Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1985 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January- June
r-&' PEC AGENDAS ".11911A VWA GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE AREA request to modify the approved development plan. Approved BENTLEY - EGGERS LOT 18, BLK 1, VAI VILLAGE 13th height variance. Approved VAIL VILLAGE INN (SDD6) modify approved plan, increase GRFA, modify cu, and parking exception. All approved JANUARY 28 MARUYAMA LOT 6, BLK 8, INTERMOUNTAIN setback variance approved POLICE handgun range cu approved AMEND ZONING CODE to allow 250 ft GRFA FEBRUARY 11, 1985 VAIL WOODS final plat, tabled TORRISI, Lot 3, Blk 6, VVill lst setvack variance (approved) and GRFA Variance (denied) SHERR, Lot 17, Bighorn Terrace, setback variance and GRFA variance (both approved) BRADWAY ENTERPRISES, MOUNTAIN HAUS amend zone code (approved) SPRADDLE CREEK change date of public hearing FEBRUARY 25, 1985 STEPHENSON Lot 12, Blk 1, V Vill 6th side and front setback variances (denied) STEPHENS SUB PLAT UPDATE MARCH 11, 1985 VAIL WOODS FINAL PLAT, withdrawn VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, conditional use for added GRFA (approved) VAIL ASSOCIATES, QUAD CHAIR, conditional use (approved with conditions) MARCH 25, 1985 ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, amend (denied) STEPHENSON, Lot 12, Blk 1, VVill 6th, setback variances, denied APRIL 8, 1985 TORRISI Lot 3, Blk 6, V Vill lst, GRFA variance, denied A & D BUILDING flood plain modification approved GOLDEN PEAK AREA for staging of Vista Bahn, approved HAZARD REGS amendment APRTI 29 ARTERIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, amend , denied CASWELL, lot 4, blk 1, Intermountain side setback variance, approved MAY 13, 1985 WEST DAY LOT, for staging of Vista Bahn, approved ENZIAN LODGE CONDO CONVERSION, staff rec approval, approved LIONSHEAD GONDOLA BLDG exterior alteration, staff. rec. denial, tabled SATELLITE DISH ORDINANCE (OVER) MAY 27(28) 1985 MARRIOTT MARK TIME SHARE staff rec denial, tabled AMPHITHEATRE AT FORD PARK, cu approved VAIL RACQUET CLUB variance, employee unit, staff rec denial, approved MINIATURE GOLF, tabled JUNE 10, 1985 LIONSHEAD GONDOLA ext alt, staff rec. denial, tabled BOYLE- NICHOLSON density and setback variances, staff rec. denial of density, denied, and approval of setbacks, approved. Lot 20-D, Bighorn Terrace GOLDEN PEAK INTERIM PLAN tabeld STRAUSS, Lot 47, Vail Village West #2 setback and 4% site coverage variances, staff rec. denial, approved KB RANCH DECK ENCLOSURE, LIONSQUARE LODGE, ext alteration and side setback variances, rec: approval, approved PRELIMINARY HEARINGS OF: LODGE AT VAIL ELEVATOR ADDITION: 60 days LODGE AT VAIL ENTRY ADDITION: 60 days HILL BUILDING ENCLOSURE OF DECK: 90 days JUNE 24, 1985 FINAL PLANS FOR FORD AND DONOVAN PARKS STEPHENSON, Lot 12, Blk 1, VV6th, side and front setback variances, rec. approval, approved INTERIM PLAN FOR GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE AREA, staff rec. denial, denied Planning and Environmental Commission INDEX FOR 8/85 - 12/85 August 8, 1985 EXT ALT FOR GONDOLA BLDG, approved EXT ALT AND VARIANCES TO LODGE SOUTH for elevators, approved EXT ALT LODGE AT VAIL WEST ENTRY, approved AMEND TO CODE TO ADD LOW POWER RADIO FACILITIES IN P/S AND AOS, AOS APPROVED, P/S DENIED LOT 4 BLOCK D VAIL RIDGE. Baskins, site coverage variance, approved GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE, conditional use,.approved August 26 LODGE AT VAIL, exterior alteration less than 100 sq ft, east entry, approved HILL BUILDING, exterior alteration to add 3rd story, tabled SWEET BASIL, Gore Creek Plaza, ext. alt. less than 100 sq ft to add stairway, approved 9/9/85- SANDSTONE CONDOS, Scherer, GRFA variance to enclose deck, denied BLU'S BEANERY, Gore Creek Plaza, EXT ALTERA less than 100 sq ft, enclose part of patio, approved VAIL TOWNHOMES, #12A and 12B, GRFA and setback variances for addition, denied VAIL TOWNHOMES #5, Pritzker, setback variances for deck, tabled. September 23 HILL BLDG ext alt to add 3rd floor, denied (by tie vote) SIGN BOARDS new category to sign code, denied GORSUCH, CLOCK TOWER BLDG, ext alt less than 100 sq ft to enclose planter, approved CROSSROADS AMEND DEV PLAN FOR BURGER KING, tabled October 28 CROSSROADS, BURGER KING, amend dev plan, tabled CORNICE BLDG, setback variances, density variance, parking exception, setback stream,tabled CONCERT HALL PLAZA, setback variance to add east entry, approved November 11 BURGER KING tabled LOW POWER SUBSCRIPTION RADIO TRANSMITTER, conditional use,.TABLED November 25 BURGER KING, CROSSROADS, tabled RIVA RIDGE NORTH withdrawn FALL LINE APARTMENTS, SDD7, time share plus amend SDD, approved CORNICE BLDG, to be rescheduled LEASING OF PRIVATE PARKING AREAS, approved December 9 LOT 9, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN 3rd, Horton, setback variance for garage, approved POTATO PATCH RESTAURANT con use to expand, tabled CROSSROADS, BURGER KING, tabled FORD PARK conditional use to permit public parking on lower bench, denied EXTERIOR ALTERATION PRELIMINARY REVIEWS of TREETOPS, HILL BLDG, HONG KONG, PLAZA LODGE r Planning and 1985 Environmental Commission Action°�```'� Taken on Staff Recommendations STAFF PEC PROJECT RECOMMENDATION ACTION Maruyama Front Setback Variance. Approval Approval Police Dept. Hand Gun Range c.u. Approval Approval Torrisi Setback Variance Approval Approval and GRFA Variance Denial Denial Sherr Setback Variance Approval Approval and GRFA Variance Denial Approval Bradway zone amendment Approval Approval Stephenson Denial Denied Medical Center added GRFA Approval Approved Quad Lift cu Approval Approved w /conditions Arterial Bus District amendment of zoning code Denial Denied Stephenson (2nd time) Denial Denied setback variances Torrisi GRFA variance Denial Denied A& D Bldg flood modifications Approval Approved Golden Peak staging Approval Approved Hazard Regs amendment Approval Approved Amphitheatre cu Approval Approved Caswell setback variance Denial Approved West Day lot staging Approval Approved Enzian Lodge condo Approval Approved w /conditions conversion STAFF PEC PROJECT RECOMMENDATION ACTION LN Gondola setback variance denial tabled and exterior alteration Marriott Mark time share denial tabled Racquet Club convert employee unit denial approval if another space be converted to employee housing Boyle GRFA variance denial denial setback variances approval approval Strauss setback variance denial approval and site coverage variance KB Ranch deck enclosure approval approval (setback var & ext. alter) Planning and Environmental Commission January 7, 1985 1:30 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Publc Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of December 10, 1984. 2. A request to modify an approved development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base area. Applicant: Vail Associates (Staff rec: approval) 3. A request to amend Special Development District No. 6 (Vail Village Inn) to modify the approved development plan, to increase allowable GRFA, to modify conditional uses, and to request a parking exception. Furthermore, to request an amendment to the Urban Design Guide Plan. Applicant: Anthony Genth (staff rec: approval) 4. A request for a height variance to construct a dwelling at 3005 Booth Falls Road. Applicants: David Bentley and Bill Eggers (staff rec: denial) 10 Duane Piper The meeting was called to order at 3:05 by Jim Viele in the absence of Duane Piper, chairman. I. Approval of minutes_ of December 10, 1984. Rapson moved and Pierce seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. A request to modify an approved development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base area. Applicant: Vail Associates kstaff recommendation: approval) Peter Patten explained that this was a request for approval of revisions and did not need to go to the Town Council because there were no substantial changes to the original development plan. He listed the changes: there were to be two new tennis courts to the east of Chair 6 and a relocation of the existing volley ball courts in lieu of the proposed construction of an additional tennis court in the Chalet Road area; the open diversion channel will be deleted and put into a continuous underground culvert from a point west of Chair No. 12 to the north side of Gore Creek Road; the proposed "race City" parking area will bedeleted and the proposed bus stop area will have a minor relocation; and the proposed bleacher system on the northwest corner of the facility will be deleted in favor of a stairway on the north side of the condominium garage and removable bleacher seating. He added that the Town of Vail, Vail Associates and the Vail Metropolitan Recreation Department had negotiated and all agreed to the proposed changes. Joe Macy of Vail Associates thanked Peter for his efforts. Kit Cowperthwaite, representing the Golden Peak Neighborhood Association, stated that they were not notified of the proposed changes and had no input at all. He read from section 18.39.090 (d) which stated that if there are "changes of substance" the request must be referred to the Town Council. He felt that the changes requested were substantial and that the neighborhood should be allowed to have input. He mentioned that Tract F2 was to have been conveyed to the Town, after which is was to have been conveyed to the Texas Townhouse Association. Patten replied that he did not feel that these changes were that substantial. He added that he had considered these changes positive, and that he would entertain . getting back with the neighborhood for discussion. Jack Rush of Manor Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 16 January 7, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Gordon Pierce Tom Braun Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz Jim Viele Rick Pylman Jere Walters Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Duane Piper The meeting was called to order at 3:05 by Jim Viele in the absence of Duane Piper, chairman. I. Approval of minutes_ of December 10, 1984. Rapson moved and Pierce seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. A request to modify an approved development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base area. Applicant: Vail Associates kstaff recommendation: approval) Peter Patten explained that this was a request for approval of revisions and did not need to go to the Town Council because there were no substantial changes to the original development plan. He listed the changes: there were to be two new tennis courts to the east of Chair 6 and a relocation of the existing volley ball courts in lieu of the proposed construction of an additional tennis court in the Chalet Road area; the open diversion channel will be deleted and put into a continuous underground culvert from a point west of Chair No. 12 to the north side of Gore Creek Road; the proposed "race City" parking area will bedeleted and the proposed bus stop area will have a minor relocation; and the proposed bleacher system on the northwest corner of the facility will be deleted in favor of a stairway on the north side of the condominium garage and removable bleacher seating. He added that the Town of Vail, Vail Associates and the Vail Metropolitan Recreation Department had negotiated and all agreed to the proposed changes. Joe Macy of Vail Associates thanked Peter for his efforts. Kit Cowperthwaite, representing the Golden Peak Neighborhood Association, stated that they were not notified of the proposed changes and had no input at all. He read from section 18.39.090 (d) which stated that if there are "changes of substance" the request must be referred to the Town Council. He felt that the changes requested were substantial and that the neighborhood should be allowed to have input. He mentioned that Tract F2 was to have been conveyed to the Town, after which is was to have been conveyed to the Texas Townhouse Association. Patten replied that he did not feel that these changes were that substantial. He added that he had considered these changes positive, and that he would entertain . getting back with the neighborhood for discussion. Jack Rush of Manor Vail PEC 1/7/85 -2- said that they had worked openly with Macy and Parker (of Vail Associates) to come up with some solutions and that the Town of Vail and Vail Associates had opportunities to get back with the Golden Peak Neighborhood Association, and it wasn't done and Rush was disappointed. Macy stated that the staff did notify the neighbors, and Vail Associates also sent notices to make certain that the adjacent neighbors had been notified. He said that he had also talked with Ray Cote and Jane Carpenter. Pierce asked if the changes negated any agreements with the Golden Peak Neighborhood Association and Patten replied that there had been agreement to relocate a tennis court to Chalet Road. Kit Cowperthwaite stated that the Chalet Road situation was brought up over a year ago. Three months ago he appeared before Town Council and asked that the right -of -way problem be solved, and had had roadblocks ever since. Pierce stated that the process hasn't been the same, but things were not necessarily done wrong. Rapson was concerned that Cowperthwaite felt that the neighborhood hadn't been contacted. Donovan stated that she wouldn't support the request because she felt that there would be an increase in traffic on Chalet Road and that to develop Golden Peak and.not landscape Chalet Road was a "farce." Viele asked Jack Hunn of VA if VA's construction schedule would allow a tabling of the item. Hunn replied that the plan was to begin construction April 1 and tabling would be a hardship. He added that Chalet Road belonged to the Town of Vail. . Patten reminded everyone that adjacent property owners can appeal the decision or it�could be appealed by the Town Manager or the Town Council. Rapson asked Cowperthwaite whether or not his constituencies felt that there was a problem with Chalet Road or any of the other changes and Cowperthwaite replied that they felt concern with all of the changes with the possible exception of the culvert. There was also concern over the cost of the changes, i.e. sidewalks and who would be paying for the changes. The neighborhood wanted to know ahead of time who would be billed for the costs. Pierce moved and Rapson seconded to approve the requested changes with the condition that staff meet With the Golden Peak Neighborhood group and Vail Associates immediately. The vote was 4 in favor and Donovan against. Donovan felt that Chalet Road had been left with no plan. Patten stated that if no agreement could be reached in the meeting with the neighborhood group and Vail Associates he would ask Town Council to call the matter up. (The next item was taken out of order.) 1. A request for a height variance to construct a dwelling at 3005 Booth Falls Road. Applicants: David Bentley and Bill Eggers (staff rec: denial) Kristan Pritz explained that the applicants were requesting a variance of 1.6 feet above the allowed height. She stated that the part of the roof that was too high was a ridge directly above a drainage ditch. Bill Eggers stated that they tried to work within the Town of Vail guidelines and that the mudslides • occurred after design had been done, which meant changing the slab grade to allow for drainage of possible mud slides. He added that he felt that the IN PEC 1/7/85 -3- • Town design guidelines were "sketchy." He also felt that the impact on the neighboring area was very minimal. The board members felt that there was a definite hardship on the site and that the added height had minimal impact on the neighborhood and that the overall height was considerably under the maximum height allowed. Ra son moved and Donovan seconded to approve the variance because it would not be a grant of special privilege,., would not be detrimental to safety, welfare or materia1� injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and that the strict or literal interpretation would result in� practical difficult or unnecessar phyO.cal hardship. The vote was 5 in favor with no vote against. 3. A request to amend Special Develop ment District 6 (Vail Village Inn ) to modify the approved development plan, to increase allowable GRFA, to modify conditional . uses, and to re uest a arkinq exception. Furthermore, to request an amendment to the Urban Design Guide Plan. Applicant: Anthony Genth staff rec: approval Gordon Pierce stepped down because he was the architect for this proposal. Tom Braun showed circulation and site plans, describing parking levels, entrys and exits. Braun then showed a table of statistics which indicated the amount of GRFA requested, parking required, etc. He stated that there were three main factors: the SDD, the Guide Plan and zoning. Braun then gave the background on SDD6 stating that it was established in March of 1976 and that three phases of the SDD had been completed to date. The proposed Phase IV would consist of 175 lodge rooms, a 5,600 square foot meeting room facility, approximately 16,000 square feet of commercial space (which includes restaurants) and extensive underground parking. Braun listed the requested amendments to the SDD and to the Urban Design Guide Plan. Jeff Winston of Winston Associates discussed the siting and massing with the help of a model. He explained that it was found impossible to construct enough underground parking with the necessary ingress and egress and still keep 50 feet distance between buildings. He noted that there was a lower connection between Phases III and IV, that part of Phase IV had been lowered by one floor to allow for the view corridor in the.original SDD, and the building on the southwest corner had been stepped back. Winston then spoke of the siting, pointing out that the space between Phases I, II, III and IV becomes another pedestrian street. He also explained that he felt the building on the southwest corner shielded the view of the delivery and service area and was pleased with the location of a park where the Ski Museum now is. He stated that he had met with the Vail Fire and Police Departments and with Public Works to study the traffic circle which had been on the original Urban Design Plan with the result that it was decided the traffic circle was not the ultimate solution, and that it would be better to do nothing at this site or to relocated the roadway (as was shown on the model). SDD 1/7/85 -4- Patten continued the presentation and was pleased with the redesign of the • roadway. He felt that since the roadway did not go straight, motorists would be more inclined to turn in either direction onto the South Frontage Road rather than drive straight ahead onto Vail Road. He added, concerning the height of Phase IVt, that this was a good effort to preserve the view in compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan. Concerning parking, Patten stated that valet parking would help with the 11 spaces that were short, and commended the applicant for providing commercial on -site parking. Concerning density, he mentioned that the staff felt that one important fact was that density was to the level of PA zoning and not above. The impact on the gas station was that the access off of the frontage road was narrower, and that Phase IV would be within 12 feet of the gas station. Patten stated that the Fire Department had approved the site plan. The timing of the five conditions was discussed and it was suggested that the board of directors of the Ski Museum and the developers must come to agreement on terms for the relocation of the museum into Phase IV prior to the issuance of a building permit. Tim Garton of Garton Liquors had strong objections to the changes. He said the tenants weren't polled and stated that Garton Liquors could no longer be seen by pedestrians along Meadow Road and that Garton Liquors was dependent upon visibility and upon cars being able to come to the front door. Jay Peterson replied that Phase IV had always been envisioned to be built someday. He admitted that Garton Liquors was affected but for the Town of Vail, this was a good solution. . Peterson pointed out that adding 175 hotel rooms would be of benefit to Garton Liquors, but the applicant was also willing to work on relocation of Garton Liquor. Ross Davis, representing the Amoco station, said that he had very strong feelings concerning driving and fire safety. He added that the access had been a joint access with the Vail Village Inn. He pointed out that the increased density was 40 %. Another comment was that people would park on the gas station premises. Peterson responded that the access to the gas station was still significant and that the applicant was not changing the access or the grade, that the Conoco station had been using Vail Village Inn property for access until now. Mery Lapin asked whether or not the staff felt this project would have any effect on Crossroads parking. He added that the Crossroads parking lot handled more cars than the parking structure because it was easier for people to park at Crossroads, and he also noted that many people park in Crossroads when they have business at the Village Center. Ty West, a manager for VVI, stated that he had noticed that cars park at the VVI lot and go to Crossroads. Jere Walters was concerned about the impact of increased traffic on the 4 -way intersection because the traffic study showed 300 -400 cars getting gas and felt that this problem was not being addressed. Rapson felt the project was a positive one for Vail, but was concerned with the traffic and how it interfaced with the gas station. Peterson again explained the parking spaces. Donovan asked that the parking structure be well lit. She showed concern about the impact on the Amoco site and stated that no adjacent property owner should have to be forced to rebuild. She felt the access should be solved by both property owners. PEC 1/7/85 -5- Viele felt that the project was mostly favorable and moved to recommend to Town Council approval of the ro osal to amend the 5DD and the Urban Design Guide Plan per the staff memo dated January 7, 1985 includinq the time limit place on Condition #4. Waiters seconded the motion and the vote was 4 -0 in favor with Pierce abstaining. Walters moved and Rapson seconded to approve the conditional use for meeting room facilities based on the findings that the proposed location of the meeting rooms was in accord with the purposes of the ordinance and with the district, that the proposed location of the meetings rooms and the conditions under which they would be operated would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materiall injurious to ro erties or im rovements in the vicinity, and that the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the ordinance. The vote was 4 -0 in favor with Pierce abstaining. 0 TO: Planning and Environmental. Commission 0 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 7, 1985 SUBJECT: Revisions to the Golden Peak Redevelopment Project Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Vail Associates is proposing a number of revisions to the approved development plan for the Golden Peak Redevelopment project. Under the approval process found in the Ski Base /Recreation district the amendments may be approved by the Planning Commission without official Council review. The four areas proposed to be revised are as follows: 1. The proposed construction of two (2) new tennis courts adjacent to the exising tennis courts to the east of Chair No. 6 and, consequently, the relocation of the existing volley ball courts in lieu of the proposed construction of an additional tennis court in the Chalet Road area. 2. The deletion of the open diversion channel feature to the south and east of the proposed facility in fvor of putting the Mill Creek diversion channel in a continuous underground culvert from a point west of Chair No. 12 to the north . side of Gore Creek Road. 3. The deletion of the proposed "Race City" parking area and the minor relocation of the proposed bus stop area. 4. The deletion of the proposed bleacher system on the northwest corner of the facility, in favor of a stairway on the north side of the condominium parking garage and removable bleacher seating. The revisions have been under review for several weeks by the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District. The VMRD has agreed to the revisions and a letter to this effect will be presented to the Planning Commission by Monday. All of the revisions meet the requirements of the Ski Base /Recreation district which this property falls within. A short discussion of each follows: Revision No. 1 This revision entails abandoning the proposal to locate a new tennis court on Chalet Road as previously approved. Instead, two new tennis courts will be constructed to the west of the existing courts located southeast of the main building. The location of these new courts in this area will require the three volley ball courts to be relocated to an area in between the base of Chairs 6 and 12. While the loss of the Chalet Road tennis court is probably not the optimum for Golden Peak's potential as a tennis complex as well as the benefits from closing that road, the revision to the plan actually adds a tennis court on the grounds. This leaves the Chalet Road area . without a plan at this point in time, but we can begin to study this area and work with neighborhood residents on what can be done to improve the Chalet Road location. The relocation of the volley ball courts to a more central Iocation on the site could be an exciting addition for volley ball spectators. Revision No. 2 While the loss of surface stream feature on the east side of the new building is a disappointment to the staff, we feel the new proposal also has its benefits to the site. Proposed is to landscape intensively the area between the east of the building and the bus plaza containing some benches and a small park. The need for the East Mill Creek diversion channel to carry 40% of the 100 year flood is important and this pre -empts the possibility for an aesthetically pleasing water feature in this area. Extending the culvert to the southwest in a greater length than originally proposed will allow for the relocation of the volley ball courts as well as better workability for this area in the winter. Revision No. 3 The bus plaza will be relocated slightly to the east which eliminates the Race City parking area. The elimination of this parking area is an improvement to the previously approved development plan and the relocation of the bus plaza allows for grade changes to take place in a convenient manner between the building and the plaza. Revision No. 4 This revision entails removing a bleacher seating area which access directly off of the northwest corner deck on the second level of the building where the tennis pro shop is to be located. Proposed is to continue to have access off of the deck by going down a set of stairs on the north side of the deck as well as the provision of removeable bleacher seating in the same location as the previously proposed permanent seating. The grass bleachers proposed on the south and west of the tennis courts are a nice solution for spectator seating for these tennis courts and can accommodate over 300 people for a single tennis event. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed revisions to the approved development plan for the Golden Peak Redevelopment project. The refinement of this major and complex project has necessitated some of these revisions and we find them to be acceptable. None of the revisions present any negative impacts and have had sufficient discussion and agreement on the part of the VMRD. The staff remains extremely supportive of this project and highly encourages the applicant to proceed as soon as possible with construction due to the community's need to upgrade the Golden Peak base facility. f C L� One condition of approval will apply as follows: 1. No final DRB approval shall be given until the annexation plat and the minor subdivision plat are completed and recorded. T0: Planni`ng and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 3, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance to construct a dwelling at 3005 Booth Falls Road APPLICANTS: David Bentley and Bill Eggers Lot 18, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants are requesting a height variance of 1.6 feet above the allowed height. Under primary /secondary zoning, the maximum height is 33 feet for a sloping roof. The existing grade elevation beneath the highest point of the roof ridge was 8337.5 feet. The roof ridge elevation is 8372.1 feet which creates a height of 34.6 feet. The applicants have provided the following statement: •After the structure was designed by the architects, the Town of Vail required a site specific geological study. This resulted in approxi- mately 6 weeks of working with the geologist and the Town of Vail, the study was completed and approved. Part of the geological results required that a 3', 100 pound /ft. wall be constructed above grade on the north side of the structure... This low drainage ditch elevation happens to sit under the highest ridge point of the structure, making the 33' height code unusually restrictive. To realize a safe 3 feet above any possible water and mud dangers proposed by the geologist, the building slab was set at 8,341.3 feet. Due to the late start on construction, mainly for geological study requirements, the effect of raising the base slab elevation about 2, feet, was not realized until the final roof ridge beam was in place. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the 11unicipa1_Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requestedu variance based upon the followin factors: Consideration of Factors is The relationship of the requested va.rtance. to of uses and structures i'ri the v- i'ci'n1-t.y,.. tential The additional 1.6 feet will have a, ne.gati,ve impact Tn that, the. house will be taller than the original 33 feet. However, only a small portion of the roof of the north unit i's actually-over 33 feet ( please see enclosed drawings). The lot is also surrounded on tine south and west sides by agricultural /open space property which minimizes the poten.ttal impacts on neighboring lots.. Lots located to the north of the site and across Booth Falls Road would have minor view impacts due to th.erl:Meet. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibili and uniformity of treatment amoung sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special provilege. Certainly the applicants' project has been held up by recent changes in the Town of Vail's hazard policies, Staff appreciates the additional studies and construction revisions that the applicants have made to their proposal in order to comply with the hazard policies. However, when the slab was redesigned to allow for "a safe 3 feet above any possible water and mud dangers ", the design of the house should have been adjusted to maintain the 33 feet height limit. Staff believes that to grant the height variance would be a grant of special privelege as the error in construction could have been avoided. 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. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Not appl icable. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the roposed 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, and welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements is 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 i'nterpretati'on 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 Staff recommends denial of the 1.6 foot height variance based on the finding that the approval of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. • n CD w w x w w 0 // I/I If/J//J r /J /I/ / /Fl /Jr / / //I / / / /F / / / /I / /// •• / '• �/// r./(J,��/{�j/j/ /�J`HH/ /1r1r/'• /�Jl� /Ar /.r / /1y /..+f�( yr'1� f��r-•/jI / .'. .•. ,• � / / / / "� "•�i..f/�'WW�� /1T+1 �'J % % {�� /� / / / / /J / / / /J /l /r. .', .',. .• • ." JJJ '' CCCC 'I/FJ ///1// /JJJ / /rrI //. •'• /fi ,• �� •///// 1J/// r/ //r/ // //T�A�JTr1 / // / /J/J�/ / / /// ;�'4.•. :• /J •'14:. ;....;. -8•� :d':. •7' '.g. ,. // /JJJ /// / •' •' / /J. � '. .'. .• � '•2•.'.'�J rr /r // /, // / /// .rl• // %�� rim //. Ji /iir'• .•p•. •. 'aJ': •: •'•J'r /r TPA GT/J,ii //irirs BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE 13th. FILING bUL NALL 12i /iii /ii �/ J/ ••..' •.'�.'. .'.5.'..'.'.. ?��O ..'.i / / /r /// iiiii iii �iii�frr, / / / / /r/ /rrrr JrririJr ...�:....; .;.. ••,• '. /r /r / /J/JJ /ff ///rrr '•��T, .'�•' '7.•.:�•; 11th. INTER 1 /ri;•4' Asaf•'I•'• •'2': :1 :•: •��.•. •:3:;� :•;:.;:• DR R / � .•. .� i /iiiil '1P'.- .,,{7�.;.. f •;�j.,'.3.•.:�:.::•7•;..'6'.• :' �'�'�� - .�� .,.. •- :,.. �•., /iiiiil��ijiiJ ALtAIG // ,.• -8•� :d':. •7' '.g. ,. // /JJJ /// / •' •' / /J. � '. .'. .• � '•2•.'.'�J rr /r // /, // / /// .rl• // %�� rim //. Ji /iir'• .•p•. •. 'aJ': •: •'•J'r /r TPA GT/J,ii //irirs BLOCK 2, VAIL VILLAGE 13th. FILING bUL NALL 12i /iii /ii �/ J/ ••..' •.'�.'. .'.5.'..'.'.. ?��O ..'.i / / /r /// iiiii iii �iii�frr, / / / / /r/ /rrrr JrririJr ...�:....; .;.. ••,• '. /r /r / /J/JJ /ff ///rrr '•��T, .'�•' '7.•.:�•; 11th. INTER 1 w z x U Q SITE LOCATION MAP Lot 18, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing y 1* 1 /ri;•4' Asaf•'I•'• •'2': :1 :•: •��.•. •:3:;� :•;:.;:• DR R / � .•. .� i /iiiil '1P'.- .,,{7�.;.. f •;�j.,'.3.•.:�:.::•7•;..'6'.• :' �'�'�� - .�� .,.. •- :,.. �•., /iiiiil��ijiiJ // ,.• CT' VILLA E' I h„ 1 FiLlrllfG .. °. :'• ; : f + :;,; . ,. NAIL L _•.. .. y RESUBDIV to ,4D' TRACT VAIL,. VILLAGI� "1d "th. -F—ILI ' G * . ��� .- ... �•� •. 4 ,�. .,, ,. � .�_ _�tii.,� r 'may .. -° i. -� ,. .•.. 7`OWN .n ' '11A fit.. - -NnI win. r w z x U Q SITE LOCATION MAP Lot 18, Block 1, Vail Village 13th Filing y 1* 1 • Z d J d Lu H V) • • Fix o 4 � \ t a \ 5 \ 4 \ t y t 4 p I i 1 \ 4 t , G� bf t / I \\ 4 2 Y N K_ kk C i r <.9 t O+ � I A ! 111 I G� bf t / I \\ 4 2 Y N K_ kk C i r <.9 t • ' I L J O QJ ro tl� "O Q] •r U S-. C � •r O �- O � Z O a w w cn a w N V C G? .d N m d • U , C .y N A Q1 C m O QJ ro tl� "O Q] •r U S-. C � •r O �- O � Z O a w w cn a w N V C G? .d N m L� ELJ N jx I vi rid , U 4- n= /[ y W i4 1° O a 4fi w 1 f — LU ir� V/ W O a 4fi W, of • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 4, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for meeting room facilities in Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn APPLICANT: Tony 0enth DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE A 5,600 square foot meeting room to be used in conjuction with the operation of the Vail Village Inn. 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 in the Town. These meeting room facilities are seen as a compatible element of Phase IV. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of po up lation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. There should be no negative effects on any of the above. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to co pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and gestion, automotive and control, access, maneuverabili and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. These factors are not relevant to this request use. 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. No effect on the above considerations. r 'w RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN This use is a beneficial element of the Vail Village Inn redevelopment in that it will assist the hotel in booking conventions and special events: fn th.ei:r facility. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. No ne The environmental impact report concerning. the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.55. FINDINGS of 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 Staff recommendation on this request is for approval. is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 7, 1985 SUBJECT: A request to amend the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6 (Vail Village Inn), in the following areas: a revised development plan to include changes in the site plan and heights of buildings, an increase in allowable GRFA on the site, the elimination of the required distance between buildings as well as on site parking for charter buses, to approve a conditional use permit for meeting room facilities, and futhermore, to request amendments to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Applicant: Anthony Genth I. INTRODUCTION TO THIS PROPOSAL The staff has been working with the applicant on this proposal since late September. The Planning and Environmental Commission has been briefed on this application twice at work sessions during this process. Up until now, an emphasis has been placed on comparing this proposal to the submittal made in the fall of 1983. At this point the focus of review is on how this project relates to the original development plan for SDD #6, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and other zoning code considerations. It is the purpose of this memo to determine how this project relates to these three factors. They are essentially the standards with which we have to evaluate the merits of this proposal. This memo is outlined around these three factors (the SDD, the Guide Plan, zoning and other considerations). The applicant has requested amendments to specific sections of the original SDD. Each of these requests will be addressed individually. This project also impacts a number of sub -areas of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The relationship to these sub -areas will then be evaluated. Finally, there are a number of zoning and related issues that will be addressed. II. BACKGROUND ON SDD #6 AND THIS PROPOSAL SDD #6 was established in March of 1976. It is intended to provide for a compre- hensive development and use of an area that is compatible with the general character of Vail. Three phases of the SDD have been completed to date. The area has been developed as a residential and commercial activity center. The proposal before you is in keeping with the nature of existing development on the site. The proposed Phase IV would consist of 175 lodge rooms, a 5,600 square foot meeting room facility, approximately 16,000 square feet of commercial space (this figure includes restaurants), and extensive underground parking. Con- struction is to be completed in one phase and would require demolition of SDD6 1/7/85 `2- the existing Vail Village Inn (the Pancake house, Food and Deli, etc). The main mass of Phase IV would extend along the Frontage Road from Phase IV to the Amoco site. It then extends diagonally around the Amoco Station to the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. The layout and design of this proposal will be addressed in more detail later in this memo. III. REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The following are the amendments requested to the original development plan of SDD #6: Section 18.050.040 Development Plan. This amendment merely recognizes the exhibits submitted by Gordon R. Pierce as elements of the development plans for SDD #6. Section 18.050.110 Distance Between Buildinc,�s. This section of SDD #6 requires a 50 foot separation between buildings adjacent to SDD #6. The proposed amendment would omit this section entirely. Section 18.050.120 Height. The approved development plan outlines heights for specific areas within the SDD. The intent of these height limitations was to maintain a view corridor from the 4 -way stop to the mountain and to ensure a pedestrian scale along East Meadow Drive. The proposed amendment would eliminate the specific height limits in these areas and instead allow a maxi- mum "average height of the project not to exceed 45 feet." The staff would prefer this section to read: "as per the approved development plan." Section 18.050.180 Parking. This amendment would eliminate the requirement that parking for charter buses be provided on site. 18.50.060 Conditional Uses. Conditional uses in this SDD are the same as those found in the P.A. zone district. The applicant has proposed a 5,600 square foot meeting room within Phase IV. This will require approval of a conditional use permit by the PEC. Section 18._50.130 Dens. Residential development of SDD #6 is restricted to 100,000 square feet of GRFA. Also, the GRFA devoted to accommodation units shall exceed the GRFA devoted to dwelling units. Additionally, if all GRFA is devoted to to accommodation units, the number of a.u.'s shall not exceed 300. The applicant has requested that the "total GRFA of all buildings con- structed not exceed 120,600 square feet." This is the amount of GRFA that would be allowed on the site under Public Accommodation zoning. The following table summarizes the existing and proposed densities for SDD #6. • LJ * Commercial EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Phase I 16,128 Phase II 6,473 Phase III 10,600 Deli 1,800 } Swiss Hot Dog 150 ) Pancake House 3,010 ) Stein Garden 800 } bar SDD6 1/7/85 -3- This space would be removed to allow for construction of Phase IV. Total 38,961 square feet existing commercial *Note that commercial square footage is not restricted under SDD #6. Residential * The Vail Village Inn will be removed for construction of Phase IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Phase I, II, and III 33,201 (existing) Phase IV 16,250 (proposed) Total 49,451 Under this proposal, there will be a net gain of 10,490 square feet of commercial space. D.U.'s A.U.'s GRFA Phase I 0 0 0 Phase II 4 0 3,315 Phase III 29 0 44,830 *Vail Village Inn 0 52 16,585 Totals 33 52 64,332 * The Vail Village Inn will be removed for construction of Phase IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Phase I, II, and III 33,201 (existing) Phase IV 16,250 (proposed) Total 49,451 Under this proposal, there will be a net gain of 10,490 square feet of commercial space. SDD6 1/7/85 -4- Residential D.U.'s A.U.'s GRFA Phase 1 0 0 0 Phase II 4 0 3,315 Phase III 29 0 44,830 (Proposed) Phase IV 0 175 72,450 33 175 120,595 square feet As has been stated, the existing SDD limits GRFA to 100,000 square feet. Under this limitation, only 51,855 square feet of GRFA could be developed on this SDD. GRFA being requested is 20,595 square feet over what is presently allowable. The number of units are within the number permitted by SDD #6. IV. REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN There are five sub -area concepts that are affected by this proposal. They are: Sub -area conce t #11 - Bus shelter The applicant has proposed a bus shelter that will be integrated into the portion of Phase IV that fronts onto East Meadow Drive Sub -area concept #10 Plaza linkage across East Meadow Drive uniting commercial area. Feature area paving, planters, kiosks, benches, etc. Further study needed, integral to infill developement in #9. The developer has proposed an entryway to the Village Inn Plaza at approximately this location. This should provide an inviting pedestrian linkage off of East Meadow Drive. The developer has agreed to participate in funding a "plaza linkage" across Meadow Drive from VVI to a future commercial expansion at the Kiandra Lodge site. The following three sub -areas are, by the nature of this development, inter- related. They are: Sub -area #7 Landscaped open space, approved element of Vail Village Inn special development district. Pedestrian path connection to Frontage Road and Town Hall. SDD6 1/7/85 -5- • Sub -area #3 Traffic circle turn - around to limit penetration of lost traffic. convey a "dead -end" road closure appearance from the Frontage Road and at the same time create a major landscape focal point for west end of East Meadow Drive as linkage to Lionshead. Traffic south of circle reduced by clear sign directives. Location of circle dependent on long -range plans for Ski Museum (see #5). Sub -area #5 Ski Museum site improvements. Outdoor display area framed by tree planting. Raised paving surface with planters on front (circle) side for low - maintenance entry. Pedestrian walk continues around to west. Long -term expansion potential limited. Further study needed to determine site suitability. These three sub -areas are inter - related by the development proposed for the southwest corner of this site. The original SDD #6 included a recommended land use, landscape, and building mass plan. This plan called out for a a large portion of this corner to be a landscaped zone. The Urban Design Guide Plan adopted this design consideration in its long range plan for the area. The applicant has proposed locating a building on a substantial portion of this corner. The staff has consistently raised this point as a significant issue of concern because of the lost landscaped area (concept 7) and the • long range impact on the viability of completing the traffic circle turnaround (concept #3). In response to this concern, the applicant has proposed providing a landscaped area on the site of the ski museum. This would serve as a replacement for the landscaped zone that is not provided on site. The developer is working with the museum directors and has proposed providing them space in Phase IV. The staff sees many positive aspects from this proposal. Foremost among these is that the building along East Meadow Drive will screen the loading and parking area of Phase IV. Secondly, it will allow for the removal of the ski museum building. This is seen as an advantageous move because of the building's poor physical condition and its close proximity to the street. The other related sub -area concept is the turnaround circle. A preliminary study has been done concerning this proposal. If Phase IV were to be constructed as proposed, and the museum building removed, it would still be possible to install the turnaround circle. However, in meetings with Town of Vail department heads and adjacent property owners, it was gnerally agreed that the circle idea may not be functional. Regardless of this, the overall impact - - - -_ of this proposal will not bo a negative one on this sub -area concept. The ski museum representatives are very enthusiastic about this proposal and details of the move are currently being worked on. The other related sub -area concept is the turnaround circle. A preliminary study has been done concerning this proposal. If Phase IV were to be constructed • as proposed and the museum building removed, it would still be possible to install the turnaround circle. However, in meetings with Town of Vail department heads and adjacent property owners, it was generally agreed that the circle idea may not be functional. Alternatives to the circle concept have been dis- cussed and will receive further study in a long -term effort to improve the intersection. Regardless of this, the overall impact of this proposal will not be a negative one on this sub -area concept. ~ PM dIrOjIflea ..r.'r.^ ,^`� ° JS - 0-401., • n SDD6 1/7/84 -6- V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The zoning considerations that are not addressed through the adopted develop- ment plan for SDD6 include the following: Setbacks There are no required setbacks in SDD6. It is specifically stated in the development plan that portions of commercial space may abut the southerly property line. Otherwise, setbacks shall be such as to provide adequate space for plantings and acceptable relationships to adjacent properties. Parking and Loadin Required on -site parking for SDD6 is to be calculated with respect to all phases of development. The following table outlines the required parking for SDD6. Summary of Parki a Requirements Phase I commercial 53 spaces Phase II commercial 21 residential 8 Phase III commercial 34 residential 47 Required parking for Phases I, II, and III 164 Proposed Phase IV lodge rooms 145 commercial 36 restaurant /lounge 44 *meeting room 24 249 + 164 (existing demand) 413 - 41 '(10 reduction for multi -use) 372 Total parking for entire SDD = 372 Spaces existing in Phase III = 109 263 Parking provided in Phase IV = 252 11 spaces deficit Composition of Phase IV spaces: compact 41 regular 174 valet 37 *This figure includes a 50% reduction for meeting room facilities due to the mixed use nature of the meeting room (part of the hotel operation). SDD6 1/7/84 -7- As indicated by this table, SDD6 will have a deficit of 11 of Phase IV. It is the feeling of the staff that these 11 modated in the VV1 facility using valet parking services. that this project can meet its parking requirement as esta code. We feel the parking proposal is a strong one and no will be created by the proposal. spaces upon completion spaces could be accom- Staff is of the opinion blished in the zoning parking problems The applicant has proposed three loading bays for Phase IV. One of these will be for trash removal. As proposed, this project would be required to have five loading bays as per the parking standards in the zoning code. The staff feels the loading facilities proposed will be adequate to serve this development. One issue of concern with respect to the loading and delivery to this site is the ability of 18 -wheel vehicles to maneuver on the property and not cause conges- tion on Vail Road. The applicant has submitted drawings demonstrating how an 18 -wheel vehicle can service this development without backing off of Vail Road. While the turns for the vehicles will be tight, it appears as though this maneuver can be accomplished on the surface parking area. This should solve what was a major concern with potential blockage of traffic on Vail Road. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The EIR submitted for your review is the second revision to this document. Initially submitted in December, the staff returned to the applicant a long list of questions and concerns related to this report. A second draft of this document was completed and submitted to the staff last week. While time constraints have not allowed • for a thorough review of this revision, the staff feels a reasonable job has been done in addressing our previous concerns. If this proposal is to be recom- mended for approval by the Planning Commission, staff recommendation is that this document be included as an element of the approved development plan. Included in this EIR is a traffic study done by Centennial Engineering. This report recommends left turn lanes and other modifications should be made to Vail Road in order to accommodate increased traffic load. The applicant and staff concur with this recommendation and would encourage the Planning Commission to include this document as an element of any approved development plan. VII. STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUESTED AMENDMENTS There have been a number of amendments requested to both the original development plan of SDD6 and to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The staff generally views these requests favorably. However, a number of these requests are very significant and merit further comment. Amendments to the Urban Design Guide Plan The staff has continually felt strongly that a landscape zone be provided as called out for in the original SDD and in the Urban Design Guide Plan. It is felt that the applicant's proposal to relocate the Ski Museum and provide this n SDD6 1/7/85 -8- 41 landscaped space adjacent to this site is a good one. Allowing development out to the southwest corner of this site provides a natural beginning point to the Village. There are also design considerations that make this an improved solution. The proposed vehicle turn - around circle could be impacted by the design of Phase IV. With the museum building removed, this circle could be accommodated in a somewhat altered form. However, preliminary study indicates that there is not a great deal of support for this concept. The relocation of the Museum, demolition of the building, and landscaping of the Museum site is a very positive aspect of this development proposal. The staff is in support of these requested amend- ments to the Urban Design Guide Plan with the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation of this memo. Conditional Use for Meeting Room Facilities The staff supports the request for meeting room facilities in this project. See accompanying memo for staff response to this conditional use request. Distance Between Buildings The applicant has requested omitting the required 50 foot separation between buildings on sites adjacent to this SDD. The staff finds it difficult to justify this requirement. In reviewing the recommended land use plan for this SDD, access points to the building's underground parking facilities were initially designated to be located on either side of the gas station site. This created • a natural separation of 50 feet between the.gas station and development on the SDD. It should be emphasized that this plan was very conceptual, and not to be considered a firm document. For example, the plan made no provisions for loading facilities. The plans before you today offer a much improved circulation program than one that could be provided using access points outlined in the original SDD. Assuming that these proposed access points are not a wise solution, there is little reason to enforce a 50 foot separation between development on this SDD and adjacent structures. Heights As previously stated, the intent of the recommended height limitations on this SDD was: to ensure a view corridor from the 4 -way stop to the mountain and a pedestrian scale along West Meadow Drive. The result of this objective is that higher densities were proposed for the area along South Frontage Road (i.e. Phase III). While there are some deviations from the recommended building massing in the approved SDD, the proposal before you today is generally in keeping with the intent of the height limitations. The staff considers the key factors to be the pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive and the view corridor from the 4 -way stop to the mountains. The scale of the buildings along Meadow Drive is in compliance with the recommended heights in the SDD and compatible with development in Phases I and II. While the angle of the view corridor has been shifted slightly, the height of the buildings in this area are in compliance with the maximum heights outlined in the SDD • development plan. SDD6 1/7/85 -9- The most significant deviation from the recommended heights in the original SDD are along the frontage road and a portion of the building off of Vail Road. The SDD allows for a maximum height of 158 feet for the buildings along the frontage road. As proposed, the original elevation for Phase IV would be 165 feet. While greater than the height allowed for in the original develop - ment plan, this height is equal to the existing elevation of Phase III. The SDD also requires this portion of the building to step down as it approaches the Amoco site. While the staff is comfortable with the transition between this wing of the building and the Amoco station, the building does exceed the height outlined in the SDD as it approaches the station. A similar situation exists with the portion of the building adjacent to Vail Road and the south property line of the Amoco site. In this area the building exceeds the height by 8 feet and has a less gradual "step down" toward Vail Road. Here again the staff is comfortable with this transition from the building down to Vail Road. Density As has been stated, this request is for 20,595 square feet of GRFA over what is allowed under the existing SDD. This is the amount of GRFA that would have been allowed under this site's previous Public Accommodation zoning. It is the staff's position to support this requested GRFA if it can be demon- strated that the site can adequately handle it. In weighing this issue, the following factors must be considered: 1) The applicant has not asked for an increase in numbers of rooms allowed under existing zoning. 2) The amount of GRFA requested does not exceed what would be allowed under PA zoning. . 3) There appears to be some merit to the property owner's argument that the 100,000 square foot figure was selected somewhat arbitrarily in 1976. 4) The architect has demonstrated how this building with 100,000 square feet could be constructed with virtually no less of impact of bulk and mass. 5) Market studies indicate an increased demand for larger, luxury type of hotel accommodations. 6) This type of upgrading is indicative of the redevelop- ment that is desired for Vail Village and called for in the Community Action Plan. The staff feels the applicant has adequately demonstrated that this site can handle the development proposed. Consequently, we support this request for additional GRFA on this site. VIII. IMPACTS OF THIS PROPOSAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES As you may recall, when this proposed redevelopment was reviewed in 1983 it included the Amoco station site. The Amoco site is not included in this proosal, and the proposed development has some direct impacts on the station. The most significant of these are the circulation and access problems that will be created by the construction of Phase IV. The applicant has proposed the construction of a wall along its westerly most property line adjacent to the gas station site. This will eliminate circulation around the station that is presently accommodated by encroaching onto the Vail Village Inn property. In addition, this proposed development will eliminate access to the Amoco • • 1"] SDDb 1/7/85 -10- station that has historically taken place over VVI property. The remaining access point off of the frontage road will be a steep grade (as it always has been) that will be difficult to use in the winter months. While the impacts on the Amoco station are unfortunate, it appears as though the Amoco station has little option but to endure these consequences and seriously consider some alterations to their own site. IX. TOWN OF VAIL INTER - DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW The Public Works, Police, and Fire Departments have all been involved in the review of this application. The Police Department has given their support to the project as presented. Public Works and the Fire Departments have approved these plans with the condition that more detailed information be submitted at the Design Review Board review and at the time a building permit be issued. Further information needed includes items such as locations of fire hydrants, details on curbs and sidewalks, and more specific drainage plans. These items are ordinarily addressed at DRB and building permit stages. X. ISSUES ON THE DESIGN OF PHASE IV The issue of design becomes a factor in a project that goes through as extensive review as this application has. Of issue of concern here is that the role of the Design Review Board is not being assumed by the staff, P£C and Council. While the site plan and basic design of Phase IV should not change between now and DRB review, the staff would encourage the DRB to look closely at various aspects of this design. Of particular concern is the "hardness" of the plaza area. While acknowledging that this is a DRB issue, the staff feels strongly that a softer treatment be given to this area. The PEC is encouraged to give their opinions on this and any other design issue to be passed along to the DRB. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development strongly recommends approval of this development proposal. We find the proposal to be a very positive one for the community as well as the site. This type of quality redevelopment in our lodging is needed in Vail if we are to remain the best. The project has been through extensive reviews by many different groups of interested parties and virtually all problems have been solved, as this memo indicates. The development of this project will enhance Vail's entry and overall image. Our recommendation for approval is conditional on the following: 1. That the developers and /or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not remonstrate against an improvement district for improvements to the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive if and when one is formed. 2. That the developers and /or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not remonstate against establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phase IV to a future commercial expansion at the Kiandra Lodge site if an when it is developed. SDD6 1/7/95 -11- 3. The developer receive approval from the State Highway Department for . reconfiguration of the pull -off area from the frontage road to the entrance to the hotel. 4. The board of directors of the Colorado Ski Museum and the developers come to agreement on terms for the relocation of the museum in Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. 5. The developer fund the demolition and landscaping of the museum site through one of two options: a) deposit to the Town a check for $15,000 to be used by the Town to complete the work, or b) the developer submit a landscape plan to the Town for approval to be completed as an element of the overall plan for Phase IV. The staff would like to note that the developer has agreed to each of these conditions as presented in this memo. Ih Ross Davis, Jr. Attorney at Law . Ross Davis, Jr. Cyrus G. Allen III Jacqueline A. Flater December 17, 1984 Mr, Peter Patton Director of Planning Town of Vail 65 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Village Inn Redevelopment Dear Peter: Suite 307 Vail National Bank Bldg. P.O. Box 190 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (303) 476 -2414 This letter will serve to confirm my representation of Mr. Conrad Sterkal, owner of the Amaco service station site adjacent to the Vail Village Inn. This letter will also serve to confirm Mr. Sterkal's concerns with the proposed development plans, particularly as they directly concern and impact his property. The plan of the site appears to have the building built to a three story level at a point within several feet of the lot line adjacent to his property. As the existing station building comes to within a few feet of his property line, this situation would not provide access around this portion of the property and does not provide adequate separation of the hotel area from the hazardous materials and chemicals stored in the station. In the event that there was a fire or similar problem, emergency vehicles would be unable to operate effectively in the immediate vicinity. Of more concern to my client is the intended construction of a retaining wall to the street along the lot line. This would cut off the historical usage of that area as a mutual access to the below grade entrance to the Vail Village Inn as well as to the station from the East. An attempt to cut of the access through this area would severally inhibit our usage of the eastern entrance to the property, in violation of the historical cross easement that has existed between the owners of the property. This usage has been open and notorious since the construction of the existing buildings in 1962 and has been used continously by both owners during that entire period of time. The curtailment of the usage as seems to be planned would greatly increase the steepness of the entrance ramp to the It ,Z 10 station from the east and in certain weather conditions result in the loss of that access to the station. Additionally, the great hight of the intended building would result in a severe ice buildup problem along the Frontage Road adjacent to the Vail Village Inn, the existing station and four way stop. I agree with your between Mr. Sterk you and myself at contact my office set up a mutually meeting. recommendation that a meeting be set up al, representatives of the developer, and some time in the near future. Please some time after the first of the year to agreeable time and place for such a Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this matter, if you have any questions or require additional information, feel free to contact my office. S i n cay , Jr. RD/dd cc: Conrad Sterkal 0.. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 January 28, 1985 2:15 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of January 7, 1985 2. Request for a front setback variance in order to build a residence on Lot 6, Block 8, Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Henry H. Maruyama (Staff Rec: Approval) 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a hand gun range at the Vail Town Shops in the Public Use District. Applicant: Vail Police Department (Staff Rec: Approval) 4. Request to amend the zoning code, Chapter 18.04, definition of GRFA, in order to allow an extra GRFA of 250 square feet to structures five years old or more, under certain conditions. Applicant: Town of Vail (Staff Rec: Approval) �0 BE TABLED 5. Request for a conditional use permit and for a minor subdivision in order to convert to time share condominium unit 408A of the Wren Condominiums. Applicant. Eugene E. Herzberger 6. Set date for public hearing for zoning of Spraddle Creek subdivision. 7. Review of changes being made to the proposed redevelopment plan of Phase IV of SDD6, Vail Village Inn. Planning and Environmental Commission January 28, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Duane Piper Tom Braun Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz Jim Viele Rick Pylman Jere Walters The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Duane Piper, chairman. 1. Approval of minutes of January 7, 1985 Approved 3 -0. 2. Request for a front setback variance in order to build a residence on Lot 6, Block 8, Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Henry H. Maruyama Staff recommendation: Approval Kristan Pritz gave the staff presentation and corrected the setback request which should have been 7 feet, not 6 feet as written in the memo. The applicant, Henry Maruyama was present to answer questions. Walters moved and Rapson seconded to approve the setback variance of 7 feet. Vote 5 -0 in favor. • 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a hand gun range at the Vail Town Shops in the Public Use District. Applicant: Police Department Tom Braun explained the request and stated that extensive grading would be done to-construct berms on 3 sides. The range was to be used only by the Vail Police Department and at this time during daylight hours only. The Vail Metro Recreation District had written a letter stating that they had no objection. The Police Department held a public meeting.to discuss concerns. No verbal or written concerns had been received to date. Donovan mentioned concern of visiblility from neighborhoods and also suggested signage to the north. Viele moved and Walters seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 4. Request to amend the zoning code, Chapter 18.04, definition of GRFA, in order to allow an extra GRFA of 250 square feet to structures five years old or older under certain conditions. Applicant: Town of Vail Tom Braun explained the requested amendment and added that after gaining approval from the Planning Commission in November of 1984, the Town Council raised some significant issues which the staff then incorporated into changes in this proposal. • -2- PEC 1/28/85 Braun pointed out that the ordinance was in two parts. The section dealing with single family, primary /secondary or duplex structures was unchanged from the previous submittal. The section dealing with multi- family structures had been changed to eliminate enclosures of decks or balconies. After discussion, Howard Ra son moved and Jim Viele seconded to approve the amendment for recommendation to the Council. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 5. Request far a conditional use permit and for a minor subdivision in order_ to convert to time share condominium unit 408A of the Wren Condominiums. Applicant: Eugene E. Herzberger Toni Braun asked to table this item. Viele moved and Rapson seconded to table to February 25. Vote was 5 -0 in favor. 6. Set date for public hearing for zoning of Spraddle Creek subdivision. Peter Patten stated that February 25th was a recommended date for the hearing. It was moved and seconded to set February 25, 1985 as the date for public hearing. 10 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code, Chapter 18.04, Definition of GRFA, in order to allow an extra 250 square feet of GRFA for structures five years old or more under certain conditions. Applicant: Town of Vail BACKGROUND OF THIS PROPOSAL As you recall, the Planning Commission and Town Council have been involved with the development of this ordinance for a number of months. On November 8, 1984, the Planning Commission recommended to approve the proposed amendments to the zoning code as presented. The next step in the approval process for this amendment would have been to present an ordinance to the Town Council for their review. However, significant issues were raised relative to some of the provisions in the previously proposed amendment. In response to these concerns, the staff went to the Council at a work session to discuss potential problems with the amendment as it was drafted. At that time the staff received specific direction from Council as to how the new ordinance should be drafted. This proposal has been returned to the Planning Commission . for your review because the changes presented are substantially different from the ordinance previously considered. CHANGES TO PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AMENDMENT As proposed, this amendment would allow existing units to construct an additional 250 square feet of GRFA provided certain conditions are met. This provision was divided into two sections, one addressing Single Family, Primary/ Secondary and Two Family Resi- dential, and another addressing units in multi-family dwellings. Revisions to the amendment reviewed by the Planning Commission in November are only in the section of this proposal addressing multi - family dwellings. The rest of this memo will address what these changes are and what prompted them to be made. During the development of this amendment, concern was raised by both Planning Commission and Council members over the potentially negative impacts that could result if all decks in large multi- family structures is worth being closed. If enclosed, it was felt these decks would adversely affect the architecture of these structures as well as the ambiance in Vail. The direction given to the staff from the Planning Commission and Council was to not include deck enclosures in multi - family dwellings under this provision. The proposal previously reviewed by the Planning Commission would have allowed deck enclosures in multi - family dwellings only on first floor. The staff included this provision in the . amendment because it was felt that any visual impact of the deck enclosure would be minimal on first floor, and also to allow for as many people as possible to qualify for this new amendment. It is this provision that has created the problems requiring this amendment to be reviewed again by the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission review, the staff received a number of letters and phone calls concerning this amendment. These comments were critical of the ordinance because it would have allowed ground floor decks to be enclosed in multi- family dwellings while decks in the upper floors in the same building could not be enclosed. Concerns expressed to the staff centered around the question of discrimination. The question of discrimination is a valid one unless there are solidly defensible reasons for distinguishing between ground floor deck enclosures and upper floor deck enclosures. It was felt by the staff that if challenged, this distinction between ground floor and upper floor decks would be a difficult one to defend. It was primarily for this reason that this ordinance has been redrafted. NEW AMENDMENT PROPOSAL As has been stated, this proposed amendment has been drafted in two sections. The section concerning Single Family, Primary/ - Secondary and Two Family Residential has not changed from the previously reviewed proposal. Changes made to the section addressing multi- family dwellings will allow for only internal additions. This would essentially limit any GRFA additions in these types of structures to loft additions. Any proposed additions to multi- family dwellings requiring external modifications would not be allowed under this amendment. The specific conditions with respect to this amendment proposal are outlined on the attached pages. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for approval as now proposed. The original intent of this amendment was to allow existing property owners an opportunity to upgrade and improve their properties. It is hoped that this ordinance will provide residents with that opportunity for their benefit as well as that of the community without creating negative impacts on the existing visual character of the town. GRFA -•3- 1/28/85 Amendment to 18.04.130(1), definition of GRFA from the Town of Vail zoning code: f. Any unit not restricted as employee housing in the Primary /Secondary, Two Family Residential, or Single Family Residential distrilcts shall be eligible fora maximum of 250 additional square feet of GRFA over and above the existing square footage or the allowable square footage of the site. Any given unit will be eligible for this provision only once. in order to apply for this provision., the proposal must Meet the following criteria: 1. A minimum of five years has passed from the date of issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy. 2. The final certificate of occupancy has been issued. 3. No variance is accompanying the proposal for the addition unless those approved are by the Planning and Environmental Commission under standard variance procedures. 4. Adjacent property owners (including joint owners of duplex or primary/ secondary units) shall be notified of any application under this section. 5. Conversion of garage or enclosed parking areas will not be allowed unless a new garage is also being proposed. 6. Any increase in parking requirements due to such an addition shall be met. 7. All proposals under this section shall be reviewed with respect to the Design Review Guidelines. Properties proposing an addition under this sub - section shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards.as presr..ibed in Section 18.54 of the Vail Zoning Code. General maintenance and upkeep of the subject structure and site, including landscaping shall be reviewed by the staff at the time an application is made. Amendment to 18.04.130(2) of the Town of Vail zoning code: f. Any unit in a multi - family building shall be eligible for a maximum of 250 .additional square feet of GRFA over and above the existing square footage. or `allowable square footage of the site. Any given unit wwll be eligible for this provision only once. in ordrr to apply for this provision, the proposal must meet the following criteria: 1. The structure is a minimum of five years old from the date of issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy. 2. The final certificate of occupancy has been issued. 3. No variances accompany the proposal for the addition unless those approved are by the Planning and Environmental Commission under standard variance procedures. 4. Notification of adjacent property owners shall be required for any application under this section. GR1;A _4- 1/28/85 ' 5. Conversion of garage or enclosed parking areas will not be allowed unless a new garage is also being proposed. 6. Any increase in parking requirements due to such an addition shall be met. 7. All proposals under this section shall be reviewed with respect to the Design Review Guidelines. Properties proposing an addition under this sub - section shall be required to meet minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as prescribed in Section 18.54 of the'Vail Zoning'Code. General maintenance and upkeep of the subject structure and site including the project's landscaping or site improvements (i.e. trash facilities, berming to screen surface parking, etc.) shall bereviewed by the staff at the time an application is made. This review will take place only once under this system for each project. A letter of approval from the condominium association will be submitted as part of the application to the Community Development Department. 9. No deck, balcony enclosures or building expansions shall be allowed under this provision. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use to construct a hand gun range at the Town shops in the Public Use District. Applicant: Town of Vail Police Department DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSER USE The proposed hand gun range would be located just west of the Town shop /bus barn building. Site work to be done includes extensive grading and the construction of a "small range hut." The actual range would be 80 feet by 50 feet, with natural berms created on 3 sides of the shooting area. The range would be used only by Town of Vail police officers, and at this time it is planned to be used only during daylight hours. At the present time, the Police Department travels to Gypsum in order for its officers to be certified to use their hand guns. By establishing this hand gun range, the Police Department hopes to reduce traveling expenses as well as the time involved in certifying each officer. In addition, medical aid is an important aspect with respect to this application. At the present, the nearest hospital to the Gypsum range is 25 miles away. With this new proposal, the Vail Valley Medical Center will be in close proximity to the proposed hand gun range site. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the 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. As proposed, the hand gun range is a compatible use with the site it is proposed for. The berms that will be created will provide a good buffer from the surrounding uses (Town shops, bus barns). In addition, the area is secured from public access. This will mitigate the potential safety problem of passers by wandering onto the shooting range site. Of primary concern with respect to this application is the noise impact from sounds of the shooting. Of concern is the potential noise impact on the golf course and the residential developments surrounding the golf course. As you recall, the Police Department provided the Planning Commission with a shooting demonstration last year during their request to amend the zoning code to allow shooting ranges as a conditional use in this zone district. . A similar test was conducted for the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District. In addition, the Police Department held a special meeting for the public to answer any questions and concerns regarding this request. The Town has yet to receive any written complaints concerning this proposed use. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. As has been stated, a major concern with this proposal is the noise impact on the golf course. Included in your packet is a letter from the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District stating that. the board has no objection with the construction of a firing range as proposed. Based on this letter, the shooting demonstration and the decibel tests, the staff is satisfied that this will not have a negative impat on these factors. 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. As has been stated, access to the shooting area has been restricted to Town of Vail employees. There is concern, however, with . potential access off of Forest Service property to the north of the site. The Police Department has addressed this issue and will install signage in the areas north of the shooting area. While foot traffic in this area would be unlikely, signage identifying this shooting area is an adequate solution to this potential problem. 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. While grading of the site is to be done, it should have no signi- ficant effect on this area. Any changes to the site will be visible only from the Town shop yards and not visible from any public spaces other than from above the shooting area. Related Policies in Vail ' s Community Action Plan There are no related policies in Vail's Community Action Plan. Such other facyors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, 1f an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. None required. 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 is recommending approval of this request. The Police Department has done a good job of addressing the concerns of both the Town of Vail staff, neighbors, and the public in general . 40 A number of meetings were held with the Public Works Department to ensure that the location of this facility would be compatible with the existing uses at the Town Shops. In addition, the Police Department has worked with the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District and has received their support for this request. Finally, the Police Department held a public meeting to allow citizens to voice their opinion regarding their request. This meeting was initiated by the Police Department and was not required as a part of this application. Consequently, the staff is com- fortable that all serious concerns with respect to any potential impacts from this use. THE FOLLOWING SOUND STUDY WAS UNDERTAKEN BY SID Fox of THE EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND JEFF LAYHAN OF THE VAIL POLICE DEPARTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1984 BEGINNING AT APPROX- IMATELY 1600 -HRS. INSTRUMENT: 1565 -B SOUND LEVEL METER, GENERAL RADIO USA LAST CALIBRATED:DEC. 1,1983 ALL MEASUREMENTS TAKENINTHE SLOW M ODE. WHERE THE MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN AND WHAT THE MEASUREMENT WAS FOLLOWS. WEAPON: SP11TH AND WESSON, MODEL 19, .357 MAGNUM, 2,1, INCH REVOLVER. AMMUNITION: DENVER BULLET, .38 CAL., 148 GR. WADCUTTER. SHOOTING DIRECTION: 'FORTH TO SOUTH POSITION OF INSTRUMENT 1. 3 feet to the right of the shooter 2. 30 feet to the right of shooter 3. between berm and the shops bldg. 4. between 1--70 and boundary berm 5. Pul i s bridge 6. Vai 1 Valley Dr. a t Sunburst Dr. 7. Golfcourse Clubhouse 8. rear of 1855 Sunburst Dr. 9. rear of 1367 Vail Valley DR. 10. rear of 1307 Vail Valley Dr. 11 ... rear of 1183 Cabin Circle 12. rear of 967 Vail Valley Dr. READING AMBIENT 86 60 85 57 62 65 barely heard 75 barely heard 60 55 64 not heard 67 not heard 55 62 b0 57 63 59 61 55 53 VAI L (UP 1_;;;1 t 7 Ui.:'i.LQi'r;t rrT DEPARTMENT AND JEFF LAYf•Utf4 OF TfiE ti;,1 L ik ,, �► `3 DEPARTMEUT ON FF1I DAY , DECEMBER 9,.1983 BEGINNING AT APP PDXIf a, ���� • „ATELY 801 Ir;57RUr1ENT: r __g tid L�GC nrc1��z C -N CLUC % A. LAST CALIBRATED: 'K, 5-2- loan , 0Z !�Z C/d., ALL MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN IN THE.SLOw MODE. WHERE THE MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN AND WHAT THE MEASUREMENT WAS FOLLOWS. WEAP014: SMITH AND WESSON, MODEL 19, .357 MAGNUM, 4 INCH, REVOLVER. APIMUNITION. DENVER BULLET, .33 CAL., 148 GR. WADCUTTER. SHOOTING DIRECTION: SOUTH TO NORTH. POSITION OF INSTRUMENT READING 1. 3 feet to the right of shooter g' 2. 30 feet to the right of shooter 7zyz 3. between the boundary berry and the shops bldg. 53 6-3 4. between 1-70 and boundary berm 5. Pulis Bridge 5-3 -1/ CAS pa,v,W,g7.- sNowa�� '>•o�vs. 3 Yg %� 6. Vail Valley Dr. at Sunburst Dr. eff,}rzp Y %�- 7. Gol fcourse Clubhouse -/ $' /z LK%i' 8. Rear 'of - Sunburst Dr. 50 9. Rear of 1367 Vail Valley Dr. 9 V q j-,- 10. Rear of 1297 Vail Valley Dr. _ Y 1/7 11. Rear of 1183 Cabin Circle wtiovw n►c. L ` /-i- P 46 YS- 'fz 12. Rear of 967 Vail Valley Drive Z)11,0) MOM tJLLoc.c yS" Y"i cI "s t. m Bic pwr ti on CA Pl s- ��^�l��- lfs 7 1 € I { � �i�i�n -02} 3(Yi •a � ic�� { I S.Y f I b. i! k • r 7 mL i { TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a front setback variance of 6 feet in order to build a residence on Lot 6, Block 8, Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Henry H. Maruyama DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Mr. Henry Maruyama is requesting a front setback variance of 6 feet in order to construct his residence. The slopes beneath the house are greater than 40 %. For this reason, the garage may be located in the front setback. However, the 40% slopes do not allow for the house to be built in the front setback. The applicant makes the following statement as to why the variance is being requested: " . because of the unique nature of this site (49% slope) and more specifically because of two resultant conditions which have worsened the hardship: 1) The road has been built 10 or more feet above the property line over most of its Iength, and 2) The front property line is 15 feet or more from the road over most of the length of the property . line. These conditions do not exist on several properties further west on Basingdale Boulevard. This has allowed those owners to build much closer to the road, eliminating long structured driveways and parking and minimizing the problems of having to push the buildings out over the slope. The requested variance will not result in the building appearing too close to the road, nor will the building appear taller than one story above the road. Its relationship to the road will be closer to that of the nearby properties mentioned. It is believed that the property directly to the west of the subject property could also benefit from the relief being requested, and that the configuration of all buildings' entrances could then have a more equal and uniform appearance as well ease of construction." It should be noted that the Planning Commission reviewed an application by Mr. Maruyama on December 10, 1984. At that time the applicant was requesting an 11 foot height variance, a front setback variance of 7 feet, and a side setback variance of 6 feet. All three variances were denied. Planning Commission suggested that the house be designed with more consideration for the site. Please see the enclosed drawings. r1 I� J CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Maruyama 2 1/28/85 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. The six foot front setback will not create a major negative impact as the house is located approximately 32 feet from the edge of the road. Lot 6 is also located below the road approximately 10 feet. Looking from Basingdale Boulevard towards the house (looking north), the view would only show the first floor of the house. Because the road is located 32 feet away from the house and is also above the property looking down on Lot 6, it is felt that the 6 foot encroachment into the front setback will not have any significant negative impacts on adjacent proper- ties. The degree to which relief from 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 gram of special privilege. Staff believes that the applicant has made an effort to redesign the house in a way which eliminates the height variance as well as the side setback variance. It is felt that every effort has been made to design the house is accordance with the zoning requirements for this lot. For these reasons it is felt that the front setback variance 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. As mentioned in the previous memo, no significant impacts would occur due to the granting of this variance. However, the Town engineer has requested that a revocable right --of -way permit be obtained for the retaining walls needed for the driveway onto the site which are actually on public right -of -way. Maruyama 3 1/28/85 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the 6 foot front setback variance. The variance is warranted because of the practical difficulty on the site of locating the house on the property without creating a height variance problem as well as other setback problems. In addition, there are extraordinary circumstances on this site due to the slope that make it difficult to construct a house without creating either a height or setback variance problem. The applicant has resubmitted a proposal which eliminated two out of the three variances that were previously requested. Staff feels that every effort has been made to comply with Town of Vail zoning requirements. The 6 foot setback is warranted and should be approved. �y p `y` 1 R { I ' - ':�' � k'. •�'S � ill 'f �� � l �� � � [�K5" �f - :. ,��". Yt,, , `� iff � v� L,. l t / Vl � i/'f 'k:r if d•''- h , 1 `) ti hb • r ;ti ' Ad � V�m t , -tL, -,W INC �t�,IhN Wt:-l. �.ac �tri2Mt�•i�i� _ .__ __'._ `- - _ ._,+. _ _ .may. •--- `K- i.r,.^-- ...^,- -x�+- .v�+�._ . t. } L4 Planning and Environmental Commission February 11, 1985 2 :15 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing TO BE 1. Request for a final plat review of Vail Woods Subdivision, a TABLED revision of Special Development District 11 which would divide the remaining area into 11 duplex lots. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates (staff rec: approval) 2. Request for a setback variance and a concurrent GRFA variance in order to enlarge and enclose a hot tub area which would add 162 square feet to Unit #1 of the Riverhouse Condominiums at 83 willow Place on Lot 3, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Richard M. Torrisi (staff rec: appr for setback, denial GRFA) 3. Request for setback variances and a 'Concurrent GRFA variance in construct an 85 square foot addition to a resident on Lot 17, :Bighorni�lerrace. Applicants: Howard and Virginia Sherr (staff rec: approval setback, denial GRFA) 4. Request to amend the zoning code by tha addition of paragraph 18.22.0301 in order to allow as a conditionalFuse,- eating, drinking, recreation or retail establishments in a PA zone. Applicant: Bradway Enterprises, Inc. (staff rec: approval) 5. Change date of public hearing for zoning of Spraddle Creek subdivision. 6. Update on Parks Master Planning Project. 1.,Jjp r Uj is Planning and Environmental Commission February i1, 1985 PRESENT STAFF _PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Duane Piper Tom Braun Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz Jere Walters Rick Pylman ABSENT Jim Viele Duane Piper, chairman, called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm. Donovan moved and Walters seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 28. Vote was 4 -0. 1. Request for a final lat review of Vail Woods Subdivision, a revision of Special Development District 11 which would divide the remainin area into 11 du _Vlex lots. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates Dave Peel, representing the applicant, requested tabling until March 11. Rapson moved and Walters seconded to table as requested. Vote was 4 -0. 2. Request for a setback variance and a concurrent GRFA variance in order to enlarge and enclose a hot tub area which would add 162 square feet to enlarge and enclose a hot tub area to,Un'it 7_.of_ the - Riverhouse Condomini_ at 83 Willow Place-on Lot 3, Block 6, Vail Village -lst Filing. Tom Braun made the staff presentation, explaining the request and that the staff recommended approval of the setback variance, but denial of the variance for GRFA. David Peel, representing the applicant, Richard Torrisi, gave a presentation and explanation of the request. Rapson moved and Waiters seconded to approve the setback variance req�Le.st_as - per the staff memo. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. Rapson moved and Donovan seconded to deny the GRFA variance request o_n the grounds that it would be an granting of special privilege. The vote was 4 -0 in favor of denial. 3. Request for setback variances and a concurrent GRFA variance in order to construct an 85 square foot addition toa residence on Lot 17, Bi horn Terrace. Applicants: Howard and Virginia Sherr Kristan Pritz explained the request for setback variances on three sides of the site and the request for a GRFA variance of an additional 50 square feet 40 in order to expand the dining room area of the structure. The staff recommendation was for approval of the setback variances and denial of the GRFA variance. PEC 2/11/85 -2- Richard Sherr, applicant, spoke on his behalf, explaining his overall plan to upgrade the structure and property. The Planning Commission discussed the hardship in the Bighorn Terrace units, precedence set by others in Bighorn Terrace, and other items. Donovan moved and Ra son seconded to approve the setback variance re uests. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. Donovan moved and Walters seconded to approve the request for a GRFA variance. The findings were that "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 the title, and would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same distict. The vote was 3 -1 in favor with Piper votin a ainst approval. Piper's reason was that historically he had always voted for denial of this type of request and campaigned for an ordinance to deal with this situation. 4. Request to amend the zoning code b y the addition of ara ra h 18.22.030N. in order to allow as a conditional use, eating, drinkin , recreational or retail establishments in a PA zone. Applicant: Brad-Way Enterprises, Inc. Kristan Pritz gave the staff presentation and explained that the staff was recommending approval. The applicant's presentation was given by Art Abplanalp. . The discussion by the Planning Commission centered on the need for the amendment, the conditional use process, and allowable percentages of GRFA as commercial space. Ra son moved and Walters seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council according to the findings in the _staff's memo. The vote was 4-0 in favor. 5. Change date of public hearing for zoning of Spraddle Creek subdivision. Patten gave an update on the Spraddle Creek Subdivision proposal and requested a motion to change the hearing date to March 25. Donovan moved and Walters seconded to change the date as requested. The vote was 3 in favor with Rapson against. 6. Update on Parks Master Plannin Project. Pritz and Donovan gave the parks planning update. The meeting was adjourned at 4:46. • TO: • FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: L • Applicant: Richard H. Torrisi BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST The accompanying memos explain quite clearly the requests that were presented to the Planning Commission in early February. Briefly, these involved a requested setback and a density control variance to enclose an existing deck at the Riverhouse Condominiums. Staff recommendations on these requests were to approve the setback variance and to recommend denial for the requested additional GRFA. The accompanying memos outline in more detail our reasons for these recommendations. FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION The Planning Commission was sympathetic to the requested setback variance. It was felt that there would be no substantial impacts on adjacent properties if this deck were to be enclosed. The setback variance was approved by a 4 -0 vote. Also by a 4 -0 vote, the Planning Commission denied the requested GRFA. In their discussion of this request, Planning Commissioners noted that this type of application would not be allowed under the provisions outlined in the proposed GRFA ordinance. Other comments by Commission members cited the existing development ., -on the property, which is well over its allowable GRFA, as a reason for not supporting this additional density. Town. Council Community Development Department March 5, 198 /- Appeal of PEC decision to deny a density variance of 94 square feet to a unit in the Riverhouse Condominiums. Applicant: Richard H. Torrisi BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST The accompanying memos explain quite clearly the requests that were presented to the Planning Commission in early February. Briefly, these involved a requested setback and a density control variance to enclose an existing deck at the Riverhouse Condominiums. Staff recommendations on these requests were to approve the setback variance and to recommend denial for the requested additional GRFA. The accompanying memos outline in more detail our reasons for these recommendations. FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION The Planning Commission was sympathetic to the requested setback variance. It was felt that there would be no substantial impacts on adjacent properties if this deck were to be enclosed. The setback variance was approved by a 4 -0 vote. Also by a 4 -0 vote, the Planning Commission denied the requested GRFA. In their discussion of this request, Planning Commissioners noted that this type of application would not be allowed under the provisions outlined in the proposed GRFA ordinance. Other comments by Commission members cited the existing development ., -on the property, which is well over its allowable GRFA, as a reason for not supporting this additional density. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 11, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a side setback variance in order to enclose an existing deck at Unit 1#1 of the Riverhouse Condominiums Applicant: Richard M. Torrissi DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED At the present time, the Riverhouse condominiums is a nonconforming structure in that it encroaches across all tour setback lines. The degree of encroachment ranges from .2 feet from the rear property line to 1.2 feet from a side property line. The applicant wishes to enclose a deck which presently lies 1.6 feet from the side property line. As proposed, the enclosure of this deck would not increase this encroachment. Proposed construction would be limited to enclosing this deck area. The applicant has cited drainage and freezing problems as two reasons why this enclosure is needed. It is felt by the applicant that the use of this deck is limited because of this drainage problem during the winter months. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS U on,l'eview:of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Munici al 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 re uested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The adjacent structure to this proposed construction is the Edelweiss condominiums. While the existing deck is only 1.6 feet from the property line, it is felt that the enclosure of this deck would not create an adverse impact upon the Edelweiss. The original proposal for this variance was to expand the deck area up to the property line between these two properties. That application was amended to the plans before you today. It was felt by the staff that to expand on this area up to the property line would, indeed, have an adverse effect on the Edelweiss. 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 orivileae. It is the feeling of the staff that to grant this request would not be a grant of special privilege. As has been stated, the existing deck as well as the entire structure encroaches dramatically into this property's required setbacks. To allow the enclosure of this deck would not result in negative impacts on adjacent properties. The existing deck is a nonconforming structure and its enclosure would not realistically increase the degree of nonconformity. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 11, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a density control variance in order to add 94 feet of GRFA to an existing unit in Unit 1, Riverhouse Condominiums Applicant: Richard M. Torrisi DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant has requested a variance in order to add 94 feet of GRFA to an existing unit in the Riverhouse Condominiums (see accompanying setback variance memorandum). This additional square footage would be created by the enclosure of an existing deck on the structure. At the present, the Riverhouse condominiums are 6,277 square feet over their allowed GRFA. Allowable GRFA 9,628 Existing GRFA 15,915 Proposed Additional GRFA 94 Total GRFA with this proposal, 16,009 square feet 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 vici!lity. With respect to GRFA, the Riverhouse is not unlike its neighbors in the Willow Circle area. The following table demonstrates the existing and allowable GRFA for these condominiums. Edelweiss Condominiums Riva Ridge North Riva Ridge South Willows Allowable GRFA Existing GRFA Amount Over 9,487 20,970 11,483 7,161 13,126 5,965 91199 19,824 10,625 8,258 16,236 7,978 As demonstrated by this table, existing development in this area is dramatically over the allowable densities. Torre GRFA -2- 2/11/35 The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population. transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and ub]4.-- . safety, There is no significant effect on any of the above elements. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN No policies are directly relevant with respect to this application. a Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS l� The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That _t Fe 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_ wel fare, or--materially i nj u 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 the 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 • Staff _ recommendation is for approval of this setback variance request. If this proposal were to increase the existing encroachment into the setback, the staff would not be able to support this request. However, this application is merely to infill an existing deck that is already a nonconforming situation. It is ;felt that this infill will not have a negative effect upon adjacent properties. • is Torissi GRFA - 2/11/85 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. Historically, the staff has generally not supported requests for additional GRFA over existing zoning. As was stated in the memo concerning the setback variance request, the applicant has claimed a physical hardship of ice and water runoff from the roof above his deck as a reason for needing this deck enclosure. It is a feeling of the staff that these problems could be mitigated in some other way. Because of the staff's previous position on requests of this nature, it is our feeling that this variance request would 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. There are no significant effects on any of the above elements. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN No policies are directly relevant with respect to this application. Such other factors and criteria as the commission"-deems applicable to the proposed variance. 0 Torrissi GRFA 2/11/85 0 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 staff is unable to support this request for an additional 94 square feet of GRFA. This is due to the fact that the existing development on the site Js 6,287 square feet over the allowable GRFA. In addition, the staff has generally -not supported variances of this nature and to support this request would be _ -a grant of special privilege. It should be noted that the applicant has delayed this submittal during the development of our new GRFA ordinance. As you know from your last review, the enclosure of decks or any external additions to multi - family dwellings will not be allowed under the new ordinance. It is because of this change in the GRFA amendment that the applicant had chosen to pursue this_ variance request for the additional density. It is difficult to address a request of this type that involves two different variances. This is especially true when one request could be supported, while the other cannot. While it may appear confusing that the staff could support a requested setback variance while recommending denial of the requested GRFA, the staff feels it necessary to address each request individually. In and of itself, the enclosure of the deck will not have a significant impact on the adjacent properties. However, when considering GRFA, the staff is unable to support this request when the existing development on the site is so dramatically over the allowable GRFA. "A• 1 • • river.�`ouye _cnv� 1 _- parHmi -_Area 1. willo 4a6b�._-_ i� • i tol Vill opr 1 edd +jelgy • • i model c d -mit • exiio, t VA o" "N1 hot -N b ) I I I � 0 exiyfi�_g == _remodeled uwi} Amw --aXiltiml "7-t4'fr. � -- t�vi��d- floor-- pla+n__y.� -►' -op mech. below .4*1 -.- I • � 0' 10 1� I� f i ; }I �w O Q •� n • • �` J E 06 5 A.• mt v 0 F "g CS r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 11, 1985 SUBJECT: Request to amend the Public Accommodation zone district Section 18.22.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail in order to add the following sub - paragraph N: N. Eating, drinking, recreational or retail estab- lishments not occupying more than 10% of the total gross residential floor area of a main structure or structures located on the site in a non - conforming multi - family dwelling, Applicant: Bradway Enterprises- Bradway Enterprises is requesting to amend the conditional use section of the zoning code for Public Accommodation zoning. The applicant's previous submittal to the Planning Commission on November 26, 1984 was denied by the Planning Commission and Town Council. At that time, Bradway Enterprises, Inc. was proposing to amend the permitted use section of the Public Accommodation zone. Since that time, the applicant has revised the amendment so that it would fit into the conditional use section of the code. The following sub - paragraph would be added to the conditional use section of the Public Accommodation district: is N. Eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments not occupying more than 10% of the total gross residential floor area of a main structure or structures located on the site in a non-- conforming multi - family dwelling. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION: "The Vail Municipal Code presently permits accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within a "Lodge" (as defined by the "Code ") which is the principal use if those accessory uses do not occupy more than 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. Because of the Town's definition of the term "Lodge ", at least one structure, Mountain Haus, is used as a lodge but does not conform to the Code because of the presence of kitchens in each of the units. All of the resi- dential condominium units in the Mountain Haus are used for temporary occupancy and all but two residential units participate in the rental pool. Despite the fact that this structure is used by all owners and visitors for temporary occupancy, the Town's characterization of a "Lodge" as a structure which does not include kitchens in more than one-half of the residential units prevents the owners of the commercial portion of the Mountain Haus from using their commercial space for the four purposes which are permitted accessory uses Oin structures which qualify 40 under the definition of "lodge." Bradway 2/11/85 page 2 • The only reason the owners of commercial units in the Mountain Haus are not allowed to use their property for eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments is the fact that each room in the Mountain Haus has a kitchen. While the presence or absence of a kitchen in a lodge may have an effect on the probability that the accommodations will be used for temporary occupancy, the presence or absence of a kitchen has no legitimate relationship to whether a structure which is, in fact, used as temporary accommodations, even though not meeting the definition of a "Lodge" should or should not be permitted to include eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments in a designated commercial area. In fact, the use of a significant portion of the Mountain Haus for Alain's Restaurant, and the success of that establishment, indicates the lack of any logical relationship between the definition of the term "Lodge" and the prohibition of eating, drinking, recreational and retail establishments in a multi - dwelling structure used for temporary occupancy. The proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose of the Public Accommodation District, in that the amendment would permit visitor -- oriented uses in association with and complimentary to residential accommodations for visitors. If eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments are related visitor - oriented uses appropriately located in the Public Accommodation district • in the case of lodges, such uses are no less properly permitted in the public accommodation district in association with any multi - family structure use for temporary accommodations, although not meeting the code definition of the term lodge." 'VALUATION OF THIS REQUEST Presently, the following conditional uses are permitted in the PA district and are subject to a conditional use permit review by the Planning Commission: a. Professional and business office b. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics and medical centers C. Private clubs and civic and fraternal organizations d. Ski lifts and tows e. Meeting rooms and convention facilities f. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures g. Public transportation terminals h. Public utility and public service uses i. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities j. Public or private schools k. Public park and recreation facilities 1. Churches M. Major arcade so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. r� Eradway 2/11/85 page 3 • The amendment would come after the end of this list. In the previous memo, other properties within the Public Accom- modation zones were examined to study the impacts of the amendment. According to that chart, four properties would be allowed to have commercial uses under the amendment: Commercial Sq Ft Commercial Sq Ft Presently Maximum Development Allowed Scenario First Bank 357 1696 Talisman 1884 Mountain Haus 4385 Villa Valhalla 1112 1721 Please note that in depth analysis has not been completed to determine if the additional accessory uses could be added without requiring variances for setbacks, site coverage, etc. Please see the enclosed chart at the end of this memo. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST • Criteria No. 1 Suitability of existing zoning. The purpose for the Public Accommodation zone reads: 18.22.010 Purpose The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semipublic facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor- oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The public accommodation district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. The Public Accommodation district is intended to provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. 40 Bradway 2/11/85 page 4 . This section does state that "additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which would enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density loding character of the district." The staff feels that the conditional use review process will allow the staff as well as Planning Commission to determine if one of these accessory uses is the type of non - residential use which will improve Vail as a winter and summer recreational community. A conditional use process will allow a case by case review for each proposed accessory use. The amendment will not destroy the intent of the zone district. Instead, the amendment will allow for commercial accessory uses in areas that are able to meet the criteria of the conditional use review. Criteria No. 2 Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal objectives? A conditional use permit application is reviewed against the following criteria: 1. Relationship of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. 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. 3. 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 parking area. 4. 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. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. Staff believes that these criteria are adequate to review any potential conditional use permit for an accessory use in this district. The previous memo stated many concerns about traffic congestion, loading problems, and parking that would develop due to the commercial pockets that may be created by the zoning amendment. Thorough review must be given to each conditional use permit for accessory uses in the ion zone_, Staff is still very concerned about parking impacts, loading impacts, and negative impacts of commercial in predominantly . residential areas. However, it is felt that the conditional • • Bradway 2/11/85 page 5 use process will allow the staff and Planning Commission the discretion to determine whether an accessory use has a positive impact on a Public Accommodation property. Criteria No. 3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community? The zoning amendment must be reviewed on its ability to impact the entire zone district. In the Public Accommodation zone there are four properties that have the ability to have additional accessory use square footage. The conditional use review speci- fically addresses the impact of the use on objectives of the Town, effects upon traffic, and effects upon the character of the area. Any proposed conditional use permit must be thoroughly reviewed against these criteria in order to allow for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Staff is not saying that the problems mentioned in the previous memo now no longer exist. However, there are some instances that may arise in which an accessory use is appropriate and does not have any negative impacts. The conditional use permit process will allow the flexibility needed to address these types of situations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the zoning amendment. In order to grant approval of a zoning amendment, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord 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 would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. (These are the 6 criteria listed above in the memo.) Staff believes that if the above findings are met by the proposed accessory use, then the conditional use permit will not have a negative impact on the zone district and will maintain the purpose of the Public Accommodation zone. 37.1. O_-0 �� OE O v cn 3� a ro O � ro O C to N ti C1 O� v to 2 C -k .- U ra u •co U ro v v� a a)�` (n co �, ro a S- = a� ro C U 47 .c a) 0 r-- (IJ 4-1 rO s` +-) � rO v 1) o (n 4-) > C C � t,,+ 4- -o a) b v V) 0 cn c '0 C , r- a) U 0 v m ri) rn v X V o� c v � SW U a) X o x S s rp -0 •� � V) � L •^ v ro }r S+ ro a + v O C1 E O +� v 0 •-) d O 0 v •r3 i1 c7 L CL r- � CD r L(7 co N U Q v r• •� O, rd ro U •r a) ro L •^ LCD [T CX] Ct CD :- n U O S ro �- O C1 S- C .0 f1 4 n� tD r- Co d• cY •.-, r. ro Cn v 0 C r X X 1 X S. (3) N r� O CJ E N a) 3p-) X � N •^ v � C v w as p () O O S C 0 C O S v 0) 0) v ro ° .r . C C 4.3 () •r S 4-) ro O O C O v) .-. r. .-. = •-- ro L O) .--o N O -6a v1 v? N y� i--• E O= C O t/) �- U � � v v v o 4- O 4r 4 E V c �, � +� a s 1) 4-) � a U -0 v) v r-- .r = v O u 0 (d a) -0 U ro ,- E s `� 4- 4" a a >, v +� r- C o U yr S- 3 � Sr s_ +' r- .� > 43) "' N 1n co rn � + En v°) w 9---0 o a) +%) {J U ra L •r 4' rn N (/) - •r •r- al Q) .O C W •F-) Cn U C) C1) � ?) S- C v U ao LLO h ..0 -1� a) r-- v fn co N M CD +� ro ro a is v - E �+ E L Sti _ �" r U •r •p C3 O 4- 4J ro Q) C: ° ro ro •' ' CO fo ra •1, 0 O O ra 4 E q:r .0 C1 4- 4- 4- 4- o v C v U }+ •r S, C G1 In b C C L C ro Q p U ea c C ro to ttS •� aj v S- W v +j Sw 5r v 0) }� 'C) N U C O 0 L •^ C) •1-J 4.) +) r O U L0 Cz. •� "G ro v U v ro ro ra C C O ra � 4-3 •N � ra ro Ct U O >° r CU S` r � 0)r � v +� .Fi .- 4--04- v r = CU C •r v a (D N v cn s+ O O O C ra ++ C2 v •^ to Cn U Sr L L v CL C- C- _ O C +3 +.) v L G) mro v O ra V7 �O N L 4 X x X X X x X C •r• CT 0 0) U) •F+ C v a%1 x x .r 4..) C •^ S- v N •r a) -0 =3 r -- - v -0 -r 4J -0 N C v S L •r .0 C ''' N > •r' -P rn i-) ro 0 "t7 ro In C d r- -0 oa = v vO ua) °Ern(D ro E=- r •r a O E 0) •• E i-) r- O 0 (D ro +-) •r N U C r- C • v ro v U •+) ro C .0 t•C� C ) ro � E 4- O ^ r C '0 () a r cn '0 � U •�- a) r U ro ° r7 X X x ° () C-F) C •� Q1 r x x x X x 'n s- U s= ro w v) a) X •r• C7. S-., E ro C v to : d a) v E L1 U) N 0 � O r- 4- • to ro U Cr- O v a-) O C!3 S- X O v .J c CL V) C v 0.7 TJ 5�., ra ro •i-�) S- r- C O S- O CTS•^ O O is -0 JML M S - i� v v E � 0 4- ro +a a) ..c ° +'`-' N LOS").. !r O E (1) 4- 4- O O 0 pV) 0 .r r U C v m 4-1 CO U v O s_ � ro L. •- p -0 -0-0 •> C U C5 ro 4--) In C L r •a) O -0 Q m U v ( C ^ r C ^ Zi C 41 rIf •r 4-) Z x O v r v v, o ra V) O a ro CD ra C ro (A ro 0 O C _ O v U v I •r b _0 O 4•' ^ S In r ro a) U ra C] O Y U) S- a r- -C 0 CL r- ro r- C r L � E O- L •-- 4- ro F- S LL. ?G T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 11, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a side setback variance of 11 feet, a rear setback variance of 13 feet, a front setback variance of 3 feet and a GRFA variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 17, Bighorn Terrace. Applicants: Howard and Virginia Sherr DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Sherrs are requesting these variances in order to construct a dining room addition of approximately 85 square feet on the first floor of their unit. An existing bedroom would be converted into a dining area. The additional area proposed in this request would be used for dining space. The applicants are also requesting to extend their existing deck in the front of their unit to the east approximately 7.7 feet in order to carry the deck around the front of the house and back to the new addition. knit 17 is located in Bighorn Terrace sub- division. The lot configuration is laid out in such a way that the 20 foot setbacks that are required for the MDMF zone encroach onto the structures on each lot. In this situation, the 20 foot setback encroaches on all sides -of the Sherr's unit. Only a small portion of their unit is actually within the buildable area outside of the setbacks.The following table shows the GRFA and variance statistics for this property: • Unit 17, Bighorn Terrace (east half of duplex) Zone: MDMF Lot Area: 1790 sf Site Coverage: 806 sf allowed 314 sf existing 402 sf proposed Allowed GRFA: 627 sf 431 sf lst floor 395 sf 2nd floor 826 sf total existing GRFA - 627 sf allowed GRFA 199 sf amount over allowed GRFA 826 85 911 -35 876 627 199 50 sf existing GRFA sf dinin _g room addition sf sf bedroom area that already existed sf Total proposed GRFA sf allowed GRFA sf amount over allowed GRFA sf existing amount over allowed GRFA sf proposed additional GRFA over existing U • • -2- Sherr 2/11/85 Setbacks: 20 feet front, side and rear Request 3 foot front setback in order to extend an existing deck to the east -- maintains 7 feet from south property line. 2. Request 11 foot side setback in order to construct the dining area- - maintains 9 feet from east property line. 3. Request 13 foot rear setback in order to construct the dining area- - maintains 7 feet from north property line (Please see site plan.) The applicants have stated the following reasons why they feel that these variances are justified: "We respectfully request variances for setbacks and GRFA for our proposed addition and deck extension for Unit 17, Bighorn Terrace. This property was purchased in November, 1983, for personal use only. The property is approximately 20 years old and is in some respects unsightly and in need of repair. This development was one of the original projects in east Vail and subsequent to their construction, the zoning was changed making the units nonconforming structures, both from a GRFA and a setback criteria. Any change to the building, however minor, will require a variance. This explains why so many have been requested and granted with more undoubtedly to be requested in the future. Therefore, it appears reasonable to us that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the GRFA and setback regulations would result in practical difficulty to the improvement of our property. The proposed changes do not materially affect nearby properties and, in fact, the adjoining owners have constructed nearly identical additions. Our Bighorn Terrace neighbors have lent their support to our project and enclosed are signed copies of their agreement. The board of directors of the Bighorn Mutual Condominium Association have reviewed our plans and fully endorse our proposal. We hope you will look favorably on this proposal. It is one that will mean much to our family's enjoyment." CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findi the Department of Community bevel setback variances and denial of t Consideration of Factors s, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code rent recommen Us approval of the requeste variance. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Both the setback variances and the GRFA variance will not have any negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. --3- Sherr 2/11/85 i The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and en- forcement 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 soecial privilege. Front, Side,:Back Setback. Variances Staff feels that due to the configuration of the lots in this subdivision, it would not be a special privilege to grant these variances for setbacks. GRFA Variance Staff feels that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the GRFA variance. The desire to increase the dining area for this unit does not constitute a physical hardship on the site which would warrant the granting of this GRFA addition. The following chart shows variance requests which have been reviewed in the past for the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision: 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 Table Setback 18 ft Approval Sep 82 Odum Setback for 18 ft Approval Approval Airlock Nov 83 Houston GRFA 80 sq ft Denial Approval Setback 16 ft Denial Approval � 0 • -5T Sherr 2/11/.85 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Front, Side, Back Setback Variances The staff recommends approval of the setback variances. There are extraordinary circumstances on this site due to the configuration of the lot lines. The layout of the lots makes it nearly impossible to do any type of addition to the structure without requesting setback variances. GRFA Variance Staff is recommending denial of the 50 square foot GRFA variance based on the opinion that there is no physical hardship which indicates that the dining room area is necessary and therefore deserves relief from the strict or literal interpretation of the GRFA requirements for this lot. -4- Sherr 2/11/85 The chart indicates that granting the setback variances would not be a grant of special privilege. However, it does show that the granting of the additional GRFA would be a grant of special privilege. The existing GRFA of the unit without the addition is presently 784 square feet. The allowed GRFA for this property is 627 sq ft. The existing unit is now 199 square feet over the allowed GRFA. This non - conforming situation would only be increased by the approval of the dining room addition. With the new addition, the additional GRFA over the allowed would become 249 square feet. The effect of the re uested variance on light and air, distribution of population, trans ortHl on and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Both variances would not have any negative impacts upon these areas of concern. 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. is is 0 Lot 17, Bighorn Terrace N 36035'40W UNIT 15 485 P\ INCLUDED PARCEL �( °5? POLICY NO AZ3F` UNIT 18 � \� � c CENTER Of PARTYWALL OUTLINE OF WEST HALF OF DUPLEX �h{o S DOG \ 1 Cj r��C+pL1 OVE)iHANG HOUSE ti � / 1 fah g O� LEX A DUPLEX �� �, h p v �, a� `LQ1 h Ell x ` \ DECK P ` J I/�/ 17. N °36 00 E 4 85' (LEGAL ) �5, � \\�� ✓#�c /� �� p0 4 90' (CALC / 7ro°^� UNIT SO ti v ° 00 ,, PARKING EASEMENT I '"F /. S J 2- v kkm I� 0 cV d ii Planning and Environmental Commission February 25, 1985 2:30 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of February 11. 2. Request for a side setback of 14 feet and a front setback of 20 feet in order to construct a garage on Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: A. Emmet Stephenson, Jr. 3. Stephens Subdivision Plat Update 4. Reminder of joint meeting with Town Council on March 12, tentative time is 2:00 pm. :7 • 1. Approval of minutes of February 11. Rapson moved and Donovan seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 3 in favor, none against, with Viele and Affeldt abstaining. 2. Request for a side setback of 14 feet and a front setback of 20 feet in order to construct a ara e on Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: A. Emmet Stephenson, Jr. Staff presentation was given by Kristan Pritz, including the project background and staff recommendation for denial. . Emmet Stephenson, owner, and Nelson King, project designer., gave testimony to the project background and design criteria involved in developing the addition. Bill Andrews, Town Engineer explained the reason for two required parking spaces, one in the garage, and one immediately behind the garage door. He also explained the reason for the allowance of overflow parking and its purpose. Amos Joanis, project contractor, displayed photographs of the site to show the current parking and maintenance situation. Emmet Stephenson explained his reasoning for constructing the addition as it was built and agreed that a serious error was made, but he believed that the situation was workable and was still an improvement over the original parking situation, prior to granting of any variances. He asked for the understanding of the PEC to grant the variance as requested. Donovan questioned the status of the original parking requirements through the Heller variance. Pritz clarified this by reading a portion of the original Heller memo. Donovan felt that the parking as is would.infringe upon road maintenance and traffic. Rapson stated that two required spaces were adequately designed into the original Heller variance, and added that only one "required space" is available with the current situation. He questioned how the contractor could make a six foot error. Viele asked the contractor to explain how the 6 foot error was committed. The contractor explained that he felt it was due to a miscommunication between himself and the owner. He also displayed several sets of drawings. Gary Murrain, Town Building Inspector, stated that he believed that changes had been made to the approved building permit drawings and that early in the building process he had concerns about the location of the garage and had expressed this to the contractor. Planning and.Environmental Commission February 25, 1985 • PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Affeldt Peter Patten Donovan Kristan Pritz Piper Rick Pylman Rapson Bill Andrews Viele Gary Murrain ABSENT Walters 1. Approval of minutes of February 11. Rapson moved and Donovan seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 3 in favor, none against, with Viele and Affeldt abstaining. 