The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes July - DecemberPlanning and Environmental Commission July 11, 1983 0 * 12 :00 pm Site inspections 1:45 pm Discussion of pedicab company 2:00 pm Public Hearing Approval of minutes of meeting of June 27. 1. Request for a conditional use permit for a day care facility on lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicants: Mike and Debbie Dawson 2. Request for an amendment to Sections 18.04.030, 18.22.090, and 18.24.130 in order to increase the number of accommodation units allowed in the Commercial Core I and the Public Accommodation zone districts. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. 3. Request to amend Section 18.64, Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements, to include language which will allow for interior expansion of pre - existing legal non - conforming uses for additional Gross Residential Floor Area. Applicant: Richard S. Baldwin 4. Request for a conditional use permit to construct a water collection system in Gore Creek immediately below the effluent discharge point of the sewer treatment plant, and between the Glen Lyon office building and the Chevron }e service station. Applicants: Vail Associates, Inc. 5. Request for a conditional use permit to place a popcorn wagon in the Vail Inn Plaza, Special Development District No. 6. Applicant: Van Ewing 6. Requests for exterior alterations or modifications for the following buildings: A. Plaza Lodge - Christy Sports: Enclosure of space on eastern side of Pioneer Plaza. B. McBride Building - (Gorsuch, Ltd): Facade and brick paver treatments, redesign of entryways. C. Gore Creek Plaza Building: Enclosure of north side outdoor decks for Sweet Basil and Blu's Beanery. • Planning and Environmental Commission . July 11, 1983 PRESENT STAFF .PRESENT Dan Corcoran Dick Ryan Diana Donovan Peter Patten Gordon Pierce Peter Jamar Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Will Trout Larry Eskwith Jim Viele ABSENT Jim Morgan (A discussion of the possibility of having a pedicab system in the town preceded the meeting.) The meeting was called to order at 2:15 by the chairman, Dan Corcoran. Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 27, 1983. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 1. Request for a conditional use permit for a day care facility on lot 34 Buffe r Greek subdivision. Applicants: Mike and Debbie Dawson John Perkins, representing the applicants showed slides of other day care faciliites similar to the one proposed. Perkins stated that since appearing before the PEC last, he had talked with Rich Caplan and the Council and Rich had mentioned .6 other possible sites for the school: near the Mtn Bell property, trading part of lot 40 for lot 34, part of Parcel B in Lionsridge #2 west of Valli Hi, a portion of the Hud Wirth site, or a parcel owned by Alice Parsons near Donovan Park. He added that they had narrowed their choices to three: The Hud Wirth site, the Mtn. Bell property, or the trade. Perkins asked if he could poll the board about the sites, and Eskwith replied that it was not the board's job to choose a site. He added that any decision would have to be made at a public hearing with proper notification. Diana wanted to know why the Town of Vail should help the pre-school business if it was not a non- profit enterp-kse. Mike Dawson replied that it was difficult to determine where non - profit ends and profit started, because the rates to be charged would be the same Perkins asked to have the request withdrawn. Trout moved and Viele seconded to allow the applicant to withdraw his application and the vote was 6 -0 in favor, 2. Request for an amendment to Sections 18.04.030, 18.22.090, and 18.24.130 in order to increase the number of accommodation units allowed in the Commercial Core I and the Public Accommodation zone districts. Applicant: Lodge Properties . Corcoran said he had received a letter from Jay Peterson representing the applicant, requesting to table until July 25, 1983. Trout moved and Pierce seconded to table until July 25 per applicant's request, The vote was 6 -10 in favor. L 'w PEC 3. Request to amend Section 18.64, Nonconforming Sites, Uses Site Improvements, to include language which will allow f of pre - existing legal non - conforming uses for additional Floor Area. Applicant: Richard S. Baldwin 7/11/83 -2- , Structures and or interior expansion Gross Residential Peter Patten explained that the basic proposal remains the same, that a ceiling had been included on the amount of GRFA a dwelling unit could add and restrictions on garage conversions were also added. He added that the staff was still recommending recommending denial because of the dual set of density regulations, because the proposed amendment did not contain any "trade -off" type of system.to: upgrade the property, and because the staff felt that people per acre was an important factor to consider in density control. Patten added that the staff still intended to work on the whole non - conforming section. Baldwin stated that one benefit to the Town would be that there would not be bootlegged construction. Trout mentioned that about 1-1 /2 months ago a variance was given a Vail Trails unit to upgrade their unit. Donovan felt there was a need to wait for a complete re -write of this section of the code. Baldwin felt that there was an inequity in determininn GRFA. Viele felt there would be problems making rules for one group of people (non - conforming owners). Pierce wished they knew how.many_ people the rule change would affect to determine the impact upon the Town. Uorcoran felt the whole section should be reviewed at the same time. Dick Ryan suggested studying this at a work sesstion in September. Baldwin mentioned that many of the older buildings had smaller units and should be allowed to enlarge the units. Peter Patten asked Baldwin if the 250 sq ft max applied.to each dwelling unit or to each site, and Baldwin replied to each dwelling unit. Donovan stated that in that case each loft in the Texas Townhouses could be converted, and that there would not be enough parking. Pierce suggested maybe having some kind of an adequate tax to discourage developers, etc, for monetary reasons. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to den the request per the staff memo. The vote was 6=0. The recommendation for denial would be made at the July 9 meeting of the Town Council. 4. Request for a conditional use permit to construct a water collection system in Gore Creek'immediately below the effluent discharge point of the sewer treatment plant, and between the Glen _Lyon office building and the Chevron service station, Applicants: Vail Associates Inc, Peter Jamar presented the request, and explained that until this time, Vail Associates had been using treated water (drinking water) and water from Mill Creek, and this plant would enable VA to use effluent from the sewage plant instead, He added that Vail Associates planned to widen and reinforce the bike path so that they could use a truck on the path in order to maintain the proposed system. He said that the noise would be minimal because of the nature of the structure and because most pumping would be done during the winter months. He added that just that morning he had received from the Forest Service the impact statement. The current VA request was to withdraw 1.78 cfs, the minimum stream flow was 7.5 cfs, and there was 12.1 cfs at the worst time during the year in the stream. Jamar added that the staff required that VA must come back with any future expansion of the plant. He also mentioned that the aesthetics would be considered by DRB, and hoped that VA would make the building as aesthetically • pleasing as possible. Jamar pointed out that this was only Phase I. Chris Haynes, PEC 7/11/83 -3- director of snow making for VA was present, but had nothing to add. Viele wondered if VA could extend the bike path to the east in exchange for the conditional use permit, and Corcoran explained that VA was committed to improving the bike path to the west. Ryan stated that there were plans to extend the bike path to the east, but that the Council had placed the bike path on the North Frontage Road in priority, and this bike path would probably be done next year. Donovan wanted to know if VA would cancel their agreement with the water district to use treated water if this c.u. permit were granted, and Haynes stated that they would stop using the treated water. Donovan was concerned.with the stream flow because she had seen other streams with "so- called minimum stream flow" and there were some with hardly any water in them. Jamar stated that he had talked with the Division of Wildlife and had been told that most of the fish migrated to the .Eagle River in the winter. Donovan asked if VA had plans to stop using Mill.Creek, and Haynes replied they would use Mill Creek "only if there were mechanical difficulties with this plant." Donovan still had reservations. Trout felt, like Pierce, that the plan was good, but the architecture terrible,,,and hoped* °the DRB would take a good look at the aesthetics. Viele moved and Pi er seconded to approve the request for Phase I and the vote was 4 in favor, Donovan against, and Corcoran abstained. Donovan stated that she simply did not like it in general. 5. Request for a conditional use permit to place a popcorn wagon n the Vail Village _Inn Plaza, Special Devlopment District No, 6. Applicant: Van Ewing 40 Dick Ryan told the board that the which permitted a popcorn wagon as for that conditional use permit. from people against the popcorn wa major concern was not the location bring popcorn into the store, He had signed the petition. Council had approved the amendment to District.6.; a conditional use. Now.Van Ewing was applying He added that he had just received a petition gon. Ryan had talked with Bill Hanlon and his or the popcorn, but the fact that people might added that he had not spoken with others who Van Ewing stated that this was the 4th public hearing and that there had never been anyone opposed at any of the hearings. He discovered the petition had been circulated by a clerk in Annie's with language such as "do you want a dirty old popcorn wagon smelling up the place" etc, He distributed photos of the popcorn wagon. He was told the Council asked him to poll the adjacent tenants, which he had done and found no opposition. He pointed out that many of the signatures on the petition were from the shop owners' wives, Trout had positive support, as did Piper, but Viele said that he saw some credibility in the petition, although the petitioners were not at the meeting. Pierce was. in favor saying it would help the area and Corcoran also supported it. Ryan felt that the permit should be reviewed at a certain date in case there are problems. Donovan stated that other popcorn wagons had had problems with storage and wondered what Ewing had planned for storage, and whether or not it was practical to approve the wagon without knowing about the storage. Ewing replied that he would have to satisfy the health department in this regard, • Piper moved and Trout seconded to approve the conditional use as per the staff memo and to have it reviewed one year from the date of approval. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. Ewing asked if the approval was still in effect if the popcorn wagon were in an PEC 7/11/83 --4- adjacent location. Corcoran stated that the other location had been discussed during the site visit. Piper added the memo was specific to.one site only, Ewing said that he would like flexibility in placement, Piper amended' his motion too include the fact that Ewing would be allowed to change the site to the upper plaza behind the on final site, and Pierce seconded the motion. The vote was'5 -0 with Trout abstainina. 6. Requests `for exterior alterations or modifications for the following buildings: A. Plaza Lodge - Christy Sports: Enclosure of space on eastern side of Pioneer Plaza. Peter Jamar explained that the proposal was to infill the 362 sq ft area on the west side located beneath an existing balcony to expand Christy Sports. He reviewed the compiance with the CCI zone district and with the Urban Design Guide Plan. He stated that the staff recommended more transparency by relocating the proposed repair and storage area to the interior of the shop and replacing the solid wall in that area with windows, although the question of transparency is more of a DRB consideration. Rudi Fisher, the architect for the project, stated that in plan, the repair shop worked best where it was proposed. He proposed a compromise and showed a new drawing which included a few high windows and a door. Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill, owner of the Hill Building; stated that he had no objection to bringing the wall out and felt that the staff recommendation to have windows was a good . suggestion. He fel.t, however, that the blank wall was better than the second proposal of high windows. Curtin added that planters would also be good along the wall. He wondered where the rental bikes would be stored when that space was enclosed. Trout preferred the staff's recommendation rather than the high windows and was also interested in the placement of planters. Fisher said that planters had not as yet been discussed with the staff, but that there would be concern as to whether additional planters would interfere with traffic, as there was already one planter in place. Donovan suggested some kind of landscaping be placed in front of the wall behind the popcorn wagon. She also wanted assurance that the gutters would be painted. Brad Henry, manager of Christy Sports, stated that he was not prepared to discuss the landscaping. Trout stated that perhaps planters against the plain wall might be a nice alternative. Piper pointed out that under items D, E, F, and G, landscaping was perhaps an issue, Specific to the transparency subject, he felt the wall behind the popcorn wagon could have a pop -out which was a wall that could later become window. Piper felt that it was a shame to have repair and storage on such valuable frontage and that it would be to the applicant's advantage to have this frontage expose the interior of the store. He.and. Donovan liked the awnings, feeling that it added life to the streetscape. Fisher stated that he would be happy to put a pop -.out wall behind the popcorn wagon. Uiele concurred with the staff about the transparency need. Pierce felt that there should be some relation of the facade to the little park, He also felt the need for more specific information concerning snowplow widths, trees, and the exact location of the planter, Pierce wondered if Christy's needed a wall to store things against, and Fisher stated not, that the only reason not to have transparency was to form a consistent backdrop to the popcorn wagon. • PEC 7/11/83 -5- Pierce wondered why they could not put windows in the boot shop. Corcoran felt that the blank wall was not acceptable. Trout agreed with Pierce's remarks and wanted to see specific drawings. He asked the applicant if he wanted to table his request. Fisher replied that since the site had been visited by the board members, that the request be passed. More discussion followed concerning the planters and Corcoran stated that the DRB could address the question of planters. Fisher asked the board to approve the request for alteration whether or not the wall became totally transparent, with suggestions sent.to DRB. Trout moved and Piper seconded to anorove_ with concerns passed on to DRB Which included: a. Pl anters be considered_ f'romolass to_grode., _b. _,An a teration be made to the south wall so that it have a removab1e_pa and q. to_ook at more transoarency.on a west—facade. - — �f _- B. McBride Building - Gorsuch, Ltd: Facade and brick paver treatments, redesign of entryways. - Peter Patten stated that this was a remodel of two facades, that Gorsuch, Ltd. was taking over the entire McBride Building with the exception of the Clock Tower Inn, and the former City Limits was now to be a ski rental shop. He showed site and floor plan changes and elevations, adding that new pavers were also proposed on the south side of the building with new landscaping. Gordon Pierce, architect for the building, stated that there were no major changes in the building, merely revisions to allow people to flow more easily within spaces. Corcoran wondered if Gorsuch had any.problems with the 2nd condition, that of participating in the cost of a common compactor facility, and Gorsuch replied that he had no problems with either of the conditions. Patten said that there would be a meeting of all persons involved with a common compactor that week. Jack Curtin in the audience commended the architect for his design in upgrading the building. Viele agreed with Mack. Piper wondered why one balcony was remaining solid when the Design Guide Considerations mention the suggested transparency of balconies. Pierce answered that because there would be transparency below it with the sky light, he felt it< would be .a good contrast, Piper suggested that where there was a 12" drop it would be a good place for a more permanent planter, and noted that the building had mostly plants in containers. Pierce answered that this part of the street edge was on TOV property, but that they would prefer something more permanent and would investigate the subject. Dave Gorsuch, applicant, stated that many trees and plants were destroyed by drunks as they left the building at night. Peter Patten explained that Bill Andrews, town engineer, wanted temporary planters so that they could be removed for snow removal. Donovan had reservations about unifying the whole street, and gave as a negative example the Slifer -Ore House building. Piper pointed out that this building had some factors which broke up the appearance and did not appear to be massive. Trout pointed out that the TOV land was owned by the people and encouraged the use of permanent planters. He also was concerned that the stone in the stone wall be a good choice and not be too high. He said that he would miss seeing the hats in the window if the window were removed, and felt that the building did not look like one big building. Corcoran stated that he had seen many applicants • L.J • PEC 7/11/83 --6- who ask to receive more than they give to the Town with relation to,floor area, etc., and that this project was not one of them, Vie_ie moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request with the conditions as the staff requested. The vote was 4 in favor, with Pierce and Corcoran abstaining. C. Core Creek Plaza Building: Enclosure of north side outdoor decks for Sweet Basil and Blu's Beanery, Sweet Basil: Peter Jamar showed the plans and suggested that the optimum situation would be to have the ability to enclose the area during the winter months while keeping as much transparency as possible and totally eliminating the enclosure during the summer months. Robin Molny, architect for the project, explained that when trying to design the enclosure he tried to remove the walls for the summer, but the pitched roof made it difficult. He explained that the Fire Department had wanted the fire exit changed, and that was the reason for the walkways. He felt that there would be no problem in opening up the east end, but because, of the icy conditions, could not remove the roof. He added that no doubt the enclosed deck would reduce the open deck impact, but there would be more people observed dining on the deck tm early spring and late fall. He felt the masses that currently exist were not attractive, and by bringing the second floor forward, the building would be perceived as a two story rather than a five story building. Kevin Clair, owner of Sweet Basil, stated that in terms of visual impact, 75% of the building would be open (the north side). He said that because of the ice problem, they did not consider a removable roof. He said that the patio is only useable for 90 days a year from the middle of June through the middle of September, because it doesn't get sun, and then often lunch can be served but not dinner. Also, because of rain the diners often have to move inside. He stated that in the winter he does not have enough seating capacity. Pierce felt it would be good if the Fire Department could find another way to get people off of the building. Molny, said the F.D. asked them to combine their stairs with the building next door, and that they did investigate a spiral stairway. Jack Curtin in the audience, said that enclosing a balcony or deck for winter and then removing the windows in the summer did not work, and gave the Red Lion as an example. The Red Lion looked attractive, but was a giant microphone, which amplified even quiet conversations. He suggested that perhaps better maintenance would solve the ice problem. He also suggested a canopy and gas heaters. He stated that at the Lodge in early May, canopies and heaters made the patio useable even in rainy and cool weather. Curtin added that everything in Lionshead is enclosed and that this particular deck was critical, because next Las Mananitas would ask to enclose their deck. PEC 7/11/83 -7- Sheika Gramshammer from the audience said that she opposed the enclosure for the purpose of seating more people. She felt that terraces were Vail, and part of the atmosphere and added that in the off season, no restaurants were full, and during the winter, all restaurants had a waiting line. She repeated the idea of heating lamps and canopies. She was concerned also about the parking fee and lack-.of park.ing spaces. Pierce stated that the reason for the noise problem at the Red Lion deck was that there was a brick wall in the back. Viele was sympathetic to the proposal, but felt that the negative elements outweighed the positive, and felt that the patios could be used when the weather was appropriate. Piper agreed in general, but wished there could be more dismantling. He wondered if:some of the Fire Departments constraints weren't excessive and wondered if there were any way to mitigate them. He stated that one part of the problem was that the deck had northerly exposure. If one could see the activity even in the winter, it would be good, and he would hike to see more transparency to the east. Donovan maintained glass areas fog up in the winter, and felt that awnings were the solution, for they allow light. If the deck were roofed in, the ice would keep sliding down to the sidewalk. She felt that bigger was not necessarily better, and a cozy feeling was desirable. Trout was in-favor of an awning or else complete dismantling and maintaining an open patio. Corcoran questioned the comments about leaks into Blu's Beanery. Robin Molney asked to table until July 25. Trout moved and Viele seconded to table until the July 25 meeting. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. • Blu's Beanery: Peter Jamar described the proposal. Robin Molney and Tom Armstrong explained that with the stairway moved, there was about 112 of the deck enclosed as it was. Only 12 seats were not covered by a roof. Armstrong said that the stair- way closes off the east side so there is no view on the east until one is quite close to the restaurant. He felt the pedestrian experience in the winter would be enhanced with diners in'the windows. Sheika disagreed. She felt that people do sit outside, and if the space were enclosed it would lose its character. Trout felt that he could be sympathetic to a temporary structure in the winter. Donovan did not want to see the enclosure, and felt that Vail needed summer trade, that.every restaurant would be full in the winter anyway. Piper felt it was a compromise situation because there was an area that was tucked completely under a roof, and this part could be enclosed and still have some deck. He had noticed that the tables under the roof filled after the ones not roofed over. He could see some definite potentials for enclosing only part of Blu's and still get vitality of winter business. Donovan felt.Blu's and Sweet Basil were inter- related and should be considered togehter. Viele felt that although there was somewhat more potential, he "still fel;t.the same as he did for Sweet Basil. Pierce said he tended to agree as -'did Corcoran Molney asked t`o table until July 25, Viele moved and Pierce seconded to table until the duly 25 meeting per the applicant's request. The vote to table was 6 -0. 40 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 6, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit for a water collection gallery and pumping station in and adjacent to Gore Creek below the discharge point of the sewage treatment plant Applicant: Vail Associates DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Vail Associates is requesting permission to construct a water intake and purnphouse in order to remove water from Gore Creek for use in their snowmaking operations. The proposal is located in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: RelatiT _onship and impact of the use on deyelo ment objectives of the Town. The Town of Vail Council has supported the expansion on Vail Mountain. Use of effluent for snowmaking is The effect of the use on li ht and air, distribution facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities. nee s, of snow making facilities considered a positive action. of population, transportation _facilities, and other public By not using treated water for snowmaking operations, the effect will be a benefit to the community. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to con estion, automotive and pedestrian Le s and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and val of snew from the street and parking areas. `� The pumphouse will be located along the bike path but will not impact traffic along the path in any manner. Effect upon the character of the area in which' the_p roposed use is to be located, incltidinc� the scare aid bulk of if�e proposed use in_relation to surrounding uses. The pumphouse will be located along the bike path (see site plan) and will have minimal impact upon the area. Due to the nature of the structure, the noise during operation will be minimal and inaudible from any existing or future residence or business. Most pumping will be done during winter months. The visual impact L7 :I)ITIONAI. USE PERMIT G2 rIr3 `HIS CONDI`T'IONAL Use Permit shall be conditioned a )c n the following: 1. The Permitee shall install meters on each pump in subject facility and shall meter all water diverted from Gore Creek for its snow making operations. Each meter used by the Permitee for such purpose will have seven day graphs. All information obtained by such metering will be made available upon request.to the U. S. Forest Service, the Town of Vail and the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District and all four parties will maintain regular and continuing communication regarding the levels of Gore Creek water usage resulting from the operation o'f the subject facility. 2. If at any time the Town of Vail has credible evidence, through measurement -by the Town of Vail or any other reliable authority activities, then after notification by the Town of Vail the Permitee shall, as soon as is reasonably possible, reduce its intake of water so that the stream flow returns to at least the 7.0 C.F.S. minimum flow level. If the Permitee fails to reduce its intake, then the Town of Vailmay revoke this Conditional Use Permit. It is understood that the 7.0 C.F.S. stream flow standard is one which is presently recommended by the Colorado Division of Wildlife for the pertinent section of Gore Creek. Should the study set forth in Paragraph 3 of this permit, or any other reliable study indicate that the minimum stream flow standard should be other than that currently recommended by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, then such minimum stream flow standard shall be substituted for the Colorado Division of Wildlife standard. 3. Should the Town of Vai1,'the U. S. Forest Service, the acceptable to the parties that the minimum stream flow is being reduced below 7.0 C.F.S. as a result of the Permitee's diversion activities, then after notification by the Town of Vail the Permitee shall, as soon as is reasonably possible, reduce its intake of water so that the stream flow returns to at least the 7.0 C.F.S. minimum flow level. If the Permitee fails to reduce its intake, then the Town of Vailmay revoke this Conditional Use Permit. It is understood that the 7.0 C.F.S. stream flow standard is one which is presently recommended by the Colorado Division of Wildlife for the pertinent section of Gore Creek. Should the study set forth in Paragraph 3 of this permit, or any other reliable study indicate that the minimum stream flow standard should be other than that currently recommended by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, then such minimum stream flow standard shall be substituted for the Colorado Division of Wildlife standard. 3. Should the Town of Vai1,'the U. S. Forest Service, the MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 6, 1983 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration request for the McBride Building in Vail Village. Applicant: Gorsuch, Ltd. I. THE REQUEST Due to the Gorsuch Ski Shop operation taking over the entire McBride Building with the exception of the Clock Tower Inn, this proposal is intended to facelift the south and a little of the west elevations to make the building read as a more unified retail outlet. On the west facade the proposal is to close in two windows with stone and retain one display window. On the south side, beginning at the western corner, the proposal is to add a bay window and airlock, remodel two existing windows, add another two- story bay window, remove and relocate the stairs to the former City Limits (now to be a ski rental shop) and to remodel the entrance to the second level of the building in that area. Also on this elevation are plans to remodel windows for more effective display and to treat the facade with stone in certain areas. The proposal also includes brick pavers on the south side of the building and new landscaping. Thus, the proposal is generally a facelift of the building to allow it to read as a unified structure containing related retail businesses, II. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. PEDESTRIANIZATION The traffic patterns of pedestrians will not be affected by the proposal, However, the pedestrian experience should be improved with the brick paver treatment and landscaping additions. Also, benches will continue to be provided as resting or waiting areas on the south side of the building. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION The proposal may actually reduce the number of vehicles entering and parking on the southeast corner due to the conversion from City Limits to a ski - rental shop. Delivery and refuse pick -ups may be reduced due to this change in use and due to the proposed compactor to the northeast of the building. The service alley on the east side of the building remains undisturbed. • MCBRIDE BLDG -2- 7/6/$3 is C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK The various improvements described above should improve the streetscape framework along Gore Creek Drive. D. STREET ENCLOSURE Street enclosure is unaffected, D. STREET EDGE Street edge is also unaffected. F. BUILDING HEIGHT The proposal does not change building height. G. VIEWS No view corridors are affected by the proposal. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY As stated above, the number of vehicle trips to this building could be reduced with the change from City Li!riits to ski rentals. As the PEC knows, the staff has advanced the installment of common trash compactors in the core to reduce vehicle trips required for pick -up and to centralize and enclose trash facilities (by use of.compactors with building enclosures). The McBride Building will be required to participate in the new compactor facility proposed for the existing dumpster location to the rear of the building. We feel this will be an improvement in the service and delivery to this building and to the others it will serve. There will be an organi- zational meeting concerning participation in the compactor on Wednesday, July 13, I. SUN /SHADE This will not change as a result of the project. III. ZONING CODE ITEMS The proposal meets the zoning code requirements for Commercial Core I. • • MC.BRIDE:BLDG -3- 7/5/83 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this proposal for the McBride Building. We are of the opinion that these changes will add to the attractiveness of the building and will .enhance the pedestrian experience along Gore Creek Drive. Conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The owner of the building agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a mini - special improvement district if and when formed by lower Bridge Street for the purpose of installing brick pavers. 2. The lessees of the building agree to participate in (to their fair share degree) the common compactor facility construction and maintenance and ongoing normal fees. 6 MEMORANDUM t TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an application.for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I to enclose the existing outdoor dining patio at Blu's Beanery located on the north side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist I. PROPOSAL The applicant desires to enclose approximately 544 square feet which is currently an outdoor dining area to enable the year -round use of the area. II. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL CORE II ZONE DISTRICT The Commercial Core I 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 predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I 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 design considerations prescribed development standards that-are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core I district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan states that "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." The enclosure of the deck during the winter months will certainly create activity in an area which currently is unusable in the winter months. However, the almost total enclosure of the deck (only the windows on the north side have the ability to open) during the summer months will certainly reduce the quality of the dining deck within that time of year. The optimum situation would be to.have the ability to enclose the area during the winter months while keeping as much transparency as possible and totally eliminating the enclosure during the summer Bla's Beanery -2- 7/7/83 months, The intent of the Urban Design Guide Plan would be achieved year - round. The current proposal, while obviously an improvement during the winter months, reduces the quality of the patio during the summer months, IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. P' EDESTRIANI7ATION There will be no impact upon the pedestrian's ability to move along the sidewalk which exists between the building and the landscaped area between Gore Creek. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION No impact. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK The Blu's Beanery patio currently has a good relationship to the adjacent sidewalk. During the spring, summer, and fall months the patio is the scene of much activity. The sight and sounds of people dining adjacent to the sidewalk creates a rich pedestrian experience and is an important feature of Vail and specifically Vail Village. Since the patio is void of any activity during the winter months, the ability to utilize the area for dining during that time of the year would improve the quality of the pedestrian experience by adding some visual interest to the area. However, the enclosure of the patio during the summer months would eliminate the relationship that the patio currently has to the sidewalk and pedestrian. Even though the windows along the north side of the enclosure have the ability to open, the patio will basically have the feeling of an enclosed space. D. STREET ENCLOSURE The open space which forms a comfortable enclosure for will certainly be perceived enclosure of the patio. E. STREET EDGE the patio helps the building in terms of being the pedestrian sidewalk, The feel of the building to be closer to the sidewalk with the permanent The enclosure of the patio will reduce the small "pocket" which currently exists which gives visual interest to the existing street (or sidewalk) edge. To enclose the patio will reduce this positive quality which currently exists. ' F. BUILDING HEIGHT Blu's Beanery -3- 7/7/83 . The overall building height will not change. No impact. !; SERVICE AND DELIVERY No change. I. SUN /SHADE There should be no impact upon the shadow pattern on adjacent properties or upon the public right -of -way, V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS The applicant will have to pay the appropriate parking fee based on one space for each 8 seats added. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development staff recommends denial of the request as proposed. The total enclosure of the patio is not in the interest of or a benefit to the character of the Village. Even though the windows on the north side of the patio have the ability to be opened, the enclosure is basically a permanent one making the patio indoor space. Open patios adjacent to the sidewalks and the streets in Vail are an important attraction and quality for both visitors and residents alike. We do agree that the utilization of the patio during the winter months would be a positive addition. An enclosure which could be used in winter and removed in summer would be both beneficial to the restaurant and to the character of the Village. Therefore, the staff would support such a proposal, but cannot recommend approval of a permanent enclosure such as that currently proposed. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration,of an application for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I to enclose the existing outdoor dining deck at Sweet Basil located on the north side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, Applicant: Charles Rosenquist I. PROPOSAL The applicant desires to enclose approximately 696 square feet which is currently an outdoor dining area to enable the year -round use of the area, II. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL CORE II ZONE DISTRICT The Commercial Core I 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 predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I 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 design considerations prescribed development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core I district, III, COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE P The Urban Design Guide Plan states that "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 M The enclosure of the deck during the winter months will certainly create activity in an area which currently is unusable in the winter months. However, the almost total enclosure of the deck (only the windows on the north side have the ability to open) during the summer months will certainly reduce the quality of the dining deck within that time of year. The optimum situation would be to have the ability to enclose the area during the winter months while keeping as much transparency as possible and totally el.iminating the enclosure during the summer Sweet Basil -2- 7/7/83 months, Thus, the intent of the Urban Design Guide. Plan would be complied with year - round. The current proposal does not go far enough to achieve this balance. IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A, PEDESTRIANIZATION There will be no impact upon the pedestrians.' ability to move along the sidewalk which exists between the building and Gore Creek. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION No impact. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK A positive aspect of the Sweet Basil deck as it currently exists is that as people exit the Children's Fountain area toward Gore Creek, patrons can be viewed utilizing the deck during the spring, summer, and fail months. Since the east side of the deck is proposed to be a totally solid wall, the pedestrian will basically be unaware of any activity. During the summer months the noise coming through the open windows on the north possibly would still generate some interest in the deck to the passerby. In terms of street life and visual interest, . the proposal is somewhat negative. D. STREET ENCLOSURE The outdoor deck which exists certainly helps the building to scale down to the pedestrian level since the second level is substantially set back from the first level. The permanent structure proposed to enclose the deck will reduce the stepped back facade of the building. E. STREET EDGE As mentioned above, the stepping back of the building because of the current deck creates an interesting and irregular facade. The proposed enclosure will reduce this quality that the building currently has. F, BUILDING HEIGHT As pointed out, the building will have a perceived two story facade rather than the current one story. • I Sweet Basil -3W 7/7/83 G. VIEWS 16 No impact. H, SERVICE AND DELIVERY No impact. I. SUN/SHADE There should be no impact upon the shadow pattern on adjacent properties or the public right -of -way. V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS The applicant will have to pay the appropriate parking fee based on the requirement for one space for each 8 seats added. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development staff recommends denial of the request as proposed. We believe that the total enclosure of the deck is not in the interest of or a benefit to the community. The proposal . will result basically in the deck becoming an indoor space despite the fact that the windows on the north have the ability to be opened. Open decks and patios are important feature of Vail's summer season. The enclosure of the deck in the winter months certainly provides some use of an area which is currently void of activity during the winter, and while an enclosure somewhat increases the scale of the overall building mass, the net result of the enclosure in winter would be a positive one. We, therefore, could support a'design which functioned to enclose the area for use in winter but be substantially removed during the summer months. We would encourage the applicant to pursue this type of project, but for the reasons stated, cannot support the current proposal. MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 22, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a condominium conversion project for the Vail Club Building. Applicant: Fitzhugh Scott, et al. THE REQUEST Requested is to condominiumize the Vail Club Building which includes the Vail Athletic Club, the Vail Club Hotel, Vail Club Spa, Louvers Restaurant and Lounge, and their corresponding accessory uses. Proposed is condominiumizing in the following manner: Unit 1: Vail Athletic Club Unit 2: Vail Club Restaurant and Bar Unit 3: Vail Club Hotel and Spa Units A -G: Vail Club Residential Units (7 units) All the proposed condominiums (residential) have kitchens existing and are. currently generally used as short -term rentals. The hotel will remain essentially intact as a hotel. That is, the accommodation units (those units without kitchens) will remain as such as part of the overall condominium (unit 3). This results in the ability for 24 separate accommodation units. Also, there are four employee housing units owned by the hotel on the top floor which are used to house (rent free) hotel personnel These are proposed to remain in the same use as they are today, being a part of unit #3. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION CRITERIA Chapter 17.26 of the Subdivision Regulations stipulates the following criteria for condominium conversion projects: 17.26.080 Action on Preliminary Ma (a) At the hearing on the preliminary map, the Planning Commission shall consider whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the following housing goals of the Town of Vail: (1) To encourage continuation of social and economic diversity in the Town of Vail through a variety of housing types. (2) To expand the supply of decent housing for low and moderate income families. (3) To achieve greater economic balance for the Town of Vail by increasing the number of jobs and the supply of housing for people who will hold them. VAIL CLUB -2- 6/22/83 (b) The Commission may require that a reasonable percentage of the converted . units be reserved for sale or rental to persons of moderate income. (c) The Planning and Environmental Commission may deny the tentative or pre- liminary map upon finding that: (1) Based on the information required by 17.26.070 and on the vacancy rate for rental housing, tenants will have substantial difficulty in obtaining comparably priced rental housing. A rental vacancy rate below five percent (5%) based on the most recent Town survey shall constitute a housing emergency situation. (2) The ratio of multiple family rental units would be reduced to less than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the total number of dwelling units in the Gore Valley, from Dowd Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with no replacement rental housing being provided. CRITERIA EVALUATION A, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the following housing goals of:the Town of Vail. 1. Encourage continuation of social and economic diversity in the Town of Vail through a variety of housinQ tVDeS. • The use of the building will not substantially change as a result of the proposal. The accommodation units remain as is and the new residential condominiums will most likely be part of a short -term rental program. Thus, no change in the "social and economic diversity" of the Town would result. 2. To ex and the supply of decent housing for low and moderate income families. The four employee housing units for hotel personnel were the applicants` own idea and not a part of the original approval of the project. The Town subsequently approved these units. Thus, the applicants have already taken the initiative "to expand the supply of decent housing for low and moderate income families." This situation will remain unchanged due to the proposal. A formal, signed agreement for the continuation of these units as employee housing should be worked out as a condition of approval. 3. To achieve reater economic balance for the Town of Vail §Y increasin the number of jobs and the supply of housino for peODle. who will hold M1 It is explained above that the applicants have already increased the supply of housing for local workers. 11 Vail Club -3- 6/22/83 • B. The Commission may require that a reasonable percentage of the converted units be reserved for sale or rental to persons of moderate income. The staff would recommend that no such requirement is necessary in that there currently exists employee housing provisions within the proposal. C. The Planning and Environmental Commission may deny the tentative or preliminary map upon finding that: 1. Based on the information required by 17.26.070 and on the vacancy rate for rental housin , tenants will have substantial difficult in obtainin comparably price rnta ousing., A rental vacanc�_rate below five percent based;on,the Rost recent'Town survey shall constitute a housing emergency situation. No tenants are being displaced. 2. The ratio of multiple family rental units would be reduced to less than 25 percent of the tota number of welling units in the Gore Valley, from Dowd Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with no replacement rental hou provided. There is a glut of multiple family rental units on the market in Vail today. • OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION 1. Building and Fire Department reports and corrections of violations thereof. Enclosed are the building and fire.department reports. The applicants have agreed to the stipulations contained in those reports. 2. Independently metered utilities to individual condominiums. The applicants ask relief from this provision, as it would be very difficult physically to install these,. 3. All applicable building permit fees paid to the Town if the project were new --minus fees paid at original permit. The applicants feel this is an onerous burden and ask relief as the use of the project remains the same. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since the proposal leaves the uses and functions of the building essentially the same as the existing situation, the Department of Community Development recommends approval. The only slightly negative impact is that the new residential condominiums • Vail Club -4- 6/22/83 may be less available to the tourist in general due to individual ownership. However, the staff does not feel that is an impact which represents justification for denial. Indeed, it is likely these condos will remain in a short -term rental program, but there is no guarantee. One condition of approval applies: 1. A formalized employee housing agreement with stipulations similar to those found in Section 18.13.080 (B) 10:a -d for the four employee housing units which are part of Unit 3 shall be received by August 1, 1983. LJ • 10WH of MID/ 75 south frontage rd. veil, colorado 81657 c (303) 476 -7000 May 16, 1983 TO: Peter Patten FROM: Gary Murrain RE: Vail Athletic Club Dear Peter: department of community development This letter is to confirm that an inspection has been done for the purpose of condominiumizing the Vail Athletic Club. This inspection went very well anG T'found the overall condition of said building to be in excellent condition. There were some things that have to be fixed or changed before this conversation can be done: I. Railing on outside decks need changing to spacing not more than 6" in any spot. 2, loft room's railing must be raised to 36 ", 3. Handrails are needed on the stairs to the hot tubs. 4. All door closers are in need of repair or replacement. The Vail Fire Department will give you a separate list of violations of their last inspection. Yours truly, ary Murrain Building inspector GM /bb !;."'.• t� %max- �"� i= � ?,�' � <7 =,, .• r.^...� ,'��rr 4ualil 42 west meadow drive }Ire department vall, coforado 81657 (303) 476 -2200 March 14, 1983 Deane Manning General Manager Vail Athletic Club. 352 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Re : Fire Inspection of Nursery Dear Sir Fire Chief Richard Duran received a complaint on the nursery concerning the occupant load and the safety of the children with respect to thier access to the pool and ladies jactizz'i. I was asked by the Chief to investigate and report my findings. As I am sure you are aware, the uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the Town of Vail , do not refer to day care-facilities in specific. The Life Safety Code however, has a great deal to say about such usage of facilities for child- ren within specific age groups. I based my observations on the Life Safety Code and General aspects of safety. The following will discuss those findings. a. I found door stops on the entry doors to the locker rooms, even though those doors are required to have self - closures. The door stops shall be removed as this condition constitutes a violation of UFC-12.104(e). A smoke actuated device may be installed if you desire, allowing the doors to remain open under normal conditions. b. Child proof caps shall be placed over the duplex electrical outlets in the nursery. This is required by UFC 85.104 as well as by the Life Safety Code. c. The platform,the television is on should be braced to prevent its colapse in the event a child pulls or trys to swing on the . power cord to the TV. d. A different locking system should be placed on the door to the nursery. As is, someone could.open the door, enter, and by l ore 4411 42 west meadow drive vall, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -2200 -2- fire department allowing the door to close behind them, without the required key, find themselves trapped inside the nursery. I recommend the removal of the lock and the.installation of pass through hardware. e. I cannot allow two cribs in the 8' x 41 closet. The shelf above and the stroage below the cribs, and the fact that they are not in a continously monitored location prohibits their usage in that location. I suggest that the cribs be moved into the nursery. f. All .fire sprinkler.heads shall have 18" clearance below them throughout the room protected. Storage closets seem to be the worst. g. Protection for the light bulbs is required in several locations. All storage rooms are required to have protection for the lights and Rick Ball was told which rooms this is needed in. h. Power cords were found to be running behind the cover plates of the duplex electrical outlets in most all bathrooms, dressing rooms and vanities in both the mens and womens areas. Not only is this prohibited, but the installation of GPI protection is required. This poses a serious threat to the users to the ..due potental for electricution. I. The emergency lighting in the pool room is obstructed by the shades. A resolution of this matter is required. In addition, the shades are required to be Class A flame spread. Proof of the flame spread rating is required to be furnished to the Fire Marshal. j. A barrier should be placed between the nursery and the access to the pool and the Jacuzzi. I suggest the barrier be spring loaded latching and self - closing. The potential for a child , drowning has been proved already. k. The egress from the pool to the exterior does not meet the Uniform Buil-ding Code requirement that the grade at the exit be within 1" of the interior. A redesign of the exterior walkway ,. is required. 1. The light fixtures in the mens 3acuzzi show evidence of rusting and makes me suspect the wiring is in need of attention. I ��1 o Vol 42 west meadow drive fire department va[I, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -2200 -3- t� M. I suggest that a vapor barrier be replaced in the main electrical room to prevent oxidation of the main electrical feeds and switch gear. Evidence of oxidation is visable on 'the junction boxes, the fire alarm panel and other locations. In time, the corrosion will require replacement of the entire contents if the problem is not addressed. The inspection was conducted with the assistance of Gary Murrian, the Town of Vail Building Inspector, and in the presence of Rick Ball, on Friday morning, March 11, 1983. As Rick, Gary and I discussed, even though the Vail Athletic Club is not required to be licensed by the State of Colorado for day care, it is wise -to at least meet the requirements for such usage and often, private day care centers exceed the requirements' to avoid liability. In so much as it seems a nursery is needed, and it appears to be used by the members, I can only urge you to address yourself to these problems and bring this situation to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. The items listed as violations of the adopted UFC and UBC should be resolved by June 1st, 1983; being specifcally #'s and 1 . If you desire more information, please contact me here at the Vail Fire,Department at 476 -2200. Sincerely, a. Michael McGee Fire Marshal Vail Fire Department cc: Steve Patterson, Building Official. . Dick Duran, Fire Chief State Dept. of Social Services Fitzhugh Scott, Vail Athletic Club r ■ MEMORANDUM • TO: Plannin g and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 7, 1 983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a conditional use request for a popcorn wagon in the lower level of the Vail Village Inn plaza off -East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Van Ewing The applicant in June came before the PEC with a request to permit by conditional use a popcorn outside vending wagon that conforms in style with those existing in Commercial Core I and H. The PEC recommended approval of the request and Town Council approved the amendment on July'5th. Now the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow this activity to take place at the lower level of the Vail Village Inn plaza. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, 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 is looking for selected areas for street life activity. The proposed location seems to be appropriate and would not conflict with bus travel on East Meadow Drive. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation acs sties, utilities, schools, arks and recreation facilities, and other ublic facilities needs. No impact. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the ro osed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposed use should be compatible with the existing commercial uses. Actually it should attract more people to the area and possibly increase the number of people into the shops. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and arkin area: The popcorn wagon is off the public right -of -way in a private plaza. The only . concern would be with snow removal which is the property owner's problem. PEC Popcorn Wagon -2- 7/7/83 The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with 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 will 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 will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. RECOMMENDATION: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use request for a popcorn wagon located at the Vail Village Inn Plaza. Two conditions are that the applicant be responsible to pick up all trash that may come from the popcorn wagon in the immediate vicinity, and that the applicant have.the conditional use request reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission to review the impacts of the use at the location. FINDINGS The proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the district . in which the site is located, The proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements.in the vicinity. • L 0 0 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DATED JUNE 21, 1983 Description of precise nature of proposed user Installation of popcorn wagon conforming in appearance with those presently existing in Vail and similar to that pictured below: i ' I private �' - i' - i l II 'i II • f - a ti � terrace / i private y ! entry'' — - terrace ; f 4 ♦ /J i ilA a. TERRACE �i - P alarl9 /mow . a �itlllh / ve` s' �4Ali {narking area P. LAZA i �I t \utyt PLAZA 6 ~ / •� y`'`p� ..SiTF asklt a drive p _- a N_ EAST MEADOW DRIVE y.... B 10 620 30 40 80 ' I • SITE PLAN I j MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 6, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a conditional use permit request for a private pre - school to be located on lot 34 in Buffehr Creek Sub- division on Chamonix Lane, Applicants: Mike and Debbie Dawson The request is for a conditional use permit for a private preschool of approximately 65 children. The applicants consider that there is a need for such a facility within Vail. The Department of Community Development supports having adequate facilities for children in Vail such as a pre- school, but is concerned with some of the impacts at the site. Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use of development objectives of the Town.; Private and public schools are possible in all residential zones with the approval of a conditional use permit. A pre - school is an activity that can serve a definite purpose within Vail with many families with both parents working during the day. 2. Effect on facilities public fac No impact the use on light and air, distribution , utilities, schools, parks and recrea ilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffi maneuverability, and removal of snow from the of population, transportation ion facilities, and other to congestion, automotive low and control, access street and parkina areas. The number of automobiles going to and from the site has been one of the major concerns of the staff throughout the discussion of this use at the site. In the enclosed statement of operation intent is a proposed traffic study describing estimated arrival and departure times. The staff considers that even reducing the potential number of pre- school children from 85 to 65, traffic on Chamonix Lanle and Buffehr Creek Road would be a negative neighborhood impact. In addition, we consider that providing only ten (10) parking spaces will not be sufficient for the demand at certain times of the year and there is no on- street parking permitted in this area of Town. There is a bus stop in close proximity to the site, but there are no sidewalks for children and parents on which to walk safely to the site. 4. :7 Pre - School -2- 6/6/83 Effect u on'the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the ro osed use in relation to surroun inq uses. Another concern that has been expressed to the applicants is noise generated on the site and its impact on adjacent residential uses. Considering that this type of use is appropriate in a residential area, there is always going to be some noise impact. The applicants propose a six (6) foot high fence on the east and on the west where the play yard would be located. This should reduce some noise. The bulk and scale of the proposed use seems to be in character with the surrounding area. Proposed is a 1 -1/2 story building of approximately 3,300 square feet. Standards for the actual number of pre - school children allowed in the facility and size of outside recreation area are set by the State of Colorado Department of Social Services. The Planning and Environmental. Commission does not have to deal with these standards, as a license will be required through the State of Colorado. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before_ granting a conditional use permit: 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 provisions of this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development does not recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a private pre- school because of traffic impacts and inadequate parking. We consider that the number of trips per day proposed is a negative impact on the neighborhood. STATEMENT OF OPERATIONAL INTENT for the proposed DAY CARE FACILITY FOR WEST VAIL The Hodamar Partnership consists of three families: Marlin and Helen Hochstetter, from Illinois, dike and Debby Dawson, of Va.:il, and Jacobo and Emily Margolis, of Vail.. and Mexico City. Marlin and Helen Hochstetter are former school administrators and have owned preschools since 1962. ':4ike and Debby Dawson are sk.i. :instructors in the winter, and Mike has been with the B & B Exca -- a ,_ f it �r in t°he laz:t 6 years. Mike has also b en a. �;c- acl:i and .._ �T' 4 Sti�� teach-_-. ' h�CT c �?�.... . ily and jaeobo have been p7oper-t,3 Owners °anal vacai-ioLer in', for the last 10 years. Emily has taught first grade for 17 years in Mexido City. We all are looking forward to combining our many talents to offer the Vail. Valley one of the finest preschool pro-. grams in the nation. The Partners have done a :.reat deal of research in finding an ide a: location that would meet their criteria for offering an outstanding service to the community. Loot 34 in Buffer Creek is one that: meets the majority of criteria established by.the partnership. The lot is- level. and has a southern exposure, proximity to a. nearby bus stop, is accessible to residential areas, and compliments the proposed children's playground and park. ^ After meeting with Mr. }:'cyan and discussing the initial. proposal., the Partnership is amenable to the suggestiontof limiting the number of children to about 65, which makes this a relatively small ff.cilitY for young children. The building has been designed to have 3 classrooms. Each class- room will permit a tea!n teaching situation, in compliance with -the, limitations clearly stated in The Minimum Rules and Regulations for Child Care Centers, issued by the Colorado State Department of Social Services Handbook. The facility will be licensed for approsiraatel_Y 65 children, which makes it the size of a very small. school. It is the belief of the Partnership that the building as designed flits in very nicely with the architecture of the surrounding community. The plan provides 10 parking spaces, 6 of which will be used by staff members. The Partnership would be very amiable to discuss with the Town the :purchase of a substantial. quantity of wooden playground equipment in order to initiate construction of a Town Park. The Partnership would be willing to spend approximately $15,000 on playground eq- uipment and would like to negotiate with the Town of Vail for the provision of additional. parking spaces which could be utilized by Day Care Facility Staff Members, thus reducing the number of cars which might be parked in front of the facility. PROPOSED TRAFFIC STUDY The full day hours will be be proveded for a maximum ship believes that most of the hours of 7 A.M. and 10 hours of 3 P.M. and 6 P.M. 0 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Day care will, enrollment of 44 children. The Partner- - these children will be arriving between. A.M., and will be departing between the Estimated Arrival Times i7:00 - 8:00 12 children 8:00 - 9:00 20 children 9 :00 - 10:00 12 children Estimated Departure Times 3:00 - 4:00 12 children 4:00 - 5:00 20 children 5:00 - 6:00 12 children The drop off point has been designed similar to the school owned by the Partners and located in Illinois, where there is a :staff member at the door who receives the children, permitting parents to stop only briefly on the property. Approximately 20 children will be dropped off at the school between 8:45 and 9:00 and picked up between 12:00 and 12:15. We will assist parents in forming carpools within their living areas. Our outside playground area has been located behind the proposed school and adjoining the proposed park. The playground has been located and designed to minimize noise to the adjacent neighborhood; The building itself will serve as a sound buffer to homes to the north. A 6' high solid wood fence on -the east and west will buffer noise in those directions. The fence along the south, adjacent to the Town of Vail. Park, will be open woad, to allow sun into they p_-fty area. The Partners are planning to personally meet with residents in the immediate vicinity of the proposed school to explain there .plans and to answer all. questions. They are Looking forward to becoming members of the community and serving the people in the same pro- fessional manner that they have in other areas where they have bu-ilt their reputation during the last 20 areas. • 1 I bus myAv- c)r4 on fine- --u� blCvv\s W (Z, OLY -C (jLv Qat. Cat.rqo � a ado Ov- ior �, 1 JOHN S. H1NMON BOX 72 VAR., CO, 61657 Sc,- LLB OLL I �o t9J • -s-��cc� out -�.'� , a--YQ- dt tier.._. �� ► �u� ►�,�h�� r� 1u1 C' C7mm�+�G�cst 1 l � •��c.1 ��P c� '��1o�i CA sec,. -) , oct re L) 9 Air Box 861 Vail, Colorado 81658 6 June 1983 TOt Dick Ryan Vail Planning Commission Vtill Town Council This letter is in regard to the request for a conditional use permit for day care facility in a Residential Primary/Secondary axone on Lot 34 in Buffshr Creek Subdivision.- As residents and property owners in this residential area we hays concerns about a facility of this site -• 60 to 70 children •- Pear__..thO Intersection of Buffehr Creek Road and Chamonix Lane. We have lived near this intersection for 14 years and have watched the traffic problems increase on Buffehr Creek Read as development has grown. A few years ago, after several accidents, one nearly fatal When a car coming downhill overturned several times near this intersection, the neighborhood residents lobbied for a speed dip and after many hassles finally succeeded in getting one. We had difficulty getting a speed dip because of the concern of Valley residents that they would not be able to make the uphill grade during winter months if they had to slow down for the speed dip. Fortunately with the uphill traffic having the right of way most everyone has been able to maintain their uphill speed. Increased traffic flow at this intersection would create a real difficult: situation. Cars turning and suiting to enter the day care facility would slog uphill traffic even more, and cars stopping and slowing to enter Chamonix Lane would congest traffic all the more. In addition, the Town of Vail buses turn at this narrow intersection with a bus stop in front of the proposed care,center. This would create a real point of congestion. The prospect of a day care facility of this volume right at this intersection with cars coming and going at the busiest times of the day is simply inconceivable. Buffehr Creek Subdivision has struggled to remain a residential community despite gradual encroachment of commercial and high density residential zoning changes, covenant violations and non - conforming uses. We feel that . the Brandess Building is an example of rezoning that was allowed under the County that has adversely affected the character of the neighborhood. Allowing a large day care facility with 60 to 70 children and the related traffic would be yet another intrusion into the residential neighborhood. • i. Ryan Lot 34, Buffe hr Creek page 2 i We also feel the park that is proposed in the Buffeter Creels area adjacent to Lot 34 would be primarily used by the children attending this facility rather than by the local residents and passing tourists. Passersby mould be reluctant to stop and relax at the park if they noticed children there every day. The park should be for the enjoyment of everyone rather than a convenience for one cosm++ercial enterprise. We wtiild hope that you weigh these considerations carefully and we respectfully request that the application for the conditional use permit be denied. Sincerely, Bruce and Mary 3o Allen owners of Lots 31 and 32 • May 27, 1983 Town of Cail Planning 'and Environmental Commission Vail, Colorado RE: Public hearing on June 13, 1983 Gentlemen: We are in receipt of a copy of the Public Notice regarding the hearing in which ten listed items will be discussed. We have comments on two of the items. In regard to item 6, we are aware of the proposed plans of Thomas K.. Turnbull and Don Klinger on Lot 11, Block-E, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, 2597 Arosa Drive. We are the owners of of 10, Block E, Vail Das Schone, Filing 1, directly to the east f the Turnbull and Klinger structure and we reside in the primary unit on Lot 10. We feel that the proposed improvements yvould not be of any detriment to the neighborhood and we have no objections to the proposed improvements. In regard to item 4, -we feel that commercial use should not be allowed in a residential neighborhood. We also feel that a potential access problem and traffic problem could be created if this use were permitted. Very truly yours, Sa�3en_ Haab p'y a 11 79 Arosa Drive r Colorado 81657 s i - FRONTIER AIRLINES d J�4 �, W-t 1 12 x' -1 Z14 1 I June 8, 1983 Town of Vail Vail, CO Attn: Dick Ryan Dear Mr. Ryan: I am writing this letter to express my concern over the proposed day care center to be located at 1994 Chamonix Ln. or 1996 Chamonix Zane. I own property at 1992 Chamonix Lane. When I purchased my property, zoned as "residential," I did not anticipate a day care center as a possible neighbor. I am opposed to any positive action the town might take, which would allow any business to operate in a residential neighborhood. My opposition of the aforementioned proposal is based on the Following: 1. We purchased the property at 1992 Chamonix Zane with the understanding that the area, was zoned "residential." A commercial operation next door would result in a. devaluation of the adjoining properties. 2,;. The deck area. of our home faces the proposed day care lot. Sixty -five children running around yelling, is not what we had in mind when we built the deck area. The environmental impact of that number of children in a. small area is awesome.` The serenity of the neighborhood will be destroyed. If the commercial operation is allowed to start on one lot and the lot next door is devalued to any extent, I can see expansion of the day care center in the future. This must not be allowed to happen. If the day care center is a 24 hour operation, the traffic and noise would be unreasonable to ask the neighborhood to put up with at all hours of the day. • --5 �►�� , tai 3 l (3-n2, Cry) CQ.rv\aA U �w QfbvcuA wee -AAr\L PYnpc Q..CQ sit 'o an oavQ -OC�� UtA�Qk�CQ��iS C K. LA Sl "uQ -t� �.� lS� l Q.�` 4e C.or V1e.r C nw`-�- �OaA avid u h,r CrM -�&VN roods Oxt mo r t-p w . Cars opu o +n .�'�r Gr-M�, b-MA �n s Cry o�-v-rowl is . uu LO . -Tol, C+- r\v- Oecm(zs �. V\L + o bus No a. ays ay-C bo Cu - v� - �II1Q1 A ~r Cr 'oQa &Va v Q C awl t L > Page 2 The traffic at the intersection of.B uffer Creek and Chamonix Lane must also be considered. With current traffic patterns, the blind corner is dangerous and the scene of many accidents and near- collisions. The increase of traffic at the inter - section and bus stop would cause unacceptable traffic patterns. To alleviate these problems, would mean a consideralbe expense, which would, no doubt, be reflected in tax increases. This is another problem the area does not need. In summary, there are many reasons for not granting a permit for a commercial operation, i.e. a day care center, in the neighborhood. I hope the Council will try to understand and respect the washes of the good citizens and property owners in the area, and that they will not be swayed by out-of- state interests. Thank you for your time and consideration. erely, wavid Pel ey Property Owner 1992 Chamonix Lane Vail, CO 0 c-, u(2A C, E-3 (z2 C, C) \Q--,Ccct-1CD�" I/D 0- C L2— C �!J,\ vc cA C) Its cg-� CA-A 6v CA ov G( . \-,)u `.) I n (? cA- IVDQAV2-�� \OC-6--A Qc) 0 (c A oL cl Ll W�k E. C)o Ll F1 (on C-ka Mon E ( f ulk, ?Y6 jq Z/ A— Z-, 1-7 V-cu�- rk ICA wu ad C) )Q % . W, N\eulzoo /7-7 2,DOq , G( k-\" QG' lq&3 5 12-4111� �c)e ��1c, A C�c ,( e..5 ey lve9a)al� IVIKU A/ OP, --U Rct M1 4�11 r + f7 U 1gy ) / F)C >/ tj ! 1 i 3 C? 0 N �X 5N7z- -5 K,3 • s� S� �0 f F'7 - .. -j 3 V1, Y3 13 is u El 0 App or U141I- 4-4,j j t A3 6 4 90 Ii ii Ila, 0 ee j,6A) S /3i/83 CAILC LtA ICT eoxd-aA Z'oo 4x( 3 q LAA- JIA- kul I* • a d z 4J-, -Ou7 e,,� It.-t g�51� c • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an application for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I to infill a 362 square foot area below an existing second story balcony at Christy Sports in the Plaza Lodge building. Applicant: Christy Sports /Brad Henry I. PROPOSAL The proposal is to infill the 362 square foot area on the west side of the Plaza Lodge, which is currenly located beneath an existing balcony to enable the expansion of Christy Sports. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMERCIAL CORE I ZONE DISTRICT The application is in compliance with the purpose of the CCT zone district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN IV The Urban Design Guide Plan identifies the Village Plaza as a central focal point. The proposed expansion will create an improvement within space which borders the plaza by replacing an area which is dark and unused with an attractive and interesting improvement. IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. PEDESTRIANIZATION: Pedestrian flow along the edge of the Village Plaza should be improved by the expansion by the added visual interest created by the infill of the area beneath the balcony. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION: No change C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK: The streetscape framework will be improved as a result of the increased visual interest and activity. Possibly by relocating the new repair and storage area from the exterior of the shop to the interior and installing glass display windows in this area in addition to those proposed, the streetscape could be improved to an even greater extent. Also the stucco wall behind the popcorn wagon to the north could be glass to provide vsuai interest should the popcorn wagon be relocated or removed at some future date, D. STREET ENCLOSURE: Since the balcony exists, there will pedestrian way and attention from the E. STREET EDGE: Christy Sports -2- 7/7/83 Which will form the roof of the expansion currently be no change in the height relationship between the the building. The canopies over the walkway divert upper building height. The expansion will give the plaza a more defined "edge" and the building will still retain its irregular facade line to create visual interest. F. BUILDING HEIGHT: No change G. VIEWS: No change H. SUN /SHADE CONSIDERATION: No change . V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate parking fee based on one space per each 300 square feet of additional floor area. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the proposed Christy Sports expansion. We believe it will add interest and activity to the Village Plaza area. We do believe, however, that the proposal should be modified to create more transparency by relocating the proposed repair and storage area to the interior of the shop and replacing the solid wall in that area with windows. We also believe that the stucco wall behind the popcorn wagon should be made to incorporate windows. Since the aspect of transparency is more of an architectural consideration to be reviewed by the Design Review Board we suggest that if the PEC concurs with the staff on this aspect of the proposal, they should forward this concern to the DRB. We mention the transparency issue at this time only because it does affect the street edge and pedestrianization impacts of the proposal. • MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment of the non-conforming use chapter of the zoning code to allow for interior expansion of pre - existing legal non - conforming uses related to GRFA as long as certain criteria are met. Applicant: Richard Baldwin THE AMENDED REQUEST The amendment proposed has been revised (see enclosure) to respond to some of the previous PEC concerns. It now includes a ceiling on the amount of GRFA a dwelling unit can add (250 sq ft maximum or 20% of the existing GRFA) and restric- tions on garage conversions. The proposal also includes a requirement to address parking requirements with respect to the addition, STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development continues to recommend denial of the proposed amendment. Even though the above revisions address some of the initial concerns of the PEC, we remain opposed because of the inequity situations which would result and because the Town receives absolutely no benefits from the proposed . additions. This amendment, if approved, would give an owner in a non - conforming building an advantage over a new project with respect to GRFA. This would create a dual set of density regulations which is unfair to the new developer. Moreover, as stated in the June 23, 1983 memo concerning the amendment, the staff is in favor of loosening restrictions on non - conforming situations only if there is a "trade -off" type of system instituted which upgrades the exterior of the property. The amendment proposed contains no such benefits to the site and /or buildings except that the additions would more likely come through for approval rather than being "bootlegged." Finally, we feel that people per acre is an important factor to consider in density control. To allow additional density in terms of people per acre in areas where existing density is over that which is deemed appropriate is not logical=or beneficial. Again, we would like to re -write this chapter of the code to promote exterior physical upgrading of non - conforming structures while allowing the property owner to do improvements without negative impacts, but we cannot support GRFA as an inducement for such a system. • holdwin ossociokos orchitocts, inc. architecture - planning 5 July 1983 REQUEST Whereas there exists a number of residential structures within the Town of Vail that have the capacity for internal expansion, that existed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinances, and that could be altered, changed or expanded without negative impact upon any other entity, it is requested that Chapter 18.64 be revised to allow for this type of expansion, allowing for better utilization and upgraging of existing enclosed volume within non - conforming structures. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUEST . In the case of pre - existing non - conforming buildings which are non-conform- ing in the area of "Density Control" only 3 conditions of non - conformity could exist. 1) The structure may exceed the number of units per acre allowed and the amount of GRFA allowed, 2) it may exceed the number of units allowed per acre but may not exceed the allowable GRFA and, 3) it may exceed the allowable GRFA but not exceed the allowable number of units per acre. The purpose of density control is to limit, in an organized manner, the number of inhabitants in a given area. Though limiting the amount of area (GRFA) may have an indirect, minor effect on the number of inhabi- tants, it is not as effective as limiting the number of dwelling units, nor is it as controllable. There are always exceptions but in general, the number of dwelling units will dictate the approximate number of inhabitants, but within a given dwelling unit the amount of area will have little to do to alter the number of inhabitants directly. Most residences, duplexes, condominiums, etc. are owned by a family or an individual and are utilized by them regardless of the amount of area (GRFA) within the unit. Therefore, in the case of a pre - existing structure it should be the number of units that is limited not the amount of area within. If the area within an existing building envelope were allowed to increase internally, without impact on others and could be done wihin the limits of the adopted code restrictions it may be considered in the "victimless crime" catagory and would allow more freedom of use of the existing volume t6 the owners who wish to upgrade or improve these older buildings. An additional benefit to the health and safety of the residents of Vail may also occur if this type of expansion were allowed. It is a fact that a number of "illegal" internal expansions have occurred in this area that were constructed without the supervision and safety inspecitons afforded to a "legal project" by the building permit and inspection procedure. 1000 south Frontage road west • voil, colorado 81657 303/476 -4433 Perhaps future expansions of this type would be more likely to follow the prescribed building safety procedures if there were an allowed "vehicle" for these remodels to follow. The Town would also gain more control over these currently "bootlegged" alterations. Finally, it is my guess that there is not a great number of pre - existing, non- conforming structures that.could or would physically accommodate this type of internal expansion, and therefore the increased amount of GRFA allowed would not be significant. ( A certain percentage of those dwelling units which could accommodate this type of expansion may never be pursued.) THE PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT STATED: "We feel that GRFA as one of the bulk controls has a valid place within the respective development standards for each zone district." I feel that GRFA does aid in the limitation of excessive bulk and in our current system of controls does a reasonably good job. This proposal, however, does not request that GRFA be eliminated as a control but addresses only cases where the bulk is already physically established and further limits this bulk to no change, therefore elimiftating bulk as an issue. r1 • boldwin ossocioLes orchitects, inc. :40 orchitecture • glonning 0 Request Section 18.64.010 be amended to read: While permitting.....except as allowed in section 18.64.050 B. Request Section 18.64.050 B be amended to read: Existing non - conforming structures, in zone districts allowing residential dwelling units, which do not conform to prescribed density controls, may add GRFA only if: 1. Total number of existing dwelling and /or accomodation units is not increased. 2. Existing building envelope, bulk or enclosed volume is not expanded except as otherwise allowed. 3. Existing attached garages or other vehicle parking areas are not used for internal expansion, unless another garage is created simutaneo.usly and can be accommodated without a variance. De- tached garages may not be converted. 4. Interior expansion is limited to 20% of the existing GRFA or a maximum of 250 sq. ft. 5. Mini - impact report is submitted to the T.O.V. Planning Staff analyzing: - Exist. Unit GRFA compared to proposed unit GRFA. -- Effect of proposed changes upon parking requirements. - Proposed change in number of plumbing fixtures and method of accomodation. -- Proposed changes in impact upon electrical unit service. - Proposed changes in the relationships between dwelling units where more than one residence is involved. 6. All approval procedures for the Town of Vail are followed. 7. All adopted building codes, fire codes, health and safety regulations are followed. 8. A building permit is obtained allowing for proper construction and inspection proceedures. 1000 south Frontage road west - voil, c6orodo 81657 303/476 -4433 MEMORANDUM goTO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 23, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to amend Section 18.64 Nonconforming sites, uses, structures and site improvements to include language which will allow for interior expan- sion of pre - existing legal non - conforming uses for additional GRFA. Applicant: Richard Baldwin BACKGROUND' This proposal came to the PEC on April 25, 1983 and was extensively discussed. The PEC felt, in general, that there probably was some merit to allowing additional GRFA if the problems of garage conversions, unlimited amount of added square footage and having it apply to all zone districts could be solved. It was finally decided that "GRFA as an effective density control" was a topic which should be jointly discussed between the PEC and the Town Council. This occurred on May 2. There resulted a wide variety of opinions about the overall issue from going to computer models for volume and bulk tents (no GRFA control) to allowing only certain types of uses being exempt from GRFA (i.e. recreational amenities) to leaving GRFA as is. Other suggestions centered around neighborhood . by neighborhood development standard packages to going to a simple "count everything" approach (floor area ratio). At the conclusion of the discussion, it was generally agreed that GRFA works pretty well as it is, but that there could be some things done to encourage renovation and upgrading with relation to non - conforming uses. The applicant for the specific amendment in consideration now has not altered his proposal and, thus, we must consider it as it came in originally. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development agrees with the conclusions from the joint meeting (noted above). We feel that GRFA as one of the bulk controls has a valid place within the respective development standards for each zone district. Further, we agree with the idea that there could be revisions to the non - conforming section of the zoning code which could set forth standards and criteria for renovation and upgrading of such buildings. The staff does not believe more leniency is necessary with regard to non - conforming uses, but that non - conformities in setbacks, site coverage, landscaping, etc. could be treated in a "trade -off" type of allowance. The planning staff would 0 Non- conforming -2- 6/23/83 . like to study an appropriate criteria system to accomplish these objectives, without additional GRFA as one of the "carrots" for upgrading. With respect to the amendment before us now, we continue to recommend denial (see enclosed April 13, 1983 memorandum). We cannot support the amendment as proposed for reasons cited in that memo and for reasons stated in this corres- pondence. We would like to present our suggestions for revisions to the PEC for the nonconforming section at the September 12, 1983 PEC meeting. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 13, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning code to allow structures which are existing non - conforming uses with regard to Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to further expand their GRFA. Applicant: Baldwin Associates Architects, Inc, THE REQUEST Requested is an amendment to the non - conforming use chapter of the zoning code which, in effect, would allow only existing non - conforming buildings and /or projects which are over their allowable GRFA to increase their GRFA. There are a number of conditions set forth to be able to do so. The specific proposal is as follows: Request Section 18.64.050 B be amended to read: Existing structures, in any zone district allowing residential dwelling units, which do not conform to prescribed density controls may be enlarged only if: 1. The total number of existing dwelling units is not increased. (except persuant to...) 2. An accommodation unit or additional dwelling unit is not created by the addition of a separate entry and additional full kitchen facilities. 3. The existing building envelope or enclosed volume is not expanded. 4. All approval procedures for the Town of Vail are followed. 5. All adopted building codes, fire code, health and safety regulations are followed. 6. A building permit is obtained allowing for proper construction and inspection procedures. There are four main points to the applicant's argument for this amendment: 1. Restricting number of dwelling units per acre is a more effective means of controlling number of inhabitants than GRFA. 2. Allowing interior expansion of this nature would allow the owner more freedom of use of the existing volume of the unit. 3. It would reduce "bootleg" additions and allow subsequent additions to be constructed according to existing codes and, thus, safer. Section 18.64.050 B -2- 4/13/83 4. The amendment would not have a major impact on the.Town as the number of structures which could qualify are limited and others which could add floor area would not. EXPLANATION OF NON - CONFORMING "Non- conforming" when used in a zoning sense means that in a certain aspect a building or use in a building does not meet current regulations, Non- conforming is usually used in reference to sites, uses or structures, These can generally be created in three different ways: 1. By creation of a lot, use or structure before any zoning laws are in place. 2. By creation of a lot, use or structure conforming to existing regulations at that time and then later the regulations changed by the same jurisdiction to make it non - conforming. 