Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes June- DecemberPlanning and Environmental Commission June 10, 1985 1:15 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing I. Request for a setback variance and for exterior alteration to remodel the Lionshead Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates 2. Request for a density control variance of 395 feet and setback variances in order to add a third story to a residence on Lot 20- Bighorn Terrace, 4277 Columbine Drive. Applicants: Timothy Boyle and Debbie Nicholson 3. 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. 4. Request for a 14 foot setback variance and a four percent site coverage variance in order to build a garage and to reduce the grade of the driveway on Lot 47, Vail Village West Filing 2. Applicant: Richard Strauss 5. Request for an exterior alteration and side setback variances in order to enclose a deck at the KB Ranch Company restaurant located in the Lionssquare Lodge. Applicant: Lion Square Ltd Partnership 6. Update on Ford and Donovan master plans. 7. Reminder of Bighorn Park meeting on June 12. Planning and Environmental Commission June 10, 1985 • PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Eric Affelt Peter Patten Diana Donovan Tom Braun Duane Piper Rick Pylman Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack ABSENT Jim Vieie Jere Walters The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper, chairman at 3:05 pm. 1. Request for a setback variance and for exterior alteration to remodel the Lionshead Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates,.Inc. Tom Braun showed the site plan and elevations and explained haw the.request differed from the request a month ago. He explained that one significant area added to the plan was a proposed expansion to This Wicked West shop located on the lower level of the Gondola Building, a display box on the opposite side of the staircase, and modification to the proposed expansion of the real estate offices to the east. Bill Pierce, architect for Vail Associates, felt that the creation of more retail space was in compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan, the increased landscaping on the southwest corner was a favorable addition, the overall exposure to the real estate office was reduced, there was reduction in the amount of space devoted to the real estate office, and the Wicked West expansion was in response to the architectural character of the building. He felt that this upgrading would en- courage other Lionshead merchants to upgrade their property. Pierce felt that the proposal complied with the Urban Design Guide Plan and quoted the following: "Building expansions should be limited to 1 or 2 stories." "Exterior space most comfortable when the wall height is 112 the width." Pierce said in reference to sun /shade studies that the addition did not cast any additional shadow until June 21. Carl Dietz, part owner of the popcorn wagon felt that the addition would change the traffic path and it would be more difficult for patrons to get to the popcorn wagon during the high ski season. Dan Mulroony, owner of Bart and Yeti's and the other owner of the popcorn wagon felt that there was a real problem with traffic flow in peak months. He also had a letter from Dinah and Del Owens protesting the real estate office expansion. Mulroony felt that Purcell's was getting "the short end of the stick with regard to sun /shade." Cindy Anett, representing John Purcell, stated that because of traffic problems (getting people from one end of the mall to the other) and difficulty with snow removal, John Purcell was against the addition. Norm Ladd, marketing manager of Colorado Insight, was strongly opposed to the addition and added that Lionshead did not need more retail shops. PEC -2- 6/10/85 Schultz was concerned with enclosing the patio space and suggested that Le Petite look into using removable walls, he felt that expanding the real estate offices would constrict the pedestrian area, and would like to see the Wicked West expansion reduced. Donovan felt that le Petite should not have a patio further onto the mall, and felt that This Wicked West would look better if the store front was not extended but was left recessed. Rapson stated that if the present deck at Le Petite was enclosed, he was not in favor of any future expansion. He was not in favor of the infill of the wall. Rapson felt that the area near This Wicked West seemed very cold and the addition of glass block would make it seem even colder. Affeldt mentioned that the intention of the Lionshead Mall improvements was to make it a place more conducive to pedestrian traffic. He did not agree with the applicant's statement that the construction would be an architectural improvement. Affeldt wondered why VA did not do their construction during the Lionshead construction. He stated that there were a large number of corporate functions using space in the core that could be moved to make room for the real estate offices. He did not think moving the retail space out to the north would add new pedestrian traffic, agreed with Piper concerning This Wicked West, felt that the real estate addition would inhibit pedestrian traffic and that reducing the stairway size combined with retail ex- pansion would inhibit skiers traffic to the Gondola. Piper said that he noted that during the site visit the only.life on the mall.was LePetite cafe. He felt that two things were counter to each other - -the expansion of the cafe helped reduce the vast space, but also reduced activity which is also important to the mall. Piper was disappointed that there VA was still proposing a two story addition for the real estate offices and felt that the massing inhibited the flow of traffic that goes west down the mall. He had mixed emotions of the 0 Wicked West expansion because the new facade went back to the cold and sterile approach of the rest of the building, and the recesses helped to break this up. Bill Pierce stated that popcorn wagon customers now had to stand on VA's property because VA's property extended to the east edge of the stairway. He felt that this was not the time to be discussing whether or not Le Petite's use of the mall space for a patio. He also reminded the board that the Town had already set a precedent in allowing private parties to use TOV land. He added that the Urban Design Guide Plan suggested expansion of retail space. Bruan clarified his earlier remarks in quoting from the Urban Design Guide Plan which stated there could be a two story addition if it would not have negative impacts. Jack Hunn asked to table this item one more time. Affeldt stated that he hoped the new proposal would be greatly changed. Rapson said he would to see a drawing showing clearly where the VA property lines are • PEC -37 6/10/85 • 0 on the proposal. Ra son moved and Affeldt seconded to table this item to to an indefinite date. The vote was 5 -0 to table this item. 2 Request for a densit in order to add a thi 4277 Columbine Drive. Applicants: Timothy Boyle and Debbie Nicholson Kristan Pritz presented the request explaining that because of the small size of the lots in Bighorn Terrace, all construction encroached on the property lines and any additions would have to include setback variances. She stated that presently the dwelling contained 748 square feet of GRFA and the request of 395 feet would result in a total GRFA of 1,143 square feet or 539 square feet over the allowable GRFA. The staff feat that to approve the request for 395 square feet of GRFA would be a grant of special privilege and also felt that this request disregarded Ordinance No. 4 which was intended to address upgrading of existing homes. The PEC and Town Council have worked for over a year to write an ordinance that would allow home owners to apply for no more than 250 square feet of additional GRFA in order to upgrade their homes. The staff felt that the applicants could work within the allotment of 250 square feet for their addition, realizing that setback variances would still be necessary for either type of addition. Tim Boyle, one of the applicants, stated that they had two options when adding on, to either expand upward or outward. They felt that an upward expansion would have less impact on the neighbors because their unit was somewhat detached. He added that he was aware of Ordinance 4 but felt the request would not have much impact on the neighborhood, it would only be 33' high, would solve the problem of a leaking roof, would improve the appearance of the building, and would not be a grant of special privilege since so many other Bighorn Terrace residents had been granted variances. P as did Donovan and Schultz. Piper pointed out that now that there was an ordinance to work with, this was the first request to ask for more than 250 square feet. Affeldt wondered if Boyle had tried to add a third story and still stay within 250 square feet, and Boyle said he believed it would not be as aesthetically leasing Pa son agreed with the staff concerning the 250 square foot limit Ra son moved and Donovan seconded to the setback variances. The vote was 5 -0 to approve. Rapson moved_ and Donovan seconded to deny the request for a GRFA variance The vote was 5 -0 in favor of disapproval of the GRFA requst. 3. R equest 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. The applicant requested to table this item until June 24. It.was moved, seconded and voted to table to 6/24. control variance of 395 feet and setback variances d story to a residence on Lot 20 -D, Bighorn Terrace PEC -4- 6/10/85 4. Request for a 15 foot setback variance and a four percent site coverage in order to build a garage and to reduce the grade of the driveway on Lot 47, Vail Village West Filing 2. Applicant: Richard Strauss Rick Pylman explained the requests and stated that the property had a very steep (18 %) grade which was unsafe and the applicant wished to build a garage within 5 feet of the front property line. The zoning code required 2.5 parking spaces, but the proposal allowed for only two on -site parking spaces with the third parking space partially within the Town right -of -way. The Town engineer was concerned with potential negative impacts upon traffic and upon snow removal and had requested that the applicant address his parking requirements within his property boundaries. Ken Wentworth, architect for the applicant, stated that there was other parking on the street, so this would not be a grant of special privilege. Wentworth explained that the garage could not be moved farther back because of footing conditions. Bill Andrews, Town Engineer, stated that this proposal was similar to that of the Stephenson request in that it was important to get the parking off of the street. He added that for snow removal, it was important to get the parking as far off of the street as possible. Wentworth pointed out that the existing retaining wall encroaches onto the street every bit as much as the parking would. Andrews said that the property had been annexed that way. The board discussed other possible solutions. Ra_pson_ moved to deny the request but there was no second Affelt moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request because it would not constitute a grant of special privilege, would not be detrimental to the public health • safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity and was warranted because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of e specified regulation would result in practical 7 icu y or unnecessar, hysicalhardship inconsistent wit the objectives of this title--the threat with the car coming own through the main thoroughfare as the driveway now exists. Rapson felt that there must be another design consideration that would solve the problem other than the one presented. The vote was 3 in favor and 2 ( Rapson and Piper) against. 5. Request for an exterior alteration and side setback.variances in order to enclose a deck at the KB Ranch Company restaurant located in the Lionsquare Lodge Applicant: Lion Square Ltd. Partnership Rick Pylman reviewed the request and the criteria, showing site plans and elevations. He stated that the staff recommended approval. Jim Cunningham, representing the owners told a little of the history and Mike Bergemeister, the KB Ranch restaurant owner added more information. Donovan was concerned that the a enclosure not look like an "add on." Patten was concerned about the sign over the entrance to the Lionsquare lodge advertising the restaurant. Rapson moved and Affeldt seconded to approve the setback variance to allow the enclosure per the staff memo The vote was 5 -0 in favor. " Rapson moved and Schultz seconded to approve exterior alteration per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. PEC ` 6/10/85 There followed a discussion of areas to be studies further on the application for fractionized fee interest for the Mariott Mark Hotel. Kristan Pritz gave an updated report on the Ford and Donovan parks and also announced that there would be a meeting on the Bighorn Park on June 12 at the Vail Racquet Club. 6. The following projects were given preliminary approval and decisions were made concerning whether each was to considered at a public hearing in 60 days or in 90 days y Lodge at Vail elevator addition: Vote 5 -0 for 60 days to a public hearing Lodge at Vail entry addition: Vote 5 -0 for 60 days to a public hearing • Hill Building enclosure of deck: Vote 5 -0 for 90 days to a public hearing The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm u TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10. 