2. Request for a side setback of 14 feet and a front setback of 20 feet in order to construct a ara e on Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: A. Emmet Stephenson, Jr. Staff presentation was given by Kristan Pritz, including the project background and staff recommendation for denial. . Emmet Stephenson, owner, and Nelson King, project designer., gave testimony to the project background and design criteria involved in developing the addition. Bill Andrews, Town Engineer explained the reason for two required parking spaces, one in the garage, and one immediately behind the garage door. He also explained the reason for the allowance of overflow parking and its purpose. Amos Joanis, project contractor, displayed photographs of the site to show the current parking and maintenance situation. Emmet Stephenson explained his reasoning for constructing the addition as it was built and agreed that a serious error was made, but he believed that the situation was workable and was still an improvement over the original parking situation, prior to granting of any variances. He asked for the understanding of the PEC to grant the variance as requested. Donovan questioned the status of the original parking requirements through the Heller variance. Pritz clarified this by reading a portion of the original Heller memo. Donovan felt that the parking as is would.infringe upon road maintenance and traffic. Rapson stated that two required spaces were adequately designed into the original Heller variance, and added that only one "required space" is available with the current situation. He questioned how the contractor could make a six foot error. Viele asked the contractor to explain how the 6 foot error was committed. The contractor explained that he felt it was due to a miscommunication between himself and the owner. He also displayed several sets of drawings. Gary Murrain, Town Building Inspector, stated that he believed that changes had been made to the approved building permit drawings and that early in the building process he had concerns about the location of the garage and had expressed this to the contractor. PEC 2/25/85 -2- Viele stated that he felt that he would not have approved the new design had it been presented for a variance at the original proceedings and felt it would be difficult for him to support now. Affeldt noted that the present design did not meet the required parking spaces. Piper agreed with Viele in that he would not have been able to support the new design if it had been presented for a variance originally. Viele moved and Rapson seconded to deny the requested setback variances per the staff memo. The vote was 5-0 in favor of denial. 3. Stephens Subdivision update Kristan Pritz explained revisions in the subdivision plat due to a revised flood plain study. She referred to a table of figures in a staff memo. Piper polled the members for their opinion. The members felt the changes were minor enough to be handled at the staff level, and no PEC hearing was required. Piper directed the staff to this effect. 4. Patten reminded the PEC of a joint PEC /Town Council meeting at 12:00 noon on March 12th. The agenda was a review of Ford and Donovan Parks planning. Patten then welcomed Eric Affeldt to the PEC and gave an update on the quad lift proposal and the parking task force status. . The meeting adjourned at 4:25. • • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 25, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance of 14 feet and a front setback variance of 20 feet in order to construct a garage on Lot 12, Block I Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: A. Emmet Stephenson, Jr. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Mr. Stephenson is requesting a 20' front setback variance.(8 feet more than the previous 12 foot variance) as well as a 14' side setback variance (3' more than the previous 11'' variance) for a garage addition that is in the process of being constructed. During construction the structure was.increased in length by 6' and in width by 1'4" which has increased the setback encroachments approved by the PEC. For this reason, Mr. Stephenson is requesting greater setback variances. This property previously received two variances from the PEC on August 13, 1984. The original variances included a front setback variance of 12 feet and a side setback variance of 11 feet in order to construct a garage and an addition to the existing residence. The following table shows the differences in garage dimensions among the PEC building plan permit review plans and as -built plans according to the most recent improvement survey: (Please see enclosed memo dated August 8, 1984 and plans.) The table above indicates that the as -built plans do not reflect what was approved at the building plan review stage. The length of the garage as well as the width does not comply with what was approved at the building plan permit stage. The variances for the front and side setbacks could have been respected if the width of the hallway dimension between the garage and the addition to the existing unit would have been maintained. The width of the hallway according to the improvement survey is 5' 4 ". The approved width for this hallway is 4 feet. The addition of 1'4" has created the side setback problem. It should also be noted that the differences in.,sizes for the garages do not create a problem as far as allowed square footage for the site. AS -BUILT BLDG /PLAN PERMIT ACCORDING TO PEC PLANS DRB PLANS REVIEW PLANS CURRENT IMP SURV 8/8/84 8/15/84) 9/8/84 PLANS (CURRENT) Garage Dimensions 26'L x 13'W 26'Lx 13W 26'Lxl.4'4 "W 32'L x 13.4W with a 3' overhang with a 3'overhang Hallway Dimensions 4' Wide 4'Wide 4' Wide 5'4" Wide Square Feet 300 sf garage 300 sf garage 300 sf garage 300 sf garage 38 sf storage 38 sf storage 38 sf storage 132 sf storage 338 sf Total 338 sf Total 338 sf Total 432 sf Total (Please see enclosed memo dated August 8, 1984 and plans.) The table above indicates that the as -built plans do not reflect what was approved at the building plan review stage. The length of the garage as well as the width does not comply with what was approved at the building plan permit stage. The variances for the front and side setbacks could have been respected if the width of the hallway dimension between the garage and the addition to the existing unit would have been maintained. The width of the hallway according to the improvement survey is 5' 4 ". The approved width for this hallway is 4 feet. The addition of 1'4" has created the side setback problem. It should also be noted that the differences in.,sizes for the garages do not create a problem as far as allowed square footage for the site. 0 • Stephenson -2- 2/25/.85 The applicant has made the following statement to explain how the setback encroachment occurred: Both the applicant and the contractor acknowledge they have made a gross error by not adhering strictly to the construction plans and elevations which were submitted and approved by the Building and Planning Departments, and that these departments should have been consulted prior to proceeding with construction. However, we would like it to be noted that even had the building been con- structed in accordance with the approved plans, it would still have exceeded the variance which was granted. The applicant also feels that the structure as it exists meets the concerns addressed in the original granted variance. That it does not impact negatively on traffic flow, snow removal, utility maintenance or, because of the underground construction of the building, on visual concerns of adjacent properties. That it does provide more than required off - street parking and is in general an improvement of existing conditions. 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 t e requested variances based uoon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested v_ariance_s_t_o other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. One of the primary reasons for granting these variances initially was to solve some of the parking problems that exist along Forest Road. In many instances, residents park out on the street. This situation creates a snow removal problem as well as traffic congestion. Two parking spaces were originally required in order to meet this unit's parking requirement for the addition. One space was to be provided within the garage and one was to be provided in front of the garage. Now that the garage is almost to the edge of the front property line of this lot, parking will occur completely on the public right -of -way in front of the garage. 17 feet now exists: ;from the front p_ron� rty line to the edge of the pavement of Forest Road. The required dimension for a parking space is 19 feet in length and 9 feet in width. It was never Stephenson -3- 2/25/85 intended that the parking space in front of the new garage would be located completely off of the applicant's property. The original variance request provided 8 feet in front of the garage which was actually located on the lot. The Public Works Department has also stated that the garage must be moved back to accommodate the extra parking space that was required. The Town engineer stated that special concessions were previously made to allow partial on- street right - of -way parking. No more concessions should be allowed. Staff beli eves that the relationship of this variance to other existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity will be negative. 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 rivile e. As was stated in the previous memo, the existing house was built prior to the existing setback requirements. Because of the location of the house in the front setback (approximatly 13 feet into,the front 20' setback), parking would have to be located on either the southwest corner or rear side of the house in order to be out of the setback area. Due to the difficult location of the existing house, staff feels that in order to achieve compatibility among sites, it would not be a grant of special privilege to allow the garage addition to be located in the front and side setbacks. Staff feels that to allow encroachments beyond • what was originally approved in the first memo would be a grant of special privilege. The applicant was given an 11 foot side setback variance and a 12 foot front setback variance. The current situation shows that the garage now encroaches 20 feet into the front setback and 14 feet into the side setback. The encroachments are way beyond what was originally intended in the previous variance approvals. The required front setback of 20' has now been encroached upon up to the maximum point. The current variance request extends 8 feet beyond the original approved 12 foot front setback variance. The required 15 foot side setback variance is encroached upon up to 14 feet. This encroachment is 3 feet beyond the originally approved side setback variance of 11 feet. Staff believes that it would be a grant of special privilege to increase the setback encroachments beyond the original approved variance request in August of 1984. 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 requested variances will create a problem for snow removal and traffic congestion as the parking space in front of the garage will now be located completely on the public right -of -way. The new parking space in front of the garage was never intended to be completely out in the public right -of -way when the original request came through the Planning Commission. Moreover, the parking space in front of the garage now extends approximately 2'.onto Forest Road. The Public Works department also supports ihe.staff opinion that there should be no further encroachments.onto the public right- of- way:in' this area. It is felt that a reasonable solution was fouhd.in the first variance request. Stephenson -4 2/25/85 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 staff recommends denial of both the front setback variance of 20 feet and the side setback variance of 14 feet. It is evident that even though the building plans did not match exactly the plans approved by the PEC and DRB, the setback variances could have been maintained. In addition, the existing garage does not coincide with the approved building plans for this garage. It is felt that to grant these variances would be a grant of special privilege. A reasonable solution was worked out through the original variance request of August 8, 1933.. To further encroach on the setbacks would go beyond the original intent of the approvals given by the Planning Commission. For these reasons, the staff recommends denial of the two setback requests. I t s w <z 0 LL r •_ o _ J o ' c w Z w 0 J w ,y a � a a �LL z wi w '- a cr N a O l( 32 0 a w_ o m Q s �C - v ,n c - u�a i5 3 7' I i t 40 N O � a 20 I O rl �f t40 I 49 i 0 J 411.59' Y J 2 c" 0 z T u' O o -j Z 7 O w cD _- cr Ir a o -j a z -:j 1 x � o a, s.. x a� as v C7 S- i r a) r �1 Q•r 0- Q_ Q S U fu a L .C7 +-7 4-3 N C77 aJ r- �1 CO co c =_ � a) o • • a) U as 73 11) 7 • r aJ 01 W M r 077 $ O4-3 r� ro 'd ra o rO ro L S.. i. a C.. u u rs5 rC3 +' co a E 4 V) CD -0 C3 2S C3 rcS •r r- 32 0 a w_ o m Q s �C - v ,n c - u�a i5 3 7' I i t 40 N O � a 20 I O rl �f t40 I 49 i 0 J 411.59' Y J 2 c" 0 z T u' O o -j Z 7 O w cD _- cr Ir a o -j a z TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department August 8, 1984 SUBJECT: A request for side and front setback variances to construct a garage and to enclose an area underneath a deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, 756 Forest Road. Applicant: Richard Heiler PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting front and side setback variances in order to construct one single car garage on the east side of the property and to add an addition to the existing house. Because almost half of the existing house is located in the front setback, a variance is required for both the addition and for the garage. The proposed garage extends approximately 11 feet into the side setback and 12 feet into the front setback. The new addition is approximately 13 feet into the front setback. In addition, solarium hallway will be added onto the south side of the building and a new deck will connect with an existing deck in the front of the building creating a deck around the entire house that also connects onto walkways leading to another rear deck. The balco on the front side of the house would extend into the setback beyond the required a:�ount. Presently, the balcony is 2 feet from the property line. Given the location of than existing house, the front and side setback variances are needed for the garage and a front setback for the proposed addition and deck. Two parking spaces are needed to meet the unit's parking requirement. One space is provided by the new garage. The second space (previo.u.sly existing) is located in `-J front of the new garage. The applicant is also requesting to locate a parking area in front of the existing house in the public right -of -way. The applicant is requesting the additional parking to solve a chronic problem of people parking on the street. The parking area is not needed to meet a parking requirement. This parking area was previously approved the Design Review Board in September 1977. The approval has since expired. The Town of Vail Engineer has approved with conditions the location of the unenclosed parking area. The applicant has agreed to rework the north boundary drainage system and to install a culvert at his expense on his property. The applicant has also agreed not to remonstrate against the Town of Vail if snow is diverted onto his parking area in front of the house by Town of Vail snowplows. GRFA FIGURES: Primary /Secondary zoning Site area: 45,500 square feet Allowed GRFA: 6,025 square feet Existing GRFA: First Floor 565.5 sq ft Second Floor 870.0 sq ft Total Existing GRFA 1435.5 sq ft Heller -2- 8/8/84 Proposed construction: Addition Garage Garage Storage Solarium Hallway plus existing GRFA Total 297 sq ft 300 sq ft 77 sq ft 128 sq ft 1435.5 sq ft 2237.5 sq ft Garage credit - 300 Storage credit - 77 Total GRFA with addition 1860.5 sq ft Parking requirement: 2 spaces CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review_ of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, tF.e Department of Community Development recommends appraya� of the requeste variance based upon the following factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The visual impacts of the one --car garage in the front and side setbacks are beinc minimized by designing the structure so that it is constructed at street level into the hillside. The structure will be earth- sheltered. Landscaping will also be _dded on top of the garage to minimize some of the impacts of the structure. The addition that is located beneath the present open deck should have minimal impacts on the existing structures in the vicinity, as it is merely an infill project. The parking area in front of the house should alleviate the problem of cars parking on the street. Vail Associates uses Forest Road for their snow cat access up the ski mountain. The design would move parked cars away from Forest Road alleviating the existing parking problem. Presently, 3 unpaved parking areas and two paved _arking areas exist in the neighborhood that are similar to the proposed parking. Publi-_ Works department also feels that the parking area would make it easier for them .o plow Forest Road. The applicant proposes to pave and landscape the parking. Thy overall impact of the parking will be minimal and will help to solve a parking problem. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inte�retation and enforce _ent of a..�ecified regulation is necessar to achieve cam atibilit and uniformit c treatment anion sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title cithaut _rant of s ecial rivile�. The existing house was built prior to the existing setback requirements. Becausz of the location of the house in the front setback, (approximately 13 ft into the front 20 foot setback), parking would have to be located on either the southwest corner or rear side of the house in order to be out of the setback area. Due tc the difficult location of the existing house, staff feels that in order to achieve compatibility among sites, it would not be a grant of special privilege to all.&v, the garage and addition to be located in the front and side setbacks. To allow the parking area special privilege, as the size parking spaces could the house to the property a parking space is 19 fee 11f,1ler - .I - 8/8/84 in the public right -of -way would also not be a grant of existing house is located in such a way that the required not be placed in front of the-house. The distance from line is approximately 8 feet. The required length for t, and the width is 9 feet. Because of these hardships which exist and the fact that similar variances have been granted in the area, the staff feels that the granting of this variance request will not constitute a special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of p9pulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and Dublic safety. The proposal will improve the parking situation for this siteby locating one parking space within an enclosed structure on the owner's property. The parking area located in the public right -of -way has been approved by the Town engineer. It is felt that the improved drainage, additional culvert, and removal of cars off the street is a reasonable trade -off for allowing the parking in the public right -of -way. The . project will impact transportation and traffic in a positive way. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL`S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN This proposal is related to policy No. 2 under the Community Design section of the Community Action Plan. The policy states that upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged. Staff feels that the remodeling and additional garage will be an improvement to this project. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the ro�osed variance. FTNnTNr,S The Plannin 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 t-e variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or:aterially injurious to properties or improve tents in the vicinity. Heller -4- 8/8/84 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 t,rould deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAr_F RECD 'MFNDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the front and side setback variances for the new garage, front setback variance for the addition and deck. The applicant has agreed to handle all drainage problems and to install a culvert on his property. The appli- cant has also agreed not to remonstrate against any snow accumulating in the parking area in front of the house due to snowplowing. The Town of Vail engineer has info)7,ed the applicant that snow from plowing will.be pushed into the parking area in front of the house. The staff recommends approval of the proposal because there are extraordinary circumstances on this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • 1 A 2 4 r_ w •4 4 u4 r, t 1V LO U d I l{ I� lit (V Q G V � 1 V ik � w 1 � �I r;-r" rips _ rrc. i I '. � F .. f r�r1, _ � - ! , " � ;--'K , ji v_ tf / AT� ,u 1 -- y �! �PF i r - _� _ - _.., � it •� � -.j �,�`\ � � i i �Q _ ! {/ lwl Ti i1 r - _� _ - _.., � it •� � -.j �,�`\ � � i i �Q _ ! {/ lwl . T4: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Community Development Department DATE: February 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Stephens Subdivision Plat Revision The Stephens subdvision plat has gone through several revisions. The original figures for the Stephens subdivision were revised on October 8, 1984 at the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. The additional square footage necessary to allow one more unit on Parcel C was obtained by realigning the lots lines for that parcel. This caused an increase in the number of total dwelling units allowed from 12 units to 13 units. Since that time, discrepancies were found in the actual gross size in square feet and buildable area square footage. The original surveyor had assumed that portions of the flood plain modification had been completed which, in reality had not been constructed. The new surveyor determined these discrepancies and has revised the gross square footage and buildable square footage figures for each parcel. The "February 1985 Development Statistics" below show the new figures for each of the parcels. The staff felt that it was important to inform the Planning Commission of these changes. If it is felt that the subdivision plat should go through the review process one more time, the staff is willing to proceed with the application. However, it was felt that because the parcel sizes.and allowable number of dwelling units remains essentially the same, it was not necessary to go through the entire review process. All previous conditions of approval related to the minor subdivision have been completed. For any new construction on these parcels, a detailed analysis of underground conditions and foundation design as per the Summeriie report will be required. 0 W ©l N Cil N I C] ..0 N J n T O (D N c-F —+• W (D Q -- x N Z, us* Cf J. c+ C) a J (D C'1' rt J J J W W N D dl O N D W Cil -� D C]l 00 -11 00 C? O V CD O O CD Ul Q W W N T1 C"T V Ul V f Tl •—+ •.•a --a W Y J m -� l0 N CSl (D m W P) OD co C' C) Z (D C] 00 Ul O CD W d O l"' C7 rnrn 00 (D J p F--1 ;K -n CO V C7 w m :I- N Di co H f-+ � m 01 CO 1I2^^ ♦♦Q^� (n to m CD CF) m W J .O N V V 00 V --i -1 V [3l lQ W lO W lO Cn Pb 00 C7 U1 QO N N W CD CD O CD -i N fib r W M c � H L N Ul m h -1 H al -P N Ca C J J W co .(.-. N 00 Z W -0. 4�- co m O) Q t31 N 00 Q O O CD C) O O CD CD m ,C7 Z7 (n C m -� .T7 m Z7 m z Z m Ln W ©l N Cil N I C] ..0 N J n T O (D N c-F —+• W (D Q -- x N Z, us* Cf J. c+ C) a J (D C'1' rt J J J W W N D dl O N D W Cil -� D C]l 00 -11 00 C? O V CD O O CD CD O 00 C] J J Ol .{�:- N CO W Ca CD fJl CD O O C7 W lO N �+ •.•a J (D Pi J N CD CD N Ul Q W W N T1 C"T V Ul V f Tl •—+ •.•a --a W V CD -� l0 N CSl C7 N W P) OD co C) Z (D C] 00 Ul O CD W d C7 l"' C7 (D J p F--1 ;K -n CO V C7 w m :I- N Di co N N � m V V 1I2^^ ♦♦Q^� (n to J M CO d> OT .O N d M 00 W --i O V (n lO W lO Cn Pb 00 C7 `1 H CD CD CD CD O CD -i N CD O 00 C] J J Ol .{�:- N CO W Ca CD fJl CD O O C7 W lO N �+ •.•a J (D Pi J N CD CD N Ul CS1 W W N T1 V Ul V f Tl •—+ •.•a --a W V CD -� l0 N CSl C7 N W J N co C) Z (D C] 00 Ul O CD W d C7 N J N C7 O Ol N F-+ co C? C) Cn 00 V lO Ql W --+ V f.Sl W N cn C7 N Q C+ C-) w C+ W —+ O n h� C7 00 V :3 W US (.7l O C U1 J sZ O (D J ru O f-- ON :5� :5 (D -- C] C1. C+ 00 U) CD O CS J CD 4 0 O ryJ. N ,l Ar M C] 3L n C+ 0 0 N .fi C+ (D Cr CL 0) Cr N (D C" (D CO S 0 ol W ::5 co W a. CD n -s m sv U) N (D 00 tlo Q (D C) T1 �w 2 C7 �7 H C VI C) Z O1 CD W N l"' C7 F--1 ;K -n CO V C7 w m :I- N C� co N N m V V 1I2^^ ♦♦Q^� (n to 01 V d> OT .O N 00 w O 4:� C) O CD —I -n Cn C7 `1 H CD C7 2 -i N fib ON W M � H N Ul C7 h -1 H al -P N 00 C7 -n A CO W -0. 4�- co Q O O CD m Q Z7 (n m -� m Z7 z m Ln mm (D cl- r— cn O + m Cl i F- (D O "O C+ -a C o--[ a) O ((D vt W J. ¢J A Q J (D r i 1. -5 cn Q m CD >< n H (n Q (D C) T1 �w 2 C7 C VI O1 W W N l"' C7 ;K -n W V C7 J m :I- N Cn C? N m x a O C] V O —I -n C7 CD C7 2 fib ON W � H N Ul C7 N H Z Planning and Environmental Commission March 25, 1985 2:30 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of March 11 meeting. 2. Request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code, Chapter 18.29 in order to add lodges and multiple - family residential dwellings to the conditional use section in the Arterial Business District. Applicant: Robert Voliter (staff recom. denial) 3. Request for a side setback variance of 14 feet and a front setback variance of 20 feet in order to construct a garage on Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, 756 Forest Road. Applicant: A. Emmet Stephenson, Jr. (staff recom. denial) 4. Assign one member of PEC to DRB for April, May and June. 5. Discussion of upcoming joint session with Council concerning the progress of the Vail Village study. Ap L • Planning and Environmental Commission March 25, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Eric Affeldt Diana Donovan Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele Jere Walters Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of March 11. Moved by Rapson, seconded by Donovan to approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 2. add section Peter Patten presented the staff memo and added an explanation of the origin of the Arterial Business District, current uses and the recommendation of denial of the request as submitted. Dick Ryan, representing Bob Voliter, explained the request and the intention of redevelopment of the Voliter property. Bob Voliter gave a short presentation on redevelopment plans for his property. Ryan and Voliter then offered an amended proposal to assuage certain concerns of the staff. The PEC comments followed. Viele was abstaining due to partial ownership of property within the Arterial Business District. Donovan opposed the multi- family condos and lodge uses in the district, Schultz echoed Donovan's concerns and added the concern of additional pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area, Affeldt asked how many units would be allowed on these properties and felt the ABD district was not compatible with multi - family uses. Walters agreed with the staff recommendation and felt that traffic was an important consideration, Piper felt that lodging could possibly be a viable use, but had concerns with long term residential. Rapson was glad to see the interest in redeveloping the property and would like to try to work with an amended proposal. Patten gave a presentation on the ABD circulation plan in response to comments on traffic and pedestrian crossings of the South Frontage Road. Rapson moved and Walters seconded to table this item until April 8. The vote was 6 in favor with Viele abstaining. ( Affeldt left.) 3. Request for a side setback variance of 14 feet and a front setback variance of 20 feet in order to construct a garage on Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: � A. Emmet Stephenson, Jr. Kristan Pritz made the staff presentation. Amos Joanis, the contractor, was representing the owner. Joanis stated that he felt the main objections had been answered PEC -2- 3/26/.$5 40 errors. the new proposal and that the new proposal was an attempt to correct previous errors. He added that everyone would benefit by the completion and cleanup of the project. Viele felt that a substantial effort had been made to correct the situation, but he still would not have supported the application if it were the original proposal and did not want to support it at this time. Rapson felt that the aesthetics would not be improved by the removal of the wall, but felt he could not support the request. The rest of the PEC members felt that they could not support the request. Rapson moved and Schultz seconded to deny the requested variances per the staff memo. The vote was 6 -O.in favor of denial. Eric Affeldt was unanimously appointed DRB member for April, May and June. ob I:] TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 25, 1985 SUBJECT: April 2 Joint Session With Council As you may be aware, the staff has been involved in the Vail Village study since early this year. Work has proceeded with the assistance of consultants Jeff Winston and Nolan Rosall of Rosall, Remmen and Cares. At the present time, we are concluding the data gathering phase of this study. This phase has addressed existing and potential development in the Village and how it relates to the overall carrying capacity in this area. The next step in the study is to look at a number of different develop- ment scenarios for the Village area. This phase has taken on added interest when considering the long range development plans for Vail Mountain. The end product of this study will include a master plan component to be integrated into the Town of Vail master plan, a revised and expanded Urban Design Guide Plan, and possibly revisions to the zoning code. The presentation plan for this work session will be done by the staff and consultants. It will consist of an overview of the study as well as our progress to date. The staff feels strongly that the Planning Commission be actively involved in this process. As a result, we would like to extend an invitation to you to attend this work session. It is scheduled for Tuesday, April 2 at 12 :00 noon. The location for this meeting has been tentatively been scheduled for the meeting room at the Vail Library. Additional information will be provided to you at our PEC meeting on the 25th. iPlanning and Environmental Commission March 11, 1985 2 :15 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 25. 2. Request for a final plat of Vail Woods Subdivision, a revision of Special Development District 11 which would divide the remaining area into 11 duplex lots. Applicant: I.K.S. Vail Associates 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to add 1528 square feet to the existing sports medicine department of the Vail Valley Medical Center in a Public Use district. Applicant: Vail Valley medical Center 4. Request for a conditional use permit and setback variance for a new quadruple chair lift located near the base of Chair 16. Applicant: Vail Associates • Planning and Environmental Commission March 11, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Eric Affeldt Peter Patten Diana Donovan Tom Braun Duane Piper Kristan Pritz Howard Rapson Rick Pylman Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele Jere Walters 1. Approvalof minutes of meetinq of February .25. Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minutes. Unanimous approval. 2. Request for a final plat of Vail Woods Subdivision. Applicant: IKS Vail Associates Peter Patten explained that the final plat with all signatures had not been signed and this was a requirement of PEC approval. Also, some language revisions to the covenants were needed to be carried out. He informed the PEC that the applicant had requested withdrawing the final plat application until these items were taken care of. No action by the PEC was required. • 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to add 1528 square feet to the existing sorts medicine department of the Vail Valley Medical Center in a Public Use district. Vail Valley Medical Center Tom Braun made the staff presentation. He pointed out that the biggest concern of the staff was with respect to parking. At the present time, the Medical Center does not provide for the total number of parking spaces required by the zoning code. With this application, the Medical Center had proposed re- striping the parking area adjacent to the Sports Medicine offices which would result in a net gain of one space. This addition would require 5 additional parking spaces. The staff felt strongly that these spaces be provided somewhere on the site and felt that the most logical place would be on the west lot with re- striping. Tom Briner, representing the applicant, showed on a site plan which parking spaces could be re- striped resulting in 6 additional spaces. He added that a gate had been purchased for the parking lot and would be installed in the spring with the result that there would not be skiers using the parking lot. Four conditions listed in the staff memo were discussed and agreed to by Briner. The fact that the hospital had not completed a master plan was of concern to many of the board members. Affeldt stated that he was on the hospital board and that a master plan was being worked on. He was asked to impress upon the administrators of the hospital that the master plan was extremely important. 3/11/85 PLC 2 0 Affeldt responded that the problem was funding. Viele moved and Walters seconded to approve the conditional use permit per the staff memo. The vote was 6 in favor with Affeldt abstaining. Donovan requested that Affeldt forward the concerns about a master plan to the hospital administrators. 4. A request for a conditional use permit and for a setback variance for a new quadruple chair lift located near the base of Chair 16. Applicant: Vail Associates Peter Patten made the staff presentation. He pointed out that there would be a 12% shift in the route skiers take up the mountain. With 12% more skiers using the Village lift, there would be an increased demand for parking spaces. He then discussed the effect upon the Vail Institute tent and stated that the staff had received verbal permission from the summer users of the tent to the effect that they agree to the construction and did not wish to use the tent this summer. Patten reviewed the memo which dealt with access, related policies in Vail's Community Action Plan, findings and the staff recommendations which included 4 conditions of approval. There was a request for a side setback of 14 feet, which had been reduced slightly by moving the structure slightly south. • Joe Macy of Vail Associates stated that they had written approval from 4 of the 5 utility companies and were about to receive the 5th, all of which gave approval for construction in the 10 foot utility easement. (Mike Larson, also of Vail Associates pointed out that only roof overhangs would be in the easement.) Macy agreed to the 4 conditions and added that VA would plant new trees to replace those cut down for construction. He stated that he was a member of the parking task force and was helping to find new parking spaces in Town. One suggestion from the task force was to make the parking at Golden Peak a pay parking lot for the public and Vail Associates would probably be able to lease parking spaces at Manor Lodge. Macy felt that there would not be more than a 10% increase in skiers getting onto lifts from Vail Village on a "worst day scenario of 16,000 skiers." Mack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill who owns property at One Vail Place as well as the Hill Building, stated that Mrs. Hill had no objection to construction of the new lift, and no concern if trees were sacrificed, since more trees could always be planted. Rapson expressed concern about egress of the increased number of skiers, for he said egress was already a problem. Macy said the plan was to widen and improve the Tourist Trap area. Rapson wondered if the gully above could be widened, and Dave Larson of Vail Associates stated that there was a problem because it contained the Town of Vail pump station. Larry Litchliter of Vail Associates pointed out that the Vista Bahn had downloading capabilities, and downloading would be encouraged for the skiers of lower ability. Donovan was unhappy about the fact that Vail Associates would receive the money for skiers parking at the base of Golden Peak. Schultz asked when the addition to the Village parking structure r 7 LJ 3/11/85 PFC -3- Is and Patten replied it would be scheduled for 1988 because of bonding restrictions. Rapson moved and Waiters seconded to approve the request for a conditional use permit to construct the Vist Bahn and for the side setback variance as per the staff memo with the following conditions 1. Written approvals from all applicable utility companies approving construction as proposed in the 10 foot utility easement before a building permit is issued. 2. Written approvals from the users of the Vail Institute tent for the summer of 1985 before a building permit is issued. 3. Vail Associates shall present a landscape plan and the landscape plan shall be to lesten the visual impact and shall be completed by August 1986. 4. Vail Associates shall comply with the Forest Service requirments for erosion control during construction and revegetation following construction. Re- vegetation of the disturbed areas shall take place before November 15, 1985. The vote was 7 -0 in favor The meeting adjourned at 4:10 pm. Patten reminded the board of the joint meeting with the Council scheduled for the . following day to review the park proposals to date. n LJ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to construct a base facility for a new quadruple chair lift called the Vista Bahn. Applicant: Vail Associates DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Vail Associates is proposing to construct $10 million worth of improvements on Vail Mountain in the summer of 1985. One of the major improvements scheduled is a new quadruple chair lift from the Village base area to mid -Vail. This lift will replace existing chair lift No. 16 and increase the capacity from 1200 to 2650 people per hour. A 12% shift in the route the skiers take up the mountain will occur so that 54% of the skiers will now go out of the Village. The site is located on Tract E, Vail Village lst Filing and is owned by Vail Associates and zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The base building for the lift is approximately 2,072 square feet and is a low - profile designed building. It is to be located immediately to the north of the existing Chair Lift 16 tension terminal. The mature stand of pine and aspen trees will be affected by the proposal • for the base building. Please refer to the attached site plan and perspective drawing for a better understanding of the proposal. 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 us. on development objectives of the Town. The upgrading and expansion of lifts and facilities on Vail Mountain is crucial for the long term success of the Town of Vail. We must continue to recognize that skiing continues and always will be this Town's number one industry and its reason for existence. Vail Mountain must maintain its place in the market as No. 1 so that we can be competitive for the shrinking skier market in the long term. Thus, the proposal to construct this quad lift is one element of an overall mountain development plan containing five phases which will assure the continued success of Vail Mountain and this, of course, is very consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. • is -2-- The effect of the use on .light and air, distribution of po ulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. A. Effect Upon Utilities As you can see on the enclosed site plan there exists a ten foot utility easement adjacent to the property line and the proposed base facility encroaches upon this easement. A setback variance from the 20 foot requirement in the AOS zone is required and is addessed in an attached memorandum. There are no utilities in this easement at this time, and Vail Associates is currently in the process of obtaining approvals from each utility to construct over the easement. B. Vail Institute Tent The construction of the quad lift base building will encroach upon the Vail Institute tent area to the extent that it will be unusable this summer. We have received verbal permission from the summer users of the tent (Vail Institute, CMC, and Rotary) that they agree to the construction and did not wish to use the tent for their events this summer •anyway. 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 parkin act real. A. Parking In January a parking task force was formed consisting of members of the Town staff, Duane Piper, Dan Corcoran, Hermann Staufer, Joe Macy and Nolan Rosall. The purpose of the task force was to study the parking problems created by the installation of' the new quad lift and to solve the existing shortage of parking spaces in the Village area as well. The task force was charged with making both short and long term recommendations through the Planning Commission and Town Council in an attempt to solve this parking problem. Projections done by Nolan Rosall and Vail Associates show that the quad lift alone will increase the demands for parking in the Village by approximately 230 spaces on a peak day (see attached letter from Joe Macy). On top of the 230 space shortage for the lift, we are currently 330 spaces short of meeting today's demand on the Village parking structure. Thus, the parking task force is addressing . a parking shortage of the magnitude of approximately 560 spaces and is very close to making recommendations for -3- short and long term solutions. In general, the task force's recommendation for the short term will center around re- alloction of the local and resident use of the Village Transportation Center to allow increased day skier use of the Village structure as well as converting a major portion of the Golden Peak base area parking to day skier parking rather than Vail Associates employee parking. The task force has a meeting this Friday, March 8, to finalize our short term recommendations which will be presented in more detail to the PEC this coming Monday. We feel the task force has made significant progress in the 2 months we °ve been addressing this problem, and we are confident that we can present viable solutions to the increased parking demand problem. B. Access The construction access to the site is proposed to be from the mountain access road located to the west of the proposed building site. The construction vehicles will come in on this road through Forest Service land and access the construction site through the existing meadow area between the site and the road. Forest Service approval is required for this access as well as approvals for the entire Mountain improvement plan. A letter which is attached from the Forest Service explains their upcoming approval process and control over construction activities. C. Staging Areas Please read the accompanying letter from Vail Associates regarding the staging areas proposed for the lift construction this summer. The proposal includes the use of the Golden Peak and west day lot areas for this purpose. It will require a separate conditional use permit which will be under PEC consideration on April 8. As the letter indicates, the use of helicopters will be required on occasion throughout the summer and every effort will be made to mitigate these impacts. 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 proposed building will have no negative effects upon the character of the area as far as scale and bulk characteristics. The location of the use has been historically one of a ski base area and is compatible to the surrounding land uses. The potential loss of a mature stand of trees to locate the base facility is a negative impact upon the immediate area. We feel that Vail Associates should look into the feasibility of relocating . the building to preserve as many trees as possible. Relocation of the building to the south in the area of the existing lift �T structures would allow this stand of trees to remain. i RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL °S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN 1. To assure continuing public and private maintenance and enhancement of major community products and facilities. 2. Vail should make every effort to maximize the use of its recreational facilities and resources -Vail Mountain. 3. The shoulder seasons also should be significantly developed and promoted. (The quad lift will allow a longer ski season on both ends.) 4. Identify and promote opportunities for recreation, etc. 5. Detailed physical planning should take place to insure planned, informed decisions about land use; develop a master plan for Vail Mountain. 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. An environmental impact report is not required. . 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 detrimentalto 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 request for a quadruple chair lift. We feel that the lift is a much needed element in an overall excellent mountain plan which will signficantly upgrade the quality of the ski experience on Vail Mountain. The accom- • plishment of the five -phase mountain development plan can only be a tremendously positive impact upon the viability of the -5- community. It is absolutely essential that the Town government . work very closely with Vail Associates regarding the impacts on the Valley by making these improvements. Areas which need to be addressed include parking, bus service, increased bed base, as well as other general impacts related to increased congestion. The communication between Town officials and Vail Associates is very good regarding this coordination, and we intend to continue these efforts. We feel that there are four important conditions of our approval as follows: 1. Written approvals from all applicable utility companies approving construction as proposed in the 10 foot utility easement before a building permit is issued. 2. Written approvals from the users of the Vail Institute tent for the summer of 1985 before a building permit is issued. 3. Vail Associates shall study the relocation of the lift base facility in an attempt to save as many of the existing trees as possible. This study will be done cooperatively with the Community Development Department. 4. Vail Associates shall comply with the Forest Service require- ments for erosion control during construction and revegetation following construction. Revegetation of the disturbed • areas shall take place before November 15, 1985. • u it 1 1 L ER FOREST N00012'03 "w 443.4 r airlift •I6 Tension Terminal TRACT E -1 (Vail Associates, Inc.) FX)5T/& �rn1�s. ?4ND PP..QPOSE.D �i-EV. glf 1\ Asphalt \ Bike Patn Concert rem Pod 5 5 1 ` 1'V Utility Ea9emant� I ME F- -1 OWWWWWA- -e r JA rlj, 3��rY h j f I ff+j1 ,t a �i C / Vail Associates Inc. Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek February 21, 1985 Mr. Peter Patten Director of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Peter: The purpose of this letter is to discuss parking issues related to the new village quad lift: -- a parking task force, chaired by Peter Patten, was established at the direction of the Town Council'in January. Vail Associates is a member of the task force. -- to date, the task force has inventoried the parking supply in Vail Village, discussed alternative methods of managing the existing supply, looked at the changes in out -of- valley lift capacity generated by the new lift, received estimates of the increased ` parking demand, and is in.the process of drafting preliminary recommendations. Potential peak day bussing alternatives were also discussed. s r . ,� �•�t .r s , ri ° =j� s We estimate the increased parking demand in Vail Village from the new lift to be as much as 233 cars on a peak day. We anticipate that the parking task force will have preliminary recommendations drafted shortly. r � trSincerely,) ,6v ■ s:aK �++ �r a i acy' 'F' Manager �r 4ai1 Planning &Technical enclosures: lift capacity and parking data Post Office Sox 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303)476 -5601 LJ 1:1 (&United States Forest Agriculture Department of Service U�S Holy Cross Ranger District P.O. Box 190 Minturn, CO 81645 Reply to: 2 720 Date. February 28, 1985 r Peter fatten, Community Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 L Dear Peter: This letter is to briefly outline the Forest Service position regarding access to Vail Associates' tract near Spraddle Creek and its effects on the Spraddle Creek Ranch, Inc. livery and to state our position on the ski area improvements proposed for 1985. In the Spraddle Creek area, I have made the commitment to Spraddle Creek Ranch, Inc. that the Forest Service will not take any unilateral action that will force them out of business. I have given them two options: (1) they can remain where they are, recognizing that there will be some negative effects from an improved street, some of which probably cannot be completely mitigated; and (2) they can apply for another site for the livery, preferably east of V.A.'s tract at Spraddle Creek, where I see no major problems with locating the livery. I expect to hear from them in the next few days. In regards to the proposed Mid Vail Vista Bahn ski lift, the Forest Service has a very formal and structured review, approval, and monitoring process for ski area improvements. We are reviewing the package of all 1985 improvements and will notify you when we have given our approval. After approval, I will require a detailed construction plan, including considerations for minimizing site disturbances, controlling erosion and water run -off, site restoration, grading, revegetation and public safety. I will have my "technical personnel regularly monitoring the entire process for compliance. If you or your staff need additional information on these issues, give me a call. Sincerely, DAVID A. STARK District Ranger } F ; , FS-6200-41 (8-W) ..'y Leo. �.�ke i. ,.- a+'aEr.� -•,:.. .. Vail Associates Inc. Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek February 26, 1985 , f r � T Mr.- Peter Patten Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Peter: `The purpose of this letter is to describe our preliminary staging plan for lift construction on Vail Mountain during the summer of 1985: .4 o Staging areas for dismantling: It will be necessary to stage both the dismantled lifts as well as the new lift equipment prior to installation. tl ' We plan on dismantling the old lifts in May, June . and early July. Removal will be accomplished by helicopter and by truck. The dismantled equipment will be staged at Golden Peak between the bottom of chairs #6 and #12 and at the West Day Lot in LionsHead prior to shipment. We will attempt to complete this phase the operation during the off season insofar as t practicable. - �t,;;sf� believe that dismantling of the lifts can be ,;accomplished with minimal impacts on the Town due to its largely off -- season schedule. 3 ; ;o aging areas for construction: ry {' The primary staging areas for lift construction will be Bear Tree and Born Free adjacent to our snowmaking `pumphouse, and between the bottom of chairs #2 and #17. z Overflow areas for staging will be Golden Peak between } chairs #6 and #12 and the West Day Lot in LionsHead. Concrete trucks will move up mountain to the snowmaking pumphouse for helicopter pick up of the concrete. r, Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303)476 -5601 Mr. Peter Patten 40 February 26, 1985 Page Two o Helicopter operations: . Up to 20 days of helicopter flying can be anticipated over the summer. Flights from the snowmaking pumphouse should have minimal impact on the Town. Flights over residential areas will not be necessary from Golden Peak. Flights into the West Day Lot will attempt to avoid residential areas by flying down Gore Creek and then up mountain. Flight operations for construction are planned to commence the week of August 2nd and run through September. Favorable construction weather will allow us to maximize the use of up mountain staging areas. Unfavorable weather will cause greater utilization of the valley staging areas and greater noise and dust impacts to the community. Crowd control, if needed, will be handled by Vail Associates. Attached are several maps depicting the proposed staging areas. Please contact me if you have any further questions on this plan. Sincerely, Y 1 VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. Joe Macy - {`!if Manager ,s ^4`''`' Planning and Technical 7. Enclosurbs }' t cc, Larson 1 >Larry Lichliter h 1 ! 4 , ra" C i i I f �i h i a� �; f p � .� s .. � T A1� i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to add 1528 square feet to the existing sports medicine department of the Vail Valley Medical Center. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST As proposed, this expansion would add lust over 1500 square feet of floor area to the Vail Valley Sports Medicine clinic. This new space would accommodate a physical therapy area, an examination area, dressing rooms, and an expanded reception area. In their submittal, the applicant has stated that no new employees or new functions will take place at the clinic as the result of this addition. The purpose of this expansion is to allow for a reorganization of space to facilitate better operations within the office. CRITERIA AND Upon review of recommends a the following Consideration ?INDINGS Section 18.60, the Community Development Department roval of the conditional use permit based u on actors: of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. This site, recently zoned to Public Use District, has been the location of the Medical Center for a number of years. While the Medical Center is surrounded on three sides by residential development, it is within the development objectives of the Town to retain this site as a medical facility. This proposed expansion would be consistent with the existing development and uses on this site. However, because of the difficulty with the site constraints at the medical center, it is imperative that a Master Development Plan for the property be produced. The staff has urged the hospital administration to develop a master plan but, again, we "re dealing with only a small addition proposal. This complicates our ability to look at the facility as a whole with regard to parking, circulation, general site planning and neighborhood compatibility. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of • transportation facilities, utilities, schools, p facilities, and other public facilities needs. • There are no impacts on the above mentioned factors. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to cFl ongestion, automotive and pedestrian safet and convenience, �traffic flow and control access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Of the above mentioned factors, the biggest concern is with respect to parking. At the present time, the Medical Center does not provide for the total number of parking spaces required by the zoning code. With this application, the Medical Center has proposed re- striping the parking area adjacent to the Sports Medicine offices. This will result in a net gain of one space in this lot due to the addition of compact car spaces. Of the 1,528 square feet to be added under this proposal, 1,080 square feet are used in calculating the additional parking demand from this addition. Areas excluded from this calculation include common hallways and mechanical areas. This 1,080 square feet equates to 5 additional parking spaces as a result of this proposed addition. As presented in this application, these plans would result in a net deficiency of 5 spaces. The staff feels strongly that these spaces be provided somewhere on the site. The most logical opportunity for adding these spaces would be on the west lot • of the Medical Center. There is potential to re- stripe a portion of this lot to add 5 compact car spaces that would satisfy the demand created by this proposed addition. The issue of parking will be discussed further in the Staff Recommendtion portion of this memo. Effect upon-the character of the area in which the pr22ose d use is to be located, including the scale and bulls of the proposed use in relation to surroundin g uses. This proposal should have no negative effects upon the character of the area in which it is proposed. In addition, this proposal is compatible with the existing scale and bulk of the uses on this site and surrounding sites. Related policies in Vail °s Community Action Plan There are no specific policies directly related to this application. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional • use permit be appproved 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, of 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 RECOD94 ENDATION The staff recommends approval of the proposed addition to the Sports Medicine facility. Of primary concern to the staff is the issue of parking at this facility. As previously mentioned in this memo, this addition would require five additional parking spaces to be provided on site. Relative to the issue of parking, the staff would recommend the following conditions be applied to this application if it is to be approved by the Planning Commission: 1. The re- striping of a small lot adjacent to the Sports Medicine offices be done prior to the issuance of any temporary certificate of occupancy. 2. A portion of the western parking lot be re- striped to add five compact spaces. This should also be done prior to the issuance of any temporary certificate of occupancy. 3. This past fall, the hospital approached the Town with plans to add control gates to their parking lots in an attempt to manage the lot more effectively. The staff has issued a building permit for this work. An additional condition of approval is that these gates be installed prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. It is felt that these gates would do a great deal to alleviate the parking problem at this facility. 4. This past summer, the Medical Center added to the parking area with the addition of paving and striping to the westerly most portion of their property. While this action surely is a postitive one in terms of parking, the work was done without any consideration given to Landscaping requirements for parking areas. A final condition of approval would be that the hospital work with the staffs to develop a landscape plan for this portion of the parking lot. Staff would recommend that a landscape plan be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, and the said landscape plan be installed prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1985 SUBEJCT: Request for a side setback variance to allow construction of a base facility for a new quadruple chair lift from Vail Village to mid -Vail. Applicant: Vail Associates DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Vail Associates is requesting approval. for the construction of a base facility for a new quadruple chair lift located immediately to the north of the existing chair 16 tension terminal structure. The proposed location requires a 14 foot setback variance in the Agricultural and Open Space district, the required setback is 15 feet. Thus, the facility will be constructed one foot from the property line. Other background information relating to this proposal can be obtained'by reading the accompanying memo on the conditional use permit request. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: • Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity_. The structure negatively impactsthe tent area utilized primarily by the Vail Institute for their summer entertainment program. For the summer of 1985, agreements have been reached with Vail Institute and other groups normally utilizing the facility that there will be no problem with the construction activity impacting the tent facility. The proposed amphitheatre for Ford Park will replace the Institute tent facility beginning in 1986, pending fund raising, construction,and agreements with the Town of Vail. If the amphitheatre facility is not available in 1986, the Institute tent facility could be slightly relocated to continue its use. No other negative effects upon surrounding land uses, existing or potential, are anticipated in that this area has historically been used as a mountain base lift area. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibilit and uniformit without grant of special privilege. The existing lift structures are located within the 15 foot setback area and it would be a physical hardship to respect the 15 foot setback requirement for the • Quad variance 3 /11/85 -2- • new base facility as well. The reasoning behind this is that the lift alignment is such that the base terminal must be located in generally the same area as the existing structures . which are very close to the property line separating National Forest land and Vail Associates -owned Tract E. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public_ safet . There will be a negative impact on air quality due to dust generation from construction vehicles during construction. The effects upon transportation and traffic are addressed in the accompanying conditional use memorandum. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN See conditional use permit memorandum. 