrounding businesses and residents (10 condominiums) have given their approval of the proposal. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. There are none. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Commnity.Development recomnends that the Conditional Use Permit be Approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it woudl be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would ocmply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. CONDITIONS: 1. Golfcourse be removed by October 15 each year. 2. Acceptable lighting scheme producing no excessive glare. 3. Operation must close by 10 P.M. Materials on this will be presented at the meeting. Cathie has the information if you would like to look at it before the meeting. • 0 February 13, 1980 Laud Benedict has gone over the proposed Mini -golf course to be Located in the Lionshead area. T am in favor of this proposed additional business in the Lionshead area. Date;; F 1� 11�1 Ij C) CIA 3�% bj 2 jr3�Sv 13�i0 _.4L 3 � .4 3 4 [dame Business affiliation I dyIJT�3 ►1I�1! i1� TO: PLANNING AND E VIRCNMEN'i'AL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP= DATE: March 10, 1980 RE: PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST IUR THE CREST TO REMOVE 12 UNDERGROUND PARKING SPACES TO CONSTRUCT` ADDITIONAL MEETING SPACE. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Crest wishes to convert space in their underground garage to a meeting room. This requires removal of 12 parking spaces. The Crest is in a HDMF Zone. The Crest was built under the former parking regulations which required 12 more spaces than under the present system. Thus, the Crest could remove 12 spaces without a variance. However, the addition of meeting space demands more parking spaces and thus, makes the facility five spaces short. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings. Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends Denial of the requested Variance based u the followin factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There are no effects upon other structures in the vicinity. The de ee to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specif ied regulation'ls necessa±7 to achieve compatibil: and uniformity of treatment'amon' sites in: the vicinit 'or to'attain the objectives of this title without' grant'of s, ial privilege: The Staff feels that the granting of this variance would be a special. privilege. The applicant argues the underground. spaces are not fully utilized because of the apparent trend of less and less private auto - mobiles coming into Vail. The Staff agrees in theory with this and supports the applicant's efforts to reduce the number of private autos coming to the Crest. However, the Staff is not supporting the variance because it would be setting a dangerous precedent for the conversion of these garages in Town and there is no guarantee the present situation will continue. ,7 C Parking Variance - -`rest 3-6-80 --Page Two Also, underground parking serves the valuable purpose of ridding the visible surface of the sight of parked cars. Eliminating spaces underground has the potential to see those cars.at ground level. The effect of and air, distribution of ReMval of private underground parking spaces-has a potentially negative impact on the Town's public parking facilities. However, the granting of the variance would require the applicant to pay the $5000 /space parking variance fee. Such other factors and criteria as the comnission deems applicable to the proposed variance. It should be noted that by reducing the size of the meeting space the applicant could accoWlish the elimination of'iess parking spaces and bring down.the number of new spaces required to possibly allow the addition without a variance. This is because the Crest is 12 spaces over the present . parking requirement. FINDINGS: • The dng and Enviornmental Commission shall make the foi before �,Tantin_r a variance: That the granting of the variance will not consititute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the lintations on other properties classified in the same district. That the variance is warranted for one or mare of the following reasons: There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same ,zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified refulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Parking Variance - -Crest 3- 6- 80 - -Page Three 0 MCOMMENDATTONS The Department of Conmmity Develop is recommending denial of this parking variance due to dangerous precedent -- setting if granted and because.we feel it would constitute a special privilege. We would support the conversion of the space if it can be done without need of a variance. Peter has plans on this in his office on this if you would like to look at them before the meeting. n WE OF SPACE NO. OF UNITS Dining & Banquet Areas Hotel Rooms 128 Condominiums 19 Office TOTAL 147 Present Parking Provided Excess Spaces F- -I LJ n L_J THE CREST PARKING PARKING SPACES MOOR AREA (Sq. Ft.) REQUIRED 9,792 65.28 47,424 98.56 23,991 33.22 741 2.47 81,948 200 212 12 PLANNING AND ENVIRCNMENTAL COMMISSION 0 AGENDA March 24, 1980 2:00 P.M.- 3:00 P.M. Work Session Vail Village Urban Design Plan 3:00 P.M. Public Hearing 1.) Approval of Minutes of 3 -10 -80 Meeting. 2.) Discussion of Zoning on.eight parcels of property presently owned by the Forest Service which were recently znnexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 7, Series 1980. 3.) Public Hearing on Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan. 4.) Presentation of Air Quality Report by Environmental Health Officer. To be published in the Vail Trail 3 -21 -80 'E F PLANNING AND ENVIRONUNTAL COMMISSION March 24, 1980 2:00 P.M. -3:00 P.M. Work Session Vail Village Urban Design Plan 3:00 Public Hearing 1.) Approval. of Minutes of 3 -10-80 meeting. A. Correction on Page 3. In the last paragraph concerning the vote on Simba Run, it should be changed to read, "Dan Corcoran abstained." 2.) Discussion of Zoning on.eigbt parcels of property presently owned by the Forest Service which were recently annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 7, Series 1980. 3.) Public Hearing on Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan. 4.) Presentation of Air Quality Report from Environmental Health Officer. �J • March 25, 1980 AWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 1.) Discussion of Down Zoning within Town of Vail 2.) Review height of buildings 3.) G.R.F.A. 4.) Escrow funds for landscaping and paving 5.) Staff reveiw and recormlendation on Westwood County Referral On Monday, March 31st at 12 noon there will be a lunch meeting for Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission to review and discuss the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance changes for Vail. Village and Vail Lionshead will be discussed. The meeting will end at 2:30 P.M. L � Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of Meeting of 3- 24--84 IDPage One Members Present Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan John Perkins Ed Drager Gerry White Sandy Mills Dan Corcoran Staff Members Present Dick Ryan Chuck Donley Town Council Person Present Bill Wilto substituted for Ron Todd who had a meeting at the County. 2.) Discussion of Zoning on eight parcels of property presently owned by the_Forest Service which were recently annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No._ 7, Series _1980. Dick Ryan presented this item. He said that Jim Paxon from the Forest Service had met with Peter Patten of the staff and the Staff is recommending Agricultural and Open Space zoning on all parcels except for Parcel A which they recommended for PUD. Dick said that at the time of the annexation the Town had agreed to zone the property as close to the county as possible and that would be Agricultural and Open Space and Jim Paxon said he would like the Town to stay with that agreement. Jim Paxon was not present today. Ed Drager said the Forest Service had agreed at the last meeting to consider Green Belt zoning. Rich Caplan said the Forest Service feels they should stay with the Agricultural and Open Space Zoning and if they are going to trade a parcel to anyone they will come back and talk with the Town before the Trade. Roger Tilkemeier said anyone can trade. Several members feel it should be downzoned now and not at the time of the trade. Ed Drager made a motion to zone Parcels BCDEGH Green Belt and Parcels A and F Public Use. The vote was unanimous with the exception of Dan Corcoran who abstained. (While the meeting was in progress Cathie went and called the Forest. Service. She talked with Joe Hartman who said Jim Paxon was in Denver and must have forgotten the meeting. He reiterated what Jim Paxon had said to Peter that they would like to stay with the Agricultural and Open Space Zoning. He also said their Federal Zoning precludes the Town Zoning anyway.) r] L. PEC Minutes of 3 -24 -80 Page Two 3.) Public Hearing on Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan. Dick Ryan said he would like Jeff Winston to make his presentation f first. Dan Corcoran asked if all the owners and adjacent owners had been notified. Dick Ryan said they had been notified of this public hearing. Jeff Winston made his presentation. Dick Ryan said the 2.8 -3 million dollars is mall improvements on public lands, not private. There are several private commercial expansions planned. Vail 21 is being considered for remodel and expansion already. They would like to go ahead to do these this summer as there is already going to be a disruption with the building of the transportation center. Dick also said the merchants would like the Town to spend some money to improve the entryway to Lionshead. The Merchants Association is meeting Wed. at 5:30. Dick Ryan said he is pleased with Public Input and hopes that the plan doesn't stop at this point in the process. John Perkins asked how the funding will be set up. Dick Ryan said a Special Improvement District will be set up. Different assessments will be made for commercial land abutting the district, residential land, commercial not abutting, periphery etc. The Town will contract with consultants to do this. Gerry White asked if the Lionshead merchants present axe pleased with the plan. All those present said they were happy except for Linda Kaiser of the Sunrise Ski Shop who said she likes their grass and wants it left the way it is. Dick Ryan said this is a Design Plan and does not mean that all merchants must do what is on it. It will just make the approval process easier for people to do their imrovements. Linda. Kaiser said they do not want to be included in a mass handling of the mall. They want to do their own thing when they want to do it. Gerry White said this plan would just be a guide. Dan Corcoran said it is just a guideline for private owners to follow if they want to. . Jeff Wintston said this is just a guide to how things could be handled. It is a culmination of all the ideas and desires of the people at the workshops since last summer. It will make the approval process smoother for anyone wishing to make an improvement. It is always open to changes. Dick Ryan said this is a guideline and as each section is sched- -ul.ed to be worked on, they will meet with the people in that section for discussion. .7 PEC Minutes of 3 -24 -80 Page Three Ed Drager asked the merchants how they feel about the tax. Linda Kaiser said she does not believe in public funds being used on private land. Ed Drager said this is public funds being used on public lands. Linda Kaiser said we like ours the way it is. She said she has said it many times that the funds being allocated in Area 31 are a waste of money. Dan Corcoran said he doesn't think the Town is going to ,improve the land in front of every store but theirs. Sandy Mills said they will work out the problems in each section as they start the work there. Linda Kaiser said she has said it three or four times that she doesn't want theirs changed. They will handle their own store front themselves. Bud Benedict said this plan, was put together by a professional staff from the ca vents of the Lionshead people. They have no problem with Linda keeping her grass. They put together a plan to flow through.the Lionshead Mall. Everyone knows there will be changes but it is a good overall plan. Gerry White said it is a more detailed plan than anything he has seen before and is very good. He said they are certainly not going to destruct private land. Mike Gancy asked about the area around Vantage Point and Study Area #5. Dick Ryan said they plan to meet Lazier and Rosenquist to make a better place to enter the mall and make it more viable for pedestrians. Make Gancy said he thinks it is great that the Town is dressing up the area. Jeff said there will be a yearly process to look at this plan and see what has been done and what changes are necessary. Another gentleman from the audience said they have a problem at the liquor store with water running off the.roof. He feels their store front should be extended so they can have a different line. Roger Tilkemeier had to leave at 4:05. Ed Drager asked why gutter work will solve the problem on a new roof line if it doesn't solve the problem on the old roof line. The man said it is impossible with the current situation. He said if it stays the way it is, it will always be dangerous there. Sandy Mills said she feels it is a building design problem. Gerry White said #11 is designed for that purpose. The man said their store is not a planned expansion. r7 LJ PEC Minutes of 3 -24 -80 Page four Jeff Winston said expanding that storefront would interfere with the entry way and conflict with the corner. The man said it would a sham to implement this plan without solving the problem. Jeff said he would have to think about it. Dick Ryan said it would possible to note that as a possible expansion area. Jeff Winston said the thing to do is to add another note on the plan and let them submit a proposal. Sandy Mills asked if they think they will be able to do this east entry way this summer. Dick Ryan said they are trying to get the money now. Sandy Mills asked how it is done. Dick Ryan said the Town: Council will have to have a Public Hearing to hear protests to the Improvement District. Only owners may protest. The District would be approved or disapproved based on the number of protests. • Sandy Mills asked how long this whole process would take. Dick Ryan said the Lionshead Merchants Association says the sooner the better. They don't want it to last five years. Gerry White asked if there are any mere comments? Gerry White asked what action should be taken? Dick Ryan said he would like a motion to approve the plan with the noted exceptions. Ed Drager made a motion to approve the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan with further study being done on the Lionshead Center Bldg. at the north end. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 1.) Approval of Minutes of 3- 10-80 meeting. A. Correction on Page 3. In the last paragraph concerning the vote on Simba Run, it should Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the minutes with the above correction. Jam Morgan seconded. The vote was unanimous. • PEC Minutes of 3 -24 -80 Page Five r-I Gerry White welcomed John Perkins to the Board. 4.) Presentation of Air Qualit y E2p2rt from Environmental Health Officer. Dick Ryan introduced Laura Snyder. Laura explained her report. Jim Morgan had to leave at 4:35. Gerry White asked what official action needs to be taken. Dick Ryan said the Planning Commission should support this plan if they approve of it. Ed Drager made a motion to ask the Council to do everything to implement and enforce that portion that has already passed. John Perkins seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous The meeting adjourned at 5:05. • • IIi x '11-56 1 . TO: TOWN COUNCIL IIC � 1`Tl����lllui ?► M 10111 � � Ui1i►Y 111 :: Y�1111►Y DATE: 3- -27 -80 RE: VAIL LICNSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN On March 24, 1980, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the Vail LionsHead Urban Design Guide Plan. Attached is a copy of the plan that was unanimously approved by the Commission. Town Council has previously reviewed the plan at a study session. On Tuesday evening there will be a public hearing to discuss and approve the Vail LionsHead Urban Design Guide Plan. • ui��i �T;7a ►1►� i]if� +1i • TO: DICK RYAN FROM: CATHIE DATE: 3 -27 -80 RE: DAN CORCORANIS POSITIM ON PEC Dan's term expires 4 -6-80. The deadline for applications for the position is 4 -9-80 and the Council will appoint a replacement 4-- 15 -80. I checked with Larry Eskwith and he said Dan can attend meetings and vote until someone else is appointed. Dave Willette and Dan Corcoran have applied so far. • March 25, 1980 TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Department of Community Development RE: HEIGHT ORDINANCE Concerns have arisen over the height of buildings in Vail and their resultant imposition upon the viewer. The problem of administering any written ordinance is that a fundamental contradiction exists between the appropriate height of buildings for different sites. A structure on a lot which is viewed from across the valley needs a different set of height criteria than those viewed from close -up. Additional considerations must be given to sites which are accessed from the top of the slope and those that are fairly flat at first, but that become quite steep towards the rear. An ordinance which would address this contradiction of correct criteria could establish a restrictive maximum elevation and wall height. The DRB would then be given the power to allow a height exception for applicants that can show that their design warrants an increase. The process would not be a variance which would require that hardship be shown. Rather the building's designer would be expected to show that he has addressed the visual impacts of the project and that he /she has sought to minimize the structure's influence on the viewer. In addition, prospective applicants could be given a standard maximum height which would greatly simplify the existing situation. The staff recommends a maximum wall height of 25 feet and maximum elevation height of 35 feet. The Design Review Board would be given 10 feet of discretion for elevations or q5 feet total. Wall heights would be 8 feet or a maximum of 33 feet with DRB approval. In addition, we will discuss some related height problems including: original versus finished grade,unique lot types, tenting theories and some predicted problems with this ordinance. 0 March 25, 1980 T0: 'TOWN COUNCIL FROM: Department of Comunity Development All enclosed floor area will be counted except crawl spaces under four (4) feet, and solar storage pending staff approval. A 250 sq.ft. bonus will be included for each enclosed parking space up to 2 per unit. G.R.F.A. will include traditional mechanical room , lofts, unfinished basements, greenhouses, and entry lock -offs. • � A* I/ 0 TO: TOWN COUNCIL, PEC MEMBERS FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEW DATE: 3-- 17-80 RE: Correction to PEC Minutes of 3- 10--80 meeting. On page three of the PEC Minutes of 3- 10-80, there is an error. In the last paragraph concerning the vote on Simba Run, Dan Corcoran abstained. r 1 LJ r � • • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 3 -19-80 RE: ZONING OF EIGHT PARCELS OWNED BY TIE NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE RECENTLY ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN OF VAIL. The Eight parcels are as follows: Parcel Size in Acres General Location A 10.995 NW of Potato Patch Club B 40.243 NE of 4 -way stop intersection C 11.498 So. of Forest Rd. W. Seibert Cir. D 5.006 So. of Ptarmigan Rd. E 10 So. of Vail Valley Dr. (Golfcourse Area) F 14.818 No. of Booth Falls Rd. G 5.182 No..of Main Gore Dr. (East Vail) H 40 East of Present East Boundary of Town Staff has met with Jim Paxon on this and the mutual decision is to stay with the Agricultural and Open Space Zone on all parcels except for Parcel A, which would be Public Use District due to the water tanks. The reason for staying with Agricultural and Open Space is because of a previous agreement between the Town and Forest Service agreeing to consistent zoning with the County. *After the PEC meeting it was decided that Parcel A and F have the water tanks on them, therefore, both should be zoned PUD. ICI kyj 4A 1 . TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRIDNM NTAL ODYMISSION FROM: DEPARTY= OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 3 -19 -80 RE: Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan Jim and Dick are picking up copies of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan in Boulder tomorrow and will have them mailed to you on Friday. w • IOfIM6),A 4 .11Qco hi TO: PLANNING AND ENVIM MIlVTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMML)NITX DEVELOPMENT DATE: 3 -24 -80 RE: SPBCIAL MEETINGS Tuesda .March 25 1980 There is a work session with the Council on the Zoning Changes. The time of this meeting has been changed to 4:00 P.M. Monday, March 31, 1980 We are going to have a lunch /work session. Please meet at the Vail Athletic Club at 11:45 A.M. This is to discuss the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. It should end about 2:30 P.M. Monday, April_ 71 1980 We axe going to meet on the Ordinances to implement the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plans. We will meet at 3:00 P.M. is r� PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Jams A. Rubin, Zoning Administrator for the Town of Vail, has requested an Amendment to Chapters 18.24, Commercial Core I (OCI) and Chapter 18.26, CAmmercial Core II (OC2) of the Vail Municipal Code to establish new guidelines and development standards for the review of all exterior modifications within CC1 and CC2 (the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Core Areas). Changes are being proposed to the following Sections: 1. Permitted and Conditional Uses 2. Conditional Uses- Fxpansion 3. Conditonal Uses - Factors Applicable 4. Setback 5. Height 6. Density.Control 7. Site Coverage 8. Landscaping and Site Development 9. Parking and Loading 10. Location of Business Activity A new Section will also be introduced that describes the procedure that will be followed in the review of exterior modifications in CC1 and CC2. The amendments will be presented in conjunction with the Urban Design Plans for Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. A Public Hearing will be held in accord with 5e4--ti.on 18.66.06 of the Vail Municipal Code before the Tcrvvn of Vail Planning and Environmental Coamission at a Special Meeting on April 7th, 1980 at 3:00 P.M. Said Hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Building. A copy of said Ameendrrents can be picked up in the office of Corr nity Developmnt between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. TOIT OF VAIL DE'PARnjff. 4T OF Ca1%'M 11Y DLrVTJ OPMENT ,s A. li)bj.n Zoning Actninistrator To be Published in the Vail Trail. on 3 -21 -80 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of Meeting of 4 -7 -80 Page One 2 :00 Meetinq This was a joint meeting with the Town Council. Planning Commission members present were: Gerry White, Ed Drager, John Perkins, Jim Morgan, and Sandy-Mills. Roger Tilkemeier and Dan Corcoran were not present. Town Council Members present were: Rod Slifer, Bill Wilto, Paula Palmateer, and John Donovan. Dick Ryan asked Jeff Winston to explain the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. There was a discussion on the plan until the public meeting at 3:00 P.M. 3:00 Public Hearing Some of the Council Members had to leave at this point. 1.) Consideration of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. . Jeff Winston continued to explain and discuss the plan with the remaining Council people and members of the public. Jim Morgan had to leave at 4:35. Gerry White asked what action should be take on this today. Dick Ryan explained that they can table this, approve it, or disapprove it. The Board members said they would like more time and perhaps a walking work session to visually see the different areas. It was suggested that they meet next Monday at 1.00 at..Seibert Circle before the regular meeting is held at 3:00 P.M. Ed Drager made a motion to continue this until 1:00 P.M., Monday, April 14, 1980 at Seibert Circle. John Perkins seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05. • s- GOALS AND POLICIES TOWN OF VAIL URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK �. Vail has evolved to its present form as the result of common assumptions about character and function implemented through private individual decisions. As such, while the Town has achieved a certain consistency and quality, the potential and even need for change still exists. Change which builds upon and enhances the existing character, quality and vitality of the Town will not be discouraged. 2. The Town, with citizen input, will take an active role in the development of an urban design plan to guide future development in the core areas. Such a plan, and its various components, will represent the development objectives of the community and will serve to identify, and express a general direction in the resolution of major development concerns in the core areas. • The Urban Design Plan Framework Plan -- Town -wide planning objectives Policies -- General policy and goal statements to implement the Plan Sub -area Urban Design Guides --- Specific planning objectives for sub -areas Architectural Guidelines -- Key architectural elements generally prescribed e Adoption of the Plan and incorporation into ordinances as appropriate • o An annual process with citizen input to periodically review the Plan 3. The Town of Vail is comprised of two interrelated core areas, and a zone, each with its own general visual character reflected in architectura Ira5sition ;�a'n`� urb an ors^ All development in these areas shall be consistent with the general character of that area. a Architectural & Landscape Guidelines 4. Pedestrian circulation is to be encouraged in the core areas and an interconnected network of pedestrian ways will be developed-to link the core areas and provide a pleasant, safe, continuous experience for pedestrians. • Designated pedestrian a Development standards -Building height, rra Sun /shade Infill /open space Pedestrian scale system and levels of pedestrianization. for Tree Massing ;sing Patios Activity generation /land use Levels of pedestrianization Service agreements • Time zoning and service parking to reduce conflicts TOWN OF VAIL sTjefc< S9 Improvements toy vehicles, to the Frontage Road area (minimize intrusion into core). O Consistent design character for improvements in Town R.O.W. and other public spaces. 5. Vail's mountain valley setting is an important part of its identity, and should be recognized in the planning and development of the Village, Lionshead and the connecting area through sensitivity to views, climate, and other physical characteristics of the environs. a Important view planes identified and preserved a Sun -shade restrictions a Use of native or complementary materials o Emphasis on Gore Creek, bill Creek O Frontage Road Experience • is 10 • 0 • VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN • GOALS /POLICIES - FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN 0 FRAMEWORK PLAN - Graphic Expression of General Objectives Circulation - Bus /Auto /Truck Pedestrianization Character Distracts Building /Open Space Major View Planes for Vail Village ® URBAN.DESIGN GUIDE PLAN - Schematic diagrams to express detailed planning and design objectives VAIL VILLAGE Bridge Street /Gore Creek Drive East Meadow Drive VAIL LIONSHEAD 0 ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES - Key architectural character elements identified, described and docmented for Vail Village and Vail Lionshead 1. Context criteria - views, sun, service, etc. Building Height & Massing Setbacks Facades Roofs Balconies 0 ZONING CHANGES FOR: 1. Commercial Core I 2. Commercial Core II Windows Trash Accent Elements Landscape Elements Lighting W% • L� • MORTER FISHER ARNOLD, AIA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FOR ARCHITECTURE CROSSROADS AT VAIL 143 EAST MEADOW DRIVE VAIL. COLORADO 81657 3031476 -5105 April 11, 1980 Mr. Dick Ryan Director of Community Development Town of Vail P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Dick: The following are my comments, following my review of the proposed Architectural Guidelines (and the title should definitely be revised to indicate the boundaries for which these guidelines are intended). As you'll see, my comments are generally negative. They are not directed toward any individual involved in developing the document. Rather, they reflect my genuine disdain for the idea that such arbitrary, prescriptive, nonsensical "guidelines" should even exist. I cannot overstate the fact that prrscriptive documents like this are NEVER successful, and are ALWAYS regressive in the development of good design solutions. I feel that the goal of maintaining the Village character is excellent, and I support it to the fullest. But this method of attempting to maintain it could NOT be more ill - conceived. "STREET ENCLOSURE" Critical to remember importance of VARIETY of heights and massing for visual interest. Variety of texture, pattern, color, are also desirable and critical, in my opinion. I disagree with the limited ratio of 4/10 to 6/10 of Right of Way width. The 10th Mountain Division's ideas from Europe should reflte this restriction. VARIETY and combinations of "tentative rules" illustrated are appropriate. "Canyon effect" is not inevitable if variety exists. Occasional un- broken masses provide visual counter -point and visual strength for "broken -up ", intr-:i-cate masses, and are desirable and critical. Some of the nicest outdoor spaces in the village exceed the arbitrary 6/10 ration. Their potential existence should not be arbitrarily legislated away. Mr. Dick Ryan Director of Community Development April 11, 1980 page 2 The Village Core is most definitely NOT perceived as a mix of one and two story facades, and there are also many buildings over three and four stories. The basic assumptions are wrong. ROOFS All roofs should NOT be gables. Such restrictions are insane. They are arbitrary, create boredom, and inevitable ice and danger problems. Independent shed roofs are most definitely NOT "more contemporary . design statements," and they ARE compatible with the village character. LOOK AROUND. Look at similar European villages. Hips, sheds, pyramids, and occasional flat roofs are totals appropriate to the village character. 4/12 roof slope is NOT most preferred. 4 %/12 is minimum for shake roofs, unless the Town wants to assume responsibility for roof leaks. Anything less only works for built -up roofing_ The discussion of simple vs. complex roof planes should be general • ONLY. STAY OPEN to situations which suggest something other than the "simple composition" as illustrated. 4/12 sloping roofs meeting with perpendicular ridge lines will result in a valley with a slope of less than 2/12 and provide guaranteed roof leaks. FACADES AND WALLS A look around the Village will show many more colors than white, beige, and grey. Such a restriction is arbitrary, damaging, foolish, and totally ill- conceived. Why limit the wood, siding, and trim to "darker earth tones "? Many subtle colors exist successfully in the Village. FACADES TRANSPARENCY Making upper floors "predominantly opaque" will arbitrarily make for very dismal residential and office spaces. "Windows puncturing walls" are not appropriate to wall'§ which are clad in wood, and wood on upper floors is urged in these proposed guidelines. Saying all glass areas "should be framed by wood trim - dark color, wide (3" minimum)" is crazy. What the hell is the point of all this? Where would we be if every building in town had 3" dark wood window trim? 0 Mr. Dick Ryan Director of Community Development April 11, 1980 page 3 While recessing doorways and entrances may be one good solution in some situations, to say all doorways and entrances should be recessed is totally wrong. Imagine how difficult it is to provide an airlock entry vestibule when the doorway is already recessed. Think about realities of life in Vail. As with all prescriptive legislation (such as "window (transparency) should comprise 55% to 70% of the total length of a commercial facade "), the statement that "doors should be at least 30% transparent (glass), have dark wood trim and have an articulated surface ......." is insane, and guaranteed to provide unsuccessful results. How many times must prescriptive legislation be unsuccessfully imposed before people realize it doesn't work? BALCONIES To say that "balconies should contrast in color and mass" with the building is wrong. In some cases they should. In many cases tacked -on, contrasting elements are not appropriate. As with nearly every other . aspect of these proposed guidelines, and with every other prescriptive design guideline, there are times when what you say "should be" actually shouldn't be, and visa versa. There are times when solid and /or light balconies are appropriate to the architecture and totally appropriate to the Village character. In closing, I feel it is significant that no where in the text of these guidelines does the work "architecture," or any derivative there of, appear. Instead of addressing architectural matters, arbitrary, pre- scriptive rules are made for such items as 3" window trim and 30% glass in doors. If such prescriptive rules had existed in the caveman days, we'd all still be living in caves, because anything else, no matter how valid., would not follow the guidelines, and therefore be unacceptable. These "guidelines" do nothing but get in the way of good architects doing good architecture. They prohibit architects from taking a given situation and providing the best possible results. Would anyone favor legislation prohibiting his surgeon from removing the required 50% of a vital organ, because the "accepted standard" is only 25%? Or favor legislation which permits his attorney to use only 40% of the available defense options, instead of 100 %? Why keep architects from providing the best possible solutions? . Mr. Dick Ryan Director of Community Development April 11, 1980 page 4 I mentioned earlier, prescriptive "guidelines" such as these have ALWAYS, ALWAYS proved to be counter - productive. Compounding the problem in Vail is the fact that the people charged with enforcing these "guide- lines," i.e. the Council and the majority of the Design Review Board, are untrained in architectural matters. All they can do is apply strict literal interpretations of 3" window trim "guidelines "_ Those areas of the Village which are successful are at least partially so because of good architecture. And obviously that architecture is within the context of the Village character. But what is needed is a qualitative statement of what that character is, and the freedom for good architects to creatively provide and maintain that character, NOT statements that roofline variations should be at least four feet. I thank you for allowing me to express my opinions, and assure you that in spite of my negative reactions to this approach, I am with you 100% in the maintenance of the character of Vail Village. Sincerely, am es R. Morter, AIA MORTER FISHER ARNOLD, AIA J RM /mrp • VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN . • GOALS /POLICIES FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN_ GUIDE PLAN • FRAMEWORK PLAN - Graphic Expression of General Objectives Circulation- Bus /Auto /Truck Pedestrianization Character Districts Building /Open Space Major View Planes for Vail Village URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN - Schematic diagrams to express detailed planning and design objectives VAIL VILLAGE Bridge Street /Gore Creek Drive East Meadow Drive VAIL LIONSHEAD ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES -- Key architectural character elements identified, described and docmented for Vail Village and Vail Lionshead 1. Context criteria -- views, sun, service, etc. Building Height & Massing Windows Setbacks Trash Facades Accent Elements Roofs Landscape Elements Balconies Lighting O ZONING CHANGES FOR: 1. Commercial Core I 2. Commercial Core II `J ID 0 0 ` I MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 4- -4 -80 RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND THE VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD ZONING CHANGES. 1. Consideration of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 2. Consideration of Zoning Changes for Comercial Core I, Vail Village, and Comercial Core II, Vail Lionshead am VAIL VILLAGE (CiCI) KNING GIANGES Sections 18.24.010, 18.24.065, 18.24.100, 18.24.120, 18.24.130, 18.24.150 and 18.24.170 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.24.010 Purp2se. The conwrcial core 1 district is inteded to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village camwreial area, with its mixture of ledges and corm -rcial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The catmercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light,air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and put greenways, and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations on Modifications-Procedure All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CCI shall comply with the following procedure: (A) The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, or the replacement of an existing building shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Conmissi.on as follows: (1) Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The hearing before the Planning and Environmental. Commission shall be held in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. A decision of the planning and Environmental Commission may be alpealed to the Tavn Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 18.60.070. (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant under this subsection (A) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed building alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the OCT District as specified in 18.24.010; that the proposal does not alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. (4) The Planning and Environmental CcM1issi0n may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the application. (5) Applications under this subsection (A) shall be submitted on or before May 19, 1980, to be heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 9, 1980. Thereafter all applications shall be submitted annually on or before Decerrber 15 or each year. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall then hold the public hearing on the applications submitted before the end of the following February. (B) The modification or change to.the exterior facade of a building or to a site within OCT shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the following: (1) Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form by the Zoning Administrator. Page Two (2) The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be. held in accordance with Chapter 18.54. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54. (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the OCI District as specified in 18.24.010; that the proposal does not alter the character of the neighborhood and that the proposal conplies with the Vail Village Architectural Guidelines. (4) The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions on modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it my deny the application. (5) The Zoning Administrator may approve minor modifications as provided an Section 18.54.060. A decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. (C) All alterations under Subsection (A) above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board Following Planning and Environmental Com-,assion approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same comply with the Vail Village Architectural Guidelines. 18.24.100 Setbacks There shall be no required setbacks, except as may be established pursuant to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.24.120 Heigi�t The maximum height of buildings in the OC1 district shall be thrity -five feet or as may be otherwise specified by the Vail. Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.24.130 Density Control Unless otherwise provided in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, not more than eighty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area and not more than eighty square of gross floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area for any permitted or conditional use allowed by Section 18.24.060, excluding gross residential floor area (GR.FA). Total density shall not exceed twenty --five dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. 18.24.150 Coverage- Not more than eighty percent of the total site area shall-be covered by buildings and ground level patios and decks except as may be otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide.Plan. 18.24.170 landscaping and Site Development.. At least twenty percent of the total site area shall be landscaped except as may be otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. There shall be two new sections added to Chapter 18.24 to read as follows: 18.24.200 Reconstruction of Existing Uses If any building or structure located within Com-nercial Coro I on .Tune 1, 1.9787 is subsequently destroyed by fire or other casualty to-the degree provided in Section 18.64.O90, that structure or building may be reconstructed to the same or substantially the saw size dimensions, lot.coverago, and height in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 18.64.090, so long as the building; or strucutre ccanplies with the applicable provisions of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Page Three 18.24.220 Adoption of Vail Vill Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. (A) The Vail Village Urban Design Guid Plan and Architectural Guidelines are hereby adopted for the purpose of maintaining and preserving the character and vitality of the Vail Village (CCI) and to guide the future alteration, chmige and improvement in the OCI. Copies of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines shall be on file in the Commmity Development Department of the Town. (S) The Vail Village Urban Design Plan and Architectural Guidelines shall be reviewed by the Town Council annually and revisions thereto may be made by Resolution of the Town Council to insure that the plan reflects the purposes and intent for which it has been adapted. 