3. By a change in jurisdiction over the site, use or.structure through incor- poration or annexation as a result of which the regulations in the new jurisdiction are more restrictive and create the non - conformity. The Town of Vail contains all three types of non - conformities, the most of which are represented by type 3, although type 2 are numerous as well. Non- conformities are a natural part of any jurisdiction with zoning controls as a result of changing conditions and changing community values with regard to how the community should be planned and developed. Throughout the zoning codes of the country there is not a great variety in the treatment of non - conforming uses, sites and structures as far as expansion of them is concerned. Almost all codes do not allow non - conformities to be expanded (with regard to the particular aspect of non - conformity) as this defeats the purpose of the change in the zoning which made the non- conformity. Thus, if non - conforming structures with regard to site coverage, for example, were allowed to increase their site coverage, there would be no point to the existing regulation which the community deems appropriate. Non - conformities are generally tolerated; that is, they are allowed to continue in their existing condition. Some jurisdictions set forth amortization periods by the end of which the non - conforming use must be eliminated. Another area of variation between governmental bodies is what is allowed after over 50% destruction of the non - conforming structures. Some are restrictive and require the new structure to conform while others are more liberal (Town of Vail) and allow essentially the same structure to be re -built (conforming to new building and fire codes), Section 18.64.050 B -3- 4/13/83 • The Town's zoning code is specific with the issue of enlargement. Section 18.64.010 Purpose of the zoning code states, in part: "While permitting nonconforming uses, structures and improvements to continue, this chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restroation, or replacement, which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this title." EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT The major areas of non - conformities in the Town are the oldest buildings in the Vail Village area (i.e. Mountain Hause, Vorlaufer, Texas Townhouses, etc.); Vail Lionshead (built at nearly twice the existing allowable densities); and the West Vail area in general (built under less stringent. County development standards). The amendment would allow any of the non- conforming structures with regard to GRFA to expand their interiors as much as they possibly could if they meet the six criteria proposed. At the same time, any new proposals for buildings would still be required to not exceed the existing regulations for allowable GRFA. Moreover, any building which currently meets the GRFA standards would not enjoy the privilege of interior expansion above the existing limits. In conclusion, • we would be allowing those who currently break the rules to further break the rules although saying we still feel the rules are valid. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested zoning amendment. We support the above quote from the zoning code with respect to in- creasing the discrepancy of non - conformities, We feel it would not make sense to reward those owners of property with existing non -- conformities to expand those while making anew developer comply with the regulations. This seems not only inconsistent to us, but the principal of it does not support the integrity of the regulation itself. Existing GRFA controls have been arrived at via a long process of assessment and re- assessment of community values as well as trial and error of what works well for controlling numbers of people per acre. This should not be abandoned by releasing the ceiling on those buildings and /or projects which already enjoy more than others are permitted according to our current regulations • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 11:30 am: Site Inspections 1:00 pm Public Hearing • July 25, 1983 1. Request to rezone Treetops Condominiums from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) zone° district to Commercial Core II district in order to add retail space and requesting an examption to Section 18.52.090 to allow a loading space within the required front setback. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association 2. Request for an :amendment to Sections 18.04.030, 18.22.090, and 18.24.130 in order to increase the number of accommodation units allowed in the Commercial Core I and the Public Accommodation zone districts. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. 3. Request for a side -- setback variance to construct a garage for a residence on Lot 5, Block 3, Bighorn Third Addition, in a Low Density Multiple Family zone district. Applicants: Karl Forstner and Theo Moosburger 4. Request to rezone a parcel commonly known as the Getty Oil site, a 1.02 acre of unplatted parcel of land located immediately west of Pitkin Creek on Bighorn Road, from Low Density Multi - family (LDMF) with 2 employee housing units to Heavy Service (HS) in order to build a service station and car wash on the property. Applicant: Brooks Investments 5. Requests for exterior alterations. to the following buildings: A. Gore Creek Plaza Building: Enclosure of north side outdoor decks for 1. Sweet Basil 2. Blu's Beanery B. Lifthouse Lodge Building: To alter Purcell's south deck (enclose some area) and to create a new retail shop. C. Village Center Retail Shops: to add a new retail addition on the east end and to revise the entrance to the Toymaker's Trail shop. D. Lodge at Vail: to expand and remodel two restaurants. 6. Request for an amendment to Section 17.26.060 Condominium Conversions to delete language which would require a converted condominium to have separate utility meters for each unit, and to delete language that would require the converted condomium to pay fees equal to the fees charged if the building were new, minus previous building permit fees. Applicant: Town of Vail 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 July 25, 1983 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Dan Corcoran Jim Morgan Gordon Pierce Duane Piper Will Trout Jim Viele ARI�FNT Diana Donovan ABSENT FROM SITE INSPECTIONS Jim Morgan Dick Ryan Peter Patten Peter Jamar Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 1:05 by the chairman, Dan Corcoran. Piper moved and Pierce seconded to approve the minutes of July 11, 1983. The vote was 5 -0. 1. Request to rezone Treetops Condominiums from High Density Multi le Family HDMF to CCII in order to add retail space. Applicant: Treetops Condo Assoc. . Peter Jamar explained that Treetops Condo Assoc. had appeared before the PEC two previous times with this application, and both times tabled to address various concerns of both the staff and the PEC. The concerns were: 1. snow removal, 2. Fire Department access, 3. location of the loading berth, and 4. potential traffic and circulation problems. He added that the applicant had met with the staff and responded to the concerns (see Memo), with the exception of the traffic and circulation problems, for which they had made some suggestions. Because the staff did not believe the traffic and circulation had been solved, they were recommending denial. He added that it was felt that the 4 parking spaces to be designated short term parking in the TT parking structure would generate more traffic. Ted Strauss, president of Treetops Condo Assoc. stated that the four spaces had been requested by the Police Department, and that they would be glad to remove them. He added that they did not want any food service or liquor stores in the building. He stated that he had met with all the people who had shown concerns at the previous meetings and felt that the proposal was a positive one. Trout was supportive, and suggested that the PEC restrict the specific uses allowed in the building. Pierce agreed and stated that he felt the temporary parking spaces were more trouble than they were worth. Peter Jamar reminded them that the Polic@ Dept. had suggested earlier that some short term parking be made available with some kind of identification. Pierce wondered if this would truly be a traffic generator, since it represented a small percentage of Lionshead. PJ said that it represented one more node of activity in a location that was already high in congestion. Pierce asked if the Town had a way of resolving the traffic problem. Jamar stated that he hoped the TOV could solve the problem, but that the Town had not studied the feasibility or budgeted this. Piper felt that it was too bad that there was this problem right on the heels of installing a new parking structure. He felt the proposal PEC 7/25/83 -2- would enhance the area and that the applicant had adequate solutions to all requests with the exception of the traffic problem. Piper added that it was a shame to penalize this particular property because the traffic problem should have been recognized . by the TOV when building the parking structure, or the TO should be working on the problem now. Piper wondered if any study had been done on the retail space within the parking structure when it was built, and Patten answered that he didn't know, for he wasn't involved with the project. Viele shared Piper's opinion, although he concurred with the staff on the traffic problem. Morgan recognized the traffic problem also, but was in favor of the project. He suggested that perhaps the Town could have more dramatic signage at the top of Lionshead Circle. Trout moved and Pierce seconded to recommend to the Town Council approval of the request to rezone Treetops from HDMF to CCII with two conditions: 1. that the proposed 4 short term parking spaces not .be constructed, and 2, that the types of businesses allowed in the retail spaces be those listed in the code with the exce tion of bakeries and confectioneries, delicatessens and specialty food store! drugstores and pharmacies, florist, newsstands and tobacco stores, and ticket and travel agencies. The vote was 5 in favor, none a ainst with Corcoran abstaining. 2. Re uest for an amendment to the code to increase the number of accommodation units allowed in the CCI and PA districts. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Corcoran read a letter from the applicant requesting to table until August 22. Piper moved and Viele seconded to table and the vote was 6 -0. 3. Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage for a residence on Lot 5, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicants: Forstner and Moosburger Peter Patten explained that the applicants believe the north side of the house is the best site for the garage, but the staff.felt that there were other places the garage could be built without requiring a variance. Theo Moosburger, one of the applicants, stated that they now felt that they could make some concessions and could move the garage and make it smaller whiich would result -in a variance of only one foot. Patten responded that the staff would have to see the new site plan to respond to the new request. Moosburger wondered why he and Forstner weren't notified when the condo beside them built into their setback area, and since it happened before Patten or Jamar worked for the TOV, they didn't know. Moosburger added that they did not want the garage on the south side because of a deck and because they felt that sooner or later they would be building on the other side of the property and would need this space for a right -of -way and for snow storage. After more discussion, Piper pointed out that the board would have to find a hardship in that there would be no other locations that would be available in order to grant a variance. Trout stated that he would support the applicant tabling to resubmit a new proposal. Patten answered that the applicant would have to submit a new proposal, and that the board could not vote on that today, but only on the proposal . that had already been submitted. Piper moved and Pierce seconded to deny the variance as presented in the memo. The vote was 5 in favor with . ()Trout a ainst. Corcoran reminded the applicants that they had 10 days in which to appeal the decision to the Council. PEC -3- 7/25/83 4. Request to rezone ._a parcel commonly known as the Getty Oil site, a 1.02 acre of un latted parcel immediately west of Pitkin Creek on Bighorn Road, from . LDMF to Heavy Service HS in order to build a service station and car wash. Applicant: Brooks Investments Peter Jamar explained that this property had been changed from Heavy Service to LDMF in 1980 when the PEC and the Town Council felt that residential use was a more appropriate use for the site than any of the uses listed in HS district. He referred to the traffic study made for the applicant by Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc. in which they estimated an additional 10% to the percentages listed with the addition of the car wash. Peter Jamar felt that this was an underestimate. Stan Brooks, the applicant, stated that upon looking at .a petition against his proposal and the opinion of the staff, he wished to withdraw his proposal. Corcoran told Brooks that the board appreciated his response to the community feelings. 5. Reauests for exterior alteration to: A. Gore Creek Plaza Buildinq: 1. Sweet Basil Corcoran read a letter from the applicant withdrawing this project. S2. Blu's Beanery Corcoran read a letter from the applicant asking to table until August 8. Viele moved and Piper seconded to table_ to August 8. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabl_ing.. 40 Lifthouse Lodge Building: To alter Purcell's south deck enclose some area and to create a new retail shop. Peter Jamar explained the addition and showed site plans. He explained that the proposal met the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead and the deck followed the Urban Design Guide Plan for decks and patios. He questioned the use of an awning wondering if it would take away part of the sun. Ken Wentworth, architect for the project stated that the awning was only ten feet high and the angle of the sun was relatively low. He added that Purcell's looked like it was in three parts, and this design would unify the building. Trout felt the project was good, Pierce agreed, and Piper asked about the landscaping, wondering how much of it would be lost. Wentworth stated that the planter would be 30" high in which one of the evergreens would be relocated along with other plants. Piper asked about the possibility of using steel grates, and Wentworth answered that the trees would take up too much room. Viele felt it was a good plan., as did Morgan and Corcoran. Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve the project as submitted. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. PFC -4- 7/25/83 C. Vil?a ee Center Retail Shops: to add a new retail addition on the east end and to revise the entrance to the To maker's Trail sho Peter Patten stated that the applicant, Fred Hibberd, asked to table this until August 22. Pierce moved and Piper seconded to table. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. D. -Lodge at Vail: to expand and remodel two restaurants. Dick Ryan showed a site plan explaining that only part of the plan was the proposal. He reviewed the impacts under the Urban Design Guide Plan and Considerations and explained that the applicant would have to pay the applicable parking fee, and that one condition of approval was that the applicant agree to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if one was formed for the Village area. Jay Peterson, representing Lodge Properties, Inc., stated that only the alteration of the Salt Lick bar would be done now, with the rest done next season. He added that the TOV wants pedestrians to come from Founder's Plaza, and it was the intention of the Lodge to tie their plaza to the Founder's Plaza. The board, upon polling was generally in favor of the project. Trout questioned the removal of outdoor dining space, since the board had denied other projects which included this type of removal. Peterson said that they would commit that they would replace any outdoor dining, that it was to the the +'applicant's advantage to have outdoor dining in that area. Trout then asked what the next phase of the Lodge was going to be, and Peterson showed on the site plan the addition to the International Room which would probably not be presented until September. Trout asked how the outdoor dining would be handled if the International Room expansion was not approved, and Peterson replied that the outdoor dining would simply move outward from the building. Trout suggested that one condition of approval be that an equal amount of square footage of outdoor dining be replaced. Trout moved and Pi er seconded to approve the Lode expansion per the staff recommendation and memo and add the following condition: Prior to obtaining a buildin ermit for the Arlber restaurant, a lan be submtted and approved for an outdoor cafe of equal size to the one existing. Peter Patten suggested chap in this to state: Before a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued for the Arlberg restaurant, the outdoor dinin area equal to or greater than the existin one, must be in ace. Trout revise his motion as Der Patten's recommendation. 6. Re uest for an amendment to Section 17.26.060 Condominium Conversions to delete ian ua a which would require a converted condominium to have separate utilit meters for each unit, and to delete la lull e that would require the payment of fees e ual to the fees char ed if the buildin were new, minus revious buildin permit fees. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten reminded the board that they had asked for this amendment. Viele moved and Trout seconded to a rove the amendment. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm. r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 19, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an exterior alteration and modification to permit the expansion of two restaurants at the Lodge at Vail. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. REQUEST: This is part one of a potential two -part proposal for Lodge Properties, Inc. The request under the 60 day review period is the expansion of two restaurants. First, there would be a 730 square foot expansion to the Salt Lick restaurant to be renamed The Wildflower restaurant. Second, there would be a 375 square foot expansion to the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant. HISTORY: During July, 1981, the Town Council approved a 620 square foot expansion for a restaurant named Harry's Bar. The proposal was a one story addition to the east of the Salt Lick restaurant, • A. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION The Commercial Core I 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 predominantly pedestrian envi- ronment. The Commercial Core I 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 Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The proposed restaurant expansions comply with the purpose section of Commercial Core I district. B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS I. Sub -area Concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan No sub -area concept of the plan is related to this proposal. lk Lodge Expansion -2- 7/19/83 2. Pedestrianization • The restaurant expansions do not directly impact pedestrian movement. If the entire plan for the Lodge Properties, Inc. is executed, there would be a change in pedestrianization 3. Vehicle Penetration No change 4. Streetscape Framework No change. 5. Street Enclosure No change 6. Street Ed e No change 7. Building Height There would be actually no change in building height. At the time that this proposal was before the Town Council there was some concern with the flat roof, When Harry's Bar went before the DRB a sloping roof • was presented. $. Views There is no designated view corridor in the area. 9. Service and Deliver No change. 10. Sun /Shade Not impacted by the proposal. D. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Parking: Applicant is required to pay applicable parking fee for restaurant expansions. E. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS . The Design Review Board will review the architectural plans for both restaurants. A Lodge at Vail Expansion -3- 7/19/83 The only concern of the staff is the loss of outside dining, specifically at the Salt Lick restaurant. A part of the future proposal is to have a is temporary canvas pavilion for outside dining during the summer. If this is constructed, then there would be less concern for the loss of the current patio. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the two restaurant expansions. The Department considers that the request is in conformance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan, Commercial Core zone district and Design Considerations. Again, the Design Review Board should look at the flat roof issue. The one condition of approval is that the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if.one is formed for the Vail Village area, r� l.� MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request alteration and modification in Commercial Core construct an addition to the south side of the (Purcell's) and to create a new retail shop. I. PROPOSAL for an exterior II in order to Lifthouse Lodge The applicant desires to construct an addition of approximately 570 square feet to the south side of the Lifthouse Lodge and to relocate the existing Purcell's outdoor dining deck. (See attached site plan,) II. COMPLIANCE WITH CCII ZONE DISTRICT The application is in compliance with the CCII zone district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN Item 18 of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan states "Commercial expansion (1 story) to emphasize pedestrian level. Patio area enlarged slightly for additional dining space (a sun - pocket area), and wider inviting steps, also a sitting function." The application is in general compliance with the above sub -area concept of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan, IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The proposed addition and relocation of the patio meet the Urban Design Considera- tions for the Lionshead area. The Considerations state that "the challenge in Lionshead is to develop vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale within a contemporary architectural expression," The proposal generally meets this intent by further increasin the pedestrian scale of the Lifthouse Lodge, and slightly enlarging (30 sq ft� the existing patio and locating it further to the south to receive more direct sunlight and visibility from the west. The addition of the retail shop will create an added vitality by generating additional traffic into the vicinity. The transparency of the restaurant addition will give a pedestrian, open character to the street. The proposed design incorporates several benches into the planters designed to surround the patio, • V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS • L� Purcei1's- Lifthouse -2- 7/20/83 The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate parking fee based on the addition of 670 square feet. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the requested exterior alteration and modification. The expansion will further help to reduce the scale of the overall building and the relocating of the patio area will allow the area to receive more sunlight and will reduce the amount of separation between the street and the patio. k\ p j l 1 1 {( y MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Department of Community Development DATE: July 19, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for side setback variance to construct a garage on Lot 5, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision, 3rd Addition. Applicants: Karl Forstner /Theo Moosburger DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants wish to construct a two car garage for their existing duplex. They believe the north side of the house is the best site due to it being level, the most accessible (the existing driveway is there), the south side should be left open, and the west side is used for snow storage. They plan a future building on the southeast corner of the lot and wish to keep an open area to the south of the existing building for access. See enclosed site plan. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and the Department of Community variance based upon the fol Consideration of Factors Findin s, Section 18.62,060 of the Munici al Code Development recommends denial of the requested lowinq factors:.. The relationship. of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The lot directly to the north contains townhouses, the most southerly of which is located nine feet from the common property line with a deck three feet away. Locating the garage next to the existing dwelling will minimize the impacts on the townhouses. Since this lot does contain more allowable units, they would probably be located more directly adjacent to the existing structure rather than totally separating them as the applicant has indicated. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforce- meet of a specified regulation is necessar to achieve compatibility and uniformi of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this of this title without grant of special privilege. The applicant has not demonstrated physical hardship to the degree that they need a setback variance for the garage, Simply by rotating the structure so the southwest corner touches the north wall of the existing building (eliminating the six foot walkway), the garage can be built without a setback variance. Opportunities also exist to the southwest of the existing house. Granting the variance, then, would be a special privilege because the garage can be built without a variance. Lot 5, B1 k 3, Bpi 3, --2- 7/19/83 The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of o u- lation, trans ortation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and pu is safety No effects on these factors are foreseen. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following find:in s 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 incon- 40 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the variance request. The applicant can clearly build an adequate garage on the property without a setback variance. r� U J.= NI r - t I1 i III b m �1 7 e.r I� 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to rezone Treetops Condominiums from High Density Multiple - Family Zone District to Commercial Core II Zone District in order to add retail space. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association As you'll recall, the Treetops Condominium Association has appeared before the PEC two previous times with this application. Both times the proposal has been tabled to address various concerns of both the Town staff and the Planning Commission. The proposal was tabled at the April 25 meeting in order to enable the applicant to study possible traffic and circulation problems which could be potentially generated by the proposal and also to investigate alternative solutions to a potential snow storage problem and the location of the loading zone. The proposal was tabled gain on June 13 to again investigate several potential problems with the proposal. These concerns were: 1. Facilitation of snow removal; 2. Facilitation of Fire Department access; 3. Location of the loading berth; and 4. Further consideration of potential traffic and circulation problems. Since the June 13th meeting the applicant has met with various members of the Town of Vail staff and has responded to the various concerns in the following manner (see attached revised site plan): Item _1. The applicant has reduced the area of the proposed plaza and the existing berm will remain in essentially its present form and .thus the proposal should not adversely affect snow storage. Item 2. The Fire Department's concerns regarding access have been addressed by the applicant in terms of increasing the turning radius into the project and also by raising the pedestrian bridge from the Treetops parking structure to the condo -- miniums one level. Item 3. The loading berth has been re- located out of the front setback to the east side of the proposed retail space. • Treetops -2- 7/20/83 Item 4. In terms of continuing to look at potential traffic and circulation problems in East Lionshead Circle and the impacts of the proposal, the applicants have proposed the following solutions. 1. The provision of 4 "short term" parking spaces for customers of the proposed retail shops within the second level of their parking structure; 2. Agreement to designate "desired tenant types" for the purpose of limiting vehicular traffic impacts; and 3. Suggestion that the various lodge shuttle buses shift their drop -off and pick -up points further to the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS After reviewing the revisions the applicant has made to the original submittal (original memo attached), the Department of Community Development continues to recommend that the proposal not be approved. Although the applicant has adequately addressed concerns regarding snow storage, fire access, and the location of the loading berth, we do not believe that the central issue of traffic and cirulation has been solved, As our previous recommendation stated, we do not believe that any additional predes -- trian nodes of activity should be considered until a method is devised and imple- mented whereby traffic and access on Lionshead Circle can be controlled, The applicant, through providing four short -term parking spaces and agreeing to limit uses within the building has made an effort to alleviate some of the potential increase in traffic. However, we do not believe that these solutions will be effective enough to outweigh the potential increased intensity of activity within East Lionshead Circle. As stated before, the area is currently the scene of a great amount of congestion and confusion during the winter months. The staff believes that there needs to be a permanent solution to these current problems prior to the decision to create any new activity center in the immediate area. The staff does believe that once the current traffic and circulation problems can be corrected in East Lionshead Circle, the Treetops proposal would be a positive one in terms of an aesthetic and functional enhancement to the existing Treetops parking structure, and the creation of an aesthetically pleasing entry to Lionshead from the East in the form of a commercial retail expansion of the Lionshead Mall. .......... \11;�� . �� ^' '� p�� ,gyp � T T � + ii I IKI Nv _4 - \ I` I 11 of Jf of MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to rezone lot 6, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing (Treetops Condominiums) from the High Density Multiple Family zone district to the Commercial Core II zone district and to allow a loading space within the required front setback. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association As you'll recall, at the April 18, 1983 PEC meeting the Treetops rezoning proposal was tabled as recommended by the staff in order to investigate traffic and circu- lation impacts of the proposal upon the already congested East Lionshead Circle area. Enclosed is a copy of the study conducted by TDA Transportation Consultants and also a copy of the original staff memo regarding the proposal. The staff also requested that a method of solving the snow storage problem which would be created by the proposal should be investigated. The PEC suggested that the loading space be removed from the front setback area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After review of the Traffic Impact Assessment the DCD staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning. The study points out that "the current traffic circula- tion problem in East Lionshead Circle is the result of too many dispersed pedestrian nodes within one compact transportation hub" and that "what is not needed along East Lionshead Circle is any form of development that will encourage additional nodes of "kiss -n- ride" activity, i.e., vans or cars coming into the area for the distinct purpose of dropping off or picking up other passengers." The report goes on to state that "the Treetops commercial development must ensure that the frontage curb space will not be used by their tenants, shoppers or visitors, as this would only compound the serious winter problem that has been described." The study states that the impacts of the proposal could be alleviated by several methods which include: 1. Restrict parking along the proposed new curb to "No Standing or Stopping Any Time," year- round. 2. Formalize agreement that visitor or shopper short -term parking demand created by this commercial development will be satisfied in the nearby public parking structure. 3. Condition the Commercial Core II rezoning to preclude certain uses that could cause curbside parking enforcement problems, These uses include small appliance repair shops, travel and ticket agencies, photocopy centers, cleaners, post office, and similar uses that require carrying large objects or cater to brief transactions. r: s Treetops -2- 6/7/83 4. Through berming and sidewalk construction, offer an attractive pedestrian connection between the proposed commercial development and the Lionshead parking structure portal to preclude more pedestrian travel through the critical bus /truck area. The staff believes that the suggested measures do not adequately solve the congestion problem at East Lionshead Circle. Input received from the Police, Public Works, and Transportation departments indicates that the mere signing of the curb.area and agreements not to park in that area will not work. We also do not feel that it- would be feasible in this location to totally eliminate the problem of curbside parking by limiting the uses to be located within the building. Obviously some uses generate more traffic than others, however, we do not feel that this measure would do enough to create a no- impact situation. We feel that if the commercial space is successful it will generate certain amounts of "kiss sin- ride" and drop - off traffic in addition to the traffic that exists now, The .study also suggests the integration of the proposal to provide a consoli- dated eastbound westbound bus platform. This suggestion will not be successful for several reasons. The Transportation department believes that buses would not be able to make the turn during times of congestion, confusion would be created in the waiting area, the number of buses traveling in east and west directions is not consistent, and the room needed to que the buses would be eliminated. Also suggested in the study is the fact that "further improvement in traffic operation and pedestrian safety will be realized if courtesy van and private. auto drop -off points are relocated outside the East Lionshead Plaza area." The traffic counts shown on page 3 of the report indicate that the highest volume during the two two -hour periods was private autos (42% of the total vehicle volume.) From direct observation and analysis of the time lapse photography, the staff knows that a portion of the private auto traffic is comprised of skier drop -off and pick -up vehicles, a function which is not allowed in the area. However, no strong access controls currently exist to keep these vehicles out of the area. It is the staff's feeling that until a solution which addresses this problem is arrived at, no additional problems should be created in East Lionshead Circle. We believe that this is the only recommendation suggested in this study that will substantially solve the traffic and circulation problems in the area. In summary, we do not believe that any additional "pedestrian nodes" should be considered in this area until a method is devised whereby vehicular traffic and access can be controlled on Lionshead Circle. Also, the problems of snow storage and the placement of the proposed loading dock in the front setback have not been addressed. • i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 13, -1983 SUBJECT: Application to rezone Lot 6, Vail Lionshead First Filing from High Density Multiple - Family zone district to Commercial Core II zone district and to receive an exemption from the loading requirements in order to allow a loading space with the required front setback. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The request is to rezone the lot upon which the Treetops Condominiums are located. The basic reason that Treetops has initiated this proposal is to alleviate various functional and maintenance problems associated with the existing parking structure on the site. Their desire is to rezone the property in order to permit the addition of commercial space on top of the existing structure, thereby eliminating the drainage -and ice build -up problems which are currently experienced during the winter months. The Treetops Association also sees as a result of the rezoning proposal an opportunity to provide a structure housing approximately 8000.-square feet of retail commercial space and a landscaped pedestrian walkway plaza area which would "promote greatly enhanced pedestrian and traffic circulation in the East Mall area, enhance the community quality and economic value of its environs by the creation of a vigorous and active retail establishment and its attractive environs, enhance the effectiveness of the Lionshead Improvement District (when implemented) by means of the defined corridor connector to East Lionshead Circle, and greatly enhance the appearance of the site by the creation of the landscaped pedestrian accessway and the effective screening of existing unsightly structures." The Association sees the rezoning to allow the addition of the commercial space as a vehicle to accomplish these goals. In addition to the retail commercial space, the addition would include a small manager's office for Treetops, a laundry area for Treetops owners and guests, storage area, trash disposal, and mechanical equipment for the buildings. CURRENT ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS The lot upon which the Treetops condominiums exist is zoned High Density Multiple - Family zone district and contains 39,050 square feet. The lot to the west is occupied by Lionshead Center which consists of Condominium units and ground level commercial retail space. Lionshead Center is zoned Commercial Core II. The lot adjacent on the east of Treetops is occupied by the Lodge at Lionshead and consists of condominiums. The Lodge at Lionshead is zoned High Density Multiple -- Family. The following table compares Treetops development statistics according to existing conditions, the HDMF zone district (current zoning), 10 0, Treetops -2W 4/13/83 The Commercial Core II zone district states that any enlargment of the CCII zone district boundaries must be accompanied by the adoption of a development plan for the proposed district. The proposed site plan for the Treetops commercial expansion and plaza are the development plan. (see attached) In terms of the development statistics shown in the above table, it should be noted that several aspects of the current development upon the Treetops site are noncon- forming in relation to the HDMF zoning. Since the proposed commercial structure is proposed to be placed on top of the existing parking structure, no site development statistics are changed other than the 38' height of the new structure and the addi- tional 8,000 square feet of commercial space. Both meet the requlations and require- ments of the proposed CCII zoning, The 10' setback requirement of the CCII district would be met with the construction of the new building. PARKING AND LOADING The addition of 8,000 square feet of commercial space would require 27 additional parking spaces. The manager's office would require one additional space. Therefore, if approved, Treetops will have to contribute to the Town parking fund a fee which corresponds to this requirement. The 50 spaces which exist now will remain to accommodate the parking for the existing condominiums. TREETOPS CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS Existing Allowed Under Allowed Under HDMF CCII Density (units) 26 condo units 22 22 GRFA 36,369 sq ft 23,430 31,240 sq ft COMMERCIAL SQ FT 0 2,343 (as accessory unlimited to a Lodge) HEIGHT 63' 48' 38' COVERAGE 15,952 (40.81) 21,477 (55 %) 27,335 (70 %) LANDSCAPING 23,098 11,715 (30%) 7,810 (20 %) PARKING 50 52 required 52 required LOADING 0 1 1 SETBACKS 8' (north) 20' (all sides) 10' (all sides) 7' (east) 15' (west) 10' (south) The Commercial Core II zone district states that any enlargment of the CCII zone district boundaries must be accompanied by the adoption of a development plan for the proposed district. The proposed site plan for the Treetops commercial expansion and plaza are the development plan. (see attached) In terms of the development statistics shown in the above table, it should be noted that several aspects of the current development upon the Treetops site are noncon- forming in relation to the HDMF zoning. Since the proposed commercial structure is proposed to be placed on top of the existing parking structure, no site development statistics are changed other than the 38' height of the new structure and the addi- tional 8,000 square feet of commercial space. Both meet the requlations and require- ments of the proposed CCII zoning, The 10' setback requirement of the CCII district would be met with the construction of the new building. PARKING AND LOADING The addition of 8,000 square feet of commercial space would require 27 additional parking spaces. The manager's office would require one additional space. Therefore, if approved, Treetops will have to contribute to the Town parking fund a fee which corresponds to this requirement. The 50 spaces which exist now will remain to accommodate the parking for the existing condominiums. Treetops -3- 4/13/83 The addition of the commercial space will require the addition of one loading space. The zoning code states that the location of loading spaces may not be located within any required front setbacks unless an exemption is granted by the Town Council for the following reasons: 1, That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at large; 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the Town; 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improve- ments in the vicinity of the area to be exempted; 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, con- runity, group or common parking facilities; for provision of adequate loading facilities and for a system for distribution and pickup of goods; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, loading and distribution facilites shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs generated by all uses in the area to be exempted. The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting an exemption from this requirement. They wish to locate the required loading space within the required 10 foot setback for the following reasons: "Because of the configuration of the site, it is not possible to locate the required loading space without a corner encroachment into the front setback. It is felt that the value of the loading space far outweighs this encroachment. Further: 1. The exemption is in the interest of the area and the town at large; 2. The exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefits; 3. The exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements; 4. The proposed loading facility will provide for an adequate system for distribution and pick up of goods." STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Treetops proposal contains many positive aspects both in terms of alleviating their own problems and several community concerns. Obviously the project is a benefit to Treetops in terms of the functional problems of the parking structure. In terms of community benefits the following aspects of the proposal are positive: 1. The entrance into Lionshead from the Village to the east is curently con- fusing, undefined, and at times an unsafe experience. Confrontation with cars, vehicles loading and unloading,and with buses leaving the East Lionshead entry is almost inevitable. The provision of an attractively landscaped, well defined walkway along the edge of the proposed commercial structure could solve some of this conflict between the pedestrian and vehicles and provide a clear pathway whereby the pedestrian can enter Lionshead; Treetops -4- 4/13/83 2. The area as it exists today is not as aesthetically pleasing as it might be. The additional structure upon the site would eliminate the open unenclosed parking which exists on the top level by providing attractive retail space and providing a landscaped plaza /walkway along the street edge; 3. The commercial expansion could help to reduce the scale of Lionshead to a more pedestrian scale and create both an interesting entry for those coming into Lionshead and to pedestrians starting on their way to the Village; and 4, The project would create an increased area for both the bus lane and for loading vehicles in East Lionshead Circle. The proposal also carries some negative aspects: 1. The East Lionshead entry is the most congested point from an operations standpoint within the Town of Vail. The area consists of heavy pedestrian traffic, bus traffic, truck loading and unloading, lodge shuttle bus drop - off and pick -up, and automobile traffic., All of these activities interface in a rather confined area. The proposal would create an additional crosswalk within this area, require additional service vehicles and loading vehicles to pass through the area, will encourage more automobile and pedestrian traffic within the area, and generally result in an increase in the intensity of use of the area. The impacts from the proposal upon the currently congested area are not fully known. 2. The area within the proposal designed as the walkway /plaza area is currently utilized by the Town for a snow storage area. The area is Town of Vail property and a solution to deal with snow removal does not seem to be apparent in conjunction with the proposal. With the above factors in mind, the Department of Community Development recommends that the proposal be tabled for a period of sixty days. During this time period, it is requested that the applicant conduct a study, which addresses the traffic and circulation problems stated above, Without knowing the implications of the proposal with regard to the problems currently experienced with the East Lionshead entry, we cannot adequately evaluate the proposal. The study should be conducted by a transportation specialist mutually selected by the applicant and the Town and should specifically address the following areas of concern: A. The probable or projected increase of both pedestrian and vehiclular traffic from the addition and the relationship of the expected increase upon the present circulation pattern from the point where Lionshead Circle intersects with the frontage road to the access points of the Treetops parking structure, including the East Lionshead Entry bus turnaround and loading area; B. The projected or probable effects upon the existing circulation pattern by the proposed crosswalk location at the east end of the Lionshead Auxilliary Building; and (• Treetops -5- 4/13/83 C. Ananalysis of alternative solutions to mitigate any adverse impacts upon the current vehicular and pedestrian circulation caused by the Treetops proposal. In conjunction with this study a method of solving the snow storage problem should be investigated. In summary, the Treetops proposal possesses some very positive aspects, but also poses some potential problems in an already congested area. Without further study, it is difficult to make an intelligent recommendation to the Planning and Environmental Commission. I-,- -_ is N vx, ;y • TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT of the Proposed TREETOPS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Vail, Colorado Prepared for TREETOPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCATION Vail, Colorado May 19, 1983 Prepared by TDA Colorado, Inc.. Transportation Consultants 1155 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 rINTRODUCTION The Treetops Condominium Association proposes to construct 8,000 sq. ft. of condominium office /retail space atop an existing two -level parking deck just east of East Lionshead Plaza. The new construction will preserve the the existing 50 parking spaces which support the 26 Treetops condominium units. Additional parking demand created by the office /retail activity will effectively be accommodated in the nearby 1100 -space Lionshead Parking structure. During the winter ski season the Plaza is the scene of bustling activity as transit busses, courtesy vans, private cars, delivery and service trucks, and pedestrians vie for limited circulation space at the east entry to Lionshead Mall. This analysis is directed at assessing the potential traffic impact to this area resulting from the addition of 8,000 sq. ft. of retail /office space as proposed by the Treetops Condominium Association. While our field observations may recognize some of the current operational problems, it was not our task at this juncture to propose a definitive East Lionshead traffic improvement plan. Such a task would require more in -depth assessment of parking, access, and circulation needs. EXISTING CONDITIONS East Lionshead Circle provides sole vehicular access to parking for the Treetops, Vail Lionshead Condominiums, the , Lodge at Lionshead, Vail International, and Lionshead Center. When the Lionshead public parking structure was constructed to replace surface parking, the east end of the Loop was disconnected from the Frontage Road. East Lionshead "Circle" is now an L-- shaped cul -de -sac road with all entry and exit to the Frontage Road occurring west of the parking structure (see Figure 1 ). Town busses are the only vehicles able to pass directly through to Vail Center via a bus- only gate at the east end of the Loop near the Dobson Ice Arena. -I- VDA I =1 ljw d a -7/7 ■ m a ■ ■ i� O • ° a ■ iI �JI .. 1 o d 4 W uow Bridge fib Chairlll �. it Ln�irl +lt N v a c ro r V■ • a u Y 1.: •�1� r w • • �4 C ,n dc�nvdv ®d'anncl� 3Red Sandstone Rd •■1Z■ • �• U• a c n i"r 0 0 w ` v b d° A O i �4 O C �v Lf N O d 0 S a IR Z LLI G _l LL-1 LU r .� Q .-1 Q U W U c..y LL! A f /i [L 2 F^ LLJ A Q N o LiJ lti Of: Q I--- U7 Z C=71 LLi O �- n— E� Q uj LU n< �L d j F— t L- L.0 H Vi r —� Lli U d J U H A H LL S a IR Due to the cul-de -sac, vehicles entering the Loop that don't have a parking destination must travel east where a turnaround has been provided near the southeast corner of the parking structure. Because of this, each transient (non- parking) vehicle produces two vehicle trips through the Plaza area (one eastbound, one westbound). Vehicular activity is further focused on the Plaza as truck loading is designated in a space in the interior of the Plaza area. This loading zone services the shops and establishments in Lionshead Mall. The zone is created through signing and channelization. Courtesy vans have a passenger loading zone designated along the westbound curbiine. All vans enter from the Frontage Road, proceed through the Plaza area, use the turnaround near the southeast corner of the parking structure and stop in the westbound travel lane just' short of the Plaza area in a "Permit Only" area. For each activity - onloading skiers in the a.m., boarding skiers in the p.m. _ courtesy vans pass through the busy Plaza area twice. Since its opening in 1981, the Lionshead parking structure has proven a popular destination for day - skiers. Walking distance from parking to the Gondola at Lionshead is almost half the distance of a comparable walk between the parking structure in Vail Center to Chair Lifts #1 and #16. Understandably, the stairway at the southwest corner of the structure is the predominant portal for day skiers heading to the Gondola Terminal. The main pedestrian path crosses East Lionshead Circle just north of the Plaza. . To encourage shopping, visitors are allowed 2Yz hours of free parking at the Lionshead and Vail Transportation Center public parking structures. The shoppers use the same pedestrian crossing to and from Lionshead Center. The town's 30-foot long transit coaches pass through this area all day. East Lionshead Plaza is a stop along the route from Golden Peak in Vail Center to the Concert Hall Plaza at the west end of Lionshead. Westbound busses stop along the street just west of the brick crosswalk to the parking structure. Eastbound busses pass through a bus -only gate that preserves an - 2- MA • exclusive bus -only boarding area contiguous to the Mall entrance. During high demand situations westbound busses "short turn" by turning left to enter the eastbound bus boarding area through the entry gate. Before turning short the westbound bus "pulses" with the previous westbound bus. That is, the lead bus waits for the trailing bus to arrive so passengers on the trailing bus wanting to continue west can transfer to the lead bus. The trailing bus then executes its short turn without passengers. Traffic Volumes Recognizing East Lionshead Plaza is a traffic and pedestrian circulation problem on many days each ski season, the Town's Community Development Department took time lapse photography of the area during one of 1983's peak periods - the President's holiday weekend in February. We have summarized the observed traffic movements in Table 1. TABLE 1 PEAK PERIOD VEHICLE -TRIPS East Lionshead Transit Plaza February 19, 1983 8 to 10 A.M. 3 to 5 P.M. VEHICLE Westbnd Eastbnd Westbnd Eastbnd TOTAL Town Bus 9 9 23 (1) 22 (1) 63 (23 ) Vans 17 16 25 22 80(29) Private Autos 32 30 38 34 134 (42 ) TOTAL 58 55 86 78 277000) (Percent) (21) (20) (31) (28) (100) Source: Based on Time Lapse Photograph conducted by Vail Community Development Department. I. Includes westbound trips that turn back eastbound at the East Lionshead Transit Plaza. While the total volume, 277 vehicle -trips in a four hour period, is not in itself anywhere near the capacity of a two -lane road, it is the activity of pedestrians Criss- crossing the Plaza and loading and unloading into vehicles which produces periods of congestion. -3- VDA The highest vehicle volume during the two two -hour periods was private autos, 42 percent of the total vehicle volume. Some of these trips are destination guests of the aforementioned lodges. Others are obviously day - skiers dropping or loading passengers. Vans, at 29 percent of the total, are the second highest user while town busses are the lowest user at 23 percent of all vehicle trips. THE TREETOPS PROPOSAL The 8,000 square foot space is proposed for office /retail use. Tenant parking would be accommodated in the nearby Lionshead structure. No new parking will be added at the Treetops parking deck. An off - street truck loading dock will be provided as part of the on -site construction. Trip Generation /Parking In a typical setting a free - standing commercial complex of this type could rbe expected to attract 100 to 900 vehicle trips per day. These values are determined from compilation of actual counts at numerous locations and are reported in a standard reference.) The low number represents an all office use while the high number is 'indicative of a small shopping center. • Retail Alternative Clearly the Treetops development is not analogous to a standard free standing shopping center. Like Lionshead Center itself, the primary market draw will be skiers and other visitors who are either guests of one of the lodgings or a day - visitor. In either case the potential shopper will likely be linked to other activities rather than a distinct trip (from home to Treetops exclusively). While an 8,000 square foot retail complex could expect to draw 1,000 to 2,000 persons per day, we would expect the majority of these visits would be linked to other primary trips (skier, casual shopping, personal business, other recreation). Hence, we do not anticipate significant visitor I "Trip Generation ", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1979. -4- Il vehicle -trip generation as a direct result of retail development at the Treetops. The employee vehicle -trip potential should be accommodated in the Lionshead parking structure, particularly during winter peak activity months. Office Alternative An 8,000 square foot office space could generate about 100 vehicle -trips per day and would expect to employ 35 to 40 people. In the 4 to 5 p.m. peak hour, about 18 percent of the daily trips typically occur. For an office complex, most of the vehicle trips are employee related and the parking requirement is principally of a long -term rather than turnover nature. In the Treetops setting we will assume during the winter season that this long- term need will be provided in the Lionshead parking structure and not at the Treetops site. Short -term parkers (business visit primarily) would typically occur on weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. These visitors may have difficulty finding parking in the structure on a few busy weekdays. On weekends when short -term parking after 10:00 a.m. may be in short supply, business trips will likely be minimal. CONCLUSION The current traffic circulation problem in East Lionshead Circle is the result of too many dispersed pedestrian nodes within one compact trans- portation hub. Vehicles contribute to the problem not so much in sheer volume but it is these vans, busses, and cars that produce the .nodes of pedestrian activity. What is not needed along East Lionshead Circle is any form of development that will encourage additional nodes of "kiss -n -ride" activity, i.e., vans or cars coming into the area for the distinct purpose of dropping off or picking up other passengers. The Treetops commercial development must ensure that their frontage curb space will not be used by their tenants, shoppers or visitors as this would only compound the serious winter problem that has been described. - 5- MA Conversely, the "new" pedestrian plaza that will be created as part of the commercial development may be an opportunity for helping solve some of the current problems. If this new pedestrian plaza can be designated for exclusive use by town busses, the eastbound busses could move up into this new area and westbound busses could enter thruough the same gate and stop where eastbound bussess currently stop. This would consolidate transit riders along one platform and eliminate the pedestrian node for westbound busses that now exists at the major crosswalk to and from the parking structure. Concurrently, if measures were taken to preclude courtesy vans and private autos from using any portion of the westbound lane within the Plaza for passenger purposes, we believe much of the current pedestrian/vehicular congestion would be remedied. RECOMMENDATION We believe potential traffic impact of the Treetops commercial develop- ment could be alleviated if the following measures are taken (see Figure 2): 1. Restrict parking along the new curb face that will become available to be "No Standing or Stopping Any Time ", year round. 2. Formalize agreement that visitor or shopper short -term parking demand created by this commercial development will be satisfied in the nearby public parking structure. 3. Condition the Commercial Core lI rezoning to preclude certain uses that could cause curbside parking enforcement problems. These uses include small applicance repair shops, travel and ticket agencies, photocopy centers, cleaners, post office, and similar uses that require carrying large objects or cater to brief transactions. 4. Through berming and sidewalk construction, offer an attrac- tive pedestrian connection between the proposed commercial development and the Lionshead parking structure portal to - 6- VDA r N. Q • f + Z Of • a.. / 1 P(n Y _ r Wf eteeS • �1 vj, y kl h1 L I LI preclude more pedestrian travel through the critical bus /truck area. We suggest the town's transit and public works staff explore with the Treetops developers the possible integration of the proposed Treetops pedestrian plaza to provide a consolidated eastbound /westbound bus platform.2 Further improvement in traffic operation and pedestrian safety will be realized if courtesy van and private auto drop -off points are relocated outside the East Lionshead Plaza area. 2 Conversion of this area to transit and pedestrian use will mean seeking alternative snow storage location(s). pDA • town of voi 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 TO: Dick Ryan FROM: Skip Gordon RE: Future Traffic DATE: June b, 1983 department of transportation /public works MEMORANDUM Problems in Lionshead There are some foreseeable traffic congestion problems if Treetops is rezoned for commercial property. With a definate increase in trucks, salesmen and cars, I feel that it's necessary for some kind of control; possibly another Check -Point Charlie at the top of Lionshead hill. It only takes one illegally parked car to impede all traffic and foul up timed bus runs. Undoubtably, there will be local employees unloading near the new shops during peak hours. r 0 • � 0 • Iowa 42 west meadow drive vail, catarado 81657 (303) 476 -2200 Peter Jdkmar Community Development Town of Vail Re : Treetops Development Dear Peter, fire department May 31, 1983 Having read the traffic impact study for the proposed Treetops development, the following comments are made; 1. I doubt the impact will be as little as the study indicates. The existing traffic congestion is severe, and any addition could not help but to aggrevate the situation. 2. The underground parking should be persued, and the installa- tion of sprinklers required. The current access to the Tree- tops buildings is extremely limited. Futher restrictions to Fire Department access should be offset by additional fire protection. I would presume the new construction would be required to be totaly sprinklered. 3. Access for fire trucks should be designed into the plan. Sincerely, Michael McGee Vail Fire Department J . -. G town of v3i 75 south frontage road department of transportation /public works vail, colorado 61657 (343) 476 -7000 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Peter Jamar FROM: Dick Duran RE: Treetops Proposed Development DATE: June 7. 1983 Having read the traffic impact study for the proposed Treetops development, I have a few major concerns. As we are all aware, congestion in this area during the peak hours in the winter months has been a problem from time to time to the Fire Department as far as access. There have been many times that we must depend on this route for the LionsHead area because of the congestion at the four -way stop. I feel adding more retail and office space to this area will not help but will aggravate the situation. At present, our only access into the LionsHead Mall from the easterly side is through the present bus turnaround. In reviewing Figure 2 of the proposed transit plaza, I feel we would not have adequate access into the LionsHead Mall. This is due to some sort of berm directly in front of the bus shelter. At present our aerial attack for the Treetops Condominiums is through the parking deck. If a building is constructed on this site, we will no longer have adequate aerial attack for the easterly condominiums. With this building constructed on the parking deck, our only access for fire protection to the Treetops Condominiums would be down the steep grade between LionsHead Center and Treetops. I feel set -up time for fighting any type of fire would be too long, simply because of the long hose lays that it would take to reach either of the Treetops buildings. We have no access from any other side to these buildings. In reference to code, under the Uniform Fire Code 1982 edition, Section 10.207 C, "Access Roadway," where the access roadways cannot be provided to all exterior walls of a building, an approved fire protection system or systems shall be provided as required by the Chief. At present, we do not have any adequate fire supression system within either of the Treetops buildings. • IN deparlmoot of police box 567 . pail, colorado 81658 • 303- 476 -5671 To: Dick Ryan Peter Jamar Community Development Department From: Curt Ufkes Subject: Re- zoning of Tree Tops Date: 08JUN83 After reviewing the proposal submitted for the re- zoning of Tree Tops, it is Chief Russ Motta and my opinion that the construction of a commercial area in this location is an excellant idea, but we have several concerns pertaining to the parking and traffic to this project. As everybody knows that this is one of the worst areas in the Town of Vail for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It is the police department's feeling that this particular project should provide adequate off street parking for their employees and specifically for deliveries, pick ups and drop offs. This loading zone should be easy entrance and exit so that more than one or two vehicles can use it at any one time. I would strongly suggest that the proposed loading dock not be allowed, due to the fact that as soon as one vehicle parks in there it can no.longer get out. An example of this would be the Concert Hall Plaza Loading Dock. This particular area is already over used and the present bus stop and truck and loading zone is too small to accommodate the traffic on a daily bases in the winter and in the summer. This problem is a year around problem, and is not just isolated to the winter season as stated in the proposal present by Tree Tops. Theideal situation to handle traffic in this area would be to create a Check Point Charlie at the top of East Lionshead Circle at South Frontage Road. This would ultimately control and regulate the vehicular traffic into East Lionshead Circle, which would eventually end up at the East Lionshead Bus Stop. The Vail Police Department's experience in the past with vehicles parking in the available transportation centers does not work adequately. People feel that if they are only going to be five minutes that it would be okay to park out on the street and run in and run out. When this type of attitude does occur they impede the normal flow of the Town of Vail Buses and other emergency vehicles that must use these city roads. Examples of this is in front of the Vail Athletic Club, which has an opportunity to use the village transportation center, but does not. • I 0 0 page 2 The second example would be the skier drop off on East Lionshead Circle in the area that we are talking about. The cars still want to drive down into this area to drop off their skiers even though the Town of Vail provies two and one half hours of free parking in the Vail Transportation Center. I feel that this clearly demonstrates that people are not going to use the Lionshead Transportation Center in conjunction with the commercial area of Tree Tops to pick up and drop off their items. Sincerely, Curt Ufkes Assistant Chief of Police 1p--� • laws 75 south frontage road department of transportation /public works vall, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 MEM0RANUUN TO: Dick Ryan FROM: Pete Burnett RE: TREETOPS PROJECT DATE: June 9, 1983 If the Treetops Project is built, it would cause major problems with snowplowing, as there is no snow storage or drainage in the area. MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • • FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 20, 1 983 SUBJECT: Amendment of the Subdivision Regulations to delete requirements that condominium conversion projects must independently meter utilities and that they pay current fees for a building permit. Applicant: Town of Vail BACKGROUND At the July 11, 1983 proposed condominium this amendment, The THE AMENDMENT PEC meeting, the motion to approve the Vail Club Building conversion contained a directive to the staff to prepare vote on the motion was 5 -1 in favor, The PEC discussion of these two requirements concluded that they were onerous and not apropriate. The general feeling was that they were in the regulations simply as a reaction to the Apollo Park conversion attempting to make converisons as difficult as possible without having true justification. Specifically, the proposed amendment would remove the following language from the subdivision regulations: SECTION 17.26.060 REQUIREMENTS _ CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS C. 4. Condominium projects shall have public utilities independently metered to each unit water may be on a common meter if appropriate agreements are included in the covenants, declarations, conditions, and restrictions. 5. All applicable taxes, fees or charges for water, sewer, recreational amenities, or other services that would be payable to the town for the project if it were being constructed new rather than being converted, shall be paid by the applicant prior to approval of the conversion. The applicant shall be credited in the amount equal to the corresponing fee., tax or charge that was paid to the Town when the building was built, STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of .Community Development recommends approval of the amendment. Concerning the separate metering, this really isn't a concern of local government, but between the association, individual owner and the applicable utility company. On the new fee item, we agree that a building permit fee is appropriate only at such time as new construction is actually taking place, r 1 �J • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 21, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to rezone a 1.02 acre unplatted parcel of.land located immediately west of Pitkin Creek on Bighorn Road, from the. Low Density Multiple Family Zone District to the Heavy Service Zone District. Applicant: Brooks Investments BACKGROUND The applicant desires to rezone the subject property from the LDMF zone district to the Heavy Service zone district in order to enable them to construct and operate a service station and carwash upon the property. In 1980 the property was rezoned from Heavy Service to LDMF with the conditions that development be limited to a "maximum of 8 units, two of which shall be reserved for sale or lease by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley and limited to a total GRF'A of 10,250 square feet." At the time of rezoning, the PEC and the Town Council felt that residential use would be a more appropriate use for the site than any of the uses listed within the Heavy Service Zone District. THE PROPOSAL While the applicants have a specific project in mind for the site, the basic issue to be considered is whether the site is zoned appropriately or whether the Heavy Service zone district would be a more appropriate zone for the parcel. The basic criteria used when evaluating a re- zoning are the basic objectives of the zoning code. The objectives which apply to this proposal are the following: A. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and lessen congestion in the streets. The East Vail area is primarily a residential area of Vail with the only commercial enterprises being the Vail Racquet Club restaurant and the.liquor store and market located within the Pitkin Creek Park condominiums. These uses are basically support services for the complexes within which they are located. The proposed service station and car wash, as well as the other uses listed within the HS district are generally a higher intensity use in terms of vehicle trip generation than residential use.. A study completed by the applicant (copy attached) states that "about 60% of the peak --hour traffic activity will involve motorists already passing by the site on their way to another destination. ". Obviously then, the other 40% will be people drawn into the area by the proposed use that normally would not be driving into the vicinity. • Car Wash -2- 7/21/83 To encourage a convenient, workable relationshi consistent with municipal objectives. amonai land uses The proposed use, as well as the other uses possible within the HS district are not compatible with the adjacent uses to the property. To the east of the site are Town of Vail stream tract and residential condominiums, to the south are located duplex and single family residences, and to the north and west are the frontage road, open space,.and the I -70 right -of -way, the I -70 right -of- way basically being physically separated by a change in grade from the site. The staff believes that any of the HS uses would significantly alter the character df the area due to operating characteristics and an increased intensity of use and would be incompatible with the open space and residential uses which are adjacent to the site. C. To provide for the rowth of an order1 and viable communit The Town Council and Planning Commission determined in 1980 that residential use was more appropriate on the.site than any of the Heavy Services.uses. As mentioned above, characteristics such as noise; increased traffic, visual charac- teristics, and the general nature of these uses is not compatible with the resi- dential East Vail neighborhood. The Town, through zoning, has provided sites which do allow the Heavy Service uses where they are generally compatible with the surrounding uses. 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Department staff recommends denial of the requested re- zoning based upon the facts that the potentially increased intensity of use of the property -- and the general nature of the Heavy Service uses are not compatible with the area in which the site is located. J Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 1889 YORK STREET & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DELVER, COLORADO 80200 CONSULTANTS (303) 331105 July 12, 1983 Mr. Marvin Hatami Marvin Hatami and Associates 1537 Washington Street Denver, CO 80203 RE: Getty Oil Property Vail, Colorado Dear Marvin: We have now completed our traffic and access analysis of the proposed Getty Oil Service Station development to be con- structed in Vail, Colorado. The subject project is planned for a site located immediately east of the East Vail Interchange between I--70 and the adjacent frontage road (old US 6) . A four - pump service station with attached automatic car wash is plan- . ned. No vehicle maintenance or inspection facilities are plan- ned as a part of the project, however. CJ Existing Conditions The attached illustration depicts the planned layout and access characteristics of the site. As shown, two access drive- ways are planned along the frontage road with the westernmost driveway to be located approximately 200 feet east of the East Vail Interchange. The frontage road currently accommodates an estimated 3,500 to 4,000 vehicles on an average weekday, of which about 10 percent pass the site during peak -hour periods. Since the frontage road is a farmer State Highway (US 6), it is constructed to high standards which include one 12 -foot -wide travel lane in each direction. Sri the vicinity of the site, the roadway is relatively straight and flat with excellent sight distance characteristics. Estimated Traffic Generation According to the most recent edition (198 2) of "Trip Gener- ation: An Information Report ", which is published by the Insti- tute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a typical full- service gas station (with repair facilities) generates about 750 vehi- Transportation Systems -Transit • Parking. Vehicular Access -Pedestrian & Bicycle Planning-Traffic Operations & Safety-Signal Design-Traffic Impact Studies Mr. Marvin Hatami July 12, 1983 Page Two cle -trips (375 entering and 375 exiting) on an average weekday. Of these, as many as 52 would take place during the station's peak one-- hour period. For this particular project, it is estimated that the above -cited rates should be increased by about 10 percent in order to account for additional customers who would only pur- chase a car wash. The station is therefore estimated to gener- ate a total of 410 entering and 410 exiting vehicles on an aver- age weekday with 29 entering and 29 exiting during the facili- ty's peak hour. This level of activity could be expected during peak spring and summer periods when roads and parking lots are cleared of snow, local transit usage is low, and demand for car washes is relatively high. As noted in the 1TE reference, about 60 percent of the peak -hour traffic activity will involve motor- ists already passing by the site on their way to another destin- ation. Traffic Distribution The distribution of generated vehicular traffic along the frontage road is one of the most important elements in determin- ing the project's traffic impact. Major factors which influence the traffic distribution include: o The location of the site with respect to the balance of the Vail urbanized area; • The type of land use to be provided; • Traffic activity in the area and access to 1 -70; • The location of the site with respect to other competing ` facilities; • The specific access and circulation characteristics of the development plan. Based on these factors, it is projected that 60 percent of the proposed station's traffic will be oriented to the west and 40 percent towards the east. Application of these estimates to the previously cited generation data yields the turning movement traffic estimates shown on the attached illustration. As indi- cated, the maximum concentration of project - generated traffic will be west of the site, where 17 peak -hour vehicles are pro- jected in each direction. As previously noted, about 60 percent (10 vehicles) of these trips are already by- passing the site. • ■ Mr. Marvin Hatami July 12, 1983 Page Three Traffic Impact The projected levels of increased traffic activity (as much as 7 peak hour and 100 average weekday vehicles in each direc- tion) can easily be accommodated by the frontage road with no noticeable reduction in operating conditions or traffic safety. Of primary concern is the maximum number of left -turns into the site. As shown on the attached illustration, 12 peak -hour vehi- cles are expected to turn left into the station's west driveway -- this is equivalent to an average of one vehicle every 5 min- utes. Furthermore, no more than two entering vehicles waiting to turn left are expected at any given time. It is therefore concluded that separate turn lanes are not justified for this proposed project. All turn radii at the station's access drive- ways should be at least 25 feet, however, in order to facilitate all right -turn movements. Conclusions Based on the foregoing analysis, the following conclusions are made concerning the traffic impact of the proposed service station: 1. The proposed development can be expected to generate a total of 410 entering and exiting vehicle -trips on an is average peak - season weekday. Of these, 17 will occur during the peak one --hour period. About 60 percent of this traffic is expected to be drawn from traffic which is already by- passing the site. 2. The maximum concentration of project generated traffic is expected along the 1--70 frontage road west of the site. 3. The existing two -lane roadway can easily accommodate the additional traffic to be generated by the proposed project. I trust that this information will assist with further planning for this project. If we can be of further assistance, please give me a call. Respectfully submitted LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. B A 4L64, 'Z�L Phili N. cott III, P.E. PNS /mlc Enclosure: Estimated Traffic Distribution cc: Brooks Investments Is O = O V! N ❑ U U U •� CO W co W ca E VJ N= eo co 1 !.` .,;'' =�t: `. :'ter:,• If'y'•It.ti� 0 T U II Oa, `al c O V A U � � � a v �9 W � Y O � z� ~ Y c m t3 m C W V m a a' Il II L� C7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 4 August 22, 1983 12:00 Pm Site Visits 2:00 pm Public Hearing. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of July 25. 2. Request for exterior alteration to the Gore Creek Plaza Building to enclose the deck of Blu's Beanery. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist 3. Request for a conditional use permit in Special Development District #4, Cascade Village in order to construct a ski trail connecting Simba ski trail below the lower face to Cascade Village. Applicant: Andy Norris 4. Request for an amendment to Sections 18.04.030, 18.22.090, and 18.24.130 in order to remove accommodation units from density controls in the Commercial Core °I and the Public Accommodations zone districts. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. 5. Request for a density control variance to Section 18.64.050 (B) in order to remodel and add 91 square feet of GRFA to the interior space of unit #306, Vorlaufer Condominiums at 385 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Ed Wasson 6. Request fora conditional use permit in order to construct an enclosed swimming pool at 758 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Gary Bossow 7. Request for a rear setback variance and for a stream setback variance in order to enlarge a deck on units 4A and 4B of the Texas Townhouses, 483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicants: H. Thomas and Delores B. Coghill 8. Request for the modification of a conditional use permit in order to expand the playground to accommodate a sodded soccer field at the Vail Mountain School at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, Inc. 9. Request for a minor subdivision to vacate a lot line between lots 25 and 26, Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. Applicant: Ted P. Stockmar to be 10. Request for exterior alteration to the Lionshead Arcade located at 483 tabled East Lionshead Mall in order to build a commercial addition in the interior corner facing northeast. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties. 11. Request for an exterior alteration to the Village Center Project at 122 to be East Meadow Drive to add a new retail addition on the east end, to revise tabled the entrance to Toymaker's Trail, to construct additions to the retail shops, and to construct a new sidewalk along the north side of the project. Applicant: Fred Hibberd ; 1"F 0 PRFSFNT Dan Corcoran Diana Donovan Duane Piper Will Trout Jim Viele Planning and Environmental Commission August 22, 1983 PRESENT FOR MEETING ONLY Jim Morgan Gordon Pierce STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Peter Jamar Jim Sayre Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 2:00 pm by the chairman, Dan Corcoran. 1. Approval of minutes of meetino of Julv 25. Viele moved and Piper seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 4 in favor, none against, with Donovan abstaining. Corcoran stated for Item 11, exterior alteration to the Village Center Project, the applicant had asked to table until September 26. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table Item 11 until September 26. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. Next, Corcoran stated that the applicant for Item #10, exterior alteration to the Lionshead Arcade had requested to table until September 12. Piper moved and Donovan seconded to table until 9/12. The vote was 5. -0 in favor. 2. Be guest for exterior alteration to the Gore Creek Plaza Building to enclose the deck of Blu's Beanery. Applicant: Charles Rosenquist Peter Jamar reviewed the memo, and explained that since the last proposal, the applicant had revised the design of the patio and entry enclosures and had actually separated the two parts of the proposal by leaving the area in front of the entry and to the west of the patio open creating more transparency. The entry area which is currently open but recessed underneath the Sweet.Basil deck was to be enclosed. The patio area also becomes enclosed with a greenhouse type structure, being transpar- ent on all three sides. He added that since the patio is void of any activity during the winter months, the ability to use the area for dining during that time of the year would improve the quality of the pedestrian experience by adding some visual interest to the area, and the patio would be open during the summer months. He added that the staff recommended approval. Rudi Fisher, architect for the project, stated that the enclosed entry improved the sense of entry and increased the waiting area. He added that the railroad tie planter would be replaced with a stone planter. PEC 8/22/83 -2- Donovan asked if the planter were in or out of the enclosure (Fisher answered "out ") and added that she had a basic disagreement with the idea of winter . transparency. Piper asked if the ceiling were glass also, and Fisher replied that it was. Corcoran wanted to know the size of the mullions, and Fisher said that they were 2 -1/4" x 4 -1/4" with the narrower dimension seen from the front. Corcoran wanted to know if the TOV would see that the panels were removed, and Jamar answered they would. Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 4 -1 in favor with Donovan voting against the enclosure. 3. Request for a conditional use permit in Special Development District #4 Cascade Village in order to construct a ski trail connecting Simba ski trail below the.lower face to Cascade Village_ Applicant: Andy Norris Dick Ryan explained that the ski trail was actually a cat walk. He added that potentially there could be 42,000 skiers if the Westin Hotel were at 85% occupancy, and that this catwalk could alleviate some congestion on the mountain.. Norris, the applicant showed site plans with several alternative routes for the catwalk and asked the board to approve both alternatives A and B. This would allow to use whichever route seemed best. Viele felt support for the request. Donovan wanted to know whether or not there were an agreement that if the trail were abandoned that the right of way would be returned to the TOV. Corcoran wondered what the plan would be if the land were abandoned. Norris stated that he could not really contemplate abandonment. He suggested other uses with revegetation. Larry Warren with ie the Forest Service said that he favored alternative A because they felt it did the least damage, and in fact would not support any other alternative. Trout moved and Piper seconded to approved the conditional use permit per the staff memo with either alternate A or B. The vote was 5 -0 in favor Jim Morgan and Gordon Pierce arrived. • PFC 8/22/83 -3- 4. Request for an amendment to Sections 18.04.030, 18.22.090, and 18.24.130 in order to remove accommodation units from .density controls in the Commercial Core I and the Public Accommodations zone districts. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Peter Jamar: The application is basically to revise three sections, the first one being the definition of accommodation units, the next one being the density control section of the Public Accommodation zone district, and third being modification of the density control section of the Commercial Core I zone district. Basically the proposed amendments are designed to eliminate accommodation units from density control sections, in other words counting towards your allowable density, either in Public Accommodation zone district or the Commercial Core I zone district as long as they are constructed within the allowable setbacks, height, site coverage standards, etc. The applicants basically, in a nutshell, have concluded that the application is in the economic best interest of the Town of Vail, and feel that additional hotel rooms in CCI and PA districts are in the economic best interests of the Town. I'm basically going to go through the memo, so if you want to follow along- -The analysis of the proposal, the applicants have basically taken and done what they believe to be the practical results of the proposed amendments. Using several assumptions, one is that the additional rooms to be constructed would be 350 square feet, taking consideration of the historical use of the buildings, structural considerations, site constraints, and, in most cases, a disregard for zoning requirements such as parking requirements, and mainly are done only on setback and height requirements. In their analysis they projected an additional 257 accommodation units to be construc- ted within Vail Village. Obviously, this number could vary either way. You could take another set of assumptions in terms of smaller lodge rooms or vacation of utility easements, the changes in the historical use of buildings, this number could be larger or smaller. For the sake of going through the exercise of analysing their arguments, we used their number, 257 units, with the realization that the number could be larger or smaller, and one of the problems that the staff has with the proposal is that there isn't even a specific number of lodge rooms being proposed. It's basically a blanket proposal which, the impacts are pretty much unknown in terms of the number of units, depending upon what assumptions you were to make doing that exercise. Under A on page 3, Facts Regarding Lodge Rooms and Vail Village, those 9 items are basically items that we feel are very important to keep in mind while analyzing this application and.the question of the need for additional lodge rooms. I"ll go thru those one by one. Number 1 states that currently 798 accommodation units exist in Vail Village. This is currently 53% of the total number of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Vail Lionshead follows with 26% of the total lodge rooms, while Cascade Village and the West Vail each contain 10% of the total number of accommodation units. Clearly, the largest number of lodge and accommodation units exist within the Vail Village area of Town. Current zoning will allow an addition of approximately 117 accommodation units within the Vail Village area, so we do have lodge rooms that are available to be built, there are no additional lodge rooms available in the Lionshead or West Vail areas, and Cascade Village could actually construct an additional 278 units. The developer has related to us that he will probably build a considerably number less than that, but that is what he could build.. Those statistics show, that even under current zoning, Vail Village will contain approximately 50% of the dwelling units within Town. That number, or that percentage, has just recently increased in fact, for 48 the Lodge at Vail recently through a legal argument has received approval to build 34 additional units. I Table 1 which is on page 4 of the memo, indicates occupancy PEC 8/22/83 -4- r figures for lodges in Vail for the period of November 81 to April 83. As you can see, March is the busiest month with 90% in 1982 and 84 % in 1983. Typically, our shoulder seasons, April thru June, and also September thru November, have occupancy figures of 24% to 53% occupancy. Obviously, those are our worst times of the year, and one of the observations of the staff is that if the lodging community has any problems at this point, they should try to up those occupancies during those periods of the year. Also, 230 lodge rooms between the Marriott and the Westin have been added within the last ski season and we have not yet seen what the impacts of the full utilization of those accommodation units are in terms of relationship to occupancy figures. Item 4, relating to the parking structure in number of days full, I won't go thru each of the numbers, but convenience of parking has been identified in the Vail /Beaver Creek Winter Quality Study as an important item and a concern of the tourist. It has been identified since 1979 as a problem. Obviously we do have days when not only the Vail Village structure, but the Lionshead structure, are full. In terms of adding more bodies in Town, the amendment will certainly have impact. Item 5, some observations of the Vail /Beaver Creek Winter Quality Study, in 79 -80, 80 -81, 81 -82 several questions were asked each year during the Winter Quality Study regarding community scale, architectural quality, level of congestion in Vail. Visitors and residents alike were strong in their opinions that the Village was pre . sently quite attractive in architectural quality and scale, particularly in comparison to Lionshead, but many felt that Vail was becoming too crowded and congested and in danger of losing its charm. Strong feelings existed especially in the earlier studies, that Vail and Eagle County should attempt to limit the amount of new growth. In other words, one of the strongest responses in the Winter Quality studies was that Vail Village's scale and architectural quality is a very key point in the atmos- phere of Vail. The 82 -83 study concluded that "there is little evidence that the size or availability of lodge units is emerging as a problem among Vail skiers this season. 