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 rantin 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. n 0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS • 3/11/85 Quad Variance -3- The Community Development Department recommends approval of the setback variance request to locate a new base facility for the Vistabahn quadruple chairlift from Vail Village to mid -Vail. We feel that there will be no negative impacts, except the possible loss of existing mature trees as addressed in the conditional use permit memorandum..due to allowing the facility to be located as proposed. The Vail Institute tent facility can be adjusted in 1986 if necessary to allow the facility to continue to operate. No special privileges will occur if the variance is granted in that the existing base facility area which lies within the 15 foot setback necessitates;the location of the new.base facility within the same immediate area. Planning and Environmental Commission April 8, 1985 2:00 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of March 25, 1985 2. Request for a density control variance in order to enclose a deck which would add 97 square feet to Unit #1 of the Riverhouse Condo- miniums at 83 Willow Place on Lot 3, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Richard M. Torrisi (Staff rec: denial) 3. Request for a flood plain modification in order to build a patio and pedestrian easement along Mill Creek.on the east side of the A & D Building, Applicant: Capital Services, Inc. (Staff rec: approval) 4. Request for a conditional use permit in order to use the parking lot at the Golden Peak Ski Base area on Tract F, Vail Village 5th and on Tract B, Vail Village 7th, for a staging area for new and used construction equipment and for occasional helicopter landings. This is requested in order to expedite the construction of the Vista Bahn lift. Applicant: Vail Associates (Staff Rec: approval) 5. Request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code, Chapter 18.69 Hazard Regulations, to include provisions for regulation of construction in geologically sensitive areas in all parts of Town which have been identified as having potential geologic (rockfall and landslide) problems. Applicant: Town of Vail To Be Tabled 6. Request to amend the Town municipal code to add a new section, 18.58.320 entitled "Satellite Dish Antennaes," repealing Section 18.54.050 F.3. and enacting a new section 18.54.050 3.H. entitled "Satellite Dish Antennaes" in the Design Review Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vail To Be Tabled 7. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an amphitheatre at Ford Park. Applicant: Vail Foundation �J .w Planning and Environmental Commission April 8, 19$5 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Eric Affeldt Diana Donovan Duane Piper Howard Rapson Sid Schultz Jim Viele Jere Walters Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Duane Piper, chairman. 1. Approval of minutes of March 25, 1985. It was moved by Donovan and seconded by Rapson to approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 2. Request for a density control variance in order to enclose a deck which would add 97 square feet to Unit #1 of the Riverhouse Condominiums at 83 Willow Place on Lot 3, Block 6, Vai1_Village 1st _Filing. Applicant: Richard M. Torrisi Tom Braun made the staff presentation and gave the background on the request. Braun reminded the board of the previous request which had been denied in February. He . added that the staff was recommending denial due to lack of physical hardship. Richard Torrisi, the applicant explained that some information had not been submitted at the February meeting. He stated that 97 square feet would not be big enough to add another bedroom, and would not be big enough for more people. He had made an application in 1984, but had withdrawn it on the recommendation of the planning staff who pointed out that a new ordinance which would permit 250 square feet was being planned. Torrisi said that he had a memo from the staff which stated that the deck was a good candidate for enclosure. Now paragraph H in Ordinance 4 precluded multi - family dwellings from enclosing decks. Torrisi said that the Edelweiss condos could look down on his deck, and he had noise and pollution from the garage which was directly across the driveway. Rick Halterman, manager of the Edelweiss, stated that the owners of the Edelweiss were opposed to the enclosure. He added that at.one time he had managed the Riverhouse and felt that any problems that Torrisi had could be taken care of by the manager of the Riverhouse. He felt that the traffic from the Edelweiss was minimal. Sid Schultz felt that he had no problem with this request and pointed out that the original intent of Ordinance 4 was to allow minor additions such as this. Viele felt that the Council had strong objections to enclosure of decks in multi - Family dwellings. Braun replied that the Council's concern was that the architecture of the multi - family dwellings would be changed if many decks were enclosed, and so one revision of the ordinance allowed deck enclosure on the first floor only. This was changed when the town attorney pointed out that this would discriminate against the owners of decks above the ground floor. The Council PFC 4/ 8/85 -2- . felt that deck owners could still go through the variance approval process. Rapson stated that he disagreed with the staff memo in that there was an effect on light and air because of the proximity of the deck which if enclosed would encroach even more. Diana Donovan stated that is reading the directions in an old memo from Larry Rider concerning variances and the hardship rule, she could not find a hardship. Affelt wondered if there was any leeway in the defini- tion of hardship. Donovan answered that there was nothing cut and dried, but in this case the hardship seemed self created. Dave Peel, architect for the project, stated that the addition did not encroach any farther than the deck at present. He added that a roof.and railing could be put on the deck, and it would leave a small space that could.not have glass under the present conditions, but which could be enclosed if a variance were granted. Affeldt moved and Schultz seconded to approve the density control variance because the granting would not constitute a special privilege, it would not be detrimental to the public health or be injurious to properties.in the vicinity, and that there were exceptions or extraordinary circumstances that did not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The vote was 2 in favor (Affeldt and Schultz) and 5 against approval. The request was denied. . 3. Request for a flood plain modification in order to build a patio and pedestrian easement along Mill Creek on the east side of the A & D Building. Applicant: RTS Capital Services, Inc. Kristan Pritz presented the staff memo and showed site plans which showed the location of the 100 year flood plain. The applicant had submitted a flood plain impact stddy that had been completed by Hydro- Triad. The area of encroachment is located on the east side of the building. With respect to the design of the wall, a letter was included in the memo from Jahn - Violand- Archuleta. Pritz also pointed out the letters from David Cole and Fred Butler. Buff Arnold, architect for the project, discussed the fact that it would be neces- sary to obtain approvel of FEMA before construction. He added that the entire building was in the flood plain. Pritz stated that Bill Andrews was concerned about FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineer approvals because of.insurance and that these approvals were necessary before any construction would be allowed on the east patio area due to the impact of the flood plain. Viele stated that he would be the contractor on the job, so would abstain from voting. Pritz read a letter from Fred Butler, attorney for Otto Stork, owner of the building immediately south of the A & D Building, in which he stated that Stork had an easement to the east of the A & D Building for the purpose of accessing the east end of his building. Stork was also at the meeting,.and stated that he had a 17 foot easement. Patten stated that the access still existed, and would be insured because the Town of Vail.was requiring a pedestrian easement for the Town before a building permit would be issued. • PEC -3- 4/8/85 Jay Peterson, attorney for the applicant, stated that at the present time there were trash containers and one could not get through.. Piper wondered if this is had been an oversight, and was told that the access easement to Otto Stork's door had been discussed before. Buff stated that access'by vehicle right now was impossible, and an access would be maintained, but not necessarily for vehicles. Piper wondered what size easement must be maintained and why it was a concern now. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, verified that access must be maintained for ingress and egress. However, he stated that the easement was written in such a manner that it was debatable whether exactly 17.6' of access actually had to be maintained. Buff Arnold added that he hadn't known the easement existed as a clear 17.6 feet, but it was his intention to provide ingress and egress in the design. Eskwith pointed out that the easement was not for exclusive use. Piper reminded the board that the issue was of the floodplain encroachment, not the easement. Discussion followed concerning the access to Stork's door and whether or not he would have adequate space in which to stock his deli. With respect to the flood plain modification, Arnold stated that it did not affect anyone else further down the creek. Walters moved to grant the flood plain modification per the staff memo with the change to condition #1 to read: FEMA approval to be in place prior to occupancy." There was no second. Affeldt moved to approve the flood plain modification per the staff memo with the inclusion of FEMA approval exactly as per the memo. There was no second. More discussion followed concerning Stork's access. Donovan moved and Ra son seconded to approve the flood plain modification with the clear understanding that the floodplain modification does not negatively impact the access to the adjacent lot.and following the staff" memo with the three conditions. The vote was 6 in favor, none a ai,nst,_ with Viele abstaining. 4. Request for a conditional use permit in order to use the parking lot at the Golden Peak Ski Base area on Tract F, Vail Village 5th and on Tract B, Vail Village 7th, for a staging area for new and used construction equipment and for occasional helicopter landings. This is reguest_e,d in order to expedite the construction of the Vista Bahn lift. Applicant: Vail Associates Peter Patten presented the staff memo. Joe Macy of Vail Associates stated that new lift staging would be uphill, and Golden Peak and the West Day Lot would be used to store the old lifts. He added that most of the activity for the two areas would take place in May, June and early July. Patten explained that each site should be addressed separately because the public notice inadvertantly did not include mention of the West Day lot, nor were the adjacent property owners notified. Patten pointed out that a letter from Joe Macy was part of the memo, as was a letter from the helicopter operator. PEG 4/8. /85 -4-- Patten stated tht the construction staging areas were a very important element in the facilitation of the Phase I Mountain Development Plan to be implemented this spring through fall. The Council feels, as does the Community Development Department that Phase I will have a very positive long term impact upon the economic development of the community, and the staging areas are a necessary evil for this mountain development plan. Patten mentioned the impacts of the heavy trucks and of the helicopters. He stated that Macy indicated that at Golden Peak the heavy vehicular equipment to and from the staging area could be facilitated by coming into the west side of the proposed site. The helicopters will certainly have a negative impact upon the residential areas nearby and all feasible mitigation to these negative impacts was being attempted by VA and the helicopter company involved and cooperation is needed. The staff recommended approval and encouragement to VA to use the on- mountain staging areas to the greatest extent possible. Macy stated that vehicles would access both from the bus stop and uphill from the snow making pump house. He added that the helicopter would not have to fly over residential areas. He stated that it would be prudent to give notice of the helicopter flight days to the media. Piper asked if helicopter flights would continue all summer, and Macy explained that the Valley sites would be used in May, June and July but helicopter flights could continue as late as October 1st depending on the weather. Jack Rush of Manor Vail felt that he needed more specific information on flights over the Golden Peak area and added that Manor Vail did much convention business in the summer. He felt that flying in 6:00 am was unacceptable. Macy repeated that taking down the old lifts would start in May with a total of 20 flying days in the preliminary construction schedule. Patten suggested that VA meet with the adjacent property owners. Macy said that it would seem most convention meetings would be inside. Piper felt that the helicopters would be a necessary part of construction. Donovan felt that lodges should have notices so that they realize that the noise is, and also the radios. She also suggested that the bus stop be moved into the Golden Peak parking lot when the bus turn around was being used by the heavy vehicles. Donovan stated that although she would vote for this conditional use of helicopters, she did not support any further helicopter flights. Viele moved and Walters seconded to approve the staging base at Golden Peak_per the staff memo. The vote was 7 -0 in favor of the conditional use permit. 5. Request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code, Chapter 18.69 Hazard Regulations to include provisions for regulation of construction in geologically sensitive area in all parts of Town which have been identified as having potential geologic rockfall and landslide roblems. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten presented the memo and draft ordinance and reviewed previous discussions. New maps and studies had been made. A video of 1984's mud slides ID PEC 4/ 8/85 -5- was shown. Patten then explained the process the current draft ordinance had received stating that the staff had proposed a number of alternative approaches to the Council ranging from public notice only to requiring all new development to be mitigated as per a site specific study. The Council chose a middle -of- the road approach which would require mitigation only when a new dwelling unit was being proposed and not for all additions as well. This was later changed to requiring multi - family proposals to mitigate.; but: -for single 'Family and duplex to Mitigate only for impacts on other properties and Town of Vail properties. Patten stated that the staff could not fully endorse this ordinance being proposed because it was not fully consistent with the existing procedures for flood plain and avalanche which require mitigation for new dwelling units. The staff did not agree with allowing a newly constructed residence to be destroyed by a geologic event when the potential for for such an occurence is known. After much discussion, Ron Phillips, Town Manager explained that the committee to write this ordinance included Ron, Peter, Larry Eskwith and Stan Berryman of the Public forks department., The committee tried to be reasonable and not cause undue hardship. Phillips added that this was a different situation than the avalanche hazard, because so many properties were located in the geologically sensitive areas. He added that a difference of opinion was not unhealthy. Discussion followed concerning public notices and putting the notice in public record and making certain that potential buyers were notified. Ra son moved and Viele seconded to recommend approval to Council to amend the hazard ordinance to add regulations req.arding landslides and rock fall per the raft ordinance. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. 6. Request to amend the Town munici a1 code to add a new section, 18.58.320 entitled "Satellite Dish Antennaes," repealing "Sect,ion 18.54.050 F.3 and enacting a new section 18.54.050 E.H. entitled "Satellite Dish Antennaes" in the _Design_ Rev_iew_Gu_idelines. Applicant: Town of Vail The staff requested to table this item to April 22. Viele moved, Rapson seconded to table to April 22. Vote was 7 -0 in favor. 7. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an amphitheatre at Ford Park. Applicant: Vail Foundation Rapson moved, Walters seconded to table to April 22. Vote was 7 -0 in favor of tabling. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 pm. Peter told of the presentation of the Vail Village study on Thursday, April 11. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the hazard regulations in the zoning code to add regulations regarding landslides and rock fall. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND The last two springs (1983 and 1984) have produced themajor geologic events in the form of rock fall and landslides in Vail's development history. These occurences have prompted the need to address the manner in which the Town will regulate further development in the valley in these areas of geologic sensitivity. The first attempt at amending the chapter of the zoning code dealing with geologic hazards occurred throughout the months of February to June, 1984. The regulations proposed last year were designed to require site specific geologic studies for new development proposals within the previously identified geologic problem areas (Mears map- 1977). The proposed ordinance would have required • that a developer or applicant follow the recommendations of such a study whether or not that meant that the proposal was not affected by the area of geologic sensitivity or required specific recommended mitigation measures or that the proposal was simply not feasible due to the magnitude of the geologic problem. No public notice procedures for potential purchasers or renters was required. This proposed amendment to the existing hazard regulations would have brought consistency in the treatment of development proposals over all environmental hazard areas (flood plain and avalanche). The ordinance was considered by the PEC and was recommended to Council for adoption. The proposed ordinance met with considerable community opposition at the Council level, specifically from property owners in the Booth Creek area and some local realto,rs. The opposition centered around concern for property values, treatment of existing non- conforming structures if subsequently affected by a geologic event, availability of insurance and mortages for properties within the geologic sensitive areas and the outdated maps accompanying the ordinance. Concurrent with the heated discussions surrounding the proposed legislation were the severe landslide events. The ordinance received a number of revisions during the process and, subsequently, resulted in a tabling until new geologic maps for both rock fall and debris flow /debris avalanche could be produced. Basically, the majority of the Town Council supported the legislation as finally proposed, 0 but the Council was unwilling to base such an important regulatory measure on admittedly outdated geologic maps. II. THE PROCESS THE CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS RECEIVED The Town contracted with two very reputable geologic experts to completely map the Gore Valley with respect to rock fall and debris flow /debris avalanche. The maps were completed in December 1984 and at that time, a Town of Vail small staff committee began work on an ordinance to accompany the new maps. The TOV staff committee working on the ordinance consisted of Ron Phillips, Larry Eskwith, Stan Berryman and Peter Patten. We have done a substantial amount of research into geologic hazard regulations in different parts of the United States as well as researching the tangent issues of loan and insurance availability as well as property value impacts from other regulations. In February, 1985, an open public meeting for the community was held to discuss and review the new geologic maps. A healthy discussion occurred at this meeting regarding the maps, but most people were more interested in how we proposed to utilitze the maps within a regulatory framework. Although the meeting was intended to be primarily informative for the public and to receive any prior geologic reports wherein mitigation • had been completed so that our maps could be appropriately adjusted, some public displeasure with too strict a regulatory approach surfaced. The staff committee continued its research and exploration into the best way to approach the ordinance. We then proposed a number of alternative approaches to the Council ranging from public notice only to requiring all new development, including additions, to be mitigated as per a site specific study would require (similar to the 1984 proposed legislation). The Council in March chose a middle -of --the road approach which would require mitigation only when a new dwelling unit was being proposed and not for all additions. There was concern that the ordinance to require mitigation for structures with regard to potential impacts on adjacent properties and Town of Vail facilities and property (attempting to avoid another Bitteto situation wherein a public road was blocked for a long period of time due to the lack of precautionary construction methods). After meeting with the Council the staff committee set up a meeting with a number of representatives from the Vail Board of Realtors to discuss the regulatory approach. The majority of the realtors present felt that it would be a hardship upon property owners who have not built to require them to fully mitigate those structures if public . notice provisions were included. They also felt that if our major concerns were regarding potential adjacent property impacts and TOV property impacts, that we should require mitigation only to those ends and not for the structure itself in that if the property owner was fully aware of the potential geologic problem, then he should be able to proceed with that construction. Subsequent to this meeting, the ordinance was redrafted to reflect these consid- erations and brought back to Council for review. The majority of the Council agreed to this regulatory approach last Tuesday as long as multi - family proposals were required to be fully mitigated and that public notice procedures were included as an integral part of the ordinance. Most felt that this was a superior approach as compared to the 1984 proposal. it is important to note the unique process that the formulation of the attached ordinance has followed in that it has received a considerable amount of review and input to date. Moreover, the proposed legislation has been generated internally in a manner which has seen the Town Manager, Attorney and Public Works Director having an active role in its formulation. III DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE The following is an outline of the more significant aspects of the proposed ordinance and will help the reader understand the ordinance. • A. SITE SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION 1. Multi-Family ( three or more d. u. 's) and commercial: full mitigation as required by study. 2. Single - family, residential and duplex zones: mitigate only for impacts on other properties and Town of Vail property. 3. Required third party review by another geologist for the study submitted to the Community Development Department paid for by the applicant. 4. Construction must closely follow recommendations of site specific study. S. Additions and existing nonconforming structures destroyed must completely comply with the ordinance. B. PUBLIC NOTICE 1. Notice on subdivision plats filed starting at time of adoption of ordinance (not retroactive). 2. Notice of geologic sensitivity stamped on plans • submitted to Community Development Department. 0 3. A personal Council appearance by the applicant at a Council meeting. 4. Notice on land records at Eagle County for each property in a geologically sensitive area. 5. Notification to all lessees, tenants, and potential purchasers of the structure located in a geologically sensitive area by the property owner or his agent. C. DISPUTE OR VARIANCE PROVISION IV. DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE Although the Community Development Department feels it is imperative to adopt legislation addressing areas of geologic sensitivity, we cannot fully endorse the ordinance that is being proposed. We feel this amendment to the hazard regulations should be consistent with the existing procedures for flood plain and avalanche which would require mitigation for new dwelling units. We feel this is necessary to protect life and property from these very real environmental and geologic hazards to insure the high level of development quality and sensitivity to natural forces which we have established in the Gore Valley. We simply cannot agree 40 with allowing a newly constructed residence(s) to be destroyed by a geologic event when we knew of the very real potential for such an occurrence when we allowed the construction to occur. Furthermore, the mown of Vail, as one of the leading tourist communities in the nation, does not need the media attention as we experienced a year ago from such disaster occurrences showing major property distruction. We do feel that public notice procedures as proposed are important and necessary and that this element strengthens the overall ordinance. Moreover, complete mitigation may indeed occur under these regulations if the owner so chooses or if the study shows complete mitigation is necessary to meet the adjacent property and /or TOV property impacts criteria. Many argue that if a property owner is aware of the impending danger of his construction that that is a sufficient regulatory level for government involvement in the development process. This is a value judgement we all must make. Finally, the ordinance as proposed does not put extra economic burdens on property owners who have not built with regard to the expense of mitigation construc- tion. In conclusion, the Community Development Department is very much in favor of proceeding to adopt a geologically • sensitive area ordinance in a strong format and one that will benefit the community in the long term. We feel the maps as proposed are the best we can do and that there . has been a good review process on this issue to date. In conclusion, we expect a fruitful and lively discussion of these regulations at the Planning Commission and Council levels and look forward to working with you on this most important community issue. • • r" OTO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a density control variance in order to add 97 square feet of GRFA to an existing unit in the Riverhouse Condominiums Applicant: Richard Torrisi DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Planning Commission may recall this request from its February 11th meeting. At that meeting, the applicant requested a setback variance and a density control variance to enclose an existing deck in Unit 1 of the Riverhouse Condominiums. The AEC unanimously approved the requested setback variance because it was felt there would be no substantial impacts on adjacent properties if the deck were to be enclosed. Also, by a 4 -0 vote, the Planning Commission denied the requested GRFA. Following denial of the requested GRFA variance, the applicant appealed this decision to the Town Council. Before this appeal could be considered by the Town Council, it was withdrawn by the applicant in lieu of an amended application that has been resubmitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. The p ..-u neck enclosure is essen- tially the same as was reviewed by the Planning Commission in February. The applicant has amended this application with a written statement outlining a number of reasons as to why this request should be granted. The applicant's statement has been enclosed for your information. 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. With respect to neighboring development, the Riverhouse Condominiums are not unlike other properties in the Willow Circle area. As demonstrated in the following table, multi - family development in this area is well over the allowable GRFA under existing zoning. • i �J Allowable GRFA Existing GRFA Amount Over Riverhouse Condominiums 9,628 15,915 6,287 Edelweiss Condominiums 9,487 20,970 11,483 Riva Ridge north 7,161 13,126 5,965 Riva Ridge South 9,199 19,824 10,625 Willows 8,258 16,236 7,978 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal int rEretation and enforcement of a specified_r_egulation is necessary to achieve compatibility__and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinitv or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff has generally not supported requests for additional GRFA over what is allowed by existing zoning. in considering these requests, the staff has held strongly to the criteria outlined in the Variance section of the zoning code-. These criteria require that there be a physical hardship in order to justify the variance requested and that the variance not be a grant of special privilege. This request raises an interesting question with respect to special privilege when one considers the GRFA ordinance that was recently passed by the Town Council. if the applicant's property were not in a multi - family building, this request would not require a variance approval and would be dealt with through the new GRFA ordinance. In light of this, the requested GRFA may not involve a grant of special privilege. However, variance approval is required for this request, and in order for the variance to be granted, the applicable criteria must be satisfied. Among these is the question of physical hardship. The applicant has outlined a number of problems with his unit that could be solved with the enclosure of this deck. Among these are privacy, noise, safety, security, and ventilation deficiencies. While the staff does not question the fact that these problems may exist, they are not consistent with what has been interpreted as a physical hardship in the past. Physical hardships that have been supported by the staff in the past would include flood plains or utility easements that dramatically reduce the buildable area of a given lot, rock outcroppings, or a stand of mature trees that could be saved by granting a setback variance. It is felt by the staff that the problems outlined by the applicant could be solved in ways other than enclosing this deck. • The effect of the requested variance_ on light and air, distribution oo population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There are no significant effects on any of the above elements. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN No policies are directly relevant with respect to this application. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE. PTWnTMCR 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 extraordindary 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 in reviewing this request, it is difficult to not consider the recently approved GRFA ordinance. This ordinance allows a property owner up to 250 square feet of additional GRFA if certain conditions are met. With respect to units in multi- family buildings, one of these conditions is that the additional GRFA be added without • any exterior modifications to the s quite obviously requires a physical of this building, and consequently the provisions outlined under the GRFA this request requires approval of a must be reviewed with respect to the in any other variance request. tructure. This application addition to the exterior cannot be approved under ordinance. As a result, variance and that variance applicable criteria used As has previously been stated, the staff does not feel there is a legitimate physical hardship as required in order to support this request. Without the presence of some physical hardship, the staff quite simply cannot support this variance. As was stated in previous memos, it is the feeling of the staff that the problems with this unit could be mitigated in ways other than enclosing this deck. II(A). The applicant wishes to: 1. Correct certain deficiencies and problems of Unit 1, • Riverhouse Condominiums, 2. Improve the safety by eliminating certain hazards that now exist to occupants, 3. Upgrade the function and usability, 4. Increase the energy efficiency, and 5. Improve the esthetics of the unit, the building and the area, for the benefit of the unit occupants, the building owners, the neighbors and the town. The applicant proposes to accomplish the above by removing a presently existing deck and a visually objectionable hot tub and to replace them with an addition to the unit of compatible architectural quality and character that will enhance the existing structure and environment, while accomplishing the above. The building currently is non - conforming with Section 18.20.090 Density Control and Section 18.20.060 Setbacks. The proposed removal of the existing deck and addition to the unit will re- quire a density variance to allow an additional 97 square feet of enclosed space. On February 11, 1985, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved a setback variance for Unit 1 of Riverhouse Condominiums. {$). Privacy, noise level, safety, and security: The unit has a . deck acing the east and the neighboring_ delweiss Condominiums. The unit's interior can be easily viewed from several of the Edelweiss units. The deck is accessible by french doors and has a large hot tub sitting on the open deck. The roof system of the main building has a drainage system that dumps ice and snow Ioads onto the center of the deck, creating a hazard to anyone stepping out on to the deck. The french doors are easily accessible to intruders or thieves since they are ground level. Additionally, despite best efforts to weather seal the french doors, objectionable noise and fumes from the Edelweiss fireplace chimneys and carbon monoxide from the Edelweiss garage directly opposite the deck occasionally seep into the unit. The applicant feels that by enclosing the deck, a privacy and sound buffer will be created between the Edelweiss garage and the living space of the unit, affording more privacy, safety and security to the occupants of the unit. (C). Ventilation deficiency: The unit currently has no operable windows with which to exchange air or provide normal ventilation. It only has doors which, when open, make the unit easily accessible to walkers by. It is felt that the addition of operable windows would permit a controlled (and secure) cross ventilation system for normal usage and ventilation for those occasions when carbon monoxide and . fireplace smoke fumes enter the unit as described above. This hazard was brought clearly into focus when at 2:00 a.m. on the night of March 1, 1985, the occupants were awakened • LI 9 and forced to evacuate the unit because of smoke fumes that had entered through the unit's own chimney flue, even though the damper was closed and sealed and the unit's firebox had been sealed off with a glass fireplace enclosure which was closed. After the occupants were satisfied that the building was not on fire, they returned and opened the doors to let fresh air in, causing a severe heat loss and the inside temperature to be lowered to the uncomfortable stage. A controlled cross ventilation could have prevented this dangerous situation from occurring. (D }, Usage limitations: Riverhouse was constructed in 1972 according to the then existing G.R.F.A. Subsequently, the area was downzoned, creating a current G.R.F.A. overage of all buildings in the area. At the time Riverhouse was designed, the space in Unit 1 was seriously compromised by removing from it the space used for the entryway and the entry hallway, making the space some 150 square feet Iess than the other studio unit in the building. Of more serious consequence was the reduction of usable wall space by angling a corner of the unit to enhance the architectural character of the building entrance. This placed serious limitations on furniture placement and made it difficult to place even one bed within the unit, making it less usable, desirable and rentable than similar units of its size, character and cost. The building's other studio, Unit 2, has two queen,size beds and several large pieces of furniture including two sofa beds, substantially enhancing its usability and rentability. As a result, Unit 1 suffers by comparison. The applicant feels that this request does not constitute a special privilege, since it is not asking for privileges that are not already enjoyed by others. (E). Planning efforts: Although the applicant attempted to exercise due diligence prior to purchasing the unit, it was not possible to perceive in the summertime all of the possible environmental conditions and unit deficiencies on a four season basis. Rather, emphasis was given to the quality of the building, Iocation and the potential to improve it. Local architects were hired to maximize the units potential through an extensive remodeling program and town planners were consulted with the applicants plans to improve and enlarge the unit. Just prior to making application for a variance to the G.R.F.A. in March of 1984, it was suggested that the applicant withdraw his application pending the lie U • development of new proposed regulations being contemplated by the planning commission, allowing for the expansion of units. Because of other priorities put upon the planning staff and commission, such as summer mud slides, the formation of the new regulations were delayed throughout the summer, although the applicant was courteously kept informed by the planning staff. The applicant proceeded with extensive remodeling to the unit's interior in anticipation of what appeared to be a positive attitude of the planning commission.. On October 8, 9984, planning commission expansion of ground feet; however, the fit not to pass the planning commission basis. the planning staff recommended and the approved regulations permitting the floor, multifamily units up to 250 square town council, for reasons of concern, saw regulation, leaving such matters to the by variance on an individual application (F). Summary: it is the hope of the applicant, therefore, that the ap nning commission will exercise its rights and privileges under the variance procedure and will apply its previously stated good intentions to allow owners to improve and enlarge their units by examining this application on its own merits and to permit the applicant to solve. the other problems stated herein while at the same time allowing him to make an asthetic improvement to the area's environment and to reduce potential hazards of safety and security. It should be pointed out that the building has no other balconies or decks on the east side of the building eliminating any concerns of architectural disharmony. On the contrary, removal of the deck and unsightly hot tub and use of the space to construct a functional, harmonious building element would add considerably to the privacy, safety, security, and asthetic environment of a concerned. It is the applicant's plan to become a full -time, contributing resident of Vail and hopes that Riverhouse, #1 can be improved as requested herein so that it may serve as his home. III. zoning check Riverhouse Condominiums Lot 3, Block 6 Vail Village First Filing High Density Multiple Family District Lot size: 16,046 square feet = 0.368 acre 18.20.060 Setbacks: 20' required by current zoning for all setbacks. Existing builiding setback is 3'6" on Northeast corner and 2' on Southeast corner. Proposal is for the enclosure of the existing hot tub deck. 18.20.080 Height: Not applicable to proposal. 18.20.090 Density Control Maximum of 60 square feet of GRFA for each 100 square feet of buildable site area. ALLOWABLE GRFA - 60% (16,046) = 9,62&- '-& rar.e ,feet EXISTING GRFA = 15,915 square feet PROPOSED ADDITIONAL GRFA = 97 square feet 18.20.110 Coverage: ALLOWABLE = 55% (16,046) = 8,825 square feet EXISTING COVERAGE = 7,113 square feet PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COVERAGE = 35 square feet • Ito vail 011a9 W trIff _ ilim 1 t 4 willow plac - — -- Odd we/iyy eXi�tu�g rew�pdelea uhii" I _-] _ _ - ex ilf m I - t°ai r ICI _ � l _ __ _ � exiyt�g re�ode�ed. unit � � .:- rev;�ed Floor �l a� �° -0 -7-1=, oxlyf tmg -?fair � °= adai�iot� Ell m 0 pe I� �s a 0 F pe � 0 0 Ll a.] S-- - -- �� • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1985 SUBJECT: Request to modify the West Mill Creek 100 year flood plain in order to construct the A & D Building, Lots A, B and C, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: RTS Capital Services Incorporated On October 8, 1984 the request for exterior alterations to the A & D Building was given final approval with several conditions. One of the conditions stated that subsequent approval of a flood plain modification request would be necessary if it was determined that construction of the new A & D Building would affect the West Mill Creek flood plain. The hazard regulations specify the criteria for modification to the flood plain: Section 18.69.040 E. The zoning administrator may require an applicant or person desiring to modify the flood plain by fill, construction, channelization, grading or other similar changes, to submit for review an environmental impact 49 statement in accordance with 18.56 to establish that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. RTS Capital Services has submitted a flood plain impact study that was completed by Hydro- Triad. The area of encroachment is located on the east side of the building. The report states: "Proposed building improvements include extension of an existing patio along the east side of the building. The patio construction will encroach on the 100 year flood plain boundary for West Mill Creek. The amount of encroachment will range from 2 to 6 feet in the area of encroachment as shown on Figure 3." (Please see Hydro -Triad report dated January 1985.) The report concludes that: "Based on the available information and our analysis, the proposed building improvements will not adversely affect the 100 year flood plain as designated. by FEMA. The water surface profile for the reach from Gore Creek Drive up to FEMA section C (8167.9') is lower than that designated by the 1982 FEMA report (8168.81). At section C, the 100 year water surface elevation with building improvements is approximately 0.9 feet lower than the FEMA elevation. . To help prevent flooding of the patio area, the proposed southern patio entrance should be deleted and the . wall extended across this area_ Furthermore, it should be recognized that although the top of the proposed wall along the patio is higher than the 100 year water surface elevation, the available freeboard is limited to less than one foot. Wave action and /or a blockage at the Gore Creek Drive culvert entrance could result in an overtopping of the wall. Design of the patio and wall should account for this as well as flow velocities in the channel." (Hydro -Triad p. 2 & 3) In respect to the design of the wall, Johnson- Voiland- Archuleta, Inc. has submitted a letter which states that: "The east site wall for the A & D Building was designed as a cantilever retaining wall resisting a 45 pcf lateral earth pressure. The allowable soils bearing pressure for the wall footing was assumed to be 21000 pcf. Our design neglected the possible benefits of earth and riprap on the downhill side of the wall because under turbulent conditions the creek may be capable of washing this material away. This assumption results in a more conservative design. The top of the wall is at 66' -0, and the 100 year flood is expected to crest slightly below this elevation. Should the creek flood, the site retaining wall would be capable of resisting the lateral pressures induced by the • high waters." (See enclosed letter to Mr. Darrel Harris dated April 2, 1985.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the West Mill Creek flood plain modification contingent upon meeting the following conditions: 1. Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA approvals will be obtained before any construction is allowed on the east patio area which would impact the flood plain. 2. In the event of future construction along the west bank of Mill Creek, the south end of the patio wall would need to be torn out to allow for pedestrian access along the stream. The owners of the A & D Building would be responsible for covering the costs of removing the south patio wall to allow for further pedestrian access. 3. Construction within the channel areas will include replace- ment of riprap if removed during construction activities. This requirement is as per the Hydro -Triad report dated January 1985 on page 5. i r i i � II1 4 1 ALO, C- MIL.- 1 , T! 1 Y� \ �64 pfvs- or, (--oD PIVN &!�E I�6 �- ��E Gr cr�i K `( ��� T :. April 2, 1985 Mr. Daryl Harris Robert L. Arnold Associates 230 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Daryl: The east site wall for the A/D Building was designed as a cantilever retaining wall resisting a 45 pcf lateral earth pressure. The allowable soils bearing pressure for the wall footing was assumed to be 2000.psf. Our design neglected the possible benefits of earth and rip -rap on the downhill side of the wall because under turbulent conditions the creek may be capable of washing this material away. This assumption results in a more conservative design. The top of the wall is at 66'-0, and the 100 year flood is projected to crest slightly below this elevation. Should the creek flood, the site retaining wall would be capable of resisting the lateral pressures in- duced by the high waters. Sincerely, Johnson - Voiland- Archuleta, Inc. By: —t" 4t2. Thomas S. Soe11, PE 2305 CANYON BOULEVARD BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 444 -1951 6385 WEST 52ND AVENUE ARVADA, COLORADO 80002 420 -2055 JOHNSON - VOILAND - ARCHULETA, INC. Robert S.Hunnes Robed B. Hunnes Consulting ,Structural Engineers H. Gary1HowelleShell R.A. Horton Geraldine M. Snell - - Thomas S. Snell William J. Nelson Charles B. Wilkerson - Diana David -Cline April 2, 1985 Mr. Daryl Harris Robert L. Arnold Associates 230 Bridge Street Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Daryl: The east site wall for the A/D Building was designed as a cantilever retaining wall resisting a 45 pcf lateral earth pressure. The allowable soils bearing pressure for the wall footing was assumed to be 2000.psf. Our design neglected the possible benefits of earth and rip -rap on the downhill side of the wall because under turbulent conditions the creek may be capable of washing this material away. This assumption results in a more conservative design. The top of the wall is at 66'-0, and the 100 year flood is projected to crest slightly below this elevation. Should the creek flood, the site retaining wall would be capable of resisting the lateral pressures in- duced by the high waters. Sincerely, Johnson - Voiland- Archuleta, Inc. By: —t" 4t2. Thomas S. Soe11, PE 2305 CANYON BOULEVARD BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 444 -1951 6385 WEST 52ND AVENUE ARVADA, COLORADO 80002 420 -2055 e MEMBER ;i f� e MEMBER - A MEMBER OF THE SEARS FINANCIAL NET WORK TIMBERLINE PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE, INC. April 3, 1985 • Duane piper, Chairman Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Duane: 286 BRIDGE STREET VAIL. CO 81657 BUS.(303)476-2113 Since I have to be out of town on April 8, 1985, the purpose of this letter is to make you aware of some information prior to the meeting of the planning & Environmental Commission on April 8, 1985, at which time, I understand you are to consider certain matters concerning the renovation of the A & D Building by RTS Capital Services, Inc. I would like you and the Planning & Environmental Commission to be aware of the following information: Our company leases and occupies the west one --half of the second floor of the existing A & D Building. Our lease runs until December, 1991. As far back as mid - winter, 1983 -84, we were aware that RTS Capital Services had intentions to purchase the A & D Building. I first met these gentlemen in May, 1984. I indicated to them at that time, that they were going to have to negotiate with us concerning the redevelopment of the building and encouraged an early resolution to this matter for the benefit and planning of all concerned. RTS Capital Services chose not to begin to deal with this issue until March 21, 1985. As of this moment, we have no agreement between us which would allow RTS Capital Services to disturb our occupany of this space during the con- struction period estimated to run around 6 months beginning on or about May 1, 1985. Our lease provides that we are entitled to what is called "Quiet Enjoyment ". An Independently Owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residenliai Affiliates, Inc. mr. Duane Piper, Chairman Page 2 April 3, 1985 Based upon the plans that have been submitted to the Design Review Board, dated March 26, 1985, the reconstruction of the building provides that our north, west, and south walls would be extended outward and our ceiling would be lowered to accomodate a third floor condominium. In addition, the construction plans seem to indicate affixing four posts or columns to our north wall; for building an entry and fire code staircase through an existing staircase on the west side of the building that is included in our lease; and for dropping a staircase into our space from the proposed third floor condominium. We are doubtful that this construction can be accomplished without violating my rights as tenant. moreover, I am concerned that by approving of this construction the Town of Vail may be assisting the owners in violating my legal rights. Further, RTS Capital Services through their attorney, Ross Davis, has demanded that our existing entry staircase be removed. We are not certain what the implications from this are for us, but the Design Review Board and /or the Plan- ning & Environmental Commission might be involved in locating a replacement- - where the old staircase was located or elsewhere. I bring this to your attention because it may have important implications for the Town of Vail, the Design Review Board and /or the Planning & Environ- mental Commission. Sincerely, David L. Cole, CRB, CRS President cc: Peter Patten, Zbwn of Vail Kristen Pritz, Town of Vail. LJ . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8■ 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to allow construction staging areas at the Golden Peak base area site and the Lionshead West Day parking lot site. Applicant: Vail Associates I. THE REQUEST Attached please find a letter from Joe Macy to Peter Patten dated February 26, 1985 explaining the request for construction staging aread for Phase I implementaion of the Five Year Mountain Development Plan. Also, We've included a further letter of explanation on the helicopter operations from the helicopter operator explaining in more detail how these operations will be conducted. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of recommends a . the following Consideration Relationship of the Town. Section 18.60, the Community Development Department pproval of the conditional use permit based upon factors: of Factors and impact of the use on development objectives The construction staging areas are a very important element in the facilitation of the Phase I Mountain Development Plan to be implemented this spring through fall. The Council has endorsed the Five Year Mountain Development Plan and feels, as does the Community Development Department, that it will have a very positive long term impact upon the economic development of the community. The use of these areas as construction staging areas for this purpose is not directly related to any development objective of the Town. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. A. Parks and Recreation Facilities There will be an impact at Golden Peak upon some of the recreational activities and Pat Dodson has been working with Vail Associates representatives to assure co- ordination . in this area. The 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_ The construction activities will require heavy vehicular equipment to and from each construction staging area and Vail Associates has indicated at Golden Peak this may be able to be facilitated by coming into the west side of the proposed site. This would serve to reduce impacts of heavy vehicles in the neighborhood. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the pN2posed use in relation to surrounding uses. The helicopters will certainly have a negative impact upon the residential areas nearby the staging sites. It appears that all feasible mitigation to these negative impacts is being attempted by Vail Associates and the helicopter company involved. The helicopters are a necessary evil within this construction process to be able to successfully complete the Phase I plan before the mountain opens next November. We feel it is important that the neighbors surrounding the staging sites be made aware of • the helicopter traffic before it begins and that the helicopter company and Vail Associates be sensitive in this area and respond to any reasonable concerns. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit request for construction staging areas at the Golden Peak base area between chairs 6 and 12 and at the Lionshead West Day parking lot area. The displacement of recreational vehicles at the West Day lot can be accommodated adequately by the charter bus parking lot east of the Village Transportation Center. The use of these sites will certainly have some negative impacts, mostly from heavy vehicles and helicopter flights, but we feel that as a community, we must support these major improvements to Vail Mountain and work co- operatively in mitigating the negative impacts which will certainly result. The sites chosen are good ones for these purposes, and we highly encourage the use of the on- mountain staging areas to the greatest extent possible. This will go the furthest in reducing the potential negative impacts within the valley 0 • Vail Associates, hic. Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek February 26, 1985 Mr. Peter Patten Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Peter: The purpose of this letter is to describe our preliminary staging plan for lift construction on Vail Mountain during the summer of 1985: o Staging areas for dismantling.: It will be necessary to stage both the dismantled • lifts as well as the new lift equipment prior to installation. go We plan on dismantling the old lifts in May, June and early July. Removal will be accomplished by helicopter and by truck. The dismantled equipment will be staged at Golden Peak between the bottom of chairs #6 and #12 and at the West Day Lot in LionsHead prior to shipment. We will attempt to complete this phase of the operation during the off season insofar as practicable. We believe that dismantling of the lifts can be accomplished with minimal impacts on the Town due to its largely off - season schedule. o Staging areas for construction: The primary staging areas for lift construction will be Bear Tree and Born Free adjacent to our snowmaking pumphouse, and between the bottom of chairs #2 and #17. Overflow areas for staging will be Golden Peak between chairs #6 and #12 and the West Day Lot in LionsHead. Concrete trucks will move up mountain to the snowmaking pumphouse for helicopter pick up of the concrete. Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303)476 -5601 0 • i is Mr. Peter Patten February 26, 1985 Page Two o Helicopter operations: Up to 20 days of helicopter flying can be anticipated over the summer. Flights from the snowmaking pumphouse should have minimal impact on the Town. Flights over residential areas will not be necessary from Golden Peak. Flights into the West Day Lot will attempt to avoid residential areas by flying down Gore Creek and then up mountain. Flight operations for construction are planned to commence the week of August 2nd and run through September. Favorable construction weather will allow us to maximize the use of up mountain staging areas. Unfavorable weather will cause greater utilization of the valley staging areas and greater noise and dust impacts to the community. Crowd control, if needed, will be handled by Vail Associates. Attached are several maps depicting the proposed staging areas. Please contact me if you have any further questions on this plan. Sincerely, VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. /07r -00�d'-07- Joe Macy Manager Planning and Technical JM /kl Enclosures cc: Dave Larson Larry Lichliter • • • t. k-111) E r -1 U • ABERLINE PHONE: (503) 758•U7 R SERVICE INC HELICOPTER LOGGING b CONSTRUCTION CORVAL P.O. O 339 Mr. Joe Macy c/o Vail Association, Box --? , Vail, Colorado 81658 3/10/85 Dear Mr. Macy, Timberline Air Service. Inc. has been asked to provide helicopter service for the removal of the old lifts at Vail and to fly in the towers, concrete, etc. for the new lifts. I estimate the project will require eighty flight hours spread over twenty days in the spring and summer. We operate a Bell 214B -1 which, like all helicopters, can be noisy depending on conditions. We are quite accustomed to-working in noise - sensitive areas such as Heavenly Valley at Lake Tahoe. We are sensitive to the potential annoyance we can cause, and would like to present to you some of the reasons why we must operate as we do. The main complaints concerning our helicopter flying are early morning operations, late evening operations and weekend operations. And of course any operations in close proximity to homes or bus- inesses. Ideally these will all be avoided, but scheduling, den- sity altitude and geography will probably not permit us to avoid there all. Federal Air Regulations will, of course, be strictly obs E rvE.d at all times. Most of the flying will be staged on the mountain, as far away from town as possible. It will still be possible to occasionally hear the sound of the rotors echoing down the valley. The only flying v,e anticipate to do near toe,-n will be the flying out of the old lifts and landing them at Golden Peak and the West Day Parking Lot at Lion's Head. This will be a very shall phase of the opc-ration. During the construction season of May through Ncvc:r,:bcr v. -c kf.c.p - r >S helicopter quite busy. Eighteen hour work days with in excess of ten flight hours is not uncommon. This, and the custoner's re- quirements, breakdowns, weather down time, etc; can often dictate weekend flying. page two We will be flying approximately 800 yards of concrete for the project, at about one yard a carry. Sometimes it is vital to com- plete a pour once started. If we have been delayed for breakdown, weather, availability of cement trucks, etc; it might be necessary to fly into the evening. Any aircraft, and expecially helicopters, are greatly affected by density altitude. Cold, dry air gives us our best lift. Hot, moist air, such as we usually have in the afternoons, can easily reduce our payload capacity by over a thousand pounds. So, we occasionally must schedule the heavy lifts - towers and cross - arms - for the early mornings when it is possible to lift the heavier weights and the safety factor is the best. In closing I would like to state that I very much want to Leave everybody in the Vail area with a good impression of me, my com- pany, and aviation in general. I will conduct a safe, efficient, professional operation. I will work with you and will do every- thing possible to minimize the impact of our operations on the residents of the Vail area. Sincerely, � � r Jim Crawford, President Timberline Air Service, Inc. • Planning and Environmental Commission April 22, 1985 2 :30 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of April 8. 2. Request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code, Chapter 18.29, in order to add lodges to the conditional use section, 18.29.030 and to add multiple- family residential dwellings with a maximum of 4 dwellings units per acre to the conditional use section and to restrict the amount of square footage devoted to this use to 20% of the site area. Applicant: Robert Voliter (staff rec: denial) 3. Request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to an existing single family residence on lot 4, Block 1, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, at 2664 Larkspur.Lane. Applicants: Steven and Renee Caswell (staff rec: denial) 4. Request to amend S.DD #7, Marriott Mark, to allow time share estate units, fractional fee units, and time share license units as a io conditional use in Phase III of SDD #7. Applicant: M -K Corporation (staff rec: denial) TO BE 5. Request for accommodation unit condominium conversions for the Enzian TABLED Lodge. Applicant: M -K Corporation TO BE 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an TABLED amphitheatre in Ford Park. 7. Discussions of proposed changes: a. Height definition b. Satellite ordinance NOTE: Meeting of May 27 falls on Memorial Day and has been changed to _Tuesday, May 28. . Planning and Environmental Commission April 22, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Eric Affeldt Tom Braun Diana Donovan Rick Pylman Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Howard Rapson Sid Schultz Jere Walters Jim Viele The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of April 8. Donovan moved and Walters seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. The following items were taken out of order: 4. Request to amend SDD #7, Marriott Mark, to allow time share estate units, fractional fee units, and time share license units as a conditional use in Phase III of SDD #7. Applicant: MK Corporation Tom Braun stated that the applicant wished to table this item to 5/13/85. Rapson moved and Affeldt seconded to table until 5/13/85. Vote was 6 -0. 5. Request for accommodation unit condominium conversions for the Enzian Lodge. Applicant: Tom Braun said the applicant asked to table this item to 5/13/85. Walters moved and Donovan seconded to table this until 5/13/85. Vote was 6 -0. 6. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an amphitheatre in Ford Park. Tom Braun stated that the applicant wished to table this tentatively until 5/13/85. Schultz moved and Walters seconded to table until 5/13/85. Vote was 6 -0. 