1985 SUBJECT: Request for side, front and rear setbacks and for a GRFA variance of 395 square feet in order to add a third story addition to a residence on Lot 20 -D- 1 of Bighorn Terrace Subdivision at 4277 Columbine Road_ Applicants: Tim Boyle and Debbie Nicholson DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants wish to add a third story, including a clerestory to their two story single family residence. In order to construct this addition, a GRFA variance of 395 square feet and setback variances are needed. The following table shows the GRFA and variance statistics for this property: Zone: Medium Density Multiple- Family Lot Area: 1724 sf GRFA: Existing: 748 sf Allowed: 604 sf Variance Proposed: 395 sf Total with variance: 1,143 sf Total amount over allowable: 539.4 sf with addition Setbacks Required: 20 feet on all sides Setbacks Existing: 0 feet north side 9.7 feet on south side 19.2 feet on east side 12.1 feet on west side Parking: Required: 2 spaces /500 to 2,000 sf of GRFA Presently the site has one parking space. The parking is considered to be a legal non-- conforming situation. This request does not increase the GRFA beyond 2,000 st which would necessitate an additional parking space. Therefore, the legal non-- conforming situation is adequate for the addition. Boyle -2- 6/10/85 40 Height: Limit is 35 feet for a flat roof, 38 feet for a sloping roof. Request is for 33 feet. The GRFA allowable for this unit is 604 square feet. Presently, the GRFA is 748 square feet. The applicants are requesting to add another 395 square feet which would make a total GRFA of 1,143 square feet. This request would result in the GRFA being 539 square feet over the allowable GRFA. The staff will count 250 square feet of the total 395 square foot variance as a request under Ordinance 4 which allows for additions up to 250 square feet. The intent of Ordinance 4 is to address this type of upgrading for dwelling units which have been located within the Town of Vail at least five years. If Ordinance 4 were not applied to this request, the applicants would be able to add another 250 square feet in the future. For this reason, it is important to incorporate the GRFA request under Ordinance 4. Because of the small size of the lots in Bighorn Terrace, the existing building encroaches into the required 20 foot front, side, and rear setbacks. This unit encroaches 20 feet on the north, 10.3 feet on the south, 7.9 feet on the west and 0.8 feet on the east side. The proposed addition will be located on top of the existing structure. The addition will not encroach any further into the 20 foot setbacks than does the existing unit. The same setback encroachments are being requested for the third floor addition. (Please see site plan.) The following is the applicant's request: "The purpose of this letter is to request a GRFA variance for a proposed addition to my residence at 4277 Columbine Drive. The addition will consist of an additional story on top of the existing two story structure. As such, I will not be approaching any set —backs nor will I be increasing the footprint of the building. I intend to hold the new ridge of the building below the 33' height restriction, so again no variance will be required on that point. As you are aware, Bighorn Terrace is composed of a number of small single family and duplex residences on extremely small sites. Many of the owners in this subdivision have done additions to their residences, typically adding on to the perimeter of the buildings. Due to the postage stamp size of our lot, I feel that an addition upward will have less impact on the site and the neighborhood than a perimeter addition. Also the flat roof design of this early Vail home has caused us numerous problems with leaks that have to be addressed by creating a slope on the existing building. By going up with the addition, I will basically 41 be solving the roof problem and creating additional space at the same time. Presently the home has two small bedrooms and one small bath which make it nearly impossible to consider having a family. I intend the finished building to be Boyle -3- 6/10/85 considerably more attractive than the mansard roof "box" which is presently on the site. As many other residents of Bighorn Terrace have been granted variances to improve their properties, I feel that I have a right to enjoy the same privilege. The proposed addition will be approximately 400 square feet. I do not feel that the granting of this variance will affect the light, air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic, utilities or public safety in the area. The increased height of the building will not have a detrimental effect on the two neighbors, as neither have a view or sun corridor through this volume; trees taller than the proposed addition exist on two sides of the house, between our house and the two neighbors noted above. The residents across the streets are in taller buildings than the proposed new level and should not be affected by this addition. In short, I feel that relief from the strict interpretation of the GRFA requirement is necessary in this case if I am to receive equal treatment as a number of other sites in my vicinity." CRITERIA AND FINDINGS U on review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the _ setback variances and denial of the requested GRFA variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existin or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. A. Setback Variances The requested setback variances presently exist. The application is for a third story on a structure that is already encroaching on all four sides into the required setback restrictions. The encroachments due to the addition should not substan- tiallyimpact adjacent units, as the setback encroachments already exist. B. GRFA Variance A third story would somewhat impact the neighbor to the south. The units in Bighorn Terrace are on small lots with the result that there is not much space between buildings. In general, units in Bighorn Terrace are only two stories. The new third story will appear out of character with the rest of the subdivision. However, the impacts from the third story are negligible due to the location of adjacent units' windows and views. Boyle -4- 6/10/85 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified requlation is necessary to achieve compatibilty and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. A. Setback Variances Staff feels that due to the existing building, it would not be a special privilege to grant the variances for setbacks as the setback encroachments will not be any greater than those existing encroachments. B. GRFA Variance Staff feels that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve this GRFA variance. The following chart shows variance requests in Bighorn Terrace have been approved: DATE VARIANCE REQUEST HISTORY OF BIGHORN APPLICANT TYPE OF AMOUNT OF RFQ UEST VA RIANCE TERRACE SUBDIVISION STAFF PEC RECOMMENDATIO 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 Feb 11 Sherr GRFA 50 sq ft Denial Approval 3 Setbacks 3,11, & 13 ft Approval Approval The chart indicates that approving the setback variances would .. not be a grant of special privilege. However, it does show that approving the GRFA variance would be a grant of special privilege due to the large amount of GRFA. There have been 13 requests for additional GRFA. The staff recommended approval Boyle -5- 5/10/85 . of only one in 1977 for 130 square feet, and recommended cdenial of the others. only two requests were for an amount greater than 130 square feet, that of Rowe in 1978 and. Wefman in 1980. (Rowe is Boyle's neighbor to the south. ) Start believed tnaL to approve this GRFA variance would be inconsistent with other requests that have been granted in Bighorn Terrace. More impor- tantly, staff feels that this request disregards Ordinance No. 4 which was intended to address upgrading of existing homes. The PEC and Town Council have worked for over a year to write an ordinance that would allow home owners to apply for no more than 250 square feet of additional GRFA in order to upgrade their homes. The ordinance specifically states: 18.71.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of individual dwelling units in certain structures which have been in existence within the Town of Vail for a period of at least 5 years by permitting the addition of up to 250 square feet of gross residential floor area to dwelling units in said structures.... Proposals for any additions ... shall be reviewed closely with respect to site plans, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable Town of Vail development standards." It should be noted that the applicants were made aware of the opportunity to add an additional 250 square feet of GRFA under this ordinance. However, the applicants chose not to pursue their request under this process. The GRFA variance request is 145 square feet over the 250 square feet allowed under Ordinance 4. A great amount of work went into Ordinance 4 to insure that the amount of GRFA that could be added would be adequate for upgrade additions and that the additional GRFA would not be such a large amount that it would detract from the property. To grant the GRFA variance of 395 square feet would go against the intent of Ordinance 4. The 250 square foot figure was arrived at by a great deal of discussion and research. Staff believes that this figure is not arbitrary, and that the applicants' desire to upgrade their unit can be achieved within the 250 square foot limit. The effect of the requested variance on li ht and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities,and publicnafety. The third floor addition will decrease slightly the amount of light and air between the Boyle's unit and the unit to the south. It is felt that the third floor addition is not particularly in character and scale with the rest of the subdivision. however, the structure will be within the MDMF height requirement if the third floor is added. Boyle -6- 6/10/85 0 Related Polices in Vail's Community Action Plan Under the heading, "Community Design" No. 2 states: "Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged. -- Stimulate community awareness - Incentives" Staff encourages upgrades. However, zoning /variance criteria must be adressed. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not consitute 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 proerties 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 A. Setback Variance The staff recommends approval of the setback variances. These setback encroachments already exist on the property and the applicants are not requesting any further encroach -- Boyle -7- 6/10/85 r ments. (Please note that if the PEC decides to approve the two requests, the Town Engineer has requested that the applicant complete a revocable right -of -way agreement as the applicants' fence is on the Town right -of -way adjacent to Bighorn Road.) B. GRFA Variance The staff recommends denial of the GRFA variance. This request conflicts with the intent of Ordinance No. 4 which allows for additions up to 250 square feet. Staff believes that the applicants could work within the allotment of 250 square feet for their addition. The applicants have the opportunity to add 250 square feet either on the third floor or perhaps on the ground floor. Staff realizes that setback variances would still be necessary for either type of 250 square foot addition. However, it is felt that by staying within the 250 square feet the intent of the ordinance is upheld and the additional GRFA would not be a grant of special privilege. It also felt that the scale and character of the existing subdivision would be maintained by this alternative. Staff feels that to approve the GRFA variance request of 395 square feet would be to disregard Ordinance 4 which is designed to provide a streamlined process for property owners who wish to upgrade their units. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the GRFA variance request. r] TO: Planning and Environmental Commision FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a front setback variance of 15 feet and a site coverage variance from 20% to 24% in order to construct a new garage on Lot 47, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Richard Strauss DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a front setback variance of 15 feet and a site coverage variance of 4t (488 square feet) in order to construct a new garage. The new garage will be integrated into the hillside and will have an earth covered roof. The applicant makes the following statement as to why the variance is being requested: "The applicant currently has a two car garage at an elevation of 10 -1/2 feet above the street. It has the longest practical driveway of approximately 60 feet resulting in a total slope of 18 %. (If the relatively flat apron in front of the garage doors is not counted, the slope of the driveway • is over 21 %). The maximum allowed for new construction in the Town of Vail is 8 %, and with good reason. Having occupied the unit for one winter, the Strauss' have experienced many minor automobile body scrapes and several near misses with other vehicles as they attempted to leave on snowy, slippery days. The present condition is unsafe, and good alternate garage locations that do not require a variance are non - existent on the site. The effects of the site coverage variance have been strongly mitigated by setting the structure into the hillside and using the roof as landscape. This requested variance has no effect on light and air, distribution of population, or transportation. Traffic facilities and public safety will be enhanced by the elimination of a potentially dangerous condition. The onl aspect that can be seen is that automobiles will be backing into the street, but this is a typical condition in the area." The Town of Vail zoning code requires 2.5 parking spaces for a dwelling unit of this size. The proposal allows for only two on -site parking spaces with the third parking space partially • within the Town of Vail right -of -way. The Town engineer is concerned with potential negative effects this may have on traffic and on street maintenance and has requested that the applicant address his parking requirements within his property boundaries. • CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relationship requested variance to _o ther existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Through the design of the garage, the applicant has attempted to mitigate the negative impacts of locating a structure within five feet of the property line. There are existing structures within the vicinity which appear to be within the front setback. Because of the improvement over the existing situation, and with the design of the structure, it is felt that the setback and site coverage variances will not have any significant impacts upon adjacent properties and structures. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interprL tation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compa tibility and uniformity of treatment amore sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The applicant is attempting to improve an existing undesirable situation. The current driveway grade is 18 %, resulting in an unsafe situation for the applicant and for the traffic on Gore Creek Drive. The applicant has put much effort into the design of the garage to minimize the impacts of both the setback variance and the site coverage variance. For these reasons it is felt that if the Town Engineer's concerns can be met and required parking could be provided, that the front setback and site coverage variances would not be a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and _air_, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The Town Engineer has requested that a revocable right -of -way permit be obtained for the existing retaining wall that encroaches within the Town of Vail right -of -way. The Town Engineer has also requested that all required parking for this site be addressed on site and that no encroachment be made into the Town of Vaal right-of -way. The proposal as designed does not meet this require- ment. 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 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. STUFF RECOMMENDATIONS While the staff feels that this is an improvement of an existing unsafe situation, and that the applicant suffers some legitimate hardship, we cannot support this request due to the concerns of the Public Works Department. We support the concept of the improvement but feel that further design work attempting to accommodate the required on -site parking is warranted. Staff recommendation is for denial of the request as proposed. r1 L._J IOL • ! a♦� i ki w Az Aw f . �MvAOtM' t y k.., .f j •i �i 3 Y: j r fir i - Y i r•, Y � r L a t )T 1 . l i k a- ,w I t,- II I i'I III ...r a 4 x . a: 1 J i ' �' y F• a i �:i E 4 r 4 � 0 � I tc% ik I LI L LL[L L L L L Ll 4 f Pf L l A 4 4 � k � 0 Li W F iF l ns. i 7 k J• , �I ■ 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: ,Tune 10, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a setback variance to allow for enclosure of an existing deck that protrudes 7.b feet into the side setback on the eastern property line and 10 feet on the southerly property line.Applicant: Lionsquare- - Limited Partnership c/o Jim Cunningham DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant has applied for an exterior alteration and setback variance in order to enclose an existing deck at the Lionsquare Lodge at the KB Ranch Restaurant. The existing deck protrudes into the required 10 foot side setback, 7.6 feet to the east. The existing deck extends 0.7 feet beyond the south property line. The property to the south is covered by a 99 year lease to the condominium association. It is used as open space and a recreation area for the Lionsquare Lodge. The applicant is requesting a 10 foot setback variance along the south property line. The actual restaurant space will be within the property is line given the existing deck rail and stacking width of the glass enclosure. 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 re uested variances based upon the following far_tnr�� Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existin or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing deck currently encroaches into these setbacks. The enclosure of this deck should not negatively impact any other existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. The adjacent property to the east owned by Vail Associates is utilized as a skier access area. The property to the south is under a 99 year lease to the condominium association of the Lionsquare Lodge and is currently used as recreation and open space. The decree to which relief from strict or literal interpretation . and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve comp atibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of sPecialprivilege. The staff feels that to grant this request would not be a grant of special privilege. The deck as existing is within the setbacks. To enclose this deck would not create any additional impacts upon the existing situation. Although the applicant must request a setback variance from the southern property line, this property is, for all intent and purposes, under the condominium association control through a 99 year lease. The eftect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of 12o2ulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. This requested proposal would have no impact on any of the above. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. 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 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 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. The staff can see no additional negative impacts that go beyond the existing situation. • 0 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II and setback variance in order to enclose the dining deck of the KB Ranch Restaurant located in the Lionsquare Lodge Applicant: Lionsquare Limited Partnership I. THE PROPOSAL The Lionsquare Limited Partnership through Jim Cunningham is requesting an exterior alteration in CCII and a setback variance in order to enclose the KB Ranch exterior dining deck. The applicant presents the following statement addressing their request: "The KB Ranch Co is a restaurant located on Level 3 of the Lionsquare Condominium, Phase I, at the southeast corner of the building. Due to topography, the restaurant is three floors above the swimming pool to the south but is currently entered from the condominium lobby which is at grade at the north parking lot. Along the east of the restaurant the grade drops approximately 3 stories. A few years ago a deck was constructed to provide outdoor seating area for the restaurant, the architectural character of which matches other decks of the building. The deck was constructed over a deck on level 2 and is dimensionally responsive to that level 2 deck. Due to climate conditions the deck has not been used successfully for outdoor dining and has subsequently fallen into disrepair. For this reason the owner proposes to enclose the deck with sliding glass doors and greenhouse glazing (see plans and description in "Exhibit A"). When weather permits, the glass doors will be open providing a quality "semi -- outdoor" dining experience. During inclement weather, the doors will be closed permitting use of the area and enhancing the views from the dining area. Specifically the existing deck protrudes into the required 10 foot side setbacks on east, 7.6 feet at the northerly portion of the deck and 6.5 feet at the southerly portion of the deck. Furthermore the existing deck extends 0.7 feet beyond the south property line. It should be noted that in the region the deck extends beyond the property line, the property to the south is covered by a 99 year lease to the Condo- minium Association. The leased area is used for a swimming pool and open space. It should be noted that, when constructed, the restaurant space should be within the property line considering the existing deck rail (which remains) and the stacking glass unit width." II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for additions for new construction in Commercial Cores I or II 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 considertions. This memo will address the request with respect to these three review criteria. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD There are no sub -area concepts that are directly related to this proposal. The Lionsquare Lodge is on the fringe . of the Urban Design Guide Plan area and not located in a pedestrianized mall environment. Thus it is not specifically addressed by any sub -area concepts. 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. A. Height and Massing Although the enclosure is technically located on the third level of the Lionsquare Lodge, the east elevation is actually near grade and will appear as a ground level expansion. This should positively impact the view of this multi- storied building as seen from the Lionshead Mall. The south elevation is three stories above grade, but due to its exposure has no impact on the pedestrian scale. B. Roofs The proposed deck expansion is compatible with the guidelines addressing roofs. C. Facades/Walls/Structure The proposed enclosure enhancing the transparency of this level of the building. The materials and design are compatible with these guidelines. The existing handrail will be retained in order to meet Uniform Building Code requirements. D. Decks and Patios The Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead state: "E.1. Functional decks or patios, primarily for dining are strong street life elements in Lionshead and are highly encouraged, on either the ground or second floor level." This enclosure will increase the year -round use of this deck but there is no impact upon the street life due to the location of the restaurant. The Design Considerations add: "E.2. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to sun, wind, views, pedestrian activity and accessibility." Sun: While the east patio loses the sun early in the day, the south deck receives sun through most of the afternoon. Included with this memo is the detailed sun /shade study completed by the applicant. Wind: The location of this deck adjacent to the Gore Creek corridor subjects this area to fairly strong winds and rapid afternoon cooling. This issue is also addressed in the applicant's sun /shade study. 