0 VAIL LIMSIMAD (CC I I) ZONING CHANCES Sections 18.26.010, 18.26.070, 18.26.090, 18.26.100, 18.26.120, and 18.26.140 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.26.010 Parpose. The commercial core 2 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, Unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines for,CC2 and is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. 18.26.070 Setbacks. In CC2 district, the minimum front setback.shall be ten feet, the minimum side setback steal be ten feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be ten feet unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.26.090 Height The maximum height of buildings in the CC2 district shall be forty --five feet unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design. Guide Plan., 18.26.100 Density Control. Unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan., not more than eighty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area and not mere than eighty square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area for permitted site area for permitted or conditional uses allowed by Section 18.26.040, excluding gross residential floor area. Total density shall not exceed twenty -five duelling units per acre of buildable site area. 18.26.120 Coverage. . ! Not more than seventy percent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.26.140 Landsca ing and site development. At least twenty percent of the total site area shall be landscaped unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. There shall be two new sections added to Chapter 18.26 to read as follows: 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CC2 shall comply with the following procedure: (A) The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, or the replacement of an existing building shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: (1) Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The hearing before. the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Connission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 18.60. 070. 49 (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant under subsection (A) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed building alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC II District as specified in 18.26.010; that the proposal does not alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal complies with the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. (4) The Planning and Environmental Conrnission may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Planning and Environmental Conwdssicn finds that the applicant failed to met his burden of &off, it may deny the application. (5) Applications under this subsection (A) shall be submitted on or before May 19, 1980, to be heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 9, 1980. Thereafter all applications shall be submitted annually on or before December 15, of each year. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall then hold the public hearing on applications submitted before the end of the following February. (B) The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCII shall be reviewed by the Design Review-Board in accordance with the following: (1) Applications shal be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be held in accordance with Chaper 18.54. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54. (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance . of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the Proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII District as specified in 18.26.010; that the proposal does not alter the character of the neighborhood and that the proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Architectural Guidelines. (4) The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Reviw Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the application. (5) The Zoning Administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.060. A decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. (C) All alterations under subsection (A) above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board folloing Manning and Environmental Comnission approval in accordance with the Chapter 18.54. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same complies with the Vail Lionshead Architectural Guidelines. 18.26.180 Adoption of the Lionshead Urban Desi . Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. (A) The Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines are hereby adopted for the purpose of - ,mintain ing and presenting the character and vitality of Vail Lionshead (CCII) and to guide the future alterations, change and improvement in the CCII. Copies of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectui- l Guidelines shall be on file in the Commmity Development Department of the Town. • • (B) The Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines shall be reviewed by the Town Council annually and revisions thereto my be made by Resolution of the Town Council, to insure that the plan reflects the purposes and intent for which it has been adopted. CO11Qvl WIAL CORE I AND CONIIV MIAL CORE II ZCNE DISTRICT CHANGES • A.) General Concept The general concept of these changes is to establish new guidelines and procedures for the review of all exterior modifications within Camrcial Core I (CCI) and Commercial Core II (CCII) -the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead core areas. The new guidelines are set forth in the Vail Village and, Vail Lionshead.Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. B.) Urban Design Guide Plans There are two Urban Design Guide Plans, one for CCI or Vaal Village and the second one for CCII or Vail Lionshead. The Urban Design Guide Plans establish the general areas and types of expansions which will be allowed to occur in the two core areas. The Guide Plan will be used for the review of all expansions. Those expansions adding more than 50 square feet of enclosed floor area will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Conmission. It will be the applicants responsibility to show that his /her proposal meets the intent,of the plan. The.Guide Plans will be reviewed on an annual basis to consider potential revisions to the plans with the plans being updated to reflect the changes. C.) Architectural Guidelines There are also two sets of Architectural Guidelines, one for the Vail . Village and a second for the Vail Lionshead. The Architectural Guidelines explain the types of materials, colors, building massing, roofs, facades windows, balconies, accent elements, and service considerations to be observed in the design of exterior modifications in the.two core areas. The Architectural Guidelines will be administered by the Design Review Board and it will again be the applicants responsibility to show how his /her proposal generally meets the intent of the guidelines. The Design Review Board will review all proposals that are brought before the Planning and Environmental Ccandssion in the Urban Design Guide Plan Review, as well as all smaller additions and material changes which alter the existing character of a building. All minor changes which are proposed in conformance with the architectural guidelines that do not :materially change the appearance of the building can be approved by the Comminity Development Department. D.) New Procedures For 1980, all expansions of greater than 50 square feet mist be submitted by May 19th, 1980 to be heard by the Planning and Environmental Conrission on June 9th of 1980. For all subsequent years, expansions will only be reviewed once annually, which will be in February. The expansion proposals must be submitted by Decerrber 15th for the February review. For expansions of less than 50.square feet, these will be heard on an ongoing basis by the Design Review Board throughout the year. 40 E.) Development Standards Changes for CCI 18.24.010 Purpose -The purpose section will be changed to rake reference to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Arcitectural Guidelines. 18.24.020 -- 18.24.060 Permitted Conditional Uses will not be changed. 18.24.065 Conditional Uses- Expansion will be repealed and replaced with a new section describing the new procedures. 18.,24.100 Setbacks; 18.24.120 Height; 18.24.130 Density Control; 18.24.150 Coverage; and 18.24.170 Landscaping and Site Development will be revised to incorporate the provisions of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.24.140 Reconstruction of Existing Uses will be reintroduced and amended so that any rebuilding of existing structures is done in conformance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The rest of Commercial Core I will remain the same. F.) Development Standards for Commercial Core II 18.26.010 Purposes -The purpose section will be changed to make reference to the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. 18.26.030 - 18.26.040 Permitted and Conditional Uses remain unchanged. 18.26.070 Setbacks; 18.26.090 Height; 18.26.100 Density Control; 18.26.120 Coverage; 18.26.140 Landscaping and Site Development, will be revised similar to those in CCI to incorporate the provision of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. There will be a new section in Cormmrcial Core II to describe the new procedures and a new section that deals with Reconstruction of Existing Uses. Both these sections will be similar to those in Comr&cial Core I. The rest of Commercial Core II will remain the same. G.) These changes are what has been recommended by the Town of Vail Conmunity Development Department. They will be presented to the Planning and Environmental Ccnin.ssion at 3:00 P.M. on Monday, April 7th in the VAil Town Council Chambers. The recom L- ndations of the Planning and Environ- mental Commission will then be forwarded to the Town Council. Any input or comments on these changes before the rneeting would be greatly appreciated. Please forward them to'Jim Rubin.or Dick Ryan, Department of Community Development, Town of Vail, 476 -5613. MEMORANDUM TO: Dick Ryan FROM: Cathie J Date: 4-11-80 RE: Planning and Environmental Commission Applicants There are two applicants for the Planning and Environmental Commission vacancy, Dave Willette and Dan Corcoran. Dee Dee has schedulted Dave Willette to meet with the Town Council at 2:00 on Tuesday. Dan does not have to meet with the Coucil according to Dee Dee. • • •r ` 0 December 17, 1979 Town Council of Vail Dear Sirs. This letter is to apply for the vacant position on the Town of Vail Planning Commission. As a long term resident of this area I would like to make a contribution in shaping the community in which 1 live. I have been a resident of Colorado for ten. years, Eagle County for one and a half years, and the Town of Vail for about two months. Since I have just purchased a condominium in East Vail, I expect to be a resident of the Town of Vail for the forseeable future. I am employed by Gore Mange Properties as a salesman. Prior to coming to Vail I was in the accounting profession for eight years, including three years as a controller. I have a B.S. in finance and a M.B.A.; both from the University of Maine. Thank you for considering this application. Sincerely yours, David W. Willette P. 0. Box 1486 Vail, Colorado 81657 !% /6 - () 3 0a 1 `7 • L11 0 • EAC -LE VALLEY ENO ! N E I NC- : U VEYI NC-, INC. PO. ''SOX 18 13 VAII. COLORADO 01657 303.476•.4573 March 20, 1980 Mr. Jim Rubin c/o Town of Vail Dept. of Community Development P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Jim: T am ct —enrly filling the balance of Ron Todd's term on the Planning and Environmental Commission. As this term expires on April 6, 1980 1 would like to take this op- portunity to apply for a full term on the Commission. DC /lh Very truly yours, Dan Corcoran SFi: 'w:• i�5r � :) c:: x'1''4,. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA April 14, 1980 1 :00 P.M. Walking Work Session. All members and other interested parties will meet at Seibert Circle to walk through the Village and discuss the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 3:00 P.M. Public Meeting 1.) Approval of a Parking and Setback Variance to allow remodeling and additions to the Vail 21, which is located on Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing in Commercial Core II Zone District. 2.) Approval of the Development Plan for the Panorama Condominium Project located on Lot 1, Block 3, and Lot 27, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3 in accordance with the Special Development District Review Procedures. 3.) Continuation of consideration of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.) Continuation of consideration of Zoning Changes for Commercial Core I, Vail Village, and Commercial Core II, Vail Lionshead. • 5.) Approval of Minutes of March 24, 1980 and April 7, 1980. To be published in the Vail Trail 4- 11 -80. EA PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION is AGENDA April 14, 1980, 1:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING 1.) Continued Public Hearing on Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Comercial Core I and II. To be published in the Vail Trail 4 -18 -80 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • AGENDA April 14, 1980 WORK SESSION 1:00 -2:30 P.M. Continued Public Hearing on Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I and II. (The Planning and Environmental Commission, Staff, and Public will meet at Seibert Circle at 1:00 P.M.) 2:30 -2:50 P.M. Discussion of options to reduce the number of dwelling units in the Town of Vail. 2:50 P.M. Discussion of County Proposal of the Westwood Subdivision. REGULAR PUBLIC HEARING 1.) Approval of Development Plan for Panorama Condominiums (Phase 1) located on Lot 27, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3 and conceptual approval of the Development Plan for Phase 2 located Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3. . 2.) Public Hearing and consideration of variances for setbacks, density control, coverage, and parking to permit Commercial Expansion of the Vail 21 Building that is in conformance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. 3.) Continued Public Hearing on Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I and II. 4.) Approval of Minutes of March 24 and April 7, 1980 meetings. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes of Meeting of 4- 14-80 Page One Members Present Ed Drager Jim Morgan John Perkins Sandy Mills Gerry White Town Council Person Present John Donovan Staff Present; Dick Ryan Peter Patten Jim Rubin Chuck Donley Before the Public Hearing there was a Discussion of the County Proposal of the Westwood Subdivision. Dick Ryan gave the background on this item. Basically they are coming to the Town and going to the County to see what would be acceptable density there. They would like to see how many units would be allowed there by the Town. The Site is 47.7 acres. John Kidneigh made his presentation. They would like to build 45 units, a combination of Primary /Secondary Duplexes and Single Family residences. The Staff feels the density should be about the same as allowed on the Selby property. 21 Units were allowed on 43 acres. They have applied for RSM zoning in the County but the County hasn't said how many units they would allow there. Intermountain Engineering has said there are 21 buildable acres. Dick Ryan asked the Board their feelings on this. Ed Drager said he feels it should be zoned resource because he doesn't feel it is buildable land. Jim Morgan said he thinks 19 -20 units is appropriate. It should be comparable to the Selby land. • PEC Minutes -- 4/14/80 Page Two John Perkins said he doesn't think we can just pull a density figure from the air. He said there are a lot of problems with this land. He can't see where they have spent $30,000 on engineering of this road system. John Kidneigh said he has five different plans for the roads. John Perkins said he would like to see them. Sandy Mills said she thinks the Planning Commission should send a letter to the Forest Service, BLM, or whomever to let them know how unhappy we are with these trade parcels which are not developable. She thinks the road system should not be private roads but should be built to Vail standards so they could be plowed and fire trucks can get in there. Gerry White asked if John Kidneigh feels they can build 45 units on this land. He said he feels they can build 40 units. John Perkins said he feels they would have to prove to him how 40 units fit there. Gerry White said he feels maybe they should make a site trip there. Ed Drager made a motion that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend that the zoning on this parcel be left Resource. Sandy mills seconded the motion. Ed Drager, Sandy Mills, and Gerry White voted for this motion. John Perkins and Jim Morgan voted against. Both John and Jim felt units should be allowed on this parcel but the developer would have to prove how many units can be built on it. PUBLIC HEARING 1.) Approval of Development Plan for Panorama Condominiums (Phase 1) located on Lot 27, Block 1, Liorsrid e Subdivision Filing No. 3 and conceptual approval of the Development Plan for Phase 2 located on Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridqe Subdivision Filing No. 3 Peter Patten said that Jay Peterson representing the developer has asked that this item be postponed until May 12, 1980. John Perkins made a motion to postpone the above until May 12, 1980. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 2.) Public Hearin and consideration of variances for setbacks, densi control, coverage, and parking to permit Commercial Expansion of Vail 21 Building that is in conformance with the Vail Lionshead U Design Gu7de Nlan. Dick Ryan explained this item and the Staff recommendation. The Staff is recommending approval of these variances with the conditions that the owners pay the required parking fee, be required to participate in mall improvements, be required to pay in any mall improvement district that is established and improve the court yard which is on private land as per the Staff memo of 4- 11 -80. PEC Minutes -- 4/14/80 Page Three Duane Piper, the architect, made his presentation. He said the expansion will go into the setback but not on Town Right -of -Way. Duane Piper said they will pay the parking fee as required. Jim Rubin and Dick Ryan explained that if the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances were already approved, these variances would not be necessary but is necessary now. Sandy Mills made a motion to grant these variances for setbacks, density control, coverage, and parking to permit Commercial Expansion of the Vail 21 Building that is in conformance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Desing Guide Plan as per the Staff memo of 4- 11 -80. Ed Drager seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. 3.) Continued Public Hearing on Vail Village Urban Desing Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core TI and II. The Board continued to discuss this plan with Jeff Winston of Gage Davis and Associates and the Staff. The Board and Staff had walked through the Village during the work session and had some suggestions for changes they would like to see incorporated. Ed Drager made a motion to continue this discussion until April 21, 1980 at 1:00 P.M. Item 4 ( the approval of the minutes) was not discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 P.M. • • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Rich Caplan, Town Manager FROM: Dick Ryan, Community Development, Director -r?. DATE: April 8, 1980 RE: Options to consider for possibly reducing the number of units within the Town. Under current zoning there could be up to 2,160 new units within the Town of Vail. The Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission have been concerned with the ultimate build out of the Town. Below are five options to consider. 1. Status quo -No change in the zoning districts as to the number of units that could be permitted. 2. Work to reduce the number of units in Vail by "X "%. 3. Require that "X "% of units constructed in the Town be available for employees of the Gore Valley. 4. Reduce the number of units by "X "% and require all projects to have "X "% for employee housing. 5. Another option to consider is allowing "X" number of units to be constructed in any year. This would extend the ultimate build out of the Town. A merit system would be developed where criteria for employee housing, solar application, energy conservation, site design, landscaping, parking and circulation, public facilities, parks, fire protection, water distribution, sanitary sewage collection, police protection, public transportation, etc. would be developed. A point system would then be established and the projects with the highest number of points would receive approval for building permits. • • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- -PETER PATTEN DATE: 4 -11 -80 RE: APPROVAL OF DEVELOLMENT PLAN FOR PANORAMA CONDOMINIUMS (PHASE 1) LOCATED ON LOT 27, BLOCK 1, LIONSRIDGE SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 3 APPLICANT: Gordon R. Pierce and Associates, Architect ZONING: Medium Density Multimple Family (MDMF) subject to Special Development District Review Procedures due to previous agreement upon annexation of Lionsridge Subdivision. SURROUNDING LAND USES: East -- Vacant parcels zoned R P/S West -- Buffer Creek Subdivision (Eagle County) South -- Buffer Creek Subdivision (Eagle County)- -Small Condominium Development North- -Steep Cliffs and Terrain -- Vacant PHASE 1 STATISTICS Site Area (Sg. Ft.) 79,000 Buildable Site Area 57,700 Allowable GRFA Allowable No. of Units* 20,195 15 Proposed No. of Units Proposed GRFA Average GRFA /Unit 14 20,042 1431 Average Building Height Allowed 35' Average Building Height Proposed 25' Total Parking Spaces Covered Parking Required _ Required Spaces Provided 27 14 37 *Previous Agreement between Developer and Town Council Covered Parking Provided 14 SITE CONDITIONS Phase 1 _The site is presently vacant with little to no vegetation on the _ building areas in Phase 1 consist of mild slopes of less than 25% (mostly around 10%). PEC Memo Panorama Condos- -Page two The steep LionsRidge is situated 200 feet above and north of the site and consists of a near vertical cliff of jointed sandstone bedrock. Rockfall has been identified as a potential hazard to development on these parcels and work was started last fall toward mitigating the hazard. Blasting and scaling of the rocks lilely to break loose will be completed this spring, the geological report recommends no construction begin until this work is completed and a long trench has been constructed across the lower portion of the northern.site to catch and retain any falling rock from blasting operations above and that periodical inspections by the owner of rockfall potential above the lot be performed. A soils report has been completed with associated recommendations. Site grading restrictions and guidelines in report should be followed as well. SITE PLAN Phase l is proposed for 14 townhouse -type units. There are four clusters of buildings, three of four units and one of two units. A single access off of Lionsridge Loop Road is provided along with nine guest parking spaces. Single car garages are provided with each unit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development is recommending final approval of Panorama Condominiums Phase 1 with the following conditions: I. Either the trench constructed to catch falling rock remain in place or the rockfall mitigation work be completed prior to construction of Phase 1. 2. The owner provide for periodical inspection of rockfall potential throughout the life of the project and that the proper mitigation measures be taken, if deemed necessary. 3. As recommended in the Preliminary Geotechnical Site Evaluation by Chen and Associates, December 21, 1979, page 6, all lower level (basement) areas be protected by an underdrain system for drainage. 4. All recommendations for site grading found on page 7 of the above report be followed. • PEC Memo 40 Panorama Condos - -Page Throe PANORAMA CONDOS PARKING REQUIRED UNIT GRFA SPACES REQUIRED 1 1369 1.87 2 1474 1.97 3 1369 1.87 4 1382 1.88 5 1382 1.88 6 1396 1.89 7 1465 1.96 8 1478 1.98 9 1478 1.98 10 1465 1.96 11 1369 1.87 12 1848 2.00 13 1382 1.88 14 1369 1.87 20,042 26.86 = 27 • Plans for this project are available in the Community Development Department. Phase II The applicant has also requested that the Planning and Environmental Commission comment on the proposed layout of buildings on Phase II. Phase II is the larger parcel on the North Side of Lionsridge Loop with zoning for 48 units. The intent of the developer is to place 42 units on the upper parcel in a seven building cluster. The plans will be presented to you at the meeting. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 4 -11 -80 RE: PUBLIC FEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS, DENSITY CONTROL, COVERAGE, AND PARKING TO PERMIT COMMERCIAL EXPANSION OF THE VAIL 21 BUILDING THAT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN PLAN. STATISTICS: APPLICANT: Charles Rosenquist and Dick Brown ZONING: Commercial Core II PROPOSAL: Three Commercial Expansion Areas containing 2,443 square feet The Applicants are proposing three areas of expansion to the Vail 21 Building that requiare several variances at this time. All the proposed expansions are in conformance with the Vail LionsHead Urban Design Plan that has been approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council. The proposed zoning ordinance changes for Commercial Core II that was in your packet last week would permit the commercial expansion proposed without going through a variance procedure. Under the Zoning Ordinance changes the applicant would be required to go through a process to show how the proposed expansions meet the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. The applicant is going before the Planning and Environmental Commission at this time so that construction can start in the spring and not be delayed to the summer or fall. The three commercial expansion areas are a 1,025 square foot expansion to the ski shop, a 658 square foot expansion to Krismar LTD. , and a 760 square foot expansion in the area of the Place restaurant. All the proposed expansions would be located on private property and not extend into Town of Vail property. The expansion areas proposed by the applicant were shown on the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Plan for several reasons. The two areas along the east wall of the building were shown to first improve the visual entrance of the Vail Lionshead Mall and show visitors to this area that it is an active commercial and pedestrian area. Second, to extend the commercial space beyond the dominating buildings and develop a pedestrian scale for this area. There is a greater opportunity for window shopping, added life, and vitality in Vail Lionshead. The court yard by The Place restaurant is currently an uninviting place for pedestrians. There is no draw of commercial activity, landscaping, etc. to bring people into this court yard. Proposed is commercial expansion that will provide more visibility to now vacant storage space. In addition, there will be the opportunity for outdoor eating in the sun pocket in the north east corner of the court yard. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: PEC Memo Vail 21- --Page Two • 1. That the granting of the variance will spciai privilege inconsistent with the classified in the same district; 2. That the granting of the variance will to the public health, safety, or welfa injurious to properties or improvemtns not constitute a grant of limitations on other properties not be detrimental re, or materially in the vicinity; 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. (Ord. 8 (1973) paragraph 19.600.) RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the variances requested. The Staff considers that there is no grant of special privilege since the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and proposed ordinance changes will permit this type of commercial expansion. The staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay the fee established by the Town Council. This parking fee is currently under review by Council. Attached is the memorandum discussing the parking fee. The applicant should also be required to participate in mall improvements. The percentage of Town participation and private participation and private participation in mall improvements has not been formerly established. The applicant would like to see mall improvements take place on the east side with the commercial expansions. In the court yeard on the west side is private property and should be improved by the applicant with the commercial expansion. Another condition shoudl be that the applicant agrees not to remonstrate against the special improvement district if formed for mall improvements in Vail Lionshea d and agree to join the district. • Izla#uCil"NAIN7i1u1 • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 4-4-80 RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND THE VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD ZONING CHANGES. 1. Consideration of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 2. Consideration of Zoning Changes for Comercial Core I, Vail Village, and Comercial Core II, Vail Lionshead 0 LJ COMMERCIAL CORD I AND COMMERCIAL CORE II ZONE DISTRICT CHANGES 0 A.) General Concept The general concept of these .changes is to establish new guidelines and procedures for the review of all exterior modifications within Commercial Core I (CCI) and'Commercial Core II (CCII) -the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead core areas. The new guidelines are set forth in the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. B.) Urban Design Guide Plans There are two Urban, Design Guide Plans, one for CCI or Vail Village and the second one for CCII or Vail Lionshead. The Urban Design Guide Plans establish the general areas and types of expansions which will be allowed to occur in the two core areas. The Guide Plan will be used for the review of all expansions. Those expansions adding more than 50 square feet of enclosed floor area will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. It will be the applicants responsibility to show that his /her proposal meets the intent of the plan. The.Guide Plans will be reviewed on an annual basis to consider potential revisions to the plans with the plans being updated to reflect the changes. C.) Architectural Guidelines There are also two sets of Architectural Guidelines, one for the Vail Village and a second for the Vail Lionshead. The Architectural Guidelines explain the types of materials, colors, building massing, roofs, facades windows, balconies, accent elements, and service considerations to be observed in the design of exterior mxlifications in the two core areas. The Architectural Guidelines will be administered by the Design Review Board and it will again be the applicants responsibility to show how his /her proposal generally meets the intent of the guidelines. The Design Review Board.will review all proposals that are brought before the Planning and Environmental. Commission in the Urban Design Guide Plan Review, as well as all smaller additions and material changes which alter the existing character of a building. All minor changes which are proposed in conformance with the architectural guidelines that do not materially change the appearance of the building can be approved by the Community Development Department. D.) New Procedures For 1980, all expansions of greater than 50 square feet mzst be submitted by May 19th, 1980 to be heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 9th of 1980. For all subsequent years, expansions will only be reviewed once annually, which will be in February. The expansion proposals must be submitted by December 15th for the February review. For expansions of less than 50.square feet, these will be heard on an ongoing basis by the Design Review Board throughout the year. E.) Development Standards Changes for CCl • 18.24.010 Purpose -The purpose section will be changed to make reference to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Arcitectural Guidelines. 18.24.020 - 18.24.060 Permitted Conditional Uses will not be changed. 18.24.065 Conditional Uses - Expansion will be repealed and replaced with a new section describing the new procedures. 18.24.100 Setbacks; 18.24.120 Height; 18.24.130 Density Control; 18.24.150 Coverage; and 18.24.170 Landscaping and Site Development will be revised to incorporate the provisions of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.24.140 Reconstruction of Existing Uses will be reintroduced and amended so that any rebuilding of existing structures is done in conformance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The rest of Commercial Core I will remain the same. F.) Development Standards for Commercial Core II 18.26.010 Purposes -The purpose section will be changed to make reference to the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. 18.26.030 - 18.26.040 Permitted and Conditional Uses remain unchanged. 18.26.070 Setbacks; 18.26.090 Height; 18.26.100 Density Control; 18.26.120 Coverage; 18.26.140 Landscaping and Site Development, will be revised similar to those in CCI to incorporate the provision of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. There will be a new section in Commercial Core II to describe the new procedures and a new section that deals with Reconstruction of Existing Uses. Both these sections will be similar to those in Commercial Core I. The rest of Commercial Core 11 will remain the same. G.) These changes are what has been recommended by the Town of Vail Community Development Department. They will be presented to the Planning and Environmental Ccnrdssion at 3:00 P.M. on Monday, April 7th in the VAil Town Council Chambers. The recommendations of the Planning and Environ- mental Commission will then be forwarded to the Town Council. Any input or comments on these changes before the meeting would be greatly appreciated. Please forward them to Jim Rubin or Dick Ryan, Department of Community Development, Town of Vail, 476 -5613. • MEMORANDUM is TO: TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 4 -4 -80 RE: FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ZONING CHANGES, DOWNZONING, VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD PARKING FEE AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS IN COMMERCIAL CORE I AND COMMERCIAL CORE II 1. Enclosed is a copy of the revised analysis of existing and potential development in the Gore Valley with the status of each development. In addition, the number of duplex lots in the Town that are 0-- 15,000 square foot, 15,000- 30,000 square feet and above 30,000 square feet. 2. The staff will also discuss the measurement of height, slope, GRFA, and other zoning issues previously discussed. 3. Discussion of the parking fee for Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. 4. Discussion of construction requirements in Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. • • MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL, FR;QI4+I : DEPARTiUNT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, JIM RUB IN DATE: April 2, 1980 RE: Revised Analysis of Existing and Potential Development in the Core Valley The below figures represent an up to date count of existing and potential development in the Gore Valley. In the following figures., accommodation units have been converted into dwelling units on a two for one basis. Units started last summer which are close to completion are included in the existing unit column. Land purchases by the Town of Vail and recent annexation are reflected in the figures. In this analysis an average occupancy factor of 3.5 people per unit has been used. This factor will be adjusted based on the final report on the Mountain Valley Capacity Research Study. Town of Vail West Vail Existing Units Existing Bed Base 4,763 16,671 1,097 3,839 5,860 20,510 This represents a bed base increase of over 3,000 from the analysis done last May. This bed base increase has been caused by the considerable amount of construction that took place last summer (approximately 650 units were started in the Town of Vail alone) and a study by the Eagle County Building Department entitled, "Inventory of Dwelling Units in Eagle County, Colorado," which raised the number of existing units in West Vail over our past estimates. Town of Vail West Vail TOTAL Possible New Development (Units) 2,160 771 2,931 Passible New Development (Peciple ) 7,560 2,698 10,258 These numbers would result in an ultimate bed base of 30,768, which would represent an approximately 507o increase over the existing bed base. The Gore Valley is therefore about 2/3 of its ultimate capacity at this time. • REMAINING DEVELOP= TOWN OF VAIL Current Zoning Special Development Districts and Multi Family Zones 1,373 Units Vacant Duplex Iots 604 Units Duplex Lots with only one unit presently 158 Units Vacant Single Family Lots 25 Units TOTAL 2,160 Units :7 • Page two Page 3 Proposed Additional Existing Units Units* Total Units O _ -DRIM sl �lif.Yl al Courtside (under construction) Potato Patch Club (under const.) Carnie Parcel (no approval) Sundial (DRB approval) Lionsridge Al & A2 (no approval) Casolar I (no approval for 13 remaining units) Bighorn 3rd Addition (no approval) (8 Lots) TOTALS LOW DENSITY MULTI FAMILY 29 15 44 28 16 44 0 9 9 0 21 21 0 13 13 6 13 19 0 29 29 63 116 179 Timberfalls (Present Phase) (under 105 18 123 const.) Timberfalls (Future) (no approval) 0 35 35 Racquet Club Townhouses (under const.) 23 37 60 Golf course Townhouses (under const.) 26 28 54 Pulis (no approval) 0 25 25 Casolar II (A -7) 2 9 11 Bighorn 3rd Addition (no approval) 1 21 22 (5 Lots) Sandstone Creek Club (under const.) 23 61 84 Vail Town & Country (Bldg. permit 0 52 52 issued July, 1979) TOTALS 180 286 466 *Under current zoning 1,373 X 3.5 (People per unit) = 4,805 Additional. Peoplo *Under current zoning r � L� Page 4 Proposed Additional Existing Units Units*. Total Units MEDIUM DENSITY WMTI- FAMILY Sun Vail (under construction) 24 36 60 Racquet Club (under construction) 245 30 275 Hall (2 parcels) (no approval) 0 38 38 Snow Fox (Snow Lion II) (DRB App.) 0 16 16 Lionsridge Filing No. 3 (parcels) (no approval) 0 101 101 TOTALS 269 221 490 HIGH DENSITY MULTI FAMILY Ipanema (DRB approval) 0 9 9 Willow Circle Parcels (4 parcels) (no approval) 10 22 32 Tyrolean Inn (Bldg. permit issued April, 1980) 0 8 8 TOTALS 10 39 49 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DIS.i`RICT 517 711 1;228 TOTALS 1,039 1,373 2,412 1,373 X 3.5 (People per unit) = 4,805 Additional. Peoplo *Under current zoning r � L� • W. +_ SPECIAL DEVELOP= DISTRICTS A.) Special Development District 1-- Replaced by Special. Development District 8 B.) Special Development District 2— Northwoods Acreage: Allowable Units: Allowable GRFA: Existing Units: Existing GRFA: Units /acre allowed: Units /acre actual: 7.643 acres 129 + 6 employee housing 175,000 square feet 89 149,362 square feet 17.66 11.64 C.) Special Development District 3-- Pitkin Creek Park Acreage: 8.29 acres Allowable Units: 156 Allowable GRFA: 126,500 . Proposed Units: 156 Proposed GRFA: 121,294 Existing Units: 84 Existing GRFA: 66,284 Units /Acre allowed: 18.82 Existing Units /acre: 10.13 (UNDER CCNSTRUCTION) D.) Special Development District 4- -Cascade (Mansfield) Villa& Acreage: Allowable Units: Allowable GRFA: Proposed Units: Proposed GRFA: Units /acre allowed: Units /arse proposed: 18.078 acres 252 275,617 230 (150 accommodation units, 66 Employee Units) 273,750 square feet 13.94 12.72 E.) Special Development District S- -Simba Run Acreage: Allowable Units: Allowable GRFA: Proposed Units: Propsed G UA: • Units /acre allowed: Units /acre proposed: 6.3 acres 139 139,000 ware feet 129 + 18 employee units 139,000 square feet 22.06 23.33 (PEC & TC APPROVAL) 89 dwelling units and (PEC APPROVAL) TC DENIAL F.) Special Development District 6- -Vail Village Inn Acreage: 3.455 Acres Allowable Units: 300 Accommodation Units (PEC & TC APPROVAL 150 Dwelling Units FOR PHASE III) Allowable GRFA: 100,000 square feet Proposed Units: 69 Accommodation Units 40 Dwelling Units Proposed GRFA: 87,600 square feet Existing Units: 109 Accommodation Units Existing GRFA: 48,600 square feet Units /acre allowed: 43.4 Units /acre existing:15.77 G.) Special Develo mrent District 7 ---The Mark Acreage: 5.8 Acres Allowable Units: 304 Accon nodation Units (PHASE I COMPLETE 34 Dwelling Units NO APPROVA12'RIALSE IT) Allowable GRFA: 134,000 square feet Proposed Units: 304 Accommodation Units 34 Dwelling Units . Proposed GRFA: 134,000 square feet Existing Units: 179 Accomnnodation 27 Dwelling Existing GRFA: 47,487 square feet Units /acre allowed: 35.91 Units /acre existing:22.59 H.) Special Development District 8-- Fallridge Acreage: 1.3 acres Allowable Units: 71 (COMPLEI`ED) Allowable GRFA: 85,000 square feet Existing Units: 71 Existing GRFA: 85,000 square feet Units /acre allowed: 54.62 Units /acre existing:54.62 I.) Special Develo mnent District 10--Valli Hi Acreage: 10.05 acres Allowable Units: 199 (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) Allowable GRFA: 149,943 Proposed Units: 199 Proposed GRFA: 149,943 Existing Units: 102 Existing GRFA: 76,500 Units /acre allowed: 19.8 Units /acre existing:10.15 TOTAL REMAINING CHITS PROPOSED 711 UNITS • DUPLEX (Vacant) DUPLEX (1 Unit) PRIMARY /SDCONDARY (Vacant) PRIMARY / SECONDARY SINGLE FAMILY (Vacant) TOTALS • • LOTS 0-- 15,000 15- 30,000 30,000 20 81 16 I0 47 10 10 132 43 18 62 11 7 16 2 65 338 82 Page 7 MEMORANDUM iTO: Rich Caplan, Town Manager FROM: Dick Ryan, Community Development, Director -J�N,I. DATE: April 8, 1980 RE: Options to consider for possibly reducing the number of units within the Town. Under current zoning there could be up to 2,160 new units within the Town of Vail. The Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission have been concerned with the ultimate build out of the Town. Below are five options to consider. 