2. Request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code, Chapter 18.29, in order to_ad_d lodges to the conditional use section, 18.29.030 and to add multiple - family residential dwellings with a maximum of 4 dwelling units_per acre to the conditional use section and to restrict the amount of square footaqe devoted to this use to 20% of the site area.) Applicant: Robert Voliter . Rick Pylman presented the staff memo, reminding the board that they had PEG 4/22/85 -2- heard a similar presentation on March 25. This request, however, had an added restriction, that of not more than 4 multiple family residential units per acre and not to exceed 20% FAR. Pylman stated that much thought had gone into the formulation of this zone district. (Viele entered.) Pylman evaluated the request using three sets of criteria: the suitability /non - suitability of the existing zoning, whether or not the proposed uses present a workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives, and whether or not the request provided for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The staff recommended denial. Dick Ryan, representing the applicant, explained that since the last presentation he had been working on responding to concerns raised at that meeting. Ryan stated that he had studied major office space available including Avon and Minturn and found that there was 50,000 square feet (15,000 sq ft in Vail). He added that there was a possibility of 30,000 sq ft that could be built in Vail'Commons for office space. Ryan also spoke of the advantage of having lodging near the base of the Cascade Village lift. Bob Voliter, applicant, felt that there was a need for a broad and flexible development that would benefit the community. Affeldt asked how this building would benefit the community, and Voliter responded that if the building was successful, this would be a benefit to the town. Affeldt wondered if Voliter had looked to see if the building would be contributing to a saturation of dwelling units in the Vail Valley. Walters stated that the Vail Village Study indicated that with even a minimum growth there could be a resurgence of office needs, and if the growth is maximum, there would not be enough office space. Rapson indicated sympathy for the project, but said that it was difficult to see lodge rooms at that site. Donovan stated that she felt it was questionable that a lodge would be feasible between the interstate and the frontage road. She also shared Affeldt's concerns and felt that there were more options than just office space for Voliter's site. Donovan added that in 1982 when the district was formed, the idea was to have space for auto associated industries and that there was still a definite need for those businesses. She stated that it was not good to rezone an area with one project in mind. She agreed with each statement in the staff memo. Schultz quoted the Benton study, whichstated that the hotel market must have excellent locations to succeed and have to be able to accommodate groups. Schultz felt a location on the south side of the frontage road would be better and felt that a 20 room hotel was marginal as to success. He also asked if there was a possibility that there would be an off -ramp coming into the Arterial Business Distrtict and was told it was a possibility. Schultz felt that an off -ramp would make the area an even less desirable location for lodging. Piper read two letters into the record, one from Jim Morgan withdrawing his earlier letter and one from Harry Frampton, president of Vail Associates, I[] PEC -3- 4/22/85 which stated that they felt that if the Town could not retain the lot for . open space, this area be for commercial space and not for lodging. Piper said that he would like to see this new zone district given a chance to succeed. He reiterated the fact that currently there was a glut on the market of condominiums. Ryan wondered how soon the Town wanted to see the area upgraded and stated that one reason for the original rezoning was to see upgrading of this very visible property. Voliter felt that since this was one of the last pieces to be developed, he had to be very careful what he did with it. He felt that there was a very good possibility of getting lodge business from persons traveling on I -70 and if there is an off -ramp in this area, that possibility would improve. Affeldt moved and Ra son seconded to,deny the re uest to amend the zone district per the staff memo. The vote was 6 -0 to deny the request with Viele abstaining. 2. Request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to an existing single family residence on Lot 4, Block 1, Intermountain at 2664 Larkspur Lane. Applicants: Steven and Renee Caswell Rick Pylman reviewed the memo and stated that the staff recommended denial. Steve Caswell, the applicant explained that his long range goal was to build a garage on the west and therefore did not want to build there, that he did not want to build on the north because of having to cut into the hill more, and because he could only add 30 square feet there which wouldn't fulfill his needs. Also, on the north were the main utility lines which would have to be relocated. Caswell stated that his neighbor to the west was in the audience and was in favor of the request as was the neighbor who owned the lot to the east. Lorch spoke in favor of the addition. Schultz felt that theproposal did not hurt anyone, and no one objected, but that if the board went by strict regulations, the request did not fulfill the requireMents for a physical hardship. Donovan stated that she did not want to see any more soil removed from the south of the house, and wanted to leave space for parking on the north and west sides. Rapson agreed with Sid, Piper felt that the impact on the east was not great. Walters felt the Town must encourage Caswell to to build a future garage. Affeldt wanted to to a letter stating that the addition would not pose a problem to the owner on the east, and added that he would like more information on building to the north. Caswell repeated the information about the location of the utility lines on the north and the fact that adding to the north would not give him enough additional square footage that he needed. Affeldt felt that the public would not be harmed by the addition, Viele agreed with Eric. Caswell felt that not being able to build into the hillside was a hardship. Donovan felt there was reason to grant the variance since he could not build into the north or front and the Town was encouraging garages, Affeldt moved and Donovan seconded to approve the variance because granting f PEC -4- 4/22/85 the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and that the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty. The vote was 7 -0 in favor of the variance. After discussion of proposed changes to the height definition and the satellite ordinance, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm. • 1 � h TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council Community Development Department April 22, 1985 SUBJECT: Riaquest for an amendment to the conditional use section of Special Development District 7 (Marriott Mark Hotel) to add time sharing on a fractionalized fee ownership basis. Applicant: Kaiser Morcus I. THE REQUEST Basically, the request is to convert Phase III of the Marriott Mark Hotel from 121 rooms (27 existing kitchens) to a time sharing use. The terminology "fractionalized fee ownership) refers to the proposal of selling five -week packages to each owner, thus representing ten owners per unit. Although quite lengthy, we've enclosed Jay Peterson's memorandum describing the proposal in detail and discussing its merits. A thorough understanding of the request can be obtained by reading Jay's memorandum. II. BACKGROUND A. Previous Approval On April 20, 1981 the PEC held a public hearing on the request for approvals for Phase II addition (referred to as Phase III in the applicant's documents) along with a number of amendments to the Special Development District to accommodate revisions to this project.. We've enclosed the staff memorandum and the minutes from that April 20, 1981 meeting for your reference. We've also highlighted several areas within the memorandum and minutes which are applicable to the request now before the PEC. The following are aspects of the previous approval which are important to keep in mind when considering the current request to amend a number of characteristics and elements of that previous approval: Additional density in terms of more kitchens in the rooms was granted to the applicant upon the argument that more hospitality rooms were needed to support the convention facility (see minutes). The applicant represented as part of the proposal that there would be 320 hotel room keys available to the Marriott as the management firm for a period of 25 years. This.was represented so that the concern over additional kitchens with regard to future condominium - ization was not a problem. We have been informed by the applicant's representative that this agreement between Morcus and the Marriott has already been amended. There were many concessions made to the applicant in the 1981 approval with regard to extra fireplaces in accommodation units, reduction Marriott -2- 4/22/85 of amenities which were a part of the master development plan, allowing parking to be provided as agreed upon in 1977 with the original approval of the development plan and the relocation of undergound parking from underneath the convention facility to an above- ground structure west of the Phase III building. B. Time Sharing in Vail Attached please find Appendix B of our most recent Development Statistics report regarding existing and potential build -out of all timeshare projects in Vail. The table represents a substantial amount of timeshare use in Vail. Upon build -out of all multi- family dwelling units in the Town of Vail, timeshare will represent approximately 8% of all these units. The number of owners (21,750) is very significant in relationship to the total number of units in the final build -out scenario of the entire Town, being 8,896 units (single.family, duplex, accommodation and multi - family). The timeshare industry has followed the rest of the real estate industry in the last several years. There has been a substantial slowdown in development of timeshare units and some major problems within the industry. In the peak of the national recession.many timeshare owners simply ignored their mortgages and /or weekly maintenance fees for their units and this resulted in a high level of foreclosures for many projects. Furthermore, the timeshare industry has been unable to get a handle 140 on the tacky and shoddy marketing practices which have plagued this type of development since its inception. Little to no regulation.over these marketing practices by either state real estate commissions or municipalities has occurred and the problems continue. These poor marketing practices project a negative image upon the entire community in which these projects are located. C. Economic Impact Up-on the Town The following excerpt is from the recently released report of the Economic Development Commission of the Town of Vail. We feel that these comments are appropriate to this application and should be a serious consideration in the PEC`s decision on this proposal: "Recommendations on Lodgin Time Sharing. Discourage conversion of hotel -type units to timeshare ownership. Although the real estate transfer tax generates more revenue than the sales tax on hotel room revenues, within three or four years the tax on room occupancy will exceed the one -time real estate transfer tax. however, conversion of condominiums to timeshare ownership has the potential of increasing utilization of the units= - and higher utilization means more visitor spending, more jobs, more tax revenues. In new time share projects, units without kitchens should be encouraged. r• Marriott -3- 4/22/.85 "A continuing concern regarding time sharing, however, is the long- term management commitment after the sales program is substantially complete. Approximately 40 percent of the project's sales revenues are committed to sales commissions and /or one -time promotions. Often, the developer is completely out of the picture; and typically too many of the time share owners have relatively little at stake to make a strong commitment during some type of economic setback." III. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL Following are pros and cons of the proposal as evaluated against the existing situation of 121 accommodation units run as a part of the overall hotel and containing 27 kitchenettes within some of the units. A. PRO Increase off - season occupancy. Generally, time sharing has higher year round occupancy than hotels because the owner feels an obliga- tion to utilize or rent the weeks that he owns. ° Part of the proposal is to put capital into improving.the Phase III building. ° Retaining the Marriott as the management firm would increase the compatibility of the time shared portion versus the accommodation unit portion of the complex. Be aware, however, that these management agreements obviously are changed without Town of Vail knowledge or control. The five -week package reduces the number of potential owners to 460 within Phase III, whereas, it could have been five times that amount by selling individual weeks to individual purchasers. ° The Marriott Mark facility contains sufficient amenities and is in a good location for the time use. B. CON ° Allowing this conversion would be a precedent setting decision toward a general direction of dilution of the short term hotel bed base in the Town of Vail. Removal of accommodation units, especially from an organization such as the Marriott can only be viewed as a significant negative impact upon the Town of Vail. High quality accommodation units in good locations (within the Village and Lionshead areas) supported by major conference facilities are a land use that this community cannot afford to be reduced. • Mariott.Mark -4- 4/22/85 ° Negative effect upon _group business. It is noted in the applicant's memorandum that approximately a one year lead time will be required to include an individual week into the Marriott rental pool. It is unlikely that an owner will have made the decision of whether or not he will utilize the unit himself one year in advance. This could result in the unit being vacant for that week because the owner decided within a shorter time frame not to use the unit and the Marriott was subsequently unable to rent it. The impact upon the Marriott's ability to conduct the larger group business meetings would be very negative with this uncertainty over unit availability. Town of Vail contains a sufficient number of time share units. As previously noted, the Town contains seven time share projects representing 435 total units upon build -out. Without a great deal of statistical data we, nevertheless, feel that in considering the time share industry's current problems that we may, indeed, have enough of this type of land use. Negative _impacts of marketing program. The intention of the proposal is to "sell" the guests of the hotel the time share weeks as well as bringing people to the site from throughout the front range and the country for short term visits. We feel that these may be negative marketing influences upon Vail rather than positive ones with the knowledge of the poor track record of time share sales people and general marketing practices., ° Decrease in marketing dollars for the hotel. The application fully admits a long term decrease in marketing dollars for the hotel in regard to the reduction of the number of accommodation units. The violation of the four .vear old agreement on accommodation unit restrictions. The applicant requested extra kitchens four years ago with the assurance that these units would remain accommodation units and be managed by the Marriott and would be an integral part of the conference facilities. The approval was given based on these proposals and we feel strongly that they should be respected as was promised. Negative economic impact of the Town of Vail. The EDC points out the loss of long term sales tax revenues from accommodation unit rentals as opposed to the short term real estate transfer tax gains. Conversion to time sharing of Phase III of the Marriott is a very negative economic impact upon the Town and a poor use of tax payers' dollars. Negative parking impacts. Especially during the marketing stages approximately 4 years the impacts of parking on the site will be tremendous with the large numbers of potential purchasers driving to the site for sales pitches. Moreover, time sharing requires more parking as a use than accommodation units because front range purchasers will choose to drive to the site, and studies show that F_ -I L Marriott -5- 4/22/.85 iat least two parking spaces per unit are needed. Trend in Vail of condominium conversion of accommodation units. We are receiving a significant number of applications to convert existing accommodation units to condominiums. Although, our regulations stipulate owners' use restrictions to two weeks winter and two weeks summer, overall, the wholesale conversion of AU's to condominiums has a negative effect upon overall room availability in the community. One thing the Town of Vail can ill afford to lose is the availability of our lodge rooms to the public in general in a flexible arrangement. Negative effect upon restaurant business. The conversion to time share condominiums of Phase III will reduce restaurant business and have a negative effect upon the sales tax due to the increased number of meals to be eaten in the condominiums with kitchens. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department feels strongly that that this application should be denied. We feel that although time generally increases occupancy on a year round basis that the negatives far outweigh the positives with this proposal. We feel that one of the most important things we can do at this point in the Town's history is to protect to the greatest extent possible our accommodation units which are centrally located and are related to group business facilities. The Community Action Plan contains many policies related to this feeling. In fact, we encourage the addition of lodge rooms in the Village and Eionshead areas with these characteristics rather than their elimination. We also feel that the economic impact as noted by the EDC will be a negative one for the Town and share the EDC's concern over the long term management commitment. We feel strongly that the applicant should respect the promises and guarantees that were given to the Town four years ago in that many concessions were made to allow additional kitchens and for other aspects of the Phase III approval. Furthermore, the time sharing industry's inability to solve some of their problems in the marketing area are of major concern to the Community Development Department in that allowing the conversion may indeed result in a negative image of.Vail rather than a positive one. The potential negative impacts upon the Marriott's ability to conduct group business is a very real one as well as the loss of sales tax from reduced restaurant revenues. In general, we feel that the Marriott Mark hotel is a positive contributor to the Town of.Vail in its existing configuration and operating procedures and we feel that the conversion to time sharing of a major portion of this hotel is not in the best interests of the Town in either a short or long term outlet. 49 u I N m � irl oo c� Lrl QD co O 0 M O Q - �oY -7ZI- Q0 j LU LLJ LLJ LU LU a Ln0 LLI d � I O o LU LLJ J J Q Q w N � Q c� co L.r, a J z C7 - - C `3- O - CC �- � a a � CD Ln Q � � r I C CD F- -- Lz1 F- CD � U Ci7 Cn LL. C) ' LLI z Lo z L31 U O � U U O Cl L J !— LLI J LLI }C J Q_ Z Z LLI r_� _ C-D C/7 LLA L7 C!-- C:il C/} O F— of <r- — Cn L-Q LU rZ LEI w N � Q c� co L.r, a z C7 - - C `3- O - CC �- Cn LU LU a a � CD Ln � r I C CD F- -- Lz1 F- CD � . MEMORANDUM TOWN OF VAIL TIME - SHARING REGULATIONS The Spring of 1980 saw the first time - sharing regulations adopted by the Town. The ordinances, in general, called time - sharing as a conditional use in the HDMF, PA, CCI and CCII zone districts, required disclosure statements and registration of projects and required persons selling time - sharing to obtain a license from the Town. Subsequent ordinances in the Fall of 1980 removed time - sharing as a conditional use from the PA, CCI and CCII zone districts and prohibited mixing time - sharing units and whole -owned condominiums in the same building. This left the HDMF zone district the only one possible to locate a new time - sharing project in the Town. THE REQUEST Phase Three of the Mark is located in SDD #7, which is a separate zone and is an official part of the Town of Vail zoning map. Prior to becoming SDD #7 the land was zoned HDMF. The request is for Phase III, which is under separate ownership from Phases I and II, to become a fractionalized fee ownership project which will remain in conjunction with the Mark Marriott Resort. Each owner of a fractionalized fee interest will receive a deed to the property for that period of time which is purchased. The proposal is for a purchaser to buy a five week increment of time, two Winter weeks and one Summer week will be at a fixed time in a fixed unit. The two remaining weeks will be offered on a float /flexible basis in the off seasons of April to mid -June and October to pre - Thanksgiving. Owners may reserve two night minimum stays, using part, all or none of these fourteen days. Currently, Phase III is comprised of 121 rooms which are either rented separately or as a one, two or three bedroom suite. While the current proposal is to separately condominiumize the 121 rooms, the condominiumized rooms would be sold as suites, made up as follows: Ten (10) - Three (3) Bedroom Units Seventeen (17) - Two (2) Bedroom Units Eighteen (18) - One (1) Bedroom Units One (1) - Studio Unit REQUEST FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION The regulations call time- sharing a subdivision proposal. This proposal involves less than four lots and is a minor subdivision. There are no special criteria by which to judge a time - sharing project as a subdivision. The regulations simply provide that an approval for such a subdivision must be obtained. The submittal requirement for this is simply the proposed condominium plat and related controlling documents. The pros and cons of the actual proposal will be outlined in the conditional use section of this Memorandum. In addition to the subdivision regulations, the applicant must comply with the condominium conversion ordinance, which contains, among other things, a use restriction for owner occupancy. Because of the nature of the fractionalized share ownership program, the use provisions of the conversion ordinance will be automatically complied with. Regarding the building inspector report, the building received a certificate of occupancy approximately two years ago and should, therefore, be up to current Town of Vail standards. (It is interesting to note that if the building were condominiumized while under construction, which the owner had a right to do, no conversion ordinance regulations would have to be complied with). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS Purpose of the Conditional Use: Because of special characteristics, conditional uses require special review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process is intended to assure compatability and harmonious development between conditional uses, the surrounding properties and the Town . at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the Town, and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. Criteria: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. A. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE: Provide high quality guest accommodations for Vail's visitors. B. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE: Attract "high quality" guests in large numbers to Vail. C. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE: Efficiently utilize existing facilities and accommodations (i.e. high occupancy) throughout the year. D. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE: Public and private sectors . work together to create an affordable vacation experience for the guest. E • The fractionaized fee interest proposal fulfills the above development objectives. The program can best be compared to one presently under construction in Beaver Creek - the Park Plaza - where sales have already started and occupancy is guaranteed for November, 1986. The offering is structured as a fractionalized interest with 1/10 shares each consisting of five weeks of use. Vail Associates, who developed and is marketing the Park Plaza project, anticipate owners' use will average three weeks, and that the remaining time will most often be rented. We anticipate the same for Phase III. A highly reliable independent study (Interval Ownership Case Studies, Volume I, Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc. for the American Land Development Association, November, 1980) of time- sharing throughout the country has shown interval owners to possess high levels of income, education and occupation. They have prepaid for their accommodations and come with money to spend. At this point in Vail's history, it would seem to be prudent to attract such personnel to as great a degree as possible. The average price for an increment at the Park Plaza is $100,000, and Vail Associates reported $4.2 million worth of inventory was sold by January, 1985, with total sell out expected in three years. They believe the offering has strong appeal to purchasers who will not pay $400,000 for a whole unit that will have minimal use, but who can afford and will pay $100,000 for a . five week use period. Vail Associates studies have shown that average owner use of a whole unit condominium is 4.6 weeks, and they have structured the Park Plaza offering to meet these needs. It has been demonstrated that a viable market exists for this kind of product in Vail, in other areas of Colorado and in Florida, and this offering is an alternative for the buyer who may look at a whole unit, but whose use of such a unit would be limited. Bearing this limited use in mind, a fractional interest consisting of five weeks annually would have great appeal. In addition, Phase III units would be in a full hotel managed by the Marriott with full access to all the hotel's amenities and facilities, including indoor and outdoor pools, racquet and hand ball courts, exercise room, saunas and outside tennis courts. Five years ago, when the time -share ordinances were passed, there was a great deal of concern that a potential time -share investor was not the type of person that we wanted in the Town of Vail. Experience has shown that this assumption is not correct and, on the contrary, the time -share investor has shown to be no different than any other purchaser or visitor to our Town. The offering will be made to a highly educated, affluent group of consumers. Purchasers will primarily be in the age range of 40 - 50 years, college educated, with annual incomes of at least $65,000 and a median income in excess of $100,000. Considering anticipated pricing, these units will not be affordable to a lower income group than this. Based on 3 experience, it is expected that some purchasers will buy two or more of these five week increments. The targeted age group includes the fastest growing sector of our national economy. As was cited in Vail's Summer Study: "The number of Americans 31 to 56 will soar by over 20 million, with the group 35 to 44 years the principal growth sector of the consumer market." This segment includes the older of what has come to be known as the "baby boom" generation - a group characterized by good education and an increasing affluence. They are known to be value - oriented and they will comprise a significant percentage of owners. These purchasers will present the same demographic profile as the typical Vail whole unit condominium buyer of the type of unit involved. Whole units of this improved quality would sell for $240,000 - $550,000, and several Vail realtors have described their buyers of units in this price range as betwen 40 - 60 years, with incomes of $100,000 and over. Frequently these are professionals - doctors and lawyers - who purchase a unit in partnership, for limited use. This buyer will also be similar in demographics and income level, to Poste Montaine owners (another Beaver Creek fractionalized fee interest project). While Paste Montaine is physically superior even to the upgraded Mark offering, but • realizing it is an interval ownership project with an average sale of 2.5 weeks, it has attracted buyers with median annual incomes in excess of $100,000. Although the quality of Poste Montaine cannot be duplicated here, the amount of living space, the superior amenity base, and anticipated quality of these units after significant upgrading should attract a similar market, particularly considering the offering of five week packages. Each of the Phase III units will be refurbished and upgraded to more positively position its appeal to an affluent market. This market will be found in the front range, Texas (particularly Dallas and Austin), southern California, and Chicago. The front range - Denver, Colorado Springs - may contribute as much as one -third to one -half of this group of buyers, based on realtors' experiences. That these will be the best markets is apparent also from a review of Vail's Board of Realtors Sales Summaries for 1983 and the first half of 1984, and from Vail's Winter Study (1983) which states in a discussion of markets: "Clearly, on the basis of current ownership reports, Colorado is a primary target. In addition, Texas, the Midwest and California are also more likely sources of potential buyers." 0 Interviews with local realtors have reinforced the observation that the Vail market is increasingly one of 4 owner - users, rather than of investors. This product will be very attractive to this kind of demand in that it meets the average period of use need (of 4.6 weeks), with a good price to value relationship in a management intensive setting. Alternatively, Marriott management and the hotel style of operation present an excellent environment for part -time rental. The product is also consistent with the Winter study's finding that only 10% of potential purchasers viewed a prospective purchase as a future primary residence. Conversely, 900 of prospective purchasers are not seeking a future primary residence. This kind of offering will ensure the presence in Vail of a number of tourists who would not buy a whole unit because of their limited needs and /or reluctance or inability to make a larger investment. Yet they are sufficiently affluent to make this purchase, and sufficiently loyal to Vail to wish to make this kind of commitment to return. Occupancy rates for fractionalized fee ownership tend to run about 80% throughout the year. This is higher than a hotel and much higher than a luxury condominium used as a second home. The reason time - sharing produces higher occupancies is that if an individual or couple owns only a week or two of property, they will certainly either use it themselves or rent it rather than let it sit vacant and waste their vacation investment. The higher quality interval ownership projects attract higher quality purchasers, who, studies have shown, tend to use their own weeks rather than rent or exchange for another resort. A study conducted by the staff on Sanibel Island, Florida ( "Report on Time - Sharing Field Study on Sanibel Island, Florida, Peter Patten, October 22, 1980) showed that local businessmen believe the large number of interval projects there have helped their shoulder season business. As a result of the nature of the program, the hotel's occupancy levels will increase because of the owners' presence, as a result of upscale sales generation programs and a diminishing number of hotel accommodations at the property. Owners will most surely use their two weeks in Winter, which will strengthen the currently softer weeks of December, January and April, while maintaining present near 1000 occupancy for the balance of the Winter. Owner occupancy will also be high in Summer. This pattern is consistent with the Town's objectives of increasing busines in off - season and the slower part of the ski season. Owners will have access to a full service rental program managed by Marriott, who will have ample time to plan for utilization of the available improved units, since as much as a year's lead time will be required if owners wish to rent any or all of their weeks. A significant percentage of two weeks' float time will be made available for rental and much of those rentals will be made available to groups for conferences and meetings. 5 . Buyers will make high use of their Winter weeks, and Summer weeks as well, but some portion of the weeks will be available for rental. Unfortunately, there is no basis for presenting accurate rental figures as no similar programs have been undertaken for any period of time in a hotel environment. The two off - season weeks will be flexible in that anywhere from two to fourteen nights may be reserved for use, and the balance or even the total two weeks may be offered to the hotel for rental use. To this end, many of the bedrooms will remain as lock -offs so that they can be rented as hotel rooms or suites. An owner of a three - bedroom unit, for example, may choose to use one or two bedrooms during his occupancy and release the balance to the hotel for rental. The program provides for a quality product in a full service Marriott- managed hotel so that owners will derive the full benefits thereof. Owners will be able to take advantage of the existing hotel services, amenities and facilities. While this section of the hotel - the newest addition - is an integral part of the existing operation, an upgraded service package is planned in keeping with unit improvements. New owners will have separate check -in /check -out services, and a professional concierge available to them, which will be consistent with those services found in the finest resort hotels. Full utilization of the Phase III is a distinct advantage in that it can be treated as a separate entity, while still retaining its integrity as part of the existing hotel and its ability to be incorporated into the hotel inventory when time in these units is relinquished by the owners. Existing meeting space will be retained and continue its full operation. Current group use primarily consists of small, concurrent meetings. Management reports only one single group booking that required all available rooms. Average group size is 75 - 100 attendees, requiring the use of 40 - 50 rooms. Given that meeting space is only provided in two separate areas and that reported average group size is 100 maximum with a need for 50 rooms, the hotel's remaining inventory will be able to meet the needs of such simultaneous meetings, supplemented by Phase ITT units as available. Marriott's long -range marketing plans include developing more group business in periods of lower occupancy, which coincide with owners' off - season weeks. owners are fully expected to make their units available to the hotel at these times, which will support Marriott's plans, and perhaps serve as a catalyst in their implementation. A major requirement in implementing this program is Marriott's cooperation. Marriott has agreed to the sale of these units and has also agreed to provide management to the type of program envisioned. Marriott has assured that their presence in Vail will continue; that they consider the balance of the rooms to be adequate to continue to run an increasingly effective hotel, that Marriott's position vis -a -vis management of the Mark A will continue, and that the Mark will retain its position as the largest resort hotel in Vail. Lastly, while the national economic situation has staged a dramatic turnaround, the effect has not rippled down to the Vail real estate market, and the continuing depressed market which would appear to be deepening indicates that times are changing from the past decade and that new avenues for second -home ownership need to be explored. Fractionalized fee ownership, while not a universal cure -all, certainly goes hand -in -hand with a quality hotel operation like the Mark Marriott Hotel. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation faciliites and other public facilities and public facilities needs. There will be no effect on light and air as the structure is already completed. Fractionalized fee ownership will also have no effect on schools as each owner only occupies the unit for a short period of time. Fractionalized fee ownership will, however, have a slight impact on transportation facilities, parks and recreation facilities and other public facilities, as there will be a greater number of people in our Town on a year -round basis. The interval owners (as a whole) will not increase the demand for public transportation with regard to the bus system, as the facility already operates as a full service hotel. In addition, the location of the Mark actually makes it more convenient to walk to the Lionshead lifts and thus, will not over - -crowd the buses in their peak times. During the off - seasons and Summer season when higher occupancies are expected with Fractionalized fee ownership, the Town of Vail bus system will be better utilized and will not in any way over - burden the system. Fractionalized fee interests require a higher degree of recreational facilities. Fractionalized fee interest is a vacation plan -- people purchase to reserve vacation accommodations. Vacationers are extremely act people, and they require recreational amenities to meet their needs. In this case, the Marriott Mark Resort has provided a very high level of recreational amenities and common areas for its hotel operation. The existing facilities will be able to meet the needs of the interval owners. The proposal will also create a demand for other public recreation facilities such as golf and ice skating. These activities all generate user fees for their respective public owners and should not over - burden the existing facilities. 3. 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 parking areas. One of the most negative effects of fractionaized fee ownership has proven to be the parking and congestion problems 7 which on -site marketing practices create. Recause interval ownership creates about 48 times the owners that whole -owned condominiums do, the marketing of the project is extremely intensive. Considering one in 10 prospective purchasers actually buy (a figure generally experienced on Sanibel Island), a seller may have to attract almost 500 people per unit before he sells that unit out. The obvious problems created, especially on weekends, are shoddy off -site "huckstering" practices (teenagers soliciting guests at stores and parking lots offering free gifts for a tour of the project), hard -sell real estate practices and an unmanageable on -site parking problem created by prospective purchasers. Compounding the parking problems are recent practices of offering any interval owner of a project use of its facilities and amenities at anytime of the year. The Phase III proposal mitigates most of these problems. Phase III will offer only a package block of weeks as described earlier. Thus, a buyer must purchase a minimum of 5 weeks rather than 1, reducing by five -fold the problems just mentioned. This means that there will be only 10 owners per unit. Also, no "Year-round" amenity memberships will be allowed with the sale of a fractionalized fee interest. The off -site "huckstering" practices will also not be part of the marketing package (See Article #5 below) . Once sell -out has occurred the fractionalized fee ownership will not increase traffic flow in peak seasons because the facility already operates as a hotel. During the off - season and Summer season, traffic flow may increase somewhat because of increased occupancies over the normal hotel operation, however, Town of Vail systems and the hotel facilities have been designed for the peak season and can easily handle any increase in use during that portion of the year. In addition, once the occupants have arrived in Town, there is no further need to use a car because of the location of the project. All major sports facilities, except for the golf course, are located within the project or within walking distance of the project and, therefore, there should be little effect upon traffic or traffic congestion. Removal of snow from the surface parking areas is no different than if it were a regular hotel operation. 4. 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 the surrounding uses. The scale and bulk of the building will obviously not change and the proposed use is compatible with the area. The surrounding area is made up as follows: A. Vail Spa is wholly -owned condominiums which are short termed with a full service restaurant and front desk operation. B. Enzian Lodge is a hotel operation with a full service restaurant. C. Enzian Condominiums is wholly -owned condominiums. D. Antlers Condominiums is wholly -owned condominiums which are short termed with a front desk operation and meeting room facilities. E. Montaneros Condominiums is wholly -owned condominiums which are short termed with a front desk operation. F. Concert Hall Plaza is retail commercial space. G. The remaining portion of the Mark Marriott Hotel remains attached and is an integral part of Phase III. 5. Other Factors and Criteria. A. One of the criticisms of the time - sharing industry has been the off -site "huckstering" and hard sell real estate practices. The quality of this offering in Vail to a great extent predetermines the marketing approach. Marketing programs have not yet been fully developed, however, the philosophy has. The is use of sweepstakes, street solicitation programs, or any other type of program that would be offensive to Vail residents, guests, or clients of the project will not be used. The product will be presented as an alternative to a whole unit purchase, therefore, emphasis will be on the similarities to a whole unit, with the benefits of limited investment for a "realistic" use period in a full service hotel with its attendant facilities, amenities and services. In selling the product, it is the Vail experience that will be marketed - not so much Marriott's Mark or fractional interest - the main thrust will be to provide a full service accommodation from which to experience Vail. That experience will include families, their relatives and guests, and in many instances, business associates. It is given that in the various forms of marketing done on -site and off -site - whether through upscale mailings, the media or personal presentations - the greatest appeal will be generated by Vail, and secondarily by the Marriott. Emphasis will be placed on full disclosure and the sale of a use product to a knowledgeable purchaser who will voluntarily choose to purchase based on his needs. Among the several programs to be used will be a first class mailing to pre - qualified lists, with a quality brochure and inserts, similar to those done for first -class condominiums. 0 Other traditional media presentations, such as television and print, will be recommended since experience has been that upscale markets are quite responsive to such presentations. A local broker program will be used and it is felt that this product will be consistent in quality with others presently handled by Vail realtors, since buyer demographics will strongly parallel those of whole unit buyers. It is expected that many clients will return to the project two or three times before their decision to purchase is made. To create opportunities for on -site visits, short vacation programs (two nights /three days or longer) will be used to bring qualified clients from primary markets to the hotel, and since the Marriott Mark Hotel experience itself will be a focal point of the sales program, qualified and interested hotel guests will be offered sales presentations. These guests will be a strong source of potential owners since they will have experienced Vail, and it has been repeatedly shown how important exposure to Vail is to establish and reinforce loyalty to the resort. The most effective resources present are the town, the hotel and the product. Vacation questionnaires clients in the primary markets to IS to offer opportunities to visit t' useful means of creating interest among groups who have had minimal Vail. will be mailed to selective determine interest levels, and he site. It is also a very in the area and the resort or no previous exposure to In addition, following proper registration procedures, off -site facilities may be established in primary markets to give potential clients an opportunity to determine their interest level before visiting Vail. Those who show serious interest in the offering and who are determined to be qualified, will be invited to visit the hotel for they will not complete their decision to purchase until they have enjoyed the resort. These sales activities will generate a strong clientele base of non - buyers that will increase occupancy and future demand for Vail accommodations and the resort. Many of these clients will initially visit in Summer or off - season periods and will be exposed to a different Vail that will make them return for reasons other than skiing, though skiing will benefit, too. These sales processes will further penetrate existing markets and may also open new ones. We realize that of those first timers who visit, it is reasonable to expect less than 20% to become owners, but for 400 or more to return as repeat visitors. We see this process as an opportunity to increase Vail's potential client base, and believe there will be . profitable long range benefits, which will be compatible with the town's needs to increase tourist traffic and to strengthen perception of Vail as a destination resort. 10 • B. A crucial question is whether there is a demand for the product. Currently, Beaver Creek is providing Vail with its biggest competition with real estate sales of wholly -owned condominiums and is currently alone in the market place selling fractionalized fee interests within the core of the ski area. Beaver Creek has two highly successful projects, Poste Montaine and the Park Plaza, while Vail has no high quality, high end fractionalized fee interest projects located in the core areas. Both poste Montaine and Park Plaza have generated large transfer tax fees and have provided Beaver Creek with an alternative product in addition to hotel rooms and wholly -owned condominiums. In addition, interviews with local realtors and real estate professionals, as well as, the Vail Winter Study, indicate that demand is great for condominium style units with kitchens in conjunction with project amenities and services. There is no other opportunity in either CCI or CCII to either convert an existing project or to build a new project, as was done in Beaver Creek, which offers the same level of amenities and services as the Marriott Mark Resort. This Phase III program responds to these points very specifically, for the product will maintain its integrity as a contiguous part of the existing hotel - which will be a strong selling point - and yet there will be upgraded services and Isrefurbishment, and an atmosphere of exclusivity. C. Another question often asked is: Will the project be maintained? Existing furnishings will be initially replaced with those appropriate to a very upscale and exclusive resort, and at a level of quality that will be attractive to the market for which the units are intended. Hallways in this section of the building will be redecorated, again in keeping with the upgraded furnishings. In order to support the special services to be provided the owners, the owners will be assessed a reasonable yearly maintenance fee to assure upkeep of the premises and first class maintenance of the upgraded unit quality. This fee will essentially conform to maintenance fees charged present owners of condominiums at the hotel, with appropriate adjustments for the increased services and higher utilization. An adequate reserve for replacement of short -lived building components and furnishings and fixtures will be included to assure minimal deterioration. The units should function at a level well above typical resort hotel accommodations over a long period of time. D. Will there be a reduction in advertising dollars spent by the Marriott Mark Resort? 11 . We recognize that with a reduction in hotel inventory there will be a potential reduction in Marriott's marketing expenditures for this hotel. We are also aware that Marriott's marketing thrust has been on "Vail" and that there is considerable local concern about the loss of these dollars. The remaining Marriott Mark Resort, however, will still contain 229 rooms and large convention facilities with its commensurate advertising budget, which is still Vail's largest hotel and largest and best convention facilities. It is also true that while a substantial budget has been created for the marketing of this proaram, this budget will only exist so long as there is a sales program, and we anticipate sell -out will occur in approximately three years from inception. However, we estimate a total of $4.3 million will be spent on marketing and, while actual expenditures will be made in a relatively short period of time while sales are in progress, the effects will be long -term. For one, the infusion of such large amounts of money initially will increase marketing effectiveness. Programs will be broad, as previously described, and will strongly impact the target markets which are also those of Vail. There will be a momentum created that must be sustained to assure the program's success. As has been pointed out, the primary focus will be on the Vail experience - in effect, marketing the town. The $4.3 million equates to 20 years of marketing expenditures by Marriott for the 116 rooms that will no longer be marketed annually after three years. During the sell -out period, marketing of unsold rooms will continue to the extent they are available for rental. Experience has shown that such broad programs, utilizing various media and concentrated on very specific markets, have a long -range residual effect - in essence, it is prepaid marketing for the area and the project. We recommend that marketing efforts be focused, in particular those that involve bringing clients to the hotel, in the softer, off- seasons. For one, a greater number of rooms will be available for those staying overnight. Also, it will be advantageous to expose tourists to the off - season Vail. There is no need to demonstrate the excellence of Vail's skiing, but we do foresee marketing benefits in presenting the less crowded off - season mountain experience, which most find very enjoyable as was noted in the 1984 Vail Summer Survey. E. Recognizing the town's concern as to the impact such a program will have not only on available rooms, but on its revenues, we wish to address the issue of the impact of such a program on sales tax revenues. The recent study by Vail's Economic Development Commission points out that: 12 "The primary growth area remaining for the town of Vail is growth in visitor expenditures - both from attracting more visitors during the slower months and from increasing the level of expenditures during their visits. Japanese visitors in Hawaii spend approximately $700 per day - primarily on gifts. The Summer Survey indicated that most people were visiting Vail for the more abstract reasons - sightseeing, nature experiences, getting away from the day -to -day activities at home. In many resorts, shopping is the major visitor activity." The kitchens in these units will be continued, and existing wet bars will be upgraded to include microwave ovens. While these are essential facilities from a sales point of view, the actual use of these amenities by owners at these income levels is limited. Experience has shown that owners of pre -paid vacations tend to spend more on dining out and entertainment than the general tourist, since they are not faced with paying for lodging. An extensive study done by Richard Ragatz, Ph.D., for the American Land Development Association compared consumer expenditures at three different resort communities, contrasting tourists in general with owners of pre -paid vacations. The resorts were in Florida, California and Hawaii. Ragatz demonstrated that owners spent more on overall expenditures than did general tourists by 11% in Florida, 39% in California and 63% in Hawaii. These expenditures included categories such as dining out, entertainment, recreation, shopping (other than groceries), etc. but did not include lodgings. Looking at restaurant and nightclub expenditures specifically, the owners' expenditures are greater than general tourists' by to in Florida, 20o in California and 34% in Hawaii. Florida owners, although spending considerably less proportionately than California and Hawaii owners in this one category, did spend more than three times as much as Florida general tourists on shopping. In fact, in both Hawaii and Florida, shopping was the second greatest expenditure (after restaurants and nightclubs) for the owners. In this study Ragatz confirmed a phenomenon we have observed elsewhere. Because owners of prepaid vacations do not need to allocate funds for lodgings at the time of their vacations, as do general tourists, they either have, or feel they have, more disposable income. Owners' expenditure patterns while vacationing reflect this attitude and thus they spend more on restaurants, nightlife, shopping and recreation. This then 13 becomes an ongoing infusion into the economy of the resort town, recurring with each use period. As Ragatz has demonstrated, this pattern is consistent with various locations and is not confined to a particular locale. We anticipate, therefore, that these Mark owners will make a substantial contribution to the town's economy - more than they would as consistent lodgers and more because the overall occupancy rate of the property should increase substantially. Moreover, review of the Town of Vail Sales Tax receipts reveals the great seasonal variation in expenditures as reflected in sales tax revenues. These variations are consistent with reported occupancy levels and with seasonal observations by local realtors and real estate professionals. While actual revenues have increased for the most part (October and April show decreases in 1983, and October shows a slight increase in 1984 although not to 1982's level, while April shows a substantial increase in 1984), there are significant differences between the high Winter season and the rest of the year, and these differences persist throughout this three year period. The Economic Development Commission report points out that: "The five -month Winter season continued to capture 67% of the annual business in Vail. Although business activity in the non - Winter seasons has increased at the same rate as the Winter season for the past ten years, there has been no "closing of the gap ". The non - Winter seasons continue to represent only one -third of the total year's business income." The program structured will serve to offset this discrepancy to some extent, by enabling and encouraging clients to make use of Summer and off- season time. The most significant gains we believe will be in the Summer. The Economic Development Commission has also pointed out that "Vail "s attributes (location, etc.) result in repeat visits; therefore, expenditures made to attract visitors for the first time have a multiplier effect over the ensuing years." 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter No ETR is required. LJ 14 • SUMMARY • i� In summary, by converting the third phase of the Marriott Mark Resort the hotel will be reduced in size to a 229 room hotel, still the largest in Vail, with the additional converted rooms being available when not occupied by their owners. All conventions and recreational facilities remain in tack. Simultaneously, (1) an entire section of the existing hotel will be upgraded, both in furnishings and service; (2) over $4 million will be expended on marketing within a few years; (3) an extensive marketing campaign that will focus on Vail and Marriott will be embarked upon; (4) a strong client base will be created, many of whom will be first - timers to Vail; (5) the continuing presence of loyal vacationers who will contribute considerably to sales tax revenues will be ensured; (6) off - season occupancy will be increased; (7) potential buyers of whole unit condominiums will be offered a true luxury alternative. Many of these potential buyers would not make a purchase or would defer a purchase because their limited use of a whole unit would require an investment far in excess of the time they would use - they would be offered a better value, while on balance the town, its merchants and its citizens would all gain; and (8) potential buyers, if not given the opportunity to purchase in Vail may purchase in Beaver Creek or elsewhere and be lost to the Vail real estate market and the Vail hotel market. Three factors inherent in this offering will have strong appeal: that the five weeks' use meets apparent documented demand, that the units are based on a full service hotel with access to all its amenities and facilities, and that ongoing management is provided by Marriott.. We believe that a fractional interest offering is an appropriate use of these facilities, given the needs of the existing market. 15 r 46 MEMBERS PRESENT Gerry White Dan Corcoran Duane Piper Gaynor Miller Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 20, 1981 3;00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT_ Dick Ryan Peter Patten Peter Jamar Larry Eskwith Betsy Rosolack ABSENT COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Jim Morgan --- Scott Edwards Paul Johnston Roger Tilkemeier Gerry called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of aril 13,_1981. Gaynor moved and Duane seconded to approve these minutes. The vote was 3 -0 in favor, Dan abstaining. 2. X request to amend Special Development District No. 7 of the Series of 1977 concerning the number of fireplaces, density control and removal of tennis courts for the Marriott Mark. In addition, review of Phase II of the special development district. Applicant: Kaiser Marcus. iA Peter Patten reviewed the staff memorandum which described the plan revisions and the amendment requests. He listed 5 conditions the staff recommended with the approval. Ken Wentworth added that the owner had agreed to all the listed condi- tions. He then showed plans and two models. One was a model of the previously approved addition, and the other the changed proposal as presented with this memo. Ross Cooney, also of Ruoff - Wentworth, felt that some of the massing decisions made earlier were good ones, but now they wanted to have a greater orientation to the south. He added that 734 of the rooms proposed would face south, which caused a modification in the massing. One change still to be made is to move the parking structure farther from the building and perhaps change the fire lane. Kaiser Marcus stated that they now need more hospitality rooms, which was the main reason for the request for the kitchens. Bill Ruoff added that if the Town of Vail wants more conventions, they must have what the conventions want. Kaiser Marcus mentioned that their contract with the Marriott is for 25 years, and they have an agreement with Marriott to provide 320 hotel room keys, Dan said that he felt that the Mark had been the forerunner in providing employee housing. Ken felt that the parking spaces should have been 235, and not 257. Ross added that since there really had been originally 2 plans, that the number might have been taken from the wrong one. Dick Ryan stated that the staff would make sure that the number that had been approved in 1977 would be the number they would work with. Delivery vehicles, convention kitchen access, and the conference center were discussed. PEC - 2 - 4/20/81 s Dan Corcoran moved and Gaynor seconded that Phase Ii Addition and 2 amendments to Special Development District 7 for the Marriott's Mark Hotel with the five conditions listed by the staff in the memo, be recommended to the Town Council. Discussion followed the motion to have the staff resolve the number of parking spaces to make the motion conform to the original approval. More discussion of the environ- mental impact statements followed. Ross stated that they didn't know all of the ways that they would incorporate energy saving devices as yet. Dan felt that the location of the solar collectors must be considered with respect to the visibility from Forest Road. Concern was then expressed over the length of time the project would be under construction, and how soon the contractor could finish the landscaping. . , After many assurances from Marcus, the commission members were content with the statement from Ken that they would plant in the first planting season following completion of construction. Dan amended his motion to include the provision that the number of parking spaces be clarified by the staff, and that one more condition be added to say, that planting must be done the earliest planting season following completion of construction. The vote was 4--0, unanimous. This was to go to the Town Council the first Tuesday in May. Dick mentioned that Architerra would be included in the next PEC meeting on April 27. Dan Corcoran was appointed to chair the meeting on the 27th, as Gerry wouldn't be there. Duane moved and Gaynor seconded to adjourn the meeting. The vote was 4 -0, unanimous. �1 �J 0) • -1 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Envrironmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten DATE: April 20, 1981 Corrected Memorandum May 28, 1981 RE: Request for Approvals for Phase II Addition and 2 Amendments to Special Development District 7 for the Marriott's Mark Hotel BACKGROUND In February of 1977, Special Development District 7 was adopted for the Mark Resort. A Master Development Plan was adopted at that time for the entire project. The Plan at that time showed general locations and designs for the buildings and the intended uses proposed. The SDD Ordinance outlined development standards and maximum density controls. The proposal currently under review is called the Phase II Addition of the Marriott's Mark Hotel and resprsents the final development of the property. THE PROPOSAL The plan submitted for approval contains additional dwelling units, accommodation units, a convention center of 8,750 square feet, parking structure and 2 additional tennis courts. Also included is the completion of the landscaping and construction of a bicycle path. The following statistics represent the existing, proposed and allowable situations: A. Number of Units Proposed: Acc. Units Dwelling Units Original 74 14 Phase 1 106 12* Phase 2 66 27* Total 246: 53 Allowed: 304 34 (This section changed since Planning and Environmental Commission-meeting.) *An efficiency kitchen will be removed from Phase 1, Unit 108, converting Unit 108 ;from a dwelling unit to an accomodation unit. B. Gross Residential Floor Area (Acc. units and dwelling units) Proposed: GRFA(sq it) Existing 86,513 Phase 2 46,996 Total 133,509 Allowed: 134,000 r� Marriott's Mark - page 2 - April 20, 1981 C. Parking for total project Required: 238 spaces, all underground Provided: 238 spaces PLAN REVISIONS AND AMENDMENT REQUESTS (This section changed since the planning and Environmental Commission meeting.) There are several revisions from the 1977 Plan and 2 official requests for amendments to the Special Development District. The revisions are as follows: 1. Relocation of the parking structure from underneath the Convention Center to the west side of the property. This is proposed to increase the speed of construction resulting in less disruption for Marriott's Mark and Lionshead. 2. A minor redesign of the massing and building envelope to produce a more appropriate design with regard to scaling down the apparent size of the west elevation. This revision also aids the passive solar function of the residential portion of the addition by allowing a large number of rooms to face south. 