90% of all skiers responded that they had gotten their preferred type of lodging unit, and that skiers in either time shares or condos without kitchens were basically unhappy with the kind of accommodations that they had. There was no evidence at all that people in condominium units would have preferred lodge /hotel units." In the past 5 -6 years, and these next several items basically deal with Vail Village and how economically it stands in terms of Vail Lionshead and Cascade Village, which the applicants have stated that they are very concerned about - -that Vail Village will not be competitive with the Lionshead area and the Westin Hotel area, basically because of the conference and meeting facilities that those areas contain. Obviously Vail Village is not deteriorating. If you think back and name every building, and just about run through your head that just about every major building within the Village area has come through the exterior alteration and modification procedure. There are several others that haven't, Plaza Lodge, there have been discussions of a major upgrading of that building. The applicants argue that without more lodge rooms, that these type of renovations will not happen. Just this year alone, if you take a look at -- obviously some of them aren't ........ buildings - -Ore House Gallery Building, Mc Bride Building, also the Liquor Store building is talking about upgrading, commercial.properties in Vail Village are not deteriorating and are in a relatively economically healthy state compared to other parts of town, or are certainly not lagging behind in terms of rent per square foot, sales tax totals, etc. r� la J PEC 8/22/83 -5- (Peter Jamar, count) Item 9, Table #2 on the page preceding shows a list of peak days on Vail Mountain from 1979 -1983. "Peak days" are identified by Vail Associates having over 13,000 skiers. They do not talk in terms of mountain capacity, but in terms of peak days. In 79 -80 which was really the only year that these types of questions were asked, the tourists tended to feel "stress" and liftlines began to back up at approximately the 12,000 skier level. In addition to those days .shown in.Table 2, we had compiled additional days when there were between 12,000 and 13,000 skiers. For example, this last season a total of 18 days of the 142 day season were in excess of 12,000 skiers. That is a pretty small percentage of days that the mountain was at or above the 12,000 skier count when the tourists felt that the quality of their skiing exper- ince was being diminished, but do we know the balance of that, or should we be concerned with the balance of that, just as the Lodge of Vail when adding lodge rooms in their own facility is worried about the back of their house and the facilities that serve the rest of the hotel, so should we be concered with the other facilities that we have in Town such as the golf course and the ski area - -the services. In terms of impacts of the proposed amendment, we believe that the proposed amendment is going to have several impacts upon Vail Village and the entire Town. The potential construction of 257 units in the Village area is a one -third increase in lodge rooms above what we currently have in Vail Village. We do not believe that the proposed amendment would be consistent with the objectives of the zoning code, is "to prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures." The various development standards that we have within the zoning code are basically designed to do two things. They are designed to have a control on the intensity of use, in other words, the intensity on other services within the community -- transportation, parking, etc. and they are also used to determine the size of structures. These two things basically work together, and if you eliminate density control in CCI and PA,they are an integral part of that zoning code, we do not feel this is in the community's best interest. As I mentioned earlier, the Winter Quality Studies showed that both residents and visitors alike really feel that Vail Village has a very strong architectural quality and scale, and felt that the Village was in danger of losing its charm. Very obviously this amendment would substantially alter the character of the Village. The applicants believe that the Urban Design Guide Plan on its own would prevent losing this architectural quality and scale in that they believe that that- -say if a property, for example, under this amendment goes to its maximum height, goes to its maximum setback, that the provisions of the Vail Village Design Guide Plan would be enough to create any loss of quality and scale. However, you have to under- stand that No. 1, some of these properties are in the Public Accommodation zone district which the Urban Design Guide Plan does not apply to. No. 2, The Guidelines basically work in combination with the other elements of the zoning code. The Urban Design Guide Plan cannot - -under zoning requirements, deny properties that are allowed certain number of units, certain floor area- -the Urban Design Guide Plan does not take that away. They work in combination. The Urban Design Guide Plan is not a strong enough document on4its own. In terms of intensity of use, that is another purpose of the density controls, and, basically the zoning code does try to ensure an appropriate mix of one use balanced with another. A reduction or elimination of these density controls is obviously going to have some impacts upon the intensity of use, parking requirements in terms of transportation, if you remember the problem of congestion is a big concern of Is people surveyed, and without fully knowing the impacts of that, it would be premature PLC 8/22/83 -6- . to go ahead and approve the amendment. Some study needs to be done in terms of whether this elimination of the density control is in proper balance with the other zoning standards. Under Item C, The Need for Additional Lodge Rooms, the applicants have set forth 4 or 5 arguments that they believe document the need for additional lodge rooms in Vail Village. The first argument is that we need new 350 square foot high quality lodge rooms, currently lacking, in order to increase the quality of Vail's lodging base, and because of physical restraints, it is virtually impossible in many cases to remodel existing small hotel rooms into larger rooms. I guess our response to that would be that tth�,only evidence that we have to go on is the Winter Quality Study which stated that none of the skiers who identified units size as a problem were staying in lodge rooms. The applicants haven't presented any docu- mentation analysis or survey which demonstrates this perceived need for this type of room, or, in fact, for any type of lodging accommodation. The fact that we have 230 additional lodge rooms in Town basically since a year ago, many of these rooms are large lodge rooms, does not seem to point to the need to amend the zoning code. The second argument is that Vail Village doesn't have adequate facilities to compete with Lionshead and Cascade Village. I went through that a little bit earlier. One response of the staff is that we don't believe necessarily that Vail Village, Vail Lionshead and Cascade should all be equal in terms of the facilities that they possess. Maybe Vail Village is the commercial center of town, maybe Marriott and Westin are the convention centers in town. The Lodge at Vail is adding approximately 7,300 square feet of conference and convention facilities. One of the arguments in their marketing analysis was that in order justify any additional conference and meeting space in Vail Village to enable them to compete with Lionshead and Cascade, they would need to add hotel rooms. They already are adding 34 lodge rooms and also the 7300 square feet of convention and meeting space. We do not believe that that market analysis really contains any data or documentations to support the conclu- sions of the need for additional lodge rooms. In fact, basically the occupancy figures and other information which we have states the contrary. Most of the time if you look at this type of market study, you would include occupancy figures, and we would suggest that one reason they were eliminated from this study is that those figures actually show the opposite. A third argument central to their proposal is that it Village to be the center of activity in Vail and that deteriorate if unable to compete equally. I think we and upgrading is happening in Vail Village, that it i and always will be, due to the fact that it does have and scale that it currently does have. is necessary to allow Vail the Vail Village area will have shown that renovation 3 the center of activities, that architectural quality Another argument is that this competitiveness is very important in terms of each area possessing similar facilities. And again, we feel that each area should comple- ment each other rather than complete with each other. In In to is the We terms of the an analysis increase the any one need ire is a need believe that staff recommendation, we are recommending denial of the proposal. of the facts, we believe that they do not show that there is a need density of public accommodation units. We feel that if there that can be pointed out through the marketing analysis, is that of the lodges to increase their occupancy during the off- season. the convention meeting space that is being proposed by the Lodge PEC 8/22/83 -7- (Peter Jamar, con't) will certainly help the Village lodges to increase their occupancy during the off - seasons, and really coming down to the central issue here of quality vs quantity. For a long time in Vail it seems like the answer to any type of a problem was constantly increasing quantity, in this case it would be a quantity of lodge rooms. We feel that Vail is at a point where we are almost 90% built out - -we need to start looking at how to maintain the quality that we have that kept people coming to Vail, and that in fact, an increase of quantity of public accommodation units, both in terms of the intensity of use, and in scale involved in buildings, could have exactly the opposite effect of what maybe the applicants are trying to do. We have something here that is very attractive to the tourist and also the resident, and we are going to come to a certain point where we may have killed the goose that laid the golden egg in terms of becoming so Overcrowded and overbuilt, it may have a negative effect and impact in terms of the quality of the community and the Vail experience. Right now we're going through an exercise in the Community Action Plan, basically planning for Vail's future and determining how we're going to preserve the quality of Vail with long range planning. We have to look at the answers to some of these questions. At the very least, any decision of this magnitude in terms of increasing the density of Vail Village by one third in terms of accommodation units should have a thorough study which looks at the total balance of this use in the other segments of the community including Vail Mountain. Just to reiterate, we do feel that limited ex- pansion of meeting space which was identified in the market study obviously may be somewhat of a solution to increasing occupancy within the lodges within the shoulder seasons, but we do not believe that we need any additional accommodation units in Vail Village. Corcoran: Now, on the other side we have Jay Peterson. Jay Peterson: Let me tell you just briefly what we are trying to do, and this is just one of several ways that we can go about doing it if there is any interest on the Town of Vail to have us do these things. First of all, the Lodge at Vail is no longer involved with this. They support it, but they at this time have the ok to build more lodge rooms. This was no secret from day one that the Sonnenalp has always been involved with this change in zoning amendment, so don't concern yourself with the Lodge, or with what they are doing because they are going forward on their own program. Up until maybe three or four years ago, I could have brought in a proposal under the SDD ordinance which allows you to look at anything including density, GRFA, or whatever, on any individual site. The SDD ordinance was changed some time ago according to the staff to eliminate the GRFA and density from the SDD. In other words, you have to have underlying zoning before you can go through the SDD process. I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation of the ordinance, but that why I am doing it this way. I like the SDD proposal and may look at that if the change in the SDD portion, not changing the density requirements for accommo- dation units. What we are trying to do is to add on to the Sonnenalp a brand new building. Currently that site is approximately 112 acre with 40 accommodation units and two dwelling units, manager apartments - -very dense project - -it was done before -- it has always had a density in excess of what would be allowed in the present zoning ordinance. It was built prior to zoning.. As was most of the things in the PA zone or the core area. We are trying to come back now in the renovation process, bringing some of these projects that are 20 years old up to 1980 standards and what we feel they are becoming. I'm here to talk about numbers, and by adding 25 rooms to the Sonnenalp we aren't killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Vail Village was constructed and it works pretty well before any planner did anything or any • PEC 8/22/83 -8- government agency had there chance to move in and say "No, you can't do this." or "You can't do that." And it works pretty well. What you are trying to do now is fine tune. There have been two ordinances passed since this building has been built, one limiting to 50 units to the acre, then down to 25 units to the acre, neither number of which is magic. There are a lot of bad projects with very little density, and there are a lot of good projects with very high density. I think the building as it now sits works pretty well, it is a pleasant building with what he had to start with. The hotel rooms inside, however, are very, very small- - 249 square feet, which are probably a good 100 sq ft below what should be hotel standards now ...... Peter keeps talking about the number of people who are coming into our town and that we should be looking at quality, not quantity. The biggest problem that Vail has right now is an identity problem, that is, are we going to become a day ski area, or a destination resort as we have always been in the past? If you look at those studies showing the peak days, almost half of those peak days were from day skiers, strictly day skiers. Those were the three days that we had during the week that we had $5.00 lift tickets. All day skiers the second week or first week of January. Notoriously we have very minimal skier days. There is nothing that the staff has done, and nothing that VA has done to limit the day skiers. They cause our parking problems, they bring very little revenue per person in comparison to the destination skier to this town. And yet the staff is not trying to work with that at all, they are just saying that exists and we've got to live with it. Our proposal would add 25 rooms which would be a maximum of 50 people per day. That's for our project. That's in conjunction with 14,000 skier days, is a pretty minimal amount. Even if the proposal goes through, as we stated, you're looking at an addition of 200 rooms at this point because the Lodge rooms are already approved, and you take out 42 -or actually 36 of that. So we're getting down to about 200 hotel rooms that could be added to the PA zone or the Village and that's taking into consideration that on some projects you would have to tear the project down and start over, like the Rams Horn (20 units could theoretically be added there). The only way to do that would be starting over from scratch, and that's very difficult when 4 -1/2 million dollars for the..... . So from a practical standpoint, even under this ordinance, you are looking at very, very few buildings that will be changed. This project - -Peter keeps talking about quality vs quantity - -I don't think anybody could say that this building- -these are some real schematics, but certainly indicates what we are looking at- -would be something that is just quantity, not quality. This is the gateway to Vail, the steps come down and you look to the right and you see Sonnenalp and to the left you see the Mountain Naus. This is the way - -this whole area lays out right now. This is what it would be - -you can see we have very, very big buildings in that whole area, so we are not trying to change the scale of anything in that area, we're just to trying to come up to the scale that is really presently there, and really the same----- - - - - -- , so as far as quality is concerned, as far as keeping it from a planning standpoint, it certainly fits into that neighbor hood. We're not making a negative impact on that neighborhood, only a positive impact on that neighborhood. One reason I proposed doing it this way with a zoning amendment is that I look at hotel rooms the same way that I look at commercial. It is a commercial type of activity that brings in continuing revenue to the Town of Vail via the sales tax. Condominiums do not. If a condominium is not leased out short term, the Town gets no revenue except a very minute portion of the property tax, which is insignificant as far . as the whole Town of Vail budget is concerned. Currently, under the zoning ordinance, there is no criteria for limiting the amount of commercial space in CCI, or for that matter, in the PA zone. You only have to work within the guidelines. There is not even a parking restriction for commercial in CCI and CCII. I do not see, really, the difference between a hotel room, commercial enterprise rented on a daily basis PEC 8/22/83 -9- that brings people to this town, vs commercial which is basically the same thing. It seems to me that the Town of Vail zoning ordinance has worked pretty well without putting density on commercial. The other criteria have worked as far as bulk, setbacks, things like that. All I'm proposing is the same thing for accommo- dation units. If the staff has problems saying the buildings are going to get too big, or whatever, then that aspect of the zoning ordinance should be looked at. When people come to Vail and they look at a building, they do not know whether that building has three rooms in it or 150 rooms in it. They say, "That building fits within the neighborhood, and it certainly is nice for Vail." To me that is what the zoning aspect of it should look like, or should do, that's the way it works in CCI. 14e are trying to, and here again I don't represent any of the other lodge owners on this, even though I gave moral support, I guess, to the Lodge at Vail, but no other lodge owners have approached me saying we want - - -- - - -- -rooms or anything else. What we are looking at here is basically an additional 25 units. As far as studies are concerned, some of the Winter Quality Studies stated a lot of different things. I don't know the individual who did the study, but there were several items in there such as restaurants that people said there was very little value for the money in restaurants in Vail. Well if you eat in Vail and if you eat in Denver, there are very few people who would disagree that the prices are the same as far as quality restaurants and quality restaurants. Vail is no more expensive than any city, and probably in a lot of cases, much less. So, here again, the study is maybe a perception problem on some people's minds. What we have seen, and Carl Vesper who owns the Sonnenalp, owns a very big lodge in Europe, and he runs the same type of operation here, even though it is very difficult, because of the constraints of the building with 250 sq ft rooms, whereas, over there the rooms range from 400 -6or 700 sq ft. That's what he proposes to do here, rooms ranging from below 300 to approximately 700 sq ft. The same type of quality operation, bringing that type of person into . Town that likes nice hotel accommodations, which you really can't do here, even though, you talk to people who stay here, and I did that on several diffent occaisions just sitting in this little restaurant and listening to people and their remarks about the Sonnenalp were very positive because of the type of personal operation that he runs. It is a different type of operation than the Marriott or Westin - - - - - -- -this will be a much more personal place. In Lionshead, and in the Westin, they have had an opportunity to build within the last year, so all of their things are really up to today's standards. They were able to build bigger rooms, they have built bigger rooms, they have built for the '80's, they did not build for the 60's. -- - - - - -- -and so they are much better able to keep - - - - -- -the other thing is that they have large tracts of land so they can build better operations so they can get better repeat. The Marriott has approximately 280 rooms, the Westin has about 180 right now and can build to 400. The lodge has 40 rooms, and almost all the lodges in Town, even the Lodge at Vail only has 60 rooms right now. Very small operations totally different. For anyone to run a quality type of small operation like that is very very difficult when you have 20 or 30 rooms is probably impossible when you try to give that type of service. What the Town gets is, I mean the impacts are minimal when we are looking at the Town. We're talking about - -if the zoning ordinance goes thru - -a maximum of 200 rooms which is 400 people on a 100% occupancy for those rooms, if everything were built out, and certainly everything will not be in the forseeable future. What does the Town get in return? They get a brand new facility in the Vail Village which I think certainly conforms to what people think the Town of Vail should be, which the Town of Vail has not really become, but the type of architecture that I think is very pleasing to people who come to the Village. You get a brand new building, totally logical, totally PEC 8/22/83 -10- built to energy standards and in exchange for that, you get a small amount of density increase with the type of people that Vail wants. We do not need more day skiers in this town. We need people that come in and stay in our town as guests, not just for a $22 lift ticket, but to experience what Vail has to offer, not just the mountain. I think that is worth the exchange. I spent the last year- year and a half looking at things because I am concerned about Vail. Some of you may not totally agree with that, but I'm concerned about where it's going, how it's going to compete in the market place in the next 10 or 15 years. I'm not looking two years down the road, we're fine. But, you're looking at Aspen totally upgrading itself, you're looking at Aspen, and they will at some point, potentially build hugh hotels and convention facilities. You're looking at.Snowmass, which is certainly a new village in comparison to Vail with new facilities, new motels, and Crested Butte with their new facilities. They're all trying to compete for the same people. It is becoming harder and harder for Vail Village to do that. Our facilities are old and do not come up to the standards - -you can see what happened to Aspen where people just got fed up paying the high prices and there's no way not to pay those high prices anymore. If someone is charging 100 -125 a day, it's not a high price when you have to build a new facility. Actually, the price should be higher than that during the winter months. But they do get tired of paying, they don't mind paying, but they want to receive something for their money. I think a lot of it is.a perception problem which I think the Winter Quality study pointed out, but, what are we going to become? And I think the Town has always been very leery of growth. I've been here 11 years, and the last 6 years, I've become very leery of growth. It certainly has not solved the Town's problems. But the Town is, as Peter said, 80 or 90 % built out. The risk factor that we experienced when I first came here was such that any zoning rules or anything that you tried to do, you had to look down the road and think, "We're opening the flood gates - -we're going to get another 800 or 1000 or 4000 units in this town which we don't feel we need." That risk factor has certainly changed in the last couple of years, we are almost built out. We can look at fine tuning these things and say, "We don't want growth." 25 rooms or 50 rooms or 100 rooms in comparison to the whole village- - what you get in return is certainly an insignificant amount compared to some of the other problems that you have in Town like the day skier problems I consider a real severe problem. And what do we do, how do we handle that, how do we handle it in conjunction with the guest that stays here for a week. That person certainly has an impact, yet the Planning staff is not looking in those directions. I would today, I would not ask for a vote on this ordinance. I would like some feedback. I will be going to the Town Council as far as talking to them, trying to get, asking them, what do you want to see in the community? Do you want us not to renovate? If you tell me, you can't do those rooms, then we don't do them, it's as simple as that. I'm not going to take you to court, I'm not going to sue you, I'm not going to threaten to sue you. We are bringing to you what we feel is something good for the town. Not just for us, but good for the Town also. Looking at that building, taking away the density question, I think you have to agree with that, yes that's a positive improvement for the town. That's what I'd like from you today. I'll be doing the same thing with the Town Council, going to them and asking them the same questions, and seeing where the town stands .................... ................High density is bad, low density is good..question is not that simple. Dan Corcoran Let the record show that Jim Morgan and Gordon Pierce have joined us as members of the Planning Commission. Peterson I would ask that this be tabled- -this is one alternative. I guess I'd like some feedback. If you are going to say, "We are willing to look at some increase in density on your site ", then I will come back and this ordinance is very PEC 8/22/83 -11- broad. It was a starting place for me, there is no question about that. It allows everybody in CCI and PA to expand their property potentially- -not every project- - but some of it. And economics will dictate that probely 99% of them won't work- - .........................If you say we'd like to to expand your property, but we don't want to expand everything in town, then I'd go about it in a different way......... Eskwith: Corky, I just briefly want to state that whether you wish to control the number of accommodation units or not, the wisdom of doing that is up to you. But I think there has been some indication that perhaps the Urban Design Guide Llnes would do that in some way, and I really think they wouldn't. I don't think there is anything in the Guide Lines which would allow the same kind of control that the zoning density ordinance allows, so I'd just like to say that th's important. If you wish to control numbers, then the way to do it is not through the Urban Design Guide Lines, but through a zoning density restriction. Peterson: I never said that the Guide Lines control density, Guide Lines control structure. It controls the size of the structure through the setbacks and everything else. Peter's point was that the Guide Lines in conjunction with the density controls does that. But, in CCI that's not necessarily true because there is no limit on the amount of commercial that you can do in CCI. That is not true in the PA zone. It seems to me that that has worked pretty well in CCI. Corcoran And Peter's other point was, of course, that the Design Guidelines do not apply in the PA zone. Jamar: You have to realize that there are no buildings that are totally commercial. ..the densities in terms of accommodation units have worked in CCI. Corcoran: We've heard both sides and the applicant has requested a polling of the board for feelings on this item. Trout: Jay, on the one hand I am very sympathetic to some of the things you've said, and on the positive side, I think Sonnenalp has another step to go, and I think as one looks at it one sees a lot of clear evidence of that, both in terms of character as well as expansion of facilities, not just the rooms themselves. On the other side, I find very difficult the route you've selected. Now perhaps that really is the only one, and all the time and effort on your part will show us that way. I find very difficult to rezone the whole town to allow one project to get on with itself. ......there must be an awful lot of commercial space in there also. Peterson: No, there is very little commercial space, what it is, is the rooms are much bigger. 40 rooms at 249 sq ft, 65 rooms ranging from in the low 200's to about 600 sq ft., approx 2500 -3500 sq ft of commercial, kitchen, bar, manager's apt and then 65 accommodation units, 5 of them small, 300 -350, 40 351 -450, and 20 deluxe, 451 to 600. Trout: .....wish singly to encourage you and your client to move in a direction that perhaps adds some units, adds some space...... last winter we had 92 guests visit us and about 50 stayed at our house. 40 of those people repeatedly asked to have a place at the Sonnenalp ••••••..and they indicated that they liked the Sonnenalp, • PEC 8/22/83 -12- 40 not only for the quality of the environment, but they even liked the small rooms. The small rooms seemed to go hand in hand with the incredibly personal service that those folks offer, and so perhaps larger rooms at 600 sq ft may not be all that the operators would like to see happen once they operate at that level. Peterson: That's why we have some of the smaller rooms, too. And, here again, the owner takes comments from everyone who stays at his hotel and derived the plan and basically the mix also from what he feels the vast majority of his people want. ...........a 650 sq ft room can still be quaint depending on how it's done. A lot of it depends on the type of service that you give. Even though the rooms would be bigger, the type of operation that they run would certainly not change. ..... Family business.....expanding from Europe looking for places to put their sons to manage motels...... Trout: Does this also reflect the expanded meeting room and conference facilities that your reports aluded to? Peterson: This does not. The Sonnenalp has never been in the business, the convention types of business. They would be obviously taking some spill -over, I guess, but there would be tremendous spill over from the bodge because they still do not have that many rooms....but the Sonnenalp is in the business of personal lodging facility and they cater to the person who is willing to.spend the money, and it is expensive to provide that type of service ........ exclusive hotel. Corcoran: Before we go on, we are looking at an across the board zoning change, and any detailed questions I think we need to keep those to that area on the specifics is of the broad brush. I realize, Jay, that there is an underlying proposal for a project which I think is only fair of us to comment to you briefly, I don't particularly want us to talk on all the merits of this specific project, because we really haven't seen this specific project • Peterson: The problem I have is like Will, he doesn't necessarily agree with the amendment proposal, but it's the only way that I know of right now given the staff's position on the SDD that I could come in and show you a project, and what I'm saying is that broad brush is not sacred to me if there are other ways that this can be accomplished without doing the broad brush process. Donovan: I wish..... I called Vail Associates today to get some additional figures that made sense to me. They projected additional growth in Vail for shoulder times, but their projected figures for this winter show actually lower figures for the high times, and they feel that that is the trend that will continue in Vail. Things like what you are talking about, it helps you out- -you get more business, but I don't necessarily think it helps the whole town, because it does increase the density. I think down the road if you have your lodge full someone else is definitely not going to have theirs full. Maybe that's the way it should be, but I think we're reaching a point where there are only so many people that we can take care of in Vail and J I'm not so sure that we haven't reached that point at this time. I think we're over our maximum density, we can't park their cars, we can't get them on the mountain, they won't be able to flush their toilets, there won't be any water to drink, already the calls on Gore Creek, if everybondy utilized their calls, Gore Creek would be entirely dry half the time again. So I think, as far as the number of people that we can sleep in the Town, I think we've already reached it, and what can be approved, and I really think that's true, and I think any further density we approve from this point on will diminish the experience that the guest has. Maybe not this year or next year, but definitely ten years down the road, and I don't think it's a case of getting in the hole like Aspen has, because I don't think we're PEC 8/22/83 -13- there, because we're still renovating and doing things like that. They had reached a point where they weren't changing a thing, so I think we're still changing and growing, but I just think if we increase our density, we cut our own throats. Piper: I feel Vail's going to remain competitive, - very competitive on the ski market by improving the quality, but not necessarily the quantity. I think that we do definitely have to upgrade our physical plant, as Diana mentioned I.think that was one of the pitfalls of Aspen, Two things it didn't do, it didn't improve the physical plant, second it didn't provide larger convention facilities. I think we've been in the process of doing both things in our consistent zoning. I still feel there is enough possible increase presently available within the zoning to allow adequate density increase without this across the board increase that would be given by this "broad brush." It seems paradoxical to say we're fine tuning with a broad brush, it somehow seems contradictory and at a definite increase in the quality of physical plant I think is easy, but I am very aware of the increase in the density. Peterson: If I may clarify this, in any specific project that would come in, you would be opposed to increase in density? Piper: That would really concern me, yes, because I'm not sure where we stop. I'm going to have a difficult time saying one person can do it and another can't do it. Certainly your approach here is a very good starting point. You keep calling it a broad brush, and it really concerns me. I don't think I can support the ordinance at all. Peterson: But, let's narrow it down, then, to a point, are you narrow that down all the way to zero where you are not willing to look at any given....I don't know of a site on the top of my head in Vail Village or probably Lionshead for that matter or anywhere in the core areas that would allow more density for someone to come in and renovate. Piper: I don't know of that, either, Jay, except that it was stated in the presentation by the staff that indeed zoning would allow increase in densities, and maybe not all of the situations wouldn't prove practical, for example, the Rams Horn. Maybe that's what they all consist of, but in its present zoning, it still shows that kind of density is allowed, we can't even build what we presently have in the Village and Lionshead, and I think something is wrong with the direction we are going, if we're going to higher density we're going to have to be competitive with an increase in quality. Peterson: Let me clarify something that you said - -the zoning - -what we are talking about getting this density would be in the density requirements -- that's where the 250 units came from. I don't know of any project in town that is being added to right now. We are not in full build out, but that's including the whole town, West Vail or whatever. We're talking about the core areas themselves like the Rams Horn. They're way over in density, they can't do anything, Sonnenalp, the Athletic Club, there isn't a project in Town that could add Jamar: Excuse me, we show in our department 117 additional accommodation units can be built- -Vail Village Inn, some HDMF parcels, I mean we could sit here and argue whether they're actually going to be built or whether they're not going to be built. Piper: These are the units that I'm alluding to and saying that there would be existing zoning will allow greater densities. PEC 8/22/83 -14- Peterson: Those projects have been approved as far as the densities and every- thing else, the SDD's, the Westin and VVI. I guess what I'm trying to feel is that from a planning standpoint is that you would be against an amendment. Viele: I'd have to agree with Duane and others although I have a number of concerns. I guess I have somewhat of an open mind on the subject. We seem somehow to have done a pretty good job of interesting and encouraging substantial improvements and upgrading within the current zoning code. As the staff pointed out, we added just recently very substantially to our PA units, and as you pointed out, we're going to add more with the Lodge renovations, etc., and although.I think you made some very good arguments, I feel that the owners of the Sonnenalp would continue to operate a first class operation as they do now. I'm concerned with getting close to our finite limit of capacity. I do think that 200 -250 units does have a rather substantial impact on parking and it has some kind of impact on the mountain capacity, and I would guess some other impacts on facilities capacities, so I guess I would be very concerned about an across -the -board substantial increase because in my mind looking at two presentations, I guess I'd have to agree with the staff that I haven't been convinced by the evidence that we really need to take the approach of increased density to encour- age further upgrading of developments which I think we need, but I think I would want to see more evidence that we really do need another couple hundred units in town. I don't see that now. Morgan: I have a question for Larry. If this were to go to a case by case situation, how would that be formated? Eskwith: It can't be really. Zoning is not based on a case by case situation, it's based on a comprehensive plan. If you don't have a comprehensive plan, then you don't have a zoning ordinance which either works or is legally enforceable. Morgan: Could they come back on a variance basis? Eskwith: No, they can't come back on a variance basis. The only thing they could come back on is zoning amendment for their specific parcel of land. Peterson: Either that or change the SDD....... Eskwith: In the history of the SDD ordinances, it was left open ended--you weren't oked into using densities, any sort of controls that the underlying zoning provided, and I also understand that the Sdd ord was amended en mass because so many problems cropped up in doing patch work zoning in the existing zones. So we had an SDD ordinance which.essentially allowed each SDD to be tailor made regardless of the under- lying zoning. Now the SDD ordinance restricts some ways by the underlying zone (which this change would not fit into). Morgan: I just have difficulty with this massive zone change. I'd rather see it on a case by case basis if there is a means to make that function, but even, Jay, you'd have to do more home work to show real need. It appears that maybe 15% more to be built in PA. and you're talking about maybe another 20% beyond that -- - - - - -- Jamar: a 30% increase in accommodation units. Morgan: The basic numbers which the staff has done well to put together just don't Justify it. That's why I'd like to see it on a case by case situation and more indication that there's really a present need. I don't see a present need. I really don't. We're talking about just throwing it out to the future - -well, maybe we'll have the need, so let's go ahead and throw in more potential units to be available. Everyone has different ideas of need. PEC 8/22/83 -15- Peterson: Under an SDD basis, we're not talking about general upzoning. Are you willing to look at it it there is total renovation, a brand new building, 1983 standards,' are you willing to give someone who is willing to do that, the increased density? Morgan: Yes, I think there is a need for a carrot for developers - -a give and take. The town is heading into a time when there are buildings that need changes and improvements and I don't know if the carrot should be in the magnitude that you are looking at, but I feel you're not going to see the town improve unless there is definites something in it for developers, the Aollars are just too much. Pierce: I feel about the same as dim Morgan. How many accommodation units can be added in the Town of Vail? Jamar: 117 which does not include Cascade Village, does include VVI, the Christiana Lot, (PA), several HDMF zones, (vacant parcels). We could sit and argue that these are ever going to built or not be built, but I don't want Jay to represent that there aren't PA units out there on vacant property, because there are a few. Corcoran: I would be opposed to across the board change to the zoning ordinance. Even though we're not looking at specific properties,.I feel the Sonnenalp.is. one of the finest'hotels in town, and I'm sure that if they did upgrade it, and could add onto it,it would remain one of the finest hotels. Unfortunately, I don't see how you can add under our current ordinances without some sort of change. The change would have to be braod brush, so I couldn't back that. Peterson: What about SDD with the old format and maybe considering that this is the gatewy to the town of Vail and other reasons - - that's where the fine tuning comes in. Corcoran: If you want to follow the old SDD guidelines, this would fit in perfectly, but, as Larry said, the PEC and Council somewhere along the line decided they didn't want to operate under those rules -- I don't really recall all the arguments of how it got changed, but it did. I guess you can start at ground zero and you may come up with those same arguments. I do agree that there is a parking problem that is to a great degree generally by day skiers. But they still have to park somewhere. I don't believe that the people staying in this hotel would add greatly to the parking problem, nor would additional PA units. Do you wish to table? Peterson: I'd like to table this item to September 12. I'll talk to the Town Council - -I would have a feeling that their concerns are going to be the same as your as far as the broad brush ordinance is concerned or if there is any willingness for some increased densities, it would certanly be a case by case basis. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to table to 9/12/83. The vote was 7 -0 to table. PEC MINUTES FOR THE 8/22/83 MEETING: 5. Request for a density control variance to remodel and add 91 sq ft of GRFA to Vorlaufer Condominiums at 385 Gore Cree -16- These minutes have not been approved. Section 18.64.050 B) in order interior space of unit #306, r. Applicant: Ed Wasson Dick Ryan presented the memo. Rick Baldwin said that he had made an attempt at a broad brush change (a zoning amendment) and was now being specific. He stated that the staff's entire basis for denial was that no hardship had been demonstrated (that was not self imposed).. Baldwin stated that Vail was mostly small lots when it was created, and therefore this was a hardship in a way. He felt that the TOV would receive a benefit by eliminating one bedroom, therefore density is being reduced. Baldwin added that he understood there would be a proposal made by the planning staff regarding changes allowing an increase in interior space when there were trade -offs which would benefit the town. Baldwin wondered if the definition of density was the size of bedrooms, or the type of space use. Mr. Wasson, the applicant, gave the history of the units in the Vorlaufer, stating that the kitchens were 6' x 7' with a loft over each kitchen. Pierce felt that the applicant had a legitimate request, that he was not creating a situation for new construction, he was eliminating a bedroom, and not changing the exterior. Pierce said he was not bothered by this request. is Morgan asked how the loft was going to be used, and Wasson felt it might be a TV room, but the ceiling was low. Morgan felt the proposal looked favorable, since the staff had talked of allowing trade -offs. Viele agreed with Gordon in feeling that this was a special case, had a positive aspect, an improvement in the unit, and said he could see the hardship. Piper stated that originally when he read the memo, he had felt no hardship existed, and was still not sure there was a hardship, but he felt that eliminating a bedroom was a positive aspect, especially since there were no exterior changes. Donovan said she would like to support the request especially if the Town were to receive a written guarantee that the density would remain reduced. However, she said that she could not support the increased density considering the memo received from Rider and Eskwith regarding variance requests. Trout said that he had no problem and agreed with Gordon. Corcoran stated that the board did have a set of rules to follow, and had to deal with the zoning ordinance. He suggested that Wasson could maybe appeal to the Town Council. Ryan stated that if and when the unit was sold, there was no guarantee that the space would not return to a bedroom. Pierce asked if the board could add a condition that the space could not be used as a bedroom, and Eskwith answered that a condition could be added if it were reasonably related, but there was a question of enforceability. Wasson stated that the ceiling was so low, the space could not ever be considered a bedroom. Donovan moved and Corcoran seconded . to deny the request per the staff memo. The vote was 4 -3 to deny, with Donovan, Corcoran, Morgan, and Piper voting to deny and Trout,_Vele and Pierce against denial. - PEC 8/22/83 -17- 10 6. Request for a conditional use ermit in order to construct an enclosed swimming pool at 758 Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Gary Bossow Jim Sayre read the definition of a recreation structure from Section 18.04.280 of the municipal code, explaining that it required a conditional use. He stated that the pool building would be seen only from the frontage roads and Lionshead, and thus the staff recommended approval with the stipulation that the PEC pass on to the DRB concerns about maintaining the screen of aspen downhill of the proposed pool and that heavy equipment access to the construction site be carefully reviewed and addressed. After much discussion, Viele moved and Trout seconded to._approve the request for the conditional use permit with the staff stipulations. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 7. Request for a rear setback variance and for a stream setback variance in order to enlarge a deck on unit 4A of the Texas Townhouses, 483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicants: H. Thomas and Delores B. Coghill Peter Jamar showed site plans and explained the deck encroachments. He added that virtually all other units at the Texas Townhouses with one exception had decks encroaching onto the stream and rear and side setbacks as a result of either being constructed prior to zoning or having been granted permission by the Town. As a result the staff did not feel that the granting of these variances would constitute a grant of special privilege. Pierce was in agreement with the staff. Morgan felt that it seemed a turn -about to use the TO setbacks as hardship considering the way the Vorlaufer request was IS handled. Piper felt that the rear setback had no relation to the side setbacks in relation to hardship. Viele could see a hardship relating to the side setbacks, but was not sure of there being a hardship relating to the stream setback. Donovan felt that no one should have constructed a deck into the stream setback, however, 6 others did. She added that if this passed, the exterior railing of the deck should be attractive to the neighbors -- should be considered at the DRB level. Trout supported the issue, Morgan stated that in the future it appeared that the applicant should be allowed the privileges enjoyed by others. He agreed in the future that the staff refer to variances granted, with more information on the background. Jamar stated that when researching this he found that others in the 70's had been given approval to build into the stream setback. Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve as per staff recommendations because the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district, it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and that was warranted because there were exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that did not aply generally to other properties in the same zone and the strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. . The vote was 6 in favor with Corcoran abstaining. PEC 8/22/83 -18- 8. Request for the modification of a conditional use permit in order to expand the_playgound to accommodate a sodded soccer field at the Vail Mountain School at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road. Applicant: Vail Mtn School, Inc. Peter Jamar showed the site plan. Ron Todd, representing the Mountain School showed a topo and explained that when they applied for the permit, they didn't have a topo of the site. When they saw the steepness, they weren't sure they wanted to spend the money to level the ground over such a large area, but would perhaps level a smaller area. Donovan stated that she would like the school to go for the full size field, as long as they kept the berm. Pierce, speaking as a member of the board of the Mtn School, stated that they would like to increase the field while not asking for a specific area. Viele moved and Morgan seconded to approve the amended request as per the staff memo. The vote was 5 in favor with Pierce and Corcoran abstaining. 9. Request for a minor subdivision to vacate a lot line between lots 25 and 26, Bi horn Terrace Subdivision. Applicant: Ted P. Stockmar Jim Sayre explained that the reason for the request was that then no variances would be required for a remodeling to a single family unit. He added that after the remodeling takes place, the consolidated lot would house approximately 1870 GRFA with 2468 GRFA allowed. He added that the staff recommended approval because the application complied with the purpose of the Subdivision Regulations, and because a single unit then would be standing on a single lot, rather than on two lots. He added that three trees could be replanted or replaced, with this concern passed on to the DRB. After discussion, Corcoran moved and Viele seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. The meeting was adjourned about 5:00 pm. U MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 19, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to amend Sections 18.04,030 (Definition of Accommodation Unit), 18.022.090 (Density Control Section of the Public Accommodation Zone District), and 18.24.130 (Density Control Section of the CC1 Zone District). Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. I. THE REQUEST Lodge Properties, Inc. has proposed amendments to three sections of the zoning code. The proposed amendments read as follows (the wording which is crossed out is proposed to be eliminated and those capitalized are proposed to be added): Amend Section 18.04.030 to read: A. Amend Section 18.04.030 to read: 18.04.030 Accommodation unit "Accommodation unit" means any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit or dwelling unit. Eae�- assem�e�aten- ant- s�al•1- �e- eeeiied- as -eee -had€ e€- a- �wel •��g-- un�t,fe�- p��eses -e €- cal• sal- ati•eg- al•l- ewa�l- e- �e��s --�e� -acre . B. Amend Section 18,22,090 to read: 18.22,090 Density control FOR DWELLING UNITS, not more than eightly square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred sugare feet of buildable site area. Not more than eightly square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area for any conditional use WHICH INCLUDES DWELLING UNITS as listed in Section 18.22.030. The total density for permitted uses, conditional uses, and accessory uses WHICH INCLUDE DWELLING UNITS shall not exceed eighty square feet of gross floor area for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area. Total density OF DWELLING UNITS shall not exceed twenty-five dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. ON AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT, NO DWELLING UNITS WOULD BE PERMITTED ONLY BY THE REMOVAL OF ACCOMMODATION UNITS FROM THE CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA OR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, • Accommodatio- Units, Lodge -2- C. Amend Section 18.24.130 to read: . 18.24.130 Density control Unless otherwise provided in the Vail Village urgan design guide plan, not more than eighty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted FOR DWELLING UNITS for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area. Total density OF DWELLING UNITS shall not exceed twenty -five dwelling units per acre of buildable site area, ON AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT, NO DWELLING UNITS MAY BE ADDED TO A SITE IF SUCH ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS WOULD BE PERMITTED ONLY BY THE REMOVAL OF ACCOMMODATION UNITS FROM THE CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA OR WELLING UNITS PER ACRE The proposed amendments are designed to eliminate accommodation units from the density control sections of the Public Accommodation and Commercial Core I zone districts. The density control sections of these zone districts would then only apply to dwelling units while leaving the other site development standards within these zone districts to control the development of accommodation units upon a site. In other words, an unlimited number and size (GRFA) of accommodation units would be allowed upon a site within the PA and CCl zones as long as they were constructed within the allowable setback, height, site coverage and site development standards specified within each zone district and, in CCI, complied with the Urban Design Guide Plan. The applicant states that the purpose of the proposed amendment is "the adjustment of the Vail Zoning Code to meet changing circumstances both in the evolution of the Town of Vail and the general economic climate in which the Town exists" and that "the perceived effect of the amendment is the infusion of new potential into the resort industry which forms the heart and on -going purpose of the Town." The applicants have hired a firm to complete a study (copy attached) which concludes that "the economic best interests of the Town of Vail are best served by allowing additional hotel and meeting and conference facilities to be developed in Vail Village." II. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicants have conducted a study of what they believe to be the practical results of the proposed amendments (copy attached). Using assumptions which included that the additional rooms to be constructed would be 350 square feet, consideration of the historical use of the buildings., structural considerations, site constraints,` and, in most cases, a disregard for zoning requirements except for setbacks . and height, they projected that an additional 257 accommodation units could be con- structed within Vail Village. Obviously, the number could vary substantially under other sets of assumptions. For instance, building smaller rooms than 350 sq ft would increase the total number of units as could the total reconstruction of buildings, 10 vacation of utility easements, the change in the historical use of a structure, and other aspects of development not considered while conducting the analysis. Con- sideration of other aspects may, in fact, have resulted in a reduced projection in the number of units. Accom, Units, Lodge -3- . We will use the applicant's figure of 257 potential additional accommodation units in Vail Village as a basis for illustrating the implications of the proposal and its relationship to the current lodging base, while at the same time recognizing that this figure could be smaller or larger. (One should realize that one problem with the proposed amendment is the fact that there is no finite number of units being proposed and therefore it is difficult to realize the exact nature of the implications,) A. FACTS REGARDING LODGE ROOMS AND VAIL VILLAGE The following facts and findings should be considered when reviewing the need for additional accommodation units in the" °Vail Village area and the economic viability of the proposal with regard to Vail Village and the entire Town of Vail. 1. Currently 798 accommodation units exist in the Vail Village area. This figure currently constitutes 53% of the total number of accommodation units within the Town of Vail. Vail Lionshead follows with 26% of the total lodge rooms while Cascade Village and the West Vail areas each contain 10% of the total number of accommodation units. Clearly, the largest number of accommodation units exist in the Vail Village area of Town. 2. Current zoning in Vail will allow an addition of 117 accommodation units within the Vail Village area, There are no additional lodge rooms available to be constructed in the Vail Lionshead or the West Vail areas, and Cascade Village could potentially construct an additional 278 units. (Although the developer has indicated he will be constructing only 123.) These statistics show that even under current zoning, Vail Village will contain approximately 50% of the total number of accommodation units within the Town of Vail when all accommodation units currently zoned for are constructed. 3. Table #1 indicates occupancy figures for lodges in Vail for the period from November 1981 through April 1983. It can be seen that March is the busiest month with occupancies at 90% in 1982 and 84% in 1983. The lowest occupancy rates occur in Vail's "shoulder seasons," the months of April, May and June, and September, October and November, with occupancies ranging from 24% to 53%. Clearly, even during peak times of the year there are lodge rooms that are available in Vail. Also 230 lodge rooms were constructed in Vail within the 1982 -1983 ski season and are now available to our guests. 4. The parking structure in Vail Village was full a total of 68 days in the 138 day 1980 -81 ski season, 73 out of 152 days in 1981 -82, and 53 out of 142 days in 1982 -83 season. In addition, less than 50 spaces were left unoccupied a total of 13 days in the 1982 -83 ski season. Convenience of parking has been identified in the Vail /Beaver Creek Winter Quality Study since 1979 as a "problem." 16 • 0 Accommo. Units TABLE NO. 1 LODGE ROOM OCCUPANCIES - CORE PROPERTIES 1981 -82 .% OCCUPIED November 27.5 December 69,1 January 69.4 February 83.9 March 90.1 April 53.7 May 24.4 June 39.2 July 65.0 August 65, 4 September 41.2 October 31.8 1982 -83 November 28.2 December 66.2 January 80.8 February 82.2 March 84.4 April 33.7 Source: Vail Resort Association • • Accommo. Units TABLE NO. 2 VAIL MOUNTAIN LIST OF PEAK DAYS FROM 1919 - 1983 YEAR DATE ATTENDANCE # 82 -83 11/26/82 13,243 it 12/30/82 14,619 If 12/31/82 13,770 1/11/83 14,602 " 1/13/83 13,516 " 1/14/83 13,012 " 2/20/83 13,325 " 3/13/83 13,005 81 -82 12/28/81 13,688 " 12/29/81 14,450 " 12/30/81 13,262 rr 12/31/81 14,590, 80 -81 12/27/80 13,128 " 12/28/80 13,190 12/29/80 14,224 " 12/30/80 14,235 79--80 12/28/79 13,062 IT 12/31/79 13,129 it 3/30/80 13,031 it 4/3/80 13,018 If 4/4/80 13,470 Source: Vail Associates, Inc, • • is Accommo. Units -4- 5. The Vail /Beaver Creek Winter Quality Study has made the following findings: a. In the 1979 -80, 1980 -81, 1981 -82 seasons several questions were -asked regarding community scale, architectural quality, level of congestion in Vail, etc. Visitors and residents alike were strong in their opinions that the Village was presently quite attractive in architectural quality and scale, particularly in comparison to Lionshead, but many felt that Vail was becoming too crowded and congested and in danger of losing its charm. Furthermore, strong feelings existed that Vail and Eagle County should attempt to limit the amount of new growth. b. The 1982 -83 study concluded that "there is little evidence that the size or availability of lodge units is emerging as a problem among Vail skiers this season. About 90 percent of all skiers responded that they had gotten their preferred type of lodging unit, with skiers staying in "time shares" or condos without kitchens most likely to say that they were not in their preferred type of unit. There was no evidence that people in condominium units would have preferred lodge /hotel units." 6. In the past 5 -6 years many investments have been made in redeveloping, renovating, and upgrading commercial, retail, restaurant, and lodging space within Vail Village. In 1983 alone, a total valuation of $529,750 worth of renovation and reconstruction has started since January as compared to $35,000 worth in Lionshead. Five additional renovation and reconstruction projects in the Village are currently going through the review process, 7. Sales tax totals in 1982 were $2,568,869 in Vail Village, $995,128 in Lionshead, and $440,598 in West Vail. Clearly Vail Village is the largest revenue generating area within Vail. 8. Rent per square foot for commercial retail space averages $30.00 per square foot in Vail Village, $20.00 per square foot in Lionshead., $20.00 per square foot in Cascade Village, and $12.00 per square foot in West Vail. Certainly, commercial property within the Village is not at a disadvantage compared to the other areas of Town. 9. Table #2 shows a list of peak days on Vail Mountain from 1979 -1983. "Peak days" are identified by Vail Associates as days having over 13,000 skiers. The Winter Quality study identified in 1979 -80 that tourists tend to feel "stress" and lift lines began to back up at approximately the 12,000 skier level. In addition to those 13,000+ days shown in Table 2, there were an additional 10 days when the skier number was between 12,000 and 13,000 in the 82--83 season, five days in 81 -82, one day in 80 -81, and 10 days in 79 -80. Thus, for example, in this past ski season a total of 18 days of the 142 day season were in excess of 12,000 skiers. Accommo. Units -5- B. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT�� . The proposed amendment will have several impacts upon Vail Village and the entire Town of Vail. The potential construction of 257 accommodation units in the Vail Village area will substantially impact the properties upon which they are constructed, the surrounding properties, and the overall Town. The Department of Community Development does not believe that the proposed amendment is consistent with the basic objectives of the zoning code, one of which is "to prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures." The various development standards within each zone district are tools designed to ensure that what is constructed upon a site results in a compatible relationship with its surroundings, both in regard to the intensity of use of the structure and in terms of the actual size, shape, bulk, and mass of the structure. The density controls which are proposed to be eliminated for accommodation units in CCI and the PA zone districts are an integral part of the zoning code with respect to these aspects of development. As can be seen from the past winter quality studies, both.Vail residents and visitors alike have strong beliefs regarding the attractiveness of the Village in-terms of architectural quality and scale, but felt the Village was in danger of losing its charm. The proposed amendment will have significant impacts upon the scale of the Village area. The elimination of the density controls which apply to accommodation units would allow some buildings to increase substantially in size, with certain buildings capable of constructing as much as two times the present building mass (see Ruoff Partnership Analysis of . Potential Additional Lodge Rooms which is attached). The addition of this bulk and mass will affect the quality of Vail Village in terms of visual charac- teristics, light and shadows, views, open space, overall scale and character. The applicants believe that since the Urban Design Guide Plan would still apply that the overall scale and character of the Village will "be virtually unchanged." However, one must realize that many of the properties which could potentially increase in mass and bulk are not located within the CCI district and therefore are not required to be reviewed under those guidelines, but only through the Design Review Board process. The DRB guidelines basically deal with architectural quality and cannot deny an application the size of structure permitted under zoning, and the Urban Design Guide Plan is also limited in its ability to control the size of structures. The staff believes that density controls are important to keep intact, for they work in combination with all of the site development standards (height, setbacks, etc.) and the Design Review and Urban Design Guide Plan to provide for an acceptable size of structures which results in the pleasing scale and character of the.Village. Density controls are most important in terms of the fact that they are the basic tools which control the intensity of use of property in order to "provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community " (another of the basic purposes of the zoning code). A fundamental of sound planning is to ensure that there is an appropriate mix and intensity of uses within the community to ensure a continuation and growth of the economic base and to provide for enough flexibility to allow the private sector to meet market demands while at the same time maintaining the established community qualities and values. Obviously, when any change in intensity of use as significant as the change being proposed is reviewed, the impacts of that change in intensity must be fully considered. Accommo. Units -6- As indicated in part A of this report, major changes in the density of the Village could become problems from the perspective of the "loyal" Vail overnight • visitors. The Vail /Beaver Creek Winter Quality Study has identified that "it became clear from an analysis of questions that congestion and crowding are definitely emerging as major problems in Vail and that significant segments of the tourist population indicate that they may stop vacationing in Vail if rampant growth continues." Certainly crowding and congestion is a realistic problem at peak times within Vail as evidenced by parking, traffic, and capacity of Vail Mountain. There is no question that the significant increase proposed for accommodation units in Vail Village will add to the current problems. One must keep in mind that a significant amount of growth and population increase can be potentially added to Vail under the densities that the Town is currently zoned for. C. THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LODGE ROOMS The applicants for the proposed amendment set forth several arguments which they believe justify the need for additional lodge rooms within the Vail Village area. One argument set forth describes the need forJnew, 350 square feet, high quality lodge rooms in order to increase the quality of Vail's lodging base and that "because of physical restraints it is virtually impossible in many cases to remodel existing small hotel rooms into larger ones." It is interesting to note that as mentioned in part A of this memo the 1982 -83 Winter Quality Study found that none of the skiers who identified unit size as a problem were staying in lodge rooms. The applicants have not presented any documentation or analysis which demonstrates the perceived need for more of this type of room or in fact,for any type of lodging accommodations. The occupancy figures shown on Table #1 seem to indicate that, if anything, there is a surplus of lodging accommodations in Vail, This information, together with the facts that 230 additional lodge rooms have been constructed within Vail this past winter and that the ability:.exists under current zoning to construct additional lodge rooms, hardly points to or justifies the need to amend the zoning code to remove the density controls in CCI and PA zones. A second argument presented by the applicants in support of eliminating the density controls with regard to accommodation units is that Vail Village does not have adequate facilities to compete equally with other areas of Town in the potential for the corporate and association group and conference market. They believe that "in order to compete in this segment of the market, Vail Village needs increased hotel rooms coordinated with modern meeting and con- ference facilities." They believe that the corporate and association.meeting and conference market is the emerging market in Vail and that this market functions mainly during those periods considered "shoulder" seasons in Vail. It is the Department of Community Development staff's opinion that the study conducted by the applicant does not contain any significant data or documentation which supports the conclusions mentioned above, The staff would agree that the convention and meeting market could very well help to support the Vail economy during the shoulder seasons. Convention and meeting facilities con- . structed at the Marriot Mark and at the'Westin Hotel indicate that the private sector is currently responding to this market. However, the market study completed by the applicant contains no information regarding the potential absorbtion rate of the market within the total Town or even within the Village. The study does not contain any analysis of the existing meeting and banquet facilities within the Town or Village nor does it analyze the ability of the current lodging base within the Village to support an addition of these types Accommo. Units -7- of facilities. The study does not indicate what type or size facility is needed other than "modern meeting and conference facilities." It is very clear that there is no documentation within the analysis whatsoever which supports the potential addition of over 250 accommodation units.within Vail Village. Our data actually refutes the conclusions of the report. It is very clear when analyzing occupancy rates that more lodge rooms are not needed.within Vail Village. A third argument central to the applicant's proposal is that an increase of hotel rooms in Vail Village "is necessary to allow Vail Village to continue to be the center of activity in Vail," and the study presented indicates the belief that the Vail Village area will deteriorate if unable to compete equally with the Mark and the Westin for the meeting and conference market. Several factors shown in part A of this memo indicate that Vail Village is certainly not in an unhealthy economic state. The sales tax figures, rental /lease rates, and the valuation of building construction, upgrading and renovation clearly.point to the fact that the Village is a highly desira- ble location for commercial activity, and that substantial investments are being made by all types of businesses, including lodges, within the Village area. Current regulations have not been a detriment to this upgrading and renovation. A central aspect of the applicant's proposal is that convention and meeting space needs to be provided within the Village area. It is important to realize that additional convention and meeting space could be constructed within several of the lodge properties under current zoning. The applicants believe that Vail Village needs to be competitive with other areas of Vail. The staff does not necessarily believe that each core area of Vail needs • to be competitive with each other in terms of each possessing the same types of facilities. The various areas of Town should be designed to complement each other rather than compete with each other. We realize that a certain amount of competition is good in the sense that it stimulates business owners to keep their facilities in a first class condition. However, the Town of Vail should function as one co- hesive economic unit rather than separate areas in competition, and while one area of Town may possess facilities which make it the convention /meeting center of Town, other areas may possess characteristics which make it desirable as the commercial center of Town, STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance. An analysis of the facts reveals that the Town of Vail does not need to increase the density of public accommodation units. We do not believe that any of the data presented by the applicant points to the conclusion that Vail Village is in need of more accommodation units than can be provided under current zoning. The amendment proposed could be detrimental to the Vail Village in terms of the architectural quality, scale, and character which have been identified by many residents and visitors as one of the most pleasing aspects of Vail, causing many of the visitors to return year after year. The elimination of the density controls with regard to accommodation units in the CCI and PA zone districts in no way ensures the success and commercial viability • • of the Vail Village area to any greater and in our opinion, would do more harm which is currently the most successful scale, and quality of the area. Accommo. Units -8- extent than do the existing zoning controls, than good by altering drastically an area area within Vail due to the desirability, The issue of gualit , in fact, is the central issue to be considered when analyzing this proposed lodge room amendment. Those proposing the increase in the number of accommodation units feel that the answer to improving the quality of the visitor experience in Vail is an increase in the quantity of lodge rooms and for many years the response to many issues of both planning and development in this community to various needs has been one of increased quantity. Vail is now at a point, however, when the major concern must be focused upon maintaining and improving upon the quality of what has made Vail the attractive destination resort it has become. Community leaders in Vail have become concerned with exactly this issue, among other issues, and have initiated the Community Action Plan to plan for Vail's future. One of the "statements of purpose" contained within the draft document which the group has prepared stated that one of the Vail community's goals for the future should be "to assure through appropriate mechanisms the continuing public and private maintenance and enhancement of the uaq lity of the community's existing major products and facilities." The group is currently looking for answers to the question of where the Town should be headed in order to preserve and enhance the quality of the Vail experience. Future decisions need.to be carefully considered in terms of their impact upon this quality, In the specific case of the proposed amendment there is, in fact, a certain amount of evidence which points to the conclusion that an increase in density in the Village of one third would have a: detrimental effect on the quality of Vail Village and the entire Town of Vail. At the very least, any decision of such magnitude should certainly be substantiated by a thorough study which looks at the total balance and relationship between short term accommodation units and the other segments of the community. The staff agrees with and supports the idea that limited expansion of meeting space within the Vail Village area may be a solution to the problem of low occupancies within the lodges during the shoulder seasons, We believe, however, that an analysis should be conducted which looks at the portion of this market which Vail could absorb and analyzes the relationship between the number of accommodation units and convention meeting space which currently exist, If is our belief that the present lodging base which exists in the Vail Village area could support the limited addition of meeting space. a % !0 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 18, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a GRFA variance for Unit #306 at the Vorlaufer to add approximately 103 square feet. Applicant: Ed Wasson DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Mr. Wasson wishes to remodel his condominium at the Vorlaufer, and in so doing to add about 103 square feet to his existing loft. The Vorlaufer is over its allowable GRFA and, thus, no more floor area is available for him to add. The applicant argues that the proposal better utilizes the interior space of the condominium and that the result would eliminate a bedroom which actually reduces "theoretical" density on the site. 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 upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. There would be no negative impacts created on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The board of directors of the condominium association has endorsed the proposal. The degree to which relief from the strict or ment of a specified regulation is necessary to of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to title without grant of special privilege. literal interpretation and enforce - achieve comp.atibility and uniformi attain the objectives of this We, of course, have had many similar applications such as this for GRFA variances due to a change in family size, family composition, personal interior likes and dislikes, etc. The planning staff and PEC have been consistent in the recognition that these arguments do.not represent a justifiable hardship to grant a GRFA variance. This type of variance request falls into the category of self - created hardship and not one related to physical difficulties of the site which cannot be overcome. While the staff realizes that negative impacts upon others would not be created, there remains no valid reason, under the given criteria, to grant such a special privilege. #306 Vorl aufer --2- 8/18/83 y The effect of the requested variance on population, transportation and traffic utilities, and public safety. LJ light and air, distribution of acilities, public facilities and There would be no effect upon these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grantinq 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. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance. As in similar previous applications, we find no bona fide hardship and feel the granting would be a special privilege. MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 18, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an application for an exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I to enclose the entry area and existing outdoor dining patio at Blu's Beanery located on the north side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Applicant: C.Rosenquist I. PROPOSAL As you'll recall, at the July 11th PEC meeting the Slu's Beanery proposal was tabled. The staff had recommended denial of the proposed enclosure design stating that the patio ought to be as transparent as possible during the winter months and have the ability to be substantially open during tho summer months. Since that time, the applicants have revised the design of the patio and entry enclosures and have actually separated the two parts of the proposal by leaving the area in front of the entry and to the west of the patio open (see attached site plan). . The design now calls for the entry area which is currently open but recessed underneath the Sweet Basil deck to be enclosed. The patio area also becomes enclosed with a greenhouse type structure, being transparent on all three sides. The applicant proposes that the glass panels on both the east and north sides be removed during the summer months. .II. COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL CORE II ZONE DISTRICT The Commercial Core I 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 predominantly pedestrian' environment. The Commercial Core I 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 design considerations prescribed development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial . Core I district. r Blu's Beanery -2- 8/18/83 • III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan states that "dining decks and patios, designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to be looked at and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were when properly look and street- - empty." The enclosure of the patio during the winter months will certainly create activity inra,n area which currently is unusable in the winter months and the ability to substantially open the enclosure during the summer months will make the patio a viable, active, and enjoyable patio throughout the year. The advantages that this design has over the previous design are that it is substantially open in the summer (only the glass roof panels will remain) and there is trans- parency during the winter months. IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. PEDESTRIANIZATION There will be no impact upon the pedestrian's ability to move along the sidewalk which exists between the building and the landscaped area between Gore Creek. B. VEHICLE PENETRATION . No impact. C. STREEETSCAPE FRAMEWORK The Blu's Beanery patio currently has a good relationship to the adjacent sidewalk. During the spring, summer, and fall months the patio is the scene of much activity. The sight and sounds of people dining adjacent to the sidewalk creates a rich pedestrian experience and is an important feature of Vail and specifically Vail Village. Since the patio is void of any activity during the winter months, the ability to utilize the area for dining during that time of the year would improve the quality of the pedestrian experience by adding some visual interest to the area. The ability to open the patio during the summer months creates a viable year round patio. The new position of the enclosed entry forms a "pocket," with the existing stair to the east and the patio to the west. D. STREET ENCLOSURE Since no structure exists to the north of the sidewalk, the building facade to the south becomes more important in creating the pedestrian experience. The enclosed entry and covered patio will lend massing variety and visual interest to the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The canopy will create a "pedestrian focus" and will divert attention from upper building heights, therefore lowering and improving the pedestrian scale. 0 J* • • Blu's Beanery -3- 8/18/83 E. STREET EDGE The new enclosed entry forms a stronger edge along the sidewalk than the current "dark cave" situation. The existing railroad -tie planter will be replaced with a new stone planter and specimen quality landscaping. At a pedestrian level, this landscaping will continue to buffer the street edge in front of the patio. F. BUILDING HEIGHT The overall building height will not change. G. VIEWS No impact H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY No impact. I. SUN /SHADE There will be no impact upon the shadow pattern on adjacent properties. V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS The applicant will have to pay the appropriate parking fee based on one space for each 8 seats added. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the request. We feel that the proposal will enhance the pedestrian experience during the winter months by creating some visible activity. The ability to remove the glass on the north and east ends basically retains the open patio feeling that now exists, and we would recommend that these panels be removed no later than June 15of each year and be installed no earlier than September 15th of each year. E II � -: +__ ---, I I I n 7-1 1 1 WX E ti 1 I� �I I. Ii 44 - > PZL-"H II C71tJlNG J CaV��Ptx�Fo TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 18, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a GRFA variance for Unit #306 at the Vorlaufer to add approximately 103 square feet. Applicant: Ed Wasson DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Mr. Wasson wishes to remodel his condominium at the Vorlaufer, and in so doing to add about 103 square feet to his existing loft. The Vorlaufer is over its allowable GRFA and, thus, no more floor area is available for him to add. The applicant argues that the proposal better utilizes the interior space of the condominium and that the result would eliminate a bedroom which actually reduces "theoretical" density on the site. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings_, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,_ the Department of Community Develo ment recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or otential uses and structures in the vicinit y. There would be no negative impacts created on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The board of directors of the condominium association. has endorsed the proposal. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforc e ment of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or r to� attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 1 We, of course, have had many similar applications such as this for GRFA variances due to a change in family size, family composition, personal interior likes and dislikes,'etc. The planning staff and REC have been consistent in the recognition that these arguments do not represent a justifiable hardship to grant a GRFA variance. This type of variance request falls into the category of self- created hardship and not one related to physical difficulties of the site which cannot be overcome. While the staff realizes that negative impacts upon others would not be created, there remains no valid reason, 'under the given criteria, to grant such a special privilege. There would be no effect upon these factors. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followi ..na 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 safety, or welfare, or materially inju the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one The strict or literal interpretation would result in practical difficulty with the objectives of this title. not be detrimental to the public health, rious to properties or improvements in or more of the following reasons: and enforcement of-the specified regulation or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance. As in similar previous applications, we-find no bona fide hardship and feel the granting would be a special privilege. • MEMORANDUM • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 16, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to amend a conditional use permit for the Vail Mountain School in order to expand the existing playground area to accommodate a sodded soccer field. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, Inc. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE In 1978, the Vail Mountain School was given a conditional use permit on lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. One of the stipulations of the C.U.P. was that the amount of land to be used by the school was limited by a deed restriction from Vail Associates. The Mountain School wishes to construct a soccer field of approxi- mately 330 feet x 190 feet (see attached plans). This expansion of the playing field area requires that the conditional use permit be amended since this area is larger than the original area allowed to be used. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, 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 basic objectives of the zoning code is "to assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters." The proposal is certainly compatible with this objective. The effect of the 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 proposal will result in a more viable recreation facility for both the school and the Town. A portion of the bike path will require relocation as shown upon the site plan. Effect upon 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 impact. Mtn School -2- 8/16/83 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 surrounding uses. • The expansion of the playing field is not expected to adversely affect any adjacent properties. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The environmental impact report concerning the ro osed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. None required. FINDINGS 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 provisions of this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested amend- ment. The expansion of the playing field will enhance the quality of the field and will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 0 C Nj i .1 1 a rid sr t� <1 1jl tj IL O A CL X it • • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 16, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision to vacate a lot line between lots 25 and 26, Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. Applicant: Ted Stockmar THE REQUEST The Stockmars own a duplex, units 25 and 26, located in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision. The owners wish to add an entry, build an enclosed room for a Jacuzzi and eliminate one kitchen from the structure. The structure will be used as a single family unit. The lot line common to units 25 and 26 runs directly through the center of the structure. Given the current configuation of the lots, remodeling would require various variances: b GRFA variance would be required to build the entry on lot 25; the entry also would not meet setback requirements because of the lot line. After lots 25 and 26 are consolidated through vacation of the lot line, no variances will be required for the remodeling and the building will remain well within GRFA limitations. After the remodeling takes place the consolidated lot will house approximately 1870 GRFA with 2468 GRFA allowable. See attached site plan. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL The criteria to evaluate a minor subdivision is outlined in the Purpose section of the Subdivision Regulations. Section 17.04.010 (B) appears below: To these ends, these regulations are intended to protect the environment, to ensure efficient circulation, adequate improvements, sufficient open space and, in general, to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the town of Vail. These regulations also provide for the proper arrange- ment of streets and ensure proper distribution of population. The regulations also coordinate the need for public services with governmental improvement programs. Standards for design and construction of improvements are hereby set forth to ensure adequate and convenient traffic circulation, utilities, emergency access, drainage, recreation and light and air. The Stockmar application complies with the purpose of the Subdivision Regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested lot line vacation. By consolidating the lots, a single unit shall be standing on a single lot; this situation makes more sense than a single structure standing on two lots. The application also conforms with the purpose section of the Subdivision Regulations. In addition, the applicant shall be able to improve the residence without asking for variances. . ■ w f • s � °' A .52. a6 ^� 2.3 ! s2 � s t �o S 750 76 to, a I , Cresg 4MD ur1�ry 1 1 UNIT 26 EA LOT LINE T4 BE' (�f - VACATED —TO LIN O 1 �yiS G� yYELLI "TO REMAIN J 1 LINE VACATED �`o a K�AG e+� j 1 LOT T� CBE jl eASEMN� LLz 1 EXISTING DWELLING' In cu Y Pl C) j ; f TOTAL AREA c IT 0.16 Cf2E.S � h :* U,iN IT 25 0 Z SET 13ACk -10 L INN a 10 -. I . N 62'17'00 "W 79.04' III �! ^��` IIr i!I —[r= tT�1r''!.r(1�-��I r+iE�n1I'� "F 1n4 L ED',iVJ 3 ..I I L_ �L,1JI.I-j\RIJ ".)I�!IJ -j I!JtvFVF W. a€ AgEA OF AIEW P% G6A)5 ,RVG i10IV Gr. . Lt jF. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 17, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a rear setback variance, side setback variances, and a stream setback variance in order to enlarge a deck on unit 4A of the Texas Townhouses, 483 Gore Creek Drive. Applicants: H.T. & D Coghill DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants desire to construct a deck to the north of their townhouse located in the Texas Townhouses. The deck would be constructed on the north side of the building and would encroach into the requred 50 foot stream setback, the required 20 foot rear setback and the required 20 foot side setbacks. In other words, the resultant setback distances with the deck construction would be: 32 feet from the centerline of Gore Creek, two feet from the rear property line, and 0 feet at each side setback. The lot is located within the HDMF zone district. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS is 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. Virtually all other units at the Texas Townhouses, with one exception, have decks encroaching onto the stream setback and the rear and side setbacks as a result of either being constructed prior to zoning or having been granted permission by the Town. Due to this fact, the construction of the deck should not negatively affect the adjacent properties nor the creek. 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 title without grant of special privilege. As mentioned above, the granting of the variance would result in compatibility and uniformity among treatment of sites in the vicinity since the adjacent units. • Coghill -2- 8/17/83 all presently encroach to an equal or greater extent than is proposed by the applicant. Thus, the granting of the variance would not be a grant of a special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, ublic facilities and utilities, and ublic safety. No impact. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS; 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. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS; The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance. Since the lot is only 25 feet wide, the side setbacks of 20 feet on each side overlap each other and therefore the side setback requirements are unreasonable when applied to this lot. The fact that all other adjacent properties encroach into the the rear setback and stream setback does create somewhat of a hardship for the applicant and does deprive him of the same privi- lege enjoyed by his neighbors. There is no negative impact upon adjacent property owners nor on the creek. s r Approximote Center of Creek Approximote Dripline of 36 "Pine Edge of Woier 70 74 25.0 76 o °oo,c)0„ 0 2nd Ffoor `~ N �$ Dec CXU ' 1,i 0.7 r� 1St Fl pQr ~ ; 04 t", f- ')L" ` 25.! f 03 f 1 , 1 r 2 Story N FrOme Build,gQr2 & Lo-r r' Lor 4 r o. 7 03 1 Qverhohg o L oar Deck --• '.1 ' - r e 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 17, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a conditonal use permit to construct the Westin -Ho ski trail in Special Development District #4. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The request is to construct the Westin -Ho ski trail from the lower face of the run called Simba Run to the bicycle path east of the Westin Hotel. The trail is proposed to use Vail Associates ski - permitted land and land within Special Development District 4. The land which is permitted for skiing above SDD4 is not in the Town's boundaries, and the conditional use permit is required for the portion of the trail within SDD4. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS iUpon review of Section 18.60, 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. Cascade Village is slowly but surely evolving as the third major "village" in the Gore Valley. It is, of course, their desire to also be the fourth major ski base serving Vail Mountain. This is imperative, they feel, to the success of the Westin Hotel. Congruent with this is the continuing efforts to locate a chairlift connecting the mountain to the Village. Vail Associates has now agreed "actively to pursue the feasibility and viability of this lift within the framework of its Vail Mountain master planning process to be completed not later than the end of the 1984 calendar year. "7 The ski trail is consistent with the development objectives of the Town in that it connects Vail Mountain with the third major village and, in doing so, distributes skier population more evenly, thus slightly reducing congestion in the existing areas. Moreover, the planning staff agrees that skier connections from the Cascade/ Westin complex are a necessity to the long range development of that area, as long as negative impacts are not created in the process. 0 1 Letter dated June 20, 1983 from Harry Frampton and Bob Parker to Dan McClosky and Andy Norris. Westin Ski Trail -2- 8/17/83 The effect of the 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 degree of use of this trail is somewhat of a question mark. Its intention for the time being is to be more or less of a service to the Cascade Village residents and guests. It is doubtful that others would drive to the Cascade structure, take the bus back to L.ionshead or the Village, and then ski down to Cascade at the end of the day. However, this could occur on the busiest days of the year when both parking structures are full. The limiting factor is the availability of parking at Cascade Village, which is quite limited at this stage. All in all, no negative congestion impacts should result at this stage. Effect upon 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. See evaluation of criteria #2 . 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 surrounding uses. The trail is being professionally engineered and designed by Sno Engineering and Vail Associates, and should not be a blight to the environment. Every effort is being made to minimize cuts and fiiis, etc. The trail construction certainly has many precedents and should blend in well with the existing trail network. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the _proposed use. The environmental impact re ort concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is re uired by Chapter 18.56. No EIR has been required by the Town. An environmental assessment is being prepared for the Forest Service on this proposal. ` Westin Ski Trail -3- 8/17/83 FINDINGS 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 provisions of this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the Westin -Ho ski trail. We endorse the concept of connecting Vail Mountain to Cascade Village via this proposal and believe negative impacts will be avoided. The following condition applies: All disturbed land located within TOV boundaries be suitably re- vegetated. FOOTNOTE: It should be noted that there have been extensive discussions in recent weeks between Andy Norris, Vail Associates, the Forest Service and the planning staff regarding both the complicated jurisdictional requirements of this trail and its optimum location and alignment. The trail will go northwesterly off of the lower face of Simba Run (the furthest west trail of Vail Mountain's north side). Vail Associates endorses the trail and is willing to construct it (they've already begun construction on land located within their permitted area) this summer and fall. Complications have arisen in that "optimum" alignment of the trail involves using small portions of non - permitted (for skiing) U.S. Forest Service land and TOV -owned land zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The area where the trail would cross currently non - permitted Forest Service land is proposed for skiing use in the Forest Service's proposed Management Plan, now under a 90 day public review process. Even if everything went smoothly and the Management Plan were approved at the earliest date, the approval for use of that land for skiing would not be until November. Furthermore, the Town Council has not discussed the use of TOV land for the ski trail. :J 10WH of nail 75 south frontage road nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Department of Community Development DATE: August 10, 1983 RE: Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an indoor pool. Applicant: Gary Bossow. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: Section 18.04.280 of the Vail Municipal Code exempts indoor swimming pools from GRFA requlations. The section reads: "Recreation structure" means any covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming pool or tennis court, which is not a seasonal structure. For the purposes of this title, recreation structures shall constitute site coverage but shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. Any recreation structures shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.60. Gary Bossow desires to add a swimming to his residence on Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch 1st Filing. The residence, including the proposed addition, does meet site coverage regulations. The addition is to be placed to the south (downhill) of the existing residence. The duplex has reached its maximum GRFA. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, 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 "prevent excessive r 1 �J population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures." The addition of the swimming pool will not increase the population density on this lot; the number of bedrooms and kitchens will remain unchanged. Nor will the addition of the swimming pool overcrowd this large, 31,497 square foot lot with structures. Another development objective is to "conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features." The proposed pool is to be built on a steep hillside. However, Bossow's plans indicate that there will be minimal disturbance of existing grades due to the pool addition. The key to preserving the hillside will be the manner by which heavy construction equipment enters the lot. The effect of the use on_l__gh and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities. and other public facilities and public facilities needs. No influence. Effect "on the 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. . Since there will be no change in the number of people living in the dwelling unit, the pool should have negligible influence in traffic. 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 surrounding_ uses. The addition will be barely visable from adjacent site; it will be visable from the frontage roads and Lionshead. To the north is 770 Potato Patch. The Bossow pool will be virtually invisi=ble from this multi -unit project. To the south and east is d9 icultural and open space. To the west is a vacant lot. When this lot is developed, the pool will be visitble from this location. You will be able to see the addition fruin Lionshead and points east and west from Lionshead. Thus it is important that the screen of aspen be maintained around the pool. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable to the proposed use. The environmental impact report concernin the_p roposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.5b. None required. • 0 FINDINGS 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 provisions of this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following stipulation: That the Planning Commission pass on to the Design Review Board concerns about maintaining the screen of aspen downhill of the proposed pool and that heavy equipment access to the construction site be carefully reviewed and addressed. fj Lo LO rD 13 In CT fu m 0 ii rj PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 12, 1983 11:15 am Site Inspections 12:30 pm Study Session: PEC Philosophy of Development of Spraddle Creek 1:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of August 22, 1983 2. Request for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Arcade in order to build a commercial addition. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties 3. A ;request to amend the Vail Municipal Code to add a new zone district entitled Ski Base /Recreation District. Also, a discussion concerning the Golden Peak redevelopment proposal will take place. Applicant: Vail Associates 4. An appeal of an administrative decision regarding denial of a Design Review Board application on Lot 21, Block 9, Intermountain subdivision. Applicant: Tom Briscoe 5. Request to amend Section 18.36.030 of the Vail Municipal Code to permit private helipads as a conditional use in the Public Use zone district. Applicant: Preston Ewen. 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to install a major arcade on the first floor of the Inn at West Vail. Applicant: Inn at.West Vail, James Craddock 7. Request to amend the entire chapter of the Vail Municipal Code concerning Design Review (Chapter 18.54). Applicant: Town of Vail • } 0 • Planning and Environmental Commission September 12, 1983 PRESENT Dan Corcoran Diana Donovan Gordon Pierce Will Trout PRESENT FOR MEETING Jim Morgan ARGENT Duane Piper STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Dick Ryan Peter Jamar Jim Sayre Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 1:00 pm by the chairman, Dan Corcoran. 1. Approval of minutes of August 22, 1983. Donovan moved and Pierce seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. Request for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Arcade in order to build a commercial addition. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties Corcoran read a letter from the applicant asking to table this item until Sept- ember 26. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table as requested. Vote was 5 -0. 3. A request to amend the Vail Munici a1 C Ski Base /Recreation District. Also, a redevelopment proposal will take place. ode to add a new zone district entitled discussion concerning the Golden Peak Applicant: Vail Associates Peter Patten explainedthat this was the first step in a somewhat complex approval process. He stated that the first step would be to request to amend the zoning code to get a new zone district, and the second step was an informal discussion to review the proposed development plan. Peter went over the proposed zone district with the staff's suggested changes of which there were eight. Larry Eskwith emphasized that this was not an SDD, though it had many elements of an SDD. He added that the zone was also subject to use in other areas, not just Golden Peak. Bob Parker, of Vail Associates explained that the reason for a zone change was that Golden Peak was zoned Agriculture and Open Space, although it had always been utilized as a ski base. He added that VA had a major committment to upgrade this area. VA felt that it was important to maintain a competitive posture in the ski resort market place, that the level of competition was very high. Parker said that Golden Peak was a major statement by VA in response to requests from Vail Village merchants. He explained that the building has met basic concerns in that the profile 9/12/83 PEC -2- was no higher than the existing building, and the.des.i.gn fit the neighborhood. He stated that VA had met with a number of neighbors and responded to as many of their concerns as possible, and remain flexible and willing to discuss any legitmate concerns, although there were basic perameters related to operating needs which were not nego- tiable. Larry Eskwith answered Corcoran`s question of appropriateness of discussion of the building, when what was being discussed was the zone amendment, by stating that there was no reason to get too much detailed information at this time. Parker stated that the staff's change in 18.39.080 did not take into account special events that were held outside such as the Rotary breakfast, Vail Fest, art shows, and future plans to have outside ticket dispensers at the base of the chair lifts. Jim Lamont, representing a group of neighbors calling themselves "The Golden Peak Neighborhood Association," read a letter from the association stating concerns, and asked that a Special Development District be created instead, that there be an envi- ronmental impact statement required, that there be a master plan to address parking, traffic, capital improvements for the neighborhood, etc. Lamont stated that he represented Manor Vail, Gold Peak condos, Texas Townhouses, Texas Townhouses Norty, All Seasons, Vail Trails East, Vail Trail Chalet, and the Rams Horn. Kit Cowperthwaite, of Vail Trail East agreed with Lamont, and added that the amendment could impact other areas of the valley as well as Golden Peak. He felt that VA with • the amendment could build a much larger footprint than the one proposed. Randy Milhoan of Texas Townhouses was concerned with the profile, scale, traffic and parking. Corcoran read into the minutes a letter from Wm A. Bours III, a Manor House owner, who was also concerned about traffic, parking, snow storage, etc. Morgan was concerned with the original proposal from VA in April concerning several parcels of VA land in an exchange with TOV. Parker answered that Va had concluded that the package deal was not feasible and had decided to proceed one element at a time. Eskwith stated that this should be judged in terms of whether or not it was a good plan strategy overall. Morgan asked if it could be an SDD, and Eskwith replied that VA needed to follow a zone district. Morgan asked if it were zoned, then could VA come back with an SDD request, and Eskwith replied that they could. Parker addressed the concerns of the neighbors about what would happen in the future. He stated that VA had agreed in public that they were willing to have restrictions in covenants. Pierce asked what other areas could be potentially affected, and Patten stated that the staff hadn't looked at other areas, but possibly Lionshead and Vail Village. Pierce asked if the ski school was going to be expanded, and Parker said it wouldn't be. He added that VA had proposed an alpine slide because they had been approached by many Vail Village businesses to increase summer activity in the core. He stated that if it conflicted with the neighbors, VA was negotiable. He said that a physical therapy room was planned, a basket locker room larger than the present one, and a video arcade had been proposed (it would close at 7:00 pm) and that there would be meeting rooms for VA instructors, instruction, and community groups. 0 -3- PEC 9/12/83 Pierce felt that the size of the building was rather modest, and would not generally impact the neighborhood. Viele said he agreed with Gordon, and if VA were willing to add covenants to protect the neighborhood, that should hopefully resolve problems. He asked about other VA property that could possibly affected as well, and Parker answered that in Vail Village, the property currently is primarily owned by the Forest Service, although there were many legal questions about what property was legally annexed to the Town. He stated that the amount of land at Golden Peak was 2+ acres ( of land not already zoned). He added that One Vail Place was at the extent that no additional building would be allowed. Parker stated that at Lionshead the buildings were already zoned. Corcoran asked Eskwith if different conditions could be applied to another area under the same district and Eskwith replied that they could. Viele felt that the facilities at Golden Peak were woefully inadequate, but that the concerns of the neighbors should be listened to. Donovan wanted to know if all of the proposed LH facilities out of the Agriculture zoning, and Parker stated that the buildings were out of the Ag zoning, but that,the ski lifts, bridge, sno making, etc. is currently in AOS. Donovan was concerned with future changes, and wondered about the possibility of limiting the square footage, and wondered if there were plans to convert the the space. Parker answered that they would not convert the space and explained that the meeting rooms would be used by ski instructors, that they would be available to the TOV staff, but would not be converted. He stated that in the summer time, the facility and grounds were highly used by the community, and that it was not occupied by a commercial facility, and if there were no alpine slide, there would not be any money making activity in the summer. Patten stated that no major arcade was proposed, so he assumed that they had dropped that part of the proposal. Donovan asked who owned the small graveled parking area, and Parker stated that VA did, that they had been asked by the TOV that if it were to remain, that it be gated, paved and landscaped. Donovan suggested some part of the agreement should cover special events. Trout asked Cowperthwaite to reiterate his position, and asked if Cowperthwaite would be happy with special covenants. Cowperthwaite replied that the protective covenants for Vail Village 5th were ignored because Tract F was to have been "open area, park, no above ground buildings until 1999" and that they were not to be amended, modified, etc, in any way without 75% of the owners' permission. He stated that he had heard little from VA of implementing the covenants. Therefore, he felt special covenants would not be enforceable. Eskwith explained that the protective covenants were filed before the TOV existed, and that they were an agreement between VA and the property owners. He added that they had been abandoned and not enforced, so the question would be whether or not the covenants had in fact been abandoned or not. Cowperthwaite suggested an amendment to the existing covenants. Eskwith stated that the TOV could impose enforceable conditions. Trout asked Lamont to expand on his letter, and Lamont was concerned about an EIR, was hoping to have an SDD, was concerned about the increase in traffic in the winter, suggested putting the parking underground, the linkage between the golf course and Gold Peak, and the Frontage Road. • -4- PFC 9/12/83 + Gerry White said that he failed to see the need for a new zone, but if new uses were established, limitations could also be established with variances then used to go beyond the limitations. He was also concerned about future use. He felt . that if it were rezoned, there should be clear limitations. Trout asked Parker of future expansion of ski lifts and runs and wondered if VA was planning even more expansion. Parker answered that in light of the impact of possible future increase in traffic, VA was planning only a modest expansion in each function, but not a major expansion because of the neighbors. The expansion was 1/3 to 1/2 more than the existing building. Trout wondered about events like the Olympics which Byron Brown had aluded to, and Parker responded that Brown did not speak for VA. He added that the ski club building was not part of the Golden Peak requested zone. He also added that the ski club planned to lengthen the FIS Standard G.S, and had expanded the slalom start to meet FIS standards, but that VA had no plans to add major race facilities. Trout felt that the proposal was timid and saw positive steps. • • Corcoran was concerned over the alpine slide, but that it would have to come in on its own merits. He did not feel that a good SDD was any more restrictive. He stated - the entire parcel was included and VA would not be coming back with another plan, and felt that the impact was minimal. Morgan asked why the staff was concerned that there might be year -round day care. Patten answered that without being able to study all areas, the staff felt it was best to have restrictions, and in the future conditional uses could be reconsidered. There was some discussion about allowing a video arcade, and Patten said that it could be handled thru condi- tional use processes. Ryan expressed gratitude that the neighbors had shown interest and suggested that they work with the staff on the pedestrian and traffic plan, and Parker suggested that VA be included. Patten stated that under information required for the development plan, limited retail sales and parking information should be required, and that all retail sales should be conditional. Dick Elias of Manor Vail stated that he did not know that this item would be voted on today, and he felt that the neighborhood concerns should be included in the recommended district. Patten repeated that there were two separate points to be considered today, one was to vote on whether or not to recommend the district to the Town Council, and the other was simply to discuss the Golden Peak district, but not to vote on it. Eskwith explained that after the district is added to the zoning code, VA would still have to come back with a zoning amendment, then if that is approved, they would have to have a development plan to get approved. Corcoran stated that he felt that the agenda was quite clear. Trout asked Lamont if he wanted to see changes, and Lamont said that it was the intent to have a joint meeting with the TOV staff, but that the staff didn't feel it was appropriate to meet before this presentation. Morgan asked if this should be tabled until the TOV, VA and the neighbors could meet. Parker stated that the VA position was the one presented, with possible changes in reference to an alpine slide. He did not see why the process could not be continued while this document was recommended to Council. PEC -5- 9/12/83 Morgan asked Eskwith whether or not the Council could make changes if the recommendation went to them, and Eskwith answered that if the Council recommended major changes, they would send it back to the PEC for their input. Morgan moved and Donovan seconded to table the item until September 26 for further input from the neighbors, VA and staff. The vote was 5 -1 to table with Trout against. More discussion followed. Donovan stated several things that she felt should be addressed. She felt that parking and pedestrians were both major issues. She stated that it appeared that the pedestrians would be walking in the street, that on the corner where Mill Street used to be the planters would not be big enough to hide the cars, that at the mothers' drop off there was no place to make a loop, and so cars would be backed up, that on the bus turn around there was half again much room as was needed, that the parking was pushed into the neighborhood too much, and that she was concerned about snow storage. Parker answered that without exception, every concern had been expressed by the planning department, and that they were looking at a minor refinement of the plan. Donovan stated that the inpact of the facility on illegal parking was incredible. Viele felt that the plan was fairly modest but didn't go far enough to solve the parking problem, that the plan did consolidate many things and capitalized on Mill Creek. Pierce agreed with Viele and suggested undergound parking under the tennis courts. Morgan felt that it was difficult to understand how it came to this state without pedestrian walkways. He felt that the circulation was worsened. Parker explained that they had considered moving the bike path up the slope and tie it directly to the sidewalk so that the average person would want to go that way. He added that the problem with pedestrians in winter was that room was needed for snow storage. He added that the parking problem would not be alleviated until there was underground parking. 4. An appeal of an ad s rative decision regarding denial of a Design Review Board application on Lot 21, Block 9, Int_e_rm_ountain subdivision. Applicant: Tom Briscoe Peter Jamar explained that the appellant submitted an application for Design Review in order to construct three units. The staff did.not accept the application due to the fact that this lot is not zoned for any additional units. Eskwith explained that Briscoe had asked the County for the units, then the land was annexed by the TOV. The TOV had asked Briscoe to exhaust administrative remedies. Mr. Briscoe stated that the.court told him to come in and get either an approval or a denial. Eskwith explained that the property was zoned duplex and that there were presently 3 units on it already. He stated that Eagle County had approved the three units which were then built and then Eagle County asked him to go back to the Planning Commission for approval of the second group of three. The applicant did not make any such application to the Eagle County Planning Commission, and therefore his approval had expired. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to uphold the staff's decision to deny the application. The vote was 6-�0. -- PEC -7- 9/12/83 A 0 7. Re uest to amend the entire chapter of the Vail Municipal Code concernin Design Review (Chapter 18.54. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Jamar led the discussion on the revisions of the Design Review chapter. Viele felt that the one year time limit should be extended. Donovan was concerned that metal roofs had been mentioned.- Trout wondered if the board should wait until the Community Action Plan was finished before approving the changes. The staff said the changes were needed immediately. Pierce moved and Donovan seconded to recommend the suggested_ changes to the Town Council concerninq Chapter 18.54 including the changes suggested today. The vote to recommend was 5 in favor with Trout against. The Planning and Environmental Commission then studied VA's proposal for the development of Spraddle Creek. Peter Patten explained that duplexes and single family houses were being proposed. He added that from an initial review, the staff was concerned about two road grades that were 10 %, and that each lot must have lt% buildable area (under a 40% slope). Bob Parker said that VA had retained a firm to get more detailed plans. He said that the issues Patten had raised were clearly subject to what they find getting into the detailed plans. He pointed out that it was a south facing slope without much traffic. Trout asked if the stables would remain, and Parker answered that they were looking for a way not to have the stables, but needed Forest Service approval. Donovan was concerned about having building on the sides of the valley. Viele was concerned that the work be done without blighting the landscape. Pierce felt the lower sites would be too visible. Corcoran had a potential conflict of interest. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Initial Review of Golden Peak Development Proposal INTRODUCTION Although many in the community have discussed Vail Associates' intention to at some time re- develop the Golden Peak ski base area within the last several years, it wasn't until April of this year that a proposal was formally introduced to the community. The proposal was revealed as a segment of an overall package program between the Town and Vail Associates involving various land use and zoningg approvals on some of V.A.'s land in exchange for dedication to the Town of V.A.'s remaining open space /stream tract lands. Despite the existence of the package plan proposal, the individual planning and zoning decisions must, of course, be treated by the PEC and Council on their own merits. V.A.'s top priority item is to re- develop the Golden Peak ski base and, as such, is the first element to come into the.Town's approval process. Due to the many varied approvals required in the Golden Peak project alone . (i.e. annexation, minor subdivision, zoning code amendment, re- zoning, design review, etc.) it will not be an entirely quick and easy process, but indeed will probably require approximately three months. Thus, at this time, we are initiating the first review of the development plan in a discussion -type format to begin to understand the project and initially sort out the key issues and areas requiring further work. There will be no formal staff recommendation delivered at this time due to the above. GOLDEN PEAK - EXISTING CONDITIONS Currently, Golden Peak exists as one of the three major base ski areas for Vail Associates. It has always been known to many as the most uncrowded base area and the easiest and quickest route up the mountain. Probably the major reason for this is the severely limited parking availability. The Golden Peak parking lot currently has only about 110 spaces and the soccer field lot adds some more, but this is compared to over 1000 spaces available at both Vail Village (lifts 1 and 16) and Vail Lionshead (Gondola and Chair 8). This requires that, if one wishes to park here to go skiing, one needs to be at the lot probably before 8:15 am, or the lot will be full. Many of the cars parked at Golden Peak are V.A. employees. The building existing has been there since 1967 and contains about 13,000 sq. ft. It houses V.A. ski operations such as ski school and associated day care . facilities, cafeteria, offices, ticket sales, ski instructor facilities, public restrooms and so on. Golden Peak has also become famous as the center of ski racing, both amateur and professional, of Vail. In the summer Golden Peak is known as the Town's main tennis center with nine tennis courts and a full -size tennis pro shop. Other summertime recreation includes some quality volleyball courts and a soccer /lacrosse field. The is off wit ski THE site also includes a bus and pick -up. Last season iin the main lot primarily school /day care programs. PROPOSAL Initial Review Golden Peak -2- 9/8/83 drop --off area and a lane for short -term skier drop - V.A. provided an additional drop - off /pick -up area to accommodate mothers and their children in the One can readily decipher that there are a large amount of on -site activities which vary from season to season and are carried out by different organizations. This realization.:makes the coordination and satisfaction of all those interested parties, including the immediate neighborhood; a substantial challenge. Since April there has been a good deal of communication involving the various TOV departments, the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District (who is responsible for all the tennis activities), various consultants on parking structures and urban design, the immediate neighborhood residents, the Town Council and Vail Associates. Vail Associates has digested all this input and has produced the documentation we'll review on Monday. Keep in mind that although we're entering the approval process stage at this time that we still remain in the feedback stage as well, and this is why we are structuring Monday's discussion on the development plan as merely an informal review. THE MAIN BUILDING A greatly expanded facility is proposed for the main building which would contain . six condominium units averaging 2180 sq ft each. The condominiums occur as a secondary use on the third and fourth floors, while all operational facilities occur on the lower two floors. Due to a change in grade on the site, the building reads as 3 -1/2 stories from the north and 2 -112 stories from the south. The uses proposed on the first two floors are not significantly different from those now occurring- -they are simply expanded. New uses include some expanded retail space (skier - related), a basket (small "locker ") rental area for the public and employee physical therapy and locker rooms. The dining /drinking facilities are greatly expanded, as is the day care capabilities and employee spaces. New meeting rooms are also included. Please refer to your notebook in the sections on proposed uses and pro forma summary for a detailed explanation and sizing of the proposed uses. As you can see from the elevations and perspectives in your notebooks, the building is designed with a sloping roof and varied roof lines. Liberal use of dormers and large window features are used to attempt to "break -up" the scale of the structure. Public access is provided through skier "arcades" which are open -air (unheated) hallways designated as main circulation ways for pedestrians. BUS PLAZA AREA The real "front door" of the building occurs on the east side where the proposed bus plaza and skier drop -off area occurs. The proposal is to create a plaza type atmosphere here with expanded bus lanes, paver treatments, bridges going over East Mill Creek, a bus shelter and extensive landscaping. This area has received 9/8/83 Initial Review Golden Peak -3- a large amount of input from the Town's Transportation and Public Works Departments, and they are quite pleased with the proposed design, as it will greatly improve the workability of this area for busses and drop -offs. This area also provides for emergency ambulance pick -up of injured skiers. Vail Associates is currently studying the possibility of more stream and less pavers in this area to enhance the creek more as a site amenity. Also occurring on the east side is a loading dock area for small trucks delivering supplies to the kitchen. Most of the trucks using this area will be V.A.'s own large pick -ups and slightly larger beer trucks. This loading area has been proposed to be heavily screened with large blue spruce due to its visible location. SOUTH SIDE DECK AREA Occurring to the south of the main building will be a large patio area for skier circulation, dining, apres -ski and other special events. This should enhance the outdoor experience for the facility. V.A. is currently studying locating the bike path to the south of the deck to make it continuous without going onto the patio. TFNNTS The size of the proposed building pushes it to the west enough to necessitate the elimination of the easterly tennis court. The proposal is to replace this . court next to the two lower courts by abandoning the Chalet Road right -of -way. This will leave the same number of courts overall, but reduce the main tier of courts to three. Grass bleachers are proposed on the hills to the south and west of the remaining three courts which will vastly improve the spectator facilities and provide for top quality tournament viewing. The summertime tennis pro shop will also be enhanced with a new second level north- west corner location. Provided will be a new expansive tennis viewing deck on the north and west corner of the building as well as expanded pro shop space. PARKING The parking lot will be expanded to the west with an addition of 27 spaces. Also, the existing lot will be striped to take advantage of the compact car size space. One area which has proven to be a tough one is the treatment of landscaping to screen the parking lot along Vail Valley Drive. The conflict is between snow storage and a sufficient, attractive landscape buffer between parking lot and road. Currently, the proposal is to have removable planters simply placed on the asphalt in the spring through fall. These would be removed in winter to allow for maximum snow storage in this area, which has been a problem in the past and will not get any better under this proposal, especially with the new westerly parking lot occurring in an existing snow storage area. The solution is simply to haul out a lot more snow than previously. n U Initial Review Golden Peak -4- 9/8/83 Basically, we feel that the removable planter proposal is too far toward snow is storage on a continuum between it and maximum landscape buffering. The wooden tie planters placed on the asphalt will look temporary and read as a half-hearted effort to screen a large and very visible parking lot. A project of this scope, stature and permanency should carry out a high quality program in every detail, especially in the most visible and most frequented area. We would like to continue to work with V.A. and the TOV Public Works Department in arriving at a compromise solution to this area. A permanent curb such as one normally sees as a highway divider could possibly be provided which had clumps of heavy landscaping while leaving the vast majority of the area for snow storage. Other concerns related to the parking area are the northwest corner of the new parking area and the mothers' drop -off. The new lot needs to be sited more to the south to allow for heavy landscaping on this corner. The mothers' drop -off area is in conflict with pedestrian traffic near the main entrance to the building on the north side. These "10 minute only" spaces need to be relocated in a less heavily traveled area. Overall, there is a gain of some 26 spaces or so for a total of 136. This exceeds the parking requirement slightly for the functions within the building itself. The traffic pattern will not change as a result of the project except to provide one entrance to the parking lot year round, whereas now in the summer you can enter the lot anywhere along the north side of the lot, as there is no barrier. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION • The bike path system will be maintained essentially as is but slightly modified to go around the new bus plaza area and back down to the street to the east of the development. The path will still continue going easterly next to tennis courts as well. A problem encountered in the provision of pedestrian paths is that a sidewalk can't really be located on the north side of the parking lot because that area must be used for snow storage /landscaping. Thus it was decided to make a stronger connection of the existing path on the far west of the site with the street and attempt, with bolstered signage, to get people to walk on this path on the south side of the courts and the building. This stronger connection of the path to the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and Mill Creek Circle is not shown on the plans currently. SCALE OF BUILDING The proposal entails a very large structure housing all the principal uses and condominiums. With this in mind, it is essential that design solutions be arrived at to reduce the appearance of this mass, especially the large roof mass one views looking toward the south. The large glass features and dormers have begun to "break -up" the mass, but more needs to be done. U.A. is currently working on this. • Initial Review Godlen Peak -5- 9/8/83 0 SUMMARY Overall, the proosal goes a long way toward a greatly improved ski base facility to benefit the community. The proposal still needs work in the various areas outlined above and probably in others the PEC will note at Monday's meeting. It is important that the PEC read thoroughly the notebook that VA has prepared on the proposal so you thoroughly understand this large and somewhat complex project. As a staff, we look forward to continuing to work on the project in hopes of arriving at a final solution which all concerned parties will be please with. • 0 r d/ MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Conditional use application to install a major arcade in the Inn at West Vail. Applicant: James Craddock RACKGROHNn The owners of the Inn at West Vail are returning to the Planning Commission with their application to install a major arcade. This is a resubmittal of an application heard by the Planning Commission (June 27th). Their application has not changed; they wish to install seven machines in the hotel, five machines to be housed in a room near the hotel lobby, and two .machines in the lobby itself. The proposal to supervise the arcade room with television cameras also remains the same. (See staff memo of June 22.) The PEC denied the previous application by a vote of 4 -2, citing that the proposed use would be injurious to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Vail. The majority of the commission felt that supervision of the arcade with television cameras was inadequate given that the arcade room was within the area in which people could carry alcoholic beverages. The commission also felt that to grant the conditional use permit would be inconsistent with past conditional use applications for major arcades (see minutes). The applicants failed to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Town Council within the ten days allotted for such an appeal. A letter of appeal was sent to the Town after the ten day period expired. PEANNINC COMMISSION JURISDICTION The Inn at West Vail is.resubmitting the same application arguing that the Planning Commission "exceeded their guidelines" in refusing the conditional use permit. They argue that the arcade ordinance itself did not,address liquor and arcades (see letter of August 26). The Town attorney has informed the staff that the PEC has not overstepped its authority in denying the permit. The motion to deny was made in terms of protecting health, safety and welfare of the community. This power is quite broad, and can include such items as the mixture of uses such as liquor and arcades. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff maintains its recommendation of approval. If you read down through the criteria used in evaluating the conditional use permit, there is not one which could be used to justify denial. The application does not conflict with the Reapplication Inn West Vail -2- 9/8/83 development objectives of the Town, does not influence light, air, transportation, parks or schools, does not create traffic congestion, nor does it have a negative or substantial influence on surrounding uses (see staff memo). The PEC has the criteria available of "other factors and criteria" which enables them to deny the application. The staff recommendation of June 22, with the associated stipulations, stands. The stipulations are reproduced below: 1. That the noise of the amusement devices does not disturb the nearby businesses and guests in the inn at West Vail. The applicant should keep all the noise volume controls on the machines at a low level. 2. That the television monitoring system be operational during the hours that the arcade is open. 3. That the conditional use permit should be granted for a period not to exceed one year from the time the permit is granted. The applicant should return to the Planning Commission in the month of September, 1984 for review of their conditional use. • 40 PEC -6- 9/12/83 5. Request to amend Section 18.36.030 of the Vail Municipal Code to permit private helipads as a� conditional use in the Public Use zone district. Applicant: Preston Ewen Peter Jamar explained that the applicant wished to use the Town of Vail.. snow dump for their helipad, and that the TOV wished to use this area for parking in the summer and for a snow dump in the winter. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant,said the applicant simply wanted to include helipads in the Public Use district, but was not asking for any specific site. Morgan had no problem with the request, Pierce felt that one helipad was needed, but if one were granted was concerned that no one be allowed to land anywhere else. He mentioned the fact that many helicopters had flown over the Town over the summer and landed at the Mountain. School among other places. Viele asked who had control over them, and Jamar responded that the Police Department did, that it was very difficult to control. He reminded the board that the Council did not want private use on public property, for example he asked them to recall the batters' box proposal in Ford Park. Eskwith wasn't sure that public property could be used privately. Peterson thought it could, and Eskwith responded that it would probably have to be something for the public good. Donovan did not want to see any helicopters with the exception of the Flight for Life. She stated that it was opening a can. of worms, that if everyone was doing it illegally, the Town shouldn't pass an ordinance allowing more. Trout agreed with Donovan as did,Corcoran. Pierce felt that there should be some control so that they were policed--maybe at Dowd Junction. Trout moved and Donovan seconded to recommend to the Town Council denial. . The vote was 5 -1 with Morgan votin a ainst denial. 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to install a major arcade on the first floor of the Inn at West Vail. Applicant: Inn at West Vail, James Craddock Jim Sayre explained that this was a resubmittal of an application heard by the Planning Commission on June 27th and that the application had not changed. Jim said that the staff felt that because of the small size, the proximity to the lobby, they recommended approval with three conditions. Donna King, 'representing the applicant, stated that they had re- evaluated the guidelines, and have decided not to,allow food or drink in the arcade and to close it between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am. They were also adding audio to visual coverage. Morgan said that he had no problem with this, Pierce wanted a time limit (there was one in the conditions), Viele felt that there should be a full time supervisor. Donovan felt that adding audio was a little better, and liked the idea that it would be closed part of the time. Trout felt as Viele did, Corcoran was opposed. Viele moved and Trout seconded to deny_the_request . The vote was 5 -1 with Morgan voting against. is MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the Public Use zone district in order to add private helipads as a conditional use. THE REQUEST Eagle Vail Helicopters desires to establish an on- demand helicopter charter service based at the Eagle County airport. The applicants wish to construct a helipad at the Ford Park snow dump which is located within the Public Use district. The Public Use district allows only emergency helipads and /or community use helipads as a conditional use. Therefore,-the applicants request to add private helipads as a conditional use within that district. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL When analyzing this proposal, it is important to look at how the proposed use relates to the purpose of the zone district and for what uses the district was established to accommodate. The zoning code states that: "The Public Use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi -- public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot appropriately be regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The public use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi - public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses." In other words, the Public Use District is intended to provide land for up blic facilities. The proposed helipad use is not intended to be public. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development staff recommends denial of the requested zoning code amendment. We believe that the application is in conflict with the purposes of the Public Use District and that potential conflicts could arise between competition for the needs for future public facilities on Town owned property and enabling the use of these Town properties for private enterprise. We also do not believe that the helipad use would be consistent with the development objectives of the Town due to the potential environmental impacts (noise), and the potential safety issues. Due to the narrowness of our valley, the staff believes that the use would significantly alter the character of the community and would not be compatible with other land uses within the valley. • • July 25, 1983 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attention: Richard Caplan Town Manager Dear Mr. Caplan: •EA VAIL HELICOPTERS Eagle Vail Helicopters (to be formed) and incorporated in the State of Colorado shall, be a division of Roto Whirl Inc. of Wabash, Indiana. Eagle Vail Helicopter's' principals in name are Melvin Hick, Chairman of the Board and chief executive officer -- Wabash, Indiana. Preston Ewen, President Rochester, Indiana; Lewis Elin of South Bend, Indiana; and Tracy Easterday of Indianapolis, Indiana remain as stockholders. It is our desire to establish an on demand helicopter charter service based at the Eagle County Airport. This business would be a year around operation and would have diversified activities consisting of: A. Helicopter Ski Lift for.Back Bowl Powder Skiing B. Scenic Tours C. Shuttle Service between Eagle County Airp©rt and the town of Vail D. A shuttle service between Vail and Aspen and possibly other close ski areas E. What is referred to as Heli- hiking, a summer activity where sightseers are flown to an upper mountain region area for hiking and sightseeing with a guide and picked up later at a pre- determined destination. F. Aerial Photography G. We would like to assist the Forest Service and local fire deparments with fire control. H. We would like to provide a limited helicopter air ambulance and assist in search and rescue missions. I. An on demand charter service to points of various locations to be determined by the charter customer being serviced. We are well aware of the need for noise abatement, and feel this goal can be accomplished through proper pilot technique, specified traffic patterns and altitudes and of course,the proper choice of helicopters. In this case, we r r 0 W -2- will be operating the Bell 7 passenger Long Ranger and the 5 passenger .let Ranger. All pilots shall be of professional quality and experienced in the mountains. They shall also be qualified under part 91 and Part 135 of the Federal AViations Regulations and must meet the requirements of the company operations and training manuals. All aircraft shall be maintained under the maintenance specifications of the manufacturer and the Federal Aviation Regulations. Our flight operations in the past have always stressed safety as our main concern and shall continue to strive for that continued reputation. We feel strongly that the key to success in our operation would be the ability to operate in and out of a helipad near the town of Vail. We are prepared to build and maintain the heliport at an approved sight. At this time, we would like to submit a petition for amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for a helipad to be constructed at the Ford Park Snow Dump area. I would like to thank all of those who have helped us in Vail and the surrounding areas in our endeavor to move our is operation to Eagle County. 1 am looking forward to moving there personally with my family and becoming part of the community. I would like to thank you for considering this proposal and hope it can be acted upon as soon as possible so we can be established before the winter weather arrives. Respectfully, Preston Ewen d.b.a. Eagle Vail Helicopters PE:mh • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 9, 1983 SUBJECT: Appeal of Administrative decision regarding denial of acceptance of a Design Review Board application. Appellant: Tom Briscoe The appellant submitted an applicaton for Design Review in order to construct three units on Lot 21, Block 9, Intermountain Subdivision. The staff did not accept the application due to the fact that this lot is not zoned for any additional units. The applicant will present his appeal on Monday. • • MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning code to add a new zone district entitled "Ski Base /Recreation District" Applicant: Vail Associates BACKGROUND Attached please find the proposal from Vail Associates for a new zone district entitled Ski Base /Recreation District. It is, of course, the intent to request a rezoning for V.A.'s land in the Golden Peak area once the new zone district is in place. However, it should be clear that the formal request in front of the PEG today is only to amend the code to make It possible in the future to request a rezoning to facilitate the Golden Peak re- development. You will be giving a recommendation to the Council concerning the district. The zone district has been prepared with the consultation and advice of the planning staff. It is designed to meet Vail Associates' needs with regard to a multi - purpose ski base facility as well as maintaining the proper municipal. controls over certain uses and development standards. . The proposed district is very similar to a special development district, but could not be conceived as such because there is no underlying zone district existing which could be used from which to base the SDD. Thus, you'll recognize much of pages 3 -5 as language from the SDD section of the code and this is well - suited to the flexibility required for such multi -use facility. The following will bring the reader through the district section by section with comments where required: 18.39.030 Permitted Uses A. Uses within the main building. This section sets forth the most obvious and most compatible uses for the district to take place within the main building. The staff has no basic problems. With the proposal here.except to put ceilings on the overall square footages allotted to meeting rooms and retail sales space to prevent the possibility that a major portion of the building could be converted to those uses in the future without going through Town approval processes. We feel a ceiling of 15% of the gross square footage of the first two floors for the retail operations (i.e. ski rental shop, basket rental, candy sales, headset rentals, etc.) and 5% of that total for meeting rooms would be suitable for.the district. Also, child care in #7 should be clarified so that it's clear that this is ski - related child care and not a year -round day care center. • Ski Base District -2- 9/8/83 B. Multi- Family Dwelling Units Numbers 1 and 2 in this section will be deleted and there will be a new section 18.39.180 Density Control which will simply state that "Total density shall not exceed 1 dwelling unit per 7 acres of site area." This change will make the structure of the district more compatible with the existing ones in terms of how density is treated. Item #3 establishes that residential use is not the primary intent and restricts the floor area devoted to residential in this respect. Item #4 is allowing conditional use criteria to be applied to the units to make sure these are met while at the same time eliminating an extra approval process for the C.U.P. itself. A point of clarification should be made here. It is the intent of the district to allow the existing facilities to remain. That is, the tennis courts, soccer field, ski racing hut, etc. is essentially "grandfathered" and will not have to go through any approval process to remain. However, the re- development of some of the facilities, specifically ski lifts, ski racing but and water storage, extraction and treatment facilities (there is an existing water storage tank in the parcel to be annexed) is a concern to the staff to the extent we feel such re- developments should be conditional uses. This is a point of conflict with Vail Associates. Thus, the staff feels comfortable, under heading C - Permitted uses outside the main building, with only ski trails and slopes,.snowmaking facilities, bus (and skier) drop -off and surface parking lots. The conditional use section should, accordingly, be expanded from the b items listed to include the following: 7. Re- development of ski lifts and tows 8. Re- development of ski racing facility 9. Public parks 10. Water storage, extraction and treatment facilities We feel that these facilities' re- development and /or proposal for the Ski Base /Recreation district will allow proper conditional use review to ensure workability and compatibility both within the district and in the neighborhood. 18.39.080 Location of Business Activity The staff would like to insert this new section to regulate outside vending: A. All offices, businesses and services conducted in the Ski Base /Recreation district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas and the outdoor display of goods. C Ski Base District -3- 9/8/83 . B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. • 18.39.090 Development Plan Required This sets forth the reasons for requiring a development plan and the approval processes which it will be subject to , both now and in the future. 18.39.110 Development Plan - Contents This section was determined by staff according to what we felt was the necessary information needed to evaluate the proposal. The requirements represent both a "mini- environmental impact report" as well as special development district requirements. 18.39.130 - 230 Site Development Standards Most of these are geared toward flexibility to the development plan with the exception of height, lot area and the new density control section. Parking must meet the general requirements of the parking chapter of the zoning code, but is also according to the development plan where flexibility is needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed new zone district. With some revisions as noted, the district will allow for multi -use ski base facilities of a quality nature while maintaining proper municipal planning and zoning controls for initial developments and future re- development. The following are revisions the staff is recommending and our approval is conditional upon their inclusion: 1. 18.39.030 (A) 7 Insert "Ski - related" in front of child care. 2. 18.39.030 (A) 9 Should read: "9. Meeting rooms gross square footage of the first 2 buiding." 3. 18.39.030 (A) 12 comprising a maximum of 5% of the total levels (non - residential) of the main Should read: "12. Retail sales space comprising a maximum of 15% of the total gross square footage of the first two levels (non - residential) of the main building." • Ski Base District -4- 9/8/83 4. 18.39.030 (B) Delete numbers 1 and 2. Re- number accordingly. 5. 18.39.030 (C) Should read as follows: "The following uses shall be permitted in the district outside the main building: 1. Ski trails and slopes 2. Snowmaking facilities 3. Bus and skier drop -off 4. Surface parking lots" 6. 18.39.050 Add the following: "7. 8. 9. 10. 7. Add Re- development of ski lifts and tows Re- development of ski racing facility Public parks and recreational facilities Water storage, extraction and treatment facilities" Section 18.39.080 Location of Business Activity A. All offices, businesses and services conducted in the Ski Base /Recreation district shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas and the outdoor display of goods. B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 8. Add Section 18.39.180 Density Control Total density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per seven acres of site area. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 26, 1983 11:45 am Site Inspections 2:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of September 12, 1983 2. Appointment of PEC member to DRB for October, November and December. 3. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code to add a new zone district entitled Ski Base /Recreation District. Also, a discussion concerning the Golden Peak redevelopment proposal will take place. Applicant: Vail Associates TO BE TABLED 4. Request for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Arcade in order to build a commercial addition. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties. 5. A request for an exterior alteration to the Village Center project at 122 East Meadow Drive to add a new retail addition on the east end, to revise the entrance to Toymaker's Trail, to construct additions to the retail shops, and to construct a new sidewalk along the north side of the project. Applicant: Fred Hibberd 6. A request for aminor subdivisiion to realign the lot line between lots 27 and 28, Block A, Vail Das &chone, Filing No. 1. Applicants: Bill and Patti - Anderson, Russell Motta 7. Request for rezoning and resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn First Addition to change from one Two Family Residential to two Single Family lots. Applicants: James E. Sheahan and Rocky S. Christopher 8. Request for a GRFA variance and a variance from setback requirements to build a greenhouse on a deck in unit #2 of the Tyrolean Condominiums at 400 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Stephanie Kennington 9. A request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core II in order to construct commercial storage units in the lower level of the Concert Hall Plaza. Applicant: Eagle Valley Investments, Inc. 10. A request to amend Section 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure to exempt small changes (defined as 100 square feet or less) in the review process that occurs only two times per year. The intent is to enable additions or deletions of enclosed floor area of of 100 sq ft or less to be reviewed at any time of the year. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 11. Request for amendments to SDD 6 (Vail Village Inn) to increase GRFA 0 allowable, modify permitted and conditional uses, request a parking exemption, modify language concerning height restrictions, expand commercial space allowable. Furthermore, a rezoning has been requested for the existing Amoco Station site to rezone from.Heavy Service to Public Accommodations and to be included in the Vail Village Inn SDD #6 District. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. - • 0 U Planning and Environmental Commission September 26, 1983 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Dan Corcoran Dick Ryan Diana Donovan Peter Patten Gordon Pierce Peter Jamar Duane Piper Jim Sayre Jim Viele Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Jim Morgan Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm. 1. Approval of minutes of September 12, 1983. Corrections were made on pages 3, 5, and 7. Donovan moved and Pierce seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. The vote was 5 -0 with Piper abstaining. 2. (dealt with at end of meeting) 3. A reouest to amend the Vail Municipal Code to add a new zone district entitled Ski Base /Recreation District. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Peter Patten stated that there had been extensive meetings between VA representatives, Gold Peak Neighborhood Association representatives, and the Town staff. He went through the proposed zone district and outlined the major changes. He stated appreciation for the neighborhood efforts to help and termed it a positive process. He added that the staff recommended approval with one condition, that 18.39.050, Conditional Uses should add #11. Redevelopment of ski lifts and tows. Bob Parker, Vail Associates vice - president, thanked the planning staff for their cooperation as well as the neighborhood association. He added that VA could not agree with 18.39.110 B.5. which addressed impacts of the long range development plans. He pointed out that VA did not have long range plans as yet, but that these items could be applied to 18.39.050 B. As far as the building height and mass, Parker wanted these items left for a final determination when the final plan was proposed. He felt that VA needed the flexibility to satisfy roof heights requested by neighbors, but retain somewhere in the building the space required to have the activities proposed. Jim Lamont, representing the Gold Peak Neighborhood Association, stated that the GPNA would like to see a master plan and read a letter of resolution, and hoped that it would be part of the approval and that the Council would include it as part of the plan. Kit Cowperthwaite, representing the GPNA, thanked VA and the staff. He stated that GPNA and VA would work together with protective covenants. Parker confirmed that VA does agree to become a party to a master plan process and to develop protective covenants in cooperation with the GPNA. He asked if the GPNA wanted the alpine slide under prohibited uses rather than under conditional uses, and was answered that GPNA did. PEC 9/26/83 -2- Discussion following concerning the amount of meeting space, and Parker stated that the CPNA did not want so much meeting space that it could be a potential convention center, and Patten pointed out that item 9 under permitted uses stated "meeting rooms for Vail Asssociates and community oriented organizations." Section 18.39.170 Height was discussed, and Eskwith explained that 35 and 38 feet would be the limit unless the zoning code were amended. Donovan said that it appeared that this zone was concerned with only one site. Eskwith explained that this would be alright if the following criteria were met: that there was really a furtherance of comprehensive land use in the town, and if it is really beneficial to the health and welfare of the town. He went on to explain that this site was different from any other site. Donovan wondered if Cascade Village would fit the description, and it was pointed out that 48 acres was the minimum size. Donovan wondered why minor arcades were mentioned under space limitation, when they weren't listed under permitted uses. Patten suggested eliminating minor arcades under space limitation. Donovan questioned 18.39.120 A "low density residential use district" and wondered what the exact meaning was. Patten stated that this quote came straight out of the SDD. Lamont said that he had interpreted it to mean residential uses. Cowperthwaite suggested leaving out the words "low density." Piper wondered if Lamont was unhappy with the surface parking, and Lamont answered that he was in accord with the procedures, but had questions dealing with the development plan stage. More discussion followed concerning the environmental impact report, the possibility of underground parking, and the conflicting statements in the height section. Eskwith pointed out that the document could be amended 0 up to the 2nd reading of the Council. The wording of the height section was discussed further. Corcoran asked if the wording could be left open ended, and Eskwith stated that there has never been a zone district without a height restriction. Corcoran suggested leaving the restriction in, Parker suggested putting the height restriction under language "as approved on the development plan." Donovan felt that if there were no height limitation, and then the communication between the interested pArties broke down, it would be possible to have no restrictions at all, because VA was not bound to build this specific building. She suggested leaving the 33 and 38 foot restrictions in and removing the rest of the wording. Parker stated that that restriction made it very difficult to respond in a meaningful way to the CPNA concerns and have all the required uses in the structure. He added that the west end was offensive to All Seasons, and so VA had planned to lower the profile on that end, and to do that, they must shift some height to the middle of the building. Piper suggested a percentage figure, and Patten said that that had been discussed, but that there had been some concern with the highest height. Patten felt that it would be appropriate for the PEC to state what they thoughtwould be an appropriate height. Pierce felt that the height should be open ended because there were many other restrictions and VA needed some range. Donovan pointed out VVI where the stipulation was that 60% of the building should not exceed a height and 40% could be a certain height. Parker stated that that basic concept was acceptable to VA. Cowperthwaite agreed. • • 0 PEC 9/26/83 -3- Trout moved to recommend approval of the zone district as proposed by the staff with the following changes: On page 1, Section 18.39.030 B.I. delete "recreation room /minor arcade. page 3, Section 18.39.050 A. add #11, Redevelopment of ski lifts and tows Section 18.39.050 A. delete #6, Alpine slide page 4 Section 18.39.075 Prohibited Uses, add #7 Alpine Slide add #8 Any other uses not specifically permitted or conditional in this page 6, Section 18.39.120 A. eliminate "low density" page 7, Section 18.39.170 Height, eliminate all wording after "..35 feet" and insert "Up to 60% of the building (building coverage area) may be built to a height of 35 feet or less. No more than 40% of the building (building coverage area) may be higher than 35 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not useable as Gross Residential Floor Area may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty -five percent of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet. Page 1, Section 18.39.030 B.1. "whether it be a permitted or conditional use" after the words "Retail sales space," Donovan seconded and the vote was 5 -1 with Corcoran voting against because he felt that he did not understand fully the changes. 4. A request for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Arcade in order build a commercial addition. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties Viele moved and Pierce seconded to table until October 10 at which time the PEC will act to approve or deny. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tablino. 5. A request for an exterior alteration to the Village Center pro'ec at 122 East Meadow Drive to add a new retail addition o�e eas e� nd, to revise the entrance to Toymaker's Trail, to construct additions to the retail shops, and to construct a new sidewalk along the north side of the project. Applicant: Fred Hibberd Peter Patten said that the staff had been working to include a master plan for the Village Center complex. He felt that it should be tabled because some problems hadn't been solved, and needed further review. t moved and Donovan seconded to table until 10/10/83. The vote was 6 -0. PEC 9/26/83 -4- 6. A request for a minor subdivision to realign the lot line between lots 27 and 28, Block A, Vail Das Schone, Filing No. 1. Applicants: Bill and Patti Anderson, Russell Motta Jim Sayre explained that by rearranging the lot lines, there would be no.change in the square footage of each property. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the request for the subdivision per the staff recommendation. The vote was 5 -0 with Corcoran abstainin 7. A request for rezoning and resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn First Addition to change from one Two Family Residential zone district to two Single Family zone district lots. Applicants: James Sheahan & Rocky Christopher Peter Patten presented the request. Corcoran reminded the board that they were only to recommend the zone to the Town Council. Eskwith stated that the application for the minor subdivision was contingent on the rezoning. Pierce felt that he had no problem, Piper was generally inclined to prefer a single family structure, but there was more tendency for the staff to zone for duplexes. Piper felt that though the applicants' reason stated "mass created by two single- family structures will be less than that required by a duplex ", he felt that the increase in square footage made it difficult to agree. The reason "The height required by two houses will be less than that required by a duplex." Piper.responded to by stating that usually the height has little regard as to whether or not a house is single family or duplex. "The large stand of trees can be left undisturbed by the use of two houses." Piper stated that there would be increased site coverage, increased driveways, and an • increased footprint, therefore he disagreed with this reason for the request. Donovan agreed with Piper and added that this was spot zoning, and that the community would not gain from this change. She added that there was no quarantee that there would not be a request for a rezone in the future. She felt the present zone fit the neighborhood. Sheehan responded that he would not have to have the maximum GRFA or heights. Eskwith added that the PEC could place restrictions. Sheahan stated that he was willing to accept the restriction of 3750 sq ft each. Patten explained that a single family was restricted to 3125 sq ft. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the request for a minor subdivision er the staff memo with the further restriction that the GRFA be limited to 3500 sq ft on each lot and with the further restriction that recommendation of,minor sub to Council be contingent upon the rezoning The vote was 2 in favor Viele and Pierce 3 against with Cocoran abstaining. After more discussion, Trout moved and Pierce seconded to amend the Trevious motion that the GRFA of each site not exceed 3300 square feet. The vote was 3 -2 with Donovan and Piper against and Corcoran abstaining. U • • LJ 8. Request for a GRFA a greenhouse on a Meadow Drive. App PEC 9/26/83 -5- variance and a variance from setback requirements to _build ec_k in unit #2 of the Tyrolean Condominiums at 400 East icant: Stephanie Kennington Peter Jamar presented the proposal. Stephanie Kennington, the applicant, said that she had a letter from the Tyrolean condo association.who had no objection. She added further reasons of efficiency, etc. Trout had no objections, Donovan supported the staff memo and was opposed to the addition, Piper stated that it was difficult to find a basis for hardship. Viele said that for a strict interpretation, he would have to agree with the staff, but also felt that Gold Peak was receiving special privilege. Pierce felt that in spirit, he liked to see people adding this type of an addition, but felt that he had to uphold the staff's recommendation. Donovan moved and piper seconded to deny the request per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 to deny with Viele abstaining Corcoran told the applicant that she had 10 days in which to appeal the decision to the Town Council. 9. A request commercial Applicant: for a conditional storage_units it se permit in Commercial Core II in order to con_st he lower level of the Concert Hall Plaza. Eagle Valley Investments, Inc. Peter Patten showed plans and site plans and described one of the applicants said the intended use was not to He stated that they were willing to set aside time for trucks to use the loading zone. He also felt strongly access and the length of time each customer used the 1 be in the contract each customer would sign. the request. Mike Arnett, serve shops, but residents. delivery trucks such as trash that they could limit the Jading zone, that this would Discussion followed concerning the use of the circle. Corcoran stated that it had always been dedicated to the Lionshead Loop. Dick Ryan said that he had seen Rat 'n Willie's, the Baggage Claim, and others use the loading zone that the storage request was planning to delegate use of. Brad Quayle, one of the applicants, stated that he could get 100% of the business owners to agree with the proposal. Arnett said that they could alter the hours if it would help. More discussion followed concerning the restriction of hours, the length of time allowed, the need to make appointments, possibly putting only long term use in the restrictions, Quayle asked to table until 10/10/83. Trout moved, and Pierce seconded to table. The vote to table was 6 -0. . -. -- - -- —.._. _ 10. A request to amend Section 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modifications procedure to exempt small changes (defined -as 100 square feet or less) in the review process that occurs only two times per year. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Dick Ryan said that VA felt current restrictions do not allow for small requests that do not have significant impact. Joe Macy, representing VA, felt that basically the staff's conditions were reasonable. Discussion followed. Piper moved and Viele seconded to approve the request and recommend the amendment to Council. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. • • PEC 9/26/83 -6- 11. Request for amendments to SDD 6 (Vail Village Inn) to increase GRFA` allowable, modify permitted and conditional uses, request a parking exem Lion, modify language concerning height restrictions, expand commercial space allowable. Furthermore, a reqzoning request for the existing Amoco Station site to rezone from Heavy Service to Public Accommodations and to be included in the Vail Village Inn SDD 06 distict. Applicant: Piccidilly Suare, Inc. Peter Jamar explained the seven requests in the memo and added that he came across three more that day. He stated that the staff had just received the.current proposal on Wednesday, and felt the need for a more adequate review. Jamar briefly went through the memo and then added: 8. Tochange the wording in the SDD to include the Amoco site which would increase the acreage, and , 9. Language which deals with the distance between buildings. Jamar added that the staff recommended that the request be tabled for the following reasons: First, requirements existed which were specified with the SDD that had not yet been submitted: 1. A supplemental environmental impact report must be submitted for each phase; 2. Each phase of the development had to be reviewed by an outside consultant, and the current proposal had not been reviewed; 3. A preliminary landscape plan must be submitted. Secondly, the information that the staff did have on this current proposal was submitted on September 21, giving the staff two days to respond to the proposal. They did not feel that they had had time to fully analyze and evaluate the different aspects of the proposal in sufficient detail to forward an intelligent recommendation to the PEC. The staff had concerns regarding the bulk and mass of the project, the dramatic increase in intensity of sue of the site over the original SDD, the functionality of the plaza, traffic impacts upon Vail Road, the relationship of the current proposal to the existing building 5, service and delivery, and other aspects which they felt could not be addressed in a short time period. They recommended that this proposal be tabled until the additional requirements of the SDD are submitted, and the staff is allowed adequate time to review all aspects of the proposal and that a proposal of such potential significant impact upon the character of Vail should be very carefully evaluated. Joe Stauffer, present owner of the Vail Village inn, told of the history of the complex. Gordon Pierce, architect for the project, stated that, although the final application wasn't in Peter Jamar's hands, they had been working on it for quite a while. He stated that they felt that the view corridor was no longer appropriate. Pierce showed several floor plans and explained how the buildings worked. He felt that the main view was further west than previously thought by Eldon Beck. He said that the three story building next to Phase three will still block Golden Peak, and they felt that the Riva Ridge longer range view was more appropriate to preserve. Sections were shown comparing heights to Phase 3, and it was explained that Phase 4 PEC 9/26/83 -7- would not be higher than Phase 3. There was some confusion in numbers. Pierce IS allowed 44 feet in the "B" area, down to 37 feet in the proposal. There was discussion of the actual height, with the applicants stating that the height was not 80', but more like 45 -50 ' depending on where you measure it. He added that Phase 1 and 2 were purposely made low. The staff and applicant disagreed on the "original intent." Pierce then showed the north and west elevations. The degree of step on the west elevation to the south was arguable regarding the original intent of the SDD. A model was shown and explained. Fred Hiller read the height section out of SDD6: "Average" height does not exceed 45' on overall project. 174,000 square feet as original zoning was allowed. The applicants stated that they needed luxury size rooms, and would be willing to build fewer rooms. Pierce stated that they would trade 30,000 square feet of commercial to put in luxury hotel rooms. There followed a discussion of numbers concerning the original SDD vs the original PA vs the proposal. Peter Jamar pointed out that past agreements, and changes could be researched and figured out without arguing over it today. Lamont stated that the original purpose of SDD's was to allow flexibility, that there were several factors controlling the project -- height, views, smaller condos, etc., and that there were traditional controls for commercial square footage and other parameters. He felt that the community needed PA, not condos and should go back to the "grand vision and be flexible. If people are given a view of Golden Peak, they'll all head there and the neighbors did not want that." . Members of the board were polled: Viele stated that he wanted more time because of the magnitude of the proposal and because there were so many issues to consider. Duane felt the presentation was good, but was uneasy about going ahead because of the many questions. He wanted further review by the staff. Donovan agreed with Piper, and asked why there was a complete plan for SDD6 and then a change to PA zoning. Joe Stauffer stated that there were big trade -offs in the beginning with Phases 1 and 2 built low and with all parking underground. He stated that he was misled on 100,000 square feet, thinking that he had 300 Accommodation Units anytime: Fred Hiller stated that there were many trade -offs. Donovan felt there were too many changes to the original SDD, Trout wanted to make a decision immediately, Corcoran recommended a joint meeting of PEC and Council, documentation of tapes, He suggested a joint meeting on the 24th of October. Jamar reminded the board that the review period didn't start until the complete application was in. Joe Stauffer stated that the Conoco site must be included. If they had to wait until next spring, the Pancake House would refurbish, and once they did that, there would be no more rights for 10 years for Stauffer. Ryan asked if everything could be in by October 6. Fred Hiller answered that it would be. The applicant requested tabling until October 24. Piper moved and Donovan seconded to table until October 24. The vote was 4 -1 in favor Trout against with Pierce abstaining. Piper moved and Viele seconded to appoint Morgan to DRB for October, November, and December with a unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 21, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision and rezoning to convert one lot zoned Residential to two Single Famhly lots on Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn 1st. Applicant: James E. Sheahan It would be difficult in this matter to discuss the two requests separately due to their reliance upon each other. Thus, the memo will treat the two requests basically as one to better understand the impacts and merits of the overall effect. The statisti Existing New New 40 (Note: -s of "before and after" are as follows: ZONE SQ. FT # UNITS ALLOWED Lot 1 R 42,253 2 Lot A SFR 21,126 1 Lot B SFR 21,126 1 The proposal results in a net increase GR FA 5862 3987 3987 of GRFA of 2112 sq ft.) The proposal also includes designated building envelopes for each new lot which keep structures out of the "blue zone" avalanche hazard on the south side of the lot. One access drive off of Lupine Drive is also proposed. The applicant's reasons for this request are attached. Note that he does not proposed any special development standard restrictions other than those in the SFR district and that he would relocate the existing sewer line and associated easement that runs through the middle of proposed Lot A. CRITERIA EVALUATION The subdivision regulations state criteria which are suitable to evaluate this proposal as a whole: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with . surrounding land uses." 9/21/83 Lot 1, Blk 1, Bighorn 1st -2- Density The number of units resulting in this p-roposal are the same as the existing situation. However, potentially, there could be an increase in GRFA of 2112 square feet if both single family lot owners built to the maximum. It should be noted here that this lot could easily meet the subdivision regulations concerning minimum lot sizes for the Residential zone resulting in two duplex lots and four units. Thus, this proposal could be actually limiting density by proposing two single faimily lots rather than two duplex lots. 2. Proposed Site Plan The single access off of Lupine Drive is a good solution for the two new lots. However, the proposed building envelopes should be eliminated and the siting of the houses left until the DRS level when they can be more closely studied according to all constraints and opportunities. 3. Sewer Line and Easement As of this date, we have not received any written approval from the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation Districts concerning the relocating of the sewer line and easement. This must be obtained before the rezoning goes to Council. 0 4. Compatibility with Surrounding Area The entire surrounding area is zoned Residential with very few lots having the buildable site area of Lot 1. The houses in the area are generally duplexes contained in a single structure or attached structures. The proposal of two single family buildings on this site of nearly an acre will not be incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of density, scale, lot size or remaining open space. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision and rezoning proposals. The benefit to the Town is a potential decrease in density if one considers that it appears this could meet the requirement for two duplex lots. The single family structures proposed will be compatible with surrounding development and will be sited according to future DRB approval. Conditions of approval are as follows: 1. The sewer line and easement vacation and relocation-must be verified in writing by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation Districts before the proposal goes to Council for rezoning approval. 2. The building envelopes must be eliminated. L.J August 29, 1983 Mr. Peter Patten Zoning Administrator Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Mr. Patten: Attached is an application for resubdivision and rezoning for Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, First Addition. I am requesting a change from two family residential (42,253 sq. ft.) to two single family lots (21,126.5 sq. ft. approximately). The reasons for the request are as follows: 1) The mass created by two single family houses will have much less impact on the site than the mass created by a duplex. 2) The height required by two houses will be less than that required by a duplex. 3) The large stand of trees can be left undisturbed by the use of-#o�1 houses. 4) Much more attention and detail can be given to landscaping while retaining the general feel of the surrounding area and its vegetation. 