1. Status quo -No change in the zoning districts as to the number of units that could be permitted. 2. Work to reduce the number of units in Vail by "X" %. 3. Require that "X "% of units constructed in the Town be available for employees of the Gore Valley. 4. Reduce the number of units.by "X "% and require all projects to have "X "% for employee housing. 5. Another option to consider is allowing "X" number of units to be constructed in any year. This would extend the ultimate build out of the. Town. A merit system would be developed where criteria for employee housing, solar application, energy conservation, site design, landscaping, parking and circulation, public facilities, parks, fire protection, water distribution, sanitary sewage collection, police protection, public transportation, etc. would be developed. A point system would then be established and the projects with the highest number of points would receive approval for building permits. LJ iMEMORANDUM TO: Dick Ryan, Community Development Director FROM: Steve Patterson, Building Official DATE: 4 -4 -80 RE: BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN VAIL VILLAGE AND LIONSHEAD CORE AREAS OR CLOSE PROXIMITY TO CORE AREAS. 1. Exterior work to be done on any building in the two Core Areas, or pertinent adjoining buildings . as determined by Design Review Board, may be done year round as long as a decorative fence, app- roved by Design Review Board and Building Division is erected around entire construction project with care being given to maintenance of Town.Right of Ways, easements and pertinent traffic flow. (Both vehicular and pedestrian) 2. All fencing is to be approved by Design Review Board and Building Division in regard to design, location, and construction prior to any exterior work being done. 3. Interior work on any structure will have no additional restrictions, • other than those already in effect, for the entire year. 4. A maximum of one permanent job vehicle only with the location to be determined by the Town of Vail -will be allowed at all times between the hours of 7.:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. only. 5. Delivery vehicles for construction supplies will be allowed a maximum of 30 minute delivery time on job site. If any public area is to be blocked during construction, crane, etc., the Town of Vail Police and Fire Departments will be given 24 hour notice. The delivery vehicles must meet the time zoning regulations approved by the Town of Vail. 6. All building material must be either stored inside structure com- pletely or if material is too large to be stored inside then said material will be located inside fenced area. Adequate trash facilities will also be located inside fenced area. 7. No permits will be issued for either core area unless a time schedule is recieved and approved by the Building Division. 8. When streets, sidewalks walkways, vehicular alleys, or a pedestrian area is to be altered (temporary or permanent), then temporary facilities will be constructed prior to construction after approval has been given by Design Review Board and Building Division. Tem- porary facilities will be provided in full by builder. After construc- tion is completed all disruption to the Town of Vail Right of Way must be corrected to original condition. i�l Vikl, ' 1 0 0 TO: 'MOWN COUNCIL FROM: DICK RYAN, DEPAMMENT OF COMMONITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 4 -4-80 RE: PARKING FF.E FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I AND COMMERCIAL CORE II The Community Development Department has reviewed the current parking fee for expansion in Commercial Core I and II and is recommending a reduction to the fee for first floor expansions that are in conformance with the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. First and second floor commercial expansions would be reduced from the current $5,000 for each 300 square foot of expansion to $1,500 for each 300 square foot of expansion for a three year period. At the end of three years, the fee would be what Town Council has set for 1982. All other types of expansions or changes that require additional parking would be required to pay the $5,000 per parking space. The next change would be a change in where the fee could be used. Instead of just for parking, the fee could also be used for the bus system. The ordinance discussing parking needs to be changed to also include money . being used for the bus system. The title should be Parking and Transportation Fee. In Vail Lionshead there could be some existing parking spaces that would be removed for new commercial space, additional landscaping, pedestrian space and trash storage. The questions is how we should deal with the reduction in parking spaces. I would recommend the $1,500 fee. 140 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING April 21, 1980, 1:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of Minutes from 3 -24, 4 -7, and 4- 14 -80. 2.) Continued Public Hearing on Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I and II. 3.) Discussion of Livery Stable at Spraddle Creek. s Minutes of Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting of 4 -21 -80 Members Present Roger Tilkemeier Jim Morgan John Perkins Ed Drager Sandy Mills Dan Corcoran Staff Members Present Dick Ryan Jim Rubin Peter Patten No Council Person was present at the beginning of the meeting. 1.) Approval of Minutes from 3 -24,, 4 -7, and 4- 14 -80. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the above minutes. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. Everyone voted for the approval of the minutes with the exception of Dan Corcoran who abstained as he was not at the meetings. 2.) Continued Public Hearing on Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I'and II. - The Board discussed the Plan with Jeff Winston and Dick Ryan marking the recommended changes. Some of the Town Council Members came to disucss the proposed livery at Spraddle Creek so the Board decided to postpone this discussion for about 20 minutes in order to discuss the livery. 3.) Discussion of Livery Stable at S raddle Creek. Roger Tilkemeier made his presentation. Bill Wilto, Paula Palmateer, Ron Todd from the Council were present as well as Rich Caplan, Town Manager. Dick Ryan said that the Staff are worried about the amount of traffic that will be going up there. Roger Tilkemeier said he is willing to work with the staff to establish whatever is necessary for traffic and parking problems. He is thinking of having people (customers and employees) park at the Transportation Center and transport them from there. He thinks there will be room for 8 -10 cars on the site. • Ed Drager asked about the possibility of making it a bus stop there. Rich Caplan said it is not a good spot for a bus stop and the road would have to be improved. Minutes of PEC Meeting 4 -21 -80 Page Two i Paula said she does not think that the summer tourist would be willing to climb that hill and walk to the site. Paula asked about the visual impact. Roger said that the base facility would be visible but the tent camp would be hidden back in the trees. Paula asked how many people would be living on the site. Roger said about ten. Paula asked Jim Paxon of the Forest Service what requirements they have for the living facilities. Jim said they require what the State, County, and local require. Dan Corcoran asked how they plan to get water to the site. Roger said they are negotiating to tap a spring and if that is not possible, they will haul the water. Jim Morgan asked if there is a need for people living there. Roger said there is a definite need especially since this is so close to the highway. If someone leaves a gate open etc., and the horses get out, it is vitally important to have someone right there to get them off the road. Bill Wilto asked who will be responsible for policing the area. Roger said that everyone feels that this operation will curtail some of the illegal camps that are usually here during the summer. Dan Corcoran said that that road is usually open in the summer. Will it remain open. Jim Paxon said it will remain open. Jim Paxon explained that this is just an interim plan and permit. Roger must submit permanent plans to them in July. The interim permit will be good through December 31, 1980. Dick Ryan asked Roger if he doesn't think there will be more than 10 -12 cars. Roger said he hopes a lot of the hotels will use their vans to bring people. They will bring some from the transportation center and meals will be by reservation only, limiting the number of people who can come there. Roger said he plans to apply for a long term permit in July, possibly for five to ten years. Paula Palmateer said if this operation is to open June 10, it will have run for a month by the time Roger applies for the long term permit and perhaps then the Town could rediscuss it. Jim Paxon said they would welcome any comments from the Town at the time of application for the long term permit. It would not be issued until fall- probably October. 0 40 Minutes of PEC Meeting 4 -21 -80 Page Three Ron Todd said that part of the problem in Minturn was that the people complained that the buildings were not kept up. He asked what would be done towards the upkeep of the buildings here. Roger said they are old log buildings and he feels they are not an eyesore and he certainly wouldn't want any eyesores in Vail. Roger Tilkemeier said for the record, he would like everyone to know that he is on leave from Vail Associates for a month so that he can get this resolved. Bill Wilto said he, too, is concerned with the number of cars on the site and going up that road. He feels that this is a very important amenity to offer here during the summer. He feels the key is to look at it long range and make sure it is a first class operation. Dan Corcoran asked what will be visible. Roger said the corrals, barns and log house would be visible. He feels this is necessary in this kind of business. A question was asked about the zoning on that land since it was annexed into the Town. Jim Rubin explained that the Forest Service rules supersede the Town. Roger Tilkemeier said in the long range plan, perhaps they could rezone this so that it fits in with all zoning. Sandy Mills asked about the number of horses they would have on the site. Roger said 40 and possibly as many as 70. Ed Drager asked what would happen with the by product. Roger Tilkemeier said they would be loading and hauling it off. They never had a problem with it at Dowd Junction. A lot of people want it . Dan Corcoran asked if all the horses would be corralled or if they would be grazing. Roger Tilkemeier said they have applied for a grazing permit but don't know the status of that as yet. Jim Rubin asked if the Forest Service has any restrictions for signage. Jim Paxon said they have to have their approval before erection. Jim Rubin asked that the signs come through the Town also. Roger Tilkemeier said they would. Sandy Mills said she realizes there is a time problem here but she feels they need more time to look at this. She would be very definitely against parking at the bottom of the hill. Minutes of the PEC Meeting of 4 -21 -80 Page Four • Ed Drager asked if the PEC gives a nod to this today, will Roger still come in with a plan of what is to go up there etc. Roger said the plan still needs a lot of work but he will definitely bring the plan to the Town. Paula asked if PEC approves this today, does it have to come back as an official item? Rich Caplan sa.id it does not. It is only here so that the Town can make recommendations to the Forest Service. Dick Ryan said he thinks we need to get up there to see it. Ed Drager asked what Roger's time schedule on this is. Roger said they have 60 -90 days worth of work to put into 30 days. Roger said he would like to take the Board up there Wednesday at noon to see the site. He will provide sandwiches. Paula asked if the Council could go also. Roger asked if someone on the Staff would call the Council to let them know. The Board each gave their comments on this. Jim Morgan said he would like to see it available. He is concerned with the visual impact and the parking. John Perkins said he likes the concept but has problems with the obvious traffic, the tent city and the tree removal. Dan Corcoran said this operation has definitely been a benefit in the past at Dowd Junction. He has problems with the sanitation, the roads, and the cars. Sandy said she is very nervous about this operation at this location. Ed Drager said he supports it, but would like to see all the problems corrected and make sure it works before the long term permit is issued. Jim Morgan had to leave at 3:17. Paula said the summer program needs this operation but she feels that it is up to Roger to prove he can make it work. Sandy Mills asked about the acreage.involved. Roger said there are 10- 15,000 acres but the people who come there most want one or two hour rides. Paula said she assumes if it were not safe, the Forest Service would not grant the permit. Jim Paxon said that is correct. Minutes of the PEC Meeting of 4 -21 -80 Page Five The Board continued their discussion on the Vail Village urban Design Guide Plan. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the Goals and Policies for Vail Village and Lionshead as per attached. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Jeff Winston discussed the Framework Plan with the Board. John Perkins made a motion to approve the Framework Plan for Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The Board and Jeff Winston discussed the Architectural Guidelines for Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. Ed Drager made a motion to approve them. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. Sandy Mills and John Perkins voted against the motion. Ed Drager and Roger Tilkemeier voted for the motion. It was a 2 -2 tie. Dan Corcoran had left the meeting at this point. Sandy Mills made a motion to continue this until 4- -28 -80 at 2:00. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. 0 GOALS AND POLICIES TOWN OF VAIL URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK LJ r 1. Vail has evolved to its present form as the result of common assumptions about character and function implemented through private individual decisions. As such, while the Town has achieved a certain consistency and quality, the potential and even need for change still exists. Change which builds upon and enhances the existing character, quality and vitality of the Town will not be discouraged. 2. The Town, with citizen input, will take an active role in the development of an urban-design plan to guide future development in the core areas. Such a plan, and its various components, will represent the development objectives of the community and will serve to identify, and express a general direction in the resolution of major development concerns in the core areas. o The urban Design Plan Framework Plan -- Town -wide planning objectives Policies -- General policy and goal statements to implement the Plan Sub -area Urban Design Guides -- Specific planning objectives for sub -areas Architectural Guidelines --- Key architectural elements generally prescribed v Adoption of the Plan and incorporation into ordinances as appropriate s An annual process with citizen input to periodically review the Plan 3. The Town of Vail is comprised of two interrelated core areas, and a �ran�jtionrzone, each with its own general visual character reflected in architectura Aan urbari' form: All development in these areas shall be consistent with the general character -of that area. o Architectural & landscape Guidelines 4. Pedestrian circulation is to be encouraged in the core areas and an interconnected network of pedestrian ways will be developed to link the core areas and provide a pleasant, safe, continuous experience for pedestrians. • Designated pedestrian • Development standards -Building height, ma .Sun/shade Infill /open space Pedestrian scale system and levels of pedestrianization. for Tree biassing 5sing Patios Activity generation /land use Levels of pedestrianization Service agreements o Time zoning and service parking to reduce conflicts TOWN OF VAIL . o Improvements to,,,vehicle'sz to the Frontage Road area (minimize intrusion into core). e Consistent design character for improvements in Town R.O.W. and other public spaces. 5. Vail's mountain valley setting is an important part of its identity, and should b recognized in the planning and development of the Village, Lionshead and the connecting area through sensitivity to views, climate, and other physical characteristics of the environs. o Important view planes identified and preserved o Sun -shade restrictions e Use of native or complementary materials a Emphasis on Gore Creek, Mill Creek 6 Frontage Road Exper ence • IV'oe�V MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PETER PATTEN DATE: 4 -24 -80 RE: APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DENSITY AND LANDSCAPING AND SITE COVERAGE VARIANCES TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE GASTOF GRAMSHAMMER KITCHEN 1. BACKGROUND Pepi Gramshammer is requesting that he be allowed to construct an addition to enlarge his restaurant kitchen facilities in the Gastof Gramshammer building in the Village Core (CCI District). All expansions in CCI are subject to Conditional Use Permit review procedures. Also, because the Vail Village Urban Design Plan has not been totally adopted as of this application, several variances must also be granted according to the present regulations in effect. This is a similar procedure to the Vail 21 building variances requests which PEC unanimously approved on April 14, 1980. 2. VARIANCES NEEDED A. Density The building is allowed 1.6/1 Floor Area Ratio 2.6/1. Since the building is already over, a the kitchen expansion is allowed. B. Landscaping (FAR) and currently is at variance must be granted if CCI requires that 20% of the site be landscaped (ground floor patios and decks do not count as landscaping). Presently, the only area which qualifies as landscaping is the square - shaped area west of the existing building where the addition is proposed. This area is approximately 1880 square feet, or 13% of the total site area. The addition will be reducing this by 500 square feet and the result will be about 10% of the site landscaped. C. Site Coverage Village Core requirements currently dictate no more than 80% of the site can be covered by buildings, decks, and patios. On the site in question, this figure is 11,415 sq. ft. maximum. There exists 11,067 square feet of site coverage. With the additional coverage of the addition, the total site coverage would be 11,566 square feet, 151 square feet over the maximum. 3. APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT FACTORS A. Vehicular Traffic /Off - Street Parkin . Since no restaurant seating is being proposed and no additional employees generated, there will be no impacts on these factors. Gastof Gramshammer Page Two B. Control of Delivery, Pick Up and Service Vehicles No change from present conditions are proposed in these regards. Time zoning of delivery vehicles is part of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. C. Development of Public Spaces for use by Pedestrians Part of the Village Urban Design Plan calls for a pedestrian path to the north of the Gastof Gramshammer /Covered Bridge Buildings along the south bank of the creek. The parking lot adjacent to the proposed path is owned jointly by Pepi Gramshammer, the Creekside Building and the Covered Bridge Store. The Planning Staff feels that a condition of approval should be an agreement from Pepi stating he'll grant the Town a sufficient easement for the path- way and that the problem of parked cars encroaching too far onto the creek bank will be mitigated. Trash and debris has built up in the lower parking lot, also, and this should be cleaned up. D. Maintenance of character of Area /Environmental Effects No effects on these factors are forseen. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH PROPOSED VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN PLAN The Plan's original proposal was to allow a one story commercial expansion out to the Children's Fountain in the area where this addition is proposed. After some discussion, it was concluded that the greenspace there now is one of the few in the Village Core and that it should remain, along with the large tree just to the south of the proposed addition. Thus, the expansion under consideration was generally acceptable as long as it was restricted so as not to come out any farther than the largetree. 5. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. The Planning Commission shall make the following finds before granting a Conditional Use Permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions is of this ordinance. Gastof Gramshamner Page Three • B. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 6. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variances requested. The proposed addition possesses no negative impacts upon the Village Core and is a relatively innocent kitchen addition. The valuable area of landscaping on the western side of the building is to remain as is and, thus, not a removal of valuable green area is proposed. Conditions of approval are as follows: A. The applicant should be required to participate in Village Core improvements and agree not to remonstrate against the special improvement district if formed, and agree to join the district. B. The existing tree immediately west of the proposed addition be left undisturbed. C. The applicant agree to clean up and mitigate parked car encroachment on the stream bank in the lower parking lot behind the building. D. The applicant agree to dedication of a sufficient easment to construct a pedestrian pathway on the top of the stream bank adjacent to the parking lot. 0 n • U 1290W.T►LlIZ TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 4 -24 -80 RE: MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2, 3, and 4, BLOCK 8, VAIL VILLAGE 7th FILING This is a request from the owners of the three lots, Trammel Crow and Avedik Akopiantz, to combine the three lots zoned R P/S with a potential development of six units, into two lots with proposed development of a total of four units. The proposed lot 1 contains a duplex. Design Review Board approval has been issued for a proposed duplex on what would be lot 2. Existing and Proposed Areas are as follows: Existing: Lot 2 3 4 TOTAL Proposed: Lot 1 2 Sq. Ft. Area in Acres Existing Dwelling Units Potential Dwelling Units 11,559 .224 16,995 .390 11,803 .271 40,357 .885 Sq. Ft. Area in Acres 19,078 21,270 .438 .488 RECOMMENDATION 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 4 Existing ©welling Units Potential Dwelling Units 2 0 0 2 As this proposal eliminates two potential units, it is consistent with the goals of the Town. The Department of Community Development recommends approval. It however, should be mentioned that one of the existing lots, lot 2, is under 15,000 square feet and therefore, has the potential for an employee housing unit if it were built as a duplex under the existing lot arrangement. MEMORANDUM TO: Rich Caplan, Town manager . FROM: Dick Ryan, Community Development, Director DATE: April 8, 1980 RE: Options to consider for possibly reducing the number of units within the Town. Under current zoning there could be up to 2,160 new units within the Town of Vail. The Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission: have been concerned with the ultimate build out of the Town. Below are five options to consider. 1. Status quo -No change in the zoning districts as to the number of units that could be permitted. 2. Work to reduce the number of units in Vail by .3. Require that "X "% of units constructed in the Town be available for employees of the Gore Valley. 4. Reduce the number of units by "X"% and require all projects to have "X "% for employee housing. 5. Another option to consider is allowing "X" number of units to be constructed . in any year. This would extend the ultimate build out of the Town. A merit system would be developed where criteria for employee housing, solar application, energy conservation, site design, landscaping, parking and circulation, public facilities, parks, fire protection, water distribution, sanitary sewage collection, police protection, public transportation, etc. would be developed. A point system would then be established and the projects with the highest number of points would receive approval for building permits. • L J i� GROUSE CREEK LIVERY, LTD. APPLICATION FOR FOREST PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF EAGLE'S NEST LIVERY HOLY CROSS DISTRICT WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST APRIL 18, 1988 P • • EAGLE'S NEST LIVERY STATEMENT OF NEED 1. Scope of Project To provide recreation horse - related activities for local cit- izens and visitors to the resort communities in the Upper Eagle Valley. Lands identified include horse pasture, ditches, fences, roads, trails, temporary stable facilities and planned temporary housing facilities for stable employees. Location of Project: Base facilities will be located at the mouth of Spraddle Creek; cookout sites and campsites as described in the operating plan. 2. Other Operations Grouse Creek Livery Ltd. intends to operate a stable at Key- stone this year providing final arrangements can be worked out with Keystone Management. 3. Project Description Eagle's Nest Livery is intended to be operated as a recrea- tion horse amenity for local citizens and guests of the Upper Eagle River Resort communities. The following services are anti- cipated: o Guided and independent rides for qualified.riders, with emphasis on back - country sightseeing including historical, wildlife and wildflower orientation. High country horsemanship and etiquette shall be explained and stressed as part of pre - departure orientation. The Montana Horseman pamphlet shall be used as a guide. o Chuckwagon breakfasts, lunches and suppers prepared and served cowboy style from authentic Chuckwagon providing guests with historical as well as enter- taining experience. o Riding lessons and children's programs to meet resort requirements. o Pack trip services will be phased into the operation over a two to three year period. From an operational standpoint, animals and personnel must be specialized. and regularly scheduled to be economically viable. The occasional pack trip is disruptive to regularly scheduled activities and is not a practical solution to resort guests' needs. . -1- A livery stable providing day rides and overnight trips to the headwaters of Middle Creek would be a very attractive Vail Resort amenity. It would provide services and facilities not now available within walking distance from hotels and lodges. The Spraddle Creek, Middle Creek, Bald Mountain area is ideal for this activity for the following reasons. o The base facilities are across the street and visible from the center of Vail. o The facilities may become a guest browsing area even for those not planning a pack trip just because of the nature of the activity - rustic log cabin, corrals, pack horses in use, etc., etc. o The base facilities location will give guests an over- view of the Vail recreation complex. o The rise to the head of Middle Creek is short enough to be reasonably comfortable for the average inex- perienced and unconditioned rider. o The overview of the Vail complex from the ridge of Bald Mountain is unequalled. o The approach to the proposed Middle Creek camp is spectacular and memorable, yet safe and accessible with some trail improvement and maintenance. o The Middle Creek basin is "remote back country" and could be maintained in that state if reserved, man- aged and controlled as a back country pack trip area. The activity must be managed in harmony with other grazing activities and permits. Tourist exposure to livestock produc- tion and range management on forest and wilderness lands is a desirable, educational and realistic part of day rides and /or wilderness pack trip experience and day rides. Innovative use and management plans in the Gore Creek basins are a necessity to preserve recreation options. Setting aside an area close to heavy tourist populations, yet remote and ideally suited for controlled access guided pack trips and day rides is not inconsistent with other permits. The long term preservation of this type of activity in the Gore Creek Valley could prove to be a valuable management concept. The plan includes development package in cooperation with one or pack trip is planned for three days and third days are leisurely travel middle day reserved for fishing and I -2- of minimum five day vacation two small lodges in Vail. The and two nights. The first to and from camp, with the sightseeing rides. s Trips-would be limited to approximately eight guests and two wranglers. Facilities would consist of aseasonally temp- orary tent camp and a pole corral made of buck sections to pro- vide for ease of movement and dismantling in off -- season. Grazing management would require cooperation between.live- stock (sheep) permittee and packer /livery permittee to assure adequate forage for livestock, with supplemental feed being provided as required, for horses. Need for Forest Service Lands: Use of Forest Service Land is essential for providing livery facilities for the Vail Resort community. No private land is available for this type of rec- reation amenity. Furthe.rihorseback riding is an effective way of implementing and meeting Forest Service dispersed recreation goals and objectives. 4. Method of Operation o Ownership: Grouse Creek Livery, Ltd,. a Colorado corporation dba Eagle's Nest Livery. o Source of Product: Outdoor recreation oriented visitors to the Vail Resort. o Place of Use: Spraddle Creek - Middle Creek, Bald Mountain. 5. Schedule of Development 1980 - Temporary facilities as described in the operating plan this season. By July 15, 1980 a long range development plan will be submitted requesting a long term permit. 6. Other Interests and Owners Affected Spraddle and Middle Creek: Chris Jouflas, grazing.permittee, and private land owners (Vail Associates, Inc.). 7. Other RegulatoryAgencies Town of Vail 8. Proiect Need A livery stable in the Spraddle Creek area, including approp- riate support facilities as described in the operating plan meets the needs of the Vail Resort community. Methods of operations and development schedules have been created in cooperation with Holy Cross District personnel to assure acceptable programs. -3- Vail -has become a major summer resort and is in need of or- ganized guest activities. Typical Colorado summer visitors look for 'Western atmosphere" which is generally horse - related. Eagle's Nest Livery services are anticipated to be an extension of the sightseeing and nature appreciation experiences. Lodges and promoters of group business have indicated customer demand for these services. Pack trips, properly organized, with short rides to remote but comfortable, semi - permanent camps will give the Vail visitor the opportunity of a back country experience not available in most Colorado resorts. This activity may take two or more seasons of development before regularly scheduled trips are economically feasible. If the permit and development plan is not approved, the Upper Eagle Valley Resort communities will be without close in horse oriented recreation amenities. 9. Alternative Methods None. 10. Technical Requirements o Development of acceptable land use plan for Spraddle 0 Creek, in cooperation with the Forest Service and the Town of Vail. Effects on Wildland Environment: Horseback trips will take people to back country and wilderness areas causing possible im- pacts such as; o Litter o Wildlife interference o Trail Erosion o Fire Hazards Mitigation of Impacts: o Most trips will be accompanied by wranglers who shall instruct riders on litter problems. Only qualified . riders will be allowed to ride independently. o Wranglers and guests will be instructed to pack out litter left behind by hikers and campers, as well as their own. o With proper instructions and authorization from the Forest Service, wranglers can serve as back country rangers. o Wildlife is usually not frightened by horseback parties. With knowledgeable wranglers, harrassment should be negligible. Livery will assist in fish -4- .• 0 stocking programs. • o Trail Erosion: The livery operation, with. the Forest Service, will take an active part in trail maintenance and improvement, thus controlling erosion problems more effectively than can be done with Forest Service personnel only. o Smoking not permitted on the trail. -5- • 0 GROUSE CREEK LIVERY, LTD. SAFETY AND OPERATIONS PLAN FOR EAGLE'S NEST LIVERY SUMMER 19$0 • U • I. Description of Use Grouse Creek Livery Ltd. a Colorado corporation, intends to operate a commercial recreation horse facility on Forest Service Lnads, open to the public for day rides, pack trips and chuckwagon meals. The primary area of operation is on Bald Mountain in the Spraddle and Middle Creek drainages. Pack trips and hunting camps are anticipated usages, but may not be offered in 1980. Most day rides and all pack trips will be led by an Eagle's Nest wrangler, however, "qualified" riders may be allowed to ride independently on designated trails. II. operations Guide Qualifications: o All guides will be experienced horsemen with the following additional qualifications: - Current and valid "new course" standard first aid card. Emergency procedures. High country horsemanship and etiquette. - Local history, wildlife and wild flower knowledge. - Forest Service policies and enforcement proced- ure. Trips generally will begin and end at the stable facility at Spraddle Creek, however, there may be occasional trips that begin and end at other locations, such as Grouse Creek, Beaver Creek and Gore Creek. When Forest lands are involved in these special trips, the Forest Service will be notified prior to leaving and upon re- turn. Base Facilities: Base facilities will be located at the nouth of Spraddle Creek generally in the area identified in red on the attached map. In the 1980 operating seasons, base facilities will be min- imal because of time restrictions prior to the beginning of the season. They will include the following: o Ranch type gate with appropriate overhead sign at fence line where metal gate is presently located on the access road. -1- o Tent camp facilities which will include sheepherder type tents with wood burning stoves and wood floors for accomodating livery personnel will be located in the aspen grove along Spraddle Creek. Toilet facilities will be porta -johns of.vault toilets. o If a satisfactory and acceptable grey water dis- posal system can be developed this season, a cook and mess tent and appropriate propane facilities may be included along with shower facilities. Otherwise, these facilities will be provided off site. o If the small log building with the curved roof can be moved economically from Meadow Mountain this spring, it will be used as a saddle room. Otherwise tents will be used to store saddles. o Hay storage will be outside. Grain storage will be in a tent or a rustic building acceptable to the Forest Service. o Pole corrals and fences will be built in accord- ance with a design to be submitted to the Forest Service for approval with respect to location. Horse shelter may be provided in the corrals using pole supports and painted metal or asphalt roofing.. o Office facilities may be provided in a tent or the building presently being used for an office at Dowd's Junction. o Public toilet facilities in the form of porta- johns or vault toilets be provided. o An attempt will be made to secure electrical service this summer. If it is economically not feasible, gas or lantern lighting will be used. O Stockwater will be taken from Spraddle Creek. A dertain amount of grading, road work and other site preparation will be required. This work will be coordinated with and approved by the Forest Service on the site. The above facilities are considered temporary for the 1980 season. A long range de- velopment plan which will include permanent kitchen, . mess hall, toilet and shower facilities for employees office, barns pens, corrals, landscaping, etc. will be submitted by July 15, 1980 along with a request for a long term permit which will allow the improvements to be financed and amortized over the term of the • • permit. Crew facilities under this long term plan shall continue to be temporary in the form of a tent camp. It is anticipated that the log cabin. now at Dowd's Junction will be used for kitchen / mess hall facilities and the barns at Dowd's Junction will be moved and used on the Spraddle Creek site if feasible. A porch on the big barn will be constructed for guest shelter and a por- tion of the porch will be enclosed for a permanent office. Chuckwagon Operations: o Eagle's Nest Livery will operate two chuckwagon meal sites designed to serve breakfast, lunch and supper. One site will be selected in lower country for early season operation, however, in peak time periods, the sites may be operated simultaneously to satisfy mar- ket demand. o Site Size: Each site will be selected for accom- odation of up to approximately 150 people. o Site Facilities: Each site shall have the following. facilities: Area for working horse demonstrations. Hitch rails or corrals for horses. - Parking spaces for vehicles. - Public toilets - (porta -johns of vault.toilets) - Picnic tables as necessary to handle scheduled guests. - Removeable grill facilities. Camp fire and cooking fire pits. It is anticipated that each site will have in addition, the following listed facilities, however, in the early years of.oper- ation, only one set of these facilities may be required and will be moved between sites as necessary: o Chuckwagon with fly. o Canvas shelters for picnic tables. -3- o Sheepherders tent and stove for food preparation including propane tanks properly screened for gas stoves and gas refrigeration if required. o Camp wagon for atmosphere and accomodation of chuck - wagon caretaker /cook to provide security for camp and equipment. Campsites: o While pack trips and hunting camps will be part of Eagle's Nest Livery's long range operating plan, these activities will not be promoted in the 1980 operating season. Campsites when needed will be at the headwaters of Middle Creek and other locations mutually acceptable to the Forest Service and permittee. Horse Trails: Present livestock and other trails along with the roads will provide the basis for riding trails in the Spraddle Creek, Middle Creek and Bald Mountain area. There is no doubt that other trails will be required to provide variety for the day rides. These trails will be developed with the Forest Service to provide maximum pleasure for guests with the least possible impact on forest lands. Roads: The Spraddle Creek road is to remain open to the public although unlocked gates may be placed across the road at sel- ected locations for stock control and to define compound bound- aries. The Forest Service and permittee shall monitor public vehicular traffic on the road during the season to determine the level of conflict and degree of safety in combined horse/ vehicle use. Winter Use: if a satisfactory route and facility can be worked out the permittee amy request permission to operate winter horse drawn sleigh dinner excursion. it is understood that another permittee is providing snow cat tours and ski bobbing activ- ities in this same area. There should be no conflict between these operations, and may compliment them. Grazing: The Forest Service and permittee will investigate graz- ing possibilities and location of drift fences this summer with the idea of providing grazing for up to 350 A.U.M's in the Red Sandstone allotment. Grazing will be managed in a manner not to conflict with other livestock grazing permits. -4- III. Procedures Equipment Checklist: One and one half to three hour guided rides do not demand an elaborate checklist. Rain gear will be provided by the permittee. The following clothing items will be required by all riders: o Long Trousers o Closed shoes or boots o Light jacket The following items will be recommended: o Hat or cap o Sunglasses o Gloves Customer Briefing: o Review of trail to be covered including woldlife and plants to observe. o Emergency procedures: Falling off Lost rider 49 - Unscheduled stops o Explain litter policies and back country ethics. o No smoking on trail. o High country horsemanship and etiquette using Montana Horseman Pamphlet as a guide. IV. Personnel Wranglers have not been hired as of this date. All wranglers will be experienced riders and will be required to have a current first aid card. A list of wranglers with their qualifications will be submitted prior to opening operations. Survival trainging is not considered mandatory with activities scheduled for the 1980 season, although it is anticipated that em- ployees will be experienced outdoorsmen. V. Equipment List Each wrangler will be equipped with an emergency first aid kit as part of his saddle gear. -5- 0 VI. Rescue Plan o Alert List: - Eagle County Sheriff - Minturn Police - Vail Police -- Vail Rescue Team - U.S. Forest Service - Vail Clinic o Chain of Command for Search and Rescue: Stable manager or, in his absence, assistant manager, shall make decision on calling for assistance. Since most trips are to be guided, the chance of a major search is remote. - Forest Ranger notification. -- Stable owner is to be notified of any search and rescue operation. o Accident Procedure: Wrangler to provide immediate emergency first aid. At wrangler's sole discretion, an experienced rider is to be sent to the stable to report accident or wrangler may elect to leave accident victim with other guests and go for help. Emergency procedures are scheduled to be a com- tinuing part of employee training sessions. o Emergency Phone Numbers: Stable office: To be submitted when assigned. - Roger Tilkemeier, owner - 476 -5801 -- nights & weekends 476 -5601 - days o Insurance: Liability coverage will be provided in accordance with Forest Service Requirements. M:M U VII. Schedule of operations The schedule of operations is expected to be similar to that which is described in last year's Grouse Creek Livery brochure (copy attached). A final schedule of operations which may be ad -. justed during the season to meet Market demands will be submitted prior to opening as a supplement to this plan. Approximately 12000 service days are anticipated. The permit application was written from May l to December. 