3. The original approval included a covered tennis court facility. The applicant argues that tennis has lost some of the mass appeal that it had four years ago when the plans were first approved. Also, they report that the Marriott's Mark's tennis courts have been under - utilized and they have spoken to the owners of the other indoor courts in Town and have learned that the guest has a low usage rate at those facilities. They do propose 2 additional outdoor courts on the roof of the parking structure. The requested amendments are as follows: 1. The applicant wishes to install fireplaces in the eight dwelling units in the Phase 2 Addition. At the time the prohibition for fireplaces in SDD7 was passed, there was much discussion about not allowing any new fireplaces to be constructed throughout both Commercial Cores. This, of course., did not happen, and the applican: feels that this is a hardship on him as fireplaces are allowed in other dwelling units in the Town. STAFF RECOMMENDATION We agree with the owner and feel this amendment is justified. There are no other instances in Town where we do not allow one fireplace per dwelling unit. 2. The applicant is requesting a change in the density control section for Phase II. For this phase, the request is for 82 accomodation units and 27 dwelling units. This would be an amendment to the number of accomodation and dwelling units for Special Development District #7 and not an increase in the total density of the site. In management agreement of Marriott's Mark, there are guarantees that a total of 320 keys be available for rental for a period of 25 years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports this change as the proposal is within the total number of units allowed under the zoning, and there is a guarantee that the accomodation and dwelling units remain for rental for 25 years. Marriott's Mark - page 3 - April 20, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT SDD7 requires that each phase of the project should contain a supplement or update to the original Environmental Impact Statement. We have asked that three issues be addressed for this phase: 1. Energy Conservation - investigation and possible incorporation of alternative energy sources for the project. 2. Employee Housing - the past operation of the complex should have demonstrated the adequacy of the employee housing situation, and we asked for the results of such an investigation to update this information, including the Phase II increased demand. 3. Pedestrian and Bike Path Considerations On the original plan adopted, a pedestrian walk was proposed for the north part of the original building. We asked the applicant to tell us when this would be provided. Also, the Town plans to construct a bike path to the south of the property near Gore Creek, and we wanted to know if they were willing to connect into this path. APPLICANT RESPONSE 1. The developer is incorporating some valuable passive solar aspects into the plan (see enclosed report on energy conservation for the project), and other energy efficient technologies for heat and water are proposed. The report submitted to the staff also includes a very positive attitude concerning active solar panels for hot water and swimming pool heating. We feel the short pay -back period on these systems and the significant percentage of reduction in conventional energy systems warrants the incorporation of such a system in this project. 2. The owner of the complex owns S6 dwelling units that are utilized for employee housing for the Marriott's Mark employees. He states that they are all utilized in the winter months, but that in the summer the demand goes down and many of them are rented to non - employees of the business. They expect that 12 to 16 additional maids will be required for the Phase II Addition, but that no other additional employees would be needed. The staff feels that the number of units provided is adequate, but we feel that possibly some agreement between the owner and the Town would be justified to ensure these units remain available to the employees of the Marriott's Mark on a demand basis and for a certain period of time. 3. The Phase II Addition plan does show a bike path connection to the property line, and we would require as a condition of approval, the full connection to the Town's path. Another condition of approval will be that the pedestrian path be constructeu on the north side of the original building in conjunction with the Phase II work. 1 e 'Marriott's Mark - page 4 - April 20, 1981 STAFF RECOMMENDATION In the Staff's opinion, the project is well thought out and an improvement to the overall complex. The convention center is a needed facility and an asset to the community. We feel the same way about the indoor tennis courts, and don't like to see them eliminated, but do not want to force the developer into a non -cost effective program, either. Except for the amendments requested, the development proposal meets all the SDD requirements.in terms of development standards, provision of facilities and density ceilings. In conclusion, the Staff recommends approval of the Phase 11 addition to the Marriott's Mark Resort with the following conditions: 1. Consider the incorporation of an active solar system to heat hot water and the additional indoor pool. 2. An agreement between the owner and the Town be worked out to ensure the continued availability of the employee housing units for the project's employees for eight years, In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission will review the project in eight years to see if it warrants extension. 3. The applicant agrees to connect the bicycle path /walkway proposed to the west of the existing tennis courts to the Town's system (if located near the property) and construct the path to Town standards. 4. Because the parking structure is proposed 5' from the western property line, there should not be a loss of existing parking spaces due to the construction of this building. S. The applicant agrees to participate in the design and construction of improvements for West LionsHead Circle in front of the Marriott's Mark to improve pedestrian and vehicle flow and beautification of this area. * 6. Parking be resolved so.as to conform to original approval given by Council. * 7. landscaping be completed in the following planting season following construction. * Conditions 6 and 7 approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at their meeting. . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to an existing single family residence on Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. (2664 Larkspur Lane) Applicants: Steven and Renee Caswell DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Caswells are requesting approval to encroach into the east side setback 5.7 feet. Given this encroachment, a side setback of 9.3 feet would be maintained on the east side of their single family unit. The residence is located in a Primary /Secondary zone which requires a 15 foot side setback. The 110 square foot proposed addition will be used as additional space for a study /office area. The summary below highlights zoning information for the request: Total Site Area: .2139 acres or 9317.99 square feet Site Coverage: 1864 -1081 783 - 130 653 sf sf sf sf sf allowed existing remaining proposed addition remaining after addition GRFA: 949.50 ground level 857.75 main floor 535.25 upper level 2342.5 gross existing 123 storage credit 2219.5 total existing 2329.5 allowed GRFA - 2219.5 total existing 110 remaining GRFA �J Credits: 15 sf mechanical 200 sf storage total Caswell -2- 4/22/85 The Caswells state the following reasons why the variance is justified: I,- Reasons for requesting the_variance: From the zoning check on March 22, 1985 it has been found that we have 110 square feet remaining GRFA allowable for expansion. An addition to our house is being proposed to expand office space for Steve's general contracting business. Rather than building an entire new room which would put us over the allowable GRFA, we decided to add onto the existing office room to our allowable limit of-110 square feet. It may be possible to expand this room toward the south, but due to the topography and site condition listed below, we are requesting to expand to the east requiring a side setback variance: 1. Extensive excavation and retaining work. Since this site is surrounded by trees, there is no access for heavy equipment. Trees would have to be removed from neighbors' lots in order to allow access. 2. Extensive site recontouring to redirect drainage. 3. Any excavation into the hillside will require removal and /or damage to large existing aspen and spruce trees. 4. Building to the south would require demolition of a substantial part of the existing foundation and retaining system built into this wall. • 5. Building to the south would require modification of existing roof lines and add to the mass of the building. b. Building to the south would require more extensive concrete work and access for concrete and pump truck is limited because of possible damage to our electrically heated concrete driveway. The advantages of building to the east are as follows: 1. There will be no damage to or removal of any existing trees. 2. Excavation and recontouring is minimal allowing it to be done by hand. 3. Site drainage will be improved over existing conditions. 4. Existing roof lines will not need to be modified. 5. Addition does not add to the massing of the building and it increases the front fenestration." zoning Criteria 1. The relationship of this addition to existing and potential structures in the vicinity is as follows: a. The addition is screened from lots above us by trees on the hillside. . b. The single family residence on Lot 3, Block 1, is located on the opposite side of the house so that it will have no impact on them. Caswell -3- 4/22/85 "c. Large trees existing on our lot screen this addition visually from Larkspur Lane and houses existing across the street. d. Lot 5, Block 1, is currently an undeveloped lot. When a house is built on this lot it will probably be built toward the east of the lot and close to the road. (This minimizes excavation and loss of trees.) A variance was granted to Lot 5 on 0ctober 6, 1981 in order to build 7 feet into the front setback. 2. The degree to which relief from the setback regulation is necessary is minimal since there will still remain a 9.3 foot side setback. We do not feel that this will constitute a grant of special privilege when taken in context with surrounding area. Variances have been.granted to Lot 5 to build 7 feet into the front setback, and to Lot 4, Block 2, to build parking in the Town of Vail right -of -way. Also, it appears that many, if not most, of the existing structures in this immediate area are not complying with TOV setback regulations. 3. This variance will have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilites, or public safety." Please see the enclosed survey, site plan and elevations. • 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. The staff believes that the addition will have only a slight negative impact on adjacent structures and uses. A 9.3 foot east side setback will be maintained given the addition. However, the 15 foot setback buffer is decreased due to the 5.7 foot encroachment. It is felt that an addition could be constructed on the north side of the house without encroaching into the front setback. An addition of this type would have no impact on adjacent structures or uses. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcer of a specified regulation is necessar to achieve compatibility a nd.uniformity of treatment amp sites in the_ vicinity or to attain the objectives of this titl without grant of special privilege. nt It is correct that a variance was granted to Lot 5 to build 7' into the front setback and to Lot 4, Block 2 to build parking in the Town of Vail right -of -way. In respect to the variance for Lot 5, there were several extreme contraints on the site which Caswell -4- 4/22/85 • made the variance of approximately 7 feet an appropriate request. The constraints included: 1. The lot had a slope varying from 40% to 45 %. The movement of the house forward minimized the cuts necessary to build the structure. 2. The movement of the house forward into the setback would enable the driveway to be constructed at an 8% slope which is the maximum slope permitted by the Town rather than at a 13% slope. 3. The movement of the house forward would enable the applicant to avoid cutting the largest tree on the lot - -a 60 foot pine tree with a 30" diameter. 4. The applicant was proposing a single family dwelling unit instead of a primary /secondary unit. The GRFA for the proposed unit was also far below the allowed GRFA. The parking variance for Lot 4, Block 2 involved moving five existing parking spaces which were currently located almost entirely on the right -of -way of Larkspur Lane further back onto the applicant's property in an attempt to relieve a congested situation on Larkspur Lane. It should be noted that the applicant also requested to locate two additional spaces on the public right -of -way and this request was denied. Staff felt that the movement of the parking spaces further onto the lot would definitely have a positive impact upon the roadway and adjacent . structures by reducing congestion along the street. The minutes from the PEC meeting on September 27, 1982 state that "The parking was a nonconforming use and this request make the parking less nonconforming." Discussion of moving the parking spaces centered upon the fact that they would be.made less noncon- forming and would reduce the congestion of the street. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained that the county had given the applicant the right for the five existing spaces, but that the PEC would not grant two additional spaces. It also true that many of the existing structures in the area are not complying with the Town of Vail setback regulations. It should be emphasized, though, that these structures, for the most part, were built before this area.was a part of the Town of Vail. Staff believes that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve this setback encroachment. The addition could be located on the north side of the house. However, the dimensions of the addition may have to be reduced. U Caswell -5- 4/22/85 The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and • public safet - - According to the Town of Vail Engineer, the existing cut behind the house could become a problem if not addressed. For example, the slide area just to the west was caused by a similar cut situation. Construction in this area may pose a problem to public safety. In respect to the other effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffit facilities, this request should not negatively impact these areas. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following_findin s before -- rantin a variance: _- - - -- - -- - . That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties class "ifie'd 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 salve district. STAFF kECOPNENDATIONS Staff recommends denial of the 5.7 foot east side setback encroachment for the reason that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve this request. It is felt that it would be best to locate an addition on the north side of the house. P-1 92 C) (D C\j C\j O r1 10 x I CT, if LO rj - I nt 41 0 4 L LQ Q LQ C 1) r\j U) CD 7 r( 1 4) 9 t, L J- RI it t1i th 4U Ll, � Lit 4J cll LI) l r I o G. 40 0 0 00 E P-1 92 C) (D C\j C\j O r1 10 x I CT, if LO I 44 4-1 k --j. ct 01 ri -vo 00 9 t7 IN —. �-- 14 LLI (3 . L LQ Q LQ C r\j C) CD 7 9 t, L J- I 44 4-1 k --j. ct 01 ri -vo 00 9 t7 IN —. �-- 14 LU r\j CD 771 I � � �f E 4 4 0 TO: The Planning Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department Staff DATE: April 22, 1985 SUBJECT: Revisions to the definition of height - Section 18.04.170 Staff is proposing that the existing height definition be changed in order to clarify the intent of the height definition. Many applicants have had a difficult time understanding the intent of our definition. Staff has also determined that there is a loophole in the definition. On steeply sloping lots it is possible that the roof ridge measured to existing or finished grade would be within the height limit while at the same time a portion of the house that is on the sloped area of the lot would be greater than 33ft due to the steep slopes. The Maruyama residence located in Intermountain is an example of this type of situation. For these reasons, staff believes that it is very important to change the height definition; wording. The change in wording however, would not change the intent of the definition. • The existing height definition reads as follows: 18.04.170 "Height" means the distance measured vertically, from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive), at any given point to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the highest ridge line of a sloping roof. Staff is proposing a new definition which reads: 18.04.170 "Height" means the distance measured vertically from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) to any point on the structure. Any point on the structure may include, but is not limited to, roof eaves, roof ridges, dormers and facades. This definition maintains the designated height limitations on all portions of the structure so that the structure follows the natural contours of the site. It is the intent of this definition that structures placed onsloping lots follow the general "natural" :7 :7 -2- contours of the land and therefore, major artificial modification of the contours to increase the building height will not be permitted. * As an example, the accompanying drawing illustrates the designated height limitation of 33 feet for the Primary /Secondary zone. Finished grade Existing grade The wording of the height definition is still somewhat cumbersome. However, the concept of the height definition is difficult to write in a simple fashion. The staff is requesting that the Planning Environmental Commission review this definition and offer recommendations on how to improve the wording. • L� TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning code to allow lodges and multiple family residential dwellings as conditional uses in the Arterial Business District. Multiple family residential would be restricted to 4 units per acre, and not to exceed .2 FAR. BACKGROUND ON REQUEST The Arterial Business District was created by the Town Council in June of 1982. This district currently involves seven parcels of land in the area between the Marriott Mark Resort and Cascade Village. The purpose of the Arterial Business District Zone is as follows: 18.29.020 The Arterial Business District is intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, service stations, and limited shopping and commercial facilities serving the town and upper Eagle Valley residents and guests. Multiple- -famiy dwellings for use as employee housing will be appropriate under specific circumstances. Arterial business district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient (limited) shopping, business, service, and residential environment. The ABD zone currently does not allow lodges, and dwelling units are resticted to employee housing. The following table represents the allowable development of multi -- family residential units under the restrictions of the current request: APPROXIMATE PROPERTY SITE AREA Vail Associates 139,392 Holy Cross 60,934 Texaco 39,204 Voliter 43,560 Glen Lyon 74,052 Chevron 39,204 Town of Vail 43,560 *No rounding up on fractions of units. ,2 FAR # UNITS @ 10,890 SQUARE FEET SITE AREA 27,878 12 12,196 5 7,840 3 8,712 4 14,810 6 7,840 ^ 8,712 4 37* Lodge rooms in the ABD zone would be restricted in GRFA and number under the formula in the zoning code. This restricts total GRFA on a site to .6 and dwelling units at 25 per buildable acre. The Arterial Business District zone currently allows for first floor retail uses and professional and business offices. Residential Multiple- Family is currently allowed only as restricted employee housing. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST There are three sets of criteria necessary to adequately evaluate this proposal. First, a discussion of the rezoning request concerning the suitability /non - suitability of the existing zoning. Secondly, is the proposed rezoning consistent with kind uses in the area as well as municipal objectives? Finally, does the request foster the orderly and viable growth of the community? 1. Suitability of Existing Zoning The zoning of much of this area prior to the creation of the ABD zone district was Heavy Service. The ABD zone was created to provide a suitable transition of uses between • the Lionshead area and Cascade Village, and to provide for the opportunity to develop a new business and office area with support retail and commercial uses consistent in quality with the development of Vail. We feel the structure of uses in this zone district provides opportunities for a positive transition from Lionshead to Cascade Village. The present allowable and conditional uses will allow for a quality upgrading of the area while maintaining distinct delineation between CCII, the Arterial Business District and Cascade Village. It is the staff's postion that allowing the possibility of mixed use of this type threatens the character of this area. Moreover, there is certainly no community need for more multi- family units, while there is a large inventory of undeveloped land currently zoned for multi - family use. Discussion took place in 1982 regarding the inclusion of lodges as a conditional use in the ABD zone. Most of the discussion regarded the possibility and /or desirability of the West Day lot or VA shops parcel as a lodge location. In the end, lodges were deleted. Unfortunately, the key discussions about this were not taped and our records on this issue are scarce. We feel strongly that although the office market is not . as strong as it was in 1982, that the existing zoning is suitable for the area and the long -term benefit of the community. The recently released Economic Development Commission report indicates considerable growth potential for commercial uses. The attached article regarding potential lodging growth warns that location and group accommodation is essential. Allowing maximum flexibility through the ABD zone district to accommodate a single development proposal would defeat the original purpose of creating a unique business area in the central part of the valley. While we encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of the ABD, we must insure that such development is in keeping with longer range goals of the community, and the transition to a service and commer- cialy oriented year -round economy as emphasized by the EDC report. 2. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal objectives? The intent of the ABD zone is to provide a community office and retail area, serving as a pleasant and viable transition from the Lionshead core area. The staff feels that by intoducing this type of mixed use concept into the ABD there would no longer be a transition of uses, instead there could be a large variety of uses between Lionshead . and Cascade Village which may not be suitable for this unique area. It is possible that not only would we lose this transition but that this auto -- oriented area of similar uses could potentially detract from the focus and character of Lionshead and Cascade Village. Moreover, the ABD's proximity to 1--70 and the South Front- age Road make a questionable residential environment and one reason why multi - family (except for the needed employee housing) was not considered appropriate when the zone was created. The same principles apply to this as a lodge location. 3. Does the amendment proposed provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? The staff feels that the addition of lodging and multiple family residential uses would adversely affect the viability of this area as a community oriented retail and office center and would not represent sound land use planning principles. While it is in the community's best interest to have this area upgraded, it is not prudent to compromise the long term development objectives of a zone district to meet immediate market demands. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development staff feels that to open this zone district to the possibility of lodge and residential use would be a serious detriment to the character and long term viability of this critical area between Lionshead and Cascade Village. Staff recommendation for this proposal is for denial. We feel that the proposed amendment does not meet the intent of the existing zoning, that lodging and residential is incompatible with existing and allowable uses and that due to site constraints, much of the zone district is not conducive to residential develop- ment. The ABD should be given a chance to stand as is without allowing a hodge - podge of uses which are not consistent with the area or development objectives of the Town. R d O L. fl O C jr 0•'�go�'n'^�7�` ro,', .,d ^ate; •. u. a R eRCg1.',.. . tAl J., p ar "'j;,; a m 08 O al EiC - 0. �• �.�vLn F= Gl� 1 Uri 0 r� s. � O WJ. I- R O A.,ri O ? u H Ry 0.° Lv CL lal C to ft u N O C t 10. L C a .' p A.E N� O 7 R aC M� E "t� �!— a aa� i'a E cu d a/ Q. a/ C al y R U ro w y.E Q q C G aLl E O C� H pp•ro ii O O > C al a, L C> W x C a7 al y 4• OJ •a;+ �p ; RS i S C e D.ep�� > y, qj v D afii �(u aG N G i— LED y > i7 qQRZ3+ d v N n" CJ Q• U �.. q 00 ur C m •$3 R � .b d L L> la aJ Eth cu X L, Z , G , :�., _,z n.0 rU) L 4q! i L-C w CL V v D c D C: p apL G ro� _ a C �O" q G U a r d • R a 1� D `E a �y O E °' b ca 0 a 0 cn �C, SUu ocn 73 O a+ -i-r ? G�V D O� It C ci ,. n .0 v u' GC v u .A �hl 3u 3 Q�l S .s N r `7' ap`na��L�O-n r'i R p •N R ro I O M fl tG U a/a E�w $ c t- r. CU w .CdMpF'UQ ,.I>u LU)D 'z y K C�• ci a, D V L W L a aJ C/ [} D L k3 C u CUB u] N u ._ �^ �&�'°'usO ro G uCCC vs�,C^a*iD rc� R OS R v ro- ••ppdR 2..G R p., ro �w ,��y� w E D y 6Di v O p ri O u E 5: y �'� pq �' E O 7, C E O N> r >IV ^UC E: �.w.2E:s. E= '"i.��'v - '+ 4! 7•. y '� �-• w �C V .. p ui fC > C >5 Iro. O �6�r � R x G In 7+ C i. C p y a c°>. �c Co`'"E3-0 aoE�� z L+ O ms ►' �R L ro v; Gla`� E 'C E . �- �•C C:a 1+. j qj' 3 C,I 'iq C( +�.G•Di Ox p 0 to gp R.' .a,.�„p - "OO p G pity C Qsl•e.� v G, 4,g w v PERU • Y• Y 4 r'N�lN�IJ(' {.. •� 4k' " -. r•,.. Y. C _Y 1 4•y �V {'�s -: >.�J yy. ?3 Ih bo to •R C G-l. O D4 _' N O 3 -� 'S3 'a .. H to • f O d w qa G' v E ^; a'�'+ -s R C a�� — v a-14 y A N ppydam. w'qO id °'a.�.. v O0.Cbpro qv 4 .0 y p Yi N y .�C _D 4+ C u C m z cu In yx�al.y-a .0 >a6C 'a -- nN`°roc°roE�".z�.�X.y,C�b��-rafo� `D�n�a,• cu ra p .L l u v :r' ,� Cq.• w .0 {J v `� .0 cOn O r•• C1 O 'O Y -x 1^• i M, i z W2 Q Q Q � �{ tl J C ) z V W �74 a Iw x ` ✓n ' vJ; � 5 1^• i M, i z W2 Q Q Q � �{ tl J C ) z V W �74 a •♦ i ~� i rid• #�� f v 0 Ln 1 wvC ^ � r Iw x ` ✓n ' vJ; •♦ i ~� i rid• #�� f v 0 Ln 1 wvC ^ � r • :7 • DICK RYAN & COMPANY PLANNING CONSULTANTS P. 0. Box 813 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476 -0243 April 3, 1985 Mr. A. Peter Patten Community Development Director Mr. Richard Pylman, Planner TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Peter and Rick: After the Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting, Bob and I have been discussing how to further restrict the number of multiple - family resi- dential units that could be potentially constructed in the Arterial Business Zone. In addition to the .2 FAR restriction that was explained in my March 22nd letter for gross residential floor area, we would also recommend the following constraint for multiple- family residential units. For each 10,890 square feet of site area there could be one multiple- family residential unit. Another way of expressing the constraint is no more than four multiple- family residential units per acre. This constraint would allow up to the following number of units on each site. APPROXIMATE PROPERTY SITE AREA Vail Associates 139,392 Holy Cross 60,934 Texaco 39,204 Voliter 43,560 Glen Lyon 74,052 Chevron 39,204 Town of Vail 43,560 *No rounding up on fractions of units. .2 FAR # UNITS @ 10,890 SQUARE FEET SITE AREA 27,878 12 12,196 5 7,840 3 8,712 4 14,810 6 7,840 3 8,712 4 37* Under the recent change there would only be 37 multiple - family residential units possible on all properties in the Arterial Business Zone District. This would alleviate a concern the staff had on the number of multiple - family resi- dential units. Lodge rooms in the zone would be restricted in GRFA and number Mr. A. Peter Patten "fir. Richard Pylman TOWN OF VAIE under the normal formula in the zoning code. Bob is also requesting that his item not be presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission until April 22 ,1985. Thank you for your assistance. later this week. DR /jac I will be in communication with both of you Sincerely, DICK RYAN & COMPANY PLANNING CONSULTANTS Dick Ryan Ll n L� • u x � M International Equity Group, Ltd. ^` Investments Real Estate Development March 25, 1985 Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Offices 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Proposal to Zoning Code in Arterial Business District Dear Planning Commission Members, As a present partner in the Vail Professional Building and one who was deeply involved with the creation of the Arterial Business District, I would like to strongly object to the application of Robert Voliter's request to amend the Town of Vail Zoning Code, Chapter 18.29 in order to add lodges and multi - family residential dwellings to the Conditional Uses Section 18.29.030. I am initially directing my concerns to the request for multi- - family residential dwellings and referring the Commission to several documents I am attaching. On May 12, 1981, Dick Ryan wrote a memorandum that stated the following, concerning the proposed zone change in the Arterial Business District. "Since the current zoning does not allow free market residential units, and to up -zone the land for residential, there will most likely be a requirement for restricted employee type housing. At this time, I see a ratio of one free market for one restricted unit." This concept was not well received by Town Council as would be indicated by a memorandum dated December 8, 1981 in which it was stated, "A strong objection was presented in allowing any free market type units in this new zone district ". I would suggest that some of the thinking was that this location is really not appropriate for condominiums that would be for sale due to the noise level created by Interstate 70 to the rear and Highway 6 on the front of most of the properties. It was felt at that time also, that there were more than enough "for sale" units available in the Valley, which I feel is still the case. however, an argument was made to allow for employee housing units under certain conditions and circumstances. At this point and time, additional employee housing units would be an unlikely venture due to the relatively adequate supply within the Gore Valley. I would hate to see additional "for sale" units in this zone district at this time, due to the relative overabundant supply that already exists. I feel the Town would be creating the potential for additional inventory in a market that is already saturated, thereby producing stagnation and potential down -grade of property values for similar properties. Though this concept might be looked at again in the future, I think the timing of this request is truly inappropriate. • 0 1065 Executive Parkway a Suite 302 • St, Louis, Missouri 63441 • (314) 434 -0300 ❑ P.O. Box 1928 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303) 949 -5815 El Reply to Page Two In regards to the second aspect of the proposal, concerning allowing lodge . units within the Arterial Business District, I once again feel that it is an inappropriate use within this area. I feel a use of this type would tend to generate additional pedestrian traffic in the area and though the Town has commenced construction of a pedestrian walkway along the south side of the South Frontage Road, the pedestrian traffic should be kept at a minimum until the area changes substantially. As you know, Highway 6 is heavy in traffic and the close proximity of the pedestrial walkway should really only be encouraged for limited use until further improvements to the roadway system are established and some of the heavy service uses have been removed. Though the access plan for this zone is a good one, it is obviously in its preliminary stages and until several sights between Lionshead and the west end of the zone are redeveloped, I feel the Town would be remiss in its duties to maintain life safety within the community by encouraging pedestrian traffic in this area. This would likely be created by a lodge or condominium units as there are no present bus services for anyone trying to access the Village, other than walking to the Marriot Mark. I believe that if you would discuss the pedestrian path with the Public Works Department, you would find that pedestrian access near Voliter property along the South Frontage Road will be in very close proximity to vehicular traffic anytime in the near future. I also feel that for a hotel or lodge to be located in this area at the present time would in all likelihood be competing with the major lodges by offering substantially lower rates. Since the property requesting the change would not have sufficient space to offer any substantial amenities, price would have to be the main consideration. If this assumption is correct, I feel that the dollars spent on construction would have to be substantially under those of any lodging facility within the Village, Lionshead area, or Cascade Village. I would then question how great an improvement to the area can truly be offered by this type of use. Also, if you will note the memorandum dated May 5, 1982, page 2, 1 think you will see that as the concept of the zone matured, it became evident that the intent of the zone was for the development of commerical and office space rather than lodging or condominiums. I would suggest that the reasoning behind leaving in residential units at all, was the Town's infatuation with potential employee housing. You will note on this page that it's stated, "It is important to realize that the new zone district is to establish an area where office type uses can take place an limited commercial may take place ". Finally, I believe the zoning that was approved for this area is appropriate as it presently stands and any changes to the Conditional Use Permit Section are inappropriate at this time. Only through further redevelopment in the area . would it be logical to look at changes that might impact the zone which is at a fragile redevelopment state. As I stated previously, if you go through the cronological advancement of the district, you will see that residential and lodging were generally considered inappropriate and it was intended to be a zone of office and commercial use to create a better transition from the Cascade Village area to the Lionshead area. I would propose that this concept stay in place. It would seem important that the Planning Commission or Town Council would receive a preponderance of evidence to indicate a need within the town for these additional uses in this zone. 0 Page Three 49 To recommend any changes to the zone to allow for uses due to one individual's economic needs, does not make for good planning policy. There are a multitude of uses allowed within the zone that have not been presently tried in the area and to make a case for additional uses to be allowed is not really giving the planning process time to prove itself right or wrong. Thank you very much for this opportunity to present my views. Respectfully yours, James J. Morgan, General Partner International Equity Group, Ltd. JJM /mjm Attachments r� i -n ..o .-d i'rl_tar pivywrKes. At - :r •ting on April 22, we diacuqf 'd : _ .0-aj �,s ^C! _ Hilt, l _cc 3n cxcellent opportunity to qpgjade __n vr2a of nail Gat Leeds to E. Moped. F ..end, 1 consider the .. -,_ .' s not Ib -t property. Tn }rd, to accomplish a quality .,tcy wAy, '.._._.. .. '. = ,,1,11 =roanh that should be c�_.._ . ed. ` y and 70st be l. - 'r.ted. Fourth, L!;e i v. l _ _ d ` ; s : .., ^l', ded ill 00 MOM t ?G_ -, 4 � 1.1. i Rezoning of the ironc. t , lie Yeavy Service district 4s o an tha ..cst 1 oLf cal ;,i, g s g current - the property, I 60 out :'-far .. -`. 1 . - -_ .. 1 for t h 1 s - possibility of 11 = - - 1 use of this plop ert . Tho TLyn -mss arterial his '01 _ _ S vype _one, Pic the M•-.,orcinl 50M we Q: 20K, __ =-t = '7-`_..u_. .�_ - 1 sidential along with the 10 OF .�1, 5 _oning. Since the current _. Qng oos I yZ allsw fine I-_...et _ .. . � 11 10 c 20he the land MT 7'M - t;; -ial, .l, 't. . 1 just jjjcjy he a _ - .r lo ee type housing. At this time, I _ _e a _ at i o uf ,;: fret =_. -x.:', :- _ e:,c - 1; init. Koss Residential Square feet of ho Aait ay _, in To oCtaln the Commercial Service C -,ter - lag C ..x ' le i :,.-,in g by the Town Co_ ncil. - Tor a vnrianca t:l height, _Mack, etc, . . . w - 7d . o t- w —uld ir..lrcve the development plan. hurl cMld 50 in incroase in height d ,. established only if the entire area is considevea, ;_nd there is a district nj out the site. Regarding the possibility of a s,th ck variance for undergronad or building, this would depend on build, n design. 1 ;. ,old like to s:e a- n. as pcss ble underground. A setback v ar _,.:ce rolwast n,-n,noi be the - _.as the size of building on the site. Development-Plan With specific plans not known for the Fit-es, 1 nould rruoj: end that a lair t drive circulation plan be developed. In addition, a con: on M scaoe Dian and ge- erai'_ location should be part of the plan. As ;.he ecific dotails for each site are c:_-,': other issues such as setback, height, coverage, l., n dscAping and site development ;:r a and loading can be governed by the zoning code for this district, or revised to work the sites involved. I am willing to work with you and your land plann r to a velop an excellent program fLr the redevelopment of this area. After general ground rules are ambl ished, we shoujo- take this to a work session of the Planning ' nd n�z it in Al I will call to see if a meeting next Friday, '`:ti ??,d ;�t 9;30 ;_.M. `;s for you. 10: P71=04 nnd PRIM: Q.0unky. Dwvwlnpznu Qxr,=cIt CATE: Dicumber 8, 1391 WiECT: Study sossica wevilw of j a,,, District At Ne joint rl"n 0 noil and T7 nning in Qyzembcr R 999 _a prcposal was tD of COT09 up winh a mew 7�ne Vistrict Qr t, !at. Vail A-SOCKtW5 worvice yArd, Holy ccons, 7-1100, TGA!"Ry, c4nv- A, 7, �Wrc PISEO--ad nicn; "ilh Planning Covnis5ion pnd y,,, ,n� 11y nanted to V 0 us it is one of the major entry ways into Vail Qcns!Lad, in of the uses that are currancly in the Klavy survizz ni�171:1 of WS prolarty is !-caved d'd �nz �7 conccrn Lns'vlso rvy'slarod for �Ilcjn: 'a C0041uv as 0-re is a Ocod to havu 1�n-a us;s ail 4 A str=g object!,% was pzus,aval Ln all, �,, ,. f,,, Qis new zone disivict, Cie issue O 00 vm cay 2.z from a pnrk:ng ,c Ohn n"a nvdcr WWW-7�;Un T2, 1E > ites: 4 0 •1 1, L 'k :I (-,., 1 k'tj 13 - AN •1 N-yt Uny 1 2. 6 V.A. Service Yard 5.2 Holy Cross I Tuxaco Sito Vol i ter 1.0 Olcn l'),011 Office Bldg, 1 sl:oos 1, L 'k :I (-,., 1 k'tj 13 - AN •1 THE PROPOSAL I Proposed is a new zoning district Tor -L'r,.e -1,-.,n , 1 �; 7 `ail .,'Liich area whi�re office type uses could be recent experience w i L 11 tyre Texaco Site, th -, S 1-1 af if d - rs that t" r Service district is riot an appropriate zc.:,e for '.1-le al-'-a you lnc3k 'zone Lri ct, i becci �,s evident that it is i-,ot and criteria under t prat because of the fact that rost of the -uses are -'- yr,,, e u s,,- office use is qu.ite-- 1 illllted to husiness. o-iffl-1cr-,s �ljt l 'L' e. ' -fa c, L S 0, Therefore, the staff is recommending tl-iat he a new zone district for this area %,4hich wi 11 , -J in th.e I u-nc roan, -;LDS ,anti 1 1: It is grade and enhance one of the major entry ,,,-�,ys in through Vail. iriacr to realize that the new zone district is to establish an area--vihere off.ice.typ-- uses c a-n' ' t a k e place - -an dl I fi-i-fe T c o rn P e r q J M t In addition, the s,.a,: tlfd are being proposed for this area should allow for buildings, 1:,,r,dscaping, di parking to be done in a way that will enhance and not detract r:,'Q the qual ity Vail currently has and continues to strive for in the future. T !,, i s 1 !', a c.' i C! f t Z the proposed ordinance which contains ch'6n,-,,,5 recom• --tided by th2 Department. The changes are noted by capiUils and b7'aclkcts so T h At you ,.;I 'I I an understanding of the orginal Ordinance fLhet thle Plarilling co�-"i!issic) n (� k '. I f in Feb) nary and of 'Llhe changes that are by t1l" Co. "'if)i'y Developmrnt Departs-nt. PROPERTY SITE S 1-FE IFT. S SQ 7 T V.A. -Service Yard 3.2 139,392 1 r) 7 Holy Cross 1.4 4 -," q .9 C 3 ,officer 1.0 3 .5 0 1 --n Lyon Of ice 1 .7 I r'32 .-,Id "Fcviri SFlops 3, al s 7 Clay lot 2.6 0 FN S 12.7 THE PROPOSAL I Proposed is a new zoning district Tor -L'r,.e -1,-.,n , 1 �; 7 `ail .,'Liich area whi�re office type uses could be recent experience w i L 11 tyre Texaco Site, th -, S 1-1 af if d - rs that t" r Service district is riot an appropriate zc.:,e for '.1-le al-'-a you lnc3k 'zone Lri ct, i becci �,s evident that it is i-,ot and criteria under t prat because of the fact that rost of the -uses are -'- yr,,, e u s,,- office use is qu.ite-- 1 illllted to husiness. o-iffl-1cr-,s �ljt l 'L' e. ' -fa c, L S 0, Therefore, the staff is recommending tl-iat he a new zone district for this area %,4hich wi 11 , -J in th.e I u-nc roan, -;LDS ,anti 1 1: It is grade and enhance one of the major entry ,,,-�,ys in through Vail. iriacr to realize that the new zone district is to establish an area--vihere off.ice.typ-- uses c a-n' ' t a k e place - -an dl I fi-i-fe T c o rn P e r q J M t In addition, the s,.a,: tlfd are being proposed for this area should allow for buildings, 1:,,r,dscaping, di parking to be done in a way that will enhance and not detract r:,'Q the qual ity Vail currently has and continues to strive for in the future. T !,, i s 1 !', a c.' i C! f t Z the proposed ordinance which contains ch'6n,-,,,5 recom• --tided by th2 Department. The changes are noted by capiUils and b7'aclkcts so T h At you ,.;I 'I I an understanding of the orginal Ordinance fLhet thle Plarilling co�-"i!issic) n (� k '. I f in Feb) nary and of 'Llhe changes that are by t1l" Co. "'if)i'y Developmrnt Departs-nt. VAILVLNTUKLS, LTD. April 16, 1985 Mr. Peter Patton Director of Community Development Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Peter: The uncertainty and unpredictability of real estate markets makes it more important than ever to permit develop- ment to meet the "best and highest" use. It is clearly in the best interest of the community to encourage re- development of unsightly property within Vail. To enable redevelopment, land use should be as broad and flexible as possible within the general constraints imposed by each specific neighborhood. Accordingly, I would encourage you to permit more diverse land use within the "Arterial District." Small lodging facilities with a limited amount of improvement, e.g. 20% of gross floor area permitted for dwelling units would seem compatible with existing permitted uses in this neighborhood. The primary use contemplated in the Arterial District is commercial office space. It. appears that for the foreseeable future there may not be sufficient demand for office space to ,justify future development. On the other hand, I would discourage any expansion of land use to permit business that will generate traffic, i.e. fast food restaurants, convenience shopping, etc. If lodging were permitted, restaurant facilities should r be limited in size to accommodate lodging guests and not become a destination. I would appreciate your passing my comments on to the PEC when appropriate. Sincerely, Andy N rris General Partner ADN:fb 1000 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado 81657 • 303/476 -6602 • • • Planning and Environmental Commission May 13, 1985 12:45 Site Visits 2:00 Joint session with Town Council concerning Parks study /Amphitheatre 3:00 Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of April 22, 1985. 2. Request for a conditional use permit in order to use the West Day parking lot, Lot A, Marcus Subdivision on the South Frontage Road for a staging area for construction equipment and for occasional helicopter landings to construct new ski lifts. Applicant: Vail Associates 3. Request to amend Special Development District #7 (Marriott Mark) in order to allow time share estate units, fractional fee units, and time share license units as a conditional use in Phase III. Applicant. M -K Corporation 4. Request for accommodation unit condominium conversions for the Enzian Lodge at 705 West Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Jim Stephens Associates 5. Request for a setback variance and for exterior alteration to remodel the Lionshead Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates 6. Request toamend the Town municipal code to add a new section entitled "Satellite Dish Antennas," repealing Section 18.54.050F3 and enacting a new section entitled "Satellite Dish Antennas" in the Design Review Guidelines. r�] . Planning and Environmental Commission May 13, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Duane Piper Tom Braun Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele ABSENT Eric Affeldt Howard Rapson Jere Walters The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of April 22, 1985. It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes, and the vote was unanimous. 2. Request for a conditional use permit in order to use the West Day parking lot, Lot A, Marcus Subdivision on the South Frontage Road for a staging area for construction equipment and for occasional helicopter landings to construct new ski lifts. Applicant: Vail Peter Patten explained the need for VA to use the West Day lot for staging in order to construct new ski lifts on Vail Mountain. Joe Macy of Vail Associates stated that VA now felt that the West Day lot would be the secondary staging area for storing temporarily the old lifts. The primary staging area would be Golden Peak. Macy added that if the West Day lot were used, they would agree to bring the helicopters over the powerline and the creek and would not fly over the lodges or residences. (He showed this by using an aerial photo.) Patten wondered about damaging cars in the Marriott Mark parking lot, and Macy said that the cars parked at the Mark would not be able to use the top deck. He added that VA and the Mark had agreed to work together with problems of this nature. Paul Caldwell, a resident of Forest Road, wanted to know what times of day the helicopters would be operating, and Macy replied that they would not start before 7:45 am and would not run after 7 pm unless there were problems. Viele_mov_ed and Donovan seconded to approve the conditional use-permit. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 3. Request to amend Special Development District #7 (Marrio_tt.Mark) in order to allow time share estate units, fractional fee units, and time share license units as a conditiona1.use in Phase III. Applicant: MK Corporation Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, asked to table this until May 28. It was moved and seconded to table, vote was 4-0. PEC _--2- 5/13/.85 4. Request for accommodation unit condominium conversions for the Enzian Lodge • at 705 West Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Jiro Stephens Associates Tom Braun explained that there were very few changes from the present operation of the lodge to how it would be operated as a condo /hotel. The only substantial change would be the individual ownership of the 52 lodge rooms. Occupancy by owners would be limited to 14 days in the winter and 14 days in the summer. Braun stated that the applicant had proposed upgrading each accommodation unit and the condition of the landscaping would be improved to comply with the Town of Vail landscaping standards, including enclosing the existing trash dumpster. The staff recommended approval of the conversion, with the condition that if a letter of credit is issued -to the Town (to cover costs of required improvements) that it cover costs of room improvements as .well. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant would agree to the letter of credit, but would like to be able to draw on those funds to pay for the landscaping. Donovan felt that condo conversions were not in the best interests of the Town, and felt that there should be very good landscaping between the Mark and the Enzian (with direction to the DRB in this regard). Schultz moved and Piper seconded to a rove the condo conversion with the condition that a letter of credit be submitted that would cover the cost of landscaping and refurbishing the rooms which could be drawn u on to pay for these costs. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 0 5. Request for a setback variance and for exterior alteration to remodel the Lionshead Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates Tom Braun explained that VA had received approval last spring for office space above the existing mezzanine and for a proposed restaurant expansion at the northwest corner of the building adjacent to the Mall. The present proposal included addition of retail space along the north side, conversion of 1168 square feet of existing office space to commercial use and the addition of an additional 680 square feet of commercial space by infilling a portion of the walkway /staircase between the two portions of the Gondola Building, and a two story addition to the east end of the building to be used as office space for VA Real Estate. Braun reviewed the memo and added that the staff recommendation was for denial because of opposition to the real estate office expansion (although the staff was supportive of the two retail commercial expansions.) Bill Pierce, architect for the project) showed site plans, elevations and plans of the second floor. He also showed a video tape. Pierce stated that the Urban Design Guide Plan was merely a tool, and was not cast in stone. He felt that the request was in compliance with the overall intention of the Guide Plan. Packy Walker, representing the owners of the Lionshead Lodge, stated that he would like to see the mall active areas finished without more construction this year. J.D. Griffin, owner of Cabbages and Kings, was against any construction in the Lionshead Mall for two years so that the merchants could recover from the construction of the summer of 1984. Bill Jude who owns the Wagon on the Mall and Bart and Yeti's felt that the addition was a detriment to the view from Bart and Yeti's and felt that construction on the mall would negatively affect business in Lionshead this year. PEG -3- 5/13/85 Don Joseph of the Sunbird agreed that it would be very detrimental to have construction in the Lionshead mall this summer and felt that the merchants should have a couple of years to recover from last year's construction. Norm of Colorado Insight stated that there has been a noticeable lack of business from the closing of the mall and felt that there was much extra retail space, with little need for more. He supported the staff recommendation for denial. Steve Sherie of Performance Sports and John Purcell from Purcell's echoed these feelings. Piper asked about the construction schedule and Jack Hunn of Vail Associates stated that the construction would take 12 -14 weeks in early spring or late fall and might not begin for a year or two. Piper asked if a shadow study had been made, and Pierce replied that he had not done a full study. Piper felt that a two story addition to the east had much more negative impact than a one story, and also pointed out that a pleasant pocket park would be lost. Schultz expressed disc - pointment that VA did not incorporate this request into the LH mall design. He felt that the area by the popcorn wagon was wall to wall people to the front of the present real estate office during the ski season and should not be lessened. He added that he would like to see retail on the east end rather than real estate offices and would like to see more detail of the north elevation because he was concerned that the north elevation would look like a wall. Donovan agreed that VA should have come in and coordinated their remodeling with the mall reconstruction. She also felt that moving the real estate office was not in the spirit of the zoning ordinance. She stated that she would have to abstain because of having an interest in Purcell's. Hunn stated that he did have ideas to build last year but was told by Steve Patterson that it would be too disruptive to have VA's trucks in the mall while other con- struction trucks were there and so he agreed to wait so that they would not hold up the mall renovation. (Patterson did not say that it would disrupt construction, but said that VA would have to rdpair any pavers or lighting that they would have damaged at the time he requested to do the work.) Viele agreed that it would be unfortunate to have construction in the Lionshead mall, but felt that VA should not be singled out. He did not like to see the real estate office moved east and shared the same concerns as the other board members. Tom Braun explained the need for a setback variance along with the alteration to the east of the building and stated.that the staff recommended denial of this variance as well. Hunn asked to table this item to give VA time to do more study. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to table indefinitely and the vote was 3 in favor with Donovan abstainin 5. Request to amend the Town municipal code to add a new section entitled "Satellite Dish Antennas,".rgeal.ing Section 18.54.050 F.3. and enacting a new section entitled "Satellite Dish Antennas" in the Design Review Guidelines. Tom Braun explained the changes. V.iele moved and Donovan seconded to recommend . approval to the Town Council. The vote was 4 -0 in favor. 0 n C� MEMO TO: The Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: The Community Development Department DATE: May 13t.h, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to expand existing commercial and office uses in the Lionhead Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates 1. THE PROPOSAL This proposal includes additions to the existing Lionshead Gondola Building in three areas. These include: 1. Addition of 1098 sq.ft. of retail space by expanding existing and retail operations (currently occupied by Banner Sports, Marcets and Le Petite Cafe), along the north side of the building adjacent to the Lionshead Mall area. 2. Convert 1168 sq.ft. of existing office space to commercial use (presently occupied by Vail Associates Real Estate offices), and add an additionally 680 sq.ft. of commercial space by infilling a portion of the walk- way /staircase between the two portions of the Gondola Building. This addition would be on the Mall level immediately across from Banner Sports. 3. A two storey, 1880 sq.ft. addition to the east -end of the Gondola Building to be used as office space for Vail Associates Real Estate. In addition to this proposal, the Planning Commission should note that Vail Associates does have existing approval from the Planning Commission to add office space above the existing mezzanine between the wings of the building containing the Gondola operations and what is predominently retail use. Approval was also granted for a proposed restaurant expansion at the north- west corner of the Gondola Building adjacent to the Lionshead Mall. The requests before you today are in addition to those previously approved by the Planning Commission. 40 Lionshead Gondola Building #2 II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for additions or new construction in Commercial Core I or 2 involve review . with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plans. These involve both the sub -area concept as delineated in the Guide Plan and map, as well as the design considerations outlined for both the Village and Lionshead. In addition to this are standard zoning considerations. This memo will address each of the three areas proposed for expansion with respect to these three review criteria. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD The Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead identifies a number of sub -area concepts which are to be addressed in any re- development or additional development in the Mall area. Two of the sub -area concepts are directly related to this proposal. A third area (Clock Tower Square), while not specifically a . sub -area concept is directly affected by the proposed expansion of the real estate office. Each of these three areas should be adddressed when reviewing this proposal. Sub -area Concept #I9 This subarea concept reads: Commercial expansion (one storey), and ground floor office replaced by commercial to improve pedestrian scale, accessibility, and create strong activity generator for south side of plaza currently a snow collector. Light tree screening, either portable or ingrade - level tree grates for snow removal and easy access. This element of the proposal is generally in compliance with the commercial expansion as called out for by the Urban Design Guide Plan. The expansion will create a much more pleasing pedestrian scale then what is existing presently. There are however, two areas of concern which need to be addressed with respect to this addition. As proposed, the expansion would necessitate the removal of existing street lights on the Lionshead Mall. The relocation of these lights would have to be approved by the public works and fire departments prior to permitting this expansion as presented. In addition, the Urban Design Guide plan calls out for the intro - duction of trees to help screen the existing structure. While this 17-1 Lionshead Gondola Building #3 has not been shown on the proposal before you today, the applicant has acknowledged that this would be an acceptable addition to the plan. As is the case with the street lights, locations for landscaping would have to be approved by the Public Works and Fire Departments. Sub -area Concept #20 This sub -area concept reads: Gondola Building ramp, a second access to the Gondola to distribute foot traffic, and draw visitors, through other areas of mall. The Guide Plan envisioned a ramp leading from this staircase to the doors of the Gondola Terminal in much the same way the existing staircase functions. The intent was to improve pedestrian circulation as well as draw people through this area. Obviously the ramp is not an element of this proposal. However, the staff supports the additional commercial space in this area and feels that it will serve to invite the pedestrian through this corridor. While the commercial expansion would narrow the width of the existing stairwell, it is felt that this is not a negative impact. In . addition, if V.A. were to propose the construction of a ramp in the future, it is felt that it could still be accomplished regard- less of this proposed commerical addition or expansion. Clock Tower Square Sub -area As previously stated, while the Clock Tower Square is not a specific sub -area, it is directly impacted by the proposed expansion of the real estate office. As proposed, the real estate office expansion would extend 22 ft. from the existing building to the east (with an additional 8 ft. roof overhang over the entry), and 16ft. towards the north. The staff feels there are significant impacts as a result of this expansion on the Clock Tower Square area. Before outlining what these impacts would be, it is important to understand the intent behind the design of the Lionshead Mall. As stated in the Urban Design Guide plan for Lionshead: "The general urban form of Lionshead is that of a series of connected plazas or courts, occa5. ona ly linked by a mall or narrow passageway. Both architectural and landscape improvements should reinforce that urban form ". This concept is easily.recognized by walking through the Lionshead Mall, where a number of plazas, squares, and courtyards have been established. The staff feels there a number of concerns relative to this aspect of the application that should be carefully considered. These include: Lionshead Gondola Building #4 • 1. The connection between the Gondola Plaza and the Clock Tower Square is a short and narrow one. The addition to the north of the Gondola Building would increase the length and narrowness of this walkway connection. It is the feeling of the staff that this addition would create a feeling of an "alley -way" and that this is not a desirable addition to the mall. It is felt that this addition would also cast more shade on this walkway than is presently occurring. 2. This addition encroaches dramatically into the existing plaza area to the east of the real estate offices. The staff feels strongly that this diminishes the size in openness of the plaza in such a way as to destroy the intent of this area. 3. The outdoor decks of Purcell's and Bart & Yeti's are very popular areas in both the summer and winter months. This addition would impact the existing view corridor toward the mountain to the east of the Gondola Building. 4. The addition would require the removal of two existing seating areas. While the plans show these benches being relocated, inspection of this proposed location would show that the new site is going to be a much more private area and not an inviting one for use by the general public. 5. To summarize, it is felt that the proposed real estate office expansion has a number of serious impacts that alter and compromise the intent of the original design of the Lionshead Mall. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD The following summarizes how this proposal relates to the applicable design considerations as outlined in the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead. Height and Massing With respect to building expansions,.the Guide Plan recommends they be limited to one - storey unless a two - storey addition is called out for specifically in the Guide Plan. When considering this application, the proposed real estate expansion is a two- storey addition and is not compatible with this guideline. While the two - storey expansion may be compatible with the existing roof lines on the Gondola Building, it does create negative effects on the pedestrian with respect to scale and.massing. • :7 Lionshead Gondola Building #5 Urban Design Considerations Of primary concern here is the guide line addressing the general urban form of Lionshead Mall. This was highlighted earlier in this memo. It is felt that this addition is in conflict with the general concept of the Mall which is a series of plazas and courtyards connected with malls or passageways. Another design goal is to improve and strengthen the visibility and attractiveness of ground floor improvements. While the commercial addition will undoubtedly accomplish this, the real estate office expansion will create a more negative effect with its impact on the Clock Tower Square area than will be gained by improved visibility at the pedestrian level. Roofs All three proposed areas of expansion are compatible with the guide lines addressing roofs. Facades - Walls /Structure The proposed expansions are generally in compliance with these • guide lines. Because the commercial store fronts would be finished by the tenant, detail on these facades are unavailable. These issues could be addressed at the DRB level. Decks & Patios There are a number of issues relative to these guidelines that need to be addressed. Among these is the existing outdoor patio at Le Petite Cafe. On completion of this commercial store front expan- sion, there will be no room to accommodate-the existing outdoor dining that takes place in this area. This is because the proposal is for an expansion up to the property line. Allowing the patio dining to relocate on the Town of Vail property would require approval of the Town Council. An additional concern here is with respect to potential obstruction of pedestrians and emergency and service vehicles if the dining activity is allowed to encroach further into the Mall. As was previously mentioned, another area of concern is with respect to the relocation of two existing benches. The proposed location for these benches is in a fairly private area that will not be comfortably accessed by the pedestrian. This is a strong concern of the staff with respect to the real estate office expansion. Accent Elements These elements are best addressed at the DRB level. Landscape Elements As is the case with Accent Elements, the level of detail to 1.ionshead Gondola Building #6 i evaluate these areas at the Planning Commission review is insufficient. If this project is approved by the Planning Commission, more level of detail will be required for the DRB and these areas will be thoroughly addressed. i • V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS There are basically three areas to be addressed relative to zoning issues. These include parking, office uses on ground floors, and the requested setback variance to allow for the Real Estate expansion. Following our staff comments on these issues: 1. Parkin The existing inventory of parking spaces for Vail Associates includes the North Day lot, the West Day lot, and the loading dock area with a total of 338 parking spaces. Existing parking required for uses in the Gondola Building is 214 spaces. On considering the additional commercial space, the additional office space, and the conversion from office to retail use, parking demand generated by these improvements equals 19 spaces. This would leave Vail Associates with an excess of 105 parking spaces remaining after this proposed development. 2. Office Use on Ground Floor As the Planning Commission is undoubtedly aware, professional offices are prohibited on the ground floors in Commericial Core 1 & 2. Uses in operation prior to the creation of this ordinance are allowed to continue as legal, nonconforming uses. The proposal before you today involves the same floor area of office space on ground floor. The applicant has proposed converting the existing real estate space to commercial use and relocating the same square footage in the proposed expansion. While not compatible with the spirit of the ordinance to restrict offices from ground floor, in reviewing the nonconforming section of the zoning code it appears that this proposal is allowable. 3. Setback Variance The setback variance request required for the real estate expansion is addressed in the accompanying memo. • Lionshead Gondola Building #7 Staff Recommendation There are three distinct areas of expansion with respect to this proposal. The staff is generally supportive of the two retail commercial expansions and is strongly opposed to the real estate office expansion. As a result, we are recommending denial for this submittal as presented. The memo highlights our primary areas of concern. In most general terms, the real estate expansion plan undoubtedly would improve the functionability of the Vail Associates Real. Estate office, however, the staff feels strongly that the proposal has a number of negative impacts on the street and surrounding public places. An extremely helpful tool in evaluating proposals for development in the Village or Lionshead are the Urban Design Guide Plans. These documents were developed through a public participation process and approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council. They address design considerations as well as physical improve- ments that were deemed necessary to improve the overall pedestrian experience in the core areas. The Lionshead urban Design Guide Plan was the conceptual plan utilized in developing the design for the Lionshead Improvement District. As is the case in the Village, any proposals in this area must be reviewed with respect to their compatibility to the original Urban Design Guide Plan. In looking at this Guide Plan, there are a number of areas called out for infill development. Indeed, one of these is the commercial expansion proposed for the north side of the Gondola Building in this submittal. The majority of these areas called out for infill are done in order to improve the pedestrian scale of the Mall. Other areas are called out for infill development because of sun/ shade characteristics. In these areas, development was considered preferable over existing situations because of the overwhelming amount of time the area was cast in shadow. While the Guide Plan identified areas for infill development, it also identified areas to be established and maintained as plazas or squares. One of these is the Clock Tower Square immediately adjacent to the Real Estate office expansion proposal. The "open feeling" found in the Clock Tower Square area is a refreshing change when considering the scale of the built environment around the Mall. It was designed to be open courtyard area with the popcorn wagon and landscaped areas as focal points. The real estate office expansion would violate this open area dramatically. Keeping in mind the Guide Plan is our tool for evaluating proposals in this area, there is no doubt in the opinion of the staff that this proposal is inconsistent with the intended design of the Lionshead Mall. The staff strongly recommends to the Planning Commission that this proposal as presented be denied. fz tL cn 0 �-_ zld�' Lj' y T-:4 1 7 rl NT y T-:4 1 7 NT y T-:4 1 7 7 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13th, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for expansion of an existing structure 6 feet into the required 10 feet setback. APPLICANT: Vail Associates DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REOUESTED Vail Associates has applied for an exterior alteration for a number of additions to the Gondola Building. The real estate office expansion proposal as outlined in the accompanying memo is proposed for an area of 6ft. into the required 10ft. setback. In addition to the approval of the exterior alteration proposal, the Planning Commission would have to grant this variance request for the encroach- ment into the 10ft. setback. 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 presently exists a portion of the Gondola Building that encroaches an equal distance into the 10ft. setback along the Lionshead Mall. This existing 'encroachment creates a situation with negative impacts with respect to urban design and pedestrianization along the Mall. Specifically, it is the felt the the existing encroachment creates a narrow feeling for the pedestrian as they pass from the Gondola Plaza to the Clock Tower Square. It is the feeling of the staff that to allow further encroachments would increase the canyon -like effect in this area. The_dree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of _eg a sp ecified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amon4 sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privile e. The staff feels that to grant this request would be a grant of special privilege. Any proposed infield development that is specifically called -out for in the urban U2sign Guide Plan for Lionshead may autocratically waive the required 10ft. setback. Areas not intended for redevelopment must comply with the required 10ft setbacks. The area in question was not identified in the Guide Plan for expansion. The e fect of the requested variance on, _light and air, distribution of population, transportation and trai�ic facil�ties,__public _facilities and utilities, and�ubli.c sa ety. This proposed expansion would have a negative effect on light and air by increasing • the narrowness of the walkway between the Gondola Plaza and the Clock Tower Square. In addition, it would reduce in size an area used by the Public Works Dept. for temporary snow storage. RELATED POLICIES IN VAI L - S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN There are no policies in the action plan that would lend support to this request. Such other faciors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed TAX A-0 J FIQNCS ir =o ytyal Commission shall make the followinqindings before The Planning and Env arantin9 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. ST-AFF PECO:_•_� ENDA T PUNS Staff recommendation for this request is denial. The staff can see no legitimate physical hardship to warrant this request and to grant this variance would be a grant of special privilege. For the reasons cited in this memo and those mentioned in the exterior alteration memo, the staff feel strongly that this request be denied. oe • MEMO TO: The Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: The Community Development Department DATE: May 13th, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for an condominium conversion of the Enzian Lodge Applicant: Jim Stevens & Associates I. THE REQUEST The owners of the Enzian Lodge at Vail, Inc., have authorized Jim Stevens Associates to submit an application for the condominium conversion of the Enzian Lodge. This request falls under the sub - division regulations Chapter 17.26, condominium conversions. The condominium conversion ordinance was enacted to regulate the conversion of both lodge rooms and apartment units to condominium ownership. The issues of concern with this request are obviously with respect to the . change in ownership of lodge rooms. The request before you today involves very few changes from the present operation of the lodge to how it will be operated as a condo /hotel. The existing 52 lodge rooms will remain as is (with the exception of upgrading of furnishings), there will be no reduction in existing common facilities, and the number of parking spaces on site will remain constant (64 spaces). In sum, the only substantial change on this property will be the individual ownership of the 52 lodge rooms. As is outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance, occupancy by owners will be limited to 14 days in the winter and 14 days in the summer. At other times during the winter and summer seasons, the unit is required to be available for rent as a standard lodge room. II. CRITERIA IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The criteria to evaluate the condominiumization of a lodge is found in Section 17.26.060 and 17.26.075 of the sub - division regulations. The following areas are some of the more relevant criteria with respect to this proposal: 1. Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code Requirements A complete walk through of the Enzian has been completed . by the Fire and Building Departments. The applicant has • Enzi an Lodge #2 agreed to comply with the punch list generated from this walk through in addition to complying with the Town of Vail Fire Alarm ordinance. A copy of the system proposed has been submitted to the Department of Community Development for review. 2. Town of Vail Standards for Site Work The applicant's representative and staff members of Community Development have inspected this site with respect to the condition of the property (other than issues related to building or fire codes). These include basic site improvements such as landscaping, paving, and trash enclosures. In response to this inspection, the applicant has submitted a landscape improvement plan to comply with Town of Vail landscaping standards. In addition, the applicant has agreed to enclose the existing trash dumpster. 3. Use Restrictions of Units The applicant has agreed to comply with the use restrictions as outlined in Section 17.26.060 of the sub - division regu- lations. These use restrictions are outlined in the condominium declarations for the Enzian Lodge at Vail condominiums. 4. Other Factors The condominium conversion. ordinance addresses a number of other factors relative to condominium conversions. Many of these are in reference to the conversion of apartment buildings to condominiums and are therefore not applicable to this application. A complete listing of the planned improvements has been provided by the applicant and is included in this memorandum. Please note that the applicant has proposed upgrading each accommodation unit with the installation of new carpeting, drapes, paint and furniture. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The condominium conversion ordinance is structured in such a way so that those applications satisfying the criteria outlined are essentially worthy of approval. This application is very "clean" in the sense that it involves no changes to the density or existing facilities in the lodge. The applicant has applied with all applicable criteria and staff recommen- dation for this request is approval. Enzian Lodge #3 • While not specifically required, the applicant has non - the -less proposed the upgrading of each accommodation unit. The staff is pleased to see this being proposed and it is an important aspect of this redevelopment. It should be noted that winter quality surveys have shown that an alarming number of our guests are dis- satisfied with the quality of their lodging. The up- grading proposed by the applicant is a direct response to this problem. The staff would recommend that this work be completed as a required improvement with respect to this condominium conversion. Should the applicant choose to issue a letter of credit to the Town of Vail to cover the cost of work necessary to bring this property into compliance with building and fire codes, the staff recommends that this letter of credit include an amount equal to the costs of the room and the hallway upgradings as well. This would insure that before the final con- dominium plat is signed and recorded, that the applicant has completed these improvements as proposed or has provided the town with ample funds to insure that they will be completed. • • • MEMO TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MAY 9, 1985 SUBJECT: Conditional Permit request to utilize the West Day Parking Lot for a construction staging area for the Vail Mountain expansion project for the summer until November 1985. APPLICANT: Vail Associates Inc. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Vail Associates wishes to use both the Golden Peak ski base area and the West Day lot for construction staging areas to accomplish their aggressive 1985 construction project schedule. On April 8, 1985, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a conditional Use Permit to utilize the Golden Peak ski base area as astaging area and this is Step 2 to complete . the approval processes. Attached please find the letter to Peter Patten from Joe Macy dated February 26, 1985 describing the request before you today. The request is quite similar to the Golden Peak proposal for staging construction. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Mountain expansion plan will have a very positive long -term impact upon the community and has been endorsed by the Town Council. One of the necessary evils of the construction project on Vail Mountain is the requirement to have adequate staging areas to accomplish such a major construction schedule before the 1985/86 ski season opens. As Vail Associates's letter states the on- mountain staging areas will be utilized to the greatest extent possible thus, mitigating the negative effects of the in- valley staging areas. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of pqpulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation faciilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. The use of helicopters within the construction process will have • Page #2 some negative effects upon the air quality in the immediate area due to the landing and taking -off procedures. No effects on the other factors are perceived at this time. Effect upon traffic with articular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and arking areas. The most significant effect related to this factor is that recreational vehicles will be required to park at the other two facilities available during the construction months. The charter bus lots available on the east end of the Village parking structure as well as the east end of the Lionshead parking structure will be utilized to park these vehicles during this time period. Also, there will be an increase in heavy vehicle use of the South Frontage Road in the area of the West Day lot. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed us is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in 40 relation to surrounding uses. It will be critical during the construction months that Vail Associates keeps communications open with the surrounding property owners, especially the Marriott Mark Hotel. We''have notified surrounding property owners of this proposal and Vail. Associates has discussed it with the Marriott Mark management. The use of the West Day lot certainly will have a negative effect upon the character of the area, but we feel that this use is a necessary one for this summer and fall only and hope that this approval helps Vail Associates accomplish all of their construc- tion before ski season opens in November. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Staff Recommendation: The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional Use Permit request for the construction staging area at the West Day lot in Lionshead. Although the proposal certainly does not repesent an improvement to the area, we feel that the staging use can be conducted in a manner compatible with surrounding uses and property owners if Vail Associates agrees to maintain an open communication between the Town and property a owners and an attitude of immediate response to valid concerns that may come up during the construction months. We wholeheartedly Page #3 0 endorse the emphasis upon the on- mountain staging areas and would hope that the West Day lot would only be utilized when absolutely necessary, especially for helicopter activity. r� • • Val socia11ltes, .c. Creators and OE�tramrs o Viii 3InLl Bo;wer Creek February 26, 1985 Mr. Peter Patten Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Peter: The purpose of this.letter is to describe our preliminary staging plan for lift construction on Vail Mountain during the summer of 1985: o Staging areas for dismantling: It will be necessary to stage both the dismantled lifts as well as the new lift equipment prior to installation. We plan on dismantling the old lifts in May, June and early July. Removal will be accomplished by helicopter and by truck. The dismantled equipment will be staged at Golden Peak between the bottom of chairs 46 and #12 and at the West Day Lot in LionsHead prior to shipment. We will attempt to complete this phase of the operation during the off season insofar as practicable. We believe that dismantling accomplished with minimal impacts its largely off -- season schedule. o Staging areas for construction: of the lifts can be on the Town due to The primary staging areas for lift construction will be Bear Tree and Born Free adjacent to our snowmaking pumphouse, and between the bottom of chairs #2 and #17. overflow areas for staging will be Golden Peak between chairs #6 and #12 and the West Day Lot in LionsHead. Concrete trucks will move up mountain to the snowmaking pumphouse for helicopter pick up of the concrete. Past Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • 0031476 -5601 F Mr. Peter Patten February 26, 1985 . Page Two o Helicopter operations: • C Up to 20 days of helicopter flying can be anticipated over the summer. Flights from the snowmaking pumphouse should have minimal impact on the Town. Flights over residential areas will not be necessary from Golden Peak. Flights into the West Day Lot will attempt to avoid residential areas by flying down Gore Creek and then up mountain. Flight operations for construction are planned to commence the week of August 2nd and run through September. Favorable construction weather will allow us to maximize the use of up mountain staging areas. Unfavorable weather will cause greater utilization of the valley staging areas and greater noise and dust impacts to the community. Crowd control, if needed, will be handled by Vail Associates. Attached are several maps depicting the proposed staging areas. Please contact me if you have any further questions on this plan. JM /kl Enclosures cc: Dave Larson Larry Lichliter 1. Sincerely, VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. Joe Macy Manager Planning and Technical f MEMO TO: The Town Council FROM: The Community Development Department DATE: May 13th, 1985 SUBJECT: A request to amend the Town of Vail Municipal Code to add a new section to the Supplemental Regulations of the Zoning Code as well as a new section to the Design Review Guidelines, both addressing the regulation of satellite dish antenna installations. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND ON THIS PROPOSAL The Planning Commission received a brief explanation as to the reasons for this ordinance proposal as well as how applications for satellite dish antennas will be reviewed if the ordinance is approved. The attached memo to the Town Council dated February 19, 1985 explains the process that the staff has gone through in developing this ordinance as well as what key factors are involved in regulating the installation of satellite dishes. It was the goal of this ordinance to develop a process whereby satellite dish antennas are installed in a sensitive and safe manner. The ordinance is structured in such a way so that the zoning related aspects relative to a dish installation are addressed by the staff. These address items such as the number of dishes, the height, size, locations, etc. The second level of review would be done by the DRB and that would involve aesthetic considerations such as screeening, and the use of effective color selection. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff has invested a fair amount of time in studying other satellite dish ordinances as well as making a number of site visits to inspect satellite dish installations in and around this area. The staff feels strongly that effective regulation is needed in order to control the placement of satellite dish antennas in Vail. It is the feeling of the staff that this proposed ordinance would be workable from the applicant standpoint and provide for types of installations that are sensitive to our built environment in Vail. Consequently, the staff strongly recommends that this ordinance be recommended for approval to the Town Council. 0 TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 19, 1985 SUBJECT: Proposed modifications to guidelines regulating the installation of satellite dishes. BACKGROUND ON THIS PROPOSAL The staff was directed by the Town Council to investigate the appropriateness of our existing guidelines regulating the installation of satellite dishes in the Town of Vail. This direction was prompted by the application for a satellite dish that was considered'by the Council on appeal. At that hearing, it was felt by the members of the Council that our guidelines were difficult to work with for reviewing a satellite dish application. More specifically, it was felt the guidelines were open ended, subjective, and did not provide the applicant, the Design Review Board or the Council adequate criteria with which to review an application. At the present time, the guideline addressing satellite dishes reads as follows: Satellite dishes and similar structures shall not be allowed unless substantially screened from view by fences, berms, or landscaping. This guideline is found in the Design Review Guidelines:- At this time, an application for a satellite dish would be reviewed'by the Design Review Board for compliance with this guideline. Since the dish appeal considered by the Council last fall, the Design Review Board has considered.one application for a dish installation. That installation, located.in the Potato Patch subdivision, was approved by the Design Review Board. AN EVALUATION OF OUR EXISTING GUIDELINE In evaluating the appropriateness of our existing guideline, the first step taken by the staff was to look at regulations implemented in other communities as well as to do onsight visits of satellite dish installations. Over 20 communities have been contacted concerning their regulations and site visits were made throughout Eagle County, Denver, Boulder, and Aurora. Two factors became very evident as a result of this research. First of all, the quality of installations in communities without regulations would be generally considered quite poor. Secondly, there are many similarities in the elements addressed by communities who have enacted regulations. These areas addressed by these regulations include height,.size, location (i.e. setbacks and easements), approval process required and aesthetic control (i.e. screening, architectural integration). In our last work session, the staff proposed to the Council that any revision to our existing guidelines address these five elements. Additional comments from the Council concerning the installation of dishes in the Village and Lionshead areas are also being considered by the staff. • Satellite 2/19/85 -2- THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING SATELLITE DISH INSTALLATIONS Residential satellite dish installations have increased dramatically over the last few years. Industry projections indicate that the number of residential installations will double in the next year. In response to this, local governments have enacted legislation regulating installation of these dishes. There are a number of reasons for these installations being regulated. These include: 1. Safet The foremost consideration with respect to safety and the public welfare relates to where and how a dish is installed. These aspects are generally addressed by requiring a building permit before an installation is made. 2. zoninq Considerations The most common factors addressed under zoning considerations would be height, location, and number of dishes on any given lot. . 3. Aesthetic Control Some degree of aesthetic control is included in approximately half of the ordinances surveyed by the staff. The most common means for addressing aesthetic control is through screening the dish. Materials used for screening include berms, landscape materials, buildings, and fences. Other considerations for minimizing the visual impacts of the dishes are the material of the dish and the color of the dish. While not discounting the importance of zoning and safety considerations, the most important concern in preparing this revised ordinance is with respect to aesthetic control. Generally speaking, it will be the intent of this ordinance to regulate the installation of. dishes so as to mitigate their visual impact to the highest degree possible. In order to understand the type of installation the staff would like to see result from this new ordinance, it is important to recognize what factors contribute to whether a dish installation is done well or not. In looking at different installations, it becomes.very apparent as to what factors affect the visual .impact of a dish. These factors include: 1. Size An 8 foot diameter dish will generally not have the impacts of a 15 foot diameter dish. This consideration is fairly obvious. -3 Satellite 2/29/85 2. Color. Most dishes can be painted with any latex paint. The color of a dish can greatly affect its visibility with respect to the sites and environment in which it is placed. 3. Materials There are basically three materials used in the construction of dishes. These are stainless steel, mesh, and fiberglass type of shell. Each of these have different qualities relative to the degree of visibility. 4. Location. The location of the dish greatly affects its degree of visibility. Rear yard installations will generally be less visible from public right -of -ways than front yard installations. However, rear yard installations may be more offensive to adjacent property owners. 5. Hei ht. As is the case with the location of a dish, the height of a dish greatly influences its visibility. The issue of height becomes more noticeable when considering roof top installations. 6. Degree of Screening. Screening a dish with landscaping, berms, fences, or existing structures can do a great deal to minimize the visual impact of the dish. This is probably the key factor in miti- gating the visibility of an installation. 7. Architectural Inte ration. In looking at a number of dish installations, it became apparent that dishes could be installed and integrated architecturally into the design of a structure. This was particularly true with mesh type dishes. Each of these above mentioned design considerations affects the visual appearance of a dish installation. These factors will be used in reviewing dish applications for compliance with the design review section of this new ordinance. STRUCTURE OF THE REVISED SATTELITE DISH REGULATIONS The ordinance revisions proposed by the staff includes two sections. The first of these would be a section added to to the Supplemental Regulations chapter of the zoning code. This section will address factors such as height, size, and the locations where dishes are allowed. The other section of this ordinance will involve a major revision to the Design Review Board Guidelines that address satellite dishes.. This section will address issues such as color, materials, and screening of the dishes. This review will be similar to the process one goes through when applying to construct a new residence. In this case, an application is reviewed with respect to zoning considerations as well as Design Review Guidelines. The following are the elements each of these two sections will address. n �J 0 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS • -4A Satellite 2/19/85 Compliance with the following regulations will be required before a dish is reviewed by Design Review Board. If these zoning considerations cannot be met, an applicant may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for a variance as outlined in Section 18.62 of the Municipal Code. This new section of the Supplemental Regulations chapter of the zoning code will address the following areas: 1. Definition of a Dish These regulations and guidelines shall apply to any device meeting the following definition: A dish shaped or parabolic shaped reception or transmission antennae, which is more than two feet in diameter (including dishes stored or temporarily placed for more than one day) for the reception and /or transmission of satellite signals, including television signals, AM radio signals, FM radio signals, telemetry signals, data communications signals or any other reception or transmission signals using free air space as a medium, whether for commercial or private use. 2. Number No more than one satellite dish shall be allowed on any lot within the Town of Vail, 3. Temporary Installations The temporary use and /or installation of a satellite dish shall be limted to a maximum period of one day. Only three temporary installations shall be allowed per business or residence per year. 4. Height Maximum height allowed for any dish installation, when measured from the top of a dish down to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall not exceed 15 feet. 5. Size of the Dish The maximum size of any dish.installed shall be limited to 9 feet in diameter. 6. Dish Identification /Advertisi No advertising or identification shall be allowed on any dish installed that is visible or legible from.any adjacent property or public right -of-way. 40 7. • -5- Satellite 2/19/85 Location of the Dish Installations Dish Installations shall comply with existing setback requirements of the zone district in which the dish is installed. The installation of dishes shall be prohibited in easements and public right -of- ways. 8. Building Permit Issuance of a building permit from the Community Development Department shall be required prior to the installation of a dish. 9. Vail Village and Lionshead Core Areas The exterior installation of satellite dishes in the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas shall be prohibited. These prohibited areas are outlined in attachments A and B.� _ The only installations allowed in these areas shall be those totally enclosed by some type of structure. Structures required to enclose a •dis.h in these areas shall be required to meet all applicable zoning requirements. r. I t, i 10. Variances Variance requests may be made for.any of these provisions. The review of these variance requests would be done by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Applications for variances would be made to the Community Development Department as outlined in Section 18.52 of the Vail Municipal Code. Once an application has satisfied the above requirements, or received a variance to them, applicants may apply for review by the Design Review Board. The following guidelines shall be considered.in the design review of the satellite application. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES It is the intent of the Supplemental Regulations, and more particularly these design review guidelines, to minimize the visual impact of any satellite dish installation. As was mentioned earlier in this memo, mitigating the visual impact of a satellite dish can be accomplished in a number of ways. Whereas, the existing design review guideline allowed only for the screening of the dishes, these revised guidelines will allow qreater flexibility in how to mitigate the impact of a dish. Generally speaking, the purpose of is to insure that the visibility of a satellite dish from any public right -of-way or adjacent properties be reduced to the highest degree possible. This may be accomplished a number of different ways. The following guidelines shall be used by the Design Review Board in evaluating any dish application: 1. The use of mesh dishes is highly encourage. In reviewing applications for mesh dishes, consideration will be given to dishes that are architecturally integrated in to the design of a structure. While some degree of screening will still be required of mesh dishes, an application that is successfully integrated into the design of a structure may require a less amount of screening materials than a solid dish installation. When integrating a mesh dish with a structure, the use of similar colors of the dish and the structure shall be required. 2. The use of neutral colors and /or earth tones is highly encouraged. Other colors and dishes with reflective surfaces shall be discouraged. Dishes may be painted to provide for a more sensitive installation relative to the environment in which the dish is proposed. 3. Solid dishes shall be screened from view from any public right -of -way or adjacent property to the highest degree possible. This may be accomplished through the use of landscape materials, fencing, existing structures, subgrade placements, or other means that both screen the dish and do not appear to be unnatural on the site. • STAFF RECOMMENTATION The staff has learned a great deal over the last few months about satellite dish installations. Based on our research, the staff feels strongly that Vail needs more specific regulations addressing satellite installations. It is felt that an ordinance similar to the one outlined in this memo will provide Vail with workable guidelines for the applicant as well as resulting in installations with a minimal amount of visual impact on adjacent properties and the community as a whole. The staff would encourage your comments and suggestions concerning this presentation. Given the direction by the Council, the staff is ready to proceed with the necessary approval processes to establish this ordinance. • Planning and Environmental Commission May 28, 1985 LIBRARY 2 :15 Site Visits 3:00 Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of May 13. 2. Request to amend Special Development District #7 (Marriott Mark) in order to allow time share estate units, fractional fee units, and time share license units as a conditional use in Phase III. Applicant: M -K Corporation 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an amphitheatre at Ford Park. Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation 4. Request for a variance to. convert an employee unit, Unit 2 in Building 15 of the Vail Racquet Club to office space for the Vail Racquet Club Owners' Association located at 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive. Applicant: Vail Racquet Club Condominiums 5. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a miniature golf course on parts of Tracts C and D, Vail Lionshead Filing No. I. Applicant: Bud Benedict 6. Update on the development of Vail Valley Medical Center's long range plan. -10 Planning and Environmental Commission May 28, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Duane Piper Rick Pylman Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz Sid Schultz Tom Braun Jim Viele Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Eric Affeldt Jere Walters The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:10 pm. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of May 13. Donovan moved to approve minutes, seconded by Viele. Vote was 5 -0 in favor. 2. Request to amend Special Development District #7 (Marriott Mark) in order to allow time share estate units, fractional fee units, and time share • license units as a conditional use in Phase III. Applicant: MK Corporation Peter Patten gave a brief history of the SDD stating that it was originally developed and approved with the intention that lodging open to the public be provided. Phase III was originally called the Phase IIA addition. Patten showed a site plan of the SDD. He explained that fractional fees would limit the number of owners of each unit to 10, each owner would have five weeks of time, 2 weeks winter, 2 weeks summer, and 1 off - season. 46 units would be involved, 27 with kitchens, and the others with micro -wave ovens. Patten went on to explain that in 1981 the SDD was amended and additional density granted in terms of more kitchens in the rooms upon the argument that more hospitality rooms were needed to support the convention facility. As part of the proposal, there were to be 320 hotel room keys available to the Marriott as the management firm for a period of 25 years. This was represented so that the concern over additional kitchens with regard to future condominiumization would not be a problem. Patten stated that the Town has since been informed that the agreement between Morcus Kaiser and the Marriott.had already been amended. There were also concessions made to the applicant in 1981 with regard to extra fireplaces in accommodation units, reduction of amenities (indoor tennis courts), and parking concessions. Patten referred to an Appendix B regarding existing and potential build - out of all timeshare projects in Vail, pointing out that timeshare will represent • PEC -2- 5/28/85 8% of all multi - family units, and the number of owners would be 21,750. Patten also pointed out that there has been a substantial slowdown in development of timeshare • units and there have been a high level of foreclosures for many projects, along with shoddy marketing practices. The marketing practices have had little to no regulation by either state real estate commissions or municipalities, and the image projected upon communities with these marketing practices is a negative one. Patten then listed pros and cons which were in the memo, closing with the statement that this was a precedent setting decision and denial was recommended by staff. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the Town of Vail was going through a transition with regard to hotels. Peterson stated that Phases I and II of the Marriott are condominiumized and Phase III could also be condominiumized which would not be good for the Town of.Vail. Peterson felt that long term condo-' miniumization was not the best solution. Ray Warren, manager of the Marriott stated that the Marriott name was important and the marketing would not be shoddy. Peterson felt that the land transfer tax would not be traded for sales tax dollars because the people buying these fractional fee interests would not be using their kitchens very much. Further, he said that since the lodging was already paid for, these persons would be spending more money in Town. He added that all amenities of the hotel would remain intact and the hotel could still cater to groups of 50 to 100 people. Ray Warren pointed out that in 1984 24 groups had 200 rooms per nite, and that the Marriott could use other lodges for overflow guests. Peterson stated that the Marriott could not go on under the present conditions and a solution needed to be found. • Schultz was concerned that the rentals would be taken off of the market during peak times. Peterson replied that there were many vacancies except during Christmas week and that the condos would be full during periods which would otherwise be slow. Warren stated that he was on the VRA board to study occupancy rates and that in January the occupancy rate was 70 %, in February 72% and that there were many rooms available at all levels. Donovan did not see the difference between condos and time share. Patten pointed out a difference of opinion with regard to Phase III being changed to condominiums, and stated that Phase III could not be changed to time share without restrictions. Peterson answered that Phase III could go through a condo conversion and -the dwelling units could also have lock - offs resulting in two units each, or 54 rooms without restrictions. They would also put restrictions on Phases I and II so that the TOV would have protection for 229 rooms. Donovan felt that this was a bail -out for the owners, and that the TOV would not have much control over the new owners. Peterson answered that using fractional fees in Phase III would get the cost of the remaining facility down so that Morcus could still remain. Rapson's major concern was of the marketing program and felt that the qudlity of the overall experience would be diluted. Peterson stated that there had been a study done to look at the all available units in the TOV and this study was available for anyone to read it. Viele wondered if there were any studies showing the economic impact of time share and he wondered how much the restaurants would be impacted. No one knew of a study, 40 PEG -3- 5/28/85 but Peterson stated that dispite the fact that the Marriott had 27 kitchens, a great deal of revenue for the Town was realized by the occupants of these units. Ray Warren stated that the kitchens were mainly used for snacks (he could tell by the charts used by the cleaning persons). Viele.was also concerned about the marketing procedures. Peterson stated that the Marriott would go through the strict- est guidelines and the Marriott would also be concerned that they would not antagonize their own guests. Viele wondered about conflict between time share and regular guests and also wondered what the TOV could do if the time share project doesn't work. Peterson stated that if this were not successful, it could be converted to a hotel. Viele stated that Beaver Creek claimed that they now need a traditional hotel and this conversion worried him. Peterson replied that he had been studying this for 9 months. Piper wondered how owners of fractional fee units would have input, and Peterson stated it would be the same as a condo association. Piper wondered about the con - flict between time share owners and hotel guests when the time share units would be more nicely decorated. Warren stated that hotel guests would not see the other units. Patten stated that the discussion pointed out that fractional fee ownership may be different in experience from time share. He added that conditions of approval were difficult to enforce, that 5 of 7 in 1981 weren't complied with, and did not want to have conditions that were unenforceable. Rapson_ moved to deny the request per the staff memo and Donovan seconded. After more discussion, Peterson requested to table to the next meeting (if he were ready). Viele moved and Rapson seconded to table this item. Vote was 5 -0 in favor of tablir 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an amphitheatre at Ford Park. Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation Patten presented the proposal and explained the master plan and the interim plank also. Jim Morter, architect for the project, also explained the proposal. Donovan read her comments (attached) which stated in part that cultural activities and sports did not mix, that the political situation forced the plan. Schultz said that in some ways he agreed and that he was not sure if this was the best place for an amphitheatre, but that a majority of people wanted it in Ford Park. Rapson agreed with Donovan, Viele stated that he shared some of the same concerns but felt that the architect had done a good job. Piper was concerned about the financing. The number of spectators was discussed at 2,000 with the additional berm seating. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the re uest per the staff memo. The vote was 3 in favor, 2 against Rapson and Donovan). 4. Request for a variance to convert an employee unit, Unit 2 in Building 15 of the Vail Racquet Club to office space for the Vail Racquet Club Owners' Association located at 4695 Vail Racquet Club Drive. Applicant: Vail Racquet Club Condominiums Rick Pylman showed the floor plans of the proposed conversion and stated that because of prior restrictions, that employee units be restricted to long term rental to local employees for 20 years, Mr. Kirch was requested to follow variance procedures r] • • for this request. Walter Kirch spoke and said Racquet Club, but was the owner of the employee space used for an office for the rental group. rental had grown from 9,000 per year to 25,000 in personnel resulted in a very crowded office. employee unit was not needed in the future for to return it to employee rental. PEC -4 5/28/85 that he was not the owner of the unit involved and owner of the He stated that growth of overnight so far in 1985 and that an increase He stated that in the event the office space, that he would agree Jennie Culp, representing the board of directors of the Vail Racquet Condominums owners (who owned the rental operations) added more information about increased need for more office space. Donovan asked if there were any chance to put another employee rental unit somewhere else. Kirch replied that there was a 2 bedroom unit currently occupied by an employee which he believed might be possible to commit to an employee unit if the request were granted to eliminate the employee unit next to the office. Donovah then stated that if that were the case, she had no problem with the conversion, and other members agreed. Schultz wondered if an addition could be built onto the office either above or to the left. Kirch stated that he owned the ground floor, but the upper floor was owned by condo owners. If he were to add to the left he would be encroaching on Meadow Drive right-of- way. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request to convert the employee unit to office space upon the condition that another unit be restricted to em to ee rental to keep the number of employee units at the same amount. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. 5. Request for a conditional__ use permit in order to construct a miniature golf course on parts of Tracts C and D, Vail Lionsyead Filing No. 1. Applicant: Bud Benedict The applicant had requested that this item be tabled. 5. Update on the development of Vail Valley Medical Center's long range plan. Debra Jost, administrator of the hospital, told the board of the plans for the Medical Center in the coming years. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Departmet DATE: May 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Conditional use permit request for the Ford Amphitheatre Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Discussion of an outdoor amphitheatre facility located in Ford Park has been occurring since the Park was purchased by the Town of Vail in 1973. It was felt that Vail needed to develop its musical and cultural programs and facilities to become a more well -- rounded community. Attached please find a statement from Morter Fisher Architects (the architectural firm engaged to design the amphitheatre) regarding some of the background of the Ford Amphitheatre proposal. The amphitheatre will be a public /private joint venture between the Vail Valley Foundation and the Town Council. The Foundation has agreed to raise the funds privately through various donation programs to construct the amphitheatre facility itself. The Town Council has recently agreed to construct pertinent improvements required to successfully operate the amphitheatre facility. • Improvements the Council has agreed to, but without specific commitments as to when the improvements will be constructed, are as follows: The parking lot and bus drop off facility as approved in the final Ford Park master plan, an access road to the amphitheatre through the west end of Ford Park, installation of required utilities (previously installed), pedestrian pathways throughout the park with necessary lighting (if night performances become a reality) and special bus service for amphitheatre events which require it. The Foundation will construct the amphitheatre facility with the accessory buildings required (such as a loading dock and storage building and ticket /concession building) along with an entry plaza and walkway to the south and east of the amphitheatre. An extensive landscaping program is proposed for the entire amphitheatre site. Please refer to the attached pictures of the model and the site plan submitted by Morter Fisher Architects. The amphitheatre will be accessed from a number of different directions and parking facilities. We have attached an aerial photograph of the park area to better depict how this will be accomplished. Moreover, an interim development plan utilizing the existing snow dump area for parking and bus turn - around will be an important element to the amphitheatre's operation until the Ford Park master plan is implemented over a period of years. The principal parking and access facilities for the amphitheatre are as follows: 40 0 Village Parking Structure - --850 spaces plus special bus service for amphitheatre events when it is necessary. Is o Golden Peak Base Area - -130 spaces -- attractive pedestrian entry to park through Manor Vail and covered bridge. o Soccer Field parking lot - -90 spaces --- pedestrian entry on south side of park across existing bridge south of amphitheatre. o Ford Park parking lot and bus drop -off (not existing- -part of Ford Park master plan) -- approxmately 105 parking spaces with new pedestrian path leading to amphitheatre o Snow dump parking lot -- approximately 60 plus spaces -- Utilized as interim bus drop -off with temporary walking path connecting to existing path south of tennis courts. The council has stated that they will not allow night performances at the facility until proper lighting and more permanent pathways are installed. The future of night performances and their feasi- bility is undetermined at this point in time. The Council has required the Vail Valley Foundation to provide them with a $500,000 endowment fund before a building permit is issued. Due to the lack of these funds at this point in time, the status of the amphiheatre project as far as proceeding with construction in 1985 is in question. The Vail Institute will be the programming and booking agency operating the amphitheatre facility upon completion while the Town of Vail will own the amphitheatre. Operating costs of the amphitheatre will be assumed by the Town of Vail and funded through the endowment monies. 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 im act of the use on development objectives of the Town. The amphitheatre would be an important and needed cultural facility for the Vail community. One of the development objectives of the Town is to enhance and develop cultural facilities, programs and opportunities for not only our residents, but our guests as well. If properly and heavily marketed and publicized, the amphitheatre could become another major attraction bringing people into our community for musical events. however, and just as important, the amphitheatre would provide a high quality facility to accommodate musical and cultural programs for the residents of the community. • • The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, trans rtation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. A. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Special bus service will be required for major amphitheatre events and this will be provided by the Town's Transportation Department. Bus drop -off for the first several operating years will most likely take place on the west end of the snow dump parking facility until the permanent Ford Park parking and bus drop -off facility is developed. B. UTILITIES Utilities were installed a number of years ago by the Town of Vail to service the amphitheatre. C. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES The steering committee for the Ford Park master plan has worked very hard in con - junction with representatives of the Vail Valley Foundation and Morter Fisher Architects to insure the compatibility of the amphitheatre with the overall park master plan. Other elements of the park master plan such as the swimming pool, alpine garden, open turf play area and the pathway systems throughout the park have been developed with the amphitheatre in mind. As the master plan for Ford Park becomes implemented, the amphitheatre will progressively improve with regard to operation and access elements. Effect upon traffic with articular 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. A. CONGESTION With a seating capacity of approximately 2,000 persons, some congestion will occur at the beginning and end of amphitheatre performances. However, the number of different parking facilities and pedestrian paths into the park and the amphitheatre should relieve most of the congestion problems. The amphitheatre design incorporates an entrance on the northeast side to facilitate those entering from the parking areas on the northeast side of the park and the bus drop --off facilities. This will help to relieve congestion. B. AUTOMOTIVE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE Safety becomes an issue when related to parking along the frontage road on the north side of Ford Park. With the snow dump now available for summer parking for the park, it is important that we address the frontage road parallel parking situation for not only the amphitheatre, but for others now utilizing the frontage road. It is felt by 0 the staff that allowing parking along the frontage road should be only a last resort if required by the largest events. 40 Furthermore, as the main parking lot in the park is developed we feel strongly that frontage road parking should not be allowed and we have designed methods to accomplish this within the master plan. C. TRAFFIC FLOW AND CONTROL, ACCESS AND MANUVERABILITY The staff feels the most important element in making the amphi- theatre successful in terms of managing traffic and pedestrian congestion is to highly publicize to the users of the facility that there are a variety of entryways to the amphitheatre. This will be very important in achieving maximum utilization of the various parking lots available to the park and facil- itating smooth ingress and egress to the amphitheatre per- formances. This should be a joint effort between the Vail Institute and Town of Vail once the amphitheatre is operating. Effect upon the character of the area in which the propose d use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the pEpeoSed use in relation to surrounding uses. The amphitheatre design is sensitive to the park atmosphere in which it is located. The appearance of the amphitheatre within the park will be low key and will blend in with its natural surroundings. The amphitheatre has, as mentioned above, been integrated into the master plan so that it is compatible with relation to the surrounding uses. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Social /Cultural /Educational Considerations 3. Vail should improve as an educational and intellectual cultural center o Develop facilities to provide for these activities 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. No EIR required. 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 Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use permit request for the Ford Park amphi- theatre. An extensive amount of work has been accomplished by the staff and steering committee and Foundation to be sure that the amphitheatre will be compatible with the master plan. A number of specific meetings conducted to accomplish this have taken place in the past month. The amphitheatre has received considerable review and comment in recent months from the Planning Commission and Town council as well. We feel that there will be adequate parking and ingress and egress to the amphitheatre from the various locations available. This should provide a variety of experiences in how one comes to an amphitheatre performance and will allow one to experience a very pleasant environment surrounding an amphitheatre event. • We feel that the interim development plan which has been worked out will provide an adequate solution to ingress and egress until the Ford Park master plan is implemented. it is important that the interim plan be a temporary one and not extend beyond a maximum of 2 to 3 years. We feel an absolutely critical element for a successful amphitheatre in Ford Park is to educate the people coming to the facility as to the availability of parking and the various ways to get into the park so that congestion can be avoided. Bus service will be a critical element in the amphitheatre's success on an on -going basis for the larger events. Overall, we feel the amphitheatre could be an exciting addition to Vail's cultural facility plant and could provide a new dimension in the Vail experience if properly operated, programmed, and if total cooperation of the various agencies involved in the amphitheatre's operation and construction is achieved. MORTERRSHER/4RC-11 is —7 March 22, 1985 GERALD R. FORD AMPHITHEATER Ford Park Vail, Colorado The Ford Park Amphitheater was originally conceived in 1977 by a board of community leaders in Vail. An architect was selected to design a facility which could be built in phases. Expansion and technical sophistication would occur as community interest developed and funding became available. The first phase was constructed, consisting of a concrete seating plat- form and the installation of 927 fixed seats. As originally designed, the facility would cost approximately $2,900,000 when completed. However, in 1981 the project floundered as community support and funding waned. In 1984, with the backing of the Vail Valley Foundation, a new committee of residents and representatives of cultural, marketing, architecture and project development interests in Vail was formed to reactivate the Gerald R. Ford Amphitheater in Ford Park. The new design features a "thrust stage ", with the original seating layout redistributed to create a more informal atmosphere by integrating planted grass berm areas within the prime viewing and acoustic arena. The fixed seating sections and the stage will be covered by an acoustically tuned canopy of wooden roof planes on tube steel trusses. The roof planes are segmented to create a feeling of openness while providing protection from the evening thunder showers common to this area. Additional facilities are highlighted by a large plaza to accommodate intermissions and entrace to the facility. The main seating arena is surrounded by a series of low rise buildings which house concessions, ticket sales, restrooms, dressing rooms, a "green" room, and storage. The finishing touch will be provided as a large percentage of the budget is apportioned to landscaping and earth- work, blending the facility into the natural context of Ford Park. Construction documents are being prepared for a June 1985 construction start. Completion is scheduled for an opening act in June the following year. U , "A Y Ulf r .; _. WPM tz a � x r [\ i' S � ~ s y � Ta, " M I $ y rie s - - iVCeti♦, 'A16 - ki, t et �i�1 5h •�: � �,,��`` q lti a. 2?` �'\ �': '`t. ::tia� i it -. f 't Y' 1 +f It •� i[f `� y' ! M i t ♦ Jr. w a lc 'If s•'Ir 1�7.}, t �r' - •�,• ��' rt y s T . {.WS T:- r X41+ � i rk )• ' ;, t ' s- v`' .� � ), ik.� l''� _. r' T 3 31�� z tJY°✓ �Lwryfy y r 1 zrj�r{� :t � 'c, if}'� � N _�'�j�.,r, t✓lylt' ryr: �� ` .,y � �. i.µ � „',��� � d' s ,a, _Fh��. ;Js .M. r'?. 5 �" fi ..t as `t 74,'� •i rt. -. #}. `g�.�t '`y)_ k ��. �. 1, E ��.� t�4. E.i. 4 •�•k•�'�^ ��, t� _..' t �y� .5' r�'^� ri 4 ;.?t F` 1•�- -,., ;";A• 344 + - C x e ,�, t. 4 _'. r �. ,,�c��c �A 4 �' 1 PM vi Ik' • { "� f � sir � 'e is a �- -♦ f - � _ ..+. .e �'7 ,��i r4 -•if .Y, :, 4Fd _.,A } 'ri'.., _. ,- q��':�k -^ -- t i- • Sri ,� � -�tiZ� - T � 1 b �� M ` x � � _ y� `:. .1"� ,��� t r✓ IY A ,y i, t � 7 � +. ��� b ,z -+.{ �` .A Tdf•'i L. e * - .�`tn5� Vii_ <t,�'!` 'Fd }t ✓ f�;{'y r .. vF_ �• •4 �� ti ...` ` .,,s...y.�•t °':a:' s`F P #.�,{tv - t r. •c 5!4uwf c t itiT Ll �. ,,r { _a.� is s `'°',k n y r ��",•N?� `` .�y„ f ' 7Y '','t° .! t�1l ,esyr�} r'x t �4; { _t -�i iia�sy� -•s `'l.''�,: ��"` iG � '* � ! � �t 3 , � 51 •,a^ -� �� '• �• ; "NC �`ttl..•a�ft..ti.s,M~afx - r' .. _ Y� t �,, -,- 1�:C1 � ,J. t � - -fit• � �S t � r �t � � � �dsysM` ��n ^ ;r%a•1 >4.fry ^'Itl•,y'�i...�9•'�• - 5.'4r� §/ r ". °�'S•N'�i 1f•?.i ry.N� -_ �� 1 "�x�,�y.� w •'°i'i 1i �sv" ��Ei 1. ,, 'y� � � •. i �-+ - �r �!.