0 Views: This proposal has no impact on views. Pedestrian Activity: This proposal will have no impact on pedestrian activity. Accessibility: This proposal will have no impact upon accessibility. The guidelines also discuss the issue of decks as they relate to the adjacent street life. This is not applicable to this proposal as it is removed from the pedestrian core of Lionshead. E. Accent Elements This issue is best addressed at the Design Review Board level. F. Landsca a Elements This issue is also best addressed at the Design Review Board level. Although it is apparent that construction of this plan would necessitate removal of one 6 inch caliper aspen tree, the applicant has agreed to replace this tree with two 3 inch caliper aspen trees. • 0 V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS There are basically two areas to be addressed relative to zoning. This includes parking and the requested setback variance. Following are our staff comments on these issues: A. Parking The enclosure of this deck creates an additional demand for required parking spaces. At the time of issuance of building permit, a parking fee will be assessed. B. Setback Variance The setback variance request required for this deck enclosure is addressed in the accompanying memo. • VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The enclosure of exterior dining decks has often been a controversial issue in the past. The Urban Design Guide Plan and Guidelines encourage these decks and discourage their enclosure. However, the staff feels that due to the location of this deck and its lack of impact upon street life and pedestrian scale, that there is little negative impact associated with this proposal. The staff feels that this is an improvement of an existing situation, both functionally and architecturally. It will significantly incense the use of this dining area into the fall and winter months while still allowing for a basically "open -air" atmosphere. We recommend approval of this exterior alteration request. LJ 0 May 1, 1985 i Planning and Environmental Commission Planning Staff Town of Vail Vail, CO. Re.: Setback Variance - KB Ranch Company Deck Enclosure intratect po box 57 vall colorado .81658 8275732 Commission Members, This statement is intended to address the precise nature of the requested setback variance for the KB Ranch Co. Deck Enclosure. . General The KB Ranch Co. is a restaurant located on Level 3 of the Lion Square Condominium, Phase 1, at the southeast corner of the building. Due to topography the restaurant is three floors above the swimming pool to the south but is currently entered from the Condominium Lobby which is at grade at the north parking lot. Along the east of the restaurant the grade drops approximately 3 stories. A few years ago a deck was constructed to provide outdoor seating area for the restaurant, the architectural character of which matches other decks of the building. The deck was constructed over a deck on level 2 and is dimensionally responsive to that level 2 deck. Due to climate conditions (explained in detail in the attatched "Exhibit A ") the deck has not been used successfully for outdoor dining and has subsequently fallen into disrepair. For this reason the Owner proposes to enclose the deck with sliding glass doors and greenhouse glazing (see plans When weather permits the; ' and lass doors will description in "Exhibit A "). p g be open providing a quality "semi - outdoor" dining experience. During inclement weather the doors will be closed permitting use of the area and enhancing the views from the dining area. Specifically the existing deck protrudes into the required ten foot (10') side setbacks (on east) 7.6 feet at the northerly portion of the deck and. 6.5 feet at the southerly portion of the deck. Furthermore the existing deck extends 0.7 feet beyond the south property line. Itshould be noted that in the region the deck extends beyond the property line the property to the south is covered by a 99 year lease to the Condominium Association. The leased area is used for a swimming pool and open space. See Ihter- Mountain Engineering survey No. V- 50185, submitted. It should be noted that, when constructed the restaurant space should be within the property line considering the existing deck rail (which remains) and the stacking glass unit width. • Planning* Commission Considerations • The specific nature of the request has been addressed above. In addition, F believe the Commission should consider the following: 10 1. Creating the space within the required setback will eliminate a large portion of the potential dining space, imply removal of large portions of the exisitng decks (due to reduced dimensional characteristics), expose a large portion of the existing deck on Level 2 to weather and require installation of new structural components through the decks below. 2. The areas surrounding the expansion are open, Tract land, which will remain open for the forseeable future. Tract C, to the east is used as skier access. Tract A is not developable. Furthermore, the existing deck has been in place for quite some time and enclosure of the deck within it existing boundries would not materially effect the sense of open space. Elsewhere in the Lionshead Commercial Core expansion to the property line is encouraged. I would find this proposal appropriate in that it does not substantially reduce the apparent openers of the space. 3. Unlike other restaurant deck enclosures proposed in the pedestrian areas of the Village and Lionshead Core areas this proposal involves enclosure of space that is one Lo three levels above grade and is in an area that is not effected by pedestrians. Furthermore, the proposed openable glass architectural character will permit use of this existing deck more frequently although as a semi- - outdoor space. 4..The proposal will not adversely effect light, air, ... distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, or public safety. Conversely, the proposal will positively effect the use of the deck itself (see attatched letter from .dim Cunningham dated April 29, 1985, and sun analysis submitted under seperate cover) . 10 � 0 KB Ranch Co. Restaurant Deck Enclosure Setback Variance "Exhibit A" I* To support the variance requested in the attatched documents the following information, which outlines the architectural solution; is submitted. a. The existing railing will be left intact except where the new entry deck is to be added - the new deck railing will match the existing. b. The sliding glass portion of the glazing will encompass about 2/3 of the exterior wall surface permitting a true feeling of outdoor dining when weather permits opening of the panels. The exterior wall glazing panels are full height - extending From the floor level (behind the existing railing) to approximately 6' -$" above the floor. The .._. existing railing, which is an "open" style railing and will permit penetration of light and.air, and will serve as the required "gaurdrail ". c. A glazed "greenhouse" style roof system will be installed, except where ice fall danger exists.. This installation will enhance the open, outdoor feeling of the space. d. Vail Associates has reviewed the proposal., including encroachment of the new entry stair onto Tract C. A letter showing their approval is submitted under seperate cover. e. A letter from the restaurant operator will be submitted explaining how the space will be operated (when will the glass be open ?), upon the operators return from off - season vacation. 10 IE April 29, 1985 SUNSHINE STUDY FOR KB RANCH CO. T have owned the subject space since its completion in 1972 and have the following comments with respect to the path of sunshine on the deck. T will confine my comments to two seasons, winter and summer with the off- seasons making the obvious transition between the two major seasons. The present deck space consists of two areas -- the east patio and south patio (see attached drawing). Winter Season East Patio This patio obviously receives good morning sun. However, in the early winter, December and January, the low lying sun is hidden behind Golden Peak early in the A.M. and doesn't reach the deck until 9:15 to 9 :30. By 12:00 noon the sun has rota- ted westerly and the east deck is again in the shadows. Summer Season East Patio j The sun rises higher in its arc towards solstice and the east deck gets good early morning sun, however, except for its most southerly portion, by 12 :30 the majority is again in the shadows. Because of its location next to the stream there is a rather rapid cooling trend in the early evening and sometimes Accom- panied by strong down valley winds. Winter Season South peck The south deck gains the sun early (except for Decembex.and January) and enjoys it until 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. during; the winter days. However, because of its closeness to the bottom of the valley floor it doesn't enjoy the longer sun found at Purcells and Bart & Yettis. As the winter sun moves higher and more northerly towards the spring season, the end of the building shades the south deck before the sun sets towards the West Vail radio tower hill. Sumuie'r Season - South Deck The south deck enjoys early sun and all afternoon sun. However, as the sun moves more northerly the south patio would get shaded by the building itself and consequently looses the late after- noon and evening sun. Again, because of its proximity to the 660 west lionshead place + vail colo. 81657 • telephone a/c 303 476 -5237 p.o. box 418 • vail, Colo. 81658 L' Sunshine Study for KB Ranch Co. Page Two April 29, 1985 stream and rapid heating and cooling in the down valley winds, there is a tendency for relatively strong winds in this area in the Late afternoon and early evening. Over the years we have attempted dinners on the patio using umbrellas, umbrella tables and banquet facilities. Although occasionally this has been done quite satisfactorily, in general, because of the rapid cooling and the tendency for higher winds, it has not been a satisfac- tory site for outdoor patio dining. The views obtained by the clients using the deck, into the stream, into the pool and up the Gore Range is something we feel to be highly desirable. However, the decks need to be made more enjoyable so that the occupants can enjoy both the views and scenery which will, most certainly, enhance the apres ski traffic. Should you have any questions with respect to this rather informal study I would be more than happy to answer them. I hope you will view them as from an occupant of the building for the past 14 years and that in itself speaks with sufficient history. Very truly yo xs, WT Jam. Cunningham WJC:kg To: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 10, 1985 SUBJECT: Proposed Expansions to the Gondola Building Applicant: Vail Associates BACKGROUND ON P REVIOUS P LANNI NG COMMISSION REVIEW There are three main areas of expansion proposed for the Gondola Building that were reviewed by the Planning Commission one month ago. These include: 1. Addition of approximately 1100 square feet of retail space by expanding the area currently occupied by Banner Sports, Marcets, and Le Petite Cafe. 2. The conversion of 1100 square feet of office space to commercial use and an addition of approximately 700 square feet of commercial space by infilling a portion of the walkway between the two wings of the Gondola Building. 3. A two story 1800 square foot addition to the east end of the Gondola Building to be used as office space for Vail Associates Real Estate. With respect to these areas of expansion, the Planning Commission expressed some concern over the potential loss of Le Petite Cafe's outdoor dining along the mall. There were no negative comments voiced concerning the expanded retail operations in the walkway between the two wings of the building. There was considerable concern over the proposed two story addition to the real estate office. Specific comments referred to the encroach- ments into the popcorn plaza area as being a negative impact, the expansion of real estate space on ground floor in Commercial Core II was felt to not be in the spirit of the zoning code regulations, the loss of landscaped pockets around the addition were seen as a negative impact, and a number of commission members suggested that a one floor expansion would be preferable over the two stories proposed in the submittal. The staff has met with the applicant to discuss the results of the Planning Commission meeting and review an amended proposal for this expansion. One significant area added to this plan is a proposed expansion to This Wicked West shop located on the lower level of the Gondola Building. This and other amendments and changes to the plans will be addressed in detail in the next section. Staff reaction and comments concerning these changes will be addressed in the following section of this memo- . randum. . CHANGES TO PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED PLANS 1. Storefront Expansions Along Mail The design of this expansion has not changed from that previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. With respect to the impact on the existing street lamps, the applicant has proposed providing lighting for this area mounted on the building itself. While it would not be appropriate to use the same fixture because it would not relate to the scale of the building, staff recommends that some type of lighting be installed that is compatible with the existing Lionshead street lighting. In addition, the applicant has proposed installing four tree grates in front of the retail expansions. While these have not been reviewed by the Public Works and Fire departments, the staff is pleased to see this addition to this proposal. These plantings are consistent with the Urban Design Guide Plan. 2. Commercial Infill in Staircase Area The commercial infill in this area has not changed from that previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. There is, however, an additional display box proposed on the opposite side of the staircase. While this proposed display box is only approximately 40 square feet in size, the staff . feels it will impact this area by narrowing the staircase to 8 feet in width. This will be addressed in more detail in the next section of this memorandum. 