31 however, depending on weather conditions, actual use should be from approximately May 15 to October 1. If a winter operation as described in section II , a supplementary operating plan will be submitted. Children's activity hours, including riding lessons, are anticipated depending upon market demand. No night operations are scheduled. Cancellation notices will be phoned to lodges and guests who have made advance reservations. -7- • �� ~L ^r.� _ Y��T��f �..: DVS. H,'•� ✓�. _- _ _ - _ _ -may. "'� "' lop 'c - A.,. \_i'.? 3. Right to Eefuse Service Service shall not be refused on the basis of race, religion, �y rnlnr n t- ntry of n- ri71nI hnwPvpr, rr(:niige (rP.r!- Ttvnry r?nnr reserve the right to refuse service to any person. Reasons may include, but are not limited to the following and are at the sole descretion of Grouse Creek. Livery: - E�vidence of alcoholic or drug consumption, however slight_ - Improper clothing. - Abusive language End /or attitude_ -Adverse weather condltions. • Age of rider. - 3efusal to follow rules. 4. Liability Grouse Creek Livery essuyes no responsibility for accidents. Borseback riding In the mountains is not considered a dangerous activity, however, there is some risk involved. 5. Hide Schedules A11 rides shall operate as scheduled and posted at the stable except when cancelled because of weather or other reasonable unforseen eircu = stances. Forest Service regulations limit the number of riders in any one group to 15. special rides for limited or private groups may be arranged by appointment. 6. Inciet.endent r"iidinwz Indepenaent riding is available to experienced, qualified riders. Quellfication may include but is not limited to the following requlr2ments: - Demonstration of riding ability. .Acceptance of liability for accident or lnjury. .Acceptance of liability for horse. -Understanding of horse's limitations at hlSb altitude. •f:- greement not to mistreat or abuse stock or equipment. - j-ayment of search and rescue costs If required. ?. Aldln= Atrarel The f ol] ovang clothing • ons trousers. .Closed shoes or boots. .LSEht jaclet. -The following Items are -Cap or net. -Sun z'esses. is required by all riders: suggested: S._ -Hates Rates are posted at the stable and-are sub3ect to c:bnbe xlthout rotice. q . is `.ent for Service 1a}wer.t f:7A11 be in r,c'van.ce by cash, aprroced check, or credit ca:3- No cre'd'it cXterded under any c,rcu= 9tar)ces. _• �J-. - ��• r`,Y -_ v' .. -•n -• - -�: Ar- ••'r• r __ ? ' . GHOUSE CrlEa- LIVERY OFEii:,TING POLICY General The Grouse Creek Livery Stable is dedicated to providing an -__:; ^-� f___� ►_- . �- :.L interesting, enjoyable, quality western mountnln riding experltDce. r3%phesis Is pleced on slghseeing and history of the area along with wildlife and nature lore. Dinner and breakfast rides are designed to rovide the guest -with a typical and authentic western chuckwagon eating experience. F..•7_il_ .•. - 2, Wrangler er Avthorlt For the safety and consideration of all widows the wrangler ridlnt with each Qroup nas absolute authority over company- owned �r:•�_ -=tii =` =r= .��- __`_5`"�° �! horses. .. • �� ~L ^r.� _ Y��T��f �..: DVS. H,'•� ✓�. _- _ _ - _ _ -may. "'� "' lop 'c - A.,. \_i'.? 3. Right to Eefuse Service Service shall not be refused on the basis of race, religion, �y rnlnr n t- ntry of n- ri71nI hnwPvpr, rr(:niige (rP.r!- Ttvnry r?nnr reserve the right to refuse service to any person. Reasons may include, but are not limited to the following and are at the sole descretion of Grouse Creek. Livery: - E�vidence of alcoholic or drug consumption, however slight_ - Improper clothing. - Abusive language End /or attitude_ -Adverse weather condltions. • Age of rider. - 3efusal to follow rules. 4. Liability Grouse Creek Livery essuyes no responsibility for accidents. Borseback riding In the mountains is not considered a dangerous activity, however, there is some risk involved. 5. Hide Schedules A11 rides shall operate as scheduled and posted at the stable except when cancelled because of weather or other reasonable unforseen eircu = stances. Forest Service regulations limit the number of riders in any one group to 15. special rides for limited or private groups may be arranged by appointment. 6. Inciet.endent r"iidinwz Indepenaent riding is available to experienced, qualified riders. Quellfication may include but is not limited to the following requlr2ments: - Demonstration of riding ability. .Acceptance of liability for accident or lnjury. .Acceptance of liability for horse. -Understanding of horse's limitations at hlSb altitude. •f:- greement not to mistreat or abuse stock or equipment. - j-ayment of search and rescue costs If required. ?. Aldln= Atrarel The f ol] ovang clothing • ons trousers. .Closed shoes or boots. .LSEht jaclet. -The following Items are -Cap or net. -Sun z'esses. is required by all riders: suggested: S._ -Hates Rates are posted at the stable and-are sub3ect to c:bnbe xlthout rotice. q . is `.ent for Service 1a}wer.t f:7A11 be in r,c'van.ce by cash, aprroced check, or credit ca:3- No cre'd'it cXterded under any c,rcu= 9tar)ces. 11. Wnen you meet the public dog so with a friendly and courteous attitude. A :•-arm attitude from the staff will make a person's riding experience more pleasurable. smile. 12. Everyone has friends Who like to visit the mountains. Any overrriszht visits must be cleared with the management. if guest eat a,. meal with the staff they will be expected to pay for it. 4� re�01red to _�1ta1n 5 clean mnd neo; Persons-- 2. ach pe :son will adjust their personal habits and actions to conform to the policies and customs of Grouse Creek Livery. 3. Bch person : =i11 make a persOnAl effort to live and York i compatibly with fellow staff. .respect each others rights. 4. .=ech person is expected to ma intain their living quarters in clean and habitable condition. �vex-yone will also be expecte to assist in maintaining the co-nmon liven: iGas. 5. Each--person :-111 "dress the m ,rtn cr � - - ` -- -- ---= ) �+iiai r. .3, U? .�..1: ='11 =r ; ?" � ai +.•i 11. �c -.:G� -Z' •• �. yrre L:orki*�g. - 4estarn boots, shirts, =nd� hats rewired. ='?pis cannot be over stressed. 6. Each p °rsor_ is ex-_oected to give full and wholehearted particii and involvement to their job. - 7. .teach person will assist in any area where needed. Each job position has it's specific duties. In addition each staff member may be assked to assist in general duties. f 8. Use of alcoholic beverazes -1 -bile i- ,orking is prohibited. Of f duty hours are a person's o::Tn responsibility. Hoj•.,ever, excess . use of alcohol, i -jhile off duty, which reflects badly upon Grou Creek Livery :•Till. be reason for dismissal. g. There will be no use of nari a ju_na, narcotics, or nor_ -pr °script druxs on Grouse Creek Livery property or while ,•.ors ing for Grouse Creek Livery at•zay from the 1-mmed is to property. ' 10. No smoking i -hile riding. 11. Wnen you meet the public dog so with a friendly and courteous attitude. A :•-arm attitude from the staff will make a person's riding experience more pleasurable. smile. 12. Everyone has friends Who like to visit the mountains. Any overrriszht visits must be cleared with the management. if guest eat a,. meal with the staff they will be expected to pay for it. 4� independent Ridings --�- 4.-- ,� .. Evlea HogulatSans and Policies ELL waivers - . .. _ All independent riders are required to sign. Lhla sheet �lilch includes the following xaivert z I hereby state and inform Grouse Creek Livery that I am axri` ti'x experienced rider and understand the risks and responsibilities_._` of riding horseback in the mountains and further agree to pay �`- f�- search and rescue operations that may be -.��. the cost of any �-`- initiated on my behalf. _ ;? X further hereby release Grouse Greek Livery from any Liability 1 xhatsoever for accident or injury regardless of: cause and here- by ►waive my right to an legal recourse. `! Demonstrate ability to mount and disnount sas sly.ti to rein and control horse.'- =r +pemonstrete ability - .Demonstrate knowledge and familiarity with saddle and equipment. �= ^- ��=1 ��-- *Demonstrate knowledge of horses limitation at high altitudes and on mountait trails. � �c j- Rules and Rc�Ulatlons% .Mountain riding generally is at a walk. mere are some reasonably flat areas on the trails suitsble for trotting or a controlled lope. • Do not trot or lope on any dosngrade. • Running and racing 1s not allowed at any time. - All gates shall be left as found. _ *All riders must stay on roads or trails. • Riders shall not ride In irrigation ditches or pastures being _ irrigated and shall not tamper with ditches or headgates. .'gorses shall not be tied by reins - use the halter and lead rope . and tie high. 'No spurs, quirts or whips, nor abusive treatment shall be permitted. . Any person returning a lathered horse to the barn shall pay a �25.00 additional fee. - -" All trails are patrolled. Anyone violating these rulles and '.; resuletions shall be reovlTed to dismount and return to e� b�rrn on foot. aelinouishing the horse to the patroling l y + Na refunds will be considered. . -__' yn My re below Z v unaerstand the rules yes la tonand. Pliciesforindependentridingat Grouse Creek Livery- Dates i ME ;Y j IN • � V `�� `�, j�l \� � y �� .� �� � � 10260 Lap ur r r _ 1`E4� -o— Ji — x 8287 jut L - `3 re _- ..rte -� f E"•���x+ -�1. � .v�l �• � \���� is 1r�/l /I�\ /� %' %i -� �. +� , , �u "Nail • - V• _ �� � / � —'`J� / • • THE VAIL LIONSHEAD MARCH 24, 1980 a Z I W D w mr THE GUIDE -PLAN • This Guide Plan represents the combined efforts of LionsHead residents, merchants, landowners, businesspersons, public officials and consultants - all contributed over months of time through a series of public workshops, through the workshop process of collecting ideas, testing, revising & refining-,the concepts have evolved into an illustrative plan which represents a collective opinion about improvements that are needed, and desired, to improve'the vitality and func- tionality of Vail LionsHead as a core commercial area. While illustrative in nature, the Guide Plan is intended primarily to suggest the general nature of the improvements desired. It is not to be interpreted literally, i.e. dimension, location and design concepts are only approximate and suggestive. While design innovation is encouraged, it is expected that individual proposals will conform in spirit and concept with the Guide Plan. Provision is made that minor adjustments to the Plan can be made by the Town Staff three times per year. Major amendments will be considered by the Planning Commission. • • • • • KEY TO THE GUIDE -PLAN GRAPHIC SYMBOLS MOM 11 k, 5!_1 V.. wfo KIOSK /DIRECTORIES - information, locator maps at"key orientation points. Potential sales kiosk locations, also, by special review and permit. SCULPTURE FEATURE - artwork introduced at key, high - visibility focal points. BELCHES - facing views and pedestrian ways, conver- sation pockets where possible, recessed for snow storage. MOVEABLE PLANTERS - in summer used to fill in plazas for. color and more intimate scale; in winter, removed to edges or storage to expand plazas for skier crowds and snow removal ease. NEW /MODIFIED LANDSCAPE - landscape areas reconfigured to improve pedestrian flow, accessibility to stores, and snow storage /removal problems. New landscape areas created toscreen buildings, enclose passages, and im- prove space definition. In all cases attempt to :preserve mature existing vegetation. COMMERCIAL EXPANSION - high transparency building exten- sions: to improve pedestrian scale at base of tall buildings, upgrade attraction of store facades (' and generate greater pedestrian activity), and turn diffi- cult sites (snow, shade, runoff) into viable commercial areas. 10 SUB -AREA CONCEPTS EAST MALL ,ENTRY OExpanded pedestrian waiting plaza (bus shelter relocated) to better accommodate skier crowds in winter. High visibility entry symbol (such as flags) and sculpture reinforce main entry. to LionsHead. Moveable planters restore pedestrian scale and color in summer. OVehicle access restricted (signage) auto drop -off relocated adjacent to parking. O Access route from parking relocated northward-(by landscape planter barrier) to separate parkins lot route from the crowded bus waiting area, and reduce crossing through the service area. Commercial expansion (1 storey) for scale, reinforce route. ® Pocket entry park (created by reduction of parking structure) to create and enhance an alternative entry to the Mall, reduce conges- tion at peak periods, increase pedestrian exposure to back areas, and to screen the parking structure and generally upgrade the approach to LionsHead. Additional 'study area to explore potential to: further upgrade O second mall entry, expand and intensify Lion's Pride Court,and complete pedestrian connection to Gondola Plaza. Service /delivery functionsessential to maintain, as well as private parking. © Commercial expansion (1 -2 storey) to strengthen secondary mall entry with activity /pedestrian scale, and better utilize shade - zone service court (minor). LIONS PRIDE COURT O Court opened to free access to LionsHead Court. Planting area reduced, relocated to abut LiosHead Arcade bldg. to provide screen buffer for restaurant and force traffic flowout of shadows into sunny area of court. Sculpture focal point. LIONSHEAD COURT ©Improve viability of below -grade shops by expanding stair access into broader landings and sunken courtyards. Sun pocket location, landscaping and paving to create attraction competitive with grade - level shops. ® Commercial expansion ( 1 -2 storeys) to better utilize shade -zone corner and present an additional front facade activity to court. r� U LIONSHEAD CENTER MALL Planting islands relocated to improve store accessibility and to expand dual mall passage for peak skier crowds. 11 Commercial expansion (1 storey) to, increase pedestrian emphasis, scale of mall, and improve shade -zone facades and accessibility. 12' Opportunity exists for expansion of buildings, arcades, awnings, etc. to improve scale, shelter, appearance of commercial facades. CLOCKTOWER SQUARE 13 Ticket plaza expanded for skier queuing, snow removal, a through passage. In summer, portable planters restore color, small scale. 14 Connecting ramp to make the entire mall accessible to emergency and utility vehicles, as well as easy barrier -free access for pedestrians. 15 Central planting island with popcorn wagon reconfigured to give more uniform circulation and permit free movement on all sides. 16 Commercial expansion (1 storey)'to establish pedestrian scale beneath building mass. Summer season use of public r.o.w. by permit for dining patio. Furnishings to be removed for winter access, snow removal, and general appearance. 17 Planting to screen non - commercial areas and make visual green link between plazas. 38 Commercial expansion (1 storey) to emphasize pedestrian level. Patio area enlarged slightly for additional dining space ( a sun - pocket area), and wider, inviting steps also sitting function. GONDOLA PLAZA Commercial expansion ( 1 storey) and ground floor office replaced l9 by commercial, to improve pedestrain scale, accessibility, and create strong activity- generator for south side of plaza. - currently a snow collector. Light tree screening either portable or in grade -level tree grates for snow removal and easy access. Gondola building ramp, a second access to the Gondola to distri- 20 bute foot traffic, and draw visitors, through other areas of mall. Tall sculpture feature at highest - visibility point as viewed from 21 either end of the mall. • 'scale. Existing mature vegetation preserved for green, color, and 22 Supplement with portable summer -time planters for additional color and more intimate scale for plaza. �1 L_J 23 A major, memorable identity feature for Vail LionsHead (fountains are the most photographed features throughout Vail), and a focal point to draw people to, and into, the Gondola Plaza. The fountain is intended to be a cascade of water, over levels of stonework and native vegeta- tion-to have a strong sculptural quality even in winter absent water flowing -and to be subtly illuminated. 24 A winding series of short stair runs and overlook platforms descend- ing from the north parking lot to the Gondola Plaza.through the native woodland planting. The stairs are to have light but solid railings and closely integrated with the fountain, passing over and around the cascading water. The stairs form the primary linkage to the north lot, the pedestrian bridge over I -70, must serve existing entries, and will otentially be the linkage to a pedestrian connection north of the Eifthouse Lodge. 25 Commercial expansion (1 storey) to emphasize pedestrian scale and attractive facades for improved commercial use, aided by fountain as pedestrian draw. At north end, commercial expan- sion (1 -2 storeys) to create a third acitivity edge to plaza, with opportunities for 2nd level sun - pocket dining terraces. 26 Potential commercial (1 -2 storeys) underground. A 15 foot grade difference offers futher commercial potential to form north edge of plaza,as described above. SOUTHWEST ENTRY 27 Commercial expansion (1 -2 storeys) to fill void corner. Decktop planter to enclose deck, add color /greener y , , and draw peds to /through. 28 Upgradinq of a secondary Mall entry by replacing single steep stair- way with a gentler series of stairs /landings and landscape framing. 29 Strong landscape planting to reinforce entry identity, with tree planters to soften alleyway and introduce meander to pathway. LANDMARK MALL 3U ' Reoriented stairs, plaza expansion and infill commercial in shadow . pocket to strengthen pedestrian flow and smooth connection to Landmark Mall. 3i Widened steps,'expanded upper terrace, with opportunity for arcade or building expansion. 32 Arcade or canopy extension to define pedestrian level at base . of building, shade windows, indirect lighting opportunity. 33 Rooftop planting terraces-stepping down from Concert Mall terrace to soften the wail abutment,frame stairway and provide privacy screen for residential unit. WEST MALL ENTRY 34 Functional improvements include: separation of buses from other traffic, an auto drop -off (and service vehicle) zone, and at. grade traffic islands for pedestrian crossing and snow storage. The bus shelter, at the north end of the circle as the road gra- dient eases, also serves to screen the loading area. Landscape planting is used to circumscribe the area and focus attention on the entry. A wider plaza and expanded steps also serve to re- inforce the entry way. 3 Walks, separated from roadways, extend north to the pedestrian bridge, west to the parking lot, and south and east to Lions Square and other mall entries - to provide safe, visible pedestrian routes to and from the Mall. r� n 1_ J s . • J Tl -MBE V [L VIL LAGS U R. R-, AN DE ' SIGH, -: -m-:-,GUlDE'--PLAN.,- APRIL 3, 1980 l • THE GUIDE PLAN This Guide Plan represents collective ideas about functional and aesthetic objectives for Vail Village. It has been developed over months of time,,through a series of public workshops, by Vail residents, merchants, public officials and consultants. Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan is intended to suggest the nature of the improvements desired. It is based on a number of urban design criteria, established by the workshop participants as particularly appropriate principles for guiding change in Vail Village. As such, the Guide Plan is a response to current issues and perceived problems, and intended to be a guide for current planning in both the public and private sectors. It is anticipated that perceptions of the problems will change over time and that adjustments will be made to the Guide Plan. Those adjustments will be considered on an annual basis, through a process similar to that which generated the Guide Plan, and based on urban design criteria appropriate to Vail. Companions to the Guide Plan are three other documents which should be consulted prior to any detailed planning or design: The Framework Plan Architectural Guidelines Goals and Policies The above establish the general objectives and assumptions underlying the specific recommendations in the Guide Plan. • is KEY TO THE GUIDE PLAN GRAPHIC SYMBOLS N, {.. • L VAIL VILLAGE Gore Creek Pedestrian Feature area - Path pavement treatment Auto /Truck - Open Focal point - access (direction existing or of flow) proposed Auto /Truck- limited'~'' -'' Infill expansion access, two lane:: ::`:' opportunity - within (unloading,passing):::::- established constraints Auto /Truck - limited Service & remote de- access, one lane livery parking Landscape framework, Separated pedestrian deciduous /coniferous ` "µ `y' way trees Annual color planting Key to site - specific (color accent to re- 7 considerations inforce movement) Shuttle bus route - Existing configuration two lane (each direction Shuttle bus route- Facade improvements one lane Iiii•r� ■�•��� recommended w - VAIL VILLAGE Gore Creek Pedestrian Feature area - Path pavement treatment Auto /Truck - Open Focal point - access (direction existing or of flow) proposed Auto /Truck- limited'~'' -'' Infill expansion access, two lane:: ::`:' opportunity - within (unloading,passing):::::- established constraints Auto /Truck - limited Service & remote de- access, one lane livery parking Landscape framework, Separated pedestrian deciduous /coniferous ` "µ `y' way trees Annual color planting Key to site - specific (color accent to re- 7 considerations inforce movement) Shuttle bus route - Existing configuration two lane (each direction Shuttle bus route- Facade improvements one lane Iiii•r� ■�•��� recommended • SUB -AREA CONCEPTS GORE CREEK DRIVE /BRIDGE STREET O1 Gore Creek walking path (Vail trail). Foot -path from Ford Park to LionsHead along the bank of Gore Creek. Path alternates from north to south side of creek due to: Corridor width, privacy encroachments, views and sun. Separate sections near Athletic Club and Creekside building may require elevated boardwalks. Final linkage to Ford Park to stay on north side of creek as per criteria mentioned. O2 Limited two -way traffic on Gore Creek Drive to allow service /delivery access_ to east end of core area and thereby reduce truck traffic through pedestrian zone. OFuture remote parking for service /delivery vehicles. Private site with long term parking commitments. Topography, however, favorable to two level structure, lower level accessible from Gore Creek Drive. ® Remote service /delivery zone. OTurn - around hammer head for return traffic east on Gore Creek Drive. . T.O.V. parcel. OEntry "gateway" to Village Core. Road narrows to one lane exit to discourage counter -flow traffic. "Mill Creek bridge" image, is mechanism for narrowing - reinforces gateway sense, emphasizes creek, and provides pedestrian path separate from roadway (by bridge railings) to further tie Mill Creek Court into pedestrian loop. OMill Creek enhancement. Tree planting along creek to increase visibility and screen building backs to improve enclosure of Mill Creek Court. Tree /shrub clusters near roadway further reinforce 'gateway' to core and Mill Creek as the boundary. 8 Mill Creek walking path. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive. O9 Commercial expansion (ground floor) to improve pedestrian scale at base of tall building, and for greater transparency as an activity generator on Seibert Circle. lU 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. Limited building expansion /improvements. Increase facade transparency . on south side to strengthen pedestrian activity, with entry to street. Potential expansion of building to south property line - since ground floor below street level not conducive to dining terrace. Additional • one story increase at south face to improve street enclosure proportions without encroaching into view corridors. Second level open balcony deck (sun pocket) to restore activity to street lost from ground floor terrace. 12 Future mid -block connection to further tie Mill Creek Court to core area. Entry reinforced by pocket park created on Bridge Street. i3 Raised sidewalk may become major pedestrian route during delivery periods. Slight widening warranted. Potential for open arcade for snow protection over wooden walk. Landscape improvements include: new consolidated stairs, tie retaining walls replaced with masonry, upgraded planting. 14 Village Plaza. Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visible from Gore Creek Drive. Major land form /planting in N.W. for quiet corner, with evergreen screen planting to define west edge. Wall street stairs,-with mid -level jog landing, opens entry area to Lazier Arcade shops. 15 Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increased facade transparency, entries simplified and oriented to intersection. 16 Key intersection in Village Core. Feature area paving treatment. 17 Street access openEd. lg Facade improvements. Increased ground floor transparency. ig Feature area paving - entry to core area. 20 Commercial expansion - 1 story (from plaza level) to improve enclosure proportions, and complete third side of plaza. Sun- pocket terrace potential at first or second level. 2i Future arcade section (by remodel) to continue south side walkway uninterrupted to Wall Street. (Building corner barrier currently). 2Z Pocket park. Screen fence to close off alleyway (gate required) and continue streetscape. Pocket park with benches, planter; snow storage in winter. Service vehicle zone optional. 23 Pedestrian walkway defined (by paving, planters, lighting, benches, etc.) to avoid traffic conflicts and unify diverse, disconnected building.facades. increased attraction to reinforce lodge arcade, west end of Core Area. • z4 Service /delivery /trash zone (screened). Commercial expansion - 1 story to provide active facade to pedestrian 25 street,help reinforce connection of Gore Creek Drive to Willow Bridge Road. OBasement delivery corridor (foot) to Gore Crcek Plaza building, to 2G be preserved, extended east when possible. 27 Service /delivery parking zone. 28 Residential expansion -to seal off adjacent buildings. Infill of parcel will help enclosure of Check point Charlie Circle, but should be stepped back to north to preserve and frame down- valley views. 29 Access to Gore Creek. Gentle bank terracing (grass) and natural boulder placement for creekside sitting, wading, etc. Shrub /tree infill along mid point of sidewalk to define, gently molded meadow edges for increased illusion of space. . 30 Bank improvements. Rip- rap,'reduced slope, re- seeding and shrub /tree planting for reinforcement of creek as visual feature of the Village. 31 Future bridge improvements. Second major entry to core area warrants increased imageability - such as with covered bridge (to become standard structure for .pedestrian crossings. Bridge structure gives parital enclosure of creekside meadow area a visible attraction from crossroads. Reinforce entry further with paving treatment and planting. near bridge. 32 Existing walkway (separated) connection to Crossroads area. . SUB -AREA CONCEPTS EAST MEADOW DRIVE OShort -term improvements, to upgrade entry appearance and narrow Vail Road to divert traffic east or west along the Frontage Road. Improve- ments include: - planting bed expansions to fill voids, unify entries - island to narrow Vail Road - tree planting to further restrict views down Vail Road OFuture study area. Long -term assessment of entry improvements in conjunction with south frontage road improvements and Phase IV & V of Vail Village Inn. OTraffic circle turn- around to limit penetration of lost traffic. Conveying a dead -end appearance from Frontage Road, it would at the same time make a major landscape focal point for west end of E. Meadow Drive as linkage to LionsHead. Traffic south of circle reduced by clear sign directives. OLandscape island to enclose circle, screen Bank parking, and make visual linkage to LionsHead.. Bank ownership, coordination required. Potential loss of four parking spaces. OSki Museum site improvements. Outdoor display area framed by tree planting. Raised paving surface with planters on front (circle) side for low- maintenance entry. Pedestrian walk continues around to west. OPedestrian walk, spearated'from roadway, reinforced by.tree planting, continues on north side of E. Meadow Drive to LionsHead. O7 Landscaped open space, approved element of Vail Village Inn special development district. Pedestrian path connection to Frontage Road and Town Hall. OPedestrian walk, separated to Gore Creek path. OPotential commercial infill - 1 story. Within specified constraints, by infill development could: - complete E. Meadow Drive, to its natural Vail Road terminus, .as an.attractive pedestrian street with a variety of landscaped open spaces and pedestrian scale shops - effectively extending- -the character of the core, to Vail Road - complete the framing of the Vail Road intersection as a defined open space, giving loose order to a presently non- descript area - preserve the views of Vail Mountain and Gold Peak, screening out the parking lot impact. - due to topography, allow for below -grade parking under the infill building, with rear- access service. 10 Plaza linkage across E. Meadow Drive uniting commercial area. Feature area paving, planters, kiosks, benches,.etc. Bus shelter. i2 Separate_. pedestrian walk by reducing E. Meadow Drive to single bus lane. Upgrade_. by paving, benches, moveable planter, lighting. Bus passing /waiting at either end adjacent to bus shelters. i3 Existing berm /planting preserved. Color, vegetation, views, and openness preserve the variety of pedestrian experience along E. Meadow Drive. Plaza linkage across E. Meadow Drive to tie commercial- uses for mutual reinforcement, and to maintain rhythm of open space nodes. . Feature area paving, planters, benches, etc. Tree planting to frame and soften plaza and roadway. Landscaped corner near Talisman as quiet sun- packet sitting area. 15 Required service /patron access points. 16 Separated pedestrian walk,•due to bus /auto traffic, continues east to Crossroads and parking structure. �1 Mixed -use traffic area. Triangular central planter expanded to direct traffic movement. West side primarily -for pedestrian connection, also must permit traffic turn - around. Traffic patterns directed by signage. Intersection given feature area paving to denote pedestrian priority /slow traffic zone. 18 Existing walk lowered slightly to become major separated south side pedestrian route (barrier free ramps). Landscape planting buffer along roadway. 19 Village Road traffic circle. Improvements to-order traffic flows in /out of the structure, and to reduce lost - traffic penetration into the Village, include: - narrowing Frontage Road before intersection to eliminate right - turn lane which funnels traffic into Village Road . - extend.center island north to reduce opening r� • 0 - close island gaps to force all (but rental) traffic into a single quene for the sequence of entries - narrow entry to E. Meadow Drive from the circle to suggest entry gap to Crossroads; likewise, with access to Sonnenalp move traffic barricade arm closer to circle for visible deterrence to travel east on E. Meadow Drive. - .traffic circle with 45 foot radius minimum to accomodate all but largest trucks or buses (presumably deterred at Frontage Road). Reconstructed circle elevated 2 feet or more to decrease gradient starting up Village Road. 2U Separation of 2 -lane bus route from traffic circle, by means of earth - form buffer to reduce bus /auto conflicts at peak traffic periods. Private land encroachment necessary. 21 Limited commercial expansion - 1 story. Infill commercial possibility to draw pedestrians both east and west along E. Meadow Drive, which with other improvements helps complete the pedestrian loop to the Village Core. Low building, in foreground of taller building to south- west, will not encroach into view corridor. Facades /entries on north and northeast sides. 22 Roof -top park /focal point over parking garage. Dense planting bed as backdrop for low- maintenance feature area paved open space. Benches, lighting, portable planters,, and focal point serve as foreground to mountain views, and open space node on pedestrian path. OSeparated pedestrian walk in public R.O.W. (by narrowing bus lane), 13 with border planting to screen parking and make attractive connection to Covered Bridge Plaza. aFuture study of potential, and desirability, of below -grade parking 24 with open space and /or building expansion above to further reinforce pedestrian connection. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1980, 2:00 P.M. 1.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 1980 MEETING. 2.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND ORDINANCES FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I AND II. 3.) MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2, 3, and 4, BLOCK 8, VAIL VILLAGE 7th FILING. 4.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOW A 450 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OFF OF THE GASTOF GRAMSHAMMER KITCHEN. To be published in the Vail Trail 4 -25 -80 6 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 AGENDA April 28, 1980, 2:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of Minutes of 4 -21 -80 Meeting. 2.) Continuation of Public Hearing for the consideration of Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I and II. 3.) Application for Conditional Use Permit and Density and Landscaping and Site Coverage Variances to allow Expansion of the Gastof Gramshammer Kitchen. 4.) Minor Subdivision for the Resubdivision of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 8 Vail Village 7th Filing. 5.) Discussion of the Options to consider for possibly reducing the number of units within the Town. 6.) Discussion of County project for referral - -West Vail Common Development 7.) Selection of PEC Member to attend DRB meetings beginning 5-7 -80. 0 8.) Discussion of resubmittal of Landscape Plan for the Bell Tower Building. • NOTICE OF SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1980 at 1:00 P.M. L� THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL WILL MEET FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING IN REGARD TO VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD (COMMERCIAL CORE I AND COMMERCIAL CORE II): s THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN • THE VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN • THE FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND 'JAIL LIONSHEAD e THE GOALS AND POLICIES FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD THE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD ZONING CHANGES FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I AND COMMERCIAL CORE II. r, To be published in the Vail Trail 4 -25 -80 16 t RICH CAPLA TOWN MANAGER NOTICE OF SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING 0 TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1980 at 1:00 P.M. THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL WILL MEET FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING IN REGARD TO VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD (COMMERCIAL CORE I AND COMMERCIAL CORE II): • THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN • THE VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE.PLAN • THE FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD • THE GOALS AND POLICIES FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD • THE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD • ZONING CHANGES FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I AND COMMERCIAL CORE II. • l RICH CAPLA TOWN MANAGER • Minutes of the April 28, 1980 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Page One 0 MEMBERS PRESENT Sandy Mills Ed Drager Jim Morgan Dan Corcoran John Perkins STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Dick Ryan Larry Eskwith Peter Patten Jim Rubin The Town Council Member assigned to attend this.. meeting was not present. Item #2 was discussed first. 2.) Continuation of Public Hearing for Consideration of Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I and II. . The Board discussed the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance with Dick Ryan and Jim Rubin. They marked all the changes and revised copies will be sent to the Board members. At 3:00 the Board decided to continue this later and go on with the regular meeting. 1.) Approval of Minutes of 4 -21 -80 meeting. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the min.utes of the 4 -21 -80 meeting. John Perkins seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3.) Application for Conditional Use Permit and Density and Landscaping and Site Coverage Variances to allow Expansion of the'Gastof Gramshammer. Peter Patten gave the Staff recommendation and conditions. Pepi said he really didn't have too much to say, Peter had said it all. Ed Drager asked Pepi if he understands everything in the memo and conditions. Pepi said he understands but disagrees with the walkway. There is no place where there are rooms in a quiet area for sleeping. Sandy Mills said she doesn't think people are going to walk there in the evening. They will only be there during the day. Sandy Mills asked about the easement condition. Does Pepi have to get the other owners to agree before he gets approval. Jim Rubin said no. He just has to agree 40 to the easement on his land. • 0 11 4 -28 -80 PEC Minutes Page Two Pepi said the condition regarding the clean up upset him immensely. He said he cleans up everyone's messes not just his own and as soon as all the snow is gone, he will clean up everything. He also said there is a question of what is Town property and what is his. Sandy Mills said someone should find out where the property line is so that curb stops could be installed to keep cars out of the area where they are not supposed to be. Ed Drager said the Staff should find out where the property lines are so that a path could be established and curb stops installed where necessary. Dan Corcoran explained how to find out where the property line is. Ed Drager asked if anyone had other questions. Sandy asked what is going to be where the extra square footage is being added. Pepi said part of it will be a dressing area for the sport shop and waitresses and part will be a cold kitchen for freezer, cooler, etc. John Perkins made a motion to approve the Application for Conditional Use Permit and Density and Landscaping and Site Coverage Variances to allow Expansion of the Gastof Gramshammer Kitchen as per the Staff memo of 4 -24 -80 with the following conditions: A. The applicant should be required to participate in Village Core Improvements and agree not to remonstrate against the special improvement district if formed, and agree to join the district. B. The existing tree immediately west of the proposed addition be left undistrubed. C. The applicant agree to clean up and work with the Town to determine property line and do whatever necessary to keep cars from parking on grass etc. D. Applicant agree to work with the Town to establish a walk way on top to the stream bank adjacent to'the parking lot. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The Board advised Pepi that he must go before the Design Review Board with his plans and that there is a moratorium on'building in the Core. Pepi said " I am happy with you guys and I will start tomorrow." Cathie said she will schedule him for ORB on May 7. Peter said he will make sure he is scheduled. for ORB on May 7. PEC Minutes 4 -28 -80 Page Three 4.) Minor Subdivision for the Resubdivision of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 8 Vail Village 7th Filing. Peter Patten gave the staff comments on this. Ed Drager asked Jim Morter to explain the reasoning behind this application. Sandy Mills questioned the acreage in the memo. She said it did not add up. Jim Rubin said the staff will correct this and find where the mistake is. Both numbers should be the same. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the minor subdivision for the Resubdivision of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 8, Vail Village 7th Filing as per the Staff Memo of 4- 24 -80. John Perkins seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous with the exception of Dan Corcoran who abstained. Item #6 was taken next. 6.) Discussion of County project for referral -West Vail Common_ Development Peter Patten explained that this is a new shopping center /condominium development on 6.6 acres in West Vail, east of Vail Das Schone. It is a County submittal for May 21 and the Staff is requesting a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission. • Tom Briner made his presentation. He explained they are attempting to stop the visual asphalt. There will be walkway through to Vail Das Shone. Peter explained that the Staff has a few concerns. They would like to see some employee type housing incorporated into this plan. They feel the project needs more landscaping along the Northern Border (Residential Area). There was a discussion of the road going behind. Some people felt there should be access to the residential area behind but the consensus was that there should not be an access. Peter said the plan should the grading to be done in the Fall and the project started in 1982. Tom Briner said that is a typo and it should be 1981 for start date. Peter asked about the drainage of the parking lot. Tom said they have experts working on this.and they will make sure it is adequate. Jim Morgan asked if there could be few aspen trees in the landscaping and more spruce. Tom Briner said it is a possibility but they did want to stay with one species. There was a discussion about the size of the parking spaces required by the County. The Board felt a lot of asphalt could be eliminated if the size of the parking spaces was reduced from 10 x 20 to 9 x 18. • PEC Minutes of 4 -28 -80 Page Four There was also a discussion about the right turn lane extending to Vail Das Shone. It was decided that that could not be required of the developer but could be suggested to the County. Sandy Mills made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the following items be incorporated into the West Vail Common Development: 1. Employee housing. 