5) Duplex home sites across the stream have less street frontage than we are proposing. In closing, we feel as long -time 'Vail residents there is a shortage of single family homes; primarily due to the high cost of land. We feel that this is one of the few sites that lends itself to resubdivision. YJES/RSC.:dyb y, Sheatia e1y, J Rocky S. Christopher r 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a resubdivision of lots 27 and 28, Block A, Vail Das Schone Viling No. 1. Applicants: Patricia Anderson and Russ Motta THE REQUEST The Andersons are building a single family home on Lot 27, Vas das Schone, Filing No. 1. After receiving their building permit the foundation for the Anderson residence was inadvertantly misplaced on the lot. The foundation was placed 2.5 feet from the lot line instead of the 15 feet called out in the plans approved by DRB. Instead of tearing out the foundation or asking for a setback variance, the Andersons are requesting that the lot line common to lots 27 and 28 be re- arranged so that the 15 foot setback requirement will be met. The Andersons contacted the owner of Lot 28, Russ Matta, and they agreed to a resubdivision of their lots in which the size of the lots would not change. Since the square footage of Lots 27 and 28 have not changed in the requested resubdivision, the allowed development statistics will also not change. In 1981 Russ Motta received preliminary DRB approval for a single family home on Lot 28. The resubdivision will not influence the proposed location for the Motta residence (see enclosed resubdivision and site plan). CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL The criteria to evaluate a minor subdivision is outlined in Sectioln 17.16.110 ' of the Subdivsion Regulations. "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutior and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land uses." The resubdivision does not conflict with ohe regulations and ordinances of the Town and meets these criteria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested resubdivision. The staff forsees no negative consequences to this solution. 3NOHS SVcj -IIVA 11 1Q-1 ,,,!„ ,.tom.,..,..„...,. •. .o d U F v W rr Q S U U] a c� W N MNff� LO r m M Y 1I1 �v�iZ <3 cc J5 1 I ,- I 9Z J,O, 'r 1 w MEMORANDUM September 21, 1983 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.24.065 and 18.26.045 Exterior Alteration or Modification Procedure to exempt small changes (defined as 100 square feet or less) in the review process that occurs only two times per year. The intent is to enable additions or deletions of enclosed floor area of 100 square feet or less to be reviewed at any time of the year. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. REASON FOR REQUEST: To permit the Planning and Environmental Commission to consider and act upon requests of 100 square feet or less on a more timely basis than the twice a year review under the Exterior Alteration or Modification procedure. At times, a small request for an expansion may not have any significant impacts on the Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. The reason for the twice a year review in both villages was for the Planning and Environmental Commission to view several projects at one time and review the impacts. Before this process was established, projects were submitted several times during the year, and there was no way to evaluate impacts adequately, or the relationship;; of one proposed development to another. RACKGRO[IND A similar type of proposal was presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission when the Exterior Alteration and Modification procedure was approved by the Town. At that time, it was proposed that up to 75 square feet of expansion in floor area could be approved by the Community Development Department staff. The Planning and Environmental Commission did not recommend this, as they were concerned with a property or shop owner coming in for several small expansions in floor area during the year or over a couple of years. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request to permit up to 100 square feet of enclosed floor area with the following conditions: 1. That any request for an expansion for enclosed floor area follow the exterior alteration and modification process for submission of material and review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 2. That all enclosed floor area be physically part of an existing building and not be a free standing structure. 3. That a single property not be permitted more than one up -to --100 square foot expansion in any two years. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 1983 RnrkrRniiNn To say that the review of this proposed zone district has been exhaustive since the last Planning and"Environmental Commission meeting would be an understatement. Together; ^the Golden Peak,Neighborhood Association, V.A. representatives, and Town planning staff have spent a great deal of time in attempting to come to an agreement on language and intent which would satisfy all parties. The proposed zone district as contained in this memorandum comes as close as possible to that satisfaction of all involved. As a result of the many hours of discussion and compromise which have occurred, we have agreed on nearly every word in this document. The following zone district proposal is as proposed by Vail Associates. Staff recommendation follows the proposed district. n �.J • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core II for a commercial storage operation in the Concert Hall Plaza Building. Applicants: Eagle Valley Investments d /b /a Vail Storage DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Proposed is to convert the large space in the Studio (Concert Hall Plaza Building) to two floors of commercial storage representing 2126 square feet of rentable storage space. There would be 30 storage spaces varying in size from 30 square feet to 164 square feet, and they would be available to businesses, individuals or groups of individuals. The storage units would be accessible via the freight elevator located at the head of the existing loading zone. The existing loading zone on the west side of the building is proposed to be used. The size of the existing loading zone contained within the property boundaries is approximately 12 feet x 40 feet of 1 loading space. The applicants further propose to use a reservation type system to regulate 40 units, number of cars /trucks coming to the site for loading purposes for the storage units, It would be similar to a golf tee time system where you call ahead for a time to come and use the facility. This would be regulated by an on -site full -time employee for the commercial storage facility. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends denial 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. No direct impact upon the development objectives of the town is involved with this proposal. The effect of the use on 1i ht and air, distribution of o ulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, arks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. No effect upon these factors is foreseen. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneu- verability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 40 Commercial Storage -2- 9/22/83 The critical issue in the evaluation of this proposal is the adequacy /inadequacy of the loading area for this operation and for the existing uses it.serves (the Studio and all other commercial businesses in the Concert Hall Plaza Building). The zoning code requires just over two parking spaces for this type of operation plus one loading berth. The applicant is proposing a "multiple -use" loading berth for the commercial storage, the Studio and the retail /restaurant operations. Since the proposal is located in CC2, technically the applicant could pay the parking fund for 2+ spaces, but that doesn't make sense for the use proposed, because the parking space doubles as a loading space. Thus, the proposal is not meeting the intent of the parking /loading requirements for this use with the proposal. The reservation system is lacking in the attempt to solve the problem in that: 1) there would be no control from the Town to enforce and /or regulate it once the use is in, and 2) there's really no way to predict how long one user will take at the facility, and 3) it would be awfully hard to deny access (from the on -site employee's point of view) to a storage unit when someone comes in without an appointment and there's already someone there. We feel the end result would be cars and trucks backed up in the loading area out to the street and in busy times, probably on the street. This would create traffic congestion besides being an unsightly event in an area the Town has spent great deals of money to upgrade. Effect upon the character of the area in which the „p,roposed use is to be located, includin the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The loading problem we anticipate is incompatible with the Eionshead West Entry project as well as with the intent of the CC2 district to be a pedestrianized, not vehicular, area. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the oroposed use. The__environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. No EIR required. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department recommends denial of the we feel there is not adequate parking /loading provisons which There would simply be too much demand on the loading area.by We are of the opinion that allowing the proposal would create congestion which would spill onto off -site adjacent areas and conditions in this area. proposal in that the use will demand. adding this use. parking /loading create undesirable MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission do • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 21, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a GRFA variance and for a variance from setback requirements to build a greenhouse on a deck in unit #2 of the Tyrolean Condominiums at 400 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Stephanie Kennington DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant requests.a GRFA variance of approximately 162 square feet and a setback variance of 8.5 feet from a required 20 foot setback in order to construct a greenhouse addition to Unit #2 at the Tyrolean Condos. (See attached site plan). The building was constructed at its maximum GRFA. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findin s, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial 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. The requested variances will have no signiticant impact upon existing or potential uses and structures within the vicinity. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinit o jectives of this title without grant of special priv interpretation and achieve compatibili yor to attain the eqe. The granting of the requested variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege. The same setback and floor area requirements were in effect at the time the building was constructed. No physical hardship exists upon the site which would necessitate granting either variance. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribuation of population, transportation and traffic facilities, ublic facilities and utilities, and public safety. No impact #2 Tyrolean -2- 9/21/83 Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grantinq a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilage 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. 40 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.. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance. We do not believe that any practical difficulty, unneccessary physical hardship, or extraordinary circumstances exist upon the site. _ f PT I -� IC F� P1 t r -� -- -7T IA f 0_V4 .4- �+ MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 22, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for Exterior Alteration and Modification for the Village Center complex to remodel the north side pedestrian walk, remodel the entry to Toymaker's Trail and add a commercial addition to the northeast corner of the property. Applicant: Fred Hibberd The staff recommends tabling of this item until October 10, 1983 due to the lateness of the submittal of the revisions to the staff which did not allow adequate review time. If the PEC wishes to take a vote, we would recommend denial due to the lack of solution to the existing loading problem occurring on the site. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 23, 1983 SUBJECT: Requested amendments to Special Development District #6 (Vail Village Inn) The Vail Village Inn is preparing to proceed with Phase IV of the Special Development and wish to modify and amend several sections of the existing SDD #6 which was established and adopted in 1976 to guide the development of the site. The following are the requested revisions and the corresponding preliminary staff comments: FIRST I. A request to rezone the Amoco gas station site to SDD #6 with an underlying REQUEST zone district of Public Accommodation zone district. This .5455 acre site would allow 19,009 square feet of GRFA and 27 accommodation units. This density is proposed to be incorporated into the SDD. The applicants believe that this request would allow a comprehensive and unified development in the area and would eliminate a "noxious" use (the gas station) at the entrance to the Vail Community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department believes that the rezoning and incorporation of the Amoco site into the SDD is appropriate and will result in a more unified, cohesive approach to the development of both sites. However, we believe the applicant needs to demonstrate that the resultant development can be designed in such a manner that the view corridor and height restrictions of the SDD can be met. We believe that a reasonable allocation of the density permitted upon the Amoco site can be accommodated within the SDD without altering the intent of the SDD. The purpose section of SDD #6 states that "ordinarily a special district will be created only when the development density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning." If the applicant cannot achieve a design which maintains the intent of the SDD, the density should be reduced. VVI 9/23/83 -2- SECOND 2. The applicant requests to modify Section 18.50.130 (density control) REQUEST of SDD #6 to allow a total GRFA of 172,015 square feet rather than the 100,000 square feet allowed by the SDD zoning. This includes the 19,009 square feet from the potential P.A. rezoning of the Amoco site so that the actual difference that the applicant is asking for is 53,006 square feet. The proposal consists of 200 rooms to be constructed in Phase IV, 10 condominiums in Phase V, and six employee units. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department staff cannot support the request for the 53,006 square feet of additional GRFA. As stated above, the mass and scale of the structure is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the SDD. As we pointed out just recently in the memo on the proposed lodge amendment in the Village area, we do not believe that there is any sufficient reason for an up zoning within the Town of accommodation units. The Town has not supported any increase in density for other than employee units, and we believe that we could support limited employee housing upon the site if it could be demonstrated that the bulk and mass could be handled upon the site in a manner which positively corresponded to the intent of the SDD. THIRD 3. The applicant requests that Section 18.50.130 of the SDD be amended E UEST to allow the following as permitted uses: a. Professional and business offices; b. Theater meeting room and convention facilities; and c. Commercial parking facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that item b, theater meeting rooms and convention facilities could be adopted as permitted uses as a part of a development plan. We believe that these uses are compatible with the other uses in the SDD, and if the scale were handled in accordance with the requirements of the SDD, we would support the addition of these uses as permitted. The staff does not, at this time support the addition of business and professional offices as permitted uses within the district. We do not believe that these uses and consistent with purpose and intent of the SDD or underlying PA zone district. The staff does not, at this time, support commercial parking as a permitted use within this district. We believe that this type of use of the parking facility may be a possibility in the future, however, it would be important to establish the use patterns of the parking prior to allowing this use. -3- VVI 9/23/83 - FOURTH.4 The applicant requests an exemption from the parking requirement which REQUEST requires parking to be provided in accordance with the parking requirements established in the zoning code. Based upon the current proposal, the requirement for the project would be 396 spaces. The applicants request that 300 spaces be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff, at this time, supports this request, and we believe that even with this amount of parking, due to the nature of this project, that commercial use of a portion of the parking will be possible in the future. FIFTH 5.The applicants request to amend Section 18.50.180 of the SDD to eliminate REQUEST the requirement for parking of charter buses. They ask to simply have a place to unload these buses and to park them elsewhere where facilities are already provided for this use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports this request. • SIXTH 6. The applicants request to modify Section 18.50.120 of the SDD to eliminate REQUEST the height restrictions and insert language to reflect the currently proposed development plan. The current height restrictions allow a range from 14 feet on the southwest portion of the property to a maximum height of 63 feet on the northwest portion of the property. The applicants propose that the current proposal range from approximately 35 feet to 80 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff does not support the proposed modifica- tion to the height requirements. These requirements were set up specifically to preserve an important view of the ski slopes at the Town entrance. This was a very key issue during the development of the SDD, and the major reason why certain portions were allowed to go as high as 65 feet when the most the existing zoning on the site at that time would allow was 45 feet. • VVI 9/23/83 -4- SEVENTH 7-The a pp requests uests to modify the SDD to allow the expansion of commercial q REQUEST space to a degree that encourages the flow of pedestrian traffic within and through the public spaces of the project. The SDD allows a total of 40,000 square feet of commercial space. Currently approximately 39,195 square feet exist. The applicants propose an additional 16,750 square feet of commercial space between phases IV and V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that additional commercial space be allowed on the plaza level only and to the extent that it enhances the pedestrian interest along along the plaza frontage. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that the request be tabled for the following reasons: First, requirements exist which are specified with the SDD that have not yet been submitted: 1. A supplemental environmental impact report must be submitted for each 0 phase; 2. Each phase of the development has to be reviewed by an outside consultant, and the current proposal has not been reviewed; 3. A preliminary landscape plan must be submitted. Secondly, the information that the staff does have on this current proposal was submitted on September 21, giving the staff two days to respond to the proposal. We do not feel that we have had time to fully analyze and evaluate the different aspects of the proposal in sufficient detail to forward an intelligent recommendation to the PEC. We have concerns regarding the bulk and mass of the project, the dramatic increase in intensity of use of the site over the original SDD, the functionality of the plaza, traffic impacts upon Vail Road, the relationship of the current proposal to the existing building 5, service and delivery, and other aspects which cannot be addressed in a short time period. We recommend that this proposal be tabled until the additional requirements of the SDD are submitted, and the staff is allowed adequate time to review all aspects of the proposal. Clearly, a proposal of such potential significant impact upon the character of Vail should be very carefully evaluated. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 10, 1983 0 11:45 am Site Inspections 1:00 pm Study session for the proposed Sonnenalp Special Development District 1:45 pm Public Hearing: 1. Approval of minutes of September 26. 2. Request for an exterior alteration to the Lionshead Arcade in order to build a commercial addition. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties To be 3 A request for an exterior alteration to the Village Center project at tabled 122 East Meadow Drive to add a new retail addition on the east end, to revise the entrance to Toymaker's Trail, to construct additions to the retail shops, and to construct a new sidewalk along the north side of the project. Applicant: Fred Hibberd To be 4. A request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core II in order tabled to construct commercial storage units in the lower level of the Concert Hall Plaza. Applicant: Eagle Valley Investments, Inc. 5. A request for an exterior alteration for the Lodge at Vail to add a new wing to the hotel between One Vail Place and the Lodge containing lodge rooms, retail space, conference space and a deluxe suite. The proposal includes modifications to the "Lodge Plaza" adjacent to the Village Plaza and to the parking lot on the west side and additional storage space on the street level on the north side of the Lodge South building. Applicants: Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South Condominium Association 6. Request for a setback variance in a Primary /Secondary zone district to construct a garage with a deck on top at Lot 4, BlocK 3, Intermountain. Applicant: Elizabeth J. Kuehn 7. Request for a variance to Section 18.52.080(E) to not pave a driveway but to leave it gravel on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 13th. Applicant: Jack Carnie 8. Request for a front setback variance to remodel an existing structure on Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Ray Stevenson 9. Application for modification to the floodplain to construct a new starter shack for the Vail Golf Course. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District • F 0 Planning and Environmental Commission October 11, 1983 PRESENT Dan Corcoran Diana Donovan Duane Piper Jim Viele Jim Morgan ABSENT Gordon Pierce ABSENT FROM SITE INSP. Jim Morgan STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Peter Patten Jim Sayre Betsy Rosolack Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm. This was Dan's last meeting as chairman and his last meeting as a member of the PEC. Dick Ryan thanked Dan for his contribution to the PEC. The meeting had started with a study session on the Sonnenalp proposed Special Development District. After looking at a model and hearing a presentation by Jay Peterson and Bill Ruoff, the board was polled about their feelings concerning the proposal: Trout felt that the east end was done well, but that more design work was needed on the west end. Viele felt that much of the proposal was very positive and an improvement to the pedestrian flow, but he was concerned with the parking. Piper was in favor of the basic improvement to the physical plant. He questioned the need to have certain square footage to "make the building work." He added that he felt that the commercial arcade seemed imposing into the street and narrowed the street down. Donovan felt that there could be a problem down the road with allowingthe purchase of parking space into the parking structure. She felt that the Town was putting off a problem. Donovan was also concerned with encroachment into the stream setback, that the arcade might be too dark to be inviting to the pedestrians, that temporary planters did not work as either barriers or as landscaping, (giving the Casino building as an example), and she mentioned the shade problem from the Mountain Haus causing ice on the streets, and agreed with Trout that the west end of the building needed more work on the design. Corcoran stated that he did not have any problem with the size of the building, but felt the Sonnenalp should be constructed on only its own property, and was also concerned with the crowding of the east end of the arcade and with the practice of buying parking spaces. Approval of minutes of September 26. Since the minutes were not include in the mailing, they were not voted on. 2. Request for a- exterior alteration to the Lionshead Arcade in order to build a commercial addition. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties . Peter Patten stated that originally this project had been submitted on May 24 with the other exterior alteration submissions. He added that one prerequisite was to get the condominium associaion's approval, which to date hadn't yet been received. PEC -2- 10/11/83 He added that he had told the applicant that the board would act on the proposal . today, and had recommended denial with the suggestion that the applicant apply again in November. Donovan moved and Piper seconded to deny the application for lack of information. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of denial. 3. A request for an exterior alteration to the Village Center project__at 122 East Meadow Drive to add a new retail addition on the east end, to revise the entrance to To maker's Trail, to construct additions to the retail shops and to construct a new sidewalk alonq the north side of the project. Applicant: Fred Hibberd Corcoran read a letter from the applicant asking to table this item until 10/24. Viele moved and Piper seconded to table until the meeting of October 24. Vote was 5 -0. 4. A request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core II in order to construct commercial storage units in the lower level of the Concert Hall Plaza. Applicant: Eagle Valley Investments, Inc. The applicant asked to table until October 24. Donovan moved and Corcoran seconded to table the item until October 24. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of tabling. 5. A request for an exterior alteration for the Lodge at Vail to add a new win to the hotel between One Vail Place and the Lodge containing lode rooms, retail space, conference space and a deluxe suite. The proposal includes modifications to the "Lod e Plaza" adjacent to Founders' Plaza and to the parking lot on the west side and additional storage space on the street level on the north side of the Lodge South building. Applicant: Lodge at Vail and Lodge South Condo Association. Dick Ryan reviewed the memo. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, showed a model and asked if the PEC could vote first on just the storage for the Lodge South. Alan Tafoya, representing Ruoff Partnerships, the architect, showed where the storage in the parking area of Lodge South would go. He added that there would be 16 lockers, which would be minimized with doors facing into the garage. The garage would be kept an open ventilated garage. Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve the storage lockers. The vote was 5 -0. Jay then discussed the model and its different aspects: the new entry and rearranged parking lot, ski storage and employee cafeteria, and the new International suite. Viele asked what would happen to the 2 spruce trees next to the entrance when the parking lot was rearranged, and Peterson responded that they would attempt to move the trees to another location. Concern was expressed about the closeness of the International wing to One Vail Place. Peterson said that One Vail Place overhung its property line. He added that the architects had considered moving the top story of the International wing to the west, and were dissatisifed with the appearance. Viele asked if there were technical problems with the buildings so close together, and Peterson said that they would have to use special glass Trout said that he had difficulty with having only two feet between the buildings. He suggested taking space from the other end of the wing and move the whole building. He approved the rest of the proposal. Martha Fritzlen, a resident of One Vail Place stated that everyone who lived in CCI was concerned about narrow alleyways and all of their problems. Donovan stated that she felt that the building had been designed 0 • PEC -3- 10/11/83 to conform to the Urban Design Plan, but that not everyone felt that the Urban Design Guide Plan was good, and that the building was being designed with the UDGP in mind, whether or not it worked. She added that it appeared that the commercial section was drawing people to a dead end. Donovan felt that in the summer the plaza would be a lively place, but not in winter. She was concerned about the heights and confused about how they were figured. Peterson said that on the plaza side, 60% of the roofs were below 35 feet, in the back, the roof was 48 feet at the highest point. He felt that if the guidelines were specific, they would need a variance. More discussion followed concerning the height of the east end of the International wing. Donovan pointed out that the proposal should deal with the whole complex, °not just with 6 rooms (regarding the closeness of the building to One Vail Place). Piper liked the new entry, but felt that flowers in the middle of the parking lot would not be visible when cars were parked there. He agreed with Donovan concerning the closeness of the building to One Vail Place, and wondered why the roof garden had to be a certain size. Ron Grant, representing Warren Platner, architect, stated that he and his coworkers had worked with a large model and had tried the top floor of the new wing in several different places, but that they were dissatisfied with any but the location shown. Piper said that he would like to see other solutions. Peterson showed elevations with the high roof six feet west. Viele liked the entrance, but felt that it was unfortunate that the landscaping were to be changed so that the cars had become more visible. He agreed with Donovan regarding softening of the plaza, and felt that he could not go along with a two foot alleyway. Corcoran agreed with the concerns expressed, except that he did not have any problem with the feeling of the dead end in the plaza. Patten pointed out that One Vail Place had built to and over their property line with an agreement with the Lodge. Martha Fritzlen said that when the Schoeber building was built, they did the same with the west side. The Gore Creek Plaza building was completely blocked on the west side. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to deny the application with the exception of the Lodge South proposal with the main reason the closeness of the new wing addition to One Vail Place. The vote to deny was 5 -0. M - Jim Morgan arrived. 6. Request for a setback variance in a Primary/Secondary Primary/Secondary zone district to construct a garage with a deck on top at Lot 4, Block 3, Intermountain. Applicant: Eliza- beth J. Kuehn Jim Sayre showed plans and elevations and explained that the staff recommended approval because there would be no detrimental effect on the adjoining properties, there was a physical hardship, and there were other variances granted for the construction of garages in West Vail. Kuehn, the applicant, explained that to place the garage elsewhere would also change the appearance of the house. Viele moved and Piper seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. Vote was 6 -0. PEC -4- 10/11/83 7. Request for a variance to Section 18.52.080(E) to not pave a driveway but to leave it gravel on Lot 10, Block 1, Vai_1 Villa e 13th. Applicant: Jack Carnie Jim Sayre told the history of the driveway situation, Jack Carnie, the applicant, felt that the driveway was so long, it had an alley -like appearance, and he felt that the driveway's appearance would be better in gravel rather than pavement. Morgan stated that this could set a precedent for others not to pave their driveways, and he felt there was no hardship. Viele agreed and added that it was hard to match the the neat look one got with paving. Piper felt that it was not the material that determined whether the driveway looked like an alley or not, that it was more a matter of width, and he could.see no hardship. Donovan agreed and stated that it would be good to make it as narrow as possible. Trout agreed with Duane as did Corcoran. Piper moved and Donovan seconded to deny the request for a variance because it would be giving a special privilege. The vote was 6 -0 for denial. 8. Request for a front setback variance to remodel an existing_ structure on Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village 1st.. Applicant: Ray Stevenson Peter Patten explained the request, and Steve Riden, representing the architect, Gordon Pierce, showed a site plan. Viele suggested reducing the amount of asphalt, Piper agreed. Donovan felt that she could not support the request on principle, and Trout abstained because he had not seen the building and lot on a field visit. Viele moved and Piper seconded to approve the request with the condition that the street parking be removed and the area be landscaped. The vote was 3 in favor, 1 (Donovan) against, with Corcoran and Trout abstaining. 9. Request for modification to the flood lain to construct a new starter shack for the Vail Golf Course. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District. Jim Sayre described the request. Jim Morter, architect for the project, stated that the building would be about the same size as the existing building. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request The vote was 5 -0 with Corcoran abstaining. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm. • r • L� MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 5, 1983 SUBJECT: Front setback variance requests for a remodel project of the existing residence on Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing Applicant: Ray Stevenson DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant requests front setback variances of 8 feet for a wall and stairs on the east side of the house, three feet for a storage and garage addition and five feet for a new bathroom addition on the west. The house now encroaches to within two feet of the front property line. The reasons for the request is that to upgrade the house, improvements must be located in the front setback because of the existing situation. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Develo ment recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the followinq factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. No negative impacts result. No further encroachment than what is existing is proposed. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inter retation and enforcement of a specified re ulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without qrant of special privilege. Existing conditions of the house's location are a physical hardship to any remodeling effort. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities_, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No effects Stevenson -2- 10/5/83 Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems__.applicable to the or000sed variance. FINDINGS: 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 of 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. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request. We support the upgrading of the structure and recognize physical hardship due to the existing site conditions. .7 . TO: FROM: DATE MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department October 6, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to vary from Section 6.52.080, in order not to pave a driveway on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing. Applicant: Jack Carnie DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Jack Carnie built the existing duplex on Lot 10 in 1977. In April 1978 a Certificate of Occupancy was issued with the understanding that the driveway paving would be completed by September 1978. A statement to this effect was signed by Mr. Carnie when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued (see enclosed statement). This summer Mr. Carnie came to the Town wishing to build a small addition to his garage, at which time he was told he would have to fulfill his commitment made in 1978 to pave his driveway. Mr. Carnie indicated that he would like to apply for a variance and the Town attorney indicated that a variance procedure would be appropriate. Mr. Carnie wishes to obtain a variance from Section 18.52.080 (E) which states that "Ali parking areas should be paved and provided with adequate drainage facilities." CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Deve10 ment recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the followin factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Most, but by no means all, of the driveways in the Booth Creek area have been paved. To grant this variance would be a poor precedent in that it would hinder efforts to have other home owners comply with the paving regulation. 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 title without grant of special privilece . To grant this variance would be to grant a special privilege. Homeowners in the Booth Creek area and homeowners in the other neighborhoods in Vail • -2- 10/6/83 Carnie have been required to pave their driveways. It would be unfair to a great number of the citizens of Vail who have paved their driveways to grant this variance. 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 variance would not influence the above. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDIN -GS: The Planning and Environmental Con - mission shall make the following findin s before granting a variance: f 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 of Pore 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. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Mr. Carnie's justifi- cation for the variance is that Lot 10 is a long, thin lot. This is not an "extraordinary circumstance or condition applicable to the site of the variance that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zone." (See findings above.) Many of the lots in the Booth Creek area are this general rectangular shape, and this shape is not uncommon throughout Vail. The shape and size of this lot by no means constitute a physical hardship in paving the drive. Also, to grant the variance would be a grant of special privilege and would set a very poor precedent for other homeowners in Vail who have not paved their driveways. • 292.0 Mann's Ranch Road Vail, Ca Qwdo $165? September 12, 1983 Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81658 Doar Sir: This is a r ejuest for a wwlanoe A= regulation 18.526080 (E) stating that entr4.n ^e driveways must be po ed.. When planning to build a solar hooted dupAx on List 10, a long narrow lot covorEed by an aapen f opest , T was faced with seu6 al physical limitations. The solution was to design a. long narrow house containing roof solar panels and situate the honso can the only trnAcss area, thns stv ng as wany trees as possible. is The demploper of Lot 9 placed his long duplex directly behind mine accentuat- ing the v- F"al irpret of two 1CSnF, thin duplexes ha..k to back on two long, thin lots. A Poved A acktop driveway vil.l further a.ncea tUAte the feeling of a long iior ;w rh1l ey. My F re rent. g t` of dr iSPco e y is lets c"onsp'? C:uous and b enis wn)! into the Your attention Anto this variance regypst is appreniA d. LJ YotdY�:.: V aSy truly, jack ra7 nie ly �• 1� r cdr `may mN O Y �4 [J p o z m m N pom Opm O 1'n m N -1 0 z � n O O ni n Z r r O 1 I • �!� I� lw { i I I ti m m�-.�n "anti o v a nn� �"t ommam y le w croH�m ] Q O E Q 4 m a .A ice) �n�h�nn •ana ] v 4 °Lny ro 4 O 9 4 &, 9 1 u, �I I T �O• �'s N r o N m N N ti m m�-.�n "anti o v a nn� �"t ommam y le w croH�m ] Q O E Q 4 m a .A ice) �n�h�nn •ana ] v 4 °Lny ro 4 O 9 4 &, 9 1 u, �I I T �O• �'s Q a a4N . l a' C O r ° N W C X 4 t . - , 2a. - _ _ _ -- 0 6> N N 27 "39'1a "E B0. 00 4 Tract B A J i 1 ...rte � I :7 r1 April 10, 1978 It should be noted that the driveway for the residence located on Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 13th, has not been paved. Due to the season, it is almost impossible to obtain paving at this time, also, there exists the high probability of elimination of this ordinance. It is agreed upon by Mr. Jack Carnie, that this matter will be resolved by either; 1.) paving the driveway; 2.) elimination of the ordinance; or, 3.) application for a variance. It is hereby understood and agreed upon to have this matter approved by the Building Official before September 1, 1978. The Certificate of Occupancy will be null and void should this matter not be resolved before "Se ember 1, 1978. Mr. Jack Carnie Date WITNESS Notary Public Date Z . vy J, es A. bbie Date jl 1� Win Of voi Sax 100 office of the town manager nail, coiorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 September 20, 1977 Jack Carnie Box 533 Vaal, Colorado 81657 Re: Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing Dear Sir: As a representative of the Town of Vail, Department of Community Development, I would like to express my congratulations to you for the fine building you recently constructed on the go above named property. I feel that your home is a welcome addition to Vail and on behalf of the Department of Community Development, would like to express my appreciation for your efforts. In order to receive a Certificate of Occupancy (which is the official document that permits you to occupy your premises) it is necessary that your driveway be paved in conjunction with requirements of the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance. It is also necessary that a culvert be installed beneath your driveway to permit drainage to pass under your driveway. It is also necessary that final site clean --up be completed. It is also necessary to conduct a final inspection of the structure to insure compliance with Town of Vail Building Codes. S_.n,c�qre1y , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D VELOPMENT e-:,L1 pierce �r � Buildin g Official �. 0 BP /di 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 5, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to modify the floodplain in order to tear down and rebuild the golf course starter shack. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District THE PROPOSAL The Vail Metropolitan Receation District is proposing to tear down and rebuild the starter shack at the golf course. The new starter shack will be approximately 70 feet west of the existing structure. (See site plan in attached report). The old structure and the new one both lie within the 100 -year floodplain. The base flood elevation at the site of the new structure is approximately 8224.7. The ground elevation is approximately 8223.8; the depth of the base flood is approximately .9 feet at this location. The new starter shack will be elevated by means of a four foot high berm. The first floor elevation will be 8227.5. i THE REGULATIONS The zoning code allows alteration of the floodplain as long as certain criteria are met. These sections of the zoning code are reproduced below: 18.64.040 E. The zoning administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to modify the floodplain by fill, construction, channelization, grading, or other similar changes, to submit for review an environmental impact statement in accordance with 18.56 to establish that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of floor waters. 18.64.047 Procedure for the substantial improvement of legal- nonconforming structuues located, in part or in whole, in a flood hazard zone. A. Structures which are substantially improved must be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement during a base flood event; substantially improved structures must also elevate the lowest floor elevation, including basement, to one foot or above the base flood elevation. Section 18.64.040 (E) has been met by the submittal of Floodplain Evaluation for Vail Golf Course Starter House, by Hydro -- Triad. Their conclusions are that the "proposed house will not adversely affect adjacent properties or increase the quantity of water. Only slight velocity changes would occur." 0 r] • -2- 10/5/83 Golfcourse Section 18.69.047 has been met by elevating the structure by means of a berm. The berm shall also prevent collapse, flotation or lateral movement during the base flood event. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposed floodplain modification. The criteria set forth in the zoning code have been met, and the staff concurs with the con- clusions of the engineers at Hydro - Triad: "...the proposed starter house will have only a minor effect on the floodplain, and only within a small localized area." 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 6, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for exterior alteration and modification to the Lazier Arcade Building in Lionshead Applicant: Bob Lazier The staff has not been contacted by the applicant in regard to the obtaining of the condominium association's approval of the proposal. This approval is necessary for the project to proceed through approval processes. Although the staff is positive about this proposal, as we feel it would be a beneficial addition to the mall, we must recommend that the project be denied at this point. The application has been in since May 24th and no agreement between the applicant and the association has been reached in over four months. We would urge the association and applicant to work things out and re -apply this November. • W • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 3, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a side setback variance to build a garage on a part of Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Elizabeth Kuehn DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE Elizabeth Kuehn is requesting a three foot variance from the 15 foot setback requirement on Lot 4, Block 3, Intermountain subdivision. The applicant wishes to build a corner of a garage in the setback: a twelve foot setback from the property line will be the result if the variance is granted. The proposal is to build the garage under a deck (the deck itself needs no variance; decks are allowed to extend halfway into the setback). The southwest corner of the Kuehn residence sits 13.4 feet from the property line. This is a legal non - conforming situation. The request for the setback variance for the garage is a part of a plan to improve . this single family residence. Plans for renovation have passed DRB and a building permit has been issued to add a basement space under the house, to improve the landscaping, and to pave the driveway. The application does meet site coverage (997 allowed, 838 proposed) and GRFA (1247 allowed, 1112 proposed) requirements. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Creiteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, The Community Development Department 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. Two residences adjoin the proposed garage. The Frank Day residence, just to the south of the proposed garage, is 30 feet away from the foundation wall of the garage. The Williams residence is to the west. From the vantage point of either residence the variance is inconsequential: the proposed deck over the garage, which will determine the visual bulk of the addition, can remain in the same location whether the variance is granted or not. The Days and the Williams have written letters supporting the variance. Kuehn -2- 10/3/83 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of _a specified regulation is necessary to achieve oatibi cm lit uinifo rmity p g ... P Y and of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without qrant of special privilege, - - - — The variance is warrented due to the physical constraints upon development on this lot and due to the objective of encouraging the construction of garages in the West Vail area. This small lot, 4987 square feet, is practically and physically difficult to develop. Existing landscaping precludes building the garage to the north of the residence. Construction to the east is precluded by a drainage easement. The proposed location for the garage, which will be partially tucked into grade, is the best site for the garage. Other setback variances have also been given in West Vail for garages. An eighteen foot variance was granted to Dodson /Vogelaar to build a garage in Vail das Schone, and a variance of seventeen feet was given to Alex and Mary Gordon to build a garage in West Vail. To grant this setback request for three feet would not be a grant of 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. The proposal will have no influence upon the above. FWWIS: 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 the following reason: 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance. The three foot variance will have no detrimental influence on the adjoining proper- ties, physical and practical difficulties arise in the development of the lot due to its shape and size, and no grant of special privilege is being given due to other setback variances given for garages in West Vail. LI • LJ 0 Box 2767 Vail, CO 81658 September 12, 1983' Piannin.g & Environmental Commission Department of Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81658 To whom i=t may concern: The variance I am requesting would garage, which will lie beneath the presently existing setbacks at the 2724 - Larkspur Lane. consist of extending the proposed new west front porch, into the south side of the house at At this time I have submitted plans to the Design Review Board which show the replacement of the existing west front porch lying within 13.4' f-ro -m the property line at it's southeast corner and 12.0' from it's southwest corner. Rather than bringing the south garage wall to within three feet north of the south.side of the new deck, as shown on the currently submitted Design Review Board plans, it is my desire to be able to extend the south wall of the garage the full length of the new deck. The regulation involved requires a request for a variance under Zoning Chapter 18.13. Ordenance 50 (1378)"2 (part), Section 18.13.060 concerning Setbacks states that: "In the primary /secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet, the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet. At the time the house at 2724 Larkspur Lane was built,.Intermountain was not a part of the Town of Vail and, therefore, was built in accordance with Eagle County building codes. At the present time, the existing house extends to within 13.4' of the property line at it's southwest corner and to within approximately 12.5'-from the southwest end of the existing deck. My reasons for wanting to build a garage below the entirety of the new deck are explained in the following paragraphs. The existing house is on a very small piece of property and the possibilities for expansion are very limited. V I • • • . 0 September 12, 1983 Page 2 Building anything on the east side of the house is automatically ruled out, as a drainage easement runs just beyond the existing back porch. The north side of the house has many beautiful trees, including a grove of aspen that I would estimate to be at least twenty years old. I would rather not chance moving them and would not consider destroying them of the natural effect they create. The west side is available for expansion and this is where I have proposed the new deck be extended an additional four feet beyond the existing deck, under which will be-the garage.. The south side falls under a fifteen foot side setback requirement and it is into this that I would like to extend the garage below the deck. Over the past couple of years I have come up with a number of ideas as to how I could expand my house and it became evident that the only way would be to construct another level above or below the existing house. I have been deeply concerned about the esthetic outcome of any addition and I sincerely feel that the plans I have come up with give the house an improved appearance and that they will change the overall look of the house only slightly. The location I have chosen for the garage is perfect in that it lies directly ahead of the existing driveway. As shown on the plans I have submitted to the D.R.B., I would like to extend the rock wall along the south side and west corner of the deck to create a neater appearance than that of bringing the rock wall north three feet under the deck and having to support the south end of the deck on stilts. The finished addition as I am proposing it to you now would look identical from outward appearances to the plan I have already submitted. A normal garage is approximately 23' in length. If I were allowed to build the garage the full length of the deck, it depth would be 21'. Without the extra 3' I am requesting, the garage would be 18' deep and therefore be awfully small for a standard sized car. I thank you very sincerely for reviewing this matter and considering allowing me to extend the garage space into this small piece of ground. Yours truly, Elizabeth J. Kuehn E,JK/ is v 'Ps _71Z • MEMORANDUM October 6, 1983 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Study session on Sonnenalp Special Development District proposal BACKGROUND: On November 22, 1982 the Community Development Department received a letter from Bill Ruoff regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Sonnenalp property. At that time the request was an invitation for a joint study of the property and surrounding area so that there could be public and private improvements to Vail Village. Some meetings have been held with the architect, and the plan reflects some of the comments. The purpose of the study session is for the Planning and Environmental Commission to receive a briefing on the proposal and provide some comments before a public hearing is scheduled for a special development district on the proposal. STATISTICS FROM ARCHITECT Existing Building Site Area: 24,092.7 square feet = 0.5531 acres Gross Floor Area: 24,106 square feet Breakdown of Amenities in square feet: Retail 600 Restaurant kitchen 994 Restaurant dining 455 Bar 105 Sonnenclub (Lounge) 700 Spa 630 Meeting room 0 Apartment 1,460 Room Count: 39 accommodation units 1 manager's unit 1 owner's apartment Height: 33 feet Setbacks: (each 249 sq ft) Site Coverage: 35.4% Front 24' Density: 37.9 units per acre 40 Rear 14' Rear 12' -2- 10/5/83 Sonnenalp Proposed Remodel is Site area: 24,092.7 square feet = 0.5531 acres Gross Floor Area: 70,988 square feet Breakdown of Amenities in square feet: Retail 2,482 -3,658 Restaurant Kitchen 2,700 Restaurant Dining 1,877 Bar 1,170 Sonnenclub (Lounge) 1,300 Spa 1,780 Meeting room 562 Manager's & Owners' Apartment 812 Room Count: 65 accommodation units 7% 5 small (300 -350 sq ft) 62% 40 typical (351 - 450 sq ft) 31% 20 deluxe (451 - 600 sq ft) 1 manager's apartment 1 owners' apartment Height: 41 feet on north side; 45 feet on south side, • except at pool terrace where it is 55 feet. Setbacks: Front 0' Fast side 0' West side 6' Rear 6' Pool 0' Site Coverage: 64.5% Density: 62.4 units per acre 3 � -3- 10/5/83 Sonnenalp is PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is proposing a special development improvements proposed on the Sonnenalp property They have requested that the discussion only be discuss the density issue at this time. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN. • 0 district for the site with and Town of Vail property. on the site plan and not Even though the Sonnenalp property is not in Commercial Core I zone district, it was part of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Specific sub -area concepts surround the site. 24. Future study of potential, and desirability, of below - grade parking with open space and /or building expansion above to further reinforce pedestrian connection. This sub -area concept specifically addresses the Sonnenalp property. At the time of the approval of the Urban Design Guide Plan there was no specific proposal discussed. The Community Development Department and consultant did see the potential for first floor commercial shops, pedestrian . walkways and landscaping to provide for pedestrian circulation along East Meadow Drive. The purpose was to have Vail Village an even more successful pedestrian village. Tourists would have the opportunity to walk out of the Vail Transportation Center and have two inviting opportunities. First, to continue into the main part of the village through the covered bridge, and second to be attracted to the shops going west along East Meadow Drive to Village Center commercial shops, then to Crossroads, the Vail Village Inn commercial shops or south to the main part of Vail Village. The pedestrian counterfiow would also be an inviting walk for the tourist. 20. Separation of two -lane bus route from traffic circle by means of earth - formed buffer to reduce bus /auto conflicts at peak traffic periods. Private land encroachment necessary. The dedication of land for the possibility of this design consideration has taken place. Detailed design and capital improvements funding has not been approved at this time. 21. Limited commercial expansion - one story. Infill commercial possibility to draw pedestrians both east and west along East Meadow Drive, which with other improvements helps complete the pedestrian loop to the Village core. Low building, in foreground of taller building to southwest, 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. -4- 10/5/83 Sonnenalp These sub -area concepts were part of the Village Center proposal on the 19 east end of their parking structure. There is a proposal under consideration for an expansion of commercial space in this area. 23. Separated pedestrian walk in public R.O.W. (by narrowing bus lane), with border planting to screen parking and make atrractive connection to Covered Bridge Plaza. This sub -area concept has also been shown on the Sonnenalp proposal. After some discussion with the Public Works and Transportation Departments, the best solution is not to narrow the bus lane. The buses need to pass at this location to insure the system operates at maximum efficiency during peak periods of the ski season. The staff will work with the architect to resolve this problem. Also, there is a potential conflict with pedestrians walking from the covered arcade into the bus lane that needs to be reworked with the staff and architect. At the northwest corner a stronger landscape screen should be developed to screen parking. This is actually a Design Review Board item. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS . The site does not come under the Vail Village Design Considerations since those were only approvedfor Commercial Core 1 zoning district. Some of the design considerations do definitely apply for this site: Pedestrianization: As noted in the Design Considerations: "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 through the Village." Also, "separated pedestrian walks where street width and traffic volume (trucks, shuttle bus, etc.) preclude joint vehicle /pedestrian use of the roadway.,, The proposal does dramatically improve pedestrianization in the area and meets a major objective for Vail Village to encourage pedestrian circulation throughout an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Vehicle Penetration By reducing the number of long term parking spaces and moving the bus control gate, there should be a reduction in vehicle penetration. One critical element in that area would be construction of the exclusive bus lane and turn - around noted in sub -area concept #20. r Streetsca Framework -5- 10/5/83 Sonnenalp study The Design Considerations state: "To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscping -- berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful frame work linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park green spaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Tnfill commercial storefronts -- expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give street life and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes." Street Enclosure Because there is a landscaped berm for the parking structure to the north, there is a sense of street enclosure with this proposal. Street Edge The arcade is a concept that has been used at Crossroads. With the landscape path and building front change, there is a much more positive street edge with this proposal. • Views No designated view corridor is over the Sonnenalp. There is a view corridor to the east of the site over the main part of Vail Village Service and Dbl. j very Proposed is a service and delivery area on the west end of the site. Sun /Shade At this time the staff is not sure of the change, as this was not submitted for review. NEW STRUCTURES The proposed building seems to have high Tyrolean architectural character and would fit architecturally into Vail Village. Because of grade changes on the East Meadow Drive side of the building, the structure essentially is a three story structure, and the east side would have the greatest public exposure. The west elevation reads as a four story structure and has some public exposure from Bridge Street. 0 -6- 10/5/83 Sonnenalp study OTHER ISSUES There are a couple of other issues that the staff would raise regarding the proposed Special Development District for the Sonnenalp: Density As noted in a previous discussion with the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding the general amendment on accommodation units, the staff has some concerns regarding density. These have been expressed in the staff memorandum dated August 19, 1983. At the public hearing on the amendment, some Planning and Environmental Commission members were concerned with a general across the board amendment. Other members considered a special development district approach of dealing with each on a case by case basis. If the SDD and density increase approach is the way Planning and Environmental Commission wants to go, the staff would recommend that criteria be set up to permit additional accommodation units. Without criteria, there may be some very good requests that deserve consideration for approval and some that are not good proposals and should be denied. Without criteria, evaluation of density increase proposals becomes quite difficult. Parking Proposed are four on site parking stalls for registration and loading. Long term parking would be in the Transportation Center. The applicants will • be required to pay the appropriate parking fee for each type of use. A community issue is: When will the Vail Transportation Center need expansion to take care of the additional parking demand? Gore Creek The southern part of the proposal is on property that seems to be owned by Vail Associates and is zoned Agricultural and Open Space. This needs to be cleared up before a public hearing on the special development district. Upgrading the creek bank would be a positive part of the proposal. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 24, 1983 40 11:30 am Site Inspections 1:15 pm Golden Peak Study Session with Town Council 2:00 pm Public Hearing: 1. Approval of minutes of September 26 and of October 10. 2. Request to rezone the Amoco service station site from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation zone district, and to incorporate the site into Special Development District #6. Also, to amend the Sppcial Development District height section and plan, to increase the gross residential resi- dential floor area allowable, to modify professional and business offices, theaters, meeting rooms, convenoion facilities, and commercial parking facilities from conditional uses to permitted uses, to request an exemption for parking, to permit additional floor area for commercial uses, and other minor changes. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. 3. A request for an exterior alteration for the Lodge at Vail to add a new wing to the hotel between One Vail Place and the Lodge. The proposal includes modifications to the "Lodge Plaza" adjacent to the Founders' Plaza and to the parking lot on the west side. Applicants: Lodge at Vail 4. A request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core II in order to construct commercial storage units in the lower level of the Concert Hall Plaza. Applicant: Eagle Valley Investments, Inc. ! 5. A request for a rezoning on the Getty Oil site (parcel immediately west of Pitkin Creek Parkcondominiums in Bighorn) from Low Density Multi - Family (LDMF) to Special Development District with underlying Arterial Business District to build a restaurant and "affordable" condominiums. Applicant: Brooks Investments 6. Request to delete the proposed ice rink /plaza building and accompanying walks, stairs, and retaining walls for the Highland Park Townhomes, Special Development District #11. Applicant: Western Federal Savings and Loan 7. Request for a conditional use permit to allow a car wash in the Voliter Nursery Garage building at 1031 South Frontage Road in the Arterial Business District. Applicant: David J. Gregg Galles 8. Request for a variance to Section 18.13.080 B.4 in order to add a secondary dwelling on Lot 6, Block 6, Intermountain without having to construct covered parking. Applicant: Susan Corrock Husted .J 0 MEMBERS PRESENT n LJ • Diana Donovan Gordon Pierce Duane Piper Howard Rapson Jim Morgan Will Trout ABSENT Jim Viele Planning and Environmental Commission October 24, 1983 ABSENT FROM SITE INSP. Jim Morgan STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Peter Patten Jim Sayre Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack Duane Piper, vice - chairman called the meeting to order. This was Rapson's 1st meeting. The staff returned from site visits at 1:15 and held a study session on Golden Peak. Peter Patten showed the site plan and elevations done by Snowdon /Hopkins. Patten explained that there were changes in response to the Golden Peak Neighborhood Assoc. A berm was added along Vail Valley Drive to mitigate the mass of the building. Of issues raised from the last meeting, temporary planters were changed to permanent planters with changes in the site plan, the drainage was still being studied, the pedestrianization was changed so that pedestrians could now walk on the north side of Vail Valley Drive to connect with Manor Vail. (Need information on Ramshorn swimming pool fence.) It was felt that a walk to the south of the project was needed. Bike path connections to the south of the site were improved, the mothers' drop -off plan was improved to enable circular access and diagonal spaces, Mill Creek was moved to the east .& uncovered with three bridges over the creek. The bus land was altered and the land was given toward landscaping. Landscaping materials now screen the building on the manor Vail side. The loading dock was brought further from the edge of the street and was screened by landscaping. Joe Macy of Vail Associates thanked the staff for their help on the project. Craig Snowdon of Snowdon /Hopkins Architects, stated that what was shown on the site plans and elevations was a "direction started" with a lot of detail left to be decided. Peter Patten stated that the Town Council on October 18 passed on second reading the new Ski Base /Recreation zone district. Discussion followed concerning covered and underground parking. Jim Lamont, representing the neighborhood, stated that they would like to see some comment from the Town of Vail resolving to have underground parking. He suggested various ways to incorporate an underground structure. He added that the neighborhood would like to see much less surface parking. The pedestrian walkways were discussed, and Lamont wanted to know who would pay for the walkways and stated that the neighborhood organization hadn't decided what their position was. PEC 10/24/83 -2- Pierce felt a need for a strong pedestrian connection to the plaza, and also felt a need to improve the walkways and reduce the parking areas. Snowden stated that VA was willing to trade some width in the parking area. Donovan wanted to know who . would be maintaining the landscaping, felt the need for more space at the skier drop - off, would like to see VA do undergound parking, explaining that most of the parking spaces were taken by VA employees, felt that street lights were needed. Snowdon stated that the lighting and landscaping had to be looked at in detail. Trout stated that he saw an increase in quality of architecture, and wanted to know VA's position on the parking. Macy answered that the new treatment was considerably nicer than the previous situation, that the parking spaces had been there since the inception of Golden Peak, but that VA was considering placing the parking underground in the future. Trout wondered if.the TOV was going to provide more parking. Patten answered the staff was in the process of exploring the economy of expanding the Village parking structure to the east. Lamont felt that there was excessive parking in the neighborhood. Macy felt there was not excessive parking anywhere in Vail, and added that reducing the Golden Peak spaces by 10 or 20 would not make any difference in the area. Trout felt that if the staff were in support of the site plan, perhaps the best balance had been achieved. Patten asked the board to set the date of November 14 as the date to take action on the rezoning of the parcels at the base of Golden Peak to Ski Base /Recreation zone district. Trout moved and Donovan seconded to set November 14 as the date. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. is 1. Approval of minutes of September 26 and of October 10. Donovan made a correction on page 3 of the October 11 minutes, then both sets of minutes were approved as corrected. 2. Request to rezone the Amoco service station site from Heavv Service to Public Accommodation zone district, and to incorporate the site into Special Development District #6. Also, to amend the Special Development District height section and plan, to increase the gross residential floor area allowable, to modify professional and business offfices, theaters, meeting rooms, convention facilities, and commercial._parking facilities from conditional uses to permitted uses, to request an exemption for parking, to permit additional floor area for commercial uses, and other minor changes. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. Dick Ryan gave the staff presentation and outlined the original SDD restrictions, the existing conditions and outlined the proposal. Ryan stated that the staff felt that the proposal would clean up the major entryway into Vail, though the staff did not recommend the approval of including the Amoco site into the zone district. Ryan stressed that the staff was concerned with the magnitude of the proposal, and that the impact would be too great. Joe Stauffer, the applicant, repeated his version of the history of the sight for the benefit of those who missed the last meeting. He questioned the limit of GRFA, and also the limit on the number of rooms. 0 • 0 r1 PEC 10/24/83 --3- Staufer claimed that he had not asked for an SDD, and did not agree on the restrictions. Gordon Pierce, architect for the project, stated that he was the second architect to be called in since sprang, and that there had been meetings with the staff for three months. Pierce showed slides showing the present buildings and the model. He stated that two gas stations were not needed on that corner, and that there would be a green area on the corner in the proposal. Pierce added that hotel consultants were called in to help plan the buildings, and although the building was as tall as the Vail Athletic Club, it gave the impression of being smaller because of the design, and that the buildings would be detailed to match the rest of the phases. Pierce stated that he had done a study of the heights, and the buildings were well under the 45 foot height limit,..of the SDD. Jeff Winston, consultant, said that he had been called in by the Town staff. One provision of the original SDD was that a consultant must be used, and with the original SDD, Eldon Beck was the consultant. Winston presented his findings which were included in the memo. Winston said that essentially the initial question for the PEC and Council was, is the original SDD criteria valid for the design of the site, i.e. view corridor, building height, and stepping down criteria. If not, what criteria should be applied? He listed two departures from the original SDD as 1) the addition of the Amoco site and 2) the desire for larger hotel rooms. Winston stressed that the original SDD suggest the southwest corner should be stepped down to 'Village scale', and was proposed to be 4 stories. Winston pointed out many of the proposal's positive aspects, such as the appearance from the frontage road. Pierce contended that the view corridor could be changed because when approaching Vail from the intersection, one is more concerned with where to drive. Piper polled the board for their questions: Morgan wanted to know if the SDD were being abandoned, and more discussion followed concerning the number of rooms allowed under the original SDD, and allowed for commercial space. Donovan said that she had spent several hours studying the proposal and still did not know which figures to work with. She added that even with the Amoco site, the density still seemed high, and no one seemed to have an answer to what the PEC was approving. Joe Stauffer reminded them that he could not build Phase V until 1997 because his lessors had leases until then, and if the Pancake House remodeled this year, they would also have a lease for 10 more years. Donovan wanted to know if the luxury hotel rooms would be sold as time share units, and stated that if so, they were individually owned, and it was possible the upkeep and services would not really be 'luxury.' Stauffer replied that it would be a cono /hotel, with each owner not able to use his room more than 2 weeks each summer and 2 weeks each winter. Rapson objected to the wall shown on the model, and Pierce explained that there would no longer be a wall on the corner, but rather just a park. Rapson felt the need for more study and discussion. Piper asked about the number of parking spaces and Stauffer answered that he felt he was building 143 more spaces than required. PEC 10/24/83 -4- Piper asked why the request to put certain uses as permitted rather than conditional, and Stauffer replied the hotel consultants had suggested it, but that he had no problem with leaving the uses as conditional. Piper asked how many luxury units would be deleted by lowering the south building one story, and Pierce replied, Dick Ryanlreading from the original SDD, stated that the B area would be three stories, the C area four stories, and the west should go from 3 to 2 with the D area lower. (The lettered areas referred to the original map without the Amoco site.) Piper said that to summarize, the southwest portion was four stories originally, so the proposal was much higher than the original SDD and that the stepping down did not work. Winston answered that that was essentially the problem. Piper added that the PEC was also to vote on whether or not to permit additional commercial area, that being traded from accommodation units. There followed more discussion concerning exactly how much commercial would be allowed, with differing answers. Ralph Harrison, manager of the Holiday Inn said that he was opposing the proposal if more hotel rooms were granted, because it would detlete what business he had. Pepi Gramshammer, owner of Gasthof Gramshammer, was in favor of the project, as was Paula Palmateer. Palmateer added, however, thatshe was not in favor of the size, particularly on the southwest corner. She was afraid, also, that a precedent would be set in that area, and that next the Kiandra would be asking to be that tall. Van Ewing, a renter of space in VVI Phase 3 was in favor, and Sandy Mills who was on the PEC when the original revamping of the site took place, felt that the project was somewhat too big in terms of the original proposal. Hans Eyre, a landscape architect, felt that the largest issue was the view from the highway, and he also felt that the courtyard could be different from the others in town.. Trout was positive about the project but asked the applicant to have suggestions for the southwest corner. Hiller felt that no more could be cut out economically but suggested taking out one bank of rooms, and adding dormers to the side to East Meadow Drive. Pierce suggested that he spend some time on changes and come back. Rapson wondered if Phase V would also be reduced, Pierce suggested maybe combining part of the southwest corner into the west part of Phase 5. Donovan read from Section 18.40.040(D) concerning amendments which do not change the substance of the approved development plan could be approved by the PEC. She added that she felt the substance was being changed. She also wanted to know what the Town would gain by granting the request. Donovan said that she had listened to the original tape and that on the tape Eldon Beck was impressed with the.fact that Joe was willing not to use every square inch, but gave thought to views and compatibility to Crossroads. She added that one reason for the SDD was for the shops to maintain the Village quality with their two story height. Donovan felt that one set of rules were needed, and she also felt the need for gas stations. Donovan added that using rooms numbers to control density was no control at all. She felt that there must be parking for charter buses if charter buses were to be used, that the distance between the buildings should be maintained, that all the parking should be in the building, and that there should be a bus shelter. • � 0 r� • PEC 10/24/83 -5- Donovan felt the commercial space request was excessive, that the commercial space should be an accessory to the lodging. Morgan asked Eskwith whether or not he felt the applicant was asking for a change in the substance, and Eskwith replied that he was questioning the same thing. He stated that the Town had the inherent power to change the SDD but was not obligated to. Patten stated that this was more of a rezoning with the reshaping of the SDD, and that it would be a recommendation to the Town Council who would have to pass an ordinance. Morgan liked the mall, but found the magnitude personally offensive. Piper felt that this was a major change to the original SDD because of the addition of the Amoco site and the request for additional GRFA. He felt that there was a strong impact on Vail Road. He felt the view corridor was a personal opinion, and also felt that on approaching the 4 -way one observed the immediate area or the area nearby. He felt that the landscaped corner was good, and had no problem with the parking spaces proposed, and wanted to see the conditional uses remain as is. Ryan stated that the staff did their best to listen to the old tapes and to get information from them. He felt that there were several positive aspects of the proposal, but was basically concerned with the magnitude. The staff felt that the Amoco site should be rezoned to PA and there should be an amendment to the SDD, specifically for phases IV & V, that they were not just minor changes. The staff did not recommend changing to permitted uses the conditional uses listed, they did recommend deleting the section concerning distance between buildings, as this had been eliminated from all other SDD's, did not recommend item D,.using average height, did not recommend item E, changing the GRFA and allowing additional floor area for commercial type use, but needed to know which rules would apply. Ryan said the staff approved the amount of parking. Piper suggested there be a vote on the proposal with the exception of the allowance of changing conditional uses to permitted uses. Morgan moved and Donovan seconded to deny the request based on the magnitude and scale. The vote was 4 in favor of denial - 1 Trout a ainst denial, with Pierce abstaining. 3. Are uest for an exterior alteration for the Lodge at Vail to add a new wing to the hotel between One Vail Place and the Lodge. The proposal includes modifications to the "Lodge Plaza" adjacent to the Founders' Plaza and to the parking lot on the west side. Dick Ryan stated that when the Lodge at Vail went to the Town Council they were asked to return to PEC with their changes. Jay Peterson said that the applicant was now proposing 14 feet between the International Wing and One Vail Place, by taking 5 inches out of each room. He listed distances between buildings in Vail and stated that "this is not an entrance to anything." Patten disagreed, saying that it was a major walkway. After more discussion, Donovan moved and Morgan seconded to approve__per staff recommendation. The vote was 4 in favor with Rapson and Trout abstaining. _ _ - — _... -- _.._ PEC 10/24/83 -6- 4. A__reguest for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core II in order to con- struct commercial storage units in the lower level of the Concert Hall_ Plaza. Applicant: Eagle Valley Investments, Inc. The applicant wrote to ask to table this item until November 14. Rapson moved and Morgan seconded to table to 11/14. Vote was 6 -0. Piper asked the staff to ask the applicant to be present at the next meeting, as they would take action whether or not the applicant was there. 5. A request for a rezoning on the Getty Oil site arcei immediately west of Pitkin Creek Park condominiums in Bighorn from Low Densit Multi -Famil LDMF) to S ecial Development District with underlying Arterial Business District to build a restaurant and affordable condominiums. Applicant: Brooks Investment Peter Patten explained that in 1980 this property was zoned LDMF with special re- strictions: that the GRFA maximum be 10,250 sq ft and that there not be more than 8 dwelling units with two reserved for employees. He said that the request for for a 7,000 sq ft restaurant and lounge and 7,000 GRFA in dwelling units. He showed the site and floor plans and discussed the traffic. He stated that there were two issues, rezoning and the specific use, and reviewed the memo, stating that the staff recommended denial because of the scale of the proposal and the lack of strong assurances of employee /affordable housing. Marvin Hatami, architect representing the applicant, showed two sections and stated that he had just received the memo that morning and that the applicant was willing • to reduce the restaurant to 3500 sq ft and provide two employee units, either to be used by employees of the restaurant or by an employee in the community. He felt that when driving east, one had an urban view of the area. He stated that the parking lot could be reduced to 1 parking space per 3 or 4 seats, and further would be happy to make the landscaping more informal. Piper told the applicant that in order to study a new proposal, the project must be tabled and considered at another time. Hatami wanted to get opinions. Chris Farrington, one of the neighbors in the Pitkin Park condos, stated that in talking with others in the condo, felt that no one objected, except for the size, and that the height was a concern. Murray Heminger stated that this would be his restaurant and that he had a petition with 60 signatures of people in favor of it, although they did not know the size. Brooks, the applicant, stated that the space for a restaurant in the Pitkin Creek Park complex was adequate for the restaurant, but had inadequate parking. Jay Peterson, one of the developers of Pitkin Creek Park, stated that one of the concerns about the proposal was the magnitude and that it might become a white elephant. Morgan felt that the PEC was too caught up in the employee housing. He suggested two units for employees and two to be sold on the free market with a reduction in scale. Pierce also questioned the size of the restaurant and suggested breaking the building down and spreading it out. Donovan felt the restaurant was oriented to the wrong direction (the Interstate). She suggested one entry rather than two with a pull -off lane. She added that the bike path needed to be continued. She r] t PFC 10/24/83 -7- She suggested working within the .Arterial Business District zoning. Rapson agreed with the Arterial Businss district.. Trout had no problem with the size of the 49 restaurant, and suggested that perhaps there was a certain size needed to make the restaurant work. His only concern was the bulk. Morgan suggested that the Arterial Business District was a better zone for the lot. Hatami suggested reducing the height to perhaps 35 feet. Piper stated that perhaps affordable housing was not an issue now, suggested that there was too much parking for the amount of square footage, that there should be pedestrian access from the area to Pitkin Creek Park condos, and did not have too much trouble with the mass. He did not feel there was too much of a problem with the traffic. Brooks requested to table his proposal until November 28. Pierce moved and Donovan seconded to table to 11/28. The vote was 6 -0 to table. 6. Request to delete the proposed ice rink /plaza building and accompanying walks, stairs, and reta.ining walls for the Highland Park Townhomes, Special Develo ement District #11. Applicant: Western Federal Savings and Loan Association Peter Patten went through the history of the project. 12 of the 34 units had been built and recreation facilities were to serve both existing and planned units. Now the phases have split ownership- -this is a joint application to remove rec facilities. Both Western Federal Savings and Loan and IKS Investments were the applicants. The proposed rec facilities are in geologic hazardous area. The Town now has more • detailed geologic studies than when the SDD was approved. PEC should look at rec facilities when revisions to duplex lots are reviewed. Patten added that Claycomb Engineering had suggested that subdrains be built to mitigate groundwater problems. The staff was asking for one condition upon approval, that of subdrains being built as per the Claycomb report of August 17, 1982. Dave Peel, representwng IKS, indicated that they had a joint application and that subdrains would be built per the studies. Recreation amenities fees were discussed, with the conclusion that they would have to be paid. Donovan felt that there should be some recreation amenity there such as a tot lot. Patten suggested that it would be appropriate to look at alternative rec facilities when the duplex lot application came in. Larry Eskwith wondered how to keep rec facilities in the plan if they are deleted at the present time. Jim Morgan asked the applicants if they would be willing to contribute $10,000 to the rec district, and the representative from Western Federal answered that their contribution came in by providing sub drains. Rapson asked if some of the land mitigated by subdrains would be made geologically safe? Green of Western Federal stated that the Town has an opportunity to limit construction on the site. Morgan moved and Pierce seconded to approve the request with the condition that the sub drains be installed as per the staff memo and that they, be installed prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy on the pre sentl constructed buildings and before any new building permits were issued on the remainder of the prooerty. _ The vote was 5 in favor and l (Donovan) against Donovan felt that there should be some recreational amenities, such as a tot lot on the project. PEC 10/24/83 -8- 7. Reg_uest for a conditional use permit to allow a car wash in the Voliter ID Nursery garage building at 1031 South Frontage Road in the Arterial Business District. Applicant: David Gregg Galles Jim Sayre outlined the proposal as in the memo. He said that the applicant had agreed to the conditions except for paving. The conditional use objectives were "to upgrade the property " -- needed to be addressed. Stipulations of approval were 1. Build a berm and plant at least 20 5' -7' evergreen trees with DRB approval 2. The number of exterior parking stalls be limited to a maximum of four stalls 3. Pave the area to the north of the car wash out to the berm Piper asked about exterior improvements and Sayre explained that this was being done now, but Voliter had not agreed to paving. The applicant explained that paving would conflict with the nursery function. Rapson stated that car wash water would make the lot muddy. Galles stated that he didn't have the power to agree to paving because he did not own the property. Morgan was concerned that there not be any outside use of the car wash. Pierce felt that anything would improve the property, but he didn't want to see cars parking outside waiting to get into bays, he suggested that gravel might work as well as paving. Piper felt that at least the lot should be graveled. Donovan asked about having a loop in the middle to increase the landscape opportunities, possibly having either paving or landscaping in front of the shop. Rapson wanted to see a berm between the entrance and the exit. Trout moved for approval with the following conditions: 20 foot long berm with 5' -7' evergreens, and provide four parking spaces. The motion failed for lack of a second. Donovan moved and Pierce seconded to approve the request per the staff memo but 1. a berm be built and at least 20 5' -7' evergreen trees planted to screen the parking 2. The number of exterior parking spaces be limited to a maximum of four. 3. All work associated with the detail shop shall take place inside the garage. 4. Exterior renovation - siding and paint - of the garage be completed 5. That the entire parking lot in front of the garage building be either graveled or landscaped. 6. The conditional use permit for the detail shop is granted for a period not to exceed one year. Mr. Galles should appear before the Planning and Environmental Commission at their second meeting of October, 1984. Mr. Galles should make application in the month of September, 1984. The vote was unanimous. 8. Request for a variance to _Section 18.13.080 B.4 in order to add a secondary dwelling on Lot 6, Block 6, Intermountain without having to construct covered parking. Applicant: Susan Corrock Husted .