3. Pro osed Ex ansion to This Wicked West Exterior alterations in Commercial Cores I and II can be submitted to the Department of Community Development twice each year. On the most recent deadline, which was May 28th, This Wicked West submitted an application for a storefront expansion. Because the Gondola Building is presently going through the same review process, we have incorporated the proposal for the Wicked West with the Gondola Building plans. The proposed expansion is approximately 450 square feet directly in front of the existing storefront. A second floor deck is proposed atop this expansion and will be accessed by the proposed Vail Associates Real Estate office and the new retail space on the same level. 4. Real Estate Expansion The proposed expansion in this area of the Gondola Building has been modified in a number of ways. Foremost among these is the addition of retail space on the north side of the building immediately fronting on the Lionshea d Mall. This has reduced the amount of actual frontage for the real estate office to approximately 30 feet on the mall. With this change in use, there are now two retail shops proposed with this expansion. The footprint of the expansion in this area has also been altered slightly by jogging inward at ground level off the mall. One additional modifi- cation in this area is the expansion of the landscaped planter on the south and east ends of the proposed real estate space. This has also allowed for the placement of a seating area adjacent to the expanded planter. In summary, there have been a number of changes made in this area, however, the bulk and mass of the addition is substan- tially the same as was preiously reviewed by the Planning Commission. STAFF COMMENTS ON THESE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS Following are staff reactions to the proposed amendments and additions to the Gondola Building expansion plans: 1. Storefront Expansions Along Mall The two areas of concern with respect to these expansions are lighting and landscaping. The staff can support relocating lighting fixtures on the building that would be lost from the expansion. While it would not be necessary to use the same fixtures as are presently located on the mall, a similar design and light with similar wattage should be used. The staff supports the introduction of four on-- . grade tree grates and would encourage the Planning Commission to direct the Design Review Board to expect substantially sized trees in these grates. It should be noted, however, that the location of the tree grates will have to be approved by the Public Works and Fire departments because they would be located on Town of Vail property. 2. Commercial Infill and New Display Box in Staircase There have been no substantial changes to the retail addition that was previously approved by the Planning Commission. The display box, however, is a new element to this proposal. The staff does not support this addition because of the impact it would have on the width of the staircase. Where proposed, the display box would narrow the width of the staircase to 9 feet. It is felt that this display box would provide no real benefit to the Lionshead Mall area while creating a point of congestion on the stairs. 3. This Wicked West Expansion At the conceptual level, the staft is favorable toward this proposal. However, there is concern among staff that the proposed expansion extends too far out into the mall area. As proposed, the expansion would be flush with the existing wall along the staircase leading to this area. At the present time, it is felt the existing storefront works well in that it is recessed off the mall a number of feet. At this time, the staff feels that an expansion approximately one -half the dimension proposed would be more appropriate. Another related impact resulting from this expansion is a loss of an existing spruce tree in this area. While the applicant has proposed a new planter adjacent to the staircase, staff would like to see both planter areas maintained through this proposed expansion. The staff would recommend that this element of the Gondola Building proposal be considered by the Planning commission, however, it may be best to table this matter to allow the staff and the applicant time to address some of these concerns. As stated, staff feels some infill in this area may be a positive addition to Lionshea d. However, the Lionshea d Urban Design Guide Plan did not address this area for infill. For this reason and other concerns mentioned, the staff would like an opportunity to receive input from our design consultant, Jeff Winston, concerning this proposal. 4. Real Estate and Retail Ex ansion The changes to this area of expansion have been outlined previously in this memo. The staff considers the increases in planter area and the placement of the seating area to be a positive addition relative to this proposal. The introduction of retail space in this area is also a positive change with respect to this proposal. However, the proposal is still for a two -story addition and that is unacceptabale to the staff at this time. The May 13 memorandum prepared by the staff for this application is included in your packet. Generally speaking, staff concerns outlined in that memorandum hold true for this revised proposal as well. Briefly, these concerns include: a. The proposed expansion would impact dramatically the clock tower square area. This is contrary to the design of the Lionshead Mall. b. The connection between the Gondola Plaza and the clock tower square would increase in length and narrowness as a result of this addition. C. The proposal would impact existing view corridors from adjacent outdoor dining decks. For these reasons, the staff is strongly opposing the plans presented for the real estate office expansion. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS It was previously stated in the May 13 staff memorandum that 40 parking requirements from this addition would be accommodated through Vail ,Associates' existing parking spaces in the north day lot, the west day lot, and the Gondola Building. While this is the case for the real estate office expansion and the previously approved additional office space, parking requirements for individual retail expansions would be the responsbility of the tenants. This would be addressed through payment into the parking fund as outlined in the zoning code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There are a number of elements relative to this proposal that have been addressed in this memo. individually, the staff is supportive of some, conceptually supportive of others, and strongly opposed to other aspects of the proposal. These break down as follows: 1. Staff supports the commercial expansions along the north end of the building adjacent to the mall and between the staircase. 2. Staff is opposed to the proposed new display box in the staircase area. 3. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed real estate expansion. 4. While the staff is generally supportive of This Wicked West's expansion, it is felt that more study is needed and recommend that action not be taken on this element of the proposal at this time. Regardless of the positive elements found in this proposal, the staff is strongly opposed to the real estate expansion plans. As a result, staff has little choice but to recommend denial of this proposal as presented. W0 Aull x, v- t J 1 tip' .. �,,_ .. k .�, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... m VAT 1k Ai Vol I ow s. -. ` wG` S + t '�•�7s� 5R Y'q -, ! � � y#• e ; �.�• :. ,� � � � s - �� i ? � + _ � - 4 0 , OP 6 4 , & T7 .......... 4 NAM IOU van . 411. PAS. a sit ri r .5. ' 10 " .46 W 41- N Y5� 4 o 3 0,1 f�;�l,�b �..��"r' �� +c_� �ti f. .r �� �,��• i- � -� r , ;� -� f - s � _ : ,t � '� +" � r ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 31 'RE t'.41 J Z J.; Q .......... .......... ............... 9 F S 1 h• , 4 O. r 44 4 th •Y� � - ;��,# � ,� ��s P - .-.� - � 5 { �� � ���y � (e+ ��% �� 5y ' s; 4 • -t4 y -�t ,. . ,ir -w.W �My 4 8 Vi- 7 ^ V "5 •i Y, y ti .� A t� ,fib �• i J 4 � ,+. n . � -, � r - ." r - f l t: rX �,t t oo , F .f� r r s o who a �S, ti '�� 'i Y ,' .jf r, �-�R r� .irk r f ! � _ts° �T ? Y '� .?y ` r. S_ - _ S S � °,- ti� �/�• f 4 - � tit ', �' � +'P � tp }. 70- Q4 n o AS f y ■ M1 r ~• A . s '� - I r A ARM Kim K s r ti' �r h 7 ^ V "5 •i Y, y ti .� A x d y _ .J a 3 MEMO TO: The Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: The Community Development Department DATE: May 13th, 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 I. THE PROPOSAL This proposal includes additions to the existing Lionshead Gondola Building in three areas. These include: P7 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. Lionshead Gondola Building #2 C 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 1 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 D ESIGN 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 #19 This sub -area 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 to Lionshead Gondola Building #3 a 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- e9 less of this proposed commerical addition or expansion. Clock Tower Square Sub -area As previously stated, while the Clock Power 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 S 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 Dasign Guide Plan for Lionshead: "The general urban form of Lionshead is that of a series of connected plazas or courts, occasionally 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 T URBAN DESIG 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. c � Lionshead Gondola Building #5 (0 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. De cks & 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 l.ionshead Gondola Building #6 evaluate these areas at the Planning Commission review is w 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. 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: Parking 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 C ommericial 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. V 3. Setback Variance The setback variance request required for the real estate expansion is addressed in the accompanying memo. L � Lionshead Gondola Building #7 6 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 Meal 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. To m - "T L �� f t. rn --"- tT r � � G� - ;� �; � 1, �� 1 T T- 1� I (TI Z� ' cn rT 0 --"- tT r � � G� - ;� �; � 1, �� 1 T T- 1� I (TI Z� ' MEMORANDUM • • TO: Planning and Environmental Comilission FROM: Coriununity 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 REQUESTED 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 loft. 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 101"t. setback. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.06 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 tall. This existing encroachment creates a situation with negative iirpacts with respect to urban design and pedestrianization along the tall. 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 -1 i ke effect in this area. The degree to which relief from the strict or litera in a enforcement of a specified re u lation is ne cess� to a comoatibility and uniformity o treatment among site in th vicini to a ttain the objectives of this tit without grant of special privi 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 D--sign Guide Plan for Lionshead may autocratically waive the required loft. 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. s T he - effect -- j Q gpyes;.£C'' vorianc on light and air, distribution of po ulc'tion, transR rtation and tr a f f aci I ides, publ iC faCil itlE`5 and 111117 t1P. s. :rrd iUbl if - - _ _ _ .._.....- - - -- - -- - safEt��. _ - .. 