2. More landscaping to screen the residential area. 3. More landscaping around parking lot and adequate snow storage area. 4. An adequate drainage plan. 5. Reducing the size of the parking spaces from 10 x20 to 9x 18 resulting in less asphalt. 6. Possibility of a right turn lane extending to.Vail Das Shone. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. • 7.) Selection of PEC Member to attend DRB meetings beginning 5 -7 -80. Jim Morgan made a motion that Gerry White be the PEC member to attend the DRB meetings for the next three months with John Perki -ns as the alternate. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. Ed, Sandy, Jim, and Dan voted for approval of the motion. John Perkins voted against. 5.) Discussion of the Option to consider for possibly reducing the number of units within the Town. Dick Ryan explained his 4 -8 -80 memo to Rich Caplan. The Board discussed the options. Sandy Mills said she definitely feels this is an item that needs a great deal more study, however, she made a motion that the PEC recommend to the Council that they consider a combination of Options 4 and 5. Jim Morgan seconded the motion. Ed, Sandy and Jim voted for the motion. John and Dan voted against. John said he feels the "X" % is too general. Dan agreed and said he doesn't feel the developer should be hit in the floor area as well as the number of units. They both felt that the floor area should be looked at to a greater extent. After they gave their reasons, Ed Drager said he agreed and maybe he should change his vote. It was decided it was too late for him to change his vote and a new motion would be necessary. The motion stands. • c; 10 PEC Minutes of 4 -28 -80 Page Five 8.) Discussion of resubmittal of Landscape Plan for the Bell Tower Building. Craig Snowdon made his presentation. The Board asked questions. This item was not published. However, it was not necessary as it is only an amendment to the landscape plan. If approved today, they can go ahead as the building permit etc. is still in effect. However, they would have to go to Design Review Board. John Perkins made a motion to approve the Amendment to the Landscape Plan not to include alley plan or roof plan. The alley and roof plans would have to come back and be published. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Cathie and Peter said they would see that the Landscape Plan gets scheduled for DRB on May 7, 1980. The Board discussed item #2 again. 2.) Continuation of PublicHearing for the consideration of Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I and II. Jim Rubin went over the proposed Zoning Changes and marked revisions. Revised copies will be given to the Planning Commission for the 5 -12 meeting. Jeff Winston went over the Vail Village Design Guide Plan revisions. Dan Corcoran made a motion to continue discussion of this item until May 12, 1980 at 2:00. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P.M. MEMORANDUM 0 TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DICK RYAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: 4 -25 -80 RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLANS AND ORDINANCE CHANGES TO COMMERCIAL CORE I AND COMMERCIAL CORE II. The Planning and Environmental Commission have had three long public hearings on the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guid Plans. The meetings have been very productive as discussion of almost all of the details of the Vail Village plan has taken place. Planning Commission also went on a field trip to see possible building expansion areas and view corridors. I consider that the Planning and Environmental Commission has a very good understanding of the plan. Approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at last weeks meeting were the Goals and Policies, the Framework Plan that includes circulation for auto and bus, pedestrianization, character districts, major and minor view corridors for Vail Village and the Urban Design Guide Plans with some modifications. Next Monday afternoon, the Planning and Environmental Commission will discuss the final two parts of the plan. The Urban Design considerations and zoning ordinance changes for Commercial Core I and II should be approved at that time. This past Thursday, there was a lengthy and productive meeting with several of the architects in Vail regarding the Urban Design Considerations. I consider that this workshop with the architects has improved their understanding of the process and provided valuable input into improving the Urban Design Considerations. I am not enclosing copies of all the materials noted below. Town Council has previously received the goals and policies, the plans, and the Urban Design Considerations. Enclosed is a copy of the Zoning Ordinance changes that you have not received previously. If you would like copies of any of the material, come to the office as there are some extra copies. is I * VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN • GOALS /POLICIES - -FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND'VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN • FRAMEWORK PLAN -- GRAPHIC EXPRESSION OF GENERAL OBJECTIVES • CIRCULATION -- BUS /AUTO /TRUCK • PEDESTRIANIZATION • CHARACTER DISTRICTS • BUILDING /OPEN SPACE • MAJOR VIEW PLANES FOR VAIL VILLAGE • URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN -- SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS TO EXPRESS DETAIL PLANNING AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES • VAIL VILLAGE Bridge Street /Gore Creek Drive East Meadow Drive • VAIL LIONSHEAD • URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS- -KEY ELEMENTS IDENTIFIED, DESCRIBED AND DOCUMENTED FOR VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD • CONTEXT CRITERIA -- VIEWS, SUN, SERVICE, ETC. BUILDING HEIGHT & MASSING SETBACKS FACADES ROOFS BALCONIES WINDOWS TRASH ACCENT ELEMENTS LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS LIGHTING • ZONING CHANGES FOR: • COMMERCIAL CORE I • COMMERCIAL CORE II VAIL VILLAGE (CCI) KFING CHANGES Sections 18.24.010, 18.24.065, 18.24.100, 18.24.120, 18.24.130, 18.24.150 and 18.24.170 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.24.010 Purpose. The Commercial core I district is inteded to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light,air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and put greenways, and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations Modifications - Procedure All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CCI shall canply with the following procedure: (A) The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, or the replacement of an existing building shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: (1) Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be alpealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 18.60.070. (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant under this subsection (A) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed building alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI District as specified in 18.24.010; that the proposal does not alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. (4) The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or Modifications; or, if the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the application. (5) Applications under this subsection (A) shall be submitted on or before May 19, 1980, to be heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 9, 1980. Thereafter all applications shall be submitted annually on or before December 15 or each year. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall then hold the public hearing on the applications submitted before the end of the following February. (B) The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCI shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the following: (1) Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form by the Zoning Administrator. • Page Two (2) The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54. (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CC1 District as specified in 18.24.010; that the proposal does not alter the character of the neighborhood and that the proposal complies with the Vail Village Architectural Guidelines. (4) The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions on modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant.failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the application. (5) The Zoning Administrator nay approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.060. A decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. (C) All alterations under Subsection (A) above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board Following Planning and Environmental Commission approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same comply with the Vail Village Architectural Guidelines. 18.24.100 Setbacks There shall be no required setbacks, except as may be established pursuant to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.24.120 Height The maximum height of buildings in the CCl district shall be thrity -five feet or as may be otherwise specified by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.24.130 Density Control Unless otherwise provided in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, not more than eighty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area and not more than eighty square of gross floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area for any permitted or conditional use allowed by Section 18.24.060, excluding gross residential floor area (GRFA). Total density shall not exceed twenty -five dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. 18.24.150 Cover Not more than eighty percent of the total site area shall.be covered by buildings and ground level patios and decks except as may be otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.24.170 Landscaping and Site Development._ At least twenty percent of the total site area shall be landscaped except as may be otherwise specified in the WiAl Village Urban Design Guide Plan. There shall be two new sections added to Chapter 18.24 to read as follows: 18.24.200 Reconstruction of Existing Uses . If any building or structure located within Commercial Core I on June 1, 1978, is subsequently destroyed by fire or other casualty to the degree provided in Section 18.64.090, that structure or building may be reconstructed to the same or substantially the same size dimensions, lot coverage, and height in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 18.64.090, so long as the building or strucutre complies with the applicable provisions of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. b�A cd Pq • U ° a r-I O O •� Q N N 4 N 06 r-I H 10 � H � � 10 ri • �, W O N o ` tH p P, O G cv �HU a°�a ri vA fJ a •r I O � 4.3 >'��� °� •� ara d �o as 90 6 47 U1 U2 O H O A4�lt�080 SOT" O+` 0 +) 'a CH -� O ,Q rM El O � 7 rc, 9 O Cdd 'ri r—i U U> O > � N > H Cd d 'rte �" U 4 i ❑ r�l FO-i O � -P� U) 4-) VAIL LICNSHEAD (CC II) 7ANING CHANGES 0 Sections 18.26.010, 18.26.070, 18.26.090, 18.26.100, 18.26.120, and 18.26.140 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.26.010 Purpose. The commercial core 2 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines for CC2 and is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. 18.26.070 Setbacks. In CC2 district, the minimum front setback shall be ten feet, the miniimun side setback shal be ten feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be ten feet unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.26.090 Height The maximum height of buildings in the CC2 district shall be forty -five feet unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.26.100 Density Control. Unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan, not more than eighty square feet of gross residential floor area (GAFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area and not more than eighty square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area for permitted site area for permitted or conditional uses allowed by Section 18.26.040, excluding gross residential floor area. Total density shall not exceed twenty -five dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. 18.26.120 Coverage. Not more than seventy percent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. 18.26.140 Landscaping and site development. At least twenty percent of the total site area shall be landscaped unless otherwise specified in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. There shall be two new sections added to Chapter 18.26 to read as follows: 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications Procedure All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CC2 shall comply with the following procedure: (A) The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, or the replacement of an existing building shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: (1) Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 18.60. 070. U (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant under subsection (A) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed building alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC II District as specified in 18.26.010; that the proposal does not alter the character of the neighborhood; and that the proposal complies with the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. (4) The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proff, it may deny the application. (5) Applications under this subsection (A) shall be submitted on or before May 19, 1980, to be heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 9, 1980. Thereafter all applications shall be submitted annually on or before December 15, of each year. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall then hold the public hearing on applications submitted before the end of the following February. (B) The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CCII shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in • accordance with the following: (1) Applications steal be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be held in accordance with Chaper 18.54. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54. (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII District as specified in 18.26.010; that the proposal does not alter the character of the neighborhood and that the proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Architectural Guidelines. (4) The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Reviw Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the application. (5) The Zoning Administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.060. A decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. (C) All alterations under subsection (A) above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board folloing Planning and Environmental Commission approval in accordance with the Chapter 18.54. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same complies with the Vail Lionshead Architectural Guidelines. 18.26.180 Adoption of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines. (A) The Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines are hereby adopted for the purpose of maintaining and presenting the character and vitality of Vail Lionshead (CCII) and to guide the future alterations, change and improvement in the CCII. Copies of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines shall be on file • in the Community Development Department of the Town. (B) The Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Architectural Guidelines shall be reviewed by the Town Council annually and revisions thereto may be made by Resolution of the Town Council, to insure that the plan reflects the purposes and intent for which it has been adopted. 1� • • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA May 12, 1980, 3:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of Minutes of 4 -28 -80 meeting. 2.) Approval of modification of Flood Plain on Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village llth Filing. 3.) Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of Bighorn Fire Station on Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision. 4.) Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation of County Referral Items: A. Valley -Phase VI B. Selby Subdivision 5.) Continuation of Public Hearing for the consideration of Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I and II. 6.) Recommendation of two Board Members to the County Master Plan Steering Committee. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA May 12, 1980, 3:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of modification of Flood Plain on Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing. 2.) Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of Bighorn Fire Station on Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision. 3.) Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation of County Referral Item-- Valley -Phase VI 4.) Continuation of Public Hearing for the consideration IfaVail Village Urban Desing Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core To be published in the Vail Trail on May 9, 1980. • Minutes of 5 -12 -80 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Members Present Ed Drager Gerry White Sandy Mills Dan Corcoran Staff Present Jim Rubin Peter Patten Larry Eskwith The Town Council person assigned to attend this meeting was out of town. 1.) Approval of Minutes of 4 -28 -80 Meeting. Sandy Malls said she had a question about the West Vail Common recommendations. Peter said the minutes did not have to be changed but that he would include Sandy's comments regarding following the Town's parking regulations in his memo to the County. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the above minutes. Ed Drager seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous with the exception of Gerry White who abstained as he was not at the meeting. 2.) Ap roval of modification of Flood Plain on Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing. Bill Pierce, architect on the above project, asked to postpone this item until later in the meeting as he was expecting Stan Bernstein, the owner. 3.) Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of Bighorn Fire Station on Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision. Peter gave the Staff Recommendation and conditions. Bill Pierce made the presentation. He said they are trying to keep the project residential in character. It is certainly less GRFA than a duplex. The height is not higher than duplexes. They did not want it to look like a government or institutional type building. Dan Corcoran asked why the glass doors had been used. Bill and Gordie said merely so that people know it is the fire station. Dan asked if they could be Qliminated or was there another reason. Gordie said they do provide light in the bays. Dan said he still feels it fits in except for the glass. doors. Gerry asked if there had been any comments from the neighbors. Peter and Bill said they had both talked with the owner of the Wherry /Clausing Duplex. Bill said they had tried to meet all his concerns regarding blending and screening with landscaping. 0 5- -12 -80 PEC Minutes Page Two Sandy Mills asked about the use of the domitory rooms. Gordie explained that they are going to have a program utilizing some students and there will be one professional person supervisor on duty at all times also. These people will be using the dormitory accommodations. Sandy asked who will be the people living in the apartments. Gordie said the apartments are for people working for the Fire District. They are trying to comply with the Town wishes to provide employee housing in any new Town Facilities. They are losing good employees because they can't afford to live here and the Town will have the advantage that they are professional firefighters and would be able to assist in an emergency if needed because of their close proximity. Sandy asked if 10 parking spaces are enough. Gordie said they feel it is because they can limit the students cars if necessary. Bill Pierce said there is a change in the plans as submitted. Gordie explained that originally they were thinking of doing three apartments but the staff was not in favor of that because of the zoning so they presented plans for one three bedroom and one two bedroom apart- ments. However, the Fire Board doesn't like those plans and asked them to change the plans to one -two bedroom and two -one bedroom apartments. Gordie said they feel that if they have a three bedroom apartment, it will be rented by three firemen who work together all day and that is just not a good situation where people work together all day and then have to live together the rest of the day. They need some privacy. The board pointed out that the new plan is a reduction of a bedroom from five to four. Gerry White asked if there will be a full crew available at all times. Gordie said no that they can't afford that. He said there will be two people there at all times, one professional and one student and that the apartment people will be there most of the time to help in an emergency. Jim Rubin said the staff is in agreement with the change in bedrooms even though there is one more kitchen, there is one less bedroom and technically it will lessen the density. Jim also said they do not feel there is a need for more than the 11 parking spaces. Jim said this will have to go to DRB. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of Bighorn Fire Station on Lot 15, Bighorn per the revised plans submitted at the meeting and per the staff recommendations • and conditions of 5 -9 -80. Larry Eskwith said the Board will have to make findings as listed on page 477 of the Zoning Ordinance in Section 18.60.060. Sandy Mills said she would amend her motion to include the fact that the Board found all positive findings. Ed Drager seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. n • 0 5- 12--80 PEC Minutes Page Three 2.) Approval of modification of Flood Plain on Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing. Bill Pierce said we should go on, even though Stan Bernstein, the owner, had not arrived. Bill Pierce said they have a report from Hydra Triad and Kent Rose approving this modification, Jim Rubin said that in order to amend the 100 flood plain, the owner must prove that it will not affect property or the flow etc. of the stream. Mr. Bernstein is adding fill and raising the level of the front bank and has obtained the engineering reports and copies were given to the board. Hydro Triad was the firm that did the origina11g0yr flood plain report and they have done this current report also. Mrs. Suzie Anderson from the audience asked to speak. She explained that her parents own the house next to this lot and since they could not be present, she is speaking for them. They are very concerned. She said she had a question about the Staff memo. It said this house had been approved by.DRB. She thought they only received preliminary approval. Jim, Peter, and Cathie all confirmed that the project had only received preliminary approval. Mrs. Anderson said that their attorney had also told them that in approving this modification, the Town is liable if a flood does flood her parent's home. She also said that Mr. Bernstein is able to increase his GRFA by adding this fill. Bill Pierce said they can build the same square footage on the present site but the building would have to be three stories instead of two. Mrs. Anderson said she wasn't sure if she should bring aesthetics.into this or to the DRB but aesthetically they do not like the sea wall. it is unpleasi.ng and precedent setting. Larry Eskwith said he does not feel the Town is liable as long as they are not negligent in approving this. Hydro Triad would be the people that are liable. Mrs. Anderson said their attorney said the Town would be liable and she just wants the Town to know that they will pursue this point. She asked what the highest point of the house is. Bill Pierce said it.will be 262 feet above the fill or 30 feet above the existing grade. Mrs. Anderson said she feels it is a very severe thing to mess with the flood plain. Things like this should be left natural.. There is enough land to build a house on without altering the flood plain and putting up sea walls. Dan Corcoran said that the report shows that currently Mrs. Anderson's parents home is in the flood plain and that the alteration would improve the flood plain condition on her parent's property. L� 5 -12 -80 PEC Minutes Page Four Gerry White said that the Town had asked for a Professional opinion and Hydro Triad is the professional who said the alteration is okay. Sandy Mills said that Stan new what the flood plain was when he bought the lot. She doesn't feel it should be possible for people to buy a lot and then get it engineered to do whatever they want with it. Jim Rubin said when the Hazard regulations were adopted three years ago, there was a provision for amending flood plain etc. Drager said if the map is correct, Mrs. Anderson's parents are better off with the modification. He also said the Hazard Ordinances were passed to allow modification with engineering expertise. Gerry White said we are not only dealing with hazards here, we are also dealing with view corridors, aethestics etc. Jim Rubin mentioned that both neighbors had already built before the flood plain map was done. Gerry White said he was concerned with setting precedents in moving in fill and changing flood plains. There was a question about the sea wall. Bill Pierce showed the plans. Most of the board agreed it is not a sea wall. Ed Drager made a motion to approve the modification of the Flood Plain on lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing per the reports from Hydro Triad and Kent Rose. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion. Mrs. Anderson asked to speak again. She said she could see what was happening and would like to bring up some other details about the aethestics of this project. She said it is just not pleasing. She was not going to bring it up here, she thought it was for DRB but since Gerry brought it up, she would like to say that it will block her parent's view of the ice falls and the climbers that climb them each year. This whole plan is just not pleasing to them. Gerry White said he would like to withdraw a little of what he previously said. In looking at the plans, he sees it differently. Jim Rubin said this would have to go back to DRB and that would be a more appropriate place to bring up the aethestics. Gerry White called for a vote on the motion.. The vote was three to one with Sandy Mills voting against approval. She said she felt an attempt should be made to put the house on the existing lot north of the 100 year flood plain. Cathie asked if Bill Pierce will bring this to DRB on the 21st and he said no. U t 5 -12 -80 PEC Minutes Page Five 5.) Continuation of Public Hearin for the consideration of Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Ordinances for Commercial Core I and II. The Board discussed the ordinances. The Board wanted the word "within" added to the time deadlines. They felt the time procedures should be maximums. That is if projects came in well in advance of the deadline it could be approved when brought in and not have to.wait until the specified time. Dan Corcoran made a motion to approve the Zoning Changes as revised and presented. Ed Drager seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. The Architectural Guidelines, now call Design Considerations, were discussed. Jim Rubin explained that the staff has met with a Large group of architects to discuss these. John Perkins arranged the meeting and there was a good turnout. Jim explained that John was at a County meeting today and unable.to be here. After the meeting with the architects, Jeff Winston revised and renamed the guidelines and Jim delivered copies to all those architects who had attended the meeting and held another meeting last Friday. Only four architects came that time. Sandy Mills said she thinks it is good if they didn't come back to object. Dan Corcoran asked if all the things the board had said in their meetings and all the comments from the architects have now been incorporated in the document. Jim Rubin said they had. Gerry White said he thinks this whole plan is quite good. Sandy Mills made a motion to recommend the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations dated 5 -6 -80 and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations dated 4 -4 -80 to the Council. Ed Drager seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 4.) Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation of County Referral Items: A. Valley -Phase VI The Board supported the Staff recommendation on this. (See Attached) B. Selby Subdivision The Board supported the Staff recommendation on this. (See Attached) 0 • r � LJ • 5-12 -80 PEC Minutes Page Six 6.) Recommendation of two Board Members to the County Master Plan Steering Committee. Sandy Mills and Ed Drager expressed an interest but Gerry and Dan said they definitely could not do it. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P.M. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: RECOMMENDATION OF TWO BOARD MEMBERS TO THE COUNTY MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE Dick Ryan would like you to recommend two board members to the Town Council for the County Master Plan Steering Committee. Dick said to emphasize that you might not have to go the meeting or might not be appointed by the Council. The Council would just like the names of two board members who would be willing to be on the Committee if called upon. • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: 5 -9 -80 RE: APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE BIGHORN FIRE STATION LOCATED ON LOT 15, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION IN A PUBLIC USE DISTRICT (PUD) BACKnROUNC A proposal for an upgrading of the Vail Fire District's facilities in Bighorn including office and residential space was tabledby the applicant at the October 22, 1979 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. A revised proposal has now been submitted. The PUD Zone District's development standards are to be set for each project by the PEC prior to acting on an application for a conditional use permit. The development standards include lot area, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage and landscaping and site development. Off-street parking requirements are also to be set by PEC. If the proposal as presented is adequate in the above development standards, they may adopt it as proposed. If you wish to set other standards, that can be done now and a redesign to those standards would be required. SITE PLAN The proposal includes a new double -bay facility for fire vehicles, an office, six dormitory -type units for Fire District trainees (with associated cooking and living facilities), a two - bedroom apartment and a three bedroom apartment. Ten parking spaces for the residents are proposed to the south of the apartments accessed by a driveway looping in from the far easternportion of the lot. The questions of how many residential units to allow on the site arose and a temporary mutual agreement between the Town and the Fire District was arrived at and is reflected in the proposal. The PEC has the discretion to set the density control on the property. STATTSUCS Site Area: 28,793 square feet Proposed: GRFA =3365 square feet (If residential 5129 square feet allowed) Site Coverage= 2960 square feet or 10.3% of site Landscaping Area -70% Approximate Paved Area =5585 square feet =19.4% of site Number of Parking Spaces=10 Bighorn Fire Station Page Two-- 5 -9 -80 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION The residential spaces should not be increased above what is proposed. We still have a concern with the siting of the driveway on the east because it appears from site inspection that a considerable number of trees would have to be taken out near the four existing pines. Placing the office space elsewhere could solve the problem by allowing the bags to be moved 45 feet to the west and the driveway could come to the west of the existing vegetation. As requested by the owner of a new duplex under construction on the lot to the east, the impacts of the parking lot should be minimized to whatever extend possible. A "beefing -up" of the landscaping proposed on the east of the parking lot should be incorporated. Trees should be Spruce with possibly a berm in that area also. A similar treatment should be looked at for the west side of the lot to make sure the existing residence on that side is not adversely affected. Thus, we recommend approval of the uses and development standards proposed but feel the westward movement of the driveway should be investigated along with a heavier screening of the parking area. A final recommendation is that the structure should be residential in appearance. We feel these issues can be addressed at Design Review Board stage in the form of conditions for approval. • 6_1 • • MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTNIM RUBIN DATE: May 9, 1980 RE: VAIL VILLAGE AND VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES What is left to be approved by the PEC on the new Urban Design Process are the Urban Design Considerations (formerly Architectural Guidelines) for Vail Village and Vail Lionshead and the changes to CCI and CCII that would put the new procedures into effect. Enclosed are the revisions to the Urban Design Considerations which have taken into account many of the comments from the meeting with the Vail architects. (The architects have received the revisions and we have asked them for any further comments). Also enclosed are revised copies of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance changes which reflect comments from both the PEC and the Town Council. VAIL VILLAGE (CCI) ZONING CHANGES Sections 18.24.010, 18.24.065, 18.24.100, 18.24.120, 18.24.130, 18.24.150, and 18.24.170 are repealed and reenacted to read as follows 18.24.1010 Purpose. The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to ensure adquate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modifications- Procedure All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CCI shall comply with the following procedure: (A) The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area or outdoor patio, or the replacement of an existing building shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: (1) Application shall be made by the owner of the building or agent on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The Public Hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 18.60.070. (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant under this subsection (A) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed building alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI District as specified in 18.24.010; and that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide.Plan and Urban Design Considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. (4) The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the application. (5) Applications for this Subsection (A) shall be submitted semi- annually on or before the fourth Monday of May and November. The Planning and Environmental Comnission.shall then hold a preliminary review session within 21 days of the above submittal date. A Public Hearing shall then be held within 60 days of the preliminary review session. For projects which are deemed by the Commission to constitute a major amendment to the approved Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan or otherwise constitute a significant impact on the Town, ,a 90 -day study period may be requested by the Planning and Environmental Commission, prior to a final disposition of such projects. Ob Page Two (B) The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or • to a site within CCI shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the following: (1) Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed tot he Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54. (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI District as specified in 18.24.010; that the proposal sub- stantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. (4) The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions on modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the application. (5) The Zoning Administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.060. A decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. (C) All alterations under Subsection (A) above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board following Planning and Environmental Commission approval in accordance with Chapter 18.54. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same comply with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. 18.24.100 Setbacks There shall be no required setbacks, except as may be established pursuant to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan And Urban Design Considerations. 18.24.120 Height The maximum height of buildings in the CC1 district shall be thirty -five feet or as may be otherwise specified by the Vail Village Urban Desing Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations. 18.24.130 Density Control Unless otherwise provided in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, not more than eighty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed twenty -five dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. 0 18.24.150 Coverage Not more than eighty percent of the total site area shall be covered by building and ground level patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations. 18.24.170 Landscaping and Site Development No reduction in Landscape area shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant, or as specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. 18.24.200 Reconstruction of Existing Uses If any building or structure located within Commercial Core I may be reconstructed • to the same or substantially the same enclosed floor area in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section 18.64.090. The building, however, shall substantially comply with the applicable provisions of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations. Page Three UJ 18.24.220 Adoption of Vail Villa 2e Urban Desing Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations (A) The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan-.and Urban Design Considerations are hereby adopted for the purpose of maintaining and Preserving the character and vitality of the Vail Village (CCI) and to guide the future alteration, change and improvement in the CCI. Copies of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations shall be on file in the Community Development Depart- ment of the Town. (B) Revisions to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission with Official Action to be taken by the Town Council by Resolution on a Semi - Anhual basis to insure that the plan reflects the purposes and intent for which it has been adopted. The Review and Action shall take place within 30 days following the Public Hearing on the applications. i 0 VAIL LIONSHEAD (CCII) ZONING CHANGES Sections 18.26.010, 18.26.070, 18.26.090, 18.26.100, 18.26.120, and 18.26.140, • are repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 18.26.010 Purpose The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design. Considerations are intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. 18.26.070 Setbacks In CCII District, the minimum front setback shall be ten feet, the minimum side setback shall be ten feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be ten feet unless otherwise specified in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations. 18.26.090 Height The maximum height of buildings in the CCII district shall be forty -five feet unless otherwise specified in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations. 18.26.100 Density_ Control • Unless otherwise specified in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan, not more than eighty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed twenty -five dwelling units per acre of buildable site area- 18.26.120 Coverage Not more than seventy percent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings unless otherwise specified in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations. 18.26.140 Landscaping and site development At least twenty percent of the total site area shall be landscaped unless otherwise specified in the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations. There shall be two new sections added to Chapter 18.26 to read as follows: 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications- Procedure All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CCII shall comply with the following procedure: (A) The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area or outdoor patio or the replacement of an existing building shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows: • (1) Application shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Sections 18.66.060 through 18.66.090. A decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Section 18.60.070. 