�, MEMO TO: The Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: May 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Work session discussion of the expansion plans for the Vail Valley Medical Center. As the Planning Commission is undoubtedly aware, the hospital is in the process of formulating their expansion plans. To date, the hospital has completed a number of studies to determine their future needs. They are in the process now of reviewing bids from architects for the design of the future expansion. Deborah Jost will be making a presentation to update you on the progress they have made towards developing a master plan for the hospital. She will be available to answer any questions you may have at this time. r- 'I L---j C • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a variance for the Vail Racquet Club Condo- miniums to convert an employee housing unit to office space. Applicant: Vail Racquet Club Condominiums DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant wishes to convert Unit 2 of Building 15 from an employee housing unit to office space. Because of prior restrictions that have been placed on this property, we have requested Mr. Kirch to follow the variance procedures to present this request to the Planning and Environmental Commission. In December of 1979 the PEC granted a density variance request to Walter Kirch. This variance was granted to allow Mr. Kirch to complete construction of employee units in Buildings 14 and 15. A condition of the granting of this variance was that the units would be restricted to long term rental to local employees for 20 years. The Vail Racquet Club Condominiums is requesting a variance from this condition so that the adjacent office may be expanded into this unit. The office is used for short term rental, sales and management functions. 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. This request is for the expansion of the existing adjacent office space into employee housing unit #2. The use requested is currently existing and the expansion will have no impact on other existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. 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 Drivileqe. Provision of employee housing is a constant and ongoing concern of the Town of Vail. In 1979 a density variance was granted to this project to construct employee housing units. The Community Development staff supported that variance request and has histor- ically supported the concept of restricted long term employee housing. The staff feels that the restrictions and conditions . placed upon the 1979 variance remain valid and should be respected. We feel that the Racquet club Condominiums should attempt to meet their office space requirements in a manner that will not require compromising employee housing agreements. The effect of the re uested variance on li ht and air, distribution Of DODUlation. transportation and traffic facilities, public Other than the displacement of employees due to the loss of this employee housing unit, there are no significant effects on any of the above elements. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN The Community Action Plan addresses the importance of the role of the Town of Vail in planning for long range employee housing needs. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems ap2licable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting 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 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. IP • • STAFF RSCOMMDATION The Town of Vail spends considerable time and energies attempting to address employee housing needs. The Town has supported and encouraged through a variety of methods projects involving employee housing. The Community Development staff was recently involved in a County --wide employee housing study. While current market conditions have alleviated the intense employee housing pressures of past years, the conclusions of this study indicate that providing adequate employee housing is a concern that will remain an important issue for quite some time. The results of the study indicate that employee housing units placed within open market residential housing projects are the most desirable units available to local employees. The study recommends that future multi - family projects within the Town include this type of unit. The staff cannot support this request and therefore recommends denial of this proposal. We feel that there is not an adequate demonstration of physical hardship and that approval of this request would constitute a grant of special privilege due to the convenience of the applicant. .40 Planning and Environmental Commission June 24, 1985 of 2:15 pm Site visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meetings of May 28 and June 10. 2. Appointment of PEC member to DRB for July, August and September 3. Presentation of final plans for Ford and Donovan Parks. 4. Request for side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage on Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: A. Emmet Stephenson, Jr. 5. Request to amend an approved development plan to allow for a two year interim development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base area. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. �J Planning and Environmental Commission June 24, 1985 PRESENT Eric Affeldt Diana.Donovan Duane Piper Howard Rapson Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Jere Walters STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritz Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:15 pm. 1. Approval of minutes of meetings of May 28 and June 10. It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of May 28 and to.table those of June 10 until corrections could be made. 2. Appointment of PEC member to DRB for July, August and September. Eric Affeldt volunteered to again be the representative because he.had missed several meetings during his last stint on DRB. 3. Presentation of final plans for Ford and Donovan Parks Kristan Pritz presented the final plans and showed site plans. She indicated on the site plans where the various facilities would be located. Cost estimates were then discussed. Patten stated that a 5 year forcast was anticipated. He added that the emphasis for Planning Commission was to be on the "planning" of the.parks, not the costs. Donovan mentioned concern about the bike path through the.Nature Center. Piper pointed out that there had already been much public input into the layout of the parks. Donovan also asked that the Town Council put a time frame on the construction of the amphitheatre and alpine garden. Donovan Park was then considered. One suggestion was to eliminate one.of the skating ponds-- either,J nUhis park or in Ford Park and Pritz explained that the Council wanted one skating pond close to the core for tourists, and one in West Vail for the residents of that area. Affeldt wondered if the.ba_sketbali court could be used for skating, and Pat Dodson, Recreation Department director, said that this type of pond had been tried and did not work very well. The question of what department would operate the parks was discussed. Also the fact that the cemetery site was merely a "potential" site.rather than a proposed site. More discussion concerning the cemetery. PEC 6/24/85 -2- • Discussion then went back to Ford Park. Affeldt suggested that the pedestrian bridge and the plaza be a part of the amphitheatre costs. Viele agreed. Piper stated that,the board was to consider recommendations for the physical plant. Patten pointed out that Vail had acquired open space throughout the valley and it was important that it develop parks. He stated that the staff felt comfortable with the knowledge of the general phasing costs without going into the operating costs. He added that later there would be more detail in each phase. Rapson felt he could recommend going ahead with Donovan Park but not with Ford Park because of the uncertainty of the amphitheatre and the.alpine garden. Helen Fritch of the alpine garden interest group stated that until they had a commitment of space, they could not finish raising funds for the alpine garden. Patten stated tht if the board wished, each phase could be reviewed through the conditional use process. Viele moved to recommend approval to Town Council of the proposed plans for Ford Park. There was no second. Schultz moved to recommend approval of Ford Park with recommendations to look at a time schedule for the amphitheatre and for the alpine garden and to consider • whether the pedestrian bridge and plaza adjacent to the amphitheatre should be included as art of the amphitheatre financing. The motion was seconded §Y The vote was 3 in favor ( Viele, Schultz and Piper) and 3 against (Donovan, Affeldt and Rapson). Donovan was against the amphitheatre, Affeldt agreed and felt economic issues should be taken into consideration, and Rapson agreed with Donovan and also felt that there was uncertainty about location of the alpine garden if the amphi- theatre was not constructed, plus he had concerns about financing. Piper repeated that fact that the board was only to consider the physical part of the plan, not the financial. Rapson-moved to recommend approval of the Donovan Park plan with the stipulation that the potential cemetery site be eliminated from discussion. There was no second. Rapson moved that the Donovan Park plans be submitted to Town Council with the consideration that three--phase approach was referable and that there not be a cemetery site. This was seconded b Affeldt. The vote was 5-1 in favor with Viele voting against. He did not feel it was proper to remove the potential cemetery site from further study. 4. Request for side and front setback variances in order to construct a ara e on Lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th__Filing. Applicant: A. E. Stephenson Kristan Pritz presented the proposal and Ron Walker was present, representing the n PE.0 -3- 6/24/85 • applicant. There was discussion of the trash room, and also discussion of how to avoid this type of problem in the future. Patten pointed out that there is an appeals board that meets to handle complaints concerning contractors. LJ Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the setback variances because the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, would not be detrimental to the public health or safety and because the strict or literal inter- retation and enforcement of the The vote was 5 in favor with Piper asked the DRB liason to ship of the roof to the wing ul ati on sonl aqai give spec walls. wouia re nst. attention It in unnecessary hardship. to the materials and relation- 5. Request to amend an approved development plan to allow for a two -year interim plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base area. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Peter Patten presented the proposed amended plan. He stated that this zone district was directly related to the redevelopment plan that had been approved by the Town, and VA was now requesting an interim plan that would have a maximum approval period of two years. Patten listed 5 aspects of the proposal which included a new modular building for nursery care, a revised parking lot configuration which would accommodate 93 paid public parking spaces, 20 VA staff spaces and 18 parent drop -off spaces, a new set of stairs near the existing drop -off spaces, a revised landscaping plan which included berming on the east end of the parking lot and 5 additional spruce trees north of the modular units, and an interior remodel of the existing buildings to improve employee locker rooms and add space to the rental shop. Patten stated that the culverting of the stream and filling the Race City parking lot has been done. Joe Macy of VA said the purpose of the plan was to come up with an interim plan until the permanent facility could be constructed. He stated that VA had done market research to find out what people felt was important to improving their ski experience in Vail. He stated that only 12% felt improving Golden Peak was a high priority (shorter lift lines, adding to ski terrain, additional restaurant seating were high priority). Therefore Golden Peak redevelopment was being deferred in favor of the other priorities. A nursery was found to be important, and the Town does not have one. VA is putting this one in at an expense loss of $35,000. Macy stated that VA would agree to the conditions listed in the memo. Larry Litch- liter, vice president of Vail Associates in charge of mountain operations and Jack Hunn, project supervisor were also at the meeting. Craig Snowdon, architect for Golden Peak, showed overlay photos with the additional modular in place. Jack Rush, general manager of Manor Vail, spoke against the project maintaining that Macy did come to Manor Vail and expressed VA's intention of building the second modular building. He stated that 5 months ago VA came and asked for changes to their redevelopment plan and were now back to ask for more. He pointed out that the neighborhood group had not asked for one change. He added that with a change of ownership of VA there may be a change of leadership and it would be difficult to know whether or not VA would be planning on going ahead with the original plan. Originally the idea was to put everything into one building. PEC -4- 6/24/85 Schultz disagreed with the surveys and felt that Golden Peak was one of the poor features VA had to offer to guests and needed redevelopment. He felt that if this request were approved now, and if Golden Peak were not redeveloped in two years, it would be difficult to disapprove an extension to the modular building use. Discussion followed concerning having the nursery in the main building, and Litchliter claimed that there was not enough space. Donovan felt that in many ways the survey was not valid, she felt that putting the children so far from the parking was not good, adding a nursery would increase the parking demand, and day care did riot need to be incorporated into a base facility. She protested that the existing modular building was taken off of the tennis courts at the agreed time in the spring, but then was left in the Golden Peak parking lot for several more weeks, and added that there should not have to be 20 parking spaces for VA staff. Rapson said that he would abstain from voting since he was a VA employee, but did offer comments. Rapson stated that every instructor in Golden Peak had expressed anger at VA for not going ahead with the new base facility. He felt that Golden Peak was one thing that detracted from the mountain. Viele agreed, but wondered if turning VA down would have any overall effect on VA's plans. He felt that if the modular building were done correctly, it could work, and if approved should be monitored carefully. Affeldt asked if VA had looked at what.the other floor levels of the Golden Peak base facility could provide in the way of space for nursery facilities, and agreed that having the children walk so far in ski boots was not a good solution. He felt that to grant the approval would leave the Town wide open to give approval for five more years. Piper felt that a modular building per se did not have to have a negative stigma. He asked what response should be given to someone like Jack.Rush who may have had a survey made that showed a need for more convention space and asked for a modular building for the convention space. Litchliter stated that perhaps there had been too much focus on the survey. He added that VA knew that there was a need to provide nursery service from skier comments and it was important to make this service convenient for the guests. More was said about the allocation of parking spaces. Macy said that the 20 VA spaces were negotiable. Viele moved and Piper seconded to approve the request for a two -year interim plan which would include a modular building but only for a one -year approval. The vote was 2 in favor with 3 against and Rapson abstaining. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm. r�] TO. Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 24, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance of 14 feet and a front setback of 20 feet in order to construct a garage on lot 12, Block 1, Vail Village 6th. Applicant: A. Emmet Stephenson, Jr. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This variance request was previously reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission on February 25, 1985, and March 25, 1985. At the March 25 meeting, the Planning Commission denied both the side setback variance of 14 feet and a front setback variance of 20 feet. Mr. Stephenson appealed the PEC decision to deny the request. The Vail Town Council also denied-the applicant's appeal at their April 16 meeting. Since that time, Mr. Stephenson has been working with the staff to arrive at a proposal that will decrease the encroachment as much as possible. Mr. Stephenson is proposing to reduce the size of the garage to the original 26 feet in length. The existing wing walls will remain on the structure, however the roof will be pulled back so that the entire length of the garage is only 26 feet. The length of 26 feet corresponds exactly to the originally approved length of the garage. The width of the garage will remain at 13.4 feet. Because the wing walls will remain and the width of the garage stays the same, the 20 foot front setback variance and the 14 foot side setback variance are still necessary for this request. The 20 foot front setback variance is 8 feet greater than the original 12 foot variance, and the 14 foot side setback variance is three feet greater than the original 11 foot variance. The attached table shows the differences in the garage dimensions among the PEC plans, building permit plans and as -built plans according to the most recent improvement survey. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval 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. Staff does believe that by removing the roof of the garage and recessing the garage door back to its original location, the encroachment situation is greatly improved. Public Works has also stated that this solution solves their concerns • Stephenson -2- 6/24/85 about the parking on the public right -of -way and snow removal problems. The wing wall on the east side of the garage will also be cut back in order to match the wing wail on the property to the east of the garage. This solution decreases the encroachments to the greatest possible extent without requiring that the owner completely tear down the front portion of the garage. It should be noted that the wing wall on the west side of the property is used as a retaining wall for the stairway coming into the unit. It was felt that there would be less of an impact on adjacent properties if the stone work remained rather than removing the wing wall so that the stairs would be exposed. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforce- ment 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. Staff believes that the applicant is proposing a reasonable solution to a difficult problem. By pulling the garage back to its original size, staff feels that the applicant is not receiving special treatment. By approving this variance the Planning Commission would not be giving the applicant a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on liqht and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. - - In the previous request, Public Works was concerned about snow removal and parking problems created by the garage encroachment. Given the new proposal, the parking and snow removal concerns are addressed. For the most part, the impacts of. the garage should be positive on the distribution of traffic in that parking will be removed off the street as much as possible, and the new parking area is now constructed in front of the unit. Essentially, the present proposal is exactly the same as the originally approved proposal except for the wing wall encroachments. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. 0 Stephenson -3- 6/24/85 FINDINGS The Plannin _ and _E,nvironmental 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 rqould result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or er.traordinary circurastances 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 privi,eaes enjoyed by the ov;ners of other properties in the same district. STAFF REC0MXENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of both the front setback variance of 20 feet and the side setback variance of 14 feet. The applicant has decreased the length of the garage to the originally approved dimension for the structure. The parking and snow removal problems have also been resolved. This proposal no longer goes beyond the original intent of the August 1984 approvals. The applicant is essentially receiving the same amount of space as was originally approved except for the slight increase in width of .4 feet. However, given the fact that the garage was constructed much larger than the approved dimensions, the wing walls extend out beyond the garage. It is felt that the applicant will treat these wing walls aesthetically by covering them with stone and that to remove them would probably create more negative impacts by exposing the tie wall for the entry stairway. The staff feels that it is reasonable to approve these variances as it would no longer be a grant of special privilege to approve the encroachments. • Stephenson -4 6/24/85 TABLE SHOWING DIFFERENCES IN GARAGE DIMENSIONS BLDG /PLAN PERMIT PEC PLANS DRB PLANS REVIEW PLANS 8/8/84 8/15/84) (9/8/84 Garage Dimensions 26'L x 13'W 26'Lx 13W 26'Lxl4'4 "W with a 3' overhang with a 31overhang Hallway Dimensions 4' Wide ' 4'Wide 4' Wide Square Feet 300 sf garage 300 sf garage 300 sf garage 38 sf storage 38 sf storage 33 sf storage 338 sf Total 338 sf Total 338 sf Total • • AS -BUILT ACCORDING TO CURRENT IMP SURV PLANS (CURRENT) 32'L x 13.4W 5'4" Wide 300 sf garage 332 sf storage 432 sf Total T\ 0� F-7 I Q 0 Vi 16 0 O -A, DEC 4c H S C S lad, �I�S.S Q, 3�U • Q I 1 L_J Si �c- Plan L r ,l, 7' '511/ 1 U '511/ 1 li ip,U - iA C�D l� i j .� a Sj(jj! ] i 4 } L ' t` 0 fqcwj C-,ac-agc. CcW(- iivi e- � �1 0 �h _R AN S � 1 o s I i4 } f 9 f � I j � S I � V (} U I i4 } f 9 f � I j � S I � V ,r i x 1 vi t r yt- p. C x e r Fj A Q _pkrd INylk kft4 IA � f - � l f y„9 ION i 5ll _ Q E n�n ,r i • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 24, 1985 SUBJECT: Presentation of Final Ford and Donovan Park Master Plans Since November 1984 the Parks Steering Committee and staff have been working on Ford and Donovan Parks Master Plans Public participation has been an im- portant factor in the project's planning process. The following summary highlights the number of opportunities for public comment: ER J .Steering Committee Meetings .Public Meetings .TC /PEC Review INTEREST GROUPS .Economic Development Commission .Amphitheatre Design Contest Participants .Alpine Garden .Amphitheatre .Swimming Pool .Vail Metropolitan Recreation District MFFT'T Naq 13 5 .4 (does not include final review meetings at PEC & TC) 1 1 2 4 1 1 TOTAL: 32 Meetings Public input has been essential in assisting the Steering Committee to de- velop the two master plans. A balance between community priorities and physical site constraints has been achieved. As an example, constructive meetings have been held with the amphitheatre design team as well as the alpine garden supporters in order to insure that the master plans are co- ordinated with their designs without compromising the overall com- munity goals for each park. The weighing of general community interests and special interest groups'needs has been a difficult balancing act. However, the Steering Committee feels that the two final plans reflect parks that will be valued by our.entire community. Ford /Donovan Parks -2- 6/24/85 • During our discussion of the phasing and cost estimates, the following points were considered: 1. An 8% contingency was added onto each phase to allow for cost overruns or unexpected expenditures. 2. Architecture and engineering fees are not included in the cost estimates. 3. THK used construction costs for the Vail area. Denver figures were not used in the estimating process. 4. The steering committee tried to minimize the number of phases for each park in order to decrease the construction costs. The more phases for each park, the greater the cost due to the repeated mobilization/ demobilization and construction costs. At the.same time, the steering committee tried to be realistic as to what the Town could really afford to construct in each phase. 5. The costs do not reflect any in -house contributions of materials, labor or construction management. There is a potential to decrease these cost..estimates if the Town provides services. 6. The alpine garden and amphitheatre are not included in cost estimates for Ford Park. • 7. The costs for the cemetery are not included for Donovan Park. Once the park plans have been given final approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission, the plans will be presented to the Town Council. At this time, the steering committee is hoping to make a final presentation to the Town Council on July 2 at the evening session. After the approval process, the staff will work with the Town Council to implement each plan. 01- • Ford /Donovan Parks -3- 6/19/85 SUM�.AR,Y OF FORD AND DONOVAN PARK FACILITIES FORD PARK ( not in order of priority ) TOTAL ACREAGE 37 acres (without soccer field) 1. Amphitheatre .location predetermined southeast corner of park .seating capacity partially covered seats (926), grass seating (1,074) .two entrances -main entrance is at southwest corner of theatre - secondary entrance is at northeast corner of theatre .amphitheatre plaza is located to the west of the seating area .ambient lighting provided with capability for lighting for evening shows .loading zone is to the east of stage area - impacts of trucks have been minimized as much as possible .private funding for construction proposed 2. Swimming Pool .located north of amphitheatre in order to be close to parking and easy access - location does not encroach on 3 softball fields. .site allows for a 50 meter pool (66 ft. wide) (12 ft. deep diving well) .recommend design that is terraced into site .pool is buffered from amphitheatre by grade change and intense landscaping 3. Alpine Garden .located to the west of amphitheatre .approximately 1.9 acres (possible .24 acres below skating pond) .provides buffer between open turf play area to the west and amphitheatre .several water features will be incorporated into garden design (.8 acres) .private funding proposed 4. 'Softball Fields .3 fields will remain on site .east field's back stop reversed so backstop faces out to the southeast .existing restrooms remain .terraced seating located behind backstops 5. Playground .located to south of west softball field .includes half basketball court and jungle gym equipment terraced into hillside to offer multi -level play area .picnic tables and seating adjacent to southwest of play area 6. Skating Pond .located southwest of amphitheatre in area west of nature center 0 bridge .separated into two areas, one smaller than the other for smaller children • 0 • Ford /Donovan Parks -4 6/19/85 .site area .24 acres .existing school house will be moved to west side of pond and will be used as a warming but 7. Picnic Areas .located near children's playground and Gore Creek .approximate number of tables 20 to 30 .tables will have barbeque pits adjacent 8. Open Turfed Play Area .located west of alpine garden .site 62,250 sq. ft. or 1.43 acres .only flat area in park besides softball fields - big community priority to have useable open space for informal play 9. Nature Center .basically stays the same .new bike path to be through site, concrete reinforced soil path to blend 10. Trail System /Access in with environment A. Access Road to Amphitheatre /Bike Path .access coming from west (area of Wren) reduces roadway width and decreases need for extensive cut /fill .existing road into park that begins by the Wren is moved to allow for more flat useable open space .width of road is 12' - allows for fire & truck access -paved .road also serves as bike path; cross - country ski trail, & jogging path. .road continues southeast past amphitheatre and crosses Gore Creek adjacent to amphitheatre's northeast entrance -path extends past Nature Center to Vail Valley Drive B. Access to Softball Fields .highway barrier will be located on road to prevent parking and to protect bike riders on path adjacent to road - gravel .pedestrian path will run on north side of fields (below road) C. Pedestrian Path from Parking lot to Amphitheatre .terraced path will extend along east side of pool down to amphitheatre's northeast entrance D. Pedestrian Path .located west of pool /south of softball fields .provides connection from parking lot to lower bench - alpine garden, playground, picnic areas E. Pedestrian Loop Around Open Turf Play Area .provides trail for exercise course as well as jogging .keeps pedestrians out of informal play area .brings pedestrians to alpine garden Ford /Donovan Parks -5- 6/19/85 11. Parking .located west of existing snow dump and east of softball fields .tennis courts will need to be relocated 136 paved parking spaces (50 to 60 overflow spaces provided on snow dump). .bus drop -off proposed to access pool, amphitheatre, alpine garden - located on southwest corner of lot .guardrails on frontage road should eliminate frontage road parking DONOVAN PARK (not in order of priority) TOTAL ACREAGE 51 acres LOWER BENCH ACREAGE 12 acres 1. Open Turf Play Area /Softball Field .located in center of lower bench .backstop faces south .seating area located behind backstop .approximately 2.48 acres 2. Volleyball Courts .located east of softball field - separate from field by land- scaping and from Frontage Road by grade change .2 sand courts oriented north /south (30'x 60') per court plus 10' buffer 3. Hard Surface Basketball Court .located south of Volleyball Courts .2 hoop court (not regulation size) (74' x 43') .buffered by landscaping from Volleyball Courts & playground 4. Children's Playground .terraced into hillside - natural rock outcrops will be integrated into playground .located south of basketball courts in east portion of park 5. Skating Pond .located in southeast corner of park .approximate site .15 acres .warming but /picnic shelter adjacent to pond .landscape buffer provided between east side of park and adjacent Cascade Village Tennis Courts 6. Picnic Areas .located along Gore Creek and Skating Pond 7. Parking .entry to park is off of Matterhorn Circle .located on northwest corner of lower bench • .25 to 30 paved parking spaces .turn around loop provided on east end of parking area Ford /Donovan Parks -6- 6/19/85 8. Trails .bike path begins at northwest corner of park and heads southeast - will connect with Cascade Village Path - will allow for fire/ emergency access .pedestrian trail circles play field allowing for easy access to all parts of the park. UPPER BENCH ACREAGE 39 acres 1. Potential Cemetery Site or Open Space .Matterhorn Circle remains in existing location .note further public meetings are needed to determine if this site is the most feasible and acceptable .site 3.25 acres 2. Hiking Trail .provide signage /parking area for trailhead .approximately 10 parking spaces .trail will extend up into hillside 3. Trail -possible connection between Upper and Lower Bench .severe grade changes exist which would make connection expensive to build .bridge would be necessary across Gore Creek U PHASING COSTS FOR FORD AND DONOVAN PARKS • FORD PARK Phase One: Lower Bench Improvements /Parking Lot A. Mobilization /Demobilization $ 30,000 B. Construction Layout 6,000 C. Demolition and Clearing 18,088 D. General Site Improvements 387,285 E. Parking Area 264,863 F. Play Area 119,796 G. Skating Pond 165,330 H. New Pedestrian Bridge & Plaza 90,314 I. Picnic Area 66,975 Subtotal 1,148,651 Contingency 8% 91,892 TOTAL $1,240,543 Phase Two: Pool Complex, West Ball Field A. Mobilization /Demobilization $ 45,000 B. Construction Layout 3,600 ID C. Demolition & Clearing 18,170 D. Ballfield Improvements 124,860 E. Swimming Pool Complex 4,500,000 Subtotal 4,691,630 Contingency 8% 375,330 TOTAL $5,066,960 Phase Three: East Ballfield Improvements A. Mobilization /Demobilization $ 6,000 B. Construction Layout 1,200 C. Ballfield Improvements 108,817 Subtotal $ 116,017 Contingency 8% 9,281 TOTAL $ 125,298 SUMMARY PHASE 1 $ 1,240,543 PHASE 2 5,066,960 PHASE 3 125,298 TOTAL $ 6,432,801 • • • *Please note we are recommending three phases for Donovan Park. The phasing includes: Phase I: Bike path, landscaping, grading, general access improvements Phase II: Completion of lower bench parking, playground, volleyball, basketball court, skating pond Phase III: Upper bench, pedestrian bridge and parking area At this time THK is revising the cost estimates to reflect the new phasing. The two -phase proposal would be ideal. However, it is felt that the three - phase approach is probably more realistic given the Town of Vail's budget constraints. The three phases allow for general access improvements within the first phase which should make the lower bench useable for the community as soon as possible. DONO VA€V PARK Phase One: Lower Bench Improvements A. Mobilization /Demobilization $ 18,000 B. Construction Layout 2,400 C. General Site Improvements 131,077 D. Parking Area 131,715 E. Bal l fi eld 114,015 F. Play Area (playground, volleyball) 197,975 G. Skating Pond 208,094 H. Basketball Court 49,516 .Subtotal $ 852,792 Contingency 8% 68,223 TOTAL $ 921,015 Phase Two: Upper Bench Improvements A. Mobilization /Demobilization $ 7,500 B. Construction Layout 1,200 C. General Site Improvements 74,405 Subtotal $ 83,105 Contingency 8% 6,648 TOTAL $ 89,753 *Please note we are recommending three phases for Donovan Park. The phasing includes: Phase I: Bike path, landscaping, grading, general access improvements Phase II: Completion of lower bench parking, playground, volleyball, basketball court, skating pond Phase III: Upper bench, pedestrian bridge and parking area At this time THK is revising the cost estimates to reflect the new phasing. The two -phase proposal would be ideal. However, it is felt that the three - phase approach is probably more realistic given the Town of Vail's budget constraints. The three phases allow for general access improvements within the first phase which should make the lower bench useable for the community as soon as possible. 'a • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 24, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a two -year interim development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base area located in the Ski Base /Recreation district. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. I. RE UEST The Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment project has been put on hold by Associates for a minimum period of two years. The new Ski Base /Recreation zone district requires an approved development plan by the Planning Commission and Town Council. The request is for a development plan which would have a maximum approval period of two years and is essentially the same as what is existing on the site with the following exceptions: 1. A new modular building adjacent to the existing winter -time modular for day care purposes for infant to 3 year old children. 2. A revised parkinglot configuration accommodating 93 paid public parking spaces, 20 VA staff spaces and 18 parent drop -off spaces. 3. A new set of stairs near the existing drop -off area to the bike path west of the modular buildings. 4. A revised landscaping plan including berming on the east end of the parking lot and five additional spruce trees north of the modular units. 5. An interior remodel of the existing buildings to improve employee working conditions and adding space to the rental shop. Some site work has been done last fall and this spring including culverting East Mill Creek from south of the existing buildings to the north side of Vail Valley Drive, beginning of berm and landscaping construction in- cluding filling in the Race City parking lot, and some site drainage work. II. ZONING The Ski Base /Recreation district was based on the major redevelopment proposal which received two years of discussion, review and eventually final approvals (including DRB). The zone district states that winter Golden Peak -2- 6/24/85 seasonal ski school related child care and children's ski school and pertinent recreational facilities and programs is a permitted use within the main building. It goes on to state that ski school activities are a permitted use outside of the main building as shown on the approved development plan. We feel that the use proposed in the new modular building is an accessory use to ski school activities in that it is integrally related to the ski school program. Thus, we feel the day care and nursery use is permitted within the zone district. III. BACKGROUND Winter ski surveys clearly show the need in our community for additional day care and nursery facilities. This is an area where Vail is falling behind our competition. It is also common knowlege that the existing conditions within the buildings on this site are poor and need serious upgrading. Vail Associates as a corporation has made a decision to address the issue of increased up -hill capacity before redeveloping the Golden Peak ski base area. Attached please find memorandums and Planning Commission minutes regarding requests to allow the modular building for a one -year time period in both 1979 and 1980. The modular building has continued over the last four ski seasons technically without Town of Vail approval. We have worked for several months with Vail Associates to physically make this proposal work.on the site. This is why the parking lot has been re- designed as well as the additional staircase and the landscaping improve- ments. Vail Associates has also worked with the surrounding neighbors in incorporating some additional landscaping to buffer the parking lot and the additional proposed modular unit. IV. CRITERIA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Buffer Zone The buffer zone between Northwoods and the Golden Peak site is being slightly encroached upon with this proposal. However, the proposal includes leaving the eastern tennis fence with windscreen standing for the winter months so that additional screening is provided from the Northwoods complex. It is also important that the previous approval regarding leaving the tennis wind screens up on the north side of the modular be respected. Some landscaping is being added on the north side of the modulars to buffer the view from Manor Vail. B. Circulation S stem The redesign of the parking lot improves the circulation within the lot and separates the three different parking demands (public, parent drop -off and VA staff). Vail Associates proposes to control and enforce the short term drop -off spaces through the control booth personnel. They will provide additional personnel during peak drop- 0 Golden Peak -3- 6/24/85 . off periods as necessary for this enforcement. Most of the time they feel that one individual will be able to adequately monitor the parking lot. Providing the additional drop -off spaces within the main lot will help to relieve the existing congestion in the skier drop -off area to the east of the building. The new staircase going up to the bike path from the existing drop -off area will increase the safety and accessibility to the modular buildings. Provisions for emergency vehicles have been made. Generally, the revised circulation system is a workable one, but is not ideal in terms of the length between the parent drop -off and the modular structures. C. Functional Open Space The functional open space is not decreasing with this proposal. D. Variety in Terms of Housing�Type, Densities, Facilities and Open Space None of these factors are applicable to the proposed interim development plan. E. Privacv in Terms of the Needs of: Individuals, Families and Neiqhbor The only effect here would be a slight decrease in the privacy to the Northwoods complex due to additional day care facility closer to that residential use. F. Pedestrian Traffic The proposal presents a workable solution for pedestrians, but certainly not an ideal one due to the distance between the new parent drop - off and the modular buildings. This distance presents somewhat of a walk for the parents with their small children to get to the facility. The attractiveness of the pedestrian circulation system could be improved by paving the existing gravel and timber walkway to the south of the proposed parent drop -off area. G. Building Type in Terms of: Appropriateness to Density, Site Relationship and Sul k The building type proposed is objectionable to the staff in that it is a proliferation of temporary structures which have now lasted six ski seasons. The modular building which has existed for this time period was approved originally in 1979 and 1980 only on the basis that it was for a one-year time period. It is highly doubtful the Golden Peak -4- 6/24/.85 proposal would have been approved at that time if it had been for • any more than a one year length of time. Much of the discussion in the approval process for the redevelopment project concerned the consolidation of buildings on the site into one central structure. This was perceived as one of the most positive aspects of the proposal to clean up the site and make it more workable. The interim development plan goes against that intent by expanding temporary out buildings of a seasonal nature on the southeastern portion of the site. There is no way to guarantee the removal of the modular buildings after a two -year time period. We can only guarantee that the applicant would be required to come back after those two years to request extensions or other requests. H. Landscaping Landscaping improvements have been made to the site by filling in the Race City parking lot as required by the 1980 approval as well as new berms on the east side of the parking lot and new spruce trees to the north side of the modular building sites. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION While physically a workable proposal for the site is being presented, the Community Development Department cannot support the interim development plan as proposed. We find fault with the addition of buildings of a temporary nature which do not fit in with our community',s strict quality control requirements. The applicant'.s track record for one year temporary approvals for this use has not been good. We assume partial blame for the last four years of operation of the modular building with regard to the lack of enforcement executed, however, this would only have required Vail Associates to request extensions on those previous approval. We feel approving this request would simply aggravate an existing undesirable situation. We feel the applicant could accommodate this use within their interior remodel of the existing buildings. It is important to note that 1,000 square feet of space which is now used for day care and nursery.related uses is being removed in order to expand the ski rental shop and provide for additional employee lockers. We feel strongly that we should not ignore the need for additional nursery and day care facilities, but also feel strongly that they should be provided in a manner consistent with the physical quality of the overall community. We do not ask that the existing modular be removed, although it would be preferable. It's the allowance of expanding the temporary buildings that is objectionable to us. If the proposal is approved, we request the following conditions of approval apply: 0 1. The approval lapses two years from the date of Council approval Golden Peak. -5- 6/24/85 2. No night time use of the modular buildings.are allowed. A 5:30 pm closing time will be enforced. 3. There shall be a minimum of 93 public parking spaces on the site. 4. A revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town be obtained for landscaping and parking. 5. Sufficient staff be provided by Vail Associates to adequately enforce the parent drop -off area on the eastern end of the parking lot. 6. Vail Metropolitan Recreation District be fully reimbursed for all damages incurred on the tennis courts due to the modular buildings. • • MEMORANDUM 10 i TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 10 --5 -79 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY TOM HARNED OF VAIL ASSOCIATES TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY STRUCTURE ON THE UPPER TENNIS COURTS AT GOLDEN PEAK FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1979 to MAY 15, 1980. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The structure will be a modular unit used as a nursery for Small World similar to the Lionshead program. The unit will be screened from view by the green windscreens on the fence as one looks toward the courts in a southerly direction. Vail Associates feels.they can do this with no damage to the courts but guarantees that any damages will be paid for by the Ski School. There will be no evening use of the facility. 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. There is basically no relationship or impact on the development objectives of the Town due to the temporary nature of this request. 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 pdKic facilities needs. This nursery service will improve the public facilities offered in the vicinity of the Village Core. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and 2arking areas. No additional traffic is anticipated as a result of the proposal. Effect upon the character of the area in which the propposed use is - - -- - - 2 to be located , including the scale and bulk of theroposed use in _ relation to surrounding uses. Because the unit will be well - screened from view Look south upon Golden Peak, we feel the visual impact upon the character of the area will be quite minimal. PEC Memo - -VA Temporary Structure 10 -5 -79- -Page Two • Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the pro osed use. There are none. The environmental impact report ^concerning the propsed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. Not required. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval with the conditions that: 1.) The applicant guarantees the proper and adequate screening of the unit. 2.) That damages to the tennis courts., if any be paid by the Vail Ski ✓ School after its removal by May 15, 1979. 3.) The facility no be used after 7:00 P.M. t�1 u Minutes of the Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting of 10 -8 -79 Members Present Ed Drager Ron Todd Sandy Mills Jim Morgan Gerry White Town Council. Member Present Paula Palmateer Staff Members Present Peter Patten Jim Rubin Dick Ryan Larry Eskwith 1.) Redisc.ussion of Proposed Changes to the Agricultural and Open Space District. This item was postponed until after Item #2. 2.) Conditional Use Permit to allow a temporary structure for Small World on the Upper Tennis Courts (Court 7) at Gold Peak from Nov. 1, 1979 to May 15, 1980. Peter Patten presented this item. Tom Harned from Vail Associates explained their reasons for this application. Jim Morgan asked how the building would be screened. Tom said it would be screened on all but one side with the existing screening. Gerry White asked if they had contacted the Recreation District about this. Tom said they had not but would. Ron Todd asked why the date of May 15 had been picked for the removal. Tom said they were playing it safe in case there was a lot of snow. Gerry White said he felt that they should be removed and any damaged repaired by Memorial Day Weekend for sure. Ed Drager made a motion to allow the Conditional Use Permit to allow a temporary structure for Small World on the Upper Tennis Courts (Court 7) at Gold Peak from November 1, 1979 to May 15, 1980, with the conditions set forth in the Department of Community Development. Staff Memo dated 10 -5 -79 and approval of the Metropolitan Recreation District. Jim Morgan asked if it isn't necessary to screen the buildin g from Northwoods. Tom said the Northwoods people would be the heaviest users of the building. Jim Rubin said they had been notified and i PEC Minutes -VA Temporary Structure 10- 8- 79- -Page Two that no one had called or was anyone present today. Gerry White seconded the motion. Sandy Mills asked about the screening, traffic etc. All her questions were answered by VA people. She also asked if they would be apRlyinz for this again next year. Tom Harned said t_ey are hoping thatalL their expectations For Gold Peak would be successful but if they were not, they might be back next -year for the same request. Ron Todd asked if this needs to be presented to the Design Review Board. Jim Rubin said he thought it could be staff approved since the building is already built.(It is a modular unit). Sandy Mills said she thought the DRB should be aware of this. Ron Todd asked each member if they would like it to go to DRB or be staff approved. Ed Drager said he didn't care. Sandy Mills said it should go to DRB. Ron Todd said he felt it should be staff approved. Jim Morgan said he felt it could be staff approved. Gerry White said he felt it could be staff approved. The vote was taken on the motion and it was passed unanimously. 1.) Rediscussion of Proposed Chan es to the Agricultural and Open Space District. Jim Rubin explained this item. It was tabled six weeks ago so that the Town could work with the Pulises and Vail Associates in solving any problems they might have with the rezoning on their lots. Ron Todd asked questions regarding items #3 and #9 on the list. Ron asked what percentage of this land is left after the tract land would be dedicated to the Town. He thinks only three or parcels would be involved. Sandy Mills said she though the only reason it was tabled was because of tax problems with the deeding of the land etc. Jim Rubin said that Larry Rider said most of the dedicated land would never have been developed anyway so the value would not really be effected. Most parcels are controlled by covenants or hazards anyway. Ron Todd said the Town and County are talking about two different things when they are talking about Agricultural. The standards do not have to be the same. Jim Morgan said he feels the intention is the same. Dick Ryan explained intensive urban development. r qc I • • "1 T0: MEMORANDUM PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN • DATE: 8/20/80 RE: Conditional Use Permit request by Vaal Associates to allow a temporary mobile unit on the upper tennis courts at Golden Peak for the 1980 -1981 ski season. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE This is a re-application of a conditional use ermit granted on October 5, 1979. The mobile unit is used to house the Small World Nursery. Greening will—be the same as last year by the existing green wind screens on the tennis court. Again, no evening use of the facility is proposed. It is our understanding that no damage to the courts resulted from last season's use. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: 1.Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town: No relationship or impact on development objectives exists. 2.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 and public facilities needs: The nursery is an important facility serving the public to allow adults to go skiing without worrying about obtaining a private baby sitter. 3.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: Visual impact will be negligible. No complaints as to traffic congestion have been registered with the Department of Community Development. 4.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: No negative effects are foreseen. r7_J ` Small World - 2 - 8 - 0 -80 t 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use: There are none. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be Approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. ;.r DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION We recommend approval, as we feel the nursery performs an important func- tion for the Town and the ski area. We haven't received any input in- dicating any major problems with the functioning of the nursery during the last ski season. East of the bus turn - around at G_old,Ee_ak, there were some illegal Parkina stalls cut int-n f-hp hAnk mh;.� av-na �hr111A area. This would be the only condition of the approval recommendation by the Community Development Department. The Recreation Board has reviewed the request and.has no problem with the proposal. .. PEC Minutes - 8/25/ - page 2 said that he wasn't aware.of any agreement with the Christiania Condos, but that the agreement was with the Christiania Lodge, -VA and the Kendall residence. Paul added that only one space has been deeded to one condo. He went on to explain that the.units he wanted to convert were very small and also that 3 units had only showers. The plan was to reduce 9 units to 6 larger units, thus improving the guest rooms, and change 2 units on the ground level to housekeeping quarters and storage. John asked if a parking variance was needed. Others did not see the need for a parking variance, expecially in light of the fact that there may be a letter verifying the parking agreement. Peter and Dick felt that it may be good to give a parking variance so the applicant wouldn't have to-come back again. Others felt that since Paul wasn't under a time duress, he didn't need a vote now. Ed Drager moved that considera- tion of the Variance be postponed, and Roger T. seconded. The vote ..to postpone consideration was unanimous. �a. Vail Associates Conditional Use Permit to place temporary structure on the Upper Golden Peak Tennis Courts for the 1980 -81 ski season. 7 C. Peter Patten presented-the study and mentioned that it was the same request as last year, and the staff recommended approval. Discussion followed about the parking stalls cut into the bank illegally, and the fact that the parking stalls had been there 2 or 3 years. Tom Harned said it was VA's intention to fix up the bank beyond the parking, and that the parking was supposed to be for -the race personnel. Request was for one year at a_time, until such time as VA will build permanent Facil.itxes or Small World. Tom had a letter from Pat Dodson indicating an agreement with the Recreation District. Dick Allis of Manor Vail spoke to stay that they were not basically opposed to the structure, nor to Small. World, but was concerned:about the amount of traffic and the speed of some of the traffic in that area. He also mentioned the impact on his parking. He asked for a speed ?sump.. Gerry White felt that the Council would read these, minutes and receive the. comments. Dick felt the need for some sort of trade -off since he let the Ski Club use 4 perking spaces. He felt that it was the only part of Vail that has retained the character that Vail started out to be. Dan Corcoran moved to approve the conditional. use permit subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, Ed Drager seconded, and the- vote was unanimous with Roger T. abstaining. 6. Setback Variance to build an addition onto an existi_na rosi.dence on Lot 34, Bloc] _l, —Vail. me_adow:; Subdivision, riling 1. Peter Patten presented the staff findings and the staff recommendation of denial. Mark Donaldson showed photos of various sides, saying that the projected addition would impact the site the least. The discussion that followed questioned the reason for putting the gara o in that positic—'. or in that plasm, and it was generally felt that the garage could be moved a little to keep it within the setback. Ed Drager moved -for denial, seconded by Roger Tilkeni::�i.er, and the vote for denizil was unan.it-nous. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of the Marbud miniature golf course on part of Tracts C & D, Vail Lionshead Filing # 1. Applicants: Bud and Marcet Benedict DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Benedicts are requesting to locate a miniature golf course on Tracts C and D of Lionshead Filing #1. Tracts C and D are located directly south of the Lionshead Center building. The zoning for these two tracts is Commercial Core I1. The 18 hole miniature golf course is located within the fenced area behind the flail Lionshead Center building and the bike path. The Applicant has given the following description for the operation: "The golf course runways as well as all sidewalks will be poured concrete flush to the grass level. The golf runs will be carpeted with green grass carpet. The 2" x 4" stop railings and the various miniature buildings will be bolted to the concrete and will be removed when not in use, leaving the area level. The ticket shed, benches, potted trees and portable fence will be removed at the end of the summer, as well. (Note enclosed photos of the Glenwood Springs course). Walkways will run around each golf hole, from one hole to another as well as to the entrance, the exit and all exposed areas. It is our intent to eliminate all wear and tear to the grass. Our hours would remain the same, 10:00 am to 10:00 pm from June 15th to September 3rd. During the last three weeks in September we will be open weekends only, and then during the hours of 10:00am to 6:OOpm. The lighting used was previously approved and directs all light down so as not to create, a glare problem to any commercial or residential property. Our landscaping is portable and does add to overall appearance of the area. • Marbud Miniature Golf -2- 5/28/85 This is one of the few inexpensive family activities available in Vail, and it does enhance the business activity of the whole area. It is used by both residents and guests. The proposed location adds another recrea- tional activity close to the gondola, and will not alter the area in an adverse way. We will completely remove the course by.October 15th each year. We will also police the area and restore the grass to its original state upon removal." 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. The purpose of the Commercial Core II district is: To provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate • site deveopment standards. Staff believes that the miniature golf course will :create negative impacts on the character of the open space directly south of the Lionshead Center Condominiums. It is true that the Commercial Core II area does allow for a mix of dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments. However, the Commercial Core II zone is also intended to provide open space and "other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district." (Section 18.26.010). Lionshead is an intensely developed area. It is felt that the open space surrounding the commercial area of Lionshead should be preserved to soften the existing development. Cement runways and sidewalks would be visible during the spring and fall which create negative impacts on the natural landscaping that now exists on the site. Given this concern, the staff feels that the miniature golf course in this particular location is not appropriate. This is not to say that another site within the Commercial Core II zone district might not be suitable for this type of use. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution oi_population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. u Some negative impact is anticipated. There is a possibility that the • cement sidewalks and golf runways would create problems for pedestrians walking to the Vail Associates Ski School area when the winter snows :7 5/28/85 Marbud Miniature Golf Course #3 begin to melt. Also, the cement areas may have negative impacts on the aesthetics of the site when the snow begins to melt. 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. The Recreation Department has stated that there will be a safety problem by locating this type of facility adjacent to the bike path. The applicants have stated that the golf course will maintain a one foot buffer between the bike path and fence. However, on the plans the fence for the golf course is located directly on the edge of the bike path. The Recreaction Department also stated their preference to have open space on either side of the path. They emphasize that particularly in the more developed areas of Vail, the open areas are.of premium value. The Fire Department stated that they would like to have a greater distance between the bike path and the fence surrounding the miniature golf course as well to allow for emergency access (minimum 2 feet buffer). In general, the miniature golf course creates negative impacts on pedestrian safety and convenience, as well as traffic flow. 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 Lionshead Center Condominium building, especially on the south side, has predominantly a residential character. It is felt that the commercial nature of the miniature golf course is incompatible with the condominium use directly adjacent to the site. The lights for evening use and operation of the golf course until 10:00 pm may create negative impacts for those units facing out over the golf course site. Staff believes that the miniature golf course would have a negative impact on the existing character of the open space area. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN The Community Action Plan states in the Parks and Recreation section that "Vail should provide relatively undeveloped open spaces accessible to the core areas (e.g. biking paths and benches along Gore Creek, con- version of portions of those paths to cross - country ski trails)." Open spaces adjacent to Vail's core areas are an important asset to preserve for the community. The location of the golf course on an existing open space area would create negative impacts on the open space character of the land behind the Lionshead Center building. Secondly, in the Economic Considerations section of the Community Action Plan, it is stated that current summer programs should be maximumized as well as opportunities and facilities. The miniature golf course does provide an additional summer amusement. However, staff feels that this particular site is not the most appropriate is location for a miniature golf course. It is felt that a completely removable golf course would have less impact than a golf course having permanent cement walks and runways. • • 5/28/85 Marbud Miniature Golf Course # 4 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. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved /denied 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 Staff recommends that this proposal be denied. The location of the golf course on this site will create safety problems for cyclists using the bike path as well as for emergency vehicles trying to access the Lionshead Condominium Building. Staff would like to emphasize that the idea of a miniature golf course in the Commercial Core II zone district is not an inappropriate idea. However, it is felt that this particular site is not the most suitable site for a miniature golf course, especially a permanent golf course. Any approvals that may be given for this project are contingent upon meeting the Town engineer's requirement that further information be provided on the first six easements listed in the easement report for Tracts C and D. Any approval that may be given for this proposal must be contingent upon the clarification of the easements. If there are any problems with the easements with respect to the miniature golf course, the applicant would need to reverse the proposal.