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. RELATE POLICI IN VAIL'S C ACT ION PLAN There are no policies in the action plan that would lend support to this request. t (_f Such oth er fac tors and cr teri a as th e _com s i on de ems appl i cabl e _ t he �rro�escd variance. __. FINDIN Th Planni and En viro Co sh at1 make the fof1 i n wing f ding before gr anting � a�var °i ance: � � T —_ � —_� � � - -` - -�- ,� 4101 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 circumstEnces 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 c-r "orcument of the specified regulation would deprive the a pplicant of privi Q;y,—d '. },, -nnLrs of of propert oth er in the same district. V STAFF RECOil'IENDATIONS 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 nenn and those rlentioned in the exterior alteration merno, the staff feel strongly that this request be denied. • Planning and Environmental Commission August 12, 1985 REVISED AGENDA 1:30 pm Site visits 3:00 pm Public hearing 1. Approval of minutes of June 10 and June 24. 2. Request for exterior alteration for Gondola Building in Lionshead Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 3. Request for exterior alteration and for variances in order to add an elevator to the east side of the Lodge South (Lodge Towers). Applicant: Lodge South Condominiums Association. 4. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a golf course clubhouse on the site of the present clubhouse in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District 5. Request for an amendment to the municipal code in order to add low power, subscription radio facilities under conditional uses in the Primary /Secondary Residential and in the Agricultural and Open Space zone districts. Applicant: Stephens Communications, Inc. 6. Request for exterior alteration in order to add an entry to the west side of the Lodge at Vail. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. 7. Request for a site coverage variance in order to build a garage on Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge subdivision. Applicant: Mike Baskins TO BE TABLED 8. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story to the Hill Building at 311 Bridge Street. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill 9. Announcement of ,joint Town Council /PEC meeting on August 20. � J Planning and Environmental Commission August 12, 1985 1 :30 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of June 10 and June 24. 2. Request for exterior alteration for Gondola Building in Lionshead Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. 3. Request for exterior alterations and for variances in order to add an elevator to the east side of the Lodge South (lodge Towers). Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Association 4. Request for exterior alteration in order to add an entry to the west side of the Lodge at Vail. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. TO BE TABLED 5. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story to the Hill Building at 311 Bridge Street. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill 6. Request for an amendment to the municipal zoning code in order to add low power, subscription radio facilities under conditional uses in the Primary /Secondary Residential and in the Agricultural and Open Space zone districts. Applicant. Stephens Communications, Inc. 7. Request for a site coverage variance in order to build a garage on Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge subdivision. Applicant: Mike Baskins 8. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a golf course clubhouse on the site of the present clubhouse in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District 9. Announcement of joint Town Council /PEC meeting on August 20. • 1 Planning and Environmental Commission August 12, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Tom Briner (new) Peter Patten Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Duane Piper Tom Braun Howard Rapson Rick Pylman Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele ARSFNT Eric Affeldt 1. Approval of minutes of June 10 and June 24. Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 10. The vote was 4 in favor with Viele and Briner abstaining. Donovan requested that concerns about the amphitheatre timing be passed on to Council in the August 24 meeting. Donovan moved and Viele seconded that the corrected minutes of August 24 • be approved. The vote was 5 in favor with Briner abstaining. 2. Request for exterior alteration for Gondola Building in Lionshead. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Tom Braun stated that this was the third time this item had been considered. He showed site plans and elevations and listed 6 major elements with changes and also listed the criteria to evaluate exterior alterations. He stated that the staff recommended approval of the plan with the exception of the staircase adjacent to Purcell`s deck, and the approval included 3 other conditions. Bill Pierce, architect for VA, reviewed the proposal. He mentioned that VA had eliminated the expansion of the real estate office on the northeast corner. He added that the only issue now was the staircase on the north side. Pierce stated that the staircase was necessary until level 3 was constructed. The staircase was discussed as was the schedule. Nunn stated that with new ownership there was no guarantee when the project would be done, but guessed that perhaps it would be next spring. He added that they could come back with the phasing later. Dean Liotta stated that This Wicked West would expand this October and hope to be finished on the exterior in 2 to 3 weeks. The sun /shade aspect was discussed and Pierce felt that there was no change. Donovan wanted DRB to know that the lights at le Petite were to be relocated. Braun stated that the same type of light that exists in the area could be obtained in a smaller version. Donovan felt that letting le Petite use public space • would encourage other businesses to do the same. PEC 8/12/85 -2- Donovan also felt that placing trees so far into the mail may obstruct the view and make it look like a dead -end. She asked if it were possible for VA and others to do all the projects at once„ and Braun answered that this aspect hadn't been addressed. Patten stated that if the PEC felt strongly about the timing, they should make a strong statement to VA. Donovan replied that she felt that Lionshead had suffered enough, and Viele agreed. Donovan added that she was not concerned about Wicked West since it was not on the mall. Nunn stated that first there would be the addition of the mezzanine that was within the existing volume, and the stairways and the expansion of the storefronts on the north. Nunn stated that the applicant would have no problem if the PEC wanted to require that all that be done at once. (with the exception of the proposed restaurant expansion on the northwest corner - -it can't be converted to restaurant until the balance of the office has been completed. The size of trees was discussed and it was decided that they should be 3" caliper dediduous trees. Viele moved and Sch ultz seconded to approve the proposed expansions to the Gondola Building subject to the schedule of construction as listed, that the trees be 3" caliper deciduous, that the tenants of Le Petite Cafe and Banner Sports will be responsible for snow removal between the four proposed trees and the storefronts, that adequate street lighting be provided in the le Petite and Banner Sports areas to replace the 4 Lionshead mall lights that would be lost from this expansion. The vote was 5 in favor with Donovan abstaining. . 3. Request for exterior alteration and for variances in order to add an elevator to the east side of the Lodge South Lodge Towers). Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Association. Kristan Pritz presented the proposal and showed elevations and site plans. She stated that the staff recommended approval with the Fire Department and Public Works concerns addressed. Darrell Harris with Robert Arnold Associates, representing the Lodge South, answered questions. The feeling of the commission was that because of the height and massing of the building, the elevator addition would not have much impact. The building was already far beyond what was currently permitted. Rapson asked about the construction schedule and Harris replied that they hoped to start in September and have the outside done by October and the rest done by Thanksgiving. Jay Peterson, speaking for the applicant, stated that it was - reasonable for buildings that needed service elevators to be allowed to have these elevators, as they improve the functioning of the building. He stated that this type of improvement was good for the Town as long as no other negative impacts occured due to the elevator addition. Bob Poole of the Forest Service stated that the parking area south of the Lodge South is Forest Service land and the Forest Service had 3 parking spaces. Poole expressed concern that the staging materials and vehicles not use the 3 spaces nor block access to the spaces. The contractor, C. Duncan, said this would present no problem. Briner moved and Viele seconded to approve the exterior alteration per the staff memo Vote . was 6 -0 in favor. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the variances. Vote was 6 -0 in favor. Staff also required that the elevator have fire service recall and compliance with Vail Fire Department alarm systems. PFC 8/12/85 -3- 5. Request for exterior alteration in order to add an entry to the west side of the Lodge at Vail Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Kristan Pritz showed site plans and elevations and explained the request. She added that the staff recommended approval. Donovan was concerned that the large evergreen be protected, and Pritz answered that she had been assured by the applicant that the large evergreen would stay. Jay Peterson repeated this assurance. Rapson asked about the purpose of chasing the entrance, and Jay stated that it was to facilitate the flow of traffic. Rapson moved and Viele seconded to approve the request per the staff memo The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 6. _Request for an amendment to the municipal code in order to add low power subscription radio facilities under conditional uses in the Primary / Secondar Residential and in the Agricultural and Open Space zone districts. Applicant: Stephens Communications, Inc. Rick Pylman explained the request and added that the staff recommended approval of only the change in the Agricultural and Open Space district and therefore recommended denial of the proposal as submitted. Steve Wherry, the applicant, gave his reasons for wanting the rezoning. The Forest Service site which his company had been using could not be used any longer. Bob Poole of the Forest Service stated that the Forest Service had allowed Wherry to have a temporary use permit but would not be able to renew it. He added that the Forest Service did have an area designated for this use on Vail Mountain. Wherry stated that this location would not work for his business. Wherry also asked if he could get a variance and was told that there was no such thing as a use variance. Patten stated that all conditional uses in the Primary /Secondary zone district were public uses, and to add a private use would be a bastardization of the zoning code; once a conditional use is in the code, it is very difficult to turn down. Donovan felt that the Forest Service was shirking their duty and should allow the use on their land. Patten replied that the Forest Service policy was to attempt to eliminate this type of service. He added that the staff could work with the Forest Service in an attempt to address overall uses in the Master Plan and spread out the responsibility to provide uses. Wherry pointed out that his needs were very After more discussion, Briner moved and Ra involving only the AOS district but not the Donovan voting against. 