0 • Page Two (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant under subsection (A) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission that the proposed building alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CCII District as specified in 18.26.010; and that the proposal complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. (4) The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, it may deny the application. (5) Applications for this Subsection (A) shall be submitted semi - annually on or before the fourth Monday of May and November. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall then hold a preliminary review session within 21 days of the above submittal date. A Public Hearing shall then be held withing 60 days of the preliminary review session. For projects which are deemed by the Commission to constitute a major amendment to the approved Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan or otherwise constitute a significant impact on the Town, a • 90 day study period may be requested by the Planning Commission, prior to a final disposition of such projects. (B) The modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or his agent a site within CCII shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with the following: (1) Applications shall be made by the owner of the building or his agent on a form provided by the Zoning Administrator. (2) The hearing before the Design Review Board shall be held in accordance with Chapter 18.54. A decision of the Design Review Board may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with the procedure specified in Chapter 18.54. (3) It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CCI District as specified in 18.24.010; that the proposal sub- stantially complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban .Design .Considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. (4) The Design Review Board may approve the application as submitted; approve the application with conditions or modifications; or, if the Design Review Board finds that the applicant failed to meet his • burden of proof, it may deny the application. (5) The Zoning Administrator may approve minor modifications as provided in Section 18.54.060. A decision of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Design Review Board for review. (C) All alterations under subsection (A) above shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board following Planning and Environmental Commission approval in accordance with the Chapter 18.54. The Design Review Board shall review the same to insure that the same complies with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. 0 Page Three • 18.26.180 Adoption of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Desi n Considerations (A) The Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan dna Urban Design Considerations are hereby adopted for the purpose of maintaining and presenting the character and vitality of Vail Lionshead (CCII) and to guide the future alterations, change and improvement in the CCII. Copies of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations shall be on file in the Community Development Department of the Town. (B) Revisions to the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission with official action to be taken by the Town Council by Resolution on a Semi - Annual basis to insure that the plan reflects the purposes and intent for which it has been adopted. The Review and Action shall take place within 30 days following the Public Hearing on the applications. 0 0 E MEMORANDUM 10 T0: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN DATE: 5 -9 -80 RE: MODIFICATION OF FLOOD PLAIN ON LOT 9, BLOCK 3, VAIL VILLAGE llth FILING Stanley Bernstein has requested an amendment to the 100 year floodplain for Gore Creek with the intent of constructing a duplex on the above described lot. A floodplain analysis as required by Section 18.69.033 was done by Hydro Triad and has been favorable reviewed by former Town Engineer, Kent Rose. The criteria for reviewing floodplain changes are found in Section 18.69.040 E which states that, "the work (modification of the flood plain) will not adversely affect adjacent properties or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters." Both the Hydra Triad Report and the letter from Kent Rose have concluded that the proposed floodplain revision will have no adverse impacts on adjacent properties and will not increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. • Plans for the new Bernstein duplex have been reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. The plans as presented comply with the specific requirements of the flood plain report. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested amendment to the 100 year floodplain for Gore Creek as presented. r--9 L--J y._. "'' c • 0 latai box 100 department of public works vail. colorado 81557 (303) 476.5613 Februaxy 5, 1980 Stanley F. Bernstein Stanley F. Bernstein, Inc. P.O. Box 796 Vail, CO 81657 Dear Stan: X have reviewed the Hydro -- Triad, Ltd. report, dated December 21, 1979, and transmitted to the T(Avn of Vail by your cover letter dated January 10, 1980. The report deals with proposed encroachment into the 100 -year floodplain with fill for land-- development purposes and existing and future flood - plain conditions. In my opinion, the report is conclusive and there will be no adverse effects created by the grading operation. Please let this serve as approval to regrade Lot 9 Vail Villa e Filing No. 11, within the limits indicated in the report. Very truly yours, Kent R. Rose, P.F. Director cc: Jim Rubin Stanley F. Bernstein, Inc. Certified Public Accountant 10 January 10, 1980 Mr. Jim Rubin Town of Vail P. 0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Jinn: Member: American Institute of CPA's Colorado Society of CPA's Enclosed is a report from Hydro- Triad, Ltd. re- lating to the .flood plain analysis on Lot 9, Vail Village Filing #11. Based on the report, we are planning to alter the flood plain and build in the altered flood plain. I assume this is ok. If I have to obtain formal approval, please let me know. We are planning to plex (2,600 square feet other side) plus garage will be our architect. anticipate any problems a zoning point of view. cd Enclosure L1 build a 4,000 square foot du- on one side and 1,400 on the s this summer. Bill Pierce Please let me know if you with the duplex concept from Very truly yours, Stanley Bernstein Crossroads Shopping Center / P. O. Box 793 Vail, Colorado 81657 Bus.: (303) 476 -1950 / Home (303) 476 -3333 HYDRO-TRIAD, LTD. December 21, 1979 Mr. Stan Bernstein 2606 Davos Trail Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Bernstein: At your request, we have performed a floodplain analysis for the lot in Vail Villages Filing #11. The analysis consisted of evaluating the effects of filling the lot within the 100 -year floodplain and determining the minimum finished floor elevation for the proposed building. The results of the analysis show that the lot can be filled without signi- ficantly affecting the floodplain. The minimum finished floor elevation was determined to be 8302.0. The details of the analysis are presented below. INTRODUCTION The lot for which the floodplain analysis was performed is located in Vail Village Filing No. 11 (lot 9). The site is in the Southwest 4 of Section 2, . Township 5 South, Range 80 West, approximately 3.5 miles east of Vail, Colorado (see Figure 1). The lot lies on the north side of Gore Creek. The study area extends from station 455 +75 to 457 +00 as defined in the Gore Creek Floodplain Information Study (GCFIS, Reference 1). The purpose of this study is"to examine the effects on the 100 -year recurrence interval floodplain of the proposed regrading of the lot for building. A minimum finished floor elevation and the proposed overlot grading were deter- - mined as requested. ANALYSIS Section 49.71 of the GCFIS was originally taken through the lot in question (see Figure 3). The original-cross-section information was plotted (see Figure 4), and the proposed grading of the lot was established to determine the cross - section after.grading at Section 49.71. Using the proposed after grading cross- section, a backwater analysis was run based on the future development condition 100 -year flood discharge of 1807 cfs (GCFIS). The analysis was initialized two sections below Section 49.71 and ex- tended two sections upstream of Section 49.71 to determine any change in the water surface (see Figure 5). Results from the computer analysis are enclosed. U 12687 WEST CEDAR DRIVE - SUITE 100 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228 PHONE 303 - 989 -126.1 0 • • Mr. Stan Bernstein December 20, 1979 Page 2 The existing lot is zoned two - family residential. The legal dimensions of the lot were obtained from the Eagle County Assessor (see Figure 2). Presently, approximately half of the lot will be covered with shallow flood- ing in the event of the 100 --year storm. Upon completion of the proposed grad - ing (see Figure 3), only a small amount of on site flooding will occur. The proposed grading plan involves placing fill within the 100 -year floodplain over a distance of approximately 125 feet. The 100 -year floodplain for this condition shows no localized water surface or velocity changes due to the proposed grading alterations based on the initial GCFIS. RESULTS Table I presents a summary of the backwater analysis for both the existing and future grading conditions. Both existing and future grading condition floodplains are shown on Figure 3. The computer printout of the backwater analysis is presented in Table 2. Mr. Stan Bernstein December 20, 1979 Page 3 The finish floor elevation of the proposed building shall be two feet above the 100 -year floodplain. This puts the minimum finish floor elevation at 8302.0 ft. based on GCEIS datum. Because of the low velocity of the flow outside the'main channel, riprap will not be needed on the regraded portion of the lot. Grass will be sufficient to prevent erosion. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of the foregoing analysis, we have concluded that the proposed overlot grading will not have a significant impact upon the flood- ing hazards upstream or downstream of the property. If we can be of any further service in this matter, please contact us Sincerely, HYDRO- TRIAD, LTD. . Jon R. Kidder Water Resource Engi er William P. Ruzzo Senior Engineer WPR:JRK /dh. Enclosure M � 0 1 1 i=71 Z 8 ILI G I IdM r] VAIL VILLAGE (3 A Al I zliA c OD JAN 81, � B i"�rE"R i A-,-13m I r[DYM S, MAY 6, 1980 0 INTRODUCTION Backgc round These Design Considerations are an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Plan as a whole is. the culmination of many month's effort by residents, merchants, Town staff, and consultants to develop a mechanism to manage physical change in the Village. It is an attempt to identify aspects of the physical character of the Village and to assure as far as possible that future changes will be consistent with the established character, and will make positive con- tributions to the quality of life. Vail was originally conceived as a mountain resort in the pattern of quaint european alpine village. It remains fairly faithful to that image today; because of the commitment of its early founders to that concept. However, recent rapid growth, both in size and popularity, has introduced new pressures for development, which many feel threaten the unique qualities from which that success has been derived. There are rapidly increasing land values and resulting pressures to expand existing buildings, infill parcels, and even totally re- developed parcels less than 15 years old. This pressure for growth has brought • with it the potential for significant change. New materials, new architectural styles, the premium on land usage, and sheer numbers of people and cars all have potentially major impacts on the character and function of Vail. That is not to imply that all growth and change in Vail is negative. There are many areas that are underdeveloped. The actual area of Vail that gives it its unique character is but a small area of the Village. There are definitely opportunities to extend the character of the Core beyond its current limits. These Design Considerations, and the Urban Design Plan as a whole, are intended to guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of Vail Village. This character, while inspired to a degree by european models, has evolved into a distinctly local interpretation. Any standards, in the end, must be-based upon Vail's own unique characteristics, and potential now. To preserve this character, care must be taken to avoid both new architectural prototypes, and historical ones, local or foreign, which do not share the same design vocabulary. These Design Considerations are a recognition that there is a distinctive design character to the Village and that this character is important to preserve. The Design Considerations The characteristics identified herein, are first of ail, descriptions of the primary form - giving physical features of the Village. They are not exhaustive. They are a description of those key elements without which the image of Vail would be noticeably different. They are divided into two major categories: i E • • Urban Desi n Considerations General, large -scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property (or even whole areas). These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. This Commission also has review responsibilities for additional zoning code compliance such as density control, parking, etc. Architecture /Landsca e Considerations Detail, de- tails, style and overall appropriateness of a design for a given site. These considerations are reviewed primarily by the Design Review Board (DRB). Below is a general checklist of major issues and concerns which the applicant must address in the course of the review process. Each of the following items should be addressed at least briefly in any application hearing or submittal: Urban Design Considerations 1. Pedestrianization 2. Vehicle Penetration 3. Streetscape Framework 4. Street Enclosure 5. Street Edge 6. Building Height 7. Views Zoninq Code Items 1. Density Control 2. Landscape Area Reduction 3. Parking 4. 5. 6. Architectural /Landscape Considerations 2. 3 4. 5. 6. ii 7. ROOFS Form Pitch Overhangs Composition Stepped Roofs Materials Construction FACADES Materials Color Transparency Windows Doors Trim BALCONIES Color Size Mass Materials Construction DECKS & PATIOS ACCENT ELEMENTS.. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS Plant Materials Paving Retaining Walls Lighting Signage SERVICE Materials Construction • Secondly, the design considerations are intended to serve as guideline design parameters. They are not seen as rigid rules, or "cookbook design elements" to bring about a homogeneous appearance in Vail. Rather, they are a statement of interpretation, subscribed to by the Town Planning /Environmental'Commission and Review Board, as to the present physical character and objectives of the Village. They are intended to enable the Town staff and citizen review boards to more clearly communicate to property owners planning and design objectives, and allow property owners in town to respond in general conformance or to clearly demonstrate why departures are warranted. Finally, these guidelines are intended to help influence the form and design of buildings, not to establish minimum building volumes. Often more than one criteria applies to a given situation e.g. Building Height, Enclosure, Views and Sun /Shade - all are concerns applicable to building height and massing - and they,may be mutually conflicting if judged on equal terms. It is the role of the review boards, together with the applicant, to determine the relative importance of each consideration for a given situation. They then must apply those considerations to assure that a balance is achieved between the rights of the public and private sectors. iii 'CONISI ERA "i"I NS A. PEDESTRIANIZATION All new or expansion construction should anticipate the appropriate level of pedestrianization adjacent to the site. A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality to pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access) a totally car -free pedestrian system is not achieveable throughout the entire Village. Therefore several levels of pedestrianization are proposed: 1. pedestrian -only streets • - .wid�l, v8n'8� S 1 2. pedestrian streets with limited delivery traffic - with sufficient width for unimpeded pedestrian walking 3. separated pedestrian walks where street width and traffic volume (trucks, shuttle bus, etc) preclude joint vehicle /pedestrian' use of the roadway 4. primary vehicular routes - minimal pedestrian development confined to wide shoulder, sidewalk, or separate pathway. The Framework Circulation Plan, and sub -area Guide Plans designate the specific type of street develop- ment desired for major streets in Vail Village. n (�atk ?ass up, bad �arK lb`talo`' 2Z' ■ CEO ■ B. VEHICLE PENETRATION To the maximum extent possible all non - resident traffic should be routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Village/ Vail LionsHead parking structures. In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focussed upon reducing auto penetration into the center of.the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve-as the major routes for service and resident access to the Village. Road constrictions, traffic circles, sig'nage, and other measures are indicated in The Guide Plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration beyond the Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK To improve the.quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improve- ments adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space & landscaping - berms, grass, flowers and tree plaiting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park green spaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts - expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial- activity generators to give street life and visual interest, as attrac- tions at key locations along pedestrian routes. Srg(k--qe ';ki � rr.O "% rOnb4f16tjpe a�wr mi �er�frafrOv� � ip �o �f � Il a pe 5fr�fur � 0 rb� ins }rig #,on y fo r8�iriGt ac6ev, 1 tD r cod fprvve �I only It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings, as in the Core Area. Nor is it desireable to leave pedestrian streets in the open and somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks as well as visual interest and activity. D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these 'rooms' are created by the variety of heights and massing (three - dimensional vari- ations) which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed (empirically) by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: an external enclosure is most comfortable where its walls are approximately 2 as high as the width of the space enclosed; 'if the ratio falls to a or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width, it comes to resemble a canyon_ l � In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height' on both sides • of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 3z - to - l ratio. Using the average facade height of both sides will generally still be a guide to the "comfortableness" of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the 'canyon' effect is acceptable and even desirable - for example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces - to give variety to the walking experience. For sun /shade reasons, it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north -south direction. Long canyon streets in an east -west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special design con- sideration should be given to creating a well - defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the canyon effect. Canopies, awnings, arcade and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from upper building heights and 'canyon' effect. For other considerations on building massing see: Building Height Sun /Shade Views Street Edge • X L��IEV {did; 4a (r Ern�har�y G.3 �� llyl6n arM Ganc,e�G. E. STREET EDGE . Buildings in the Village Core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian streets. This i's not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscape areas, give life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to con- tinue the street edge: low planter walls tree planting raised sidewalks texture changes in ground surface - arcades - raised decks f b�v• D� Cv�uElfnear �fti�cef�.�� 4inr? Jt I nc��uif7 o �� Plazas, patios, green areas are im- portant focal points for: gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to: - spacing - sun access - opportunities for views - pedestrian activity See also: Sun /Shade Building Height Street Enclosure Views F. BUILDING HEIGHT Basically the Village Core is perceived as a mix of two and three storey facades, although there are also four and five storey buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street- which is desireable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height and massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. Height shall be calculated as follows: The vertical distance from the average existing grade within the building foot- print to the mid -point of the roof, enclosing that portion of the building footprint. • Overall building heights up to 50' above existing grade shall be per-- . mitted within the following guidelines; is • 1. At least 60% of the site coverage area should not exceed 30' in height. 2. No more than'40% of the site coverage area may be higher than 30', not to exceed 40'. 3. In designated areas, by special review, the above maximum heights may be exceeded (not to exceed 50' maximum) if warranted by other considerations: massing to preserve views, designated tower locations, etc. Height exceptions will require proportional building reductions in 1 & 2 above. G. VIEWS Vail' .s mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environ- ment and, by repeated visibility, orientation reference points. Major and minor view corridors have been designated on the View Plane map, an element of the Vail Village Urban Design Framework Plan. __._.___ -- — fir•' Any proposed building changes which would encroach into, or substantially alter, the designated major view planes will be discouraged. Minor encroach- ments into the designated minor view planes may be acceptable. Emphasis should be upon framing and enhancing view planes rather than protruding directly into them. Whether affecting the des _pn ted view planes or not, the impact of all proposed building expansions on views from pedestrian ways must be demonstrated, and mitigated where warranted. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely important to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except where functional, alternatives are provided. In all new and remodeled con- struction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should beexplbred, and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or future usage. Rear access, basement, and below - ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. • Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitzmark /Gore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to extending these corridors where feasible and the creation of new ones. As buildings are constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future system I. SUN /SHADE Due to Vail`s alpine climate, sun is an -important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures sub- stantially below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. On all but the warmest of summer days shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby negatively impact uses of those areas. • All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow attern (March 21 through Sept. 23) on adjacent properties or the public R.D.W. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Not- withstanding, sun /shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. • Additions to existing buildings may be created in several ways to avoid extending shadow patterns. • 0 p iYrj O Ij ��tir e�i5tir� bvrf�lj1� 6W". 2$ or MarJ1.1 V S un 346 —� f2o° oOO4 I l l 'i °xSFl�g bldg. C7 n U 40 CONSIDERATIONS ROOFS Where visible, roofs are often one of the most dominant architectural elements in any built environment. In the Village roof form, color and texture are visibly dominant, and generally consistent, which tends to unify the building diversity to a great degree. The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a consistently unifying backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand out individually or distract visually from the overall character. Roof Forms Roofs within the Village are typically gable in form and of moderate -to -low pitch. Shed roofs are frequently used for small additions to larger buildings. Free- standing shed roofs, butterfly roofs and flat roofs, can be found in the Village but they are generally considered to be out of character and inapprop- riate. Hip roofs likewise are rare and generally inconsistent with the character of the Core Area. Towers are exceptions, in both form and pitch, to the general criteria, but do have an established local veinacular style which should be respected. t�Ml� � gun Pitch Roof slopes in the Village typically range from 3/12 to 6/12, with.slightly steeper pitches in limited applications. Again, for visual consistency this general 3/12 -6/12 range should be preserved. (See Construction below.) Overhangs Generous roof overhangs are also an established architectural feature in the Village - a traditional expression of shelter in alpine environments. Roof overhangs typically range from 3 to 6 feet on all edges. Specific design consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian ways adjacent to buildings. Tee falls, snow slides, and runoff hazards can be reduced by roof orientation, gutters, arcades, etc. Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation. Structural elements such as_ roof beams are expressed beneath the overhangs, simply or decoratively carved. The roof fascia is thick and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof. Composition The intricate roofscape of the Village as a whole is the result of many in- dividual simple roof configurations. For any single building a varied but simple composition of roof planes is preferred to either a single or a complex arrangement of many roofs. As individual roofs become more complex the roof attracts visual attention away from the streetscape and the total roofscape tends toward "busyness" rather than a backdrop composition. • 3�IZ TO 311f� bl r: 1 : expo�d I av Srn�fe r?,Of Ptal+C �rEi�'.'rrd Srru�lC � {. Stepped Roofs •As buildings are stepped to reflect existing grade changes, resulting roof steps should be made where the height change will be visually significant. Variations which are too subtle appear to be more stylistic than functional, and out of character with the more straight - forward roof design typ ical in the Village. Materials Wood - shakes, wood shingles, and built- - up tow and gravel are almost exclusively used as roof materials in the Village. (See Construction bel.ow.) For visual consistency any other materials should have the appearance of the above. Construction Common roof problems and design con- siderations in this climate include: snowslides onto pedestrian walks -- gutters freezing - roof dams and water infiltration - heavy snow loads Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as well as familiarity with the local building code, proven construction details, and town ordinances. For built -up roofs, pitches of 4/12 or steeper do not hold gravel well. For shingle roofs, pitches of 4/12 or shallower often result in ice dams and backflow leakage under the shingles. Cold -roof construction is strongly preferred, unless warm -roof benefits for a specific application can be ` demonstrated. Cold - roofs are double - roofs which insulate and prevent snow melt from internal building heat. By retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be reduced. Periodic snow removal will be required and should be anticipated in the design. . Roof gutters tend to ice -in completely and become ineffective in the Vail climate, especially in shaded north - side locations. Heating the interior circumference with heat -tape elements or other devices is generally nec- essary to assure adequate runoff control in colder months: • Rr e f �Y air14 -6d Ver, `- /Kalafr.� foo Ge roof se,.rafed fyom air rr#<eep�, rnsld� s�ce h2d{ from me[f =w8 f e- FACADES . Materials Stucco, brick, wood (and glass) are the primary building materials found in the Village. While not wishing to restrict design freedom over -much, existing conditions show that within this small range of materials much variation and individuality are possible while pre- serving a basic harmony. Too many diverse materials weaken the continuity and repetition which unifies the street - scape. Of the above materials stucco is the most consistently used material. Most of the buildings in the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent. It is intended to preserve the dominance of stucco -by its Use in portions, at least, of all new facades, and by assuring that other materials are not used to the exclusion of stucco in any sub -area within the Village. Color There is greater latitude in the use of color in the Village, but still a discernible consistency within a general range of colors. For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred - browns, greys, blue- greys, dark olive, slate- greens, etc. Stucco colors are generally light - white, beige, pale -gold, or other light pastels. Other light colors could be appropriate, as considered on a case -by -case basis. Bright colors (red, orange, blues, maroon, etc.) should be avoided for. major wall planes, but can be used effectively (with restraint) for decorative trim, wall graphics, and other accent elements (see E. Accent Elements) Generally, to avoid both "busyness ", and weak visual interest, the variety of major wall colors (and materials - • excluding glass) should not exceed four nor be less than two. A color /material change between the ground floor and upper floors is a coninon and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian scale -of the street. Transparency Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and generally public character of the ground floor facade of adjacent buildings. Transparent store fronts are "people attractors ", opaque or solid walls are more private, imply "do not approach ". On pedestrian- oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial facades are proportionately more trans- parent than upper floors. Lipper floors are typcially more residential, private and thus less open. • uP per - F'.�rs pre�iam fna�t� � w�61y , U�I fy 1a,6 W15r� all pe4c r1 As,a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground floor facades range from 55% to 70% of the total length of the commercial facade. Upper floors are often the converse 30 % -45% transparent. Examples of transparency (lineal feet of glass to lineal feet of facade) on ground level. - Covered Bridge Bldg. 58% - Pepi's Sports 71% -- Gasthof Gramshammer 48% - The Lodge 66% - Golden Peak House 62% - Casino Building 30% - Gorsuch Budding 51% Windows In addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an important source of pedestrian scale- giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the function of the street adjacent. For close -up, casual pedestrian viewing windows are typically sized to human -sized dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass -wall store- fronts suggest uninterrupted viewing, as from a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is diminished.) Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly 18 feet ± and do not extend much over 8 feet above the walk- way level. Ground floors which are noticeably above or below grade are exceptions. LJ a - -.4 ��=�' ice•• �I r • 1 W. aA warrfr5tart� a - -.4 ��=�' ice•• �I r • 1 W. aA The articulation of the window itself is still another element in giving pedestrian scale (human- related dimensions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements - and are further subdivided by mullions into small panes - which is responsible for much of the old -world charm of the Village. Similarly, windows are most often clustered in banks, juxtaposed with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window elements, especially over long distances, should be avoided. • Large single pane windows occur in the Village, and provide some contrast, as long as they are generally consistent in form with other windows. Long continuous glass is out of character. Bay, bow and box windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to facades - and are encouraged. .1-PA fW5' G1VO+d �'tiortiztjn�+�i� y�ei�Fipr� l i P', 10(vdUai re ( fov v I a r WinJOW6 uerh(_&[ ! bow hnx • • Reflective glass, plastic panes, and aluminum or other metal frames are not consistent in the Village and should be avoided. Metal -clad or plastic clad wood frames, having the appearance of painted wood have been used success- fully and are acceptable. Doo rs Like windows, doors are important to character and scale- giving architectural elements. They should also be somewhat transparent (on retail commercial facades) and consistent in detailing with windows and other facade elements. Doors with glass contribute to overall facade transparency. Due to the visibility of people and merchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat more effective in drawing people inside to retail commercial facades. Although great variations exist, 25-300 1 transparency is felt to be a minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants, and other non - retail establishments have different visibility and character needs, and doors should be designed accordingly. Sidelight windows are also a means of introducing door - transparency as a complement or sub- stitute for door windows. dark wrd Mm of ;e, �f n520, g l � arfcuokJ 5a az i Articulated doors have the decorative quality desired for Vail. Flush doors, light aluminum frames, plastic applique elements all are considered inappropriate. I * NOTE: Security is an important design consideration in Vail. Dead - bolt locks are encouraged. Locks, door handles and glass should all be designed to discourage break --ins. Security - design discussions with the Town police staff are encouraged. As an expression of entry, and sheltered welcome, protected entry- ways are encouraged. Doorways may be recessed, extended, or covered. n LJ ► ln,dark rLd'01 �rjmewl-k dark s-!r� 0 �,rV�py oic1n J x'r yo fCF x. E �::::•::;' 1 al�wrtnurrt Q ❑ a� c{,zX,9fI've rnefal- worL red exfe��� mover ed . Trim Prominent wood trim is also a unifying Ofeature in the Village. Particularly at ground floor levels, doors and windows have strong, contrasting (see Color - Facades) framing elements, which tie the various elements together in one composition. Windows and doors are treated as strong visual features. Glass -wall detailing for either is typically avoided. LJ dark wood 4ri M' �I DECKS AND PATIOS Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street- making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. A review of successful decks /patios in Vail reveals several common char- acteristics: direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases use by many days /year and protects from wind elevated feet to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse) - physical separation from pedestrian walk of to (planter better than a wall) - overhang gives pedestrian scale/ shelter. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: - sun - views - wind - pedestrian activity • • �(c1�i or 4?? „jWima -b acf,%,c ppke, Vmbdla cr �flie'. eleoieM -6 691or a!4 �n10 • 1 3rd�,,Iare en�fo= ;vre j � I II I �. f ID I v v 0 eft. loci TO BALCONIES Balconies occur on almost all buildings in the Village which have at least a second level facade wall. As strong repetitive features they: - give scale to buildings - give life to the street (when used) - add variety to building forms - provide shelter to pathways below. The prominance of balcony forms is due to several fairly common characteristics: Color They contrast in color (dark) with the building, typically matching the trim colors (see Facade- Color). Size Aft They extend far enough from the building to cast a prominent shadow pattern. Balconies in Vail are functional as well as decorative. As such, they should be of useable size and located to encourage use. Balconies less than six feet deep are seldom used, nor are those always in shade, not oriented to views or street life. Mass They are commonly massive yet semi- trans- parent, distinctive from the building, yet allowing the building to be somewhat visible behind. Solid balconies are found occasionally, and tend to be too dominant obscuring the building archi- tecture. light balconies lack the visual impact which ties the Village together. ITT �Ij I�'' ' ire d�r(r C�oV .�•; 'E � is ;;;.J:( 1� 1 -'L - J; - L 'Li I �Lrn i � 13cau ,a "Id w Ut51J�rlr�� . rN h t� .�•; 'E � is ;;;.J:( 1� 1 -'L - J; - L 'Li I �Lrn 0 Materials Wood balconies are by far the most common. Vertical structural members are the most dominant visually, often decoratively sculpted. Decorative wrought iron balconies are also consistent visually where the vertical members are close enough to create semi - transparency. Pipe rails, and plastic, canvas or glass panels should be avoided. Construction Cantilevered beams, beams extended to support. the balcony, are most often visibly exposed on the underside of balconies. As such they are an expression of structure and tie the balconies to the building visually. 40 IN 1 l ACCENT ELEMENTS The life, and festive quality of the Village is given by judicious use of accent elements which give color, movement and contrast to the Village. Colorful accent elements consistent with existing character are encouraged, such as: Awnings and canopies - canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors. Flags, banners - hanging from buildings, poles, and even across streets for special occasions. Umbrellas - over tables on outdoor patios. Annual color flowers - in beds or in planters. Accent lighting - buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even Christmas lights all winter). Painted wall graphics - coats of arms, symbols, accent compositions, etc. . Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer character. Is k• I LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS .Landscape considerations include, but go beyond, the placement of appropriate plant materials. Landscape considerations include: plant materials -- paving -- retaining walls street furniture-(benches, kiosks, trash, etc.) - lighting signage P1ant.Materials Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant selection and design of the sites that do exist. Framework planting of trees and shrubs should include both deciduous and evergreen species for year round continuity and interest. Native plants are somewhat limited in variety, but are clearly best able to withstand the harsh winter climate, and to tie the Village visually with its mountain setting. Some typical local plant materials include: Trees Narrow -leaf cottonwood Balsam poplar Aspen Lodgepole pine Colorado spruce Subalpine fir Shrubs Willow Dogwood Serviceberry Alpine currant Chokecherry Mugho pine Potentilla Buffaloberry Paving The freeze /thaw cycle at this altitude virtually eliminates common site -cast concrete as a paving surface (concrete spall). Nigh -- strength concrete may work in selected conditions. Asphalt brick (on concrete or on sand), and concrete block appear to be best suited to the area. In general, paving treatments should be coordinated with that of the public R.O.W. adjacent. The Town uses the following materials for all new construction: - asphalt - general use pedestrian streets - brick on concrete - feature areas (plazas, intersections, fountains, etc.) Retaininq Malls Retaining walls to raise planting area often protects the landscape from pedestrians and snowplows, and should provide seating opportunities: Two types of material are already well - established in the Village and should be utilized for continuity. - split -face moss rock reneer - Village Core pedestrian streets (typical) - rounded cobble hidden mortar - in open space areas if above type not already established nearby. (example: Town of Vail entry wall) Wood retaining walls are strongly dis- couraged due to deterioration caused by the harsh climate. They may be effectively used,with appropriate detailing to resist rot and express crafted joint conditions. • Li hg tine Light standards should be coordinated with those used by the Town in the public R.O.W. Sim Reiser to Town of Vail Signage Ordinance. Colorful annuals are used in key locations throughout the Village to accent pedestrian areas, highlight building entries, and as plaza focii. These color accents can be provided in: - retained planting beds Bower boxes - hanging pots, baskets - ground beds • • SERVICE r n Trash handling is extremely sensitive in a pedestrian environment. Trash collection is primarily made in off - peak hours. It is the building owners responsibility to assure that existing trash storage problems are corrected and future ones avoided. Garbage, especially from food service establishments must be carefully considered, including: - quantities generated - pick -up frequency /access - container sizes - enclosure location /design - visual, odor impacts Garbage collection boxes or dumpsters must be readily accessible for-col- lection at all times yet fully screened from public view - pedes- trians as well as upper level windows in the vicinity. Materials Exterior materials for garbage en- closures should be consistent with that of adjacent buildings. Construction Durability of the structure and oper- ability of doors in all weather are prime concerns. Metal frames and posts behind the preferred exterior materials should be considered to withstand the inevitable abuse these structures suffer. r-° —� C" i;bfi5. �ur,�%V Ovic ted �u� : f r�C(C ri�av�e[�VeY {►� erdt,wre �riu �td�aCe�f �i jdc � - Ta"�'P.