�.._ Jim Sayre gave the staff summary explaining why the site can't handle a garage due to existing constraints and existing snowplowing habits. Husted is finishing off a basement with entry modifications. Morgan moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request and the vote was 6 -0 in favor. P- ce asked the staff to tell DRB to carefully review the parking and trash situations. * Donovan moved and Trout seconded that Piper be nominated for Chairman, and Viele Vice Chairman. The vote was unanimous. I MEMORANDUM 0 Td: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Amendment to SDD11, Highland Park, to delete the Plaza Room and Ice Skating Rink from the project. Applicants: Western Federal Savings and Loan and Keith Pomeroy (I.K.S. - Vail Associates) RA yr.pniINn In 1981 the Town approved 17 duplex lots in the Highland Meadow subdivision to be a Special Development District with 34 townhouse units. The change allowed the site to be treated as a whole and resulted in a superior site plan for the entire area. Construction of Phase I of the project is 95% complete. This represents 12 of the 34 units. Ownership of the first phase has changed hands from Sun -Tech Builders to Western Federal Savings and Loan who are completing the first phase now. The Plaza Room was proposed as an earth - sheltered community /meeting /party room for the entire project as an amenity. An ice - skating rink was to be adjacent and both were approved for an open meadow area in the center of the project (see applicant's is statement for more details). Since the time of approval, there have been further geologic studies of this site and surrounding area which paint a dimmer picture of the soils and geology on this site from the information available two years ago. This has prompted the request to delete these common facilities from this most hazardous geologic area of the site. Of further note is the fact that it is the wish of the owner of the remaining area not yet developed to abandon the SDD and go back to duplex lots. If approved, this would lessen the need for common facilities for the SDD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the deletion of the Plaza Room and Ice Skating rink, but with an important condition outlined below. We stress the importance of common recreational facilities for multi - family projects in that it provides on -site, easily accessible amenities to residents, and it also takes the burden off the Town to provide for them if the developer doesn't. However, we do not feel that this provision of common amenities should be to the detriment of the safety and health of the residents as it could be here. The facilities are proposed in a "landslide area." This is not the proper location for an earth - sheltered structure. We question the viability of the ice rink in an open meadow area (exposed to the sun), as well. 0 SDD 11 -2- 10/20/83 In realizing the severity of the geologic problems with the site, the most severe of which is underground streams, we will require that the geologists' solution be followed. The studies all indicate the necessity for undergound drainage systems to divert and concentrate the flow of this groundwater away from building sites. We recommend that the drainage systems as outlined the the C1aycomb Report, August 17, 1982 be installed as a condition of this approval. • • • r� LJ • RII ICE dI� A1,-JD PLA, A ROOi,I DELETIONT HIGHLAND PARK TOj!NHOl•iES Resubdivision of Tracts I and II Ei ;hland Park I+ili n ; 1'dumber 1 Vail, Colorado This petition is a request for the deletion of the proposed Ice Rink /Plaza doom and accompanying walks, stairs and re- taining walls for the 12 -unit Highland Park Townhomes. The reason for this request is twofold: (1) The original devel- opment's phased relationship no longer exists, and (2) all current geotechnical studies prepared subsequent to the orig- inal approval advise against the proposed construction. In the fall of 1980, I.K.S.-Vail Associates, a Michigan partnership, acquired 17 lots in the westernmost area of Highland Meadows. 1.K. S. reached an agreement with Sun Tech Builders, Inc. to purchase 6 of the lots for immediate devel- opment and construction of duplex townhomes; further, Sun Tech had an option to purchase additional lots for future develop- ment and construction. Development was delayed due to the annexation of the property by the To wn of Vail in December of 1980, thereby requiring that the concept and plans be redrawn to comply with Town of Vail requirements. Eventually, a Special Development District (SDD) was established with the Town's approval. Construction of the first phase of the SDD commenced in the summer of 1981 and continued until late fall 1982 when a default was declared by the first mortgagee. Fore- closure proceedinc-s occurred and G lots were acquired by lest- - ern Federal Savings by Public Trustee's Deed. 1.-7estern has hired a contractor to complete the si ,ti buildings, but has no intention of further development in the area. I.K.S. -Vail Associates is presently having extensive geotech- nical investigations perfori ied on the 11 rem.aini ng lots of Iighland Park SDD (original tots 26 -31 and 33 -37) by Fox Consulting Engineers and Geologists. The purpose of these studies is to provide site specific data to allow the SDD to be amended and the 11 lots to be replatted with building envelopes that are sensitive to the Tovin of Va,il's Claycomb Deport and the investigations of Lincoln DeVore Soils and Geotechnic al Engineers and Fog; Engineering. These lots will be individually sold for single family and duplex projects. The lots will not be an extension of or associated with High- land Park Townhomes. • 0 0 Current geotechnical, drainage and slope stability studies, prepared subsequent to the Special Development District approval, do not recommend construction of the ice rink and 01aza room. The zeotechnical analysis prepared by CTL /Thompson, Consult- ing Geotechnical and 'Materials Engineers, addresses the area of the Ice Rink/Plaza Room directly. The slope stability analysis cross -- section C occurs between the ice rink and the plaza room. The analysis developer a factor of design safety that is "computed by comparing the forces tending to cause movement divided by the forces tending to resist movement." "At a factor of safety of 1.0, the slope is at imminent failure. Most manuals of practice recommend a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for design purposes where there is reason- able definition of° the soil conditions and - confidence -in the strength parameters,'' The report states that relatively low Factors of safety were calculated at analysis cross -- section C and that the "more critical areas are along A lines C and D which are ' i.n the central portion of the site and located below an area that was pre- viously gapped as an existing landslide." (Claycomb Report, August 17, 1932.) The actual factor of safety in the field ..for the area of cross - section C "ranges from 1.5 to 2.0 for the dry condition." "The actual factor of safety for the WET CONDITION may be as low as 1.2 for the overall slope and near 1.0 (imminent fail- ure) for some of the cutbanks and other localized over- steepened areas. This analysis indicates that it is 1APERATIV.E TO AAI ITAIN AS DRY A COi:DITION AS POSS,IEL E in order to have long- term stability at this site.'' The recommendation section of the CTL /Thompson Report states that, " we DO I'dOT recommend construction of a proposed ice rink to the west of the two upper structures (units 1 and 2) . " "This recreation facility would be a nice amenity, however, it would serve as an area to LOAD WATER I'_''ITO THE SLOPE DURING THE WINTER SEASON AND !',COULD ADD TO THE PRO3LEMS DURING THE THAW PERIOD.'' The CTL /Thompson Report also addresses the privacy walls arig, -- inally planned around the individual units. in a similar manner. in a letter crated July 22, 1983, Mr. Robert W. Thompson of C`t'L /Thompson indicates that, "good surface and subsurface drainage conditions must be maintained to keep the slope from moving. While these ills may be attractive from an architec- tural viewpoint, the walls may cause interruption of surface • J drainage and serve to collect or channe: at all possible, 1 recommend eliminatin makina the design on the uphill side of AS POSSIDL.. " ('the deletion of the prig reasons received the approval of the Tot Department and staff approval from the r ment.) The design of the Ice Rink /Plat; several of these walls. The walls, the the ice rink and the earth - covered plat; concentrate water in a similar manner tc The Drainage and Slope Stability Analys Town of Vaal by Claycomb Engineering As Lincoln DeVore, Soils and Geotechnic al the ice rink and the plaza room to be 1 adjacent to Hazard Zone 6. This zone i critical geologic hazard zone consistin deposits of unstable -.and metastable- slo water areas. The Lincoln DeVore Report SETBACKS FROM THESE AREAS (Zone 6) SHOU The Claycomb Report, in referring to Hi that, "based on the available informati approval by the Town of the proposed pr somewhat faulty. It certainly appears certain units is appropriate and possib units if suitable lower hazard location This would .also apply to the constuctio Plaza Room, since it is located in Haza The site specific report by CTL /Thompso any feasible areas within the 12 -unit H boundaries where an ice rink and plaza The locations of the existing buildings room immediately to the north of Vermon development. The property to the north ings is inaccessible We to being heavi steep slopes. The area between units 1, extremely steep and has been identified loricAl characteristics similar to thos • ize flow. If it is the small walls an d the units AS SI .`PL!°, acy i %calls for these n of Vail engineering OV Planning Depart - Room incorporates retaing required for room would trap and the privacy walls. .s developed for the ocia,tes, Inc;, and ngineers, identifies ,cated in and immediately described as the most of mapped landslide es ,in- active -ground- - recommends, "ADEQUATE D DE MAINTAINED.'' bland Park, states n, the basis for jest may have been hat re- siting of e ELIMINATION of some are not available." of the Ice Rink/ d Zone 6. does not indicate ghla.nd Park Townhomes' oom might be Located. do not allow enough Road for any further of the existing build- - y wooded with extremely and 11 is also as an area with geo-- described above. Due to the fact that the scope and phased relationship of the original development no longer exists, and the geotechnical recommendations are against construction in the area of the proposed Ice Rink /Plaza Room, we believe the deletion of the structure is in the best interests of the project and surround- ing properties. Respectfully submitted, WES`iEnA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAM ASSOCIAWION PARKING ANALYSIS VAIL VILLAGE INN The purpose of this information sheet is to analyze the parking requirements for the Vail Village Inn Special Development District.., The objective is to calculate the total parking requirement for the entire project at the completion of Phase V using current parking standards as outlined in the zoning code. The total parking requirement for SDD6 after build out is 474 stalls; the number of stalls proposed on the development plan is 343, representing a shortfall of 131 stalls. These numbers are preliminary and approximate. More information is needed as to the uses and square footage of Phases I -III. The following information is based on the numbers outlined in the developer's written proposal. Some of the parking calculations presented on page seven of the proposal have been modified to reflect the current parking requirements outlined in Section 18.52.100 of the zoning code. For example, a parking requirement for restaurants and convention facilities was calculated on the basis of o.ne stall for every eight seats instead of one stall for every ten seats as presented on page seven of the proposal. The "guest room" calculation was also modified to reflect the actual parking requirement. (A factor of .876 was used instead of .8.) The numbers also do not reflect additional parking requirements which might be imposed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. For example, the PEC may impose a parking requirement for recreation facilities and other uses not listed in the development plan. (See 18.52.100 (III)(H)(K).) 0 VAIL VILLAGE INN PARKING ANALYSIS BY PHASE COMMERCIAL PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV (commercial f restaurant) (conference) (office) PHASE V PARKING REQUIREMENT 53.7 21.5 35.3 49.0 25.0 14.0 6.5 Subtotal 205.0 RESIDENTIAL PHASE I 0 PHASE II 4 • PHASE III 58 (dwelling units at 2 /acre) PHASE IV (dwelling unit) 6 (accommodation unit) 175 PHASE V (dwelling unit) 26 TOTAL 474.0 Total number of stalls proposed after Phase V (by count) Total required 474 Total provided 343 Shortfall by code 131 r1 �J 343 0 WINSTON ASSOCIATES PLANNING AN[) LANDSCAPE ARCHITE.CI URE MEMORANDUM October 18, 1983 TO: Dick Ryan, Director Department of Community Development FROM: Jeff Winston RE: Vail Village Inn Phase IV /V Review Memorandum WINSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. 910 TWENTY EIGHTH STREET BOULDER, COLORADO 80303 (343) 440 -9200 Perhaps it goes without saying that this site is one of, if not the, pre - eminant sites in Vail Village. It is important to consider the development proposal carefully, for this site will create first impressions of Vail for the forseeable future. The proposal is a complex one to review, for there are many opposing aspects to consider. Our intent here is to outline and structure the relevant physical considerations important to a final decision. As a point of beginning, we are not dealing with a first -time proposal on a new site. This is a phase of a larger project, the criteria for which were established in 1976 in the form of a Special Development District agreed to by the owner and the Town. The SDD criteria included: 1, establishment of maximum overall average heights; 2. specific height restrictions to preserve views of the Golden Peak slopes; 3. massing of the building to step it down to pedestrian scale at the ends (adjacent to East Meadow Drive) These criteria have been followed with each phase constructed so far. The current proposal represents a departure from the SDD criteria, according to the proponent for two significant reasons: 1. The desire for larger hotel rooms to be competitive in today's resort hotel market; and 2. The acquisition of the Amoco site, originally excluded from the SDD, not only adds more developable area, but also alters the form of the project. As a result, the proponents are, in effect requesting that the SDD criteria be signi- ficantly amended or replaced with new criteria which they feel are more appropriate. Essential l,yy, the initial question for Planning Commission (and eventually Council) is: Was, is) the original SDD criteria valid for the design of the site? That is, are the view corridor, building height and stepping -down criteria still important for the Town entry? If so, the SDD criteria should be adhered to vigorously. Page 2 • SDD CRITERIA Our analysis of the Vail Village Inn proposed Phase IV and V indicates it does not meet the original SDD criteria in at least three basic respects: a. View Corridors The SDD was rather explicit in identifying a specific view to preserve: the view of Golden Peak ski slopes. These are the broadest, closest ski slopes with high visibility of individual skiers. This view was felt to be an important welcome to the ski community. The SDD even noted the width of the view and the maximum heights of buildings to preserve it. It should be noted however, that a study done by the proponent shows that some of the lower Golden Peak slopes would have been lost even with the existing criteria. It would still have preserved a substantial portion of the view. The question that is raised then is, is the view that is left significant enough to preserve? Admittedly, there are many opportunities to view ski slopes approaching Vail on I -70. And perhaps it can be argued that at the 4 -way it is more important to orient drivers than to distract them with skier views. We maintain, however, that open, close views of the mountains contribute to a first impression of Vail upon arrival- -its mountain setting, skiing as an activity, etc. - -and that by obscuring this totally, Vail loses is something. Taken individually, there are perhaps other views, but they are an important resource not to be given away lightly. The SDD height criteria did not specifically address other views for preservation, but the southwest wing of Phase IV also is much higher than the four stories suggested in the SDD, and this portion tends to block a significant portion of the mountain straight ahead from the 4 -way stop. b. Overall Massing /Height Without regard to the view corridors mentioned above, the proposed project appears to be generally consistent with the massing suggested in the SDD, with one significant exception. The original SDD indicated that the building should gradually step down from Phase III to the 4 -way stop corner. The proposal generally complies. According to the SDD, the next section south along Vail Road may rise back up to four stories. Again, the proposal is generally consistent. The final southwest section is where the most significant departure occurs. The SDD suggests that this section should step back down to 'Village scale' at the southwest corner. In fact the original review notes by Eldon Beck (1976) indicated this to be an extremely important corner from a pedestrian standpoint. The proposal for Phase IV continues to rise several stories, leaving a south facing elevation of seven stories plus dormers - -up to 80 feet in height. Page 3 True enouth, Phase V as proposed does make the step down transition to a more pedestrian scale adjacent to East Meadow Drive, and it even screens the south wing of Phase IV so some extent, which is helpful. But the net result is still an extremely large face (higher than the Westin) overlooking the park, the intersection and Vail Road. In our opinion, this section of the building far exceeds the SDD guidelines and has a negative and overpowering impact on the surrounding area. c. Service and Delivery Lastly, we have some concerns about the adequacy of the service /delivery areas which will ultimately be provided. The turn - around space for trucks has not been adequately demonstrated, and the adequacy of one loading dock to serve the entire VVI complex needs documenting. On balance, while we commend the program to the site, we feel that essentially sound with respect to we feel that the Golden Peak view equally or even more important is corner of the building. excellence of the design in fitting the proponent's the original SDD's objectives were, and remain, this major entrance into Vail. Specifically, corridor is still important, but perhaps the pedestrian scale necessary at the southwest If because of the new circumstances of the Amoco site being included and larger room sizes, it is desirable to re- examine the proposal on its own terms, without applying the original SDD criteria, we would offer the following analysis: 1. Views The proponents have focussed on Riva and in fact have gone to some detail to frame and enhance Riva Ridge as a substitute Riva for Golden Peak, the Although the view from the 4 -way stogy not unpleasant. Ridge rather to lower the focal point. architecture is not as it than on Golden Peak, building at the corner If one is willing to has been massed effectively. nmediate, it is certainly 2. Building massing appearance - -from the 4 -way stop and frontage road Unlike the Phase III and the Crossroads building, Phase IV does not turn its back on the frontage road but rather presents a formal 'front door' which is positive. We find this section of the building generally appropriate with some minor suggestions. The building is generally broken up, both vertically and horizontally, stepping down from the tall Phase III building to a pedestrian scale near the intersection. The result is positive, but with still some overemphasis on 'bigness'. 0 I Page 4 • The roof eave line has been lowered to lessen the apparent height of the building, but the many dormers and particularly the two story arches reinforce the large scale and length of the main building with no break. We find the main block of Phase IV somewhat overpowering in this regard. We would prefer to see this five story section shorter in length. Also in comparison with Phase III and the Crossroads building, we feel there could be more vertical elements, shorter horizontal wall distances.. The park being provided at the 4 -way is an effective visual buffer if properly landscaped and a significant contribution to the intersection. 3. Building appearance from Vail Road Looking down Vail Road, the building rises back up and becomes very masssive, particularly when compared to Holiday Inn opposite. This blocks a large section of mountain. We feel strongly that this section of the building should be stepped down with the land as it drops gradually toward East Meadow Drive. This would keep the north wing on the frontage road as the major mass, and let the southwest corner be more in scale wi-h the park and shops on East Meadow Drive. The closeness to Vail Road, we feel is not a great problem, particularly if the southernmost wing is lower in height. The closing down on Vail Road helps reduce its attractiveness to auto traffic and helps enclose the 4 -way intersection on one side and East Meadow Drive on the other. We feel a large part of the problem here may be due to the presence of the Deli building which forces the building higher and closer to the road. We suggest that study be given to the possibility of delaying the southern- most section until Phase V after the Deli building is removed, when it can be incorporated more comfortably. 4. The most dominant impression from this vantage is the overwhelming height of the southwest wing, over twice the height of the present Deli building. This is the section of the building which should make the transition back down to the pedestrian level of the park. From in front of the Kiandra, this building mass is a major impact, over 80 feet in height. There is also concern about the interim situation with the Deli building remaining for ten years -- the tight space and poor transition. We suggest that each phase should be self sufficient, capable of staying that way indefinitely. Phases I, I1, and III essentially met that criteria. The Phase V building does make an effective transition down to the shop level, but doesn't entirely mitigate the effect of Phase IV. 5. Internal court yard appearance of building This is perhaps more a refinement of the plan than a central issue. There is a general sense of not relating well to Phase III. Phase IV not having a 'broken up' or an articulated mass of the rest of the complex. Granted, a hotel structure as a whole imposes some rigidity, but we don't sense the stepping forward - and -back on the south side as dramatically even as on the north side of the building. The result is more a 'grand hotel' impression, quite high, with some difficulty in relating the pedestrian feel of Phase I /II shops. This, we feel, is addressable through the use of materials, attention to the arches and other details (more suitable for DRB discussion, perhaps. MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 6, 1983 SUBJECT: v Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration and modification for the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, retail space, conference space and a deluxe dwelling suite. The proposal includes modifications to the "Lodge Plaza" adjacent to Founders' Plaza and to the parking lot on the west side and additional storage space on the parking lot level on the north side of the Lodge South building. Applicants: Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South Condominium Association REQUEST: The request is to add 34 new luxury accommodation units and one luxury dwelling unit containing approximately 30,000 square feet along with new plaza level commercial space containing approximately 3,600 square feet, additional conference space, and a ski storage room to the Lodge at Vail. In addition, new storage space for the condominiums is being proposed for the Lodge South building. • Other modifications are a new gate house on the west, reversing the auto circu- lation into the parking lot, and a new entry court. Over on the mountain side, the parking lot would be expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get to the ski lift chairs. The east plaza would be redesigned to complement Founder's Plaza. At the Lodge Plaza there would be a temporary canvas pavillion removable during the winter. The new International wing would contain additional conference space, lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit and commercial space on the plaza level. BACKGROUND On July 25, 1983, the two restaurant expansions were approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Approved were a 730 square foot expansion to the Salt Lick restaurant to be renamed the Wildflower and a 375 foot expansion to the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant. CONFORMANCE WITH PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT The Commercial Core I 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 predominantly pedestrian environment. The commercial Core I 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 • 0 Page 2 10/6/83 Lodge Dail .11, t 14 and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure 0 continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The Community Development Department considers that the proposal is in conformance with the purpose of the zone district. The Lodge at Vail is the anchor for Vail Village and needs to be upgraded to insure the quality of Vail Village and the community. Without a strong heart, the Village will suffer. The Community Development Department feels that the long and short term success of Vail Village is partially based on a quality Lodge at Vail. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN #22 Pocket park. Screen fence to close off alleyway (gate required) and continue streetscape. Pocket park with benches, planters; snow storage in winter. Service vehicle zone optional. The proposal contains an improved area of landscpping and walk between the Lazier Arcade building and the Lodge at Vail. Closing off the area is not possible because it is a fire lane. #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. This proposal actually expands the Founders' Plaza area and makes this into an exciting space within Vail Village. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NEW INTERNATIONAL WING Pedestrianization: By having new commercial shops at the new plaza level, the potential for pedes- trianization has increased by the proposal. Vehicle Penetration: There will be no change by this proposal. Streetscape Framework: As noted in the application, there is no direct frontage by the proposal on a public street. The proposed shops and plaza do add to the pedestrian experience in Vail Village. • r] Straat Fnrincirra- 0 -3- 10/6/83 ,lodge at Vail The proposed International wing would have generally two heights, one fourth the width of the enclosed space it faces and one sixth the width of the enclosed space it faces. Street Edge: The irregular facades proposed for the shops and restaurants meet this element of the design considerations. Building Hei ht: The proposed height of the new International wing from the new plaza ranges from 24 feet to 33 feet.. At the pedestrian plaza level the proposal meets the intent of the height section of the Design Considerations. From the south side, the height would be 35 feet and 43 feet. The Community Development Department feels that the heights proposed meet the intent of the Design Considerations and provide for the mix in building heights as perceived in Vail Village. Views: There are no designated view corridors in the area of the proposal. Service and Delivery: This will not change by the new addition proposed. Sun /Shade Considerations: There would be no sun /shade impact on Town of Vail public space (the Founders' Plaza) as shown on the sun /shade study. One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail Place and the Inter- national wing on the third floor. The staff considers that the top floor be shifted . five or six feet to the west to open the space between buildings. For the proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Community Development Department feels that there are no negative impacts. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Parking: At the time of a building permit, the applicable parking fees for each type of use will be required. Architectural and Landscape Considerations: The proposal complies with the intent of the Design Considerations. Detailed design issues will be more specifically discussed at the Design Review Board meeting. Fire Department Considerations: A new fire hydrant will be necessary along the south side near the new International wing because of the new residential and commercial space. 0 -4- 10/6/83 Lo *at Vail RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Lodge at Vail request for 34 new lodge rooms, a luxury dwelling unit, new commercial space and new storage space. In addition, we consider the site improvement very positive for the Lodge at Vail and Vail Village. As noted previously in the memorandum,_ the Lodge at Vail is the anchor for Vail Village. The - Community Development Department feels the upgrading and expansion is positive for Vail Village and the community. • 0 MEMORANDUM October 20, 1983 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to rezone the Amoco service station site from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation zone district, and to incorporate the site into Special Development District #6. Also, to amend the Special Development District height section, plan, to increase the gross residential residential floor area allowable, to modify professional and business offices, theaters, meeting rooms, convention facilities and commercial parking facilities from conditional uses to permitted uses, to request an exemption for parking, to permit additional floor area for commercial uses, and other minor changes. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. The request by Piccidilly Square has many parts to come up with a new plan for Phase IV and V. 200 accommodation units, three employee housing of commercial uses in Phase IV. In Phase V are units and 1,950 square feet of commercial uses. structure containing 234 parking spaces. and they The appli, units and ten condo In Phase are all interrelated -ant is requesting 14,800 square feet units, three employee IV there is a parking First, to rezone the Amoco site containing 23,522 square feet from Heavy Serivice to Public Accommodation zoning. In addition, to amend Special Development District #6 to include this property within the District. Second, to amend the Special Development District to permit new Phases IV and V. A. To allow as permitted uses wihin the Special Development District, professional and business offices; meeting rooms and convention facilities; and commercial parking facilities. B. To amend the lot area and site dimension from 3.445 acres to 3.995 acres. C. To delete the section concerning the distance between buildings. D. To amend the height section and add: "In no event shall the average height exceed the proposed development plan." E. To amend the density control section from 100,000 square feet of gross residential floor area to 172,201 square feet. Also, to permit additional floor area for commercial type uses. F. For an exemption to the parking requirements for the site and to remove the request for parking of charter buses on site. SDD6 I. STATISTICS A. Site Area Site area of current SDD #6 3.455 Amoco site .54 Site area of proposed amended SDD #6 3.995 -2- 10/20/83 B. Gross Residential Floor Area GRFA approved in original SDD #6 100,000 sq ft Additional GRFA requested amended SDD #6 72,201 sq ft C. Accommodation Units Proposed Phase IV 200 D. Dwelling units proposed Phase IV 3 employee housing units E. Dwelling units proposed Phase V 10 condos, + 3 employee units F. Commercial space proposed Phase IV 14,800 sq ft G. Commercial space Phase V 1,950 sq ft II. BACKGROUND Reaching through the extensive record of the Vail Village Inn, there has been a great deal of time, thought, and design effort devoted to achieving the plan for Special Development District #6. Major site planning and building location planning work was done by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey to come up with a plan that has been executed consistently in Phase I, II and III. III. REVIEW OF THE ISSUES The Community Development Department will focus on zoning and some site issues of the approved and proposed amended SDD6. Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates has presented in the attached memorandum an analysis of the approved SDD6, and views, mass, bulk and site planning issues of the proposed amendment. First, the staff would complement the architect's design solution developed for the applicant's program. The staff's concerns: center around whether or not the program of 200 rooms and the size of accommodation units is funda- mentally too large for the site remaining. This is the key intersection in Vail and one of the visitors' first experiences once leaving Interstate 70. What takes place at this location probably will set the initial experience of the visitor. • Ll SDD6 -3- 10/20/83 AMOCO SITE The request is to rezone the Amoco site from Heavy Service to the Public Accommodation zone district. In addition, to include the property into the proposed amended SDD6. The site contains approximately 23,522 square feet of land. If the property were rezoned to Public Accommodation, the applicant could receive up to approximately 18,817 square feet of GRFA and up to 27 accommodation units. Including this property into the Special Development District does not mean the applicants automatically get all the GRFA and accommodation units. This is up to the Planning and Environmental Commission to recommend an SDD they consider works or does not work to Town Council. If the property is not rezoned and remains Heavy Service, there are several options for the owner. First, a service station could remain at the site. Second, the owner could request a different use of the site. All uses are conditional uses in this zone district. This is the only zone district in the Town of Vail zoning code where all uses are conditional. In requesting a conditional use permit, the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influence. For some time, the staff considered including the Amoco site into SDD6. It seemed that it would improve this corner of the major entrance into Vail, and including it into the Vail Village Inn would probably make the SDD an improved project. We now have second thoughts because of the magnitude of the proposal that is before the Planning and Environmental Commission. A positive aspect of this proposal to include the Amoco site is the possibility for an improved landscaped entry way into Vail. Again, we question the advantage to the community with the proposal that is presented. DENSITY The approved Special Development District #6 density section states "The gross residential floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed in the special district shall not exceed one hundred thousand square feet. The gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units shall not exceed the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units. If total gross residential floor area is devoted to accommodation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed three hundred." Existing on site if the proposed Phase IV were constructed is the following: Phase II 3,515 GRFA Phase III 50,000 GRFA Building 5 16,585 GRFA 70,100 GRFA SDD 6 -4- 10/20/83 This would leave approximately 29,900 of GRFA remaining under the approved SDD 6 for Phase IV. The request is to receive full credit for the Amoco site of approximately 18,817 square feet of GRFA. The amended proposal requests a total GRFA for the entire SDD of 168,318 square feet, plus an additional i 3,700 square feet of GRFA for six employee units. At the time the SDD was created the site could have received as a use by right in the Public Accommodation District up to 120,000 square feet of GRFA.* The request was for only 100,000 square feet of GRFA because there was agreement that the plan proposed 5DD6 worked well for the site. It has been stated that the owner was assured he could have additional GRFA if needed. It is our interpretation that at best, he could have received an additional 20,000 square feet of GRFA. Another argument presented by the applicant in the Town advantages and VVI advanates is "trading commercial for GRFA." First, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends to Town Council any amendment to a Special Development District. The applicant does not at this time have an approved plan with substantial commercial floor area approved. The Town has discretion over the amount of commercial floor area to be approved or not approved under a Special Development District. Another point of discussion with the proposal is the number of accommodation units to be allowed. The approved density section of SDD6 states, "If the total gross residential floor area is devoted to accommodation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed 300." There are 29 condo- minium units in Phase II, so it seems the 300 accommodation units is not I; allowed or valid anymore. The staff considers GRFA as a major issue to be resolved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The amount of GRFA impacts the height, mass and bulk of the proposed Phase IV and the future Phase V. We feel that the proposal demonstrates that there is substantially more GRFA requested than can work on the site. CONDITIONAL USES Requested by the applicant is to allow professional and business offices; theatres, meeting rooms and convention facilities; and commercial parking facilities as permitted uses within the Special Development District. The applicant states "such uses are an integral part of the hotel operation and fulfills the mixed use intent of the SDD. Secondly, these uses are compatible with established patterns of uses on the site, the neighborhood and the commercial centers of the community." In the Public Accommodation district, conditional uses are: "A. Professional and business offices; E. Theatres, meeting rooms and convention facilities; and, F. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures." * Footnote: Ordinance #8 of 1973 in Density Control states: gross residential floor each 100 square feet of at the time of approval the Public Accommodation District "Not more than 80 square feet of area (GRFA) shall be permitted for site area." This was the density of SDD6. under rule � 0 C] SDD6 -5- 10/20/83 The staff recommends that all of these conditional uses remain. First, we feel that professional and business offices should be in zones where they are basically a use by right. This area of Vail should primarily be commercial shops. If a tenant wanted a professional or business office, this should come through the normal conditional use process which applies to the Public Accommodation zone district. Second, we feel that theatres, meeting rooms and convention facilities should remain as conditional use. The Planning and Environmental Commission should review the impacts of these facilities on a site by site basis. If some of these uses are proposed now, for consistency and adequate study, they should be processed through the conditional use permit process. Third, we feel public or commercial parking facilities or structures should also be reviewed through the conditional use permit process. The impacts of a public or private structure on the 4 -way, Vail Road and other streets in the area should be considered. One concern is with additional congestion on the streets in this area of Town. LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSION Proposed is to increase the lot area of the SDD from 3.445 to 3.995 acres. The staff does not recommend this amendment. For detail, see the section dealing with the Amoco site. If amended Section 3 of SSS6 would also need to be amended to reflect the additiional land. HFrrHT The request is to change the height section of the SDD so that the conceptual language of the SDD is brought into conformity with the actual development plan. The approved SDD has areas noted for number of stories and ranges of height. The staff will present this plan at the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. As noted in the height section of SDD it states: The intent of the height limits and ranges is that the building complex should be as low as possible. At this level of detail it is not realistic to tie down a precise maximum elevation. Final designs with regard to elevation will depend upon further detail study and projection of the building mass onto photos of the actual site conditions. The massing respects the spirit of what is desired and final heights will be established based on final decision. The shopping intent is to maintain the village quality and to maintain the two story elevations as the predominant height. This height can very upward or downward by half a level. The staff does not consider that the proposal meets the intent of the approved SDD. Along the frontage road the highest element is 65 feet. On Vail Road the highest element is approximately 55 feet to 75 feet in height. We feel that this is not in scale with the major entry to Vail, and the pedestrian 10/20/83 SDD 6 -6- area on East Meadow Drive. The height proposed on the frontage road also impacts the approved view corridor. PARKING Proposed on the plans submitted for review are 234 spaces enclosed under the hotel in Phase IV. The lowest level contains 81 spaces, the upper level 129 spaces, and the plaza level 24 spaces. Also remaining are eight surface parking spaces. Existing in Phase III are 109 parking spaces. With the proposal if approved and built, there would be 343 spaces on the site. At the time SDD6 was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council the exact number of on -site spaces was not determined. An environmental impact report was submitted after approval of the SDD. The report recommended 200 cars be considered as a parking requirement. Our records indicate that this recommendation was never officially part of SDD6. We feel that the proposed number of 343 spaces are adequate for the site. We would support a parking exemption for SDD6. The applicant has not shown an agree mi rit from the Phase III condominium association for use of this entry and exit for the parking propsed in Phase IV. There are knock out walls in Phase III that connect with Phase IV. Without use of the frontage road entrance and exit the staff questions the traffic impact on Vail Road since this could be the only entry and exit for Phase IV parking. Also part of SDD6 was the provision for charter bus parking. The staff recommends removing this requirement from the SDD as there seems to be sufficient charter bus parking areas curretnly within the town. The staff is concerned with the loading, delivery and garbage facilities proposed. We have first of all not seen sufficient detail on how it would work and whether the turning movements work. There are several stores and restaurants in SDD6. We are concerned that there be a sufficient number of loading areas for a development of this scale. C R SDD7 -7- 10/20/83 PURPOSE OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Special Development District #6 states as the purpose for this are: Section 4. Purpose of Special Development District. A special development district is established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail, Colorado, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town; ordinarily a special district will be created only when the development density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning, and the development regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning. A change to this section of SDD #6 was not proposed by the applicant. The staff considers that what is being proposed is in direct conflict with the purpose. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This memorandum is not going to go through a detail.point by point analysis of the environmental impact report. In our view these are some conflicting statements and additional documentation is needed. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends denial of the proposal to rezone the Amoco site, include in an amended Special Development District #6 and the other amendments for the SDD. The major concern is the magnitude of the proposal and what the impacts are on the South Frontage Road and Vail Road. Specifics regarding each element of our recommendation are noted in the memorandum. • MEMORANDUM iTO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 19, 1983 SUBJECT: Application to install a carwash at the Voiiter Nursery Applicant: David Galles DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant, David Galles, wishes to install a "detail garage bays at Voliter's. A "detail shop" is a combinat where the exterior of an automobile is refurbished. The in the detail shop is expected to be fairly low, because is fairly high: $75 - 100 per job. All washing will be application includes a small office in one of the garage shop" in two of the ion car wash and a place volume of work done the cost per automobile done by hand. The bays. The applicant has agreed to the following measures to control and mitigate the visual impact of the detail shop: a) Exterior renovation of the garage bays, siding and paint IS b) Limitation of the number of parking stalls to the detail shop to a maximum of four c) Build up berms in front of nursery and plant 20 5' -7' evergreen trees. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department 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. There are two portions of the objective of the zoning code which pertain to this application: 18.02.020 A. Purpose ..to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. 0 Voliter Car Wash -2- 10/19/83 18.02.020 (B)(8) To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. If the appearance of the Voliter Nursery building can be upgraded due to the application, then the conditional use permit should be granted. The effect of the 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 detail shop will have little influence on the distribution of population and public services. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuvera- bility, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The detail shop will increase the traffic flow into and out of the nursery, but due to the anticipated low volume of the shop, the increase of traffic will be minimal. 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 surrounding • uses. This is the key element in evaluating the conditional use application. The appearance of the Voliter lot may be enhanced by: 1. landscaping 2. limitation of the number of automobiles associated with the detail shop 3. paving the parking area in front of the garage structure These items will mitigate the additional visual clutter due to the detail shop. With at least a dozen vehicles parked on the lot at the present time, it is important that these vehicles and the vehicles associated with the detail shop be screend by landscaping. paving shall also help to enhance the appearance of the property and mitigate any outwash from the carwash. The applicant has agreed to add landscaping and to limit the number of automobiles associated with the detail shop. The applicant has not agreed to pave the lot. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. r -I LJ Voliter Car Wash -3- 10/19/83 • FINDINGS The Community Development Department 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 provisions of this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the detail shop with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant build a berm and plant at least 20 5' -7' evergreen trees to screen the parking. The landscape plan should be submitted to DRB for review. • 2. That the number of stalls associated with the detail shop be limited to four stalls. 3. That the parking area in front of the garage building be paved. Note again that the applicant has agreed to the first two of these stipulations at this time. The conditional use chapter stresses the influence of a conditional use on the surrounding property. The purpose section states that "Conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties." In this case the appearance of the Voliter property can be enhanced only if the three stipulations, in combination, are met. Only in combination, paving, landscaping, and the limitation on the number of vehicles, can the visual clutter associated with the application, the additional vehicles on the site, be mitigated and the visual character of the lot enhanced. n LJ t331�} n G7 CL FA C {tj U) [ i4 N V 1 i � h r 4� w.esiw gQ� ry tl t F. lxv�`' qS `aJ 4 NO ILI -„� r q, t � MEMORANDUM is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a variance from Section 18.13.080 (B)(4) in the Primary Secondary zone in order not to build a two car garage on Lot 6, Block 6, Intermountain subdivision, which is less than 15,000 square feet. Applicant: Susan Corrock Husted DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, Susan Husted, wishes to add a second unit to her existing single family residence at 2955 Bellflower in West Vail. In order to add a second dwelling unit on this small lot, the requirements of 18.13.080(B) must be satisfied. Two paragraphs in this section are pertinent to the discussion: (3) That no variances for setbacks, height, parking.....would be approved unless the granting of such a variance benefits the visual appearance of the site and surrounding area. (4) That fifty percent of the required parking be enclosed. Four stalls are required for two units, thus the regulations call for a two- car garage. The issues to be confronted by the Planning Commission are (I) whether the variance is justified and (II) whether the variance benefits the visual appearance of the site. The Design Review Board will make the decision whether a second unit is appropriate. I. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Develo ment 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. It would be very difficult to build a two car garage on this lot. Building the garage to the front of the house would require a front and side setback variance and would destroy the front facade of the house. Development to the rear of the lot is not a viable alternative due to a change of grade and the greenbelt and utility easement adjacent to Gore Creek. There is 15 feet between 0 Lot 6, Block 6 Intermountain -2- 10/20/83 the existing residence and the utility easement along the westerly lot line; a two car garage is usually 20 feet wide. The abandonment of the five foot utility easement and a 15 foot side setback variance would be required to build on the westerly portion of the lot. Even if there were enough room to build a two car garage over the existing parking, the garage would tend to overcrowd the lot and would impair the common open space between the Husted residence and the residence to the west. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inter retation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessar to achieve.compatibility and uniformity of treatment amon sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. To grant this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. The next door neighbors to the east, Craig and Jan Webb, received a similar variance in August, 1981. The Webbs have written a letter in support of the variance as has the neighbor to the west, Judy Hayhurst, and the neighbor across the street, Jeff Frederick. (See attached letters.) The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. . Susan Husted and Judy Haysurst now push their snow to the rear of the lot, facilitating snow removal on Bellflower Drive. A garage would complicate snow removal. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. II. THE VARIANCE AND VISUAL CHARACTER The question now arises whether the variance will benefit the visual character of the area. A garage would destroy the open space between the Husted and Hayhurst residence. Also, the entry to the Husted residence would have to be rearranged and the design solution might well be strained. Susan Husted has agreed to pave her existing parking lot, and this will improve the visual appearance of the site. is Lot 6, Blk 6, Intemtn -3- 10/20/83 FINDINGS --- __— _- ---�� - • The Plan.ning 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. 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. ID STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the variance. The decision to recommend approval was a difficult one due to the policy of encouraging garages in the West Vail area. On the other hand, the town is encouraging employee housing. But there are physical constraints concerning building the garage, and the neighbors support the variance, two factors which weigh heavily upon the decision. The variance not to build the garage is contingent upon the Design Review Board decision to grant the second dwelling unit. The DRB should carefully review: 1. Parking on this small lot 2. Access to the second unit 3. Storage of trash and other materials L1 3 I. Susan Corrock Husted, am requesting a variance of the parking regulation and requirements for a primary - secondary residence. The regulation states that for a primary - secondary dwelling, 5p'1 of the required parking must be enclosed. I am requesting the variance for the following reasons: 1. I feel that a permanent parking structure would not enhance my home, rather it would crowd the area. The way my home sits on the lot, my only option for the garage would be to build it right up to the western property line, thereby crowding the open space between my home and my neighbor. 2, A garage would make snow removal difficult. Right now, I have the snow pushed to the north end of my parking area, out of the way of the street. This method of snow removal would be impossible with a garage and an alternate method would be likely to add more snow problems to an already narrow street. 3. To add a garage to my home would destroy the present entrance of the home. I have a window in my entry hall that would end up looking right in to the garage and would not be pleasing. Also, the roof line over the present entry would have to be changed to accomodate the garage which would ,create a major expense for me and one that would be difficult. . 4. Every home in my neighborhood is already duplex or primary - secondary and not one of them has a garage. I feel that considering lot sizes in Intermountain and the total lack of garages, one on my property would be inconsistent. 5. I would also like to note that my next door neighbor, Craig Webb, residing at 2953 Bellflower asked for and was granted a parking variance last summer. His home is primary secondary, very similar to what I wish to do. His request was identical to mine and was agreed to by the PEC that a permanent structure would not enhance his home. Please find accompanying this application letters from the adjacent property owners supporting my request for a variance. Thank you. • C To the PEC, M Mr. Jeff Frederick 2962 Bellflower PO Box 414 Vail, CO 81658 September 26, 1983 I support Susan Husted's request that a parking variance be granted for her home. I feel that a garage would not be a benefit and would not improve either her lot or the neighborhood. Susan and I have been neighbors since she built her home in 1978. We have never had any conflicts with parking. To build a garage would, in my opinion, create more problems in the winter with snow removal and would not improve the snow removal situation. • Please consider this letter in support of Susan. Thank you, eff Frederick 0 • • 40 Craig & Jan Webb PO Box 591 2953 Bellflower Vail, CO 81658 September 22, 1983 Dear Sirs, Our neighbor, Susie Husted, has notified us that she is seeking a parking variance. We are writing this letter in support of the variance. We applied for and received the same variance when we built our home in 1982. Both Jan and I.feel that her situation resembles ours. In our opinion, a permanent parking structure on Susie's property would not enhance either her home oV the neighborhood. As was the case with our home, we feel that a permanent structure would crowd her home. She seems to have plenty of off street parking. In our one year of living next door to Susie, we have never had a problem with her cars or with visitors cars, even when the snow was at it's worst. We hope you consider Susie's variance application favorably. Jan and I are in agreement with what she is attempting to do. Sincerely, Craig & Jan Webb Cedar Mountain Construction.Co. 9971 E. Ida place . Englewood CO 80111 September 21, 1983 Vail Panning & Environmental Commission 'own of Vail Offices Vail, CO 81658 Sirs; It is my understanding that my neighbor at 2955 Bellflower, Susan Husted, is applying for a parking variance. Regulation states that she must have 50°j of her parking enclosed for a primary secondary dwelling. She is asking for consideration of this rule. It is my feeling, as her next door neighbor, that a permanent structure would not enhance her property and in fact be a nuisance for both of us. During the winter months, both Susan and I plow our driveways and the snow goes straight forward and out of the way of the street. If Susan were to Put in a garage, this method of snow removal would be impossible thereby creating more conjestion in an already problem area. Along with the snow removal problem, I feel that an additional structure would crowd the open space between the two homes. Since there are no garages in any of Intermountain, a garage on her lot would seem out of place. 40 I would appreciate your consideration of these points. Both Susan and I have ample off street and off easement parking and, as her neighbor, I feel that to crowd this area with a structure would not be advisable. I fully support Susan in here request for a parking variance. Si orely, �X Judy Hayhurs Cedar Mountain Construction Company cc: Ms. Susan Husted Mr, Bill Roudebush Mr. Deane Sargent r � LJ 10 � 0 A-) 41 r)� - F-- I NE IC 3 O a m tn .J 1 1 %L pUp U) -r4 (1) >1 P -H to 3 44 P r7 0 w b N U S •rq § 4 2� 44 M P4.1 0) :3 H W H (n a H O .A 0 4J w A 0 isAA44 N 0 H HN0 +j4J 0 brd �w w J_ W �w _ w �� ~ t= sn �w w in 1ti•_• �3 O LO o ro N o 3 to +n W C vp co c� J J W m O N O N O F- 'o O u1 01 f� ,h O -KMQO 11 u u u 1` 4 t4J6 N 1 c N H� IC 3 O a m tn .J 1 1 %L pUp U) -r4 (1) >1 P -H to 3 44 P r7 0 w b N U S •rq § 4 2� 44 M P4.1 0) :3 H W H (n a H O .A 0 4J w A 0 isAA44 N 0 H HN0 +j4J 0 brd �w w J_ W �w _ w �� ~ t= sn �w w in 1ti•_• �3 O LO o ro N o 3 to +n W C vp co c� J J W m O N O N O F- 'o O u1 01 f� ,h O -KMQO 11 u u u 1` 4 t4J6 N 1 MEMORANDUM IS TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Second Review of Golden Peak Development Plan as a Study Session. Applicant: Vail Associates Since the September 12 review of the development plan much progress has been made. The Ski Base /Recreation District was approved unanimously by Council on October 18 with some minor variations from the PEC's recommendation. The building has basically been redesigned changing both the interior floor plan/ circulation system and the exterior facade /massing. Substantial progress has also been accomplished on the site plan. The evaluation of the current proposal will be done by issue /concern raised in the past. 1. THE MAIN BUILDING Concerns here dealt primarily with the bulk and massing of the proposal. Very substantial improvements have been made to the building's appearance by Snowdon Hopkins Architects and Vail Associates. The building now contains major architectural elements, materials and other design elements which break up the mass of the . structure as well as clarify the building's various functions. These will be shown to you on Monday. 2. TEMPORARY PLANTERS ALONG VAIL VALLEY DRIVE There was concern that this part of the proposal was inadequate to screen the parking and that, generally, temporary planters just don't last or work. By removing a planter immediately north of the northerly tennis court fence, area has been gained for moving the parking lot south and, thus, increasing planting /berming area adjacent to the road. The result isa proposal for a permanent landscaped berm with clumps of plantings to screen the parking, but still allow for snow storage. Drainage in this area needs further study. In conjunction with this revision the new westerly parking area has been moved to the south in the area near that intersection. This allows the "beefing up" of the planting to screen parking in this location which was a major concern of all. • Golden Peak Study -2- 10/20/83 3. PEDESTRIANIZATION The site plan now includes a pedestrian walk on the north side of Vail Valley Drive. This is the best location due to site constraints and the location of Manor Vail's pedestrian walk (empties on the west directly onto the north side of Vail Valley Drive). Also, the site plan now shows a pedestrian/ bicycle path connection to the intersection of Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley Drive. This encourages, with proper signage, people to get off the street and walk directly to the south side of the facility. 4. MOTHERS' DROP -OFF FOR SKI SCHOOL /DAY The easterly parking lot has been re- designed for diagonal parking and circular drive - through circulation. "Mothers' drop -off" spaces will be provided next to the building in this area, and it will be easy to get in and out of this parking area. 5. USE OF STREAM AS AMENITY It was expressed that Mill Creek should be optimized as a site opportunity and amenity. This has now been accomplished by providing a series of three bridges from the bus plaza /skier drop -off area to the building. The stream has been exposed now twice as much as in the previous plan, and this will produce an exciting entryway and plaza area for the Golden Peak facility. 0 b. EAST END OF BUILDING Concern over the loading dock area and its screening was earlier expressed. A re- design in this area has occurred with the entrance to the bus lane moved slightly south and the loading docks themselves recessed into the building(the docks are now 65' from the road). These revisions have allowed for a substantial increase in landscaping on the east side. This will make the project more compatible with the adjacent development to the east, Manor Vail. These are the basic revisions which have occurred to date. The staff is very pleased with these changes, as they have greatly improved the proposal in almost all respects. We continue to look forward to further refinements which we are sure will result in a development to the satisfaction of all. • LJ 0 MEMORANDUM October 21, 1983 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an exterior alteration and modification for the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, retail space, conference space, one deluxe dwelling suite, employee rooms, and ski storage room. Applicant: Lodge at Vail This item was appealed to the Town Council. At their meeting on October 18th, the Council did not listen to the entire presentation because there was a proposed modification to the space between One Vail Place and the new International wing. The Council sent the Lodge at Vail proposal back to the Planning and Environmental Commission, as they wanted to hear and make a decision on the same presentation that was presented to you. Jay Peterson will discuss the change of opening up the space between One Vail Place and the International Wing. The Community Development Department supports the modification. We feel that the space between One Vail Place and the International Wing is of a sufficient distance. i I• �0 October 13, 1983 Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Co. 81_657 ies inc. Re: Appeal of Planning & Environ- mental. Commission Decision October 10; 1983 Dear Mayor Slifer and Members of the Council, Lodge Properties Inc. hereby appeals the October 10, 1983 decision of the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission wherein that body denied our application for Exterior Alterations and Modification for The Lodge at Vail. This application covered what we refer to as the International Wing and contained a dwelling unit, lodge rooms, retail space, conference facilities and other modifications to the property owned by Lodge Properties Inc. Very truly yours, Lodge Properties-Inc. by EHD:hcd nt 174 I at Gwrc f'ri cl: I)rirr jiiii, (l)iur.tdO 81677 303- 476,5011 T,.,Ics • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 6, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration and modification for the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, retail space, conference space and a deluxe dwelling suite. The proposal includes modifications to the "Lodge Plaza" adjacent to Founders` Plaza and to the parking lot on the west side and additional storage space on the parking lot level on the north side of the Lodge South building. Applicants: Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South Condominium Association REQUEST: The request is to add 34 new luxury accommodation units and one luxury dwelling unit containing approximately 30,000 square feet along with new plaza level commercial space containing approximately 3,600 square feet, additional conference space, and a ski storage room to the Lodge at Vail. In addition, new storage space for the condominiums is being proposed for the Lodge South building. iOther modifications are a new gate house on the west, reversing the auto circu- lation into the parking lot, and a new entry court. Over on the mountain side, the parking lot would be expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get to the ski lift chairs. The east plaza would be redesigned to complement Founder's Plaza. At the Lodge Plaza there would be a temporary canvas paviliion removable during the winter. The new International wing would contain additional conference space, lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit and commercial space on the plaza level. RACK001IND On July 25, 1983, the two restaurant expansions were approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Approved were a 730 square foot expansion to the Salt Lick restaurant to be renamed the Wildflower and a 375 foot expansion to the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant. CONFORMANCE WITH PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain j the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and ! 00 uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Page 2 10/6/83 Lodge at Vail and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. The Community Development Department considers that the proposal is in conformance with the purpose of the zone district. The Lodge at Vail is the anchor for Vail Village and needs to be upgraded to insure the quality of Vail Village and the community. Without a strong heart, the Village will suffer. The Community Development Department feels that the long and short term success of Vail Village is partially based on a quality Lodge at Vail. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN #22 Pocket park. Screen fence to close off alleyway (gate required) and continue streetscape. Pocket park with benches, planters; snow storage in winter. Service vehicle zone optional. The proposal contains an improved area of landscpping and walk between the Lazier Arcade building and the Lodge at Vail. Closing off the area is not po$sible because it is a fire lane. #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. This proposal actually expands the Founders' Plaza area and makes this into an exciting space within Vail Village. VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NEW INTERNATIONAL WING Pedestrianization: By having new commercial shops at the new plaza level, the potential for pedes- trianization has increased by the proposal. Vehicle Penetration: There will be no change by this proposal. Streetscape Framework: As noted in the application, there is no direct frontage by the proposal on a public street. The proposed shops and plaza do add to the pedestrian experience in Vail Village. -3- 10/6/83 Lodge at Vail j Street Enclosure: The proposed International wing would have generally two heights, one fourth the width of the enclosed space it faces and one sixth the width of the enclosed space it faces. Street Edge: The irregular facades proposed for the shops and restaurants meet this element of the design considerations. Building Height: The proposed height of the new International wing from the new plaza ranges from 24 feet to 33 feet. At the pedestrian plaza level the proposal meets the intent of the height section of the Design Considerations. From the south side, the height would be 35 feet and 43 feet. The Community Development Department feels that the heights proposed meet the intent of the Design Considerations and provide for the mix in building heights as perceived in Vail Village. Views: There are no designated view corridors in the area of the proposal. Service and Delivery: This will not change by the new addition proposed. Sun /Shade Considerations: There would be no sun /shade impact on Town of Vail public space (the Founders' Plaza) as shown on the sun /shade study. One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail Place and the Inter- national wing on the third floor. The staff considers that the top floor be shifted five or six feet to the west to open the space between buildings. For the proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Community Development Department feels that there are no negative impacts. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Parking: At the time of a building permit, the applicable parking fees for each type of use will be required. Architectural and Landscape Considerations: The proposal complies with the intent of the Design Considerations. Detailed design issues will be more specifically discussed at the Design Review Board meeting. Fire Department Considerations: A new fire hydrant will be necessary along the south side near the new International wing because of the new residential and commercial space. r r• 10 -4- 10/6/83 Lodge at Vail RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Lodge at Vail request for 34 new lodge rooms, a luxury dwelling unit, new commercial space and new storage space. In addition, we consider the site improvement very positive for the Lodge at Vail and Vail Village. As noted previously in the memorandum, the Lodge at Vail is the anchor for Vail Village. The Community Development Department feels the upgrading and expansion is positive for Vail - Village and the community. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSON ACTION ON OCTOBER 10, 1983 Donovan moved and Viele seconded to deny the application with the exception of the Lodge South proposal with the main reason being the closeness of the Lodge property to One Vail Place. The vote to deny was 5 -0. MEMORANDUM lie T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Rezoning request on the Getty Oil site to change from LDMF with special restrictions to a Special Development District with Arterial Business District underlying zone. Applicant: Brooks Investment A. THE REQUEST Please find attached the applicant's statement of reasons for request, etc. from Marvin Hatami and Associates and the traffic study by Leigh, Scott and Cleary. Basically, the uses being proposed are a restaurant and eight dwelling units. The applicant has indicated in previous meetings with staff the desire for a third use - -a commercial kitchen (i.e. manufacturing prepared foods), but it is unclear whether or not this remains part of the proposal. Some details and statistics concerning the proposal: The restaurant, includdng a lounge, represents three levels and 7114 gross square feet of area. The kitchen would be 1440 square feet (included . in the 7114 above). The total site area is one acre (43,560 sq ft) of which 25% would be landscaped, 16% covered by buildings and 59% covered with asphalt. Proposed setbacks are 65 feet in front, 78 feet on the east side, 120 feet on the west side and four feet in the rear. The height of most of the building is 43 feet representing 4 -1/2 stories with a portion going to 48 feet. 83 parking spaces are proposed. The applicant is proposing eight "affordable" condominiums. They propose that the 624 square foot bn(�= bedrooms would be priced at $75,000 to $85,000, which equals a per square foot price from $120 /sq ft to $136 /sq ft. The three - bedroom units have 1149 square feet of GRFA and would carry a $130,000 to $150,000 price tag representing a range of $113 /sq ft to #130 /sq ft. Open market financing is proposed. One of the three - bedroom units would be allocated for restaurant employees and retained by the developer. Landscaping proposed is urban and formal around the building. The planting to screen the parking lot is also formal in that trees are spaced equal distance apart from each other in a straight line. Two existing, very mature pines of 15" and 10" diameter would be eliminated in favor of the parking lot. • Getty Site -2- 10/20/83 B. EXISTING ZONING In 1980 the site was rezoned to Low Density Multi- Family (LDMF) with the conditions of no more than 10,250 square feet of GRFA, no more than eight units, two of which shall be reserved for sale or lease by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley. C. EVALUATION/ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL The proposal is best evaluated by separating the two issues involved. First, the merits of the rezoning proposal and secondly the SDD analysis on the site plan. A number of the issues overlap both aspects but will be discussed only once. 1. Rezoning The staff's July 21, 1983 memorandum to PEC on the rezoning proposal to Heavy Service on this site pointed out criteria to be used for rezonings. These will be used here, as well. a. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circu- lation and lessen congestion in the streets. Pedestrianization is not a critical element to the proposal because the predominant means of accessing the site is vehicular. An existing pedestrian bicycle path accesses the site from the east, where the . vast majority of pedestrians would originate. The enclosed traffic study concludes that the proposal will not create unsafe conditions on the road. In comparing this study with the one the same firm did three months earlier for the service station/ car wash, it appears there would be about half the total number of trips entering and existing the site on an average week day. However, one should note that the peak hour period impact is almost the same as the gas station. For the gas station it was estimated there would be 12 peak hour left turns (one /5 minutes) while the restaurant /condos would produce nine (one per seven minutes). Further- more, the gas station would have produced, by Leight, Scott and Cleary's estimation, 17 peak hour trips out of a total of 410 during the entire day. They predict the proposal now in front of us will have 18 trips entering and 10 exiting in this peak hour period. For both proposals it was estimated that no more than two vehicles waiting to turn left would occur. Our conclusion is that the proposal for restaurant and condominiums presents no less traffic impact during the peak hour period than the gas station, and that the development would create significant traffic congestion at the entrance to Bighorn. n I* Getty site -3- 10/20/83 b. To encourage a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives The land uses themselves do not present negative impacts to the neighborhood. The problems arise when one considers the magnitude of the restaurant coupled with the residential use. The staff questions the viability of a 7,000 sq ft restaurant and lounge in this location. The Chart House has 6100 square feet of restaurant /kitchen /lounge space, while the entire Marriott Mark ballroom represents 9000 square feet (2000 more than proposed). The Marriott's kitchen which serves the Center Court and Matchpoint Lounge, as well as dining functions in the ballroom is 1770 square feet (330 square feet more than the proposed kitchen). We do not picture the restaurant /lounge operation as a low -key "locals" restaurant as the applicant does. Combining the large scale restaurant with eight condominiums housing a minimum of 16 people presents a land use impact which is incompatible with the residential and small amount of support commercial character of the western end of Bighorn. c. To provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community As mentioned above, the proposal seems quite out of character with the immediate area and probably not viable in terms of the restaurant's size and location. There exists a space approximately one block to the east of this site in the Pitkin Creek Park Condominium project . which is zoned for a restaurant and is vacant. This space of about 1500 square feet presents more of the picture of a "local's" type restaurant. 0 2. 5pecial_Development District The SDD chapter of the zoning code provides good design standards /criteria for evaluation: A. A buffer zone shall be provided.tha use district. The buffer zone-must and must be landscaped, screened or adverse effects on the surrounding a buffer zone of sufficient size to from the surrounding properties in light and air, air pollution, signs incompatible factors: t is adjacent to a residential be kept free of buildings or structures, protected by natural features so that areas are minimized. This may require adequately separate the proposed use terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate ge, and other comparable potentially The buffer zone is adequately provided off the site to the east where the Town owns a stream tract area which is heavily wooded • • Getty Site -4- 10/20/83 B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes; The parking and circulation system, as proposed, is a case of major over- kill. The applicant is providing almost three times the required parking which results in 59% of the site being asphalt. Virtually the entire site not covered by building is asphalt, with the exception of a formal landscaped /paver area behind the building and a volleyball court on the west end. This is unacceptable in that Vail has always had as a major objective to keep the paved area to an absolute minimum. We understand that a drive -to restaurant may need more than the required one space per eight seats, but do not feel that 83 spaces and 59% asphalt is anywhere near acceptable. Also, the service and delivery area seems as though it may be an awkward area to access for large trucks. C. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and function; The only functional open space provided would be a vollyball court to the west with a small grassed area around it. There is a volley ball court one block east of this development which receives little use. The applicant proposes elimination, as mentioned earlier, of two large pine trees, the only trees on the site. They would be replaced with the asphalt parking lot. These factors result in a poor grade with respect to this criteria. D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space; The proposal actually weakens the employee housing conditions in the current zoning. The current zoning language is somewhat weak, admittedly, in that it doesn't give specifics on the pricing of the units, but merely says that two of the eight be "reserved" for locals. The proposal does not give any assurances that any locals will be housed, but merely gives a price range which they feel would be affordable (with open market financing). In comparison to the $125 /sq ft or so (estimated average) proposed for the condos, Pitkin Creek was sold for $80 -90 /sq ft at 8.66% financing and 5 -12% down. We do not feel the proposal represents, in any manner, affordable housing for local people. Getty Site -5 10/20/83 F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness; I* Addressed in rezoning section. G. Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship, and bulk; The building proposed is out of scale and character with its surrounding developments, especially with regard to height. Pitkin Creek Park Condos are probably 25 feet in height, while the single family and duplex residences on the south side of Bighorn Road are around 30 feet or lower. The proposal is for a ridge height of 43 feet running a length of 96 feet with a portion of the roof going to 48 feet. The building steps down on the west side. The staff feels this building presents too much bulk on the site, somewhat similar to Building 7 of Pitkin Creek Park (where the commercial is) which should have been "broken up" more in mass. Nevertheless, the majority of the Pitkin Creek Park site plan presents groups of smaller buildings which fit the site reasonably well. The applicant here proposes the existing allowable number of units plus a very large restaurant /lounge /kitchen operation which pushes the proposal beyond the reasonable constraints of the site and its surroundings. H. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood. The staff feels the preliminary landscape plan presents a tremendously formal, stiff feeling without regard for existing vegetation (i.e. the two pines). This is not consistent with either the Town's overall objectives for the more informal grouping of trees in residential areas or for the large degree of importance of preserving existing mature trees on the site. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends denial of the proposed rezoning to Arterial Business /Special Development District. We see no benefits to the community in this proposal due to the lack of strong assurances of employee /affordable housing as well as the scale and design of the proposal. We feel the building would be quite out of scale with the neighborhood and that the "sea of asphalt" would be a major detriment to the entrance to Bighorn. We have strong concerns over the potential peak hour traffic congestion in this entry area to the neighborhood. Generally, the proposal is attempting to do way too much with the site, and the design proposed has not, in any fashion, mitigated that fact. • marvi( iatami and associates Marvin hatami aia architect f 10 145 architecture urban design and planning 1,937 washington street deriver, Colorado 80203 area code 303 832 -5533 REASONS FOR REQUEST The proposed property located in the south east portion of the East Vail exit and 1 -70 interchange has been the subject of a variety of rezoning proposals in the past few years. On August 5, 1982, the Vail Town Council approved the rezoning of this property to Low Density Multi- Family (LDMF) use allowing eight (8) residential units. In order to make the development of this property economically feasible, the petitioner is proposing to add a local restaurant to the already zoned Multi- Family housing. The objective of the petitioner is: a. To provide a reasonably priced restaurant to serve the community along with 8 affordably priced condominiums. b. To build a local restaurant on this property if the Town of Vail does ? not favor development of residential units in conjunction with the restaurant. c. To develope this property to the best interest of the Community and Town of Vail. The initial contact has indicated that the neighborhood favors this development. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS a. The building is located towards the Western portion of the site in order to provide an ample buffer zone from Pitkin Creek Park development located to the East. b. The residential units and restaurant are facing south and west to take advantage of the favorable views and exposure to the sun. c. The residential units and restaurant, while part of the some structure, have their own identity. d. The architecture of the building compliments the surrounding developments and it is compatible to its neighborhood in terms of the relationship to scale and character. e. A planter- retaining wall is planned on the north property Iine to re- place the Fence and seperate the site from the highway's property line. i� n U :7 rr�vin hatami and associates marvin hatami aia architect architecture urban design and planning ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED RESTAURANT AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT SOUTH EAST PORTION OF EAST VAIL AND 1 -70 INTERCHANGE LANDSCAPE TREATMENT The subject property is separated from Pitkin Creek Park Condominium Development at the East side by approximately 120 ft. t of Stream Tract which is part of Town of Vail. This wooded area contains Pitkin Creek and mature trees, which will remain in its natural condition, forming an excellent buffer between the properties. On the North and West the site is bordered by the State Highway Department right of way. We strongly recommend that the State High- way Department with cooperation of the Town of Vail landscape this area with wild Rocky Mountain flowers or any other native ground cover. This area, adjacent to East bound exit ramp is a gateway to East Vail Community and its appearance is important. The south portion of the site adjacent to the Frontage Road, old US6, will be landscaped with grass, a row of Honey Locust trees and hedges to screen parking area (see enclosed plan). Two existing trees, a 15° and a 10° Pine on the site will be removed to allow proper parking layout, they will be replaced by ornamental trees on the triangular planter island at the east side of the building (see enclosed plan) . RECREATIONAL FACILITIES A Volley Ball court is planned at the West side of the site in addition there are plans to provide Sports Wide Screen TV, and Billiards inside the building. RESIDENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS The residential section of the project consists of four (4) one bedroom units @ 720 sq ft. per unit and four (4) three bedroom units in two - story composition @ 1280 sq ft. per unit. One of the three bedroom two bath units will be allocated for employees housing and the remain- ing units will be sold as affordable condominiums; ranging from $75,000 to $85, 000 for one bedroom, and $130, 000 to $150, 000 for three bed- room units to be financed in the open market. 1537 washington street denver, colorado 80203 area code 303 632 -5533 i 10 10 page two marvi hatami and associates mary n hatam: a a arch led f. A landscaped courtyard is provided on the north west side of the res- taurant for summer use and amenity to dining area. g. The impact of traffic related to this development is negligible, ample parking (more than required spaces) and easy circulation is provided for this project. h. The turning radius from Bighorn Road (Frontage Road) to East Bound Exit Ramp to 1 -70 will be improved, this improvement will be coordin- ated with the Town of Vail and the State Highway Department. COMPOSITION OF THE PROJECT a. Restaurant • Dining capacity 120 seats plus or minus. • Lounge capacity 40 seats plus or minus. • Sixty (60) parking spaces. b. Residential • Four (4) one bedroom units. • Faur (4) two story 3 bedroom units. • Sixteen (16) parking spaces (two per unit). • • 0 Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS October 3, 1983 Mr. Marvin Hatami Marvin Hatami and Associates 1537 Washington Street Denver, CO 8203 Hear Mr. Marvin: 1889 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 (303) 333 -1105 RE: Restaurant /Residential Project Vail, Colorado We have now completed our traffic and access analysis of the proposed restaurant and residential development to be con- structed in Vail, Colorado. The subject project is planned for a site located immediately east of the East Vail interchange be- tween I -70 and the adjacent frontage road (old US"6). A quality restaurant is planned which will accommodate 120 restaurant seats and a 40 -seat lounge. In addition, the building's upper floors will consist of eight residential units. Existing Conditions The attached illustration depicts the planned layout and access characteristics of the site. As shown, two access drive- ways are planned along the frontage road with the westernmost driveway to be located approximately 200 feet east of the East Vail Interchange. The frontage road currently accommodates an estimated 3,500 to 4,000 vehicles on an average weekday, of which about 10 percent pass the site during peak -hour periods. Since the frontage road is a former State Highway (US 6), it is constructed to high standards which include one 12 -foot -wide travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the site, the roadway is relatively straight and flat with excellent sight distance characteristics. Estimated Traffic Generation As previously stated, the proposed development is expected to consist of a 160 -seat quality restaurant and eight residen- tial units. Based on the most recent traffic generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the fol- lowing estimates are applicable: Transportation Systems. Transit. Parking. Vehicular Access. Pedestrian & Bicycle Planning. Traffic operations & Safety.Signal Design.Traffic Impact Studies Mr. Marvin Hatami October 3, 1983 Page Two ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION Restaurant Residential Average Weekday Traffic • Enter (1.17 /seat) (3.05 /unit) 185 25 • Exit (1.17 /seat) (3,05 /unit) 185 25 Morning Peak -Hour Traffic • Enter (0.03 /seat) (0.1 /unit) 5 1 • Exit (0.02 /seat) (0.4 /unit) 3 3 Evening Peak -Hour Traffic o Enter (0.09 /seat) 15 o Exit (0.05 /seat) 8 Traffic Distribution (0.4 /unit) 3 (0.2 /urn °i t ) .2 Total Vehicle Trips 210 210 6 6 18 10 The distribution of generated vehicular traffic along the frontage road is one of the most important elements in determin- ing the project's traffic impact. Major factors which influence the traffic distribution include: o The location of the site with respect to the balance of the Vail urbanized area; o The type of land use to be provided; o Traffic activity in the area and access to 1 -70; o The location of the site with respect to other competing facilities; o The specific access and circulation characteristics of the development plan. Based on these factors, it is projected that 65 percent of the proposed project traffic will be oriented to the west and 35 percent towards the east. Application of these estimates to the previously cited generation data yields the turning movement traffic estimates shown on the attached illustration. As indi- cated, the maximum concentration of project- generated traffic will be west of the site, where only 12 eastbound and 6 west- bound peak -hour vehicles are projected. Mr. Marvin Hatami October 3, 1983 . Page Three Traffic Tm act � 0 � 40 0 w The projected levels of increased traffic activity can. easily be accommodated by the frontage road with no noticeable reduction in operating conditions or traffic safety. Of primary concern is the maximum number of left -turns into the site. As shown on the attached illustration, 9 peak -hour vehicles are ex- pected to turn left into the project's west driveway -- this is equivalent to an average of one vehicle every 7 minutes. Fur- thermore, no more than two entering vehicles waiting to turn left are expected at any given time. It is therefore concluded that separate turn lanes are ngt. Justified for this proposed. project. All turn radii at the project's access. driveways should be at least 25 feet, however, in order to facilitate all r ight -turn movements. Conclusions Based on the foregoing analysis, the following conclusions are made concerning the traffic impact of the proposed restau- rant /residential development: 1. The proposed development can be expected to generate a total of 210 entering and exiting vehicle -trips on an average weekday. Of these, 18 will enter and 10 will exit during the peak one -hour period. 2. The maximum concentration of project- generated traffic is expected along the I -70 frontage road west of the site. 3. The existing two --lane frontage road can easily accommo- date the additional traffic to be generated by the pro- posed project with no noticeable reduction in operating conditions or traffic safety. I trust that this information will assist with further planning for this project. If we can be of further assistance, please give me a call. Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. By e✓ �Zr --,� Philip N. gCott III, P.E. PNS /mlc Enclosure: Estimated Traffic Distribution cc: Brooks Investments .p 0 ILL Fri 0 � N 0/ S \ 1 +r Al r C (n Q c 4 3 �Lr C 4- N cc ❑ M U od `Y co L ca N co CC Cc$ ca E a.+ •rwr co .i".� Co WW 00 � 2W o � � � W � w m M V d a n it w Lo 'ILO C7 � J [i u c a m v C d1 c v c LO I Planning and Environmental Commission November 14, 1983 its 12:30 pm Site Inspections 2:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of October 24, 1983 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct commercial Withdrawn storage units in the lower level of the Concert Hall Plaza. Applicant: Eagle Valley Investments, Inc. 3. A request to amend the official zoning map of the town in accordance with Sections 18.66.100 - 18.66.160 to rezone Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing from Agriculture and Open Space to Ski Base /Recreation district and to impose Ski Base /Recrea- tion District and to impose Ski Base /Recreation District zoning on an adjacent 35 acre unplatted parcel recently annexed to the Town. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 4. A request for an exterior alteration of less than 100 square feet in order to add an addition of 99.5 square feet to the outside stairway of the Gondola Building to be used as a radio headset rental outlet. Applicant: Vail Associates /Stephens Communication 5. A request for a side setback variance and for a variance to increase gross residential floor area in order to add an addition to Unit #11, Bighorn Terrace. Applicants: John S. and Margaret G. Houston 6. A request for a setback variance in order to build a multi -use space with rear setback of 0 feet at Apollo Lodge. Applicant: Apollo West Inc. 7. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code concerning 1) Section 18.29.020 to include automotive repair services and garages as permitted uses in Arterial Business District; and 2) to add a Section 18.04.007 defining automotive repair services and garages. Applicant: Bob Voliter • Planning and Environmental Commission November 14, 1983 PRESENT Diana Donovan Gordon Pierce Duane Piper Howard Rapson Will Trout Jim Viele ABSENT Jim Morgan Duane Piper, chairman, called the meeting to order 1. Approval of minutes of October 24, 1983.Donovan approve the minutes as submitted. The vote was 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order storage units in the lower level_ of the Concert Applicant: Eagle Valley Investments, Inc. STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Peter Patten Jim Sayre Tom Braun Betsy Rosolack at 2:00 pm. moved & Rapson seconded to 5 in favor with Viele abstaining. to construct commercial Hall Plaza. This application was withdrawn by the applicant. 3. A request to amend the official zoning map of the town in accordance with Sections 18.66.100 - 18.66.160 to rezone Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract 8, Vail Village 7th Filiaa from Agriculture and Open Space to Ski Base /Recreation District and to impose Ski Base /Recreation District zoning on an adjacent 35 acre unplatted parcel recentl annexed to the Town. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Peter Patten reviewed the necessary steps in the approval process and explained that one requirement for rezoning was to approve an associated development plan which was being reviewed today.. He discussed the site with a site plan and indica- ted changes made since the last presentation. Bob Parker, of VA, pointed out that the loading dock entrance had been changed by enlarging and landscaping both sides, and described other changes. Craig Snowdon, architect, showed a model and described the floor plans on each level of the building. Bob Parker summarized by stating that the proposal was the result of much communication between VA, the Town staff and the neighborhood group. Jim Lamont, representing the neighborhood group stated that they were to meet this coming Saturday. He felt the need for long term solutions to parking and to traffic access, both pedestrian and vehicle. He added that the neighborhood group felt that the mix of pedestrian and vehicular traffic was dangerous. Bob McCarten of All Seasons stated that they hoped to delay a decision on the proposal until the Saturday neighborhood meeting. Parker stated that the issues brought up by McCarten and Lamont had not been brought up at any of the joint meetings, and he felt that it was unreasonable to interject these concerns at this late date. He said that a walkway was requested by the neighborhood, that the walkway on the north side of the road was a neighborhood problem, not VA's problem. He further stated that the staff and the neighborhood had asked VA to ascertain whether or not a pedestrian walk could be located on the north side PEC 11/14/83 -2 of the project on TOV right -of -way. It was VA's impression that Manor . Vail greatly desired the walk.and that their owners and guests would use the walk the most. He added that VA felt the matter should be decided between the Town of Vail and the neighborhood, but that VA should not be burdened in its review process. Regarding the structured parking, Parker pointed out that this proposal did not require any new parking except for the 6 condos, and that parking was provided for. He added that VA would greatly improve the parking area, and felt that this type of improvement should be extended to the other parking lots in the neighborhood. Piper pointed out that structured parking was not a new issue, but was mentioned by the commision on October 24. Pierce felt that this was a much needed project, and wondered if the bus lanes could be narrowed. Patten stated that the width of the bus lane indicated on the site plan was requested by the director of transportation, Skip Gordon. Gordon had stated that this was the busiest skier drop off in the town. Pierce felt that there was not enough snow storage. Parker stated that in the document, VA had recognized the need to truck snow away from the area. Pierce stated that he felt VA should agree to shovel the walks in the winter that lead south of the structure. He felt that the TOV should provide walks and lighting along the north side of the parking area as soon as possible and that Manor Vail should upgrade their parking lot. Viele said that he echoed Pierce on the facility and design. He felt that the traffic and parking issues needed a little more work. He was disappointed not be see structured parking, adding that if the parking were not structured at this time, the Town would lose an opportunity to solve a planning problem. Viele asked Parker about VA's schedule, and Parker answered that VA felt they could not complete the planning process and issue a construction contract until the spring of 1985 because of the short building season and the time consumed in the approval processes. Donovan said that she wished the structured parking could be.worked on, because from a winter point of view, there were no changes from today. She expressed again concern about the parking problem in Vail, the large amount of room giv 'en to the bus drop off, and the.location of the Town right -of -way with relation to the pedestrian path. Joe Macy of VA stated that there was enough room in the right -of -way for a pedestrian path without narrowing down the existing road. Rapson mentioned that he would like to see a curb next to the walkway, and also he would like to see some consideration by the Golden Peak Neighborhood members of screening their parking areas. Trout felt that discussion of the structure was counter productive. He felt that the walk on the north side should have curbs and identification for snow plowing. He felt that the staff should reach the owner of the home whose view might be affected by the bell tower, and was concerned that there be enough signage so that the walkway to'the south would be utilized by skiers coming from the village. Trout felt that there had been several meetings with the neighborhood committee and did not feel the approval should wait for another meeting with still other members of the neighborhood. Piper asked if the parking as planned met the requirements, and Patten answered that it in fact exceeded the requirements. Parker added that there were 14 spaces more than required, with the covered parking for the condos and the added parking to the west end. Piper then felt there were two issues he was concerned about, PEC 11/14/83 -3- one was the added asphalt to the west, and the other was the 5 additional spaces planned over the culvert on the east end. Piper felt that the stream could again surface at this point with landscaping instead of the extra parking spaces. He felt the skier drop off was very unstructured, but Piper added that he felt there was sufficient staff input to vote on the issue. Trout brought up the subject of conditions which were imposed by the PEC later being changed by the DRB and wondered about the legality of it, and whether then the proposal should come back to PEC. Larry Eskwith, town attorney, came in to discuss this point with the commission with the advice that the DRB has jurisdic- tion over design, but the PEC had jurisdiction over planning, and that the PEC had no right to lock in design. He added that in many cases it was difficult to see just exactly where the PEC jurisdiction left off, and the DRB jurisdiction began. Trout moved and Pierce seconded to approve the request for zoning per the staff memo with one condition: That additional study be made regarding exposing.Mill Creek after it goes past the service ramp south of the loading area. The vote was 5 in favor with Donovan a ainst because she felt there should be more study of the traffic and of pedestrian walkways. Piper reminded them that this approval was merely a recommendation to the Town Council. Randy Milhoan, one of the area residents, stated that he felt this project would increase traffic and the Town should address the problem and provide leadership in solving it. Dick Ryan answered that this area was a priority item for neigh- borhood study. i4. A re guest for an exterior alteration of less than 100 to add an addition of 99.5 square feet to the outside Building to be used as a radio headset rental outlet. Applicant: Vail Associates /Stephens Communication square feet in order stairway of the Gondola Dick Ryan described the addition with elevations and floor and site plans. Steve Wherry, representing Stephens Communication explained that this was a new system that has not been tried before, that it was subscription radio for entertain- ment and communication, that there would be four frequencies with 10 watts, the receivers were small, there would be interruptions for announcements from VA. Rapson was concerned about safety and wanted to know if any studies had been made. Joe Macy answered that studies had been made, and there was no indication of substantial danger. Trout asked about commercials, and Wherry stated that there would be no commercials. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 5 in favor with Ra son against., Rapson felt there was danger in the use of headphones, because of the way in which different people react to them. Wherry said the volume would have limits on it. 5. A request for a side setback variance and for a variance to increa: residential floor area in or to add an addition to Unit #11, Bic Applicants: John S. and Margaret G. Houston Jim Sayre gave the staff report. e gr oss horn Terrace. Peter Patten state that the reason the staff recommended denial was that the hardship was self created, one of the reasons mentioned in the memos from Eskwith and Rider. Mr. Houston explained his reasons and gave out site plans which indicated which neighbors had received variances or had added to their buildings. He also PFC 11/14/83 -4- pointed out that the structures were improved or enhanced which upgraded the buildings. Piper read into the minutes letters of approval of the project from adjacent property owners. Many of the staff felt that within Bighorn Terrace itself, this was not a special privilege. Pierce suggested that instead of a second floor addition Mr. Houston consider adding on somewhere else. Piper said that he still agreed with the general Town policies of trying to hold to certain GRFA and did not feel this was adequate hardship. Ra son moved and Viele seconded to approve the re uest. The vote was 5 in favor with Piper a ainst for the above reasons. 6. A request for a setback variance in order to build a multi -use space with rear setback of zero feet at Apollo Lodge. Applicant: Apollo West, Inc. John Perkins, architect for the project, explained the floor plan of the requested addition. David Ford, manager of Apollo West stated that people did not use the space in its present form of a deck, and that the space was needed for a small meeting room, restrooms and storage of skis. Perkins pointed out that the addition would not crowd the other buildings. The staff responded with the feeling that other solutions should be explored and that there should not be any encroachment onto the creek especially with the steep bank. John Perkins asked to table the item until 11/28, 1983. Trout moved and Pierce seconded to table to 11/28. The vote was 6 -0. 7. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code_ concerning 1) Section 18.29.020 to include automotive repair services and garages as permitted ._.uses in Arterial Business District; and 2 to add a Section 18.04.007 defining automotive repair services and garages. Applicant: Bob Voliter Jim Sayre gave the background of the formation of the Arterial Business Distict and pointed out that one purpose of this area being changed to ABD was to upgrade that portion of Vail from the Vail Associates' service yard to the Glen Lyon office building because it was considered a major entry way for both Lionshead and Cascade Village, but the uses requested will enhance the appearance of the town, nor fit with the other permitted uses which are intended to be generally accessory to the office use. He added that two letters of adjacent property owners requesting denial were received. Dick Ryan added that this zone was one of the most discussed and was under scrutiny for over a year with ample time for people to object to the provisions. He then read from the district "all permitted ...uses..shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit." He also pointed out the danger of having people park their cars there short term and then walking along that road which could be dangerous. Voliter stated that what he wanted to do was to take cars that were illegally parked in areas where he snowplowed and put them in his lot. He said they would not be junk cars, and that he was willing to make this a conditional use for six months. He added that he felt that Morgan's construction site looked worse,. PEC 11/14/83 -5- He also felt that only the traffic would be increase a little, and there would be no increase in pedestrian traffic. Discussion followed concerning the problem of where to allow rental cars, Donovan feeling that rental cars should not be parked in the parking structure when the space was needed for other cars. Ryan said that it may be economically unfeasible to expect to have rental cars totally within a structure. Voliter stated that there would soon be the situation where the Town of Vail will not have a place to put towed vehicles. He added that his lot would look as good as the lot across the street. He said that the existing uses in the district could be maintained and he had the right originally to store cars. Voliter asked to withdraw his application. Piper then mentioned other business. He mentioned that the PEC should take care not to step on the toes of the DRB in their conditions imposed in approvals. He wanted the staff to be aware that the PEC was concerned when changes were made, and Ryan assured him that the staff would notify the PEC of changes made in DRB. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE. November 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a setback and GRFA variance for Unit 11, Bighorn Terrace. Applicant: John Houston DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED: The Houstons wish to add approximately 80 square feet to their unit in Bighorn Terrace. The application calls for an addition of 30 square feet to the dining room :and a 50 square foot closet on the second floor. The variance request is for 80 square feet of GRFA. The corner of the proposed dining room addition will be four feet from the property line; the proposal will require a sixteen foot setback variance. The proposal does meet site coverage requirements. 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 variances based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the re uested variance to other existin or otential uses and structures in the vicinit . The requested variances will have little visual impact on this compactly -built subdivision. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformit of treatment .among sites in the vic.inity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. This would constitute a special privilege. The desire to add to the dining room does not constitute a physical hardship. However, the Planning and Environmental Commission has approved variances within this subdivision in recent years. A summary of variance requests for Bighorn Terrace follows: Houston 11/7/83 -2- i DATE VARIANCE APPLICANT REQUEST TYPE OF REQUEST HISTORY OF BIGHORN AMOUNT OF VARIANCE TERRACE SUBDIVISION STAFF PEC RECOMMENDATION ACTION Mar 77 Benysh GRFA 130 sq ft Approval Approval Setback 8 ft Approval Approval May 78 Rowe GRFA 473 sq ft Denial Approval Setback 7.5 ft Denial Approval July 78 Alder GRFA 75 sq ft Denial Approval Setback 8 ft Denial Approval Aug 78 Turnbull Setback 7 ft Approval Approval Aug 80 Curfman GRFA 177 sq ft Denial Approval Aug 82 Odum GRFA 122 sq ft Denial Fable Setback 18 ft Approval Sep 82 Odum Setback for 18 ft Approval Approval Airlock It is evident from the chart above that the Houston's variance requests would not constitute a special privilege, but the question does arise whether the small lot . justifies a GRFA variance. Five hundred and thirty -nine sq.ft;of GRFA'.area allowed on lot; 800 GRFA now exist. To grant the GRFA variance would make this non - conforming situation even more non - conforming. The desire to add to the dining room does not constitute a physical hardship. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No influence. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems_applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental_ Commission shall make the followinq 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. Houston 11/7/83 -3- 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. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends denial of the proposed variances. The application, if granted, would make an already non - conforming situation more non- conforming. Also, the desire to add to a dining space does not constitute a physical hardship. In making the recommendation of denial, the staff is being consistent with other recommendations concerning GRFA in Bighorn Terrace and other GRFA variance requests in recent years in Vail. • C C II. Two Copies of the following information: A. A statement of the precise nature of the variance requested. We respectfully request variances for set backs and GRFA for our proposed 80 square feet of addition to Unit 411, Bighorn Terrace. We' believe these variance requests are justified because of a physical hardship. This hardship is brought about due to the physical layout of the Bighorn Terrace addition about 20 years ago before it was annexed to Vail. Consequently, we now have practical difficulty in enjoying a small but needed addition to our property due to the small size of our particular lot. Because other variances have been permitted, for both of the variances we request, in this same Bighorn Terrace area in the last several years, we feel that we are not asking for a priviledged decision. The addition encloses about 30 square feet on our existing porch on the first floor and by extending upward to the second floor, we would add about 50 square feet for a total of 80 square feet. Our building outline is already.closer than the present code allows and this enclosure does not encroach any further than it already does. • We request this variance in order to make space available in our dining area on the first floor and to make a closet on the 2nd floor. While these spaces were adequate for weekend use when building was build about 20 years ago, these nominal increases to the present 800 square feet of living space will make the unit much more liveable by my family and myself. I am retired and plan to spend more time, particularly in the summer, at Vail. We have personally and collectively as members of our Bighorn Terrace association helped in making our area more attractive and livable. For example, we have resurfaced our roof, repainted inside and out, built a rock garden in front, and have participated in the black top surfacing of the gravel cul de sac known as Columbine Way - - -all in the last four years. We plan to plant a row of evergreens on the rear lot line - at the edge of old Highway 6 right away. B. A site plan will be made by Eagle Valley Engineering and Surveying Company and forwarded direct to you. C. Additional material will be submitted if requested. -1k Cb:' UNIT 10 jo or VR S3 0 2STORY WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE 0 ti t.D, 5 sio 00" Jy; UNIT 15 STAIRS/ SHED Z' Ss DECK 1-10 �0 ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT tiM co U ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT MA NEW \; tJ ��►,-- i�� -' "_, - Q•� " }E Ems' ,4�. �,� � -��_� � }i 's" �r t ilk Y � r � r_ 4E 4; 6T F ;il i% � 'I � � k• t, fi fir i Y _ yLi �I- ,u: � /i-a r �i� �� /rN �; � UN / T :� /� F- -- - -- t �IFI SIC[ Gilf,�r1,(la.+' I 1 � I� • • � 0 0 MEMORANDUM November 7, 1983 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Study session on proposed amendments to SDD6, Vail Village Inn The staff feels that there are seven major issues to discuss regarding the proposed amendments to SDD6, Vail Village Inn. 1. Views from 4 -way stop. What should the 4 -way entrance to Vail be? a. Golden Peak b. Riva Ridge c. To include Amoco service station 2. GRFA and number of units or accommodation units a. 100,000 square feet currently permitted b. To allow how much additional GRFA? c. How many units or GRFA to permit and by what criteria? 3. Mass, scale and architecture of the proposal a. Impacts from South Frontage Road b. Impacts from Vail Road c. Impacts from plaza d. Impacts from East Meadow Drive 4. How the proposed Phase 5 works with Phases I, II, and IV along with East Meadow Drive. 5. How the existing building 5 works with Phase IV along with I and II. 6. Parking proposed for site is 300 spaces. An exemption from the parking standards is requested. 7. Whether or not there is adequate loading area for the site. MEMORANDUM November 9, 1983 TO: planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration or modification for an additional 99.5 square feet of space to the Gondola building. Applicants: Vail Associates/ Stephen Communications I. HISTORY Recently an amendment to the exterior alteration or modification process was approved. The amendment permitted additions of one hundred square feet or less to be reviewed at any time of the year. There were also some other restrictions such as a property owner can apply for these small additions only once during a two -year period. II. REQUEST The applicants are requesting a 99.5 square foot expansion to the Gondola building attached to the exterior steps leading to the gondola. The use of this space would be a subscription radio service for skiers. III. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN There is no specific sub -area concept for the area of the proposal. The proposed mall design would not be in conflict with the proposal. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Applicant will be required to pay a parking fee or show how the parking require- ment would be met. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request to add 99.5 square feet to the Gondola Building. � 0 is MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a rezoning for two parcels of land: Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing from Agricultural and Open Space to Ski Base /Recreation District. Also, a concurrent request to impose the Ski Base /Recreation District on a recently annexed, un- platted parcel adjacent and south of Tracts B and F. All parcels are located in the Golden Peak Ski Base Area. Applicant: Vail Associates I. INTRODUCTION The redevelopment of the Golden Peak ski base facilities has now received seven months of intensive review and study from staff, Vail Associates and the Golden Peak Neighborhood Association. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council have also been kept abreast of the development of the proposal via work sessions, site visits and periodic progress reports. A planning process utilizing negotiation;.and compromise between all interested parties has been successfully utilized and has now resulted in a much superior product for the.benefit of all involved parties. The past and present steps in the approval process are as follows: 1. Annex 38 acre parcel south of existing improvements. This was completed on final approval by Town Council in Ordinance 30 of 1983 on 9/20/83. 2. Create new zone district to.enable Golden Peak and, possibly, other similar areas to redevelop and upgrade. This was accomplished upon final approval by Council in Ordinance 38, of 1983 on 10/18/83. 3. Rezone Tracts B and F from Agricultural and Open Space to Ski Base/ Recreation and.impose Ski Base /Recreation upon the recently annexed parcel. A requirement of such rezoning is to approve an associated development plan. This, of course, is where we are at now. 4. Obtain approvals for a modification to the floodplain for East Mill Creek and a minor subdivision making the three lots into one. The flood plain request will be heard by PEC on December 12,;while the minor subdivision must wait until January, after zoning is finalized. 5. Obtain the necessary Design Review Board approval. This process probably will be initiated in late January. Rezone of Gold Peak -2- 11/8/83 II. THE PROPOSAL The Planning and Environmental Commission is quite familiar with the proposal. The last study session revealed the latest revisions to the development plan, and there are no significant changes from those plans in this final submittal. Vail Associates has provided the Planning and Environmental Commission with revised notebooks containing all submittal requirements in detail. You should carefully read through the notebook so a full understanding of all aspects of the project can be achieved. The only segment of the submittal not included is the view analysis, which will be reviewed Monday on the site. III. EVALUATION OF REQUEST We feel that there are three sets of criteria to adequately evaluate the proposal. First, a discussion of the rezoning request itself which concerns the suitability /non - suitability of the existing zoning as well as a careful overview of the land use compatibility and orderly growth impacts. The second and third sets of criteria are found in the Ski Base /Recreation District. One deals with an evaluation of the compatibility and impact analysis for multi - family dwelling units, while the other set of criteria addresses specific items included in the development plan. Some criteria and their respective evaluations will overlap and, thus, will not be repeated. After thorough analyses of these three sets of criteria, the staff will deliver a recommendation to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Your decision is a recommendation to the Town Council, who have final approval power. A. REZONING REQUEST 1. Suitability of Existing Zonin The Golden Peak ski base facilities were constructed in 1967 -68 when the Town had no zoning. When zoning was subsequently adopted, the district imposed was Agricultural and Open Space, which is the zone on the property today. Everything existing is legal non - conforming except for the tennis courts, lacrosse field and ski trails which are permitted uses in the AOS zone. Because of this non - conforming situation, no expansion of any kind can take place on the building, only repair and upgrading. Thus, existing zoning essentially "freezes" the base facilities to their existing status. The question then becomes: 'Is this situation appropriate for Vail in 1983 and the future? It is obvious that Vail has come a long way in the 15 years Golden Peak has existed. The incredible success that Vail has had, both as a developing ski area and as a community, warrants continual upgrading of the facilities which serve the main function of us being here: skiing. Thus, conditions have changed which render the existing zoning inappropriate for the site and for Vail. Zoning on this site must be congruent with the progress Vail has seen, and more importantly, that which we anticipate. Rezone of Gold Peak -3- 11/8/83 2. Is the rezonin ro osal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal objectives? As noted above, the rezoning proposal is actually recognizing the existing situation and allowing existing uses to expand and improve. The rezoning is not bringing in new and non - complementary ski uses to the site with the exception of the six dwelling units. The surrounding land uses are all residential or open space. To the west is a low density residential area which will be buffered from the building and its associated activities by tennis courts and green space. To the north and east are high density residential areas consisting of condominiums and townhouses, most of which have been there as long as the ski base facility. These areas are buffered /screened by the use of landscaped berms with many evergreen trees. The ski area itself and other Forest Service lands are located adjacent to the south. The negotiative process has been successful in assuring a convenient, workable relationship among all these land uses. A great deal of study and thought has gone into the integration of this project with the surrounding area. 3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an ord.erly and viable community? The proposal actually makes a more viable community. By improving the Golden Peak base facilities as currently proposed we are, as a community, . making the statement that we are interested in having the highest quality in Vail. We are saying that "we are only as good as our weakest link." As far as Vail Mountain operations and ski base facilities go, Golden Peak is today the weakest link. Finally, great effort has been shown to make sure this proposal presents an orderly growth scenario. A part of the submittal requirement was a long -range plan for Golden Peak as a base facility. Provisions to thoroughly examine future parking and recreational facilities are a part of the Ski Base /Recreation District. The proposal has considered, then, both short and long range planning and provides for orderly, coor- dinated growth. B. MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNITS EVALUATION The Ski Base /Recreation District provides that the conditional use criteria and findings be applied to this segment of the proposal. Moreover, they must meet three other criteria as noted below: 1. No residential use on ground level 2. Visual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall be minimized by providing at least 40% of the required parking within the main building. • n C Rezone of Gold Peak -4- 11/8/83 3. The maximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) devoted to dwelling units shall not exceed 30% of the total gross square footage of the vain structure. The proposal meets all of the above regulations (see pages 3 and 4 of the Area Summary section and page 1 of the Traffic Report section). 4. Conditional Use Criteria a. Relationship and impacts of the use on development objectives of the Town. - The phrase "development objectives" is not defined in this criteria, but one legitimate development objective dealing with compatible land uses has already been discussed above. Using this development objective as a criteria, it is clear that the proposed residential use on the site is not in conflict with either its own site or its adjacent properties. The six dwelling units are not creating any significant negative impacts upon the neighborhood. Thus, the dwell- ing units do not compromise the development objectives of the Town. b. Effect of the 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 applicable factor here is distribution of population. The Golden Peak neighborhood is, basically, a high density residential area, with a small pocket of single family and duplex units. The addition of six dwelling units will not upset the distribution of population. There are no effects upon the other factors. c. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the ro osed use in relation to surrounding uses. The dwelling units are integrated into the main building, and the scale and bulk of the building will be discussed in the following set of criteria. The Community Development Department recommends that the six dwelling units be approved as a segment of the project. We find that the criteria have been met and that no significant negative impacts result with their inclusion. Rezone of Gold Peak -5- 11/8/83 C. EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN Section 18.39.120 of the Ski Base /Recreation District provides us with these criteria: 18.39.120 Design Standards /Criteria for Evaluation The development plan for the Ski Base /Recreation district shall meet each of the following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: 1. The developer will provide a buffer zone in areas where the ski base recreation district boundary is adjacent to a residential use djstri Lounda_ ry. The buffer zone must be_ kept free of buildings or strLctu apd must be landscaped, screened to protect it by natural features so that adverse effects on the SS�r�oundina._areas ar�minimizedThi Eay__require a buffer zone of sufficient size—to adequately separate the proposed use from the surroundin properties in terms of visual .privacy, noise, adequate light, air, air pollution, s nage and o_t_he comparable potentially incompatible factors. As noted earlier in this memorandum, all but one side of this property is abutted by residential development. It is all high density except for the Mill Creek Circle residences. No change in the existing situa- tion is proposed in the area adjacent to Mill Creek Circle except for the extended parking lot to the north which will be adequately screened from view. On the north and east sides of the building an improved buffering over the existing situation will occur. The landscape plan places heavy priority on intensive screening in these areas to that this buffer zone is effective. 2. A circulation system desi ned for the _ type , off' traffic Lenerated, taking into consideration safety se ara-tion from 1 vjng areas_ on venience, acct, ess?_noise, and exhaust control, Prtvat.e_ internal sweets v be permitted i� can be used b police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be us�d__for residential pur ores. The circulation system for vehicles is improving under the proposal, expeciaily on the eastern end of the parking lot. This lot will be a loop type circulation with diagonal parking. This will accommodate drop -off spaces for parents dropping off and picking up their children at the ski school and day care facilities. These spaces are located the closest to the building for safety. A full time parking lot attendent will be on site during the ski season in the control shed, at the entrance. Also improved is the access /egress situ to on urrent y, t e entire length of the parking lot is access /egress to Gore Creek Road. This . is a confusing situation for drivers on Gore Creek Road because they do not know if the car parked adjacent to the road is indeed a parked Rezone of Gold Peak -6- 11/$/83 car or a car attempting to get onto Gore Creek Road. Also, the existing situation allows cars to back onto Gore Creek Road which is dangerous. Improvements have been proposed to the bus /skier drop -off areas. The bus lane will be double -wide so buses may pass each other and the bus lane will now be an access - controlled situation via gates on both ends of the lane. This eliminates a major problem currently of tourists parking in the bus lane. A bus shelter matching the architecture of the building is proposed on the southwest corner of the bus plaza. The skier drop -off lane will be increased in capacity and also be double -wide so cars may pass each other. The number of parking spaces proposed meets and exceeds the parking requirements of the zoning code for the building functions. The use of the lot will not change from the existing situation in that 80% or so of the spaces will be for V.A. employees, with the remainder open for the "early bird" skiers. The reduced use of the building in the summer will produce many extra spaces. Moreover, the lot will contain adequate internal landscaping to visually "break it up" and make it as aesthetically pleasing as practical. 3. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features including trees and nd drainage areas), recreation,_ views, .convenience, and function.. a. Preservation of natural features: The main natural feature to . be preserved is East Mill Creek. The creek is being featured as a main amenity to the bus plaza on the east side of the building. This is accomplished by having a series of four bridges crossing the creek with the creek bed itself improved and relocated slightly. In order to relocate the creek, an approval for modification to the flood plain will be required. This will be scheduled for your December 12th meeting. b. Recreation: The redevelopment with regard to tennis will result in state -of- the -art facilities. On the northwest corner of the second floor the pro shop will be enlarged to 1728 square feet with a huge viewing and sitting deck. The one tennis court lost to building expansio.n will be replaced, so no loss of tennis court capacity will result. The remaining western tier of three courts will become a small tennis stadium with the addition of tiered grass seating on the south and west ends. The proposal also improves the tennis facilities operationally by the ability of pro shop personnel to more easily monitor court activity on a greater number of courts. Other recreation improvements planned in the future are upgrading of the "Race City" building to World Cup Racing standards and replacement of chair 6 with a new, upgraded lift system. The remaining recrea- tional facilities will remain as is. c. Views: The last time the building was staked out a number of photographs were taken so that a detailed view analysis could be performed. A study of the view analysis draws one to the conclusion that the building's designers have been very sensitive to surrounding properties' views. With one minor exception, it appears no significant views will be negatively affected. [The possible exception (which will require further study at the Design adjacent to the site on the west.] Tower could intrude on the lower po this residence. Further study will 4. Variety in terms of: housing type, space. Rezone of Gold Peak -7- 11/8/83 Review Board state) is the residence .It appears the proposed Clock rtion of a Gore Range view from reveal the actual impact. densities, facilities and open This criteria is not very applicable to the proposal, but the design of the condominiums has greatly improved in terms of their variety. Formerly the units were all very similar to each other, while now they are all quite different and all but one are "corner units" which makes them much more livable and desirable. 5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors. The redesign of the dwelling units as noted above has greatly improved their privacy. 6. edestrian traffic in terms of: safety ,__separati_on,_convenience, access to points of destination and attractiveness. The pedestrianization issue has been adequately addressed by proposing a sidewalk five feet wide on the north side of Gore Creek Road which . will tie directly into Manor Vail's new walk on the east (leading to Ford Park). Signage and lighting will be reviewed by DRB to ensure the pedestrian knows where to go and is safe. Once on site, pedestrianization will be greatly improved with the plazas and clocktower leading the pedestrian into the interior main arcades. Attactive, formal landscaping is proposed for the plaza areas with the creek featured on the east side. Also proposed are several walks through the landscaped berm on the north side of the parking lot which allows the pedestrian to get onto the site from various °points along Gore Creek Road. On the northwest corner of the site, pedestrianization will be improved by bringing a new entrance to the existing bike path down to the intersection of Gore Creek Road and Mill Creek Circle. This connection allows a pedestrian approaching from the west the opportunity to enter the site and get off the street right away and completes the pedestrian circulation system around and through the entire project. 7. Buildin type in terms of: a ro riateness to densit site relation- siip, and bulk. The density proposed on the site is about one unit per eight acres and is definitely appropriate in respecting both the open space/ recreational nature of the site as well as not adding a lot of density • Rezone, of Gold Peak -8- 11/8/83 to an already dense neighborhood. The building's bulk and scale have received much discussion throughout the project's development. The major concerns were raised before the recent revisions to the design of the building. These revisions have significantly broken up the mass of the building to where it now reads as almost two buildings with the clocktower separating them. Architectural and landscaping elements, as well as a variety of exterior materials have all played important roles in the reduction of perceived mass. Also contributing to the attractiveness of the building's scale is the bi -level roof ridges which rise no more than six feet above the existing building at its highest point. The building steps down in height on the west to respect the views of the residents to the northwest of the project. 8. Landsca inc_of the total site in terms of: purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood. The preliminary landscape plan reflects a well thought out program for the specific accomplishment desired and for the specific area of the site. The parking area and loading area are adequately screened with permanent landscaped berms which also provide for some snow storage. The plaza areas are landscaped more formally which -is more suited to these pedestrianized, hard surfaced areas. The effect on the neighborhood is quite positive, as the east and north sides have received a great deal of attention in their screening, and the neighborhood association has expressed their approval of the landscaping for these areas. Berming and planting in front of the northeast facade of the building has improved that elevation. RECOMMENDATION. The Community Development Department recommends approval of the rezoning request for tracts B and F, Vail Village 5th and 7th Filings respectively and the imposition of the Ski Base /Recreation District on the newly annexed parcel adjacent to the south. We are pleased to be a part of the planning process which has taken place for this project and look forward to continuing this process in the development of an overall neighborhood plan which this project has stimulated. We feel there has been dramatic improvement to the development plan which has resulted in a project which will be an improve- ment to the site and to the neighborhood. Further refinements in details will be necessary at the Design Review Board level to ensure workability. We consider the overall proposal to be an extremely positive one for the entire Vail Community. .? MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 9, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration for a setback variance to construct a multi -use space at Apollo Lodge. Applicant: Apollo West, Inc. REQUEST The applicant is requesting to add a multi- purpose space of 500 square feet to the west end of the present office located at the west end of Building C. The space would be used as a lobby and lounge space to ease the registration process. Along Gore Creek the setback would be zero feet from the property line. Currently most of the proposed addition is a wood deck. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. • There has not been a variance request in the general area for this type of use to be added to a lodge. The staff questions the size of the proposed adition for use only as a lobby and lounge. If reduced in size, a zero setback would not be needed, and part of the deck could be retained for people to sit and view Golden Peak and Vail Village. 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 title without grant of special privilege. The applicant has stated that there is a problem because of a 30 foot easement across the north part of the proposal. If the easement were not there, they could locate the proposed addition away from the south property line. Other properties have similar constraints in planning and developing their property. The staff considers that the request would be a grant of special privilege because the size of the proposal could be reduced and the goal could still be achieved. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and. utilities, and_public safe. No impact by this proposal. • r1 • .s Apollo West -2- 11/9/83 Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FTNDTNnS 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 we1•fare, 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. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department recommends denial of the variance request. We feel that there are other solutions where a zero setback from the property line along Gore Creek would not be needed. This would constitute a grant of special privilege. 4 MEMORANDUM is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 7, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to amend the Arterial Business Zone District to allow "automotive repair services and garages" as a permitted use and to add a section defining such a use. Applicant: Bob Voliter DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE Bob Voliter, with the support of Mr. Hunt, the owner of the Chevron Station, wishes to add "automotive repair services and garages" to the list of permitted uses in the Arterial Business District. (See Section 18.29.020.). This use would be defined as "establishments primarily engaged in furnishing automotive repair, rental, leasing and parking services to the general public." This definition would be added to the other definitions in the zoning code. Mr. Voliter's intention is to provide a short -term parking service; in Mr. Voliter's words the parking areas would "match Glen Lyon [office building] parking in visual appearance." Mr. Hunt's desire is for the Avis Rental activity to continue on the Chevron lot. Neither short term parking nor the auto rental use are allowed under the Arterial Business District. Service stations are listed among the conditional uses; service stations are commonly known as establishments which service automobiles by the sale of gasoline, oil, and other accessories and as establishments which repair automobiles. (There is no definition of service station in the zoning code.) The proposed short term parking and rental activities clearly go beyond the permitted . uses in the zone district. If this zoning amendment fails, Mr. Hunt would be forced to discontinue his rental activity. CONFORMANCE WITH OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONING CODE There are several objectives of the zoning code listed in 18.02.020 (B) which pertain to the proposed amendment. These are listed below: 18.02.020 (B)(3) To promote safe and efficient pedestrian traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. The proposed amendment will tend to increase traffic and congestion. The short term parking and the rental agency have the potential of creating significant trip generation. • Voliter Amend. -2- 11/7/83 18.02.020 (B)(4) To promote adequate and appropriately located off - street parking and loading facilities. Since the 1970's the Town has secured short -term parking facilities in the com- mercial cores adjacent to pedestrian areas and to the ski lifts. The proposal for short term parking could create significant pedestrian traffic for those who wish to park their vehicles and walk to Lionshead. The Arterial Business zone is intended primarily for automobile traffic, and such a proposed use will cause congestion by mixing automobile and pedestrian traffic, even after the circulation plan is completed. 18.02.020(B)(6) To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses... The application does not tend to create a workable relationship among land uses. It will cause a conflict between pedestrian and automobile traffic, and is incon- sistent with the other uses listed in the Arterial Business zone which were carefully selected because of their non - traffic generating characteristics. 18.02.020(6)(8) To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. Unenclosed storage of vehicles certainly does not enhance the appearance of the Town. COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT The Arterial Business District was created to provide an incentive to upgrade that portion of Vail from the Vail Associates' service yard to the Glen Lyon office building because it was considered a major entry way for both Lionshead and Cascade Village. To improve the entry, uses were eliminated which were previously allowed under the Heavy Service zone, the proposed uses were screened and those which increased trip generation were eliminated. A circulation and access plan was adopted to alleviate traffic congestion. Language was adopted in the ordinance . creating the district which reflected these issues. The application does not conform to these intentions. Concern was also expressed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and by the Council that service stations and service yards be allowed under the new district. Language expressing this concern was written into the purpose section of the district, and at no time were such uses as contemplated by the applicants included in the zone district. "Vehicle storage yards," listed as a conditional use in the Heavy Service zone, was eliminated in the Arterial Business District. The "vehicle storage" use was deemed to be an inappropriate use in the new zone. * The circulation and access plan was adopted based upon particular land use assump- tions linked to the permitted and conditional uses listed in the Arterial Business *Memo of December 8, 1981. Voliter Amend. -3- 11/7/83 zone district. A change of zone to allow the requested use would negate the assump- tions underpinning the adopted circulation and access plan. The language of the Arterial Business zone district does not relate well with the proposed amendment. The permitted uses are introduced with the language that retail stores and services are to be "generally accessory and /or supportive of office uses." Car rental agencies and short term parking are not "generally assessory and /or supportive of office uses." The conditional uses as well are introduced with the reminder that uses should be evaluated with regard to their "potential individual and cumulative impacts of generating traffic..." The proposed amendment does not belong either under permitted or conditional uses. The Arterial Business district also emphasizes enclosed parking facilities for larger structures (see 18.29.100). STAFF RECOMMENTATION The staff recommends disapproval of the requested zone use change. The application does not meet the objectives outlined in the zoning code. The proposal will not enhance safe and efficient traffic circulation or encourage a workable relationship among land uses by creating a conflict between pedestrian and automobile traffic. The use will also tend to aggrevate and not mitigate traffic congestion. The proposal will not enhance the appearance of the Town. Nor does the application meet the objectives of the Arterial Business zone district. The amendment, if passed, will not upgrade the visual appearance of the corridor nor will it mitigate traffic congestion - -a major issue in the drafting of the new zone district. Nor will the use fit with the other permitted uses in the district, which are intended to be generally accessory to the office use. Due to these concerns, the staff recommends disapproval. 10 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 28, 1983 12:00 noon Lunch at Potato Patch restaurant -- meet you there 1:15 pm Site Visits 2:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of November 14. 2. A request for a rezoning on the Getty Oil site (parcel immediately west of Pitkin Creek Park Condomiums in Bighorn) from Low Density Multi - Family (LDMF) to Arterial Business District in order to build a restaurant. Applicant: Brooks Investment 3. Request to amend Special Development District 6 (Vail Village Inn) to rezone the Amoco site from Heavy Service.to Public Accommodation and include the site into the SDD6, to amend the zoning code to increase the acreage, eliminate distance between buildings, amend the height section, amend the plan, increase the gross residential floor area, to increase the gross residential floor area and change the mix of accommodation units and condominium units, to request an exception to the parking and not have permanent parking for charter buses and to request a conditional use to permit meeting rooms and convention facilities. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. 4. A request for a setback variance in order to build a multi -use space at Apollo �odge. Applicant: Apollo West, Inc. 5. A request for a front setback variance in order to construct a residence on Lot 26, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Will Miller T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Betsy DATE: November 23, 1983 SUBJECT: Meeting dates * We'll meet for lunch at 12:00 on Monday at the Potato Patch restaurant and the site visits will begin at 1:15, * Please plan on a regular meeting on December 12 and a joint meeting on December 13 with the Town Council. * There will not be any more meetings in December. The next meeting will be on January 9. * Enclosed is a draft of Vail's Community Action Plan: Focus 1985. We will talk about this at our lunch on Monday. Planning and Environmental Commission November 28, 1983 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Dick Ryan Jim Morgan Tom Braun Gordon Pierce Larry Eskwith Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Howard Rapson Will Trout Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 2:00 pm. Approval of minutes of November 14. 2. A request.for a rezoning on the Gett Pitkin Creek Park Condominiums in Bi LDMF to Arterial Business District Applicant: Brooks Investment (The minutes were not available.) Oil site (parcel immediate) west of orn from Low Density Multi- Family n order to build a restaurant. Dick Ryan explained that this proposal had been changed and was now a request to build a restaurant and lounge. He went over the memo and site plan. Marvin Hatami, architect for the project stated that the proposal had been reduced in repond to objections in height and massing. He showed the new project on the site plan, floor plans, section and one elevation. He asserted that the Town of Vail had allowed the Pitkin Creek Park, a multi -use development with a grocery store, restaurant and liquor store. He stated that he was directed by staff to request Arterial Business zoning. Hatami felt that the Town of Vail could limit the use to a restaurant. Jay Peterson, developer of Pitkin Creek Park said that only 5 -6% of the development was commercial which were integrated into the whole development. Peterson added that if the Getty property were zoned Arterial Business District, the owner had a right to have anything on the property allowed under than zoning, and it would be the burden of the Town to turn down a request for conditional use. Peterson read a letter from Jim Sheehan opposing the zoning. Pepi Langegger, a nearby landowner felt that the additional traffic that would be generated would be a big detriment. He added that he had a lot about the same size and asked what would deter others like himself from asking for an upzone. Georges Boyer, resident of Timber Falls felt that the road was already overcrowded. He added that the commercial in Pitkin Creek Park would provide for the needs of the residents of Bighorn. Piper mentioned that the petition circulated had names and phone numbers only, not addresses. Murray Heminger, who would be managing the restaurant, stated that he had circulated the petition mostly at the Pitkin Creek Park swimming pool. • PBC -2- 11/28/83 LJ Mr. Fraser of 3628 East Bridge Road spoke in opposition to the restaurant, Russ Geonetti representing an owner named Jones opposed the proposal, mainly because of traffic. Trout stated that he would support more residential similar to the last proposal. Donovan felt that Arterial Business zone would allow too many things that would not work on that site. Viele concurred with the staff and Peterson. Pierce had mixed feelings, stating that he felt a need for this type of restaurant, but must consider the neighbors' objections. Morgan felt that all the zoning had been self imposed by the property owners, but felt that it was somewhat unfair...the property being quasi - commercial at the outset. He felt that the town could use a restaurant in that location. Morgan added that the road would be improved at that location eventually, and he stated that he did not feel that this was an appropriate location for a park. Piper stated that the Town could restrict the use to a restaurant and pointed out that the neighbors were divided as to whether or not they supported the restaurant. He added that the property was bounded by an entrance ramp and a service road and wondered what the best use of the property would be. He pointed out that when people were told there would be a liquor store and grocery store in Pitkin Creek Park, they were supportive, and a restaurant was not unlike those. He favored the project. Mike Palmer, a realtor, spoke that when he worked in that area it was a problem to find a restaurant for lunch. Hatami felt that the Community Development Department should help to develop the property, and that he would be happy to work out the details regarding traffic, site plan, etc. Hemi.nger said that it would not be another Ruby's, that there would be activities for kids as well. He pointed out that at all of the other off ramps in the valley there was commercial, but no residential. He would work with the neighbors so that the restaurant was not noisy. After more discussion, Jim Morgan moved and Duane Piper seconded to approve the request with the condition that there be an agreement prior to construction and written into the ordinance between the Town of Vail and the owners, that the site be restricted to a restaurant only. The vote was 2 in favor Morgan and Piper with 5 against. The motion for approval was defeated. • PEC 11/28/83 -3- 3. Request to amend Special Development District 6 Vail Villa e Inn to rezone the Amoco site from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation and to include the site into the SDD6, to amend the zon-ing code to increase the acreage, eliminate distance between buildings, amend the section, amend the plan, increase the gross residential floor area and change the mix of accommodation units and condominium units, -to request, an exception to the parking and not have permanent parking for charter buses and to-request a conditional use to permit meeting rooms and convention facilities. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. _._._._._ Dick Ryan explained that this was the second time this had come before the Planning and Environmental Commission, and added that it had been substantially modified. He listed the major issues which were also in the memorandum. Ryan pointed out that the staff recommended denial, even though there were many positive steps taken by the applicant. He said the major concern with the proposal was the additional GRFA requested. He felt criteria should be established for allowing additional GRFA and accommodation units before granting additional GRFA. Gordon Pierce, architect for the project, stated that he had made many changes and some were made after the memo had been printed. He showed a model and drawings, one overlay of the drawings being drawn lately. He said that since the memo was written, the applicant had reduced the GRFA to 151,600 square feet. Fred Hiller, potential purchaser of the property, said that he had reduced the number of rooms from 189 to 185, increased the commercial space to 14,800 square feet in Phase IV and 6,850 square feet in Phase V. Ryan felt that there was a tension between Phase III and the adjoining building in Phase IV. Chuck Christ, representing the Board of Realtors, read a letter signed by the president, Sue Rychei stated that in a poll of the members, 75% of them were in favor or the proposal, 3% were against, and 22% did not vote. Her letter added that the 3% against were concerned that the service station be replaced. Bill High of the Vail National Bank spoke in favor of the proposal and added that his bank would be participating in the financing. Mike Cronin, a realtor, supported the proposal, Ralph Harrison, manager of the Holiday Inn, opposed the proposal on the grounds that additional rooms would dilute the lodging business in town. Joe Stauffer, owner, said that he had talked with the manager of the Kiandra who did not see any problem with the project. Van Ewing, a.realta'r who rented a space in Phase III, spoke in favor of the project. Jeff Winston of Winston Associates, consultant on the project felt there were three issues of concern. First, the architectural style was different from Phase III which difference was accented because of the closeness of Phase IV to III. Second, the stepping down of the southwest building was not apparent until one reached Vail Road. Third, there should be more of a transition in the plaza. Pierce showed slides demonstrating the view of the ski trails as one approaches the town along I -70. Viele asked Ryan what stage the establishment of criteria for allowing additional • • PEC 11/28/83 -4_ GRFA had reached, and Ryan replied that the staff was working with Winston and Associates and others on it, but that the discussions were still in the preliminary stage. Ryan added that the staff had great concern that until the Town Council were to establish criteria, no additional GRFA should be granted. Viele concurred with the staff. He felt that the project was positive and did many good things for Vail, but was more concerned with the massing and height. Donovan said that her opinion hadn't changed, but that she had the same concerns she had at the last meeting regarding the elimination of the service station, that the restrictions of the original SDD were ignored, the buildings were too massive still, the views were important, that redevopment was needed, but this was too much. Rapson responded to Winston's suggestions, saying that he liked the feeling in the plaza, welcomed that type of redevelopment including the size, and felt that it was dynamic and would not affect the quaint and picturesque village. He felt that it was sad to have to wait for new criteria for things that will develop. Trout stated that he would like to not wait and wanted to make a motion. Morgan felt that Pierce did an admirable job reworking the design, but he still had diffi- culty with massing. He felt that the building adjacent to Phase III was still a little large, and felt that there was a wall effect on Vail Road, but felt that the project was beneficial to Vail. Trout moved to approve the proposal as presented that day (Nov. 28, 1983 with the plan overlay and with the changes of a decrease of GRFA to 151,600, an increase of commercial space in Phase IV to 14,800 square feet, an increase of commercial space in Phase V for a Iota_ of 6,850 square feet,, and total number of rooms of 185 Ichanged from 189) because the bulk, mass, height, view corridor, parking, density, and eliminating the charter bus parking were acceptable, the total GRFA was merited because the proposal as presented represented the intentions and spirit of the original SDD. He moved that the rezoning be approved because it encouraged a harmonious, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives, that the conditional use for the convention space be.approved because the proposed location of the use and accord with the purposes of the district in which the site is located and the eneral all -over welfare an interest of the community as a whole. The conditions for a2proval were: That Phase V should be started and completed during the next three to five years, that the a licant re a e to par.ticipate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if formed for the 4-way stop area, and that the architectural design features as presented.on the plans, elevations and model not be a tere and that the environmental impact statement report be approved Viele seconded the motion and the vote was 4 in favor, 2 a ainst (Donovan and Mor an) with Pierce abstaining. PFC 71/28/83 -5- 4. A request for a setback variance in order_ to build a multi -use space at Apollo Lodge.. Applicant: Apollo West, Inc. Dick Ryan explained that this was a revised request and that the requested area had been reduced, and that the setback variance requested ranged from 3 to 10 feet. John Perkins, architect for the project, showed site plans with existing and proposed construction, and elevations and sections. Trout moved and Ra son seconded to approved the request as resented. The vote was unanimously approved. 5. A request for a front setback variance in order to construct a residence on Lot 26, Vail Village West Filing 2. applicant: Will Miller - -- Tom Braun explained the request explaining that the staff recommended denial explaining that the zone did not allow for the development of a primary /secondary unit on a lot under 15,000 square feet without certain conditions being met, and this application did not meet those conditions. Tim Clark, architect for the project stated that in that subdivision, 75% of the buildings were non - conforming, and that only 7% of the lots were yet to be developed. Will Miller, applicant, gave the board letters of approval and support, and pointed out that he could build the same amount of GRFA with a single family home. Clark showed floor plans, but did not have any elevations to show what was being proposed. Morgan wondered why one of the stipulations for granting a variance of this kind was that it must benefit the visual appearance of the site when there was a hard- ship and when the Town would benefit by having an employee rental unit. After more discussion, Morgan moved_and Rapson seconded to approve the request for a front setback variance. The vote was unanimously in favor. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm. • MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 21, 1983 SUBJECT: A request for a rezoning of the property known as the Getty Oil site (the parcel immediately west of Pitkin Creek Park Condominiums in Bighorn) from Low Density Multi - Family (LDMF) to Arterial Business (AB) in order to build a restaurant. Applicant: Brooks Investment BACKGROUND During the last few months a request for the subject property has been before the Planning and Environmental Commission twice. First for a request to rezone the property from Low Density Multi- Family (LDMF) to Heavy Service (HS) to con- struct a service station. The applicant then withdrew his application at the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The second request was before the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 24, 1983. Requested was to rezone the property from Low Density Multi - Family (LDMF) to Special Development District with underlying Arterial Business (AB) District and build a restaurant plus affordable condominiums. After discussion . by the Planning and Environmental Commission, the applicant wanted to modify his proposal. The Planning and Environmental Commission would not hear the modified proposal, and the applicant requested the proposal be tabled until November 28. Since that time, the applicant has come back with a new request to rezone the property with no special development district request. In 1980 several requests for this property were presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to the Town Council. In the process the property was rezoned from Heavy Service (HS) to Low Density Multi- Family (LDMF). At that time a commercial type of use was not considered desirable at the entry way to East Vail. PROPOSAL The proposal is to rezone the property, approximately one acre of land from LDMF to Arterial Business. The purpose is to construct a 4220 square foot restaurant that has a dining capacity of approximately 64 seats and a lounge capacity of 20 seats. On the site is also proposed parking for 54 cars. Again, the basic issue to consider is whether the property is zoned correctly with a Low Density Multi - Family zone, or should it be rezoned to Arterial Business? From a review and action by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council in 1980, the staff considers a rezoning to a business zone not • Getty Oil Site -2- 11/21/83 in conformance with the development objectives of the community or with the East Vail area. Some of the specific purposes of the zoning code state: A. To encourage a harmonious, convenient workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. As noted previously in the memorandum in 1980 this property was rezoned from Heavy Service to Low Density Multi - Family. One of the reasons for the rezoning at that time was that East Vail had no commercial or business type zoning. The Council considered the business zoning inconsistent with the established zoning in the area. B. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. Currently under the Low Density Multi- Family zone district where 8 units could be constructed, there would be less congestion on the streets than with a restaurant. Also, if the restaurant were not successful other uses in the Arterial Business zone could be requested. C. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. The East Vail community has very high residential qualities. A restaurant use at this location,.the;..entry way to East Vail seems to be inconsistent with the established community qualities. D. To otherwise provide for growth of an orderly and viable community. From previous action of the Town Council it seems that for the orderly growth of East Vail, a commercial /business zone should not be introduced into East Vail. SITE PLAN The applicant's architect did submit a site plan, floor plan, elevations and sections of the proposed restaurant for Planning and Environmental Commission review. It should be noted that this is not a requirement of the rezoning, but provides the Planning and Environmental Commission with a view of how the restaurant may work on the site. In reviewing the proposed site plan, there would be some zoning problems. First, there is an building and parking setback problem. Second, there is a front landscape problem. If the Planning and Environmental Commission considers the rezoning appropriate, changes in the site plan would be needed before presentation to the Design Review Board. • U] • I,-] Getty Oil Site -3- 11/21/83 RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the rezoning request from Low Density Multi - Family to Arterial Business. First, the rezoning to Arterial Business from a residential zone is not consistent with the zoning and character of the surrounding or East Vail neighborhood. Second, the restaurant use or any commercial or business use would create additional traffic congestion. Third, the staff considers that residential use on the property provides for orderly growth within the community.and the East Vail area. If the Planning and Environmental Commission determines that the rezoning is appropriate, they should state their findings for approval. In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission should restrict the use to only a restaurant. n fry �J marvin hatami and associates marvin halami aia architect architecture urban design and planning 1537 washinglon street denver, colorado 80203 area code 303 832 -5533 REASONS FOR REQUEST The proposed property located in the south east portion of the East Vail exit and 1 -70 interchange has been the subject of a variety of rezoning proposals in the past few years. On August 5, 1982, the Vail Town Council approved the rezoning of this property to Low Density Multi - Family (LDMF) use allowing eight (8) residential units. In order to make the development of this property economically feasible, the partitioner is proposing to change the use to allow the construction of a local restaurant. The objective of the petitioner is: a. To provide a reasonably priced restaurant to serve the community. b. To develope this property to the best interest of the Community and Town of Vail. The initial contact has indicated that the neighborhood favors this development. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS a. The building is located close to Frontage Road and in the center of the site in order to provide an ample buffer zone from Pitkin Creed Park development, and 1 -70. b. The restaurant is facing south and west to take advantage of the favor- able views and exposure to the sun. c. The architecture of the building compliments the surrounding develop- ments and it is compatible with its neighborhood in terms of scale and character. d. A landscaped courtyard is provided on the west side of the restaurant for summer use and amenity to dining area. e. The impact of traffic related to this development is negligible, ample parking (more than required spaces) and easy circulation is provided for this project. 1� u ro-1 L�-.J page two LANDSCAPE TREATMENT marvin hatami and associates Marvin hatami a a architect The subject property is separated from Pitkin Creek Parl Condominium Development at the East side by approximately 120 ft. - of stream tract which is part of Town of Vail. This wooded area contains Pitkin Creek and mature trees, which will remain in its natural condition, forming an excellent buffer between the properties. On the North and West the site is bordered by the State Highway Department right of way. We strongly recommend that the State Highway Department with cooperation of the Town of Vail landscape this area with wild Rocky Mountain flowers or any other native ground cover. This area, adjacent to East bound ramp is a gateway to East Vail Community and its appearance is important. The south portion of the site adjacent to the Frontage Road, old US 6, will be landscaped with grass, trees, and hedges, (see site plan). COMPOSITION OF THE PROJECT Local Restaurant • Dining capacity 64 seats plus or minus. • Lounge capacity 20 seats plus or minus. • Fifty four (54) parking spaces. Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc. WRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS November 10, 1983 Mr. Marvin Hatami Marvin Hatami and Associates 1537 Washington Street Denver, CO 80203 RE: Restaurant Project Vail, Colorado LSC #95 -83 Dear Marvin: 1889 York Street Denver, Colorado 80206 (303) 333 -1105 In accordance with your request, we have revised our earlier traffic analysis of a proposed restaurant /residential development to be located immediately east of "the East Vail Interchange between I -70 and the adjacent frontage road. Reference is made to our letter report to you dated October 3, 1983. It is my understanding that the proposed plan is to be modified to consist of only a 64 -seat quality restaurant and an associated 20 -seat lounge. As such, the following traffic generation estimates are applicable: Estimated Traffic Generation Vehicles Vehicles Entering Exiting Site Site Average Weekday Traffic 100 100 Morrying Peak -Hour Traffic 3 2 Evening Peak -Hour Traffic 8 4 This small amount of traffic will result in a maximum con- centration of four left -turn vehicles entering the site from the west during the evening peak -hour. This level. of increased traffic activity can easily be accommodated along the existing frontage road with no noticeable reduction in operating condi- tions or traffic safety. Transportation Systems. Transit. Parking. Vehicular Access. Pedestrian & Bicycle Planning -Traffic Operations & Safety.Signat Dmign•Traffic Impact Studies F Mr. Marvin Hatami 1p November 10, 1983 Page Two if we can be of any further assistance on this matter, please call. Respectfully submitted, LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC. Philip W. Scott III, P.E. :7 THE TYROLEAN INN • P. 0. Box 3390 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476 -2204 10 November 18, 1983 Vail Planning Ummission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: For the sixth time, in just a few years, we are faced again, with another re- zoning proposal at the Getty Oil site in East Vail. Lupine Drive is just across, it is beautiful and quiet, one of the few resi- dential neighborhoods with single - family homes. The last thing we need is to change residential zoning to commercial. This parcel is not situated for high traffic volume such as a gas station or restaurant and bar.. I know how hard it is to get on the Frontage Road at certain times from Bridge Street, which is straight across from the proposed development. A school bus stop is also right on the corner. What is next, a traffic light? I also own an acre parcel next to my home and so do my two neighbors, should we be next to ask for re- zoning to commercial and then what? Move to another residential area and repeat the mistake, until there is no place to go anymore? The present zoning for the Getty parcel is compatible with thenei.ghborhood and all I ask is that the out of town developers abide by the same rules as we have for the last twenty years, Sincerely, THE TYROLEAN INN Pepi /ngegg<r PL /jac cc /Vail Trail Vail Daily Z 3X �7 Wir - JL, .20, J'2 Je4 W6.912-1 aJ al7al i aae Ir OAL �f � 1�7 rz ,,,,,,� a � „ >l zs� � �71�; -fee ,m I&, ee z1f <� 7,- Z// r- Y02711 12Ceal6l. 19 1�16e a?/ a,.- ye��P,�rzf,;7 cneoy� yrrz �jUPo” ��n�e Reep mre / I / lhcemela • is NV All o c �` J3 t cl- NCO 009- L- CN, �.� %� _.. _..� W / / �, � i ., � r � � / � � ,� % � � � ,, � �. , � ' , l �� / � / �, Jl / ' � � r / �: i ' .r � i � � / � �� i r % � �� , � ' �, ,. ,t' � � J � / i �. ' � �' .� � � � M .� i t �� / .� � �� . � . � ' .� � j `, s � e � � ` / /. r � ,� s � � � . �� / �' � ,�� `0 James E. sheahan 925 'airway Drive Worado 89657 f, d - r November 27, 1983 r`p Mr. Dick Ryan Director of Planning Town of Vail Vail, CO RE: Getty Oil Site Dear Mr. Ryan: With reference to the application of Brooks Investments to change the zoning on the Getty Site from LDMF to Arterial Business District, I would like to go on record as opposing this change. My reasons are as follows: 3. In general, I feel that any planning function should be very careful when dealing with spot zoning. It is my opinion that spot zoning should only be used to enhance a neighborhood and I stress the word enhance. With the abundance of commercial centers throughout the valley, I find it hard to accept that a commercial building in the center of a residential neighborhood would enhance anything. 4. In the past, this property has been before the Planning Commission for re -- zoning many times. I see no reason why this application should be treated any differently. it is presently zoned residental and should stay residential. Sincerely, C"' . She 1. As a recent purchaser of property in the area, one of my reasons to purchase was to build in a residen- tial area. East Vail has always been unique in the sense that the character of the neighborhood has maintained itself as almost strictly residential. tamper with. This is an asset we should not 2. With the recent development of Pitkin Creek, the traffic flow has increased substantially. A commercial type building would only increase the traffic flocs and thus add to the problem. 3. In general, I feel that any planning function should be very careful when dealing with spot zoning. It is my opinion that spot zoning should only be used to enhance a neighborhood and I stress the word enhance. With the abundance of commercial centers throughout the valley, I find it hard to accept that a commercial building in the center of a residential neighborhood would enhance anything. 4. In the past, this property has been before the Planning Commission for re -- zoning many times. I see no reason why this application should be treated any differently. it is presently zoned residental and should stay residential. Sincerely, C"' . She SURVEY %PETITION 'THE BROOKS INVESTMENT CO, WHO PROPOSED THE GAS ST:ATT01Y /CAR WASH'NEXT TO PITKIN CREEK PARK (AND SO GRLGI.OU MY°° WITIMRM) WANTS To INVITE All INTERESTED PARTIES TO GIVE THEIR INPUT /IDEAS ON WHAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE FOR SITE IN QUESTION. THEY, ABOVE ALL,, WANT ANY PROJECT TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR ALL CONCERNED, ONE PRO- POSAL IS A LOCALS RESTAURANT. EXAMPLE: A REASONABLY PRICED ESTAB- LISIMNT PROVIDING PIZZA, SUBS, SALAD.BAR, HORS D�OEUVRES /NATCHOS$ SPECIALTY ITEMS, COCKTAILSr ETC. POSSIBLY A PIANO BAR /ENTERTAINMENTI, . VIDEO GAMES$ SPORTS WIDE SCREEN T,V.$ BILLIARDS, PING PONG$ VOLLEY BALL (SUMMER) AND MORE. A PLACE FOR LOCALS TO HAVE FUN AT A MINIMUM COSTI THE BROOKS INVESTMENT CO. WANTS TO HOST A, WINE & CHEESE PARTY TO HEAR EVERYONE. PLEASE SIGN BELOW AND INCLUDE YOUR PHONE NUMBER SO WE CAN NOTIFY YOU WHEN AND WHERE THE PARTY WILL BE HELD. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL: MURRAY HEMINGER 4 76 -6824 NAME & PHONE NUMBER Y q FOR RESTAURANT AGAINST L 3 T-1 NA02wo ME an c � 67/1 Im FEE!; wmatj ' / ' ;VA r �J W� / J /.V I m .4 .-- --y) I SURVEY/PETITION THE BROOKS INVESTMENT CO. WHO PROPOSED THE GAS STATION /CAR WASH'NEXT TO FITKIN CREEK PARK (AND So GPAGIGUZLY'. WITHDREW) WANTS TO INVITE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES TO GIVE THEIR INFUVIDBAZ ON WklAT-WQULv 1w FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE FOR SITE IN QUESTION. THEY-0 ABOVE ALL,, WANT ANY PROJECT TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR ALL CONCERNED. ONE PRO- POSAL IS A LOCALS RESTAURANT. EXAMPLE: A REASONABLY PRICED ESTAB- LISHMENT PROVIDING PIZZAS SUBS, SALAD BAR, HORS D'OEUVRES/NATCHOS, SPECIALTY ITEMS, COCKTAILS9, ETC. POSSIBLY A PIANO BAR/ENTERTAINMENT, VIDEO GAMES, SPORTS WIDE SCREEN T.V.S. BILLIARDS, PING POND, VOLLEY BALL (SUMMER) AND MORE. A PLACE FOR LOCALS TO HAVE FUN AT A MINIMUM COSTI THE BROOKS INVESTMENT CO. WANDS TO HOST A WINE & CHEESE PARTY TO HEAR EVERYONE. PLEASE SIGN BELOW AND INCLUDE YOUR PHONE NUMBER SO VTE CAN NOTIFY YOU WHEN AND WHERE THE PARTY WILL BE HELD. FOR MORE INFORMATIONS CALL: MURRAY REMINGER 476-6824 NAME & PHONE (NUMBER FOR RESTAURANT AGAINST 47 w jpmpww`l i - ` SURVEY/PETITION THE BROOKS INVESTMENT CO. WHO PROPOSED THE GAS STATION/CAR WASH NEXT TO PITKIN CREEK PARK (AND SO GRACIOUSLY WITHDREW) WANTS TO INVITE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES TO GIVE THEIR INPUT /IDEAS ON WHAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE FOR SITE IN QUESTION. THEY* ABOVE ALL,, WANT ANY PROJECT TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR ALL CONCERNED. ONE PRO- POSAL IS A LOCALS RESTAURANT, EXAMPLE: A REASONABLY PRICED ESTAB- LISHMENT PROVIDING PIZZA, SUBS, SALAD BAR, HORS DrOEUVRES /NATCHOS, SPECIALTY ITEMS, COCKTAILS r ETC. POSSIBLY A PIANO BAR /ENTERTAINMENT, VIDEO GAMES, SPORTS WIDE SCREEN T.V., BILLIARDS, PING PONE, VOLLEY BALL (SUMMER) AND MORE. A PLACE FOR LOCALS TO HAVE FUN AT A MINIMUM COSTZ THE BROOKS INVESTMENT CO. WANTSTO HOST A WINE & CHEESE PARTY TO HEAR EVERYONE. PLEASE SIGN BELOW AND INCLUDE YOUR PHONE NUMBER SO WE CAN NOTIFY YOU WHEN AND WHERE THE PARTY WILL BE HELD. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL: MURRAY HEMINGER 4 ?6 -6524 NAME & PHONE NUMBER FOR RESTAURANT AGAINST /6 Z Itu , Lit i YJ f' S ; zr� 7 V 2 elf ry Ifl / tA - SURVEY %PETITION 'THE BROOKS INVESTMENT CO. WHO PROPOSED THE GAS STATION /CAR WASH NEXT TO PITKIN CREEK PARK (AND SO GRACIOUSLY` . WITHDREW) WANTS TO INVITE ALL,INTERESTED PARTIES TO GIVE THEIR INPUT /IDEAS ON WHAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE FOR SITE IN QUESTION. THEY', ABOVE ALL,, WANT ANY' PROJECT�TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR ALL CONCERNED. ONE PRO- POSAL IS A LOCALS RESTAURANT. EXAMPLE: A REASONABLY PRICED ESTAB- LISHMENT PROVIDING PIZZA, SUSS, SALAD BAR, HORS D'OEUVRES /NATCHOSt SPECIALTY ITEMS, COCKTAILS,, ETC. POSSIBLY A PIANO BAR /ENTERTAINMENTx VIDEO GAMEST SPORTS WIDE SCREEN T.V., BILLIARDS, PING PONGO VOLLEY BALL (SUMMER) AND MORE. A PLACE FOR LOCALS TO HAVE FUN AT A MINIMUM COST1 THE BROOKS INVESTMENT CO. WAN5 TO HOST A WINE & CHEESE PARTY TO HEAR EVERYONE. PLEASE SIGN BELOW AND INCLUDE YOUR PHONE NUMBER SO e WE CAN NOTIFY YOU IVHEN AND WHERE THE PARTY WILL BE HELD. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL: MURRAY HEMINGER 476 -6824 NAME & PHONE NUMBER FOR RESTAURANT AGAINST` l i r MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 21, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration for a setback variance to construct a new lobby area and lounge at Apollo Lodge. Applicant: Apollo West, Inc. REQUEST This is a revised request to add a new lobby and lounge to assist in the regis- tration process. The area would also include new restrooms and storage space. The entire addition of approximately 550 square feet would be added to the west end of the present office in Building C. Currently the area is an open deck. The requested setback variance ranges from three to ten feet from the south property line. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential_ uses and structures in the vicinity. There has been no variance of this nature in the immediate vicinity. The request has been modified to have a deck of approximately ten feet next to the south property line. Retaining part of the deck is definitely a positive aspect of the revised proposal. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity, on to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. There are constraints that restrict the ability to add a new lobby and lounge to adequately serve guests of Apollo Park Lodge. A 30 foot easement crosses the northern part of the proposal. If the easement were not there, they could locate the proposed addition away from the south property line and probably meet the rear setback requirement of 20 feet. The modified plan provides for up to ten feet of setback plus a deck along the south property line. The reduced size of the adition seems to work well on the site and provide for a comfortable outside area. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. No impact by this proposal. 0 e �r Apollo West -2- 11/21/83 Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable_to the proposed vArianrP _ FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before 4rantinq 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 o' 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. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the variance request. We consider the revised proposal which allows for the deck is the minimum neces- sary to provide for a good functional lobby and lounge area. Because of the need for the lobby and loungie area at the proposed location and because of the easement constraints, there are exceptions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 23, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for a front setback on lot 26, Vail Village West Filing 2. Applicant: Will Miller DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant has requested a variance of 6.5 feet front setback), to build a primary /secondary unit. quested because of a 20 foot wide sewer easement t The applicant maintains that the easement "creates reduced in size and interferes with the successful a primary /secondary structure." CRITERIA AND FINDINGS (resulting in a 13,5 foot The variance has been re- iat bisects the property. a building envelope greatly design and development of The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The site is located in a neighborhood comprised of duplexes, primary /secondary • units, and single family homes. While there are existing units in violation of the front setback, approving this variance would only add to the non - conforming structures in the neighborhood. Many lots in the vicinity of the site have yet to be developed. For this reason, the staff feels it important to maintain the 20 foot front setback. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforceme of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. If thi s variance request is approved, the development of a primary /secondary residence on this site would not be allowed under existing zoning. To develop: a primary /secondary unit, zoning requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. This lot measures 10,075 square feet. Exceptions can be made to this minimum lot size requirement if certain conditions are met. Among these conditions is the stipulation that no variances are granted for setbacks, heights, parking, site coverage, etc., unless the granting of such a variance would benefit the visual appearance of the site and of the surrounding area. There is no indication that granting this variance would improve the visual appearance of the site or the surrounding area. Consequently, the staff cannot recommend approval of this variance for the development of a primary/ secondary residence. The effect of the transportation an public safety. Miller -2- 11/23/83 equested variance on light and air, distribution of traffic public facilities and utilities There would be no negative impacts upon the.above. a ulation Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable_ to the proposed variance. -� FINDINGS 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 The strict or literal interpretation would result in practical difficulty with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinar the site of the variance that do not same zone. or more of the following reasons: and enforcement of the specified regulation or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent circumstances or conditions applicable to apply generally to other properties in the 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this request is denial. The primary /secondary zone does not allow for the development of a primary /secondary unit on a lot this -size without certain conditions being met. As previously stated, this application does not meet these conditions. Consequently, the development of a primary /secondary residence on.this site is not permitted under existing zoning. The size of the lot is simply not appropriate for the development of a primary/ secondary residence. The applicant has claimed physical hardship resulting from a sewer easement that M sects his property. Even with.this easement, there remains a building envelope adequate for developing a single family residence. The staff feels the applicant should re- evaluate his development objectives and consider con- ' structing a single family unit. The building envelope on this site is large enough to accommodate a structure of this type within existing setback requirements. i Corrected Nov. 30, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 22, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to amend Special Development District 6 (Vail Village Inn) to rezone the Amoco site from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation and to include the site into the SDD6, to amend the zoning code to increase the acreage, eliminate distance between buildings, amend the height section, amend the plan, increase the gross residential floor area and change the mix of accommodation units and condominium units, to request an exception to the parking and not have permanent parking for charter buses and to request a conditional use to permit meeting rooms and convention facilities. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. REQUEST There are several aspects to the request which will be presented throughout the memorandum. The main issues are noted below: 1. To rezone the Amoco site containing 23,522 square feet of land from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation zone. Also to include the property in an amended Special Development District #6. 2. To amend the criteria and language in Special Development District 6 for ! Phases IV and V. A. To amend the acres of land from 3.455 to 4.005 acres of land, to include the Amoco service station site. B. To amend the height section to reflect the new proposal for Phases IV and V. C. To amend the density section to 151,600 square feet of Cross Residential Floor Area plus 3,700 square feet for six employee housing units, -To state that there are four accommodation units in Phase II, 29 condominium units in Phase III, 185 accommodation units in Phase IV, and ten condomin- ium units in Phase V plus six employee units. D. To permit a parking exception where no less than 280 spaces would be within a structure. E. To request a conditional use permit to allow 16,611 square feet of conference facilities and meeting rooms. a F ' L� SDD 6 -2- 11/22/83 F. To permit 12,100 square feet of commercial type uses in Phase IV and 4,550 square feet of this type of use in Phase V. G. To request a parking exemption (a Town Council matter). H. To not provide for charter bus storage on site STATISTICS APPROVED SOD #6 1. Site area 3.455 acres 2. GRFA 100,000 sq ft 3. Residential The gross residentiai Density floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed in the special district shall not exceed one hundred thousand square feet. The gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units shall exceed the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed three hundred. 4. Commercial Phase I Phase II Phase III Bldg 4 Bldg 5 Phase IV Phase V existing -- 16,128 sq ft existing -- 6,473 sq ft existing -- 10,600 sq ft existing -- 3,810 sq ft existing -- 1,950 sq ft proposed -- 12,100 sq ft proposed -- 4,125 sq ft Total AMENDED cnn -4F 4.uvo acres 151,600 sq ft + 3,700 employee uiil is 1. Phase II - ex_ _sting 3,315 sq ft GRFA & 4 accommodation units 2. Phase III - existing 44,830 sq ft GRFA & 29 dwelling units 3. Phase IV proposed - 86,870 sq ft 185 accommodation units, and three employee units. 4. Phase V existin2 - 16,585 sq ft GRFA and 52 accommodation units. Proposed - 16,585 sq ft of GRFA and 10 condo units plus three employee units. 5. In Phases IV and V there would be 3,700 square feet of GRFA for five employee units. 16,128 sq ft 6,473 sq ft 10,600 sq ft 14,800 sq ft 6,850 sq ft 54,851 sq .ft * Amoco site has a 5,875 sq ft service station that would be removed. SDD 6 -3- 11/22/83 BACKGROUND Special Development District 6 was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council early in 1976. Since that time, Phases I, II and III have been constructed. An amended proposal that included the Amoco service station with Phases IV and V was presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 24, 1983 and .denial was recommended. Since that time, the applicant has submitted a new application to be reviewed and recommended on to Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission had a work session on the new proposal on November 7, 1983. Since that time the staff and Jeff Winston has been working with the applicant's architect to further reduce the mass and bulk of the proposal. REVIEW OF AMENDED SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 PROPOSAL 1. To include the Amoco site into SDD6. The proposal is to include the Amoco site containing 23,522 square feet of land into SDD6. Since this is the major entry into Vail, and there is an opportunity to include the property into the Vail Village Inn and have a landscaped open space, the staff considers this a positive part of the proposal. The stepping down of the proposed building and the landscaped areas will provide a positive experience for the visitor and will set the tone for the rest of the visitor's vacation in Vail. • 2. Bulk and Mass of Phases IV and V Since the Planning and Environmental Commission study session on the new proposal on November 7, there has been a further reduction in height of Phases IV and V. Along the South Frontage Road there is a step down from Phase III to a four story building, another step down to a three story building, and at the intersection of Vail Road and the frontage road is a three story building. With the proposal, the view corridor would change from Golden Peak to the Riva Ridge area of Vail Mountain. The approved Special Development District 6 also proposed a step down of buildings with a five story height to the east part of the property along the South Frontage Road, and a step down to three stories, then an entrance into the parking to the west. The Amoco service station further west was not part of the original SDD. The new factor is including the Amoco site into the proposal, and how that should be evaluated. The staff considers that the architect has done a successful job in stepping down the proposal toward Vail Road. Our concern at this time is the transition between Phases III and IV. Currently there SDD 6 -4- 11/22/83 is a one bay window wide area of approximately 54 feet in height between the phases. Because of the change in style of architecture between Phases III and IV, we would recommend that there be two bays wide of 54 feet in height. We consider that this would further reduce the tension between the two phases and architectural styles. Between the existing Building III and the property line, there is approximately six feet of space. If the proposal is approved, there should be a requirement that both Phase III and Phase IV abutt each other. A no- man's -land of six feet between buildings is not desirable, as it is difficult to maintain the building walls and the space could be a trash collection area. The view corridor would change with the proposed Phase IV. As noted previously, the approved view corridor is Golden Peak. Because of the height of the major element and first step down to the west along the South Frontage Road, there would no longer be a view of Golden Peak. The proposed view would be of Riva Ridge with the step down of the buildings to the four -way stop. The staff considers that there are trade -offs involved with the new proposal. The site has some development potential beyond a service station. We consider that including the service station, stepping the proposal down to the focus on the landscaped area and the view of Riva Ridge as background would provide a very good entrance to Vail. Phase IV along Vail Road has also been through several positive changes. First, there is a three story part next to the intersection of Vail Road and the South Frontage Road. Then a step up to five stories, then a series of steps down to East Meadow Mall. A landscaped area is proposed at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Mall. The previously approved SDD6 proposed a four story maximum along Vail Road with a step down to village scale along East Meadow Mall. Also, a landscape zone was proposed at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Mall. The staff considers that the applicant's architect has come a long way with this part of the proposal. The west wing is very close to the approved SDD. We would like to see a further step back of the five story area. The proposed mini park at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Mall with good berming and tall trees should further reduce the south side of this wing and screen the entrance into the parking garage along with the service and delivery area. The part of Phase IV that forms the north side of the plaza needs greater relief. The plaza area is a pedestrian area and this part of the building needs to have further articulation. This, if the proposal is approved, can be resolved at the Design Review Board meeting. 40 • C SDD 6 -5- 11/22/83 Phase V is a significant improvement over the original proposal. The concern here is retaining old Building Five for ten or fifteen years. The staff does consider that Building Five does not work well with the proposed Phase IV. We would like to see Building Five removed within the next couple of years if the proposal is approved. Proposed for Phase V is a two story building along East Meadow Mall. The building then steps back to a four story building off of the plaza. The previously approved SDD6 proposed a four story building at plaza level with a step down to East Meadow Mall. The proposal for Phase V does meet the intent of the height part of the approved SDD6. We consider that this is a very positive addition to the proposal and provides a very good transition between Phases I and II. 3. DENSITY Proposed for the entire revised SDD6 is 151,600 square feet of GRFA and 3,700 square feet of GRFA for employee housing units. The specifics of the proposal are: Phase type &.No. of Units Sq Ft 1. Phase II existing 4 accommodation units 3,315 2. Phase III existing 29 condo units 44,830 3. Phase IV proposed 185 accommodation units .86,870 Phase IV proposed 3 employee units 2,700 * 4. Phase V proposed 10 condo units 16,585 Phase V proposed 3 employee units 1,000 * Note: Building Five currently has 52 accommodation units and 16,585 square feet of GRFA. If the property were to be developed under the highest density permitted in any zone, there could be up to 139,217.76 square feet of GRFA. This would break down to 120,340 square feet for the currently approved SDD6 and 18,817 square feet of GRFA for the Amoco service station site. The staff can see where an argument can be made for the 139,217 square feet of GRFA. The problem arises with the additional 16,183 square feet of GRFA proposed for accommodation units, condos, and employee housing units. SDD6 -6- 11/22/83 • The staff is currently working on criteria which would permit the possibility of additional units and GRFA for accommodation units and GRFA for accommodation units and employee housing. This came about because of the positive response to the Sonnenalp proposal. The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council will review the direction we are proposing at a joint meeting on December 13th. The approved SDD6 density section states: 18.50.130 Density The gross residential floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed in thespecial district shall not exceed one hundred thousand square feet. The gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units shall exceed the gross residential area devoted to dwelling units. If total gross residential floor area is devoted to accommodation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed three hundred. The major restriction of the SDD6 was the 100,000 square feet of GRFA. At the time the SDD was approved in 1976 there were no restrictions on numbers of units per acre. The staff does not recommend that any additional GRFA above the 139,217 square feet of GRFA be approved. Again, we can see the argument for the 139,217 square feet of GRFA. We consider that for sound planning in Vail, criteria must be established if the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council want additional lodge rooms in Vail above the permitted density under the zoning. If there is no criteria established, favorable and unfavorable projects could receive additional accommodation units and additional GRFA. 4. COMMERCIAL Proposed for Phases IV and V are 21,650 square feet of commercial space. In Phase: IV there is 14,800 and in Phase V 6,850 square feet. Commercial Existing or Proposed 1. Phase I existing 16,128 sq ft 2. Phase II existing 6,473 3. Phase III existing 10,600 4. Phase IV proposed 14,800 5. Phase V proposed 6,850.. Total when all five phases complete 54,851 0 NOTE: There is in the existing Building 5,:1;950 square feet.commercial. SDD 6 _7- 11/22/83 �5. CONDITIONAL. USES Requested as a conditional use is 16,611 feet of meeting rooms and convention facilities. The proposed use is definitely compatible with the hotel use and would be supported by the staff. Criteria and Findinas Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department 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 area is designated for hotel use under the approved SDD6 and amended SDD. Conventions and meeting rooms are a needed part of a quality hotel. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, trans- portation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. No additional impacts by the proposed conditional use anticipated. Effect upon 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. Since most of the people using the convention space will probably be staying at the hotel, there should be no additional congestion. 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 surrounding uses. - — — — The scale and bulk of the proposed hotel in which the conference space is located is discussed previously in the memorandum. With some minor modifications to Phase IV, the proposal would be acceptable to the staff. 6. PARKING Proposed for SDD 6 are 280 parking spaces to be located under Phases III and IV. Currently, there are 109 parking spaces in Phase III. Phase IV would contain 171 spaces. Until Phase V is constructed, there would be eight outside spaces remaining. The staff considers that 280 spaces would be adequate for the entire SDD6. Most of the commercial shopping users would and are currently parking . at the Vail Transportation Center. We feel that this is where the shoppers should park. SDD -8- 11/23/83 In order to reduce the number to 280 spaces, a parking exemption would 4 need to be approved by a resolution of Town Council. Prior to the exemption, the Town Council must determine the following: 1. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the town at large; 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the town; 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted; 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; for provision of adequate loading facilities and for a system for distribution and pickup of goods; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, loading and distribution facilities shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs generated by all uses in the area to be exempted. If the Town Council approves the exemption, the applicant will be required to pay into the parking fund for the additional spaces required for the entire site. NOTE: The staff has no record that an exemption was previously given for this site. Charter bus parking on site is another requirement of the SDD. The applicant is requesting that this be deleted as a requirement. The staff agrees that charter buses should be parked off site. Currently there are two locations for charter bus parking in Vail. Loading area for the site seems adequate. There are some design considerations that need to be resolved at the Design Review Board meeting if approved. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This memorandum is not going through a detail point by point analysis of the environmental impact report. In our view, there are conflicting statements in the report. 11 SDD -9- 11/23/83 i r' RECOMMENDATION At this time the Community Development Department still cannot completely recommend approval of the amended SDD6. We consider that there have been many positive steps taken to reduce the bulk and mass along Vail Road. There still could be some minor changes that would improve this part of Phase IV. Along the South Frontage Road there have also been some positive improvements. Again a change previously discussed would improve this area. The staff is pleased with Phase V. We feel that it ties together well with Phases I and II and with the proposed Phase IV. The major concern with the proposal is the additional GRFA requested. The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council should determine whether criteria should be established to allow additional GRFA and accommodation units. Until the criteria is established, we do not consider that any additional GRFA above the 139,217 be granted. The staff: considers that the redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn and the Amoco site is positive for Vail. We would like to work with.the applicant and his architect to resolve the problems and come back with a positive response. If the Planning and Environmental Commission is to recommend approval to the Town Council on the rezoning, amended SDD6 and conditional use request, the staff would suggest the following: First, findings why the rezoning request should be approved: 1. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehiclular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets; 2. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values; 3. To encourage a harmonious, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives; 4. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town; 5. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Second, to recommend approval of'thel;:amended''SDD there should be findings. Findings on the bulk and mass, height, view corridor, parking, density regarding both units and GRFA, and eliminating the charter bus parking. If additional GRFA is approved, the PEC should state specific reasons. Third, to approve the conditional use for the convention space, the following findings should be found: 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 provisions of this ordinance. • SDD 6 -10- 11/23/83 Fourth, that Phase T be started and completed during the next three to five it years. Fifth, that the applicant dedicate the landscaped land to the Town of Vail at the corner of Vail Road and the South Frontage Road, and at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Sixth, that the PEC relate to the DRB any concerns regarding design issues. Examples noted in the memorandum are wall of phase IV on the plaza and the service and delivery..,area. Seventh, that the PEC approve the Environmental Impact Report Eighth, that the applicant agree to participate and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if formed for the four -way stop. Ninth, that Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates be involved in the review of Design Review requirements and present those positive and negative concerns to the Board. As noted in the SDD 6 the applicant would be responsible for Mr. Winston's fees. 0 • r� MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Community Development Department DATE: November 22, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to amend Special Development District 6 (Vail Village Inn) to rezone the Amoco site from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation and to include the site into the SDD6, to amend the zoning code to increase the acreage, eliminate distance between buildings, amend the height section, amend the plan, increase the gross residential floor area and change the mix of accommodation units and condominium units, to request an exception to the parking and not have permanent parking for charter buses and to request a conditional use to permit meeting rooms and convention facilities. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. P.EOUES_T There are several aspects to the request which will be presented throuq' out the rarorandum. The main issues are noted below: 1. To rezone the Amoco site containing 23,52.2 square feet of land from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation zone. Also to include the property in an amended Special Development District r6. 2. To amend the criteria and language in Special Developilient District 6 for Phases IV and V. A. To amend the acres of land from 3.455 to 4.005 acres of land, to include the Amoco service station site. B. C. D To amend the height section to reflect the new proposal for Phases IV and V. To ai,end the density section to 153,130 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area plus 3,700 square feet for six employee housir'(. units in Phase II, 29 units. condoirrir- um state that there are four accommodation 189 accommodation units in'Phase IV, and-ten condomin -. units in Phase III, P_ llJ:. :1,'..`_. 111 P �1 p1 LS S;): 11 lob "',' {hits. i d L 10 �1C 1 ",.,,t a T;al' l31C7 o>:Ce -- ion i;h�: -e !1� 1's's than 280 S is .'� �![?,< within a structure., To r.:; t a conditional use per�;it to alIow 11,475 square fe t of C,)e nfrence LJ SDD 6 -2- 11/22/83 F. To permit 12,100 square feet of commercial type uses in Phase IV and 4,550 square feet of this type of use in Phase V. G. To request a parking exemption (a Town Council matter). N. To not provide for charter bus storage on site STATISTICS APPROVED - -- - -- -- SDD #6 1. Site area 3.455 acres 2. GRFA 100,000 sq ft 3. Residential The gross residential Density floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed in the special district shall not exceed one hundred thousand square feet. The gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units shall exceed the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units, the number of accon;nodation units shall not exceed three hundred. 4. Commercial Phase I Phase II Phase III Bldg 4 Bldg 5 Phase IV Phase V' existing -- 16,128 sq ft existing --- 6,473 sq ft existing -- 10,600 sq ft existing- - 3,810 sq ft existing -- 1,950 sq ft proposed -- 12,100 sq ft proposed -- 4,125 sq ft AMENDED SDD P6 153,130 sq ft + 3,700 employee uni I's 1. Phase II - existi_pa 3,315 sq ft GRFA & 4 accommodation units 2. Phase III - ex-istinq 44,830 sq ft GRFA & 29dwelling units 3. Phase IV proposed - 88,400 sq ft 189 accommodation units, and three employee units. 4. Phase V existing - 16,505 sq ft GRFA and 52 accommodation units. Proposed - 16,585 sq ft of GRFA and 10 condo units plus three employee units. 5. In Phases IV and V there would be 3,700 square feet of GRFA for five employee units. 16,128 sq ft 6,473 sq ft 10,600 sq ft 12,100 sq ft 4,125 sq -' ft M .. 5,S/:-; �Q!Jdre { � S_rVlr�e sl6tloli that wo'Lild he reproved. BACKGROUND . Special Development District 6 was Cor,, ,mi ss i on and the Town council ea II and III have been constructed. service station with Phases IV and Commission on October 24, 1983 and SDD 6 -3- 11/22/83 approved by the Planning and Environmental rly in 1976. Since that time, Phases I, An amended proposal that included the Amoco V was presented to the Planning and Environmental denial was recommended. Since that time, the applicant has submitted a new application to be reviewed and recommended on to Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission had a work session on the new proposal on November 7, 1983. Since that time the staff and Jeff Winston has been working with the applicant's architect to further reduce the mass and bulk of the proposal. REVIEW OF AMENDED SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 PROPOSAL 1. To include the Amoco site into SDD6. The proposal is to include the Amoco site containing 23,522 square feet of land into SDD6. Since this is the major entry into Vail, and there is an opportunity to include the property into the Vail Village Inn and have a landscaped open space, the staff considers this a positive part of the proposal. The stepping down of the proposed building and the landscaped areas will provide a positive experience for the visitor and will set the tone for the rest of the visitor's vacation in Vail. 0 2. Bulk and Mass of Phases IV and V • Since the Planning and Environmental Commission study proposal on November 7, there has been a further redu Phases IV and V. Along the South Frontage Road there Phase III to a four story building, another step down and at the intersection of Vail Road and the frontage building. With the proposal, the view corridor would Peak to the Riva Ridge area of Vail Mountain. session on the new ction in height of is a step down from to a three story building, road is a three story change from Golden The approved Special Development District 6 also proposed a step down of buildings with a five story height to the east part of the property along the South Frontage Road, and a step down to three stories, then an entrance into the parking to the west. The Amoco service station further west was not part,of the original SDD. ThL- rr `uc:tar is incl u -�i ng the Airoco site into the proposal , and hoer that should be evaluated. The staff considers that the architect..has.done a successful job in stepping down the proposal toward Vail Road. Our concern at tr.41s ti:�e is thy- trLr ;sition between Phases III and IV. Currently there SDD 6 -4- 11/22/83 is a one bay window wide area of approximately 54 feet in height between the phases. Because of the change in style of architecture between Phases . III and IV, we would recommend that there be two bays wide of 54 feet in height. We consider that this would further reduce the tension between the two phases and architectural styles. Between the existing Building III and the property line, there is approximately six feet of space. If the proposal is approved, there should be a requirement that both Phase III and Phase IV abutt each other. A no- man's -land of six feet between buildings is not desirable, as it is difficult to maintain the building walls and the space could be a trash collection area. The view corridor would change with the proposed Phase IV. As noted previously, the approved view corridor is Golden Peak. Because of the height of the major element and first step down to the west along the South Frontage Road, there would no longer be a view of Golden Peak. The proposed view would be of Riva Ridge with the step down of the buildings to the four -way stop. The staff considers that there are trade -offs involved with the new proposal. The site has some development potential beyond a service station. We consider that including the service station, stepping the proposal down to the focus on the landscaped area and the view of Riva Ridge as background would provide a very good entrance to Vail. Phase IV along Vail Road has also been through several positive changes. First, there is a three story part next to the intersection of Vail Road and the South Frontage Road. Then a step up to five stories, then a series of steps down to East Meadow Mall. A landscaped area is proposed at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Mall. The previously approved SDD6 proposed a four story maximum along Vail Road with a step down to village scale along East Meadow Mall. Also, a landscape zone was proposed at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Mall. The staff considers that the applicant's architect has come a long way with this part of the proposal. The west wing is very close to the approved SDD. We would like to see a further step back of the five story area. The proposed mini park at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Mall with good berming and tall trees should further reduce the south side of this wing and screen the entrance into the parking garage along with the service and delivery area. 1. The part of Phase Ill that form's the 'north side of the "pl aza " e`eds, greater" relief. The plaza area is a ped�,strian area and this part of the building r; ,-ec, 1-0 ha'.e fug -then° articulation. This, if the proposal is approved, can be resolved at the Design Review Board meeting. U SDD 6 -5- 11/22/83 • Phase V is a significant improvement over the original proposal. The concern here is retaining old Building Five for ten or fifteen years. The staff does consider that Building Five does not work well with the proposed Phase IV. We would like to see Building Five removed within the next couple of years if the proposal is approved. Proposed for Phase V is a two story building along East Meadow Mall. The building then steps back to a four story building off of the plaza. • The previously approved SDD6 proposed a four story building at plaza level with a step down to East Meadow Mall. The proposal for Phase V does meet the intent of the height part of the approved SDD6. We consider that this is a very positive addition to the proposal and provides a very good transition between Phases I and H. 3. DENSITY Proposed for the entire revised SDD6 is 153,130 square feet of GRFA and 3,700 square feet of GRFA for employee housing units. The specifics of the proposal are: 1. Phase iI existing 2. Phase =I1 existing 3. Phase iV proposed Phase IV proposed * 4. Phase V proposed Type & No. of -- U ' nits 4 accommodatio units 3,315 29 condo units 44,830 189 accommodation units 88,400 3 employee units 2,700 10 condo units 16,585 Phase V proposed 3 employee units 11000 * Note: Building Five currently has 52 accommodation units and 16,585 square feet of GRFA. If the propc-ty ... -ere to be developed under the highest density permitted in ar,,J zo!,e, there could be up to 139,217.76 square -eet of GRFA. This would break -own to 120,340 square feet for the currently approved SDD6 and 18, 17 square feet of GRFA fo.r the Amoco service station site. The staff carp see t-.here an arguinent can be wade for the 139.217 square feet of _ -T,. T ro e,,3 arises r,ith the add i ±ir,n 7 F13 s <.ruare feet of .,nits, cord. , d t ioy_.� housing SDD6 -6- 11/22/83 • The staff is currently working on criteria which would permit the possibility of additional units and GRFA for accommodation units and GRFA for accommodation units and employee housing. This came about because of the positive response to the Sonnenalp proposal. The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council will review the direction we are proposing at a joint meeting on Deceimber 13th. The approved SDD6 density section states: 18.50.130 Density The gross residential floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed in thespecial district shall not exceed one hundred thousand square feet. The gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units shall exceed the gross residential area devoted to dwelling units. If total gross residential floor area is devoted to accommodation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed three hundred. The major restriction of the SDD6 was the 100,000 square feet of GRFA. At the tir:e the SDD was approved in 1976 there were no restrictions on numbers of units per acre. Tke staff does not recommend that any additional GRFA above the 139,217 square feet of GRFA be approved. Again, we can see the argument for the 139,217 square feet of GRFA. We consider that for sound planning in Vail, criteria must be established if the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council want additional lodge rooms in Vail above the permitted density under the zoning. If there is no criteria established, favorable and unfavorable projects could receive additional accommodation units and additional GRFA. 4. COMMERCIAL Proposed for Phases IV and V are 16,650 square feet of commercial space. in Phase IV there is 12,100 and in Phase V 4,550 square feet. Commercial Existir:a or Proposed 1. Phase I existing_ 16,128 sq ft Phase II exist ir(1 6,473 Fr.:se III _xisti;IQ 10,600 -. P'—. se iV _ fl!;OS d 12,100 Phase V. i'aposed 4,560 -ota, ,lhen all five o�Ia_ 's con:L., _ t e 49,851 • I '.1i ';' =i.15 iIiU D1;1 V( 1fi J, l,��ll S U3 e 1fF't C' 'T r'C SDD 6 -7- 11/22/83 5. CONDITIONAL USES Requested as a conditional use is 11,475 feet of meeting rooms and convention facilities. The proposed use is definitely compatible with the hotel use and would be supported by the staff. Criteria and_Find7nqs Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department 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 area is designated for hotel use under the approved SDD6 and amended SDD. Conventions and meeting rooms are a needed part of a quality hotel. The effect_ of the use _o_n_light and air, distribution 2f a ulation, trans- - portation facilities , _utilities, schools, arks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. No additional impacts by the proposed conditional use anticipated. . Effect up ra on tffic with articular reference to concestion, automotive and _pedestrian safety_ and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of _snow from the street areas. Since most of the people using the convention space will probably be staying at the hotel, there should be no additional congestion. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, Ap cluding the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surroundinq uses. The scale and bulk of the proposed hotel in which the conference space is located is discussed previously in the memorandum. With some minor modifications to Phase IV, the proposal would be acceptable to the staff. 6. PARKING _.. Proposed for SDD 6 are 280 parking spaces to be located under Phases III and IV. Currently, there are 109 parking spaces in Phase III. Phase IV would contain 171 spaces. Until Phase V is constructed, there would be eight outside spaces remaining. Thu staff considers that 280 spaces would be adequate for the entire SDD6. • m10 st of the coimtnercial shopping users would and are currently parking at the Vail Transportation Center. We feel that this is where the shoppers should park. SDD -8-- 11/23/83 • In order to reduce the numher to 280 spaces, a parking exemption would need to be approved by a r(,solution of Town Council. Prior to the exemption, the Town Council must det,•riaine the following: 1. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the town at large; 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the town; 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted; 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; for provision of adequate loading facilities and for a system for distribution and pickup of goods; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, loading and distribution facilities shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs generated by all uses in the area to be exempted. If the Town Council approves the exemption, the applicant will be required to pay into the parking fund for the additional spaces required for the entire site. NOTE: The staff has no record that an exemption was previously given for this site. Charter bus parking on site is another requirement of the SDD. The applicant is requesting that this be deleted as a requirement. The staff agrees that charter buses should be parked off site. Currently there are two locations for charter bus parking in Vail. Loading area for the site seems adequate. There are some design considerations that need to be resolved at the Design Review Board meeting if approved. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This memorandum is not going through a detail point by point analysis of the environmental impact report. In. our. view, there. are conflicting state ,,-.en.ts,,. in the report. n U • SDD -9- 11/23/83 RECOMMENDATION At this time the Community Development Department still cannot completely recommend approval of the amended SDD6. We consider that there have been many positive steps taken to reduce the bulk and mass along Vail Road. There still could be some minor changes that would improve this part of Phase IV. Along the South Frontage Road there have also been some positive improvements. Again a change previously discussed would improve this area. The staff is pleased with Phase V. We feel that it ties together well with Phases I and II and with the proposed Phase IV. The major concern with the proposal is the additional GRFA requested. The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council should determine whether criteria should be established to allow additional GRFA and accommodation units. Until the criteria is established, we do not consider that any additional GRFA above the 139,217 be granted. The staff considers that the redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn and the Amoco site is positive for Vail. We would like to work with the applicant and his architect to resolve the problems and come back with a positive response. If the Planning and Environmental Commission is to recommend approval to the Town Council on the rezoning, amended SDD6 and conditional use request, the staff would suggest the following: First, findings why the rezoning request should be approved: 1. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehiclular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets; 2. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values; 3. To encourage a harmonious, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives; 4. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town; 6. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Second, to recommend approval of th& amended:,SDD there should be findings. Findings on the bulk and mass, height, view corridor, parking, density regarding both units and GRFA, and eliminating the charter bus parking. If additional GRFA is approved, the PFC should state specific reasons. Third_, to approve the conditional use 'For the convention space, the following indings should be found: at the proposed 1..�' ^,- .:-'•yr:...- •_.ia ..loocation �, ..;�...: _: of the use is in accord with �i_. �:•:Y,: . -a -... -aY ^':ier., ?:;.�::. �. ;. a'�.e -•: ,: ^. aT- ';: . -., ,•.i .._... -•, •;.o .r the purpose's 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 mai6ta -ined 'Would giot' 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. SDD 6 -10- 11/23/83 Fourth, that Phase V be started and co mpleted during the next three to five . years. Fifth, that the applicant dedicate the landscaped land to the Town of Vail at the corner of Vail Road and the South Frontage Road, and at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Sixth, that the PEC relate to the DRB any concerns regarding design issues. Examples noted in the memorandum are wall of Phase IV on the plaza and the service and delivery area. Seventh, that the PEC approve the Environmental Impact Report Eighth, that the applicant agree to participate and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if formed for the four -way stop. Ninth, that Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates be involved in the review of Design Review requirements and present those positive and negative concerns to the Board. As noted in the SDD 6 the applicant would be responsible for Mr. Winston's fees. • Planning and Environmental Commission December 12, 1983 1:00 pm Site Inspections 2:00 pm Public Hearing I. Appointment of member to the Design Review Board for January, February and March. 2. Approval of minutes of November 14 and November 28 meetings. 3. Request for a rezoning of Lot 1, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition, Vail East Townhomes, from Low Density Multi - Family to Duplex. Applicant: Vail East Lodging Association, Inc. 4. Request to rezone Lots 1 through 6, C1iffside Subdivision from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. Applicants: Richard N. Brown, Charles Rosenquist, Margaret Rosenquist, David Cole and Daryl Burns. 5. Request for modification to the floodplain in order to re -align East Mill Creek in order to build a new ski base facility at Golden Peak and still preserve the creek. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 6. Request for an exterior alteration to One Vail Place in order to enclose an area to be used as a radio head -set rental outlet. Applicants: Vail Associates /Stephen Communications 7. Preliminary review of exterior alterations of the following buildings: a. Landmark Condomiums, Unit 701, to increase loft area. Applicant: Lonnie Williams b. Concert Hall Plaza, to add 4 condominium units which would add a third floor to the building. Applicant: Selby -Tofel Associates C. Treetops Condomiums, new retail plaza above the parking structure. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association d. 600 Lionshead Mall - bottom of Chair #8, temporary ticket office Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. e. Red Lion Inn, to install portable plexiglas windows for the west wall. Applicant: Joseph L. Kelemen f. Cyrano's, greenhouse enclosure over south deck. Applicant: Bud Parks g. Valentino's Restaurant, Plaza Building, greenhouse enclosure over part of west deck area. Applicant: Bridge Street Restaurant Assoc. h. Village Center, new retail addition Applicant: Fred Hibberd PRESENT Diana Donovan Jim Morgan Gordon Pierce Duane Piper Howard Rapson Will Trout Jim Viele Planning and Environmental Commission December 12, 1983 STAFF PRESENT Dick Ryan Peter Patten Tom Braun Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 2:15 pm. 1. Appointment of member to the Desi n Review Board for Januar , February and March. Diana Donovan volunteered for these months. 2. Approval of minutes of November 14 and November 28 meetings. Approved. 3. Request for a rezoning of Lot 1, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition, Vail East Townhomes, from Low Density Multi -Famil to Duplex.. Applicant: Vail East Lodging Association, Inc. Dick Ryan presented the request. Ken Wentworth, representing Vail East Lodging Association, showed site and topo maps and explained that originally he had wanted to ask for a variance, but after talking with the staff, decided to ask for the rezoning. He pointed out the table that showed that the GRFA with the rezoning would be less than with LDMF zoning. Wentworth stated that the two adjoining units did not have ownership of the parking spaces. He added that there were 201 parking spaces in an adjacent area which could handle overflow parking. Much of the discussion following concerned finding a solution to the parking problem in the neighborhood, or possibly accessing through the Pitkin Creek Park development. Dale McCall, President of the Vail East Lodging Association, stated that his company had not policed this lot as far as who parked there. Wentworth stated that the applicant was willing to rent spaces to people on the lower lot. Larry Eskwith volunteered the information that if one can trespass for 18 years, the property becomes his, called adverse possession, but the possession must be proven by the trespasser. McCall felt that problem of parking for the two adjacent units was not the applicant's to solve. Donovan felt that it would become the Town's problem, and Morgan felt that the Town could not make a private land owner solve the Town's problem. A letter from Dan Lacy, one of the adjacent property owners, opposing the zone change was read. Tim Jones, another adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition stating that the applicant was simplifying the parking problem. He stated that he did park in the street, not on the Vail East lot. He added that there were 6 or 7 cars each nite parked in the subject lot because of the slope. He felt that if the lot were developed, those 6 or 7 cars would be parking in front of his home. Rapson felt that the owner of these two lots should not be left with the problem owned by Vail East Lodging. Wentworth stated that the Lacy house was part way onto the subject lot. k PEC 12/12/83 -2- McCall stated that except during Christmas week, there was no parking problem. Patten reminded the commissioners that they were merely considering a rezoning, not the approval of the removal of parking. He added that there could not be any reduction of parking unless there were excess spaces available on site. Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the request to recommend rezoning to the Town Council. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 4. Request to rezone Lots 1 throu h 5, Cliffside Subdivision from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. Applicants: Richard N. Brown, Charles Rosenquist, Margaret Rosenquist, David Cole and Daryl Burns. Peter Patten presented the proposal explaining that the staff felt that single family zoning was more appropriate for this subdivision but only with site restrictions. Single Family zoning would allow more GRFA, and there would not be any slope restrictions. He showed a site plan and explained that the road from lot 4 to lot 5 was a 16% grade (the Town allows 8%), and he stressed the concern that there not be any building along the ridge line. George Rosenberg, representing the applicants, read the staff's recommendation in the December 1981 memo, and added that no restrictions were placed at that time. He pointed out that the adjacent owners knew development could take place on the subject property. He maintained that to rezone, an applicant did not need to bring in plans of how he might develop the property. Bill Post, representing the Ridge at Vail property owners stated that it was true that the staff originally recommended rezoning, but that at that time no • notice was given to adjacent property owners. He stated that his clients did not object to the rezoning as long as 1) the lots would not be accessed from the top, and 2) as long as there was no building visible on the ridge line (since they themselves had not built on the ridgeline, as required by the Town. He stated that if the property is zoned Single Family they will have certain rights, and now was the time to place restrictions that were needed. He felt that besides the restriction that the staff had recommended, that of not having any structure, improvement or increase grade occuring at the ridge line, that the lots should not be allowed access from the top ( at least lots 3, 4, and 5). Craig Snowdon, architect for The Ridge, showed some studies that had been done to see what the impact would be if there were single story buildings constructed, including the build -up of the road to have access to lots 4 and 5. Pierce agreed with the opposition, that if the rezoning were approved, that there be restrictions. Larry Eskwith added that there could be restrictions to protect adjacent property owners as long as they were reasonable. Morgan felt the restrictions should be specific. Viele concurred, adding that without the restrictions, this could be grossly unfair to the adjacent property owners. He felt that to restrict access so that it came from below was entirely consistent. Donovan asked about the road to Lot 1, and was told that it must remain. Rapson stated that development on lot 1 would not intrude on the ridge line. Ra son moved to approve the request to rezone per the staff memo. The motion died for lack of a second. After more discussion, Trout moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request with the staff condition and also the condition that lots 3, 4, and 5 be accessed from the lower road. The vote was 5 in favor with Piper and Morgan abstaining. 5. • PEC 12/12/83 -3- A letter was read from Hydro -Triad in which they stated that they were in favor of the modification and recommended certain sizes, depths, and shapes of culvert.and diversion channel. Patten stated that Bill Andrews, town engineer, was not opposed to the modification to the floodplain, and in fact would like to divert more of Mill Creek to East Mill Creek than is presently allowed. Patten added that the PEC concern about the stream being re- exposed to the surface on the east end of the parking lot was discussed with Council on Decem- ber 6, and Council felt that this area was needed for snow storage and the stream should be culverted in this location. Joe Macy,.represening Vail,. Associates, stated that the requested measures recommended by Hydro -Triad were incorporated into into the development plan and would be implemented as recommended. He added that VA was also willing to work with Bill Andrews to address his concerns. Trout questioned how the figures were arrived at in the Hydro -Triad table of estimated peak flow rates. Macy said that they would soon have two years of data to use. Donovan was concerned that the culvert would become a place for kids to play and for trash to collect, and that there was a long culvert between the Texas Townhouses and Manor Vail that would be affected by increased run -off. Piper felt that perhaps a berm would help hide the ditch. Viele moved and Ra son seconded to approve the request er the staff memo. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 6. Request for an exterior alteration to One Vail Place in order to enclose an area to be used as a radio head -set rental Outlet. Applicants: Vail ssociates /Stephen Communications Tom Braun presented the staff memo adding that on November 14, the commission reviewed a similar proposal for Lionshead, and that this request was merely to modify an existing space at One Vail place. Joe Macy felt that there would not be major impact, because of the location being in an existing building, and he added that all phones would be relocated along an existing wall. Donovan felt that the corner which would be affected was a very busy one, and Macy answered that it was felt that there was more room in that location for the rental outlet. Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 6 in favor with one Ra son against. Rapson felt that there would be too much congestion in the area. • • PEC 12/12/83 -4- 7. Preliminary review of exterior alterations to decide length of _review period. 60 day: Landmark Condomiums, Unit 701, to increase loft area. Applicant: Lonnie Williams Treetops Condominius, new retail plaza above the parking.structure. Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association 600 Lionshead Mall -- bottom of Chair #8, tem orar ticket office Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 90 day: Concert Hall Plaza, add 4 condo units which would add a third floor to the building. Applicant: Selby -Tofel Associates Red Lion Inn, to instai1 ortable plexiglas windows in west wall. Applicant: Joseph L. Kelemen C,yrano's, greenhouse enclosure over south deck. Applicant: Bud Parks Val_entineo's Restaurant, Plaza Building' greenhouse enclosure over part . of west deck area. Applicant: Bridge Street Restaurant Assoc. Vi.1lage Center, new retail addition. Applicant: Fred Hibberd r� MEMORANDUM December 9, 1983 To; Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request of Vail East Townhomes, a Resubdivision of Lot 3 and the South 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision, Third Addition (Amended) from Low Density Multi - Family to Two Family Residential District. Applicant: Vail East Lodging Association, Inc. REQUEST To rezone approximately 20,860 square feet of land from Low Density Multi - Family to Two Family Residential District. The reason for this rezoning is to construct a duplex on the site. The applicants have provided in the attachments their reasons for the request and a comparison chart of what could be built under the current LDMF zoning and proposed Two Family Residential Zoning. BACKGROUND This lot is located north of Bighorn Road with access from Spruce Way. There was a resubdivision of this lot in 1979 where part of Lot 2 was added to Lot 3 of Bighorn Subdivision Third Addition and called Lot 1 Vail East Townhomes. Most of this area was developed in Eagle County before annexation to the Town of Vail, with the exception of Pitkin Creek Park Condominiums. To the west of the subject property are the Pitkin Creek Park Condominiums. To the north across Spruce Way are the Vail East Townhomes and to the east are two small units. Currently located on the subject property are a wood shed which could be a Western Slope Gas meter location, parking for six cars and a trash dumpster. Also, there is a high pressure gas line right along the north property line. The six parking spaces are probably for the two units to the aeast since these units have just about been constructed on the front property line. A concern of the staff is, where will the residents of the two.units to the east park once this property is developed? There is no room for parking on their land and no vacant land to park on in the vicinity. CRITERIA EVALUATION Suitability of Existinq Zonin Because the Low Density Multi- Family zone does not permit development on over 40% slope, it would be extremely if not possible to develop this lot. The owner has certain rights to use the property and to develop • the land. Unless there are extreme circumstances such as avalanche, flood plain or access problems, some development rights have to be given to an owner of a lot. Vail East Lodging -2- 12/9/83 The Two Family Residential District permits the development of two units is on the property. The slope restrictions do not apply to this zone, and the lot seems suitable for two units. 2. Is the rezoning presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land The property does not directly abutt buildings that are of significantly higher use. To the west is a parking lot with the Pitkin Creek Park building #14, 75 to 100 feet apart from the proposed duplex. To the east are two small units on part of Lot 2. The major mass of the proposed duplex would be on the southern part of the lot where there is a bench and is the flatter part of the site. 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? The rezoning does not regatively impact the area. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested rezoning of this property. We would like to see the property owner work with the owner of property to the east to see if there is a solution to the future parking problem. • I REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES op Lot 1, Vail East Townhomes Vail, Colorado • SETBACKS front (minimum) rear HEIGHT flat roof (maximum) pitched ro DENSITY GRFA (maximum) Units SITE COVERAGE (maximum) LANDSCAPING (minimum) PARKING (if built to maximum) COMPARISON CHART Two Family LDMF Residential Dist. Special Requirements (Current Zoning) (Proposed Zoning) For Hazard Regulations 20' 20' No required front set - 20' 15' backs for garages except as may be required by the Design Review Board. of 35 38 4500 sq.ft. 3 7301 sq.ft. 8344 sq.ft. 0 30 33 4336 sq.ft. 2 4172 sq.ft. 12,516 sq.ft 5 3129 sq.ft. Driveway and parking limited to 2086 sq.ft. Minimum, 1 covered parking space required each unit. A The subject parcel is currently zoned !_ow Density Multiple Family (LDMF). Exhibit 1 shows that with the slope restrictions and setbacks imposed by that zone district, the parcel becomes virtually unbuildable, even though it is not a difficult site to build on. Our request is that the zoning be changed to Two f=amily Residential District which would coincide with the area to the south across Bighorn Road, and northeast across Spruce Way. There are areas of over 40% slope on the lot and thus, the Hazard Regulations do apply. The longest dimension of over 40% slope (measured down the fall line) is only 41 feet, and as such, we do not feel that it constitutes a "hazard" in the true sense. . As my.be seen in the attached Comparison Chart, the requested zoning would reduce the allowed GRFA from 4500 square feet to 4336, and also reduce the allowed number of dwelling units from 3 to 2. Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 illustrate a potential building that could go on the lot, using the requested rezoning. �i'::: ._h'r'. -:.. y!\:. �,_- •J,f: ^. � .'f':.. s 0 s MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Rezoning request for Lots 1 -6, Cliffside Subdivision from Residential Cluster (RC) to Single Family Residential (SFR). Applicants: Richard Brown, Charles and Margaret Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl Burns BACKGROUND As some of you know, this is not the first time this item has come up. In fact, this will be the third time the rezoning has come before the Planning and Environ - mental Commission. The only thing different this time around is that Lot 6 is now included, which means we're talking about the entire subdivision of six lots. Basically, the rezoning means Lots 1 -5 receive the same number of units (1), but slightly more GRFA. Lot 6 would receive two less units (slope calculated on a very approximate basis) and less GRFA under the rezoning proposal. The main advantage to the property owners is the lifting of the slope restrictions by going from RC to SFR. The bottom line is that Cliffside was a very poorly planned subdivision. The lots are, for the most part, very small and very steep, the accesses to several lots are unworkable, and construction on the top part of lots 4 and 5 will intrude upon the ridgeline. The applicants wish to rezone the subdivision to SFR without restriction, and this is where the controversy comes is. The Planning and Environ- mental Commission and staff, as you can see from the previous memos and minutes, wish to impose restrictions upon the development on Lots 3, 4 and 5. It is important that you read all of the attached information carefully so you're clear on the past occurrences. Since nothing has really changed in terms of the applicants demonstrating that construction can sensitively take place on lots 3, 4, and 5, our staff position remains basically the same. CRITERIA EVALUATION The criteria for evaluating rezonings are found in the purpose section of Chapter 18.02 General Provisions. 1. Suitability of Existinq Zonin The RC zone was devised for a townhouse -type development and was never intended to serve as the zone for individual lot development. The reason RC was designated for Cliffside was the original zoning of West Vail upon annexation didn't allow for thorough study of each parcel, and Cliffside was surrounded by RC zoning. The slope restrictions of the RC zone basically make several lots in Cliffside unbuildable- -and this is not our intention. The existing zoning is not really suited to the property. Cliffside W2- 12/8/83 2. Is the Rezoning Presenting a Convenient, Workable Relationship Amon Land Uses? The Cliffside Subdivision should be zoned the same, as.it.is a unified neighborhood. No surrounding properties will be injured by the rezoning due to proximity and similar land use in the area. 3. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly and Viable Community? The rezoning, with the condition recommended by staff, will provide for sensible and sensitive development of the remainder of the subdivision. The elimination of two units on Lot 6 is a plus for the community. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the rezoning of Cliffside Subdivision from RC to SFR, but only with the following condition: No structure, improvement or increase grade whall occur at a height greater than the existing elevation at any point on the back property line which is the common property line with the Ridge at Vail subdivision. • I y MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: March 16, 1982 SUBJECT: Request to rezone Cliffside Subdivision, Lots 1 -5, from existing Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. Applicants: Charles Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl R. Burns, Richard N. Brown RACYCIR011ND On December 14, 1981 the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended unani- mously to Town Council that Cliffside Subdivision, Lots 1 -5, be rezoned to Single Family Residential. There was concern from several commissioners that views from The Ridge at Vaal Townhomes not be blocked by development on lots 4 and 5 of Cliff- side. However, the Planning Commission generally felt that this view question could be handled at the Design Review Board level. On January 5, 1982 the Town Council considered on first reading Ordinance 1, Series of 1982 - -the ordinance to rezone Cliffside. Craig Snowdon, project architect for The Ridge at Vail townhomes spoke at the meeting about his concern that the development on lots 4 and 5 of Cliffside take place down the hill enough so that views from the townhomes would not be affected, especially since the single family district allowed the structures to be sited with more flexibility. The Council passed the ordinance unanimously with the direction to staff to include language regarding the protection of views from the townhomes. After the January 5 meeting of Council, it was discovered that the applicants had given incorrect information regarding the owner and address of the adjacent property, thus insufficient public notice had taken place. Public notice was going to be waived by The Ridge at Vail representatives if a mutually agreeable solution to the view issue could be arrived at. Craig Snowdon then conducted a view analysis using possible sites for structures under both RC and SFR zoning. It was discovered at this point that very little thought went into the design of the subdivision with regard to access for both lots 4 and 5. The study showed that to meet 8% driveway grade restrictions that the garage structures would be very high on the ridge and seriously affect almost every view from the townhome units. At this point it was decided that the matter should go back through the process so that correct public notice could be givers and so that the view question could be more.completely considered by the Planning Commission. Enclosed is the previous memorandum with the recommendation deleted. The new re- commendation is as follows: Clifi'sic.l�....,:;r:? -Z- 3/1�,� ? z !tlas)NMENDAT1ON SThe Staff has carefully considered the view analysis cempi c-ted by Mr. Snowdon. We feel for two rc;clsons that the results of that study d. ctate an alternative access to lots i �!Ild 5 is a necessity. First, when Tfi,, P id;ic at Vail w;l ; '. Ina tIIT'011gh IpprOV:il 17!'M'C'SSC5 in F,J,1,F(; CC_1'li1 ty the rOkTl St-:,C )'!_',,ommended thi.,.! the . units be pulled back of=f the top of the ridge so that they "peek" over tine a_i.dge, not set on top of' it. Sound land use and site plannira_, 1='r'., cip.les always �Ictr,.4c the structures should not impose upon ridge -tops so that they protrude above them. :le:;thetical ly, this is unplea,,, i.rlb and indicates l i_ttl e :-,c rsiti.vity to with constraints of topography. Our recommendation was included in the approvals for The Ridge, and the plan was accordingly adjusted. In a similar light, we would not want structures constructed on lots 4 and 5 to protrude upon this very same ridgeli.ne. Due to the existing elevation of the cul -de -sac by which access to lots 4 and 5 must come off of, the protusion upon the ridgeline by garage structures is almost inevitable, according to the view study. Secondly, the views from the units at The Ridge should be protected. These are existing units sited solely to take advantage of the spectacular views of the valley and the Gore Range. The intrusion upon these views by the garage structures which could be built on the top of lots 4 and 5, if access is from the top, would be inevitable. It would not be fair to the present and future owners of these units to allow such degradation of the views which the project has tried to hard to design for. Thus, the Staff recommends that the rezoning for Cliffside, lots 1 -5 be approved with the following condition: 1. All improvements on lots 4 and 5 be limited to locating on the lower portion of the lots so that no structure protrudes into the views of The Ridge at Vail townhomes. f PEC -3- 0/22/8' Jim Rea, lessee of the Texaco station at the site, expressed his concern that ,ne costs per square foot not be too expensive for potential businesses to iease. Dick Ryan again emphasized that the surrounding buildings, i.e. sewer treatment plant, Glen Lyon office building and others were 1 or 2 stories, Peter P, quoted from the Heavy Service purpose section of the code relating to the facia that Council and PEC' may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influences. Post felt that all related questions had been answered, Dick answered that the board had to decide what was best for Vail. Eric Monson and Andy Norris supported the building, with Andy suggesting that there be caution to insure that the surrounding properties did not automatically feel that they could also have the same density. Elliot Alport felt that the 1,04 FAR was common in the core areas and could be handled sensitively. Duane moved and Jim V seconded to approve the request for a conditional use to con- struct an office building in a Heavy Service Zone District at the existing Texaco site on the South Frontage Road per the staff memo dated March 15, 1982. The vote was 4 ,.2 in favor with Dan and Diane voting against it, and.Jim M abstaining. 4. Request for an amedment to Special Develo gross f oor area a�Sowed.wi�'n`tFie�'GSe.n' n t District 4 to increase the allowable 0 fice BusIding. Applieant'Andy Norri_ Peter Jamar explained the memo and added that the percentage of site coverage was not being changed, but that the increase was within the existing building. After discussion, Scott moved and Will seconded to approve the request to increase the allowable gross floor area within the Glen Lyon office building, The vote was 6-0 with Jim V abstaining, This item was to go to the Council April 6. 5. Request for a. rezoning of lots 1 through 5. Cl iffside subdivision from_ Residential - Distr�c to Si 1e -am�ly District. Applicants: Charles Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl Burns, Richard Brown, Peter Patten explained the previous action leading up to this request. The applicants were not at the meeting, and Peter described various efforts to get in touch with their attorney to no avail. Since there were in the audience several people interested in the outcome of the proposal, it was decided to go ahead with the hearing. Peter P. explained that the staff was in favor of the request only if the condition on the memo were included, The staff's reasons were the steepness of the sites, the size of the lots, and the fact that when The Ridge was being developed, one restriction placed on The Ridge was that the homes be pulled back from the ridge so that they did not sit on top of it, The discussion that followed concerned access problems and what restrictions could be placed on the development df lots 4 and 5, Craig Snowdon architect representing • 0 • 0 PEC �- 3/22/82 the Ridge at Vail owners,showed a survey study and sections which showed various grades and explained the difficulty with keeping within the Town requirement of an 8% grade on the roads. He added that the owners of the Ridge were not concerned with square footage requested, but were very concerned with access. Various solutions were discussed. Will questioned whether the Planning Commission could impose restrictions on someone's land on a rezoning. Dick answered-that they would have to amend the zoning in order to add restrictions, Duane moved to approve the request to rezone C1iffside Subdivision, lots 1--5 from existing Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential with the following restriction: That no structure, - improvement or increased grade occur at a height greater than the existing elevation at any point on the back property line which is the common property line with The Ridge at Vail subdivision, Will seconded and the vote was 5 -0 in favor with Dan and Jim Morgan abstaining, 10WHI 01 voil 75 south frontage rd.�" nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7440 ilk, Bil Post Otto, Peterson and Post P.O, Box 3149 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Bill, department of community development February 12, 1982 Re: Cliffside The purpose of this correspondence is to re -track the past occurrences and the current situation regarding the Cliffside subdivision rezoning and the resultant opposition from the people involved with The Ridge at Vail Townhomes. The following are the events which have taken place in chrono- logical order: 1. The Planning and Environmental Commission, with a positive recommenda- tion from the planning staff, recommended to Town Council the approval of the request from Cliffside subdivision Crepresented by Phil Ordway) to rezone lots 1 through 5 from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential on December 14, 1981. The only concern expressed by PEC was that of protecting the views from the Ridge at Vail units. This was determined to be a Design Review Board consideration, and the PEC felt comfortable addressing the view issue at the DRB level. 2. On January 5, 1982 the Town Council considered on first reading Ordinance #1, Series of 1982 to rezone Cliffside from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. It was unanimously approved with the direction, to the staff to include language in the ordinance addressing the protection of views from the Ridge at Vail Townhomes. 3. Following the January 5 meeting, I was informed by you that you felt insufficient notification had occurred with respect to the Ridge at Vail property. You wrote a letter dated January 19, 1982 to Rich Caplan, Town Manager stating so and requesting tabling of the second reading scheduled for January 19, 1982 so that scenic views could be further studied. You stated that you were concerned that the new language I had put into the ordinance addressing the view question was not strong enough to assure the quality of the views, Mr. Ordway agreed to this tabling and requested the same at the meeting that evening. Bill Post --2- 2/12/82 4. On Wednesday, January 22, a site investigation was conducted in which Craig Snowdon, Jim Flaum, yourself., Phil Ordway and myself participated. At the site it appeared that views would not be impaired because of the sharp grade change on the south side of the ridge. After the site visit, Craig Snowdon, Jim Flaum and myself met and determined that due to an 8% driveway grade restriction, garages for lots 4 and 5 would require much fill which would substantially raise their elevation and impair views from the Townhomes. It was decided that Craig Snowdon and others would conduct a more detailed study, producing some cross- . sections, to determine more exactly these design /view problems. S. On Tuesday, February 9, 1982 1 met with Craig and examined his drawings and the photographic analysis which was done to show potential impacts on the views from the toi%mhomes from construction of garages on the northern boundaries of lots 4 and 5. It was apparent from this study that potential for very sexvious view impacts were guite real and that representatives from The Ridge would object strongly to the rezoning as it was currently written, Mr, Snowdon expressed that representatives from The Ridge would agree with the zone change only if access to lots 4 and 5 were from the lower side of the lots, off of Lionsridge Loop. b. 1 had a conversation with Mr. Ordway on Friday, February 12 in which he preliminarily suggested that access from below would not be acceptable to Richard Brown, current owner of lots 4 and 5. This indicates that there would be a major disagreement between the two parties and that no waiver of notice would be supplied by yourself. You had indicated on January 19 that the waiver would come only if an agreement was subsequently reached regarding language in the ordinance addressing views. 7. It appears at this moment, that this matter will go back to PEC for their consideration at a later date and that essentially we will start over with the zone change, now taking into consideration the view and access issues. I would like to make it clear that the planning staff's position on these issues will be presented in memorandum form to the PEC several days previous to that public hearing. The staff's current position is one of the desire to further study the view and access issue. I sincerely hope all parties can work together on this matter to arrive at a solution which is the optimum for the Town, The Ridge and Cliffside. Sincerely, 11 , A.. PETER PATTEN, JR Senior Planner, Town of Vail APP:bpr cc: Craig Snowdon Jim Flaum Phil Ordway Richard Brown MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental. Commission FROM; Department of Community Development /Peter Patten i DATE: December 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Rezoning request for Cliffside Subdivision, lots 1 through 5, Single Family Residential from Residential Cluster (RC) to Richard Brown, Daryl R. Burns, David L. (SFR). Applicants; Cole, and Charles H. Rosenquist• BACKGROUND Cliffside Subdivision was annexed into the Ton with tie West Vail Athexa- Lion of December 31, 1980. It consists of 6 G G-8 of Li.onsvidge Filing No. Lionsridge area. In 1975, lots -7 and is now Cliffside Subdivision. 2 were resubdivided into what The lots are small. Only lot 6 is aver 15,000 square Cliffsid the most apl P ri zonee �_ was an area which was difficult to fit into at the time urroundingNareaVO4 Cli£fsido. The Nalley similar slto subdivisions in the s ' +"" subdivisions was appropriately zoned Residential Cluster. The G the northwest and the southeast and were also zoned Residential Cluster, GMostl y he lots lie to due to the Briar Patch project (on lots G--2, G--5 and G -6) and lot (zoned for 30 unhesridge oishRidbecreste�ac6tlotcpra /secondary .mart' Loop and on top of t 30,000 square feet each. zoned area. These lots are over To allow Cliffside to• "blend in" with the surrounding properties, we GRFA for each lot. zoned it RC, with a minimum of 2000 square feet of restrictions' d�because, t�sorp1200 This special provision was included fe =et hav e been allowed only 1100 some of the lots would felt and expressed at that time thOt an of GRFA. it was for further study as to the most appropriate area THE P.GQUI- T The zoning; request includes only lots l through 5, excluding lot 6, only which where Chuck Roscnquist's house' exists; ti�cioth6 is3the oneto co have Marc thin one unit (it possibly slope calculations). s l through 5 are non - conforming in terms of minimum lot SizGThor fo Lot enclosed RC, as they will be in Single Family (but to a lc�s:.cr c�tcnt). the table on statistics for chart cnml�ar itti�; 12C to SF R, combine(( with i help to understand the situation. jlic masn lots l,g,a,• ,fii�i 5 will differences are three. 1, sRl. allows appl,oxi.zuritrly an average increase in GRFA of 647 sq ft per lot. i 2. SPR allows flexibility in the siting of the houses on the lots because there are no slope restrictions. SFR allows, on lots where the hous located on average of 30% or more, the garage to be lo requirement. 00 • • i PLANN1NG AND F!NV1P0!TNl1`.N 'AL C01MIM .SSION December 14, 1981 PRESE'N'l' Scott Edwards Wi..11. Trout 6orzy White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Jon, Morgan AB IM' i 6j r '1'ilkemci-er STAFF DicK Ryan Peter fatten Peter Ja.mar Jim Sayre Betsy Roso.l.ack Ito meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by chairman, Gerry White, following a work session on CC4 zoning and r.evisod .Red lesion plans. 1. Allprova.l of tho minutes of the November. 23, 1981 mcet:ipg. Will moved and '6 anececondcc to approve the minutes. Inc voce ��as 5 -p, unanimous. 2. Request for a minor subdivision of lots 10 13 , and 12, Block 1, Potato Patch. Applicant: CDS Enterprises, Inc. Peter Patton showed site plans showing new lines with the old property lines in rod. he explained why the staff recommended approval and Ken M son :rcpresentiny the property owners explained that a driveway encroachment on lot 11 was to be olianinntod with the resubdivi.sion. Dan explained that no allowable GRFA changes would occur. Duane voiced cc:ncern about lot: lines regarding the distance; betweeA the buildings. Peter assuaged their concerns. Scott moved and Will seconded to approved the rgquest for a mirror subdivision. The vote was 5 -0 in favor with Darn abstaining. 3. Request for a rezoning of lots 1 through 5, Cliffside Subdivision from ResldenIT'al U —is-tr • I)i.st.rictt to Single Family District. Applicants: Richard Brown, Daryl. R. Burns, David L. Cole, and Charles H. Rosenquist. Peter Patten explained the memo showing the. site playa and discussed the graphs in the a) omo. Phil. Ordway explained that he and Dave Smontana. each had a contract to bray a lot. if the zoning was changed, and that they were instrumental. in requesting the rozoning. Jim recalled that when this subdivision was annexed and zoned Residential Cluster it was the intention to reconsider the zoning. at a Dater date. He was in Qyor of the change, Dian stated that he felt that lot 6 should be included. Ordway explained that Rosenquist (owner of lot 6) was in favor of changing his lot to duplex (presently he could build ra. possible s) or P /S. Ordway stated tthn he didn't have time to study the alternatives in full and so decided not to include. lot: 6.at the l"st minute,.addi.ng Nosonqu i.st tole( him 1 h at. he (Rosonquist) would not .insist can building 3 units. Ordm)y went on to state that he dial not ON that this was spot zoning for lol; ti since it was adjacent to RC zoning. th:l a 1 fC, -2 -- 12/1.4/81 Scou. agreed i..,i_th. Ordwiy adding that lot 6 was so diffel,e .t, there s,,,as no tx:ed to consi.dcr it wi tla the other lots. Scott: added that he was conccrned that t.hc houses not 5(" built high on the ridge and wondercd if a trade -off could be inacle in this respect. Orclttizt.y assured Scott that the houses would. be do�,,n the. hill iFar a_r)ough so that -they wou]clit't. into -fore with others' vi(;ws. Ordway added that siting was the main reason for the rcciuust. Jim voiced c011cc I'n over the v i stt<tl impact, also, then said. he was sure DRB would take, Oat into cons.i dcrati-on. Will inovcd and Dua.tae seconded to rezone lots 1 th.r.0 S to Single Fancily. '1'lae vote was 6 -0, unanimous. Dan voiced his concern that the build, because t.lae owners of the high point. Gerry felt this was owners would be coming in with a RC zone in this de;vclopment inad_c 1101110 OWTIOrs show concern as to how high t iey Rictgc were purposely not building on the the correct. ,zoning becatasc othorw_i.se the scri_es of requests for va-ciances since the it virtually unbuildable. I'rol.iininaa -)7 l:ev:i.ew SC!,;Sion for Exterior Alterations and Aiod.i.fiications. This session was to decide whother or aaoE: the submitted projects would be cons i_do :•cd mayor--- rcquiring a. 90 clay study, or minor—requiring a 60 clay study. iA1.1 of the follow:inb wcre considered to be major revisions: Gallery l;zcilding S] i fol., Ru i-lding Lodge at Fail - Harry's Bar (new location) Red Lion Inn -neck Enclosure 1'hc meet:ijsg atiras adjourned at S:30 p.m. R^ r;y I� a� ti E hh `4l R^ r;y I� a� ti Min. Lot Size Setbacks Height Density Control Site Coverage Landscaping Parking Cliffside -3- € ir.11 RE:NCF IN DEVELOPNIE:'vT STANDARDS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER AND SINGLE FAMILY RL•SIDUNTIAL .15,000 sq ft area 12,500 buildable area 8,000 sq ft min. buildable Front -20 ft, Front -20 ft, Sides and Rear, 15 ft. Sides and Rear, 15 ft Flat room -301, sloped -33' Flat roof- 30',sloped- 33' 250 of buildable area 25% of lst 12,500 sq ft "site area, +loo over 12,50 25% of site 20% o£ site Minimum 60% of site Minimum 60 0 of site 2 s aces /unit no front 2 spaces /unit Slope restrictions p 1 covered space setback park insa , 1` per unit if required by DRB No building on 40% or more slopes, 40% or more slope areas subtracted from allowable units and GRFA ■ • r 10WH of V box 100 vail. Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 March 13, 1981 department of community development T0: Dick Ryan, Peter and Larry FROM: Peter Patten RE: ,- t1iffside �.R.F.A. With Approximate Slope Deductions Buildable Lot Site Area 5 6625 4 8523 3 5267 2 4625 1 9865 6 22150 Allowable G.R.F.A. 11-Al , Dr 1656 2130 1316 1156 2466 5537 Determined very roughly on 1 -100 scale - very approximate. G.R.F.A. I Under SF 2381 2643 2566 3.125 3116 4770 Under RC, all lots would receive a maximum of one dwelling unit with the exception of Lot 6, where Rosenquists' house is. This lot, according to these figures, could have 3 units, or an additional 2 units. U 3 V =I 4===31r 1 •s - I Noz'ercJTX•e f °'I Zhase usca/ of 2)} The P. by the Coup 42jl�. S4. s 4 �� , 4k� ^I'. �. CarYe fadius r @ i y �' / • o �l 65.a0' 6c zo:oo- 4_ D ✓ �D.00� 5V IV r � ~� �� 1 ��, �~ nw � �-. r � 6 /,` % �3(d � r c 179.0,2' • .Z- _ ;4 a ETA /� " i Pa MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 6, 1983 SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration of less.than 100 square feet to One Vail Place, Lot 2, Resubdivision of part of Lot C, Block 5 -C, Vail Village First Filing in order to convert existing space to be used as a radio headset rental outlet. Applicants: Vail Associates /Stephens Communications I. REQUEST The applicants' proposal calls for modifying the exterior of the southeast corner of One Vail Place in order to establish a radio headset rental outlet. The modifications would involve installing two window counters and removing an existing display case to install a combination door /window counter. II. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN • This proposal would not be in conflict with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Installation of the proposed windows and doors would be done to match materials and trim found on VA's existing ticket windows. Vehicular penetration into the Village resulting from this proposal would be insignificant. Some pedestrian congestion could result from this proposal. However, any negative impacts from congestion should be mitigated by the applicants' plans for staffing the outlet during peak periods. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The applicant would be required to pay a parking fee as prescribed in Chapter 18.52 of the zoning code. IV. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS This proposal would require relocating two of the existing pay phones on the south side of the building. The staff feels it is important that these phones be relocated along the same wall or at some location equally as visible and accessible to the public. V. RECOMMENDATION is The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request to convert this space into a headset rental outlet. r ful�u[117:1►f1i1u TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to modify the floodpiain on East Mill Creek adjacent to the proposed redevelopment of Golden Peak Ski Base facility. Applicant: Vail Associates Section 18.69.040(E) of the zoning code provides for modification to floodplain in the following manner: E. The zoning administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to modify the floodpiain by fill, construction, channelization, grading, or other similar changes, to submit for review an environmental impact statement in accordance with 18.56 to establish that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, nor increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. (Ord. 12, 1978) The redevelopment of the ski base facility calls for a slight relocation of the East Mill Creek toward the east to allow the building to expand and to make the bus plaza work. Proposed is the relocation plus considerable man- made improvements to the stream bed to beautify it so it becomes an amenity to the site as one walks over it on one of four bridges. Attached please find the r�ini- Environmental Impact Report submitted by Hydro- Triad, Ltd. They have recommended certain improvements to mitigate flood hazard, and Vail Associates has agreed to these improvements. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the floodpiain modification request for East Mill Creek with the condition that the recommended improvements as outlined in the letter from Brian Kilstad of Hydro -Triad to Joe Macy dated September 13, 1983 be installed and that the final culvert design be approved by the Town of Vail Engineer. FOOTNOTE: The Planning and Environmental Commission concern about the stream being re--exposed to the surface on the east end of the parking lot was discussed with Council at the first reading of the rezoning ordinance on December 6. It was felt that this area was needed for snow storage, as the site will be short of snow storage areas anyway, and the stream should be culverted in this location. The rezoning ordinance passed unanimously on first reading. HYDRO- TRIAD, LTD. September 13, 1983 Mr. Joe Macy Vail Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 7 Vail, Colorado 81658 Re: Golden Peak Development Gear Ir. Macy: As requested, we have investigated the potential encroachment of the proposed Golden Peak Development on the existing Mill Creek Diversion Channel. Based upon our investigations, it is evident that the proposed buildings and appurtenant structures will encroach on the channel. However, with certain modifications and improvements to the channel, we feel that construction of the proposed project can .be accomplished. A discussion of these modifications and improvements are provided below. Initially, the hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the Mill Creek drainage basin were examined and peak flow rates in the channel were estimated for various storm events. This was done using data provided in the "Gore Creek Floodplain Information Report" pre- pared by Hydro -- Triad, Ltd., dated June 1976. The estimated peak flow rates are shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Estimated Peak Flow Rates - Mill Creek Basin Snowmelt Return Period Peak Flow (years) (cfs) 2 190 10 290 25 340 50 400 100 480 500 700 . These flow rates represent snowmelt runoff as opposed to rainfall generated runoff.. The peak flow resulting from a 100 -year thunder- - storm event was estimated to be approximately 800 cfs. 12687 WEST CEDAR DRIVE -SUITE 100 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228 PHONE 303- 989 -1264 M Mr. Joe Macy September 13, 1983 Page Two At the present time, a diversion structure located in Mill Creek divides and directs the flows from the basin into two channels, the main Mill Creek Channel and the Mill Creek Diversion Channel which crosses the proposed development site. The diversion structure has a hydraulic capacity of less than the 25 -year snowmelt runoff peak, 340 cfs, and divides the flow approximately 60 percent to the main channel and 40 percent to the diversion channel. Flow rates in excess of this will overtop the structure and continue downslope as sheet flow. As a result, shallow flooding across the existing and proposed development may occur, regardles of the improvements and modifications to the Mill Creek Diversion Channel at the site. Localized grading, flood - proofing and a storm water drainage system would help alleviate this local flooding. Based on these t Diversion Channel at cent of the 25 -year F ever, the Town of Ve diversion structure ii not known at this ti r would seem a likely di percent division, the be 190 cfs. There derstorm peak flow This would result in Diversion Channel. Any one of these cfs) could be used Mill Creek Diversion economics, the degree discussions with the Mill Creek diversion have assumed that imps to accommodate the R 40 percent division. mately 190 cfs. In thunderstorm event if handle the 100 -year discharge in this cas( The following rec development plan shoti Engineering and Land The improvements were indicated, the Mill C east of its current 1 in cross section with zontal to 1 vertical, bike path and pedest minimum freeboard of c tion under peak flow they should be placed within the fringe are< nditions, the improvements to the Mill Creek Ee site could be based on a flow rate of 40 per - -ak flow, which is approximately 140 cfs. How- 1, or others, may improve the capacity of the the future. The extent,of the improvements are but the 100 -year snowmelt peak flow ( 480 cfs) sign discharge. Assuming the same 60 percent /40 flow in the Mill Creek Diversion Channel would also the possibility that the 100 -year thun - DO cfs) could serve as the design discharge. a peak. flow of 320 cfs within the Mill Creek three peak flow rates (140 cfs, 190 cfs and 320 the design discharge for improvements to the Channel: The final choice would depend upon of risk of local flooding deemed acceptable and Town of Vail pertaining to improvements to the tructure. For purposes of our investigation, we ovements to the diversion structure will be made )-year snowmelt peak flow with the 60 percent/ This results in a design discharge of approxi- iddi ti on, we have investigated the results of a the diversion structure were to be improved to hunderstorm peak flow of 800 cfs. The design is 320 cfs. m imended improve, ;eats are i on Sheet 10A of 20 as irveYing Co., and a design also checked for a flow eek Diversion Channel is )cation. The new channel a bottom width of 5 feet, ar flatter, and a depth of ian crossings should spa ie foot above the estimate :onditions. If columns of outside the flow area if of the channel. based on the proposed prepared by Mountain discharge of 190 cfs. rate of 320 cfs. As to be relocated to the should be trapezoidal side slopes of 3 hori- 4 feet. The proposed n the channel with a d water surface eleva- supports are needed, possible, or at least Mr. Joe Macy September 13, 1983 Page Three Due to the steep slopes and curves, erosive velocities can be expected. The proposed channel should be lined with durable rock riprap upstream and downstream of the bike path and through the curved portions of the channel. In addition, riprap should be placed around any footings, columns and supports used for the bike path and pedestrian crossings. The proposed grading will also require the installation of a culvert, approximately 165 feet in length. This could be metal or concrete depending upon the requirements of the Town of Vail. Because of limited headwater depths, grades and cover requirements for the proposed parking area, the vertical height of the culvert cannot exceed approximately four feet. One solution would be a standard size aluminum box culvert 3 feet -6 inches high by 15 feet -10 inches wide. For the design discharge of 190 cfs, the .culvert would flow at a depth of approximately 2 feet -10 inches, which is slightly less than full flow. This size culvert would also accommodate the thunderstorm peak flow of 320 cfs; however, an upstream headwater depth of approximately 5 feet would be required. This would create a backwater effect upstream possibly resulting in overtopping of the channel banks. If desired, berms could be constructed along the channel banks to alle- viate this problem and /or the channel could be widened. Also, other types and /or sizes of culverts could be investigated. With the above recommended improvements, your proposed development plan will not adversely affect the Mill Creek Diversion fl oodpl ai n. The size and type of culvert identified is just one solution and further investigations coul d identify other alternative culvert types and sizes. Please review the information and call me if you have any questions or need additional information. BSK /jh . #600 Sincerely, HYDRO- TRIAD, LTD. Brian S. Kolstad, P.E. Senior Water Resource Engineer