7. Request for a site coverage variance in order to build a ara e on Lot 4 Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: Mike Baskins Tom Braun showed site plans and elevations and explained the request. He stated that the staff felt that the location of the garage was the most- - logical one on the lot and the garage size was not excessive. The staff recommended approval. After discussion, Vieie moved and Ra son seconded to approve the request per the staff memo The vote was 6 -0 in favor of approval. different from other radio signals. son seconded to approve the request P /S. The vote was 5 in favor with • PEC 8/12/85 -4- • 8. Requ est for a conditional use permit in order to construct a golf course clubhouse on the site of the resent clubhouse in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Peter Patten presented the staff memo and explained the procedure to be followed. The memo included floor plans, elevations and square footage statistics. He stated that the staff recommended approval of the clubhouse plans and added that it was not within the purview of the PEC to discuss the overall community need for the clubhouse redevelopment in relation to other recreational facilities. He also showed a photo with an overlay of the new clubhouse which indicated that it would not impact views. He added that although the clubhouse was large, the site was also large which made the clubhouse not out of scale with relation to surrounding uses. Bill Ruoff, architect for the applicant, answered questions about the change in the parking lot circulation. Abe Shapiro, adjacent property owner, spoke in behalf of himself and the property owners to the west of the proposal in favor of the new clubhouse.. He asked that a bumper for cars be placed below his stone wall, that the existing landscaping not be decreased, and that the existing golf cart path behind his home be grassed over. Shapiro did not want more paving to the east. Jay Peterson, representing Dr. Tom Macejko, a neighbor to the west, disagreed that the PEC should not prioritize proposals brought before them. He stated that his client did feel the clubhouse would have a positive effect upon the golf course, as long as the Recreation District had unlimited funds. Dr. Macejko then spoke and stated that the transient golfer did not feel that the clubhouse was the most important item when visiting a golf course. He felt that priority should be given the pro shop and the golf course itself rather than the restaurant and bar. In answer to additional off - street parking that could be available, Ruoff stated that there was additional unused parking at Fall Ridge, and the management.was willing to lease these spaces to the golf course. Answering the question about whether or not there were guidelines when the present clubhouse was built, Ruoff stated that the original clubhouse was constructed before the area was annexed into the Town.and many small additions had been constructed since then. Briner asked if there had been a study to determine the amount of parking needed, and Ruoff answered that many studies had been made since 1981 and were available to the public. Viele fundamentally agreed with Patten concerning the fact that the PEC should not set priorities for the Town. He asked about development standards and Patten stated that the development standards were to be approved at the same time as the conditional use permit. Pat Dodson, Director of Recreation, stated that there was to be a bond election on September 3 and the voters would decide whether or not the clubhouse was to be constructed. Piper stated that he would have like to have seen more citizen input before the election. Dodson replied that there were to be two public meetings- - on August 19 and 27 at 6:30 pm. PEC 8/12/85 -5- 41 Rapson felt that the new clubhouse was badly needed, and was surpassed in need only by the condition of the Golden Peak base facility. He pointed out that this was another support facility for Vail. Donovan felt it was too bad the facility was being proposed only 21 weeks before the bond election, because she would have liked to have seen more public input as to what was best for the whole community. She added that the bottom line.was that the money.was comming from tax payers. Donovan felt that the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District should be lowering the mill levy. She was curious as to the number of persons served by the facility, and had concerns about the following: The restaurant and bar was 3 times the original, it was competing with private restaurants, it would not be practical to expect employees to park at a parking lot a block away, felt a 2 -way traffic flow pattern in the parking lot was needed, there was a need for more parking, felt there should be a better solution to the delivery system, and felt that she did not have enough information. Schultz agreed with most concerns and felt that input from the public was most important. Dodson stated that Nolan Rosall had done a study in which the Vail clubhouse came out second to Beaver Creek when Beaver Creek was operating out of a trailer. Patten stated that it was possible that the parking lot would need more landscaping to comply with Town standards. Piper would have preferred to have the proposal go to a larger forum before coming to PEC. Discussion followed concerning development guidelines, and Patten explained that the proposal contained the development guidelines. Viele moved and Rapson seconded to approve the conditional use permit and to accept the development standards in the plans per the staff memo The vote was 4 in favor with 2 (Donovan and Briner) against. Tom Briner was welcomed as a new member of the commission. Patten stated that there would be a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Town Council on August 20 at 2:00 pm to discuss the Vail Village Master Plan, the sign code proposed amendments, Vail Associates' Mountain expansion plan, and the PEC's role in capital facilities planning and prioritizing. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • I* FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 121 1985 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to add an elevator to the east side of the Lodge South building. Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Association DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Lodge South Condominium Association is requesting to add a 9b toot high elevator tower to the east side of the Lodge South condominium building. Total square footage for the elevator addition is bl square feet. The elevator will extend up to the 8th story of the building. The elevator will be used primarily for servicing the 42 existing condominiums. Total Site Area: .3350 acre Site Coverage Allowed (8U% of total site area) Existing Elevator Total existing Remaining sf LODGE SOUTH or 14,5` 11,6'/4 11,542 81 11,1)23 51 )3 st sf 5t sf sf (with elevator) sf (Please note site coverage includes buildings, ground level patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Urban Design Guide Plan.) GRFA: Allowed ll,b /4 st Existing 57,52b sf Over allowed 45,bb2 st Density Allowable DU's: S Existing DU's: 42 Common Area (GRFA allowed 20%) Allowed 2,33b sf Existing 7,249 sf Elevator 61 sf Total existing 7,330 sf Total over allowed (including elevator) 4,99!) sf Hei ht Allowed: 1. Up to bvt of the building may be built to a height of 33 ft or less. • 2. Not more than 40s of the building may be higher than 33 ft, but not higher than 43 f t. Approximate Existing Heights: • 16% of existing roof 96 It bit of existing roof 94.b ft 16% of existing roof gl It bt of existing roof 88 It 2% of existing roof bb It Proposed elevator 9b tt high: Revised Height Breakdown with New Elevator: 'l3% of existing roof 96 It 61�t of existing roof 94.5 tt 16% of existing roof 91 tt • *Please note that the southeast corner of the elevator addition tapproxima to ly y sf J encroaches on the Lodge at Vail property. The applicant has prov al for the encroachment. from the Lodge at Vail giving their app The Lodge South building is clearly a legal non - conforming structure when compared too all owable Commercial r comonarea l the existing ments. With respect common structure is already et14 withrtheeelevator addition the t total area of 1,335 square a square of common area over the allowed amount i5 equal he pp licant to feet. For this reason, it is necessary osa1. tSee attached request a common area variance for this p p memo.? Under Commercial Core I zoning, the maximum height of the building is 43 feet. In addition, only 40t of the building can actually have a height of 4:3 feet. The Lodge South condominium bui lding osed has a height range be p6 feet and 8!> feet. The proposed elevator would match exactly the highest root ridge of p6 feet. limit Of The new root is over tw � e riaes hg hvas the liswrequired for the 43 meet. Therefore, g addition. 11. COMPL IANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE.1 ZONE 18.24.01U Purpose The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture o -lodges and env o etablishments in a predominantly p edestrian • The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site develop- ment standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and archit ectural qualities that distinguish the Village. Due to the fact that the Lodge South building is a non - conforming building, it is difficult to compare it to the prescribed site development standards as well as building scale requirements that pertain to the Village. Staff believes that the new elevator is an amenity that is appropriate to the permitted use of a condomin- ium building. It is difficult to maintain the building scale and architectural qualities that are called out in our Urban Design Guide Plan as this building is a non - conforming structure. However, the elevator is in scale with the existing building and will use the same materials that are on the present building. This proposal, given some consideration for the fact that the building is a non - conforming structure, is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE The Urban Design Guide plan does not call out any specific proposals for this area. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the Design Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. Below each consideration is the applicant's response as well as the staff's response to that particular item. A. Pedestrianization Applicant: The proposed elevator addition will continue to define the established separation between pedestrians and vehicle circulation along the east building edge and the Lodge parking lot. Staff: The elevator addition is located on the interior of the Lodge development. It is not close to a major pedestrian way. The open area between the elevator addition and the Lodge employee cafeteria is presently used as a parking area, sevice delivery area, and a pedestrian walkway up to the ski lifts from the Lodge. The elevator addition should have very little impact on pedestrianization as it is pulled back close to the existing Lodge Tower building. The elevator will not take away any space presently used for the 0 purposes of parking, walking or making deliveries. • r1 B. Vehicle Penetration Applicant: Not applicable. Staff: This Design Consideration's major emphasis is to reduce "auto penetration into the center of the Village." The Lodge is organized in such a way that parking is located in the interior areas of the site. Therefore, this design Consideration is not applicable to this proposal. It should be noted that the elevator addition will decrease the entry way now going into the parking garage on the ground level of the Lodge South building. An adequate opening of 12 feet will remain if the addition is constructed. Both Public Works and the Fire Department have stated that this is not a problem. The minimum width for an access way is lU feet. The proposal maintains this required width. Interior vehicle penetration should not be adversely attected by this proposal. C. Streetscape Framework Not applicable. D. Street Enclosure Applicant and staff: This consideration states that "an external . enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately halt as high as the width of the space en- closed." The external enclosure of space between the Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South Towers is currently a ratio greater than 1:1. This ratio will not be affected by the proposed elevator addition. F. Street Edge Applicant and staff: The addition will provide more interest and irregularity to the building edge and facade of the east elevation. G. Building Height Applicant: The Lodge'South Tower Condominiums is currently a non- conforming building located on the outer boundary of the Commercial Core I zone district. The proposed elevator addition is located internally on the Lodge at Vail property at the east end of the Lodge South Tower condominiums. Although this location will cause the most impact to the Lodge at Vail, both the ownership and management of the Lodge strongly approve of this addition. No request for additional height is required since the proposed elevator addition is to be no higher than existing portions of the building. • Staff: The applicant actually is requesting additional height as a greater portion of the building will now be at the maximum height of 36 feet. The existing building has only 16% of the roof at gb feet. With the elevator addition, . 23% of the roof line will be at 9b feet. It is difficult to compare this building to the Building Height consideration, as it is so far from conforming to the height limitations. This height is necessary in order to provide elevator service for the building's 8 floors. The roof line will not exceed the existing highest point of the building which is also where the present elevator is located. As stated in the Design Consideration "The height criteria are intended to encourage height and massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street." It is staff's opinion that the criteria cannot be applied effectively to this proposal due. to the fact that to have a useful elevator, it must service the S floors of this existing building. Staff does feel that the Lodge South condominium building does require special consideration due to the existing height of the building and purpose of the service elevator. H. Views Applicant: Neither established view corridors nor streetscape views from pedestrian ways will be adversely affected. Staff: Established view corridors and views from pedestrian ways will not be adversely affected by this proposal. Views of the ski mountain from the I -70 and Frontage Road areas will be affected. The additional height of the elevator . addition will block out a small portion of the view of the ski mountain. I. Service /Deliver Applicant: No impact. Staff: All service and delivery areas are maintained given this proposal. J. Sun /Shade Applicant: The proposed elevator addition will have insig- nificant effect on the spring and fall shadow pattern over the surrounding Lodge at Vail properties and parking lot. Staff: The existing stair tower already casts shadows into the parking area below. The proposed elevator will increase the shadow pattern slightly. However, the sun /shade criteria is designed for the purpose of limiting shadow patterns on adjacent properties or the public right -of -way. In this case, the elevator addition will not affect adjacent proper- ties or public right -of -way areas. • V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this proposal. It is felt that the proposal is either not applicable to the Design Considerations or has very little impact, it any, on each consideration. Statt also feels that some relief must be given to the strict interpre tation of height considerations for this building due to the fact that it is a non- conforming structure. Staff recommends approval of the project contingent upon the Fire Department and Public Works concerns being addressed. Fire Department 1 . Fire service recall w i l l be required in the new elevator. 2. . Compliance with the Vail Fire Department alarm system w i l l be required. Public Works 1. The elevator addition must not change the existing drainage pattern on the property. I• July 9, 19U'5 Mr. A. Peter Patten DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Lodge Tower (Lodge South) Elevator Project Dear Mr. Patten:' Following our recent discussion this note serves as a request to support the application Lodge Tower for the addition of a second elevator to be located on the east side of the building adjacent to the fire staircase. We would also like to confirm that bodge Properties • Inc. are initiating proceedings to add the required additional square footage necessary to accommodate this elevator. We would appreciate your support and favorable consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Hans D. Turno szky Managing Direc r LODGE PROPERTIES INC. cc: Mrs. Alice Snavley • 174 East Core Creck Drive Vail, Colorudo 81657 303 -476 -5011 Tclex 45-0375 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission z 0 FROM: Community Development DATE: August 12 19b5 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance and common area square footage variance in order to add an elevator addition at the Lodge South Condominium Building. Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Association DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Lodge South Condominium Association is requesting to add a 96 foot elevator addition t8i square feet) on the east side of their existing building. In order to construct this project, a height variance and common area square footage variance are necessary. This building is a legal non - contorming structure. The Lodge South building is located in the Commercial Core I zone district which has a height maximum of 43 feet for 4Ut of the building and 3-i teet for bU% of the building. The Lodge South does not conform to either of these height considerations. In fact, most of the Lodge is over two times as high as the maximum height of 43 feet. The elevator will be used as a service elevator and therefore needs to provide access to all of the 8 stories of the building. The proposed elevator wil11 match the highest existing roof ridge of 96 feet. In Commercial Core I, 2U% of the allowed GRFA for the property can be considered as common area. Common areas include hallways, common closets, lobby areas, stairways and common enclosed recreational facilities. The allowed common area is 2,335 square feet. The existing common area is 7 square feet. With the addition of the proposed elevator, the building would be 4,99b square feet over the allowed common area square footage. For this reason a common area variance is also being requested. Please see the following zoning statistics for this building: LODGE SOUTH Total Site Area: .33.50 acre Site Coverage Allowed (bU*o of total site area) Existing Elevator Total existing Remaining sf or 14,.5 11, 674 11,542 81 11,6Z3 bl )3 sf sf sf sf sf (with elevator) sf (Please note site coverage includes buildings, ground level patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Urban Design Guide Plan.) GRFA: Allowed 11,674 sf • Existing .57026 sf Over allowed 45,bb2 sf Density Allowable DU'a: 8 Existing DU's: 42 Common Area IGRFA allowed 1UI-) Allowed 2 sf Existing '/ sf Elevator 81 sf Total existing I,33U sf Total over allowed (including elevator) 4,99-5 sf Height Allowed: I. Up to but of the building may be built to a height of 33 It or less. 2. Not more than 40t of the building may be higher than 33 ft, but not higher than 43 f t. Approximate Existing Heights: 16% of existing ( 0 1% of existing ibis of existing b% of existing 2% of existing Proposed elevator 9b • Revised sleight 23t of existing bit of existing 1b% of existing roof 9b t t roof 94.b It roof 91 ft roof 88 It root 8b It It high: Breakdown with New Elevator: root 96 tt root 94.b It roof 91 ft CRITERIA AND FINDINGS U on review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.b2.U6U of the Munici al Code, the of Community Deveiol2ment recommends denial of the height variance and denial of the common area 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. Hei ht Variance: The additional height of the elevator should not greatly impact any adjacent properites. An existing stair tower already is • located next to the proposed elevator. This stair tower has a height that varies between 8b and 88 feet. The elevator should not greatly change the existing situation on this portion of the building. The addition does not greatly change the building's overall impact on adjacent uses and structures. The proposed . elevator does increase the size of the building which in most cases is already too large for the site. In state's opinion, the addition has minimal negative impacts on the uses and struc- tures in the vicinity. Common Area Variance: The proposed elevator addition decreases the size of the entryway into the covered parking area. However, a 11 toot entry is still maintained given the addition.The additional t3l square feet of common area to this property has no negative impacts on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The degree to which relief from t he strict or literal interiareta tion and enforcement of a s ecitied regulation is necessary to achieve com atibilit and uniformity of treatment amon sites in t vicinity or to obtain the objec of this title without rant of ,special privilege. Height Variance: It would be a grant of special privilege to allow the height variance. It is certainly true that the existing building is a legal non - conforming use due to the fact that it was constructed under a different type of zoning. Vail has many buildings which fall within this category. The proposed height of 9b feet is • over twice the maximum height of 4:3 feet allowed under the current Commercial Core I zoning. To approve such a great height variance would be a grant of special privilege. Common Area Variance: Once again, many buildings in Vail are over their allowed GRFA and common area allowances. To approve the additional common area of 81 square feet would increase the total amount over the allowed common area to 4,995 square feet. To approve the addition al 81 square feet of common area would be a grant of special privilege, as most other properties with the same square footage problems have not been allowed to increase their GRFA or common a rea s. The effect of the requested variance on li ht and air, distribution of population, transportation and trattic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and ublic safety. Hei ht Variance: This variance will have some impact on light and air in that the size of the shadow cast by the stairwell will be increased 11 due to the additional height of the proposed elevator. The elevator addition will not disrupt the flow of traffic through r • this area. Common Area Variance: The additional 81 square feet will have some impact on the open hallways on each floor of the Lodge South building. Presently there are openings on the east end of the hallway which will now be blocked by the elevator addition. The additional common area will have no effect on pedestrian or auto traffic. The decreased size of the entryway into the covered parking is not affected to such a degree that ingress and egress is a problem. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Not applicable. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin 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 handship 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 believes that there are. not any significant impacts from this proposal. However, the staff feels that it would be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district to approve either variance. For this primary reason, staff must recommend denial of the two requests. • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Denartment DATE: August 12, 19$5 SUBJECT: A Request for an exterior alteration in order to expand the entry on the west side of the Lodge at Vail APPLICANT: Lodge Properties Inc. I. THE PROPOSAL The Lodge at Vail is requesting to expand their west entry by 90 square feet. They are also proposing to add a porte- coch�re off of the west entrance. The roof ridge of the porte -cock re is 23 feet in height. The following zoning statistics for the Lodge are listed below: LODGE AT VAIL MAIN WING ONLY (Does not include North Wing, Arcade, Condos, Lodge Promenade) Total Site Area Lot A : 2.0889 acres or 90,992 sq. ft. Site Covera e: Allowable: 72,794 $0% x total site area) Existing: 38,781 i (Please note site coverage includes buildings, ground level patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Urban Design Guide Plan) G.R.F.A. Allowable: 72,794 sq. ft. Existing: 19,192 sq. ft. Common Area: Allowable: 14,559 sq. ft. 20% of allowed GRFA) Existing: 12,515 sq. ft. Entry Addition: 90 sq.. ft. -- New Total Common Area Including Entry 12,605 sq. ft. Parking: The existing parking is not decreased by this proposal One additional parking space is provided due to realigning the parking layout adjacent to the porte-cochere II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE Purpose: Section 18.24.010. The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments . in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district Lodge at Vail -2- 8/12/85 regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the Commercial Core I district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal does not relate to any of the sub -area concepts listed in the urban design guide plan. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the design considerations. A. Pedestrianization Applicant and Staff: This submittal has no impact on the pedestrianization of Vail Village. The area is currently used as a parking lot,.entry and delivery area. The canopy and the subsequent re- routing of traffic enhances the experience of the visitor to the Lodge in that the area is now covered when the guest unloads his or her car. B. Vehicle Penetration Applicant and Staff: No change occurs to what is currently on site. C. Street Enclosure: Applicant and Staff: There is no effect on street enclosure, as the parking lot is already bordered by three to five story buildings. To a certain extent the canopy will create a pedestrian focus and divert.attention from the upper building heights. • Lodge at Vail -3- 8/12/85 E. Street Ed e: • Applicant and Staff; There is no change in Street edge, except to the extent that the aanapy provides a jog in the facade line which gives some interest and a focal point in an area of high buildings and parking. F. Building Hei ht: Applicant: The building height is well below what is allowed in Commercial Core I. Staff: The height of the canopy is 23 feet. The allowed height in Commercial Core I varies between 33 feet and 43 feet. The canopy is definitely below these height maximums. G. Views Applicant and Staff: No major views are affected. Some of the condominiums to the north of the canopy may have their views of the