�� - fvn�l %Psi • �� !c{e brick cr . L 1.- • TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED _ VAIL LIONS HEAD URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS APRIL 4, 1980 0 0 _V • URBAN DESIGN CONSIDER:. 1. 2. 3. The LionsHead architectural style is noticeably absent of any references to historical or geographical styles (old west, georgian, swiss village etc.). The challenge in LionsHead is to develop vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale within a contemporary architectural ex- pression. The general urban form of LionsHead is that of a series of connected plazas or courts, occasionally linked by a mall or narrow passage way. Both architecture and landscape improvements should reinforce that urban form. The height and spacing of buildings, and the 'strong' architectural character of the upper portions of buildings (long walls, massive balcoiiies, regular-repetitions, etc.) tend to overpower the somewhat weaker ground floor facades, detracting from the pedestrian experience. A major emphasis in all architectural im- provements is to strengthen the ground floor visibility and attractiveness, such that it re- establishes a sense of pedestrian scale throughout the mall area. 4. The LionsHead Mall was originally planned and designed as a pedestrian vehicle --free zone. In most cases peripheral service /delivery (and parking) corridors were provided. All improvements should recognize and preserve the function of those corridors where they exist. 0 psi an external enclosure is most comfortable where its walls are approximately 2 as high as the width of the space enclosed. if the ratio falls to .4 or less, the space seems unen- closed; and and if the height is greater than the width, it comes to resemble a trench or canyon. ;i AL 3 r it I� HEIGHT AND MASSING GUIDELINES A.l. Special design consideration should be given to creating a well- defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the canyon effect. +all 6W6. 1.0 A.2. Building expansions shall r11 be limited to one - story, and 2- stories as indicated on the Guide plan, or as can be demonstrated to have a positive visual and functional effect. 6r zoo. 2 fey nix h�yc,� or 6 e, YWtt 660 �� I • DISCUSSION s canopies, awnings, arcade and build- ing extensions can all create a pedes- trian focus and divert attention from upper building heights and 'canyon' effect. �O[,u5 a��NfiDt� D�1 ��� ria�► 1e�el GUIDELINES Story height: • existing arch of floors (sj; color change; or, where not. 10 foot incr. natural grad.. building. n DISCUSSION be defined by rat expressions beams, texture/ hangs, roofs, etc.) apparent, above existing .ent to the max. he�ht of - Camm�rCiai �f �i 1 eyd below 2,-for', ` qwe ��Yrzr�feri�. GUIDELINES DISCUSSION Notwithstanding, where compatible with the existing building, a limited variety of massing of ex- pansions is encouraged to avoid the monotony of continuous one -story expansions. I I * • UUIULLINLb DISCUSSION Notwithstanding, where compatible' with the existing building, a limited variety of massing of ex- pansions is encouraged to avoid the monotony of continuous one -story expansions. t.. 110 GUIDELINES B.1. Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are acceptable for building expansions. (6n ar roof. e 8.2. Connections of roofs to existing buildings should be respective of-any I * existing strong architectural lines. (spandrel beams, texture/color changes, overhangs, etc. -). �Jr�5�,6�1 �� hrk3J1G�PP� h�J f ` ? t � 18 DISCUSSION a Gable roof forms are more traditional and should be avoided in LionsHead for expansions. ® It is important tQ integrate expan- sions with existing buildings so as to avoid a patchwork, "tacked -on" quality for LionsHead. It is hoped that all expansions will appear to have been part of the original design of each building. 10 10 r] GUIDELINES B.3. Roof slopes for expansions should not exceed 12112 pitch and should be relatively consistent within any one project. (See A.2.) t'r�X3mUti'1 1 i2 l2�fZ G {�( �cPav�y.N1 nn DISCUSSION e Most existing building roofs are high enough to be unseen. Where main building roof planes are highly visible from the ground, expansions should match that pitch. r Shallow roof slopes are common, but may be exceeded, where compatible with existing structural lines of the building- sparidel beams, balcony levels, insets, etc. (See 8.2.) ® Roofline variations add variety when used with restraint. They should however be limited in any one project to avoid creating cumulative "business ". 10 I -* • GUIDELINES 8.4. Roof overhangs shall be limited from I 4n.-;Inc irn +n 3F "..-k- I]ISCUSSION 8.5. Roofs may extend beyond the overhang limit when used to create arcades or covered walkways. In such cases the roof extension shall be large enough to provide a comfortable passageway, F -Fnn+ to 0 F—+ .,,,-,-- B.6. Common roof problems, and design considerations, in this climate include: - snow slides onto pedestrian walks - gutters freezing - ice dams and water infiltration - heavy snow loads (require snow removal periodically) 10 I * GUIDELINES B.7 Acceptable roof materials for roof surfaces visible from pedestrian ways shall be: metal - with ribs or standing seam, dark color glass - clear or smoked, no colors plastic - clear or smoked, no colors For flat roofs and those otherwise un -seen from pedestrian ways, built- up tar (or tar /gravel) may also be used. (See also C.) DISCUSSION 9 While some vanity and accent is desirable, in the mall, general consistency and restraint in roof treatment (such as avoiding loud colors) will preserve the harmony between elements -- also an important visual quality for pedestrians. FACADES-WALLS/STRUCTURE 0 GUIDELINES • • C.I. Concrete, concrete block, glass, metal stucco, and wood are the primary materials to be encouraged in LionsHead. C.2. Wall planes (including structure) of concrete, block, and stucco should be white or light pastel. (beige, grey). Consistent with (not necessarily the same as) the existing building. Wood surfaces should be stained to match existing wood colors. Where wood does not exist in the existing building, wood in expansions should be stained to a medium range or to match the main building color - avoiding either dark or light "new" wood colors. C.3. Darker earthtones are to be used DISCUSSION ® While not wishing to restrict design freedom over -much, existing con- ditions show that a restricted number of materials and color can bring harmony, and yet still allow for great variation and individuality. A profusion of colors brings visual chaos which destroys the unity of- the built forms. 6 Stucco is a unifying element found throughout Vail, with a variety of other materials and colors which give contrast. primarily for trim and mullions. Bright colors, and light shades thereof (eg. red, purple and orange) are unacceptable wall or trim colors. C.4. Generally, the variety of major 0 Too many colors /materials create a materials (and /or colors) on any "busy" appearance and detract from buildings should be limited to 3 or simple variety which exists. less. FACADES --TRAN SPAR ENCY • GUIDELINES DISCUSSION D.1. Ground floor commercial facades should s Transparent store fronts are "people be proportionately more transparent than attractors" and give pedestrian, open upper floors. public character to the street. �ra�n�' �'Icrrs �recPoyvtiina�2(� � Iris w /sn�f f �-cer�a� of p�aRue �af�r� Mr/M D.2. Ground floor display window sills should be no more than 18 inches from walk level. Floor to ceiling glass is acceptable. I I i a I -J (Opaque walls imply residential, private, "do not stop to look ".) @ Second stories are typically more residential, private, and thus less open. GUIDELINES D.3. Window (transparency at least 70 %) should • comprise surface area of the ground floor commercial facade. 1* �t DA. Glass should be grouped into banks of windows untied by common trim and mullions. Create broad glass /wall patterns, avoiding the impression of windows as regular spaced "holes" in the walls. ; t�a�s u�m mav� rnufliow s�"udur�i 5u�parF Expr���cp. b DA. Glass should be grouped into banks of windows untied by common trim and mullions. Create broad glass /wall patterns, avoiding the impression of windows as regular spaced "holes" in the walls. ; t�a�s u�m mav� rnufliow s�"udur�i 5u�parF Expr���cp. 1.0 GUIDELINES D.5. Glass should be subdivided with joints or mullions to express individual window elements ( or the generally vertical proportions). further subdivision of windows into smaller panes to increase pedestrian scale is desireable. Large single --pane windows are not prohibited however. ' 1Yll�IUl�(�r� U71��0uJ � {Nbvl�t�: y� k '-WONOf 7c�Uli'S �Gt ltxft D.6. Bay, bow & box windows are encouraged. D.7. Clear or tinted glass, non - reflective are acceptable for windows. Dark colored wood or metal are acceptable mullion and frame materials. D.$. Exterior Doors on public frontages should be at least 30 percent transparent and consistent with other elements of the facade in design, character and materials. 10 10 r� GUIDELINES D.9. Doorways and entrances should be recessed from the facade plane. Recesses deeper than 2 feet should also be highly transparent. D.10. Security is an important design consideration in LionsHead. Dead --bolt locks are encouraged. Locks, door handles and glass place- ment should all be designed to discourage break -in. Early security - design discussions with the Town police staff are encouraged. DISCUSSION • Recessed entrys give stronger entry identity and a sense of sheltered welcome. DECKS & PATIOS 10 GUIDELINES EA. Functional decks or patios, primarily for dining are strong street life elements in LionsHead and are highly encouraged, on either the ground or second floor level. E.2. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: - sun - views - wind -- pedestrian activity - accessibility 140 CJ DISCUSSION a Dining decks and patios, when properly designed & sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street - making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. ® A review of successful decks /patios in LionsHead reveals several common characteristics: - direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 and protection from wind increases use by many days /year. - elevated 2 to 3 feet to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse) -- physical separation from pedestrian walk of 2 feet to 6 feet (a planter more effective than a wall) - overhang gives pedestrian scale/ shelter ACCENT ELEMENTS GUIDELINES DISCUSSION F.l. Judicious use of colorful accent elements, consistent with existing character of LionsHead are encouraged, such as: Awnings and canopies - canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors. Flags, Banners - hanging from buildings, poles, and even across streets for special occasions. Umbrellas - over tables on outdoor patios. Annual color flowers - in beds or planters, in balcony or window boxes. Flood lighting - buildings, plazas, windows, trees (]�ights all winter). - Fainted wall graphics - symbols, accent compositions, etc. • Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer character. Judicious use of bright colors to accent trim (pinstripe, scrollwork, eg.) will be acceptable. • a LANDSCAPE ELEMENT GUIDELINES G.1. Framework planting of trees and shrubs is appropriate and desired on each parcel. Plantings should include both decidious and evergreen species for year round. continuity. G.2. G.3. G.4. DISCUSSION • The continuity of extensive tree/ shrub and grass planting softens and fills the urban plazas of LionsHead. This pastoral character is an important distinction from the Village, and should be preserved. With the exception of annual color, tree, g shrub species used should be those native to the area. Colorful planting should be used to e accent pedestrian areas and highlight buildings, entries, etc. Curbs and retaining walls are used to 0 define most of the planting areas in LionsHead. Retaining walls should in- clude seating opportunities and -be constructed of either: - concrete - rounded stone cobble (hidden mortar) (example: Town of Vail entry sign /wall) Native plant materials are somewhat limited in range, but are obviously best able to withstand the harsh climate and to closely tie the Village with its natural mountain setting. Color plantings should be provided by: - planters (retaining walls, large moveable pots) - planting beds - flower boxes, and hanging pots (from windows, balcony railings, etc. Curbs and retaining walls protect the landscape from pedestrians & snowplows. Two types of material are already well - established in LionsHead and should be utilized for continuity. The landscape areas immediately adjacent to the curb are often used for snow storage. Tree /shrub planting should be avoided. Wood retaining walls are strongly dis- couraged due to deterioration caused by the harsh climate. Paving materials, for consistency, should a Asphalt paving and unit pavers appear be generally limited to the following: to be best suited to this highly variabl{ climate. The freeze /thaw cycle tends to - asphalt - general use, pedestrian cause concrete to spall. streets - interlocking pavers - to highlight feature areas, patios, fountains, etc. 10 4 MAY 61 1980 � 0 I V A V I L L. A GE BAN MAY 61 1980 � 0 I • 0 4 Etc krground These Design Consideratfans are an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The. Plan as a whole is the culmination of many month's effort by residents, merchants, Town staff, and consultants to develop a mechanism to manage physical change in the Village. It is an attempt to identify aspects of the physical character of the Village and to assure as far as possible that future changes will be consistent with the established character, and will make positive con- tributions to the quality of life. Vail was originally conceived as a mountain resort in the pattern of quaint european alpine village. It remains fairly faithful to that image today; because of the commitment of its early founders to that concept. However, recent rapid growth, both in size and popularity, has introduced new pressures for development, which many feel threaten the unique qualities from which that success has been derived. There are rapidly increasing land values and resulting pressures to expand existing buildings, infill parcels, and even totally re- developed parcels less than 15 years old. This pressure for growth has brought with it the potential for significant change. New materials, new architectural styles, the premium on land usage, and sheer nurbers of people and cars all have potentially major impacts on the character and function of Vail. That is not to imply that all growth and change in Vail is negative. There are many areas that are underdeveloped. The actual area of Vail that gives it its unique character is but a small area of the Village. There are definitely opportunities to extend the character of the Core beyond its current limits. These Design Considerations, and the Urban Design Plan as a whole, are intended to guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of Vail Village. This character, while inspired to a degree by european models, has evolved into a distinctly local interpretation. Any standards, in the end, must be -based upon Vail's own unique characteristics, and potential now. To preserve this character, care must be taken to avoid both new architectural prototypes, and historical ones, local or foreign, which do not share the same design vocabulary. These Design Considerations are a recognition that there is a distinctive design character to the Village and that this character is important to preserve. The Design Considerations The characteristics identified herein, are first of all, descriptions of the primary form- giving physical features of the Village. They are not exhaustive. They are a description of those key elements O thout which the image of Vail would be noticeably different. They are divided into two rrajor categories: i • ID Urban Design Considerations General, large -scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property (or even whole areas). These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. This Commission also has review responsibilities for additional zoning code compliance such as density control, parking, etc. Architecture /Landscape Considerations Detail, details, style and overall appropriateness of a design for a given site. These considerations are revievied primarily by the Design Review Board (DRB). Below is a general checklist of major issues and concerns which the applicant must address in the course of-the review process. Each of the following items should be addressed at least briefly in any application hearing or submittal: Urban Design Considerations Architectural/Landscape Considerations 'I 1. Pedestrianization 1. ROOFS 2. Vehicle Penetration Form 3. Streetscape Framework Pitchan 4. Street Enclosure g s 5. Street Edge Composition 6. Building Height Stepped Roofs 7. Views Materials Construction Zonin Code Items — — 2• FACADES Materials j. Density Control Color 2. Landscape Area Reduction Transparency 3. Parking 14i ndows 4. Doors. 5. Trim 6. 3. BALCONIES Color Size Mass Materials Construction 4. DECKS & PATIOS 5. ACCENT ELEMENTS 6. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS Plant Materials Paving Retaining Walls Lighting Signage 7. SERVICE Materials Construction ii i!'"4V7v. Secondly, the design considerations are intended to serve as guideline design parameters. They are not seen as rigid rules, or "cookbook: design elements" to bring about a homogeneous appearance in Vail. Rather, they are a statement of interpretation, subscribed to by the lcalTown g characte,anvironmcti�vesBof the1Village. • Review Board, as to the present phys They are intendionableehe owwnerstplanningCand �design � objectives, and allow clearly communicate property der }onstrate property owners in town to respond in general conformance or to clearly why departures are warranted. Finally, these guidelines are intended to help influence the farm and design of one buildings, not to establish minimum building olumeSkleightenEnclosuren Views and criteria applies to a given situation e.g. 9 g height and massing - and Sun /Shade - all are concerns applicable to buildin they'may be mutually conflicting if judged on equal terms. It is the role of the review boards, together with the applicant, to determine the relative importance of each consideration fo raabgiven situation. dTheylrthentusrigpisy those considerations to assure that of the public and private sectors. • n U iii 0 ,CC kr�- S I D �,'H' RA"i'll ON S A. PEDESTRIANIZATION All new or expansion construction should anticipate the appropriate level of pedestrianization adjacent to the site. A major objective for Vail Village .is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans,-and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality to pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. . Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access) a totally car -free pedestrian system is not achieveable throughout the entire Village. Therefore several levels of pedestrianization are proposed: 1. pedestrian -only streets • 10 10 2. pedestrian streets with limited delivery traffic - with sufficient width for unimpeded pedestrian walking 3. separated pedestrian walks where street width and traffic volume (trucks, • s - =�'- _ shuttle bus, etc) preclude _ 3. separated pedestrian walks where street width and traffic volume (trucks, • s _ shuttle bus, etc) preclude _ joint vehicle /pedestrian 4. primary vehicular routes - minimal pedestrian . development confined to wide shoulder, sidewalk, or separate pathway. The Framework Circulation Plan, and sub -area Guide Plans designate the specific type of street develop- ment desired for major streets in Vail Village. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION To the maximum extent possible all non - resident traffic should be routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Village/ Vail LionsHead parking structures. In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focussed upon reducing auto penetration into the center of.the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve-as the major routes for service and resident access to the Village. Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated in The Guide Plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration beyond the Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. C. STRFFTSCAPE FRAMEWORK • To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improve- ments adjacent to the walkways are - considered: 1. Open space a landscaping - berms, grass, flowers and tree plaiting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along Pedestrian routes; and plazas and park green spaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill conniercial storefronts - expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial• activity generators to give street life and visual interest., as attrac- tions at key locations along pedestrian routes. avid rVJ CoMI-Ir'16 A 40 mlliwlie pewfrafvl �arwng C �.,_� lfd,�iG GlrGlgl h iQl'i3Je �� �rq C�,�; ✓ iG #rbGn4O� rg,triGt 4GG�f71 {� J4 1- �'�\��.. k� It =is not intended to enclose all Village str -eets with buildings, as in the Core Area. Nor is it desireable to leave pedestrian streets in the open and somewhat undefined condition • evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks as well as visual interest and.activity. D. STREET _ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms whose walls are fori7ed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these 'rooms' are created by the variety of heights and massing (three- dimensional vari- ations) which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed (empirically) by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: an external enclosure is most comfortable where its walls are approximately ' -F as high as the width of the space enclosed; 'if the ratio falls to 'a or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the Width, it comes to resemble a canyon. �_I - I - �z E t • • r1 In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this ,Z - to l ratio. Using the average facade height of both sides will generally still be a guide to the "comfortableness" of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the 'canyon' effect is acceptable and even desirable - for example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces - to give variety to the walking experience. For sun /shade reasons, it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in a north -south direction. Long canyon streets in an east -west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special design con- sideration should be given to creating a well- defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the canyon effect. Canopies, awnings, arcade and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from upper building heights and 'canyon' effect. For other considerations on building massing see: Building Height Sun /Shade Views Street Edge � x �fNES• (���� �4a i eha &ib ex rz�ian arm mom �fNES• (���� �4a i eha &ib ex rz�ian arm E. STREET EDGE Buildings in is form a strong the street. the Village Core should but irregular edge to Unlike many American towns there are no standard setback requirements for sistent buildings in Vail Village. With the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian .streets. • This ib not to imply-continuous building frontage along the prop erty line. A strong street edge is .important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends t° fe monotonous. With only few exceptions in the Village, irregular f acade lines, building jogs, and landscape areas, give life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to con- tinue the street edge. 1011 planter walls - arcades tree planting - raised decks raised sidewalks texture changes in ground surface b�v• nc�wify j.-.J...J- -I� fin. i L_ 10 Plazas, patios, green areas are im- portant focal points for: gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to: - spacing - sun access - opportunities for views - pedestrian activity See also: Sun /Shade Building Height Street Enclosure Views F. BUILDING HEIGHT Basically the Village Core is perceived as a mix of two and three storey facades, although there are also four and five storey buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street- which is desireable. The height-criteria are intended to encourage height and massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. Height shall be calculated as follows: The vertical distance from the average existing grade within the building foot- print to the Enid -point of the roof, enclosing that portion of the building footprint. rte- 11 1 Overall building heights up to 50' above existing grade shall be per - mitted within the following guidelines; 1. At least 60% of the site �. coverage area should not exceed 30' in height. 2. No more than '40% of the site coverage area may be higher than 30', not to exceed 40'. 3. In designated areas, by special review, the above maximum heights may be exceeded (not to exceed .50' maximum) if warranted by other considerations: massing to preserve views, designated tower locations, etc. Height exceptions will require proportional building reductions in I & 2 above. G. VIERS Vail's mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environ- ment and, by repeated visibility, orientation reference points. Major and minor view corridors have been designated on the View Plane map, an eler}ient of the Vail Village Urban Design Framework Plan. i 4d Any proposed building changes which would encroach into, or substantially alter, the designated mad or view planes will be discouraged. Minor encroach- ments into the designated minor view planes may be acceptable. - Emphasis •'°� should be upon framing and enhancing view planes rather than protruding directly into them. Whether affecting the des_�qnated view planes or not, the impact of all proposed building expansions on views from pedestrian ways must be demonstrated, and mitigated where warranted. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY • • Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely important to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except where functional, alternatives are provided. In all new and remodeled con- struction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored, and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or future usage. Rear access, basement, and below- ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. inflf (d 'o�ar�w bill VfC, Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitz :nark /Gore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to Am extending these corridors where feasible and the creation of new ones. As buildings are constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future system 1. SUN /SHADE Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an,important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures sub- stantially below those of adjacent direct sunlit areas. On all but the warmest of suiruner days shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby negatively impact uses of those areas. All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow attern (March 21 thrrough Sept. 23� on adjacent properties or the public R.O.W. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. trot- - withstanding, sun /shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. • 1 r� 5ttn�mPr 5�{r� �prcr��f! rah( I 1 sEJ�1 Ur J �3 0 �O i ���1. Ad6itions to existing buildings may be created in several ways to avoid extending shadow patterns. I� it n i C��c�11�lf�.fi idi�r�rY1 �Ull�ri� I � i Z�h Or fib° i 0004 i I I l i � j� j� ��15i►t7g laE,�G ■ I ROOFS Where visible, roofs are often one of the most dominant architectural elements in any built environment. In the Village roof form, color and texture are visibly dominant, and generally consistent, which tends to unify the building diversity to a great degree. The current expression, and objective, for roofs in the Village is to form a consistently unifying backdrop for the architecture and pedestrian streetscape, and to avoid roofs which tend to stand out individually or distract visually froat the overall character. 0 hoof Forms Roofs within the Village are typically gable in form and of moderate -to -low pitch. Shed roofs are frequently used for small additions to larger buildings. Free - standing shed roofs, butterfly roofs and flat roofs, can be found in the Village but they are generally considered to be out of character and inapprop- riate. Hip roofs likewise are rare and generally inconsistent with the character of the Core Area. Towers are exceptions, in both form and pitch, to the general criteria, but do have an established local veinacular style which should be respected. 0 7" Pitch Roof slopes in the VIllage typically range from 3/12 to 6/12, with slightly steeper pitches in limited applications. Again, for visual consistency this W 3/12 -6/12 range should be preserved. (See Construction below.) Overhangs Generous roof overhangs are also an established architectural feature in the Village - a traditional expression of shelter in. alpine environments. Roof overhangs typically range from 3 to 6 feet on all edges. Specific design consideration should be given to protection of pedestrian ways adjacent to buildings. Tee falls, snow slides, and runoff hazards can be reduced by roof orientation, gutters, arcades, etc. Overhang details are treated with varying degrees of ornamentation. Structural elements such as. roof beams are expressed beneath the overhangs, simply or decoratively carved. The roof fascia is thick: and wide, giving a substantial edge to the roof. Compositions The intricate roofscape of the Village as a whole is the result of many in- dividual simple roof configurations. For any single building a varied but simple composition of roof planes is preferred to either a single or a complex arrangement of many roofs. As individual roofs become more complex the roof attracts visual attention away from the streetscape and the total roofscape tends toward "busyness" rather than a backdrop composition. 0 ivm t'02r 6rnIS' ?ed _Roofs As buildings are stepped to reflect xi 'ng grade changes, resulting roof hould be made where the height change will be visually significant. Variations which are too subtle appear to be more stylistic than functional, and out of character with the more straight - forward roof design typ ical in the Village. Materials Wood- shakes, wood shingles, and built - up tow and gravel are almost exclusively used as roof materials in the Village. (See Construction below.) for visual consistency any other materials should WOOL the appearance of the abo .e. Construction Common roof problems and design con- siderations in this climate include: -. snowslides onto pedestrian walks - gutters freezing - roof dams and water infiltration - heavy snow loads Careful attention to these functional details is recommended, as well as familiarity with the local building code, proven construction details, and town ordinances. For built -up roofs, pitches of 4/12 or steeper do not hold gravel well. For shingle roofs, pitches of 4/12 or shallower often result in ice dams and backflow leakage under the shingles. Cold -roof construction is strongly preferred, unless warm -roof benefits for a specific application can be demonstrated. Cold -roofs are double - rO-'%fs which insulate and prevent snow It from internal building heat. By retaining snow on the roof, many of the problems listed can be reduced. Periodic snow removal will be required and should be anticipated in the design. Roof gutters tend to ice-in completely and become ineffective in the Vail climate, especially in shaded north - side locations. Heating the interior circumference with heat -tape elements. or other devices is generally nec- essary to assure adequate runoff control in colder months. . s S Ar ,fie a �r veN4 ply s� dery �IKOWI. A f - ' �� ik e aa�wc r� sor'�6YA i y��, air beaf i rOrn keel { =vrg � e Cola X�nr 6new OM p e r� FACADES Materials ucco, brick, wood (and glass) are the primary building materials found in the Village. While not wishing to restrict design - freedom over -much, existing conditions show that within this small range of materials much variation and individuality are possible while pre- serving a basic harmony. Too many diverse materials weaken the continuity and repetition which unifies the street- scape. Of the above materials stucco is the most consistently used material. Most of the buildings in the Village exhibit some stucco, and there are virtually no areas where stucco is entirely absent. It is intended to preserve the dominance of stucco -by its use in portions, at least, of all new facades, and by assuring that other materials are not used to the exclusion of stucco in any sub -area within the Village. Odw Color There is greater latitude in the use of color in the Village, but still a discernible consistency within a general range of colors. For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred - browns, greys, blue - greys, dark olive, slate - greens, etc. stucco colors are generally light - white, beige, pale -901d, or other light pastels. Other light colors could be appropriate, as considered on a case --by -case basis. Bright colors (red, orange, blues, maroon, etc.) should be avoided for major wall planes, but can be used effectively (with restraint) for decorative trig ", wall graphics,,and other accent cle-.menfs (see E. Accent Elements) Generally, to avoid both "busyness ", and weak visual interest, the variety of major wall colors (and materials - excluding glass) should not, exceed four nor be less than two. *�_.*,Color/material change between the ground floor and upper floors is a connion and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian scale-of the street. Tnr psyarencY_ Pedestrian scale is created in many ways, but a major factor is the openness, attractiveness, and generally public character of the ground floor facade of adjacent buildings. Transparent store fronts are "people attractors"; opaque or solid walls are more private, imply "do not approach ". On pedestrian - oriented streets such as in the Village, ground floor commercial facades are proportionately more trans- parent than upper floors. Upper floors are typcially more residential, private and thus less open. &K 46 up per -P Lz rz,� CYCd�n ;".'f ell G vgoe t + /Wp: ,WJ wary. Pe)i'(Yv,I � • fjT oo�vc �rwf'G�YialS. AS-a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground 'Boor facades range from 55% to 707 of the total length of the commercial facade. Upper floors are often the _ .converse 30 '--45% transparent. Examples of transparency (lineal feet of glass to lineal feet of facade) on ground level. - Covered Bridge Bldg. '587 -• Pepi's Sports 71% -- Gasthof Gramshammer 48% - The Lodge 66% - Golden Peak House 62% Casino Building 30% - Gorsuch Building 51% Windows In addition to the general degree of' transparency, window details are an important source of pedestrian scale - giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the fu6ction of the street d jacent. For close --up, casual pedestrian ewing windows are typically sized,to human -sized dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass --wall store- fronts suggest uninterrupted viewing, as from a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is diminished.) Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly 18 feet ± and do not extend much over 8 feet above the walk- way level. Ground floors which are noticeably above or below grade are exceptions. �5 0 ,—t Wal e 14Yzt,ae Y�. R 4 n The articulation of the window itself is still another element in giving pedestrian scale (human-related dimensions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to t - individual window elements -and are subdivided by mullions into small panes - which is responsible for much of the old -world charm of the Village. similarly, windows are most often clustered in banks, juxtaposed with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window elements, especially over long distances, should be avoided. Large single pane windows occur in the Village, and arevyenerall c�onsistentc long as they y in for€n with other windows. Long continuous glass is out of character. Bay, bD%q and box windows are co[r]�non tirindow details, fawhich cadesfurandrarevariety and massing to encouraged. -- �civ��oiar �(WO4tt�s auaj b e' calrnr F3f r - 'i� 'p I ! j.i i j ' bvx Reflective glass, plastic panes, and al6ninum or other metal frames are not consistent in the Village and should be avoided. Metal --clad or plastic C wood frames, having the appearance tinted wood have been used success - fully and are acceptable. Doors Like windows, doors are important to character and scale- giving architectural elements. They should also be somewhat transparent (on retail commercial facades) and consistent in detailing with windows and other facade elements. Doors with glass contribute to overall. facade transparency. flue to the visibility of people and merchandise inside, windowed doors are somewhat more effective in drawing people inside to retail commercial facades. Although great variations exist, 25 -30;� -1 transparency is felt to be a minimum transparency objective. Private residences, lodges, restaurants, and other non-re-t ail establishments have fferent visibility and character eds, and doors should be designed accordingly. Sidelight windows are also a means of introducing door - transparency as a complement or sub- stitute for door windows. a - C 7�_ Articulated doors have the decorative quality desired for Vail. Flush doors, light aluminum frames, plastic applique elements all are considered inappropriate. NOTE: Security is an important design consideration in Vail. Dead - bolt lochs are encouraged. Lochs, door handles and glass should all be designed to discourage break-ins. Security- design discussions with the Town police staff are encouraged. As an expression of entry, and sheltered welcome, protected entry - ways are encouraged. Dooiigays may be recessed, extended, or covered. • +In, dart, 91-61 krgem &I-k - ryat PE 0 0 a�P t7z;�ai- 0 a�P t7z;�ai- ..j r"Xled e�,vOr4J - Trim Prominent wood trim is also a unifying feature in the Village. Particularly at ground floor levels, doors and dvikws have strong, contrasting �lor- Facades) framing elements, whichvffe7the various elements together in one composition. Windows and doors are treated as strong visual features. Glass -wall detailing for either is typically avoided. C�n • Aid— mad � I .. .q DECKS AND PATIOS Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to streets, opportunities to look and 46L'Lllooked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street- making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty. A review of successful decks /patios in Vail reveals several common char- acteristics: - direct sunlight from 11:00 - 3:00 increases use by many days /year and protects from wind elevated feet to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse) - physical separation from pedestrian walk of to (planter better than a wall) - overhang gives pedestrian scale/ shelter. ecks and patios should be sited and *4tesigned 4aith due consideration to: - sun - views wind - pedestrian activity Gr���, 51h'6((3 or -bf CU 1' o6 ✓old 5tree,f r Za 4. ��. �ff' BALCONIES Balconies occur on almost all buildings in -the Village which have at least a ond level facade wall. As strong We`petitive features they: - give scale to buildings - give life to the street (when used) - add variety to building forms - provide shelter to pathways below. The prominance of balcony forms is due to several fairly common characteristics: Col or They contrast in color (dark) with the building, typically matching the trim colors (see Facade - Color). Size They extend far enough from the building to cast a prominent shadow pattern. Balconies in Vail are functional as well decorative. As such, they should be of useable size and located to encourage use. balconies less than six feet deep are seldom used, nor are those always in shade, not oriented to views or .street life. Mass They are commonly massive yet semi- trans- parent, distinctive from the building, yet allowing the building to be somewhat visible behind. Solid balconies are found occasionally, and tend to be too dominant obscuring the building archi- tecture. Light balconies lack the visual impact which ties the Village together. 00- LT�= PI 111 n pi Ma ter i'aIs Wood balconies are by far the most common. Vertical structural members e the most dominant visually, often costively sculpted. Decorative wrought iron balconies are also consistent visually where the vertical members are close enough to create semi- transparency. Pipe rails, and plastic, canvas or glass panels should be avoided. Construction Cantilevered bearns, beams extended to support the balcony, are most often visibly exposed on the underside of balconies. As such they are an expression of structure and tie the conies to the building visually. 11 cjr4II0 l ray ��?1C9 ref aTrllGfLtre� ACCENT ELEMENTS The life, and festive quality of the Village is given by judicious use of . accent elements which give color, ivement and contrast to the Village. Colorful accent elements consistent with existing character are encouraged, such as: Awnings and canopies -- canvas, bright color or stripes of two colors. Flags, banners - hanging from .buildings, poles, and even across streets for special occasions. Umbrellas - over tables on outdoor patios. Annual color flowers - in beds or in planters. Accent lighting - buildings, plazas, windows, trees (even Christmas lights all winter). Painted wall graphics - coats of. arms, symbols, accent compositions, etc. Fountains - sculptural, with both winter and summer character. AV LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS Landscape considerations include, bite go beyond, the placement of app p of materials. Landscape considerations � l -uue - plant materials , - paving - retaining walls - street furniture, (benches, kiosks, trash, etc.) - lighting - signage plant Materials Opportunities for planting.are not extensive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant selection and design of the sites that do exist. Framework planting of trees and shrubs should include both deciduous and evergreen species for year round continuity and interest. Native plants are somewhat limited in variety, but are clearly best able to withstand the harsh winter climate, aod to tie the Village visually with fts mountain setting. Some typical local plant materials include: Trees Narrow -leaf cottonwood Balsam poplar Aspen Lodgepole pine Colorado spruce Subalpine fir , Shrubs 14il1ow Dogwood Serviceberry Alpine currant Chokecherry Mugho pine Poteriti 11 a Buffaluberry or-, 71P- 1. A Paving The freeze /thaw cycle at this altitude virtually elill)ipates common site -cast concrete as a paving surface (concrete sigh- strength concrete may ected conditions. Asphalt brick (on concrete or on sand), and concrete block appear to be best suited to the area. In general, paving treatments should be coordinated with that of the public R.O.W. adjacent. The Town uses the following materials for all new construction: asphalt -- general use pedestrian streets - brick on concrete - feature areas (plazas, intersections, fountains, etc.) Retainin_g_Walls Retaining walls to raise planting area Often protects the landscape from pedestrians and sn0WP10%'Js , and Should ;:ating opportunities: Two types of material are already well - established in the Village and should be utilized for continuity. - split -face moss pedestrian Village Core { streets (typical) rounded cobble hidden mortar - in open space areas if above type not already established nearby. (example: Town of Vail entry wall) Wood retaining %-ails are strongly dis- couraged d«e.to deterioration caused by the harsh Gli»late. They rijay effectivel)7 used,with appropriate detailing to resist rot and express crafted joint conditions. 'V�-` Liiyhting Light standards should be coordinated with those used by the Town in the public R.O.W. e Ordinance. Vail Si na Refer to Town of g g Colorful annuals are used in key locations throughout the Village to accent pedestrian areas, highlight building entries, and as plaza focii. These color accents can be provided in: retained planting beds flower boxes - hanging pots, baskets - ground beds �r r� �sAr► Trash-handling is extremely sensitive in a pedestrian environment. Trash collection is primarily made in off- peak hours. it is the building owner — ponsibility to assure that e trash storage problems are correcte. and future ones avoided. Garbage, especially from food service establishments must be carefully considered, including: quantities generated - pick - -up frequency /access container sizes enclosure location /design odor impacts Garbage collection boxes or dumpsters must be readily accessible for-col- lection at all tunes yet fully screened from public view - pedes- trians as well as upper level windows in the vicinity. iaterials Exterior materials for garbage en- closures should be consistent with that of adjacent buildings. Construction Durability, of the structure and oper- ability of doors in all weather are prime concerns. Metal franfes and posts behind the preferred exterior materials should be considered to withstand the inevitable abuse these structures suffer. r r - E r ad facet �iai fct t h9 ' r•. � V bVIC'� 2 -- S wranDVA son araj. rc�e all E�,[/,LrI) cif ._ • :: �`, '. • � -. I* 0 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA May 27, 1980 1.) Approval of Minutes of May 12, 1980 meeting. 2.) Setback Variance Request for Vigor Duplex located on Lot 31, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. (Withdrawn by Applicant.) 3.) Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of the Red Lion Inn in two phases. (Table at request of applicant.) 4.) Side Setback Variance Request for P.A. Novelly on Lot 7, block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. 5.) Approval of Amended Plat and Condo Map for One Vail Place (Old Gondola I Building) . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA 10 May 27, 1980, 3:00 P.M. l.) Application for Side Setback Variance for P.A. Novelly on Lot 7, Block 1, Vail. Village 6th Filing. 2.) Approval of Amended plat and Condo Map for One Vail Place ( Old Gondola I Building). Minutes of Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting of 5 -27 -80 Members Present Sandy Mills Dan Corcoran Gerry White Ed Drager Roger Tilkemeier Staff Present Jim Rubin (came in during Item #4) Council Member assigned to attend PEC was not in attendance. 1.) Approval of Minutes of May 12, 1980 meeting. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the minutes of the above meeting. Ed Drager seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 2.) Setback Variance Request for Vigor Duplex located on Lot 31_1_ Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. Withdrawn by Applicant. 3.) Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of the Red Lion Inn in two phases. Tabled at re uest of the applicant. 4.) Side Setback Variance Request for P.A. Novell on Lot 7 Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Jim Rubin explained this item. He said there has been a change since the memo was written. A recent survey shows the trees to be in a different area than originally believed. The applicant finds that he now needs a front setback instead of a side setback. The hardship is that to build the garage elsewhere on the lot would mean cutting several trees. The applicant said he didn't have any further comments other than that he will work with DRB and whoever else to make this a very low profile project. Dan Corcoran said he does not want to see the pad that is there for parking now paved. Gerry White said he sees no reason for granting a variance. He said it is not really a underground garage but a one story • building. He does not feel it is necessary to build a garage PEC Minutes 5- 27 -80- -Page Two and aethestically it is not pleasing. Trees would not have to be cut if they simply did not build a garage. Jim Rubin said they do have the right to build a garage and could just cut the trees without comming to the PEC. Ed Drager made a motion for approval of the Side Setback Variance Request for P.A. Novelly on Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing with the amendment to a front setback variance instead of side, acknowledging that this is being approved because the hardship is the cutting of trees, therefore, no trees should be cut for this project. In addition a memo should be sent to DRB saying that PEC recommends that they limit the paving in front of the driveway and not extend to pad that is presently used for parking. Also ask them to recommend a landscape- treatment. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. Sandy, Roger and Ed voted for the motion. Gerry White voted against as he felt there was no hardship and no reason for granting this variance as the garage did not have to be built. Dan Corcoran abstained. Dan Corcoran asked if the trees will still die. The applicant said they had talked with Howard Golnick and he did not think the trees would die. Gerry White said he still feels that the garage should not be constructed. 5.) Approval of Amended Plat and Condo Map for One Vail Place (Old Gondola 1 Building). Jim Rubin showed the amended plat and he and Dan Corcoran explained about it. Ed Drager made a motion to approve the amended plat as presented. Sandy Mills seconded the motion. Sandy, Ed and Gerry voted for the motion. Dan and Roger abstained. Jim Rubin presented the Condo Map. Sandy Mills. made a motion to accept the Condo Map as presented. Ed seconded the motion. Ed, Sandy and Gerry voted for the motion. Dan and Roger abstained. Ed Drager made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Dan Corcoran seconded. The vote was unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 P.M. • MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: May 20, 1980 RE: REQUEST FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR P.A. NOVELLY ON LOT 7, BLOCK 1, VAIL VILLAGE 6th FILING. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQEUSTED The applicant wishes to intrude 7.5 feet into the eastern side setback on the lot to construct an underground garage for two cars. The variance is requested due to two mature trees to the east of the existing house, which presently has surface parking off of Forest Road, separated from the house. The applicant wishes to preserve the trees and locate the garage to the far eastern portion of his lot. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the rec quested Variance based upon the following factors. • Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The lot to the east is presently under construction for a house. The plan for this house locates it on the eastern side of the lot so that there will not be a problem with distance between the garage and the new house. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives of this title without grant_ of_special privilege. A physical hardship is demonstrated here in the form of existence of mature trees. It is the staff's objective to save.natural vegetation to as great an extent as possible and the variance request is consistent with other approvals for similar variances in the Town. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and public safety. The granting of this request removes surface parking in view when one drives Forest Road and puts these cars in an underground garage. PEC Memo -- Novelly Page Two-- 5 -20 -$0 Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. None. FTNnTNnR The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following finds before Rranting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: • The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances-or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the 7.5 foot setback variance with the condition that no mature trees are removed. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA June 9, 1980, 3:00 P.M. 1.) Approval of Minutes of May 2q, 1980 2.) Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of the Red Lion Inn in two phases. 3.) Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of the lower level of the Municipal Building towards the south. 4.) Discussion of Planning Commission person to attend Design Review Board Meetings. 0 To be published inthe Vail Trail June 6, 1980. • Minutes of the June 9, 1980 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting 0 Members Present Roger Tilkemeier Gerry White Ed Drager Jim Morgan Sandy Mills John Perkins Dan Corcoran Staff Present Larry Eskwith Dick Ryan Peter Patten Council Members Present Bill Wilto Ron Todd Jchn Donovan came in in the middle of the Red Lion presentation. Paul. Palmateer came in for a few minutes. • 1. ) Approval of the Minutes of May__27,_ 1980 Meeting. Sandy Mills made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 27, 1980 meeting. Ed Drager seconded the motion. The Vote was unanimous. 2.) Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of the Red Lion Inn in two bhases. Dick Ryan explained the application and then asked Bill Ruoff to make his presentation. Bill said Dick had made a thorough presentation and if it was satisfactory, he would just answer questions of the Board and audience. Dick said certain issues had to be addressed and asked Bill to make his presentation. Dill Ruoff showed a drawing of the proposed plan to the Board and several members of the audience went up to see it also. The Board asked questions of Mr. Ruoff. Gerry White mentioned that he had received two letters of protest on this matter, one from the Plaza Lodge (Mrs. Joanne Hill) and one from Mr. Beebe. Mr. Ruoff said that Mr. Beebe will not have his view impacted by this expansion and he wishes he would have contacted him or Jeff Selby several months ago and they would have been able to answer all his questions. Mr. Ruoff said he feels the mini park is a real improvement. They are asking for approval of Phase I only today. • PEC Minutes - -June 9, 1980 Page Two Mr. Ruoff said Phase Two has not even been defined yet. It will be on the south side and needs more study. He guarantees Phase I will not look like something unfinished waiting for Phase II. They hope to get started on Phase I this summer and have it finished by fall. An attorney for Mr. Beebe asked some questions. He explained that Mr. Beebe has the third floor condo in the Rucksack Building. Mr. Beebe seemed to think this expansion would block his views from his living and dining areas. He said he is also substituting for Mr. McDermott who represents Mrs. Joanne Hill who also wanted her concerns voiced. She is upset with the phasing of this project. She would like to see all of it done or none. She doesn't like the roofline in phase I. Jack Curtin speaking for Christy Hill said they have concerns about the two phases also. Mrs. Hill met with Mr. Ruoff the day of the meeting and also did some measuring. Phase I.doesn't effect her and would not mind if it were approved. However, they don't like the idea of approving both phases. They feel each should be handled separately. Phase II they feel will affect them and they hope by approving Phase I today it does not give a blanket approval to phase II. Jack also said there are several problems that he . feels would have to be addressed before a building permit should be issued on any phase. The problems are where building materials will be stored, where the fence will be, and if there will be adequate space for fire trucks etc. to get through. Jim Morgan asked about the reduction. of GRFA. Jeff Selby said that portion will be retired until Phase II. Dick Ryan said increasing the GRFA would have to be done with the approval.of Phase II and if Phase II were not approved, they would still have to come back to PEC for any changes not approved under Phase I. It may have to be incorporated back into phase I, but it would have to come back. Sandy Mills asked what the extra space will be used for between Phase I and Phase II. Jeff Selby said it will probably stay as it is now for storage. It definitely will not be for seating or kitchen. Gerry White said it is his understanding that the Board is only looking at and approving Phase I today. Dick Ryan said that the view corridors studied in the Village Core Studies were not from one building to another but more from the streets etc. There is not defined view corridors in Mr. Beebe's case. Dick Ryan reiterated that the Board will only be approving Phase I here today. Dick also said that the problems of storage and fencing will be addressed by the DRB and Building Departments. 0 PEC Minutes- -June 9, 1980 Page Three Gerry White said he realizes that the view corridors discussed in the study were from street level but he does think that other view corridors must also be considered and anyone objecting must be heard if their complaints are legitimate. Ed Drager made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of the the Red Lion Inn Phase T. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. There was more discussion. Jack Curtin asked what happens if the Board approves this and the Building Department can't find a solution to the storage problems etc. Larry said no building permit can be issued until a solution is found. Sandy Mills asked about the extra room being added. She said she feels there is a visual impact. Dick Ryan said he thought she was referring to the cut out for a .deck on the south end. Sandy said she feels a view is lost to the Rucksack Tower. Jeff Selby and Bill Ruoff said no. Craig Snowdon asked the Board to have the Staff send DRB any . concerns they would like DRB to look at when seeing this project. Jim Morgan asked if Phase I will definitely happen in this building season. Jeff and Bill said yes. The vote was taken. Everyone but Sandy Mills voted for approval. Sandy voted against because she does not like the change in the roofline and does not feel the change in the apartment is warranted. She feels there are some view impacts. She does think the mini - park and the entrance are good. A short break was taken before discussion of item #3. 2.) Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of the lower level of the Municipal Building towards the south. Dick Ryan made the Staff presentation on this. He said is basically a 1220 square foot addition to the south side of the building to alleviate the crowded conditions in several departments. He mentioned that the Design Review Board had been invited as they had turned down the proposal at their meeting on June 4. Gerry White asked how far away the new Library is. Dick Ryan said it is one to two years away. The Town can not . ask for anymore bond issues until they have the permanent financing for the Parking Structure. Dick said the present library contains 1600 square feet and he feels that once it is vacated, it will be used with or without this addition. PEC Minutes- -June 9, 1980 Page Four Gerry White asked what the schedule is for building. Dick said once they get PEC and DRB approvals, they hope to start by mid July. Craig Snowdon said that Design Review Board had looked at this as a discussion item only last Wednesday. The three Board members present felt that it is not consistent with the main part of the building, the flat roof at that location was not appropriate and the addition looks like a tack on. Lew MesKimen said he wanted to emphasize that the decision was unanimous. John Perkins said he feels that the comments were appropriate. It is not attractive as done. Dan said maybe another area could be found that would not be so visible. Jim Morgan suggested that they do a garden level addition in that • same area and match the existing roof line and building. Craig said that they had suggested a shallower addition and if necessary, go two stories. He said they would not be opposed to a garden level there or another location. Roger Tilkemeier made a suggestion that they consider moving the present library into an addition on the north side of the building until the new library is constructed. John Donovan said he doesn't like that idea. He definitely feels they need to get a better plan. Jim Morgan asked if the Board approves this now are they locked in to the location. He thinks everyone agrees that more space is needed. However, a better plan is definitely needed. Dick Ryan said if approved today, they definitely would be locked in to this location. Dan Corcoran said he feels this should be tabled for further study. Sandy Mills asked if the reason they don't want to do the two stories is the cost. Dick Ryan said it is the cost and the fact that they really can't . justify 2500 square feet. PEC Minutes- -June 9, 1980 Page Five • Gerry White said that when this building was built originally, it was not built with expansion in mind. It is a prominant location and was built with great study and concern. He feels any addition should show that same study and concern. Dan Corcoran said he doesn't think the garden level idea is feasible because of utility taps being there. Jim Morgan made a motion to table this for futher study until June 23, 1980 at which time a more final and adequate plan could be presented. Sandy Mills said she just doesn't think it looks good. It looks like someone decided they needed more room and drew up a little tack on addition. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 4.) Discussion of Planning Commission person to attend Design Review Meetings. Gerry White, the person currently assigned to attend, said he cannot do it. None of the other members were willing to do it either. Cathie said she had two suggestions but didn't know how legal or acceptable they were. One was that if she doesn't have quorum for the DRB, she can just call all PEC until she has someone who can make it. Second, they could just assign the members for two months like the Council are assigned to PEC. Larry Eskwith said there has to be someone on PEC assigned. The members said if they were assigned and couldn't make it, they just wouldn't show up like the Council does. Gerry White made a motion to appoint John Perkins to attend DRB meetings. Roger Tilkemeier seconded. Everyone voted for the motion except John Perkins. John said he didn't want to be.the person assigned for two reasons. One was that this is a very busy time for him. Second, when he interviewed with the Council for a DRB position once, they told him they definitely didn't want another architect on the DRB. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 P.M. • MEMORANDUM 0 TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION to FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JAMES RUBIN DATE: JUNE 5, 1980 RE: EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST FOR THE RED LION INN A.) The Red Lion Inn has requested an addition of enclosed floor area as described below which requires them to obtain approval of their request according to the following guidelines. Although this application for this project was submitted prior to the passage of the New Ordinances, we are reviewing it under the new procedures, since the procedures are now in effect and the applicant was aware of the probability that they would be in effect when this application was submitted. The Red Lion Inn plans to proceed with their expansion in two phases, with Phase I being the only one being reviewed at this time. Phase II is planned to be submitted for review in the latter part of August. Phase I includes two additions of enclosed floor space: 121 square feet on the first or ground level, which is to become a new entryway into the Lion's Den Restaurant and a 312 square foot loft addition which is above the second floor residences. Also included in Phase I, but not involving the addition of enclosed floor space is the addition of an exterior door and the conversion of about 150 square feet of storage space into a small office for Red Lions Inn use on the North side of the second floor, an addition of one window on the East elevation and the addition of windows, a balcony and a stairway on the West side (which faces Bridge Street). Also included in the application is the conversion of the rock.garden next to the Rucksack into a Public Park with brick pavers and benches. B.) EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE Basement Existing: Restaurant and Storage Proposed: Unchanged First Floor Existing: Restaurant and Bar Proposed: Unchanged Second Floor Existing: Two Residential Dwelling Units Proposed: Unchanged Third Floor Existing: No Current Use Proposed: Addition of Small Loft Area LJ Red Lion-- 6 -5 -80 Page Two C.) STATISTICS 1.) Height Allowed: 60% of site coverage under 30 feet 40% between 30 -40 feet Proposed: 100% under 30 feet 2.) Density Control Lot Area -- 13,989 square feet GRFA Allowed -- 11,191 square feet GRFA with Loft Addition- -3,780 square feet 3.) Site Coverage Allowed: 11,191 square feet Proposed: 10,901 square feet 4.) Landscaping Allowed: 2,798 square feet minimum Proposed: 3,050 square feet 5.) Parking and Loading Existing: Two car garage Proposed: Parking Requirement is .797 of a space • greater because of increase in size of smaller unit. 6.) Gross Residential Floor Area D.) COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION: 18.24.010 Purpose The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Vi11ae_�Commercial Area, with its _mixture of lodes and commercial es ab ishments in a redominatel edestrian environment. The Commercial' Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to__ „the permitted_types of buildin and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescri, site-development standards that are intended to ensure the main- tenance and preservation of the tightiv clustered arrangements of buildings-frQnting on Pedestrian ways and-public greenways I and to ensure continuation of buildinr, scale and architectural qualities that i t'n uish the Village. Existing Proposed Net Change Small Unit 583 1,380 +797 Large Unit 4,462 2,400 - 22 - °-- TOTAL 5,045 3,780 -1,265 (The 1,265 square feet net loss of GRFA will remain unused until Phase II) D.) COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION: 18.24.010 Purpose The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Vi11ae_�Commercial Area, with its _mixture of lodes and commercial es ab ishments in a redominatel edestrian environment. The Commercial' Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to__ „the permitted_types of buildin and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescri, site-development standards that are intended to ensure the main- tenance and preservation of the tightiv clustered arrangements of buildings-frQnting on Pedestrian ways and-public greenways I and to ensure continuation of buildinr, scale and architectural qualities that i t'n uish the Village. • Red Lion-- 6 -5 -80 Page Three The proposed Phase I expansion of the Red Lion Inn complies with all aspects of the Purpose Section E.) COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS'INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: 1.) Sub Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan. Number 12 describes a future Mid -block connection to Mill Creek and a pocket park created on Bridge Street. The proposed expansion does include a stairway connection to Mill Creek and the pocket park on Bridge Street. The park will be public but stairway connection will not really be public due to private residences. The through connection will be pursued when substantial alterations are proposed to either building face fronting on the connection. No other sub area concepts are considered in this proposal. 2.) Urban Design Considerations a.) Pedestrianization on Bridge Street enhanced by Pocket Park with Seating Area, which is also the first step in the pedestrian connection through to Mill Creek Court. b.) Vehicle Penetration - -No impact. c.) Streetscape Framework -- Improved landscaped area by pocket park and increased exposure of commercial activity of new entryway. d.) Street Enclosure: Improved by new Entryway.. The Height of the Loft Addition only extends above the existing ridge line by three feet which should not have any impact on Street Enclosure. e.) Street Edge: New Entryway and park adds to the Strong but Irregular edge of Bridge Street f.) Building Height: Conforms completely with Height Requirement. Loft Addition provides a mix of building heights (which is specifically mentioned as desirable in Height Section. g.) Views: No major of minor view corridors are impacted by this proposal. Future submittals from this and other applicants should include analysis of visual impact - sketch, photo simulation, or model of building in its immediate setting. An application form which contains this requirement is being put together at this time.) • • Red Lion-- 6 -5 -80 Page Four h.) Sun /Shade: The three foot height extension over the present roof line should have no impact on the.existing sun /shade conditions on any Public Right of Way. . 3.) Zoning Code Considerations a.) Density Control: The proposal is 7411 square feet under the GRFA maximum for the site. b.) Landscape Area Reduction: The unimproved rock area is being converted into a pocket park which is still a Landscape Use and which we feel is an improvement. No other landscape area is being removed or altered. c.) Parking: The .797 increase in the parking requirement would require prepayment into the Parking fund of $3985 (which is the prorated share of the $5,000 space.) 4.) Architectural and Landscape Considerations a. ) Roofs b.) Facades c.) Balconies d.) Decks and Patios e.) Accent Elements f.) Landscape Elements g.) Service These are primarily Board and will be a presentation to the however, we do feel stantially complies mentioned above. F.) RECOMMENDATION the concerns of the Design Review ddressed by the applicant in the DRB. Based on preliminary review, that the Phase I expansion sub - with all of the specific items The Department of Community Development recommends approval of Phase I of the Red Lion Expansion according to the plans as presented. MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: CATHIE J DATE: 6 -6 -80 This will be my last Planning Commission Meeting as I have accepted a position of secretary to the Personnel. Director upstairs. I will miss calling and working with you. It has been fun. Stop upstairs and say hi once in awhile. 0 • .., MEMORANDUM 0 TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 6 --5 -80 RE: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF THE LOWER LEVEL OF THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING IN A PUBLIC USE DISTRICT DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Town is proposing a 1220 square foot addition on the south side of the existing building, east of the library. The addition will contain mostly offices, with a small conference room and storage area for files. The Community Development and Library Departments will use the new office space. A large existing spruce tree on the site will remain while some existing aspens would be transplanted on the perimeter of the addition. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends Approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Town needs the office space to more effeciently and comfortably function. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks 'arid 'recreation facilities and other public facilities and public facilities needs. This is a needed public facility. Effect u2on traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control:,_ access, maneuverability,' and _removal of _snow 'from the street and parking areas. No additional employees will be generaged so there will be no effects on these factors. U L. J Municipal Building- -Page Two 6 -5 -80 Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to�be'located; including the scale and bulk of the 'proposed use in relation to surrouridiri 'uses. The Design Review Board, upon preliminary review, has found concerns with the addition in terms of matching existing roof pitches and the one story nature of the addition. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. There are none. The environmental irn act re art concerning the proposed use if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56._ No EIR required. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional • Use Permit be Approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable pro- visions of this ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval. We feel the design problems can be worked out and will attempt to have some DRB members present for this discussion on Monday to address this. C7 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 6 --6 -80 RE: DISCUSSION OF PEC PERSON TO ATTEND DRB MEETINGS Gerry White is unable to attend the DRB meetings and the alternate person, John Perkins, is very busy at this time of year. Therefore, we need to select someone else to attend the meetings. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, June 23, 1980, 3:00 P.M. 1. Approval of minutes of June 9, 1980. Municipal building conditional use tabled until July 14 meeting. 2. Setback variance to allow construction of a new duplex on Lot 31 of Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. 3. Exterior alteration for Purcell's Restaurant which is located in the Lifthouse building in Lionshead. • Planning and Evironmental Commission Agenda Monday, June 23, 1980, 3:00 PM 1. Approval of minutes of June 9,1980 2. Conditional Use permit to allow expansion of the lower level of the municipal building. 3. Setback variance to allow construction of a new duplex on Lot 31 of Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. 4. Exterior alteration for Purcell's Restaurant which is located in the Lifthouse building in Lionshead. To be published in the Vail Trail Friday, June 20, 1980. MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: June 23, 1980 RE: Request for rear setback variance to allow construction of a new duplex on Lot 31, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, Kent Rose, of Austin -Rose Construction, is applying for a 12 foot variance on the rear property line, abutting National Forest Service land. Hardships exist due to both natural and man -made conditions to be described below. The proposal is to allow construction of a duples consisting of 3330 Sq. Ft. of GRFA, 1294 Sq. Ft. under the maximum allowable of 4624 Sq. Ft. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested Variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors • The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity_. Existing duplexes on each side of Lot 31 violate side setback requirements, to the East due to a variance granted for avoidance of avalanch hazard (6' variance) and to the West because the building was built under County regulations of 10'.side setback. The lot contains an intermittent stream with dense, mature aspens lining its banks. The stream approximately besects the lot and should definitely be preserved as is. An additional natural feature of the lot is a substantial grove of young, healthy aspens on the eastern, or front portion of the lot. Some of the more mature aspens are diseased, which makes the preservation of the young aspens more significant. Thus, the natural features of the lot force development either to the northeast or southwest portions of the parcel. To build on the northeastern area would further crowd the cul -de -sac, with a dense appearance of development and loss of privacy for all three duplexes. The applicant proposes a detached garage in the easily buildable northeastern area with access to the residence via a foot bridge in order to maximize preservation of the stream and the surrounding aspens. The duplex is, then, proposed to be located in a clearing behind the aspens on the southwest portion of the property. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achievecompatibility and uniformity of treatmen among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. is The most important factors under this heading are that the lot is already "squeezed" on each side (in the front) by the existing structures, and the outstanding natural features of the lot are being sensitvely addressed by the applicant. The granting of the variance would be uniform treatment of sites in the vicinity and would definitely not represent a special privilege. .. The effect of the requested variance on _light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. • Not building in the front setback area may be a positive factor upon snow removal on the cul -de -sac. Moreover, the proposal leaves open the front portion of the lot having a positive influence on light and air for the duplex to the south. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a2plicable to the proposed variance. The applicant, Mr. Pose, has undertaken considerable study and uncommon care in sensitively treating the environmental factors of the lot. The construction will be carried out by him which ensures consistency in the proposal and site care during construction. FINDINGS: Mr. Stan Black, partner in the duplex to the south has no major concerns with this proposal. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable.to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval based upon the existence of both natural and man -made hardships. 0 MEMORANDUM • TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN DATE: June 23, 1980 RE: Expansion of Purcell's Restaurant PROPOSAI Purcell's, located in Commercial Core II in the Lifthouse Lodge building, is requesting an addition of 288 square feet of restaurant space at the Lionshead Mall pedestrian level. This is a one story addition and will unify the total facade of the restaurant. Two existing spruce trees wi11 be relocated while an existing spruce and two existing aspens will remain. The proposal attempts to bring the first floor of the massive Lifthouse Lodge building out to pedestrian scale and to give a single identity to the restaurant. STATISTICS Existing Restaurant and Bar = 3,122 sq. ft Proposed Addition = 288 sq. ft. increase = 9.2% 0 COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 1826.010 The commercial core 2 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. The commercial core 2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. The commercial core district is intended to include sites for residential dwellings at densities not to exceed twenty -five dwelling units per acre. The proposed restaurant expansion fully complies with all aspects of the purpose section. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1) Sub -Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan Number 18 suggests a one story commercial expansion to emphasize pedestrian level and that the patio be enlarged for additional dining area. Thus, this proposal is in complete compatibility with the Plan. 2) Urban Design Considerations a) Pedestrianism: The proposed addition will enhance the pedestrian experience by making the scale of the front of the building a more comfortable one for the person walking through Lionshead. 1-1 Ip b) Vehicle Penetration: NA (service is still at rear of building) • c) Streetscape Framework; This proposal will add some variety and interest to the Lionshead Stree scape, something that is greatly needed. d) Street Enclosure: This building extension will improve the street enclosure situation by reducing the impact of the relatively larger Landmark Building. e) Street Edge: The Street Edge will become slightly more irregular which tends to enhance the pedestrian experience. f) Building Height: The one level proposal is well under the allowed building height. g) Views: No views are impacted by this proposal. h) Sun shade changes: Not significant. 3) Zoning Code Considerations The 288 square foot addition generates an additional parking requirement of two spaces, which results in a $6,000 chaAge. COT RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval as the proposal speci- fically orients itself to the objectives of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan (reinforces pedestrian scale near massive buildings). • • 0 r � LJ Minutes of the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting June 23, 1980 3 ` %I r'l, \ Members present: John Perkins Ed Drager Dan Corcoran Gerry White Council Members Present Ball Wilto Staff Present Peter Patten Dick Ryan 1. Approval of the minutes of June 9, 1980 meeting. John Perkins moved to approve the minutes, Ed Drager seconded. Vote was unanimous. 2. §_e b k variance to allow construction of a new duplex on Lot 3, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1. (5027 Ute Lane) Peter Patten explained the request and recommended approval. Kent Rose of Austin -Rose Construction added a few additional comments, but stated that Peter had made such a complete presentation in the memo, he did not have much to add. Kent showed a plot plan. John said it made sense to him. Ed pointed out that it seemed much better than a previous plan to reroute the stream. Kent explained that a driveway and culvert would be built to facilitate construction, and then the culvert and driveway removed leaving a path and foot bridge. Ed Drager moved to approve, and Dan Corcoran seconded it. The vote was unanimous. 3. Exterior alteration for Purcell's Restaurant which is located in the Lift-house buildinq in Lionshead. Peter Patten explained the request as presented in his memo. Ken Wentworth presented drawings. Distance to the property line and number of parking spaces was discussed. Ed Drager said that we were encouraging this type of thing to happen in Lionshead. Gerry added that approval should be with the condition that the applicant agrees not to remonstrate against the special improvement district if formed for mall improvements in Vail Lionshead, and agrees to join the district. Ed Drager moved to approve, John Perkins seconded. Vote was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 4 :00 P.M. PUBLIC NOTICE �. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that John Wheeler of Wheeler Piper, Architects has requested a Minor Subdivision for the vacation of the lot lines between Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Application has been made in accord with Section 17.32 Minor Subdivision of the Vail Municipal Code. A Public Hearing will be held in accordgnce with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on July 14, 1980 at 3:00 P.M. before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Said Hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Building. The application and information relating to the proposed change is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular business hours for review or inspection by the public. n U Jim Rubin Zoning Administrator TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published in the Vail Trail June 27, 1980. r 1 PUBLIC NOTICE 0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that John Wheeler of Wheeler Piper, Architects has requested a Minor Subdivision for the vacation of the lot lines between Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Application has been made in accord with Section 17.32 Minor Subdivision of the Vail Municipal Code. A Public Hearing will be held in accordgnce with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on July 14, 1980 at 3 :00 P.M. before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Said Hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Building. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r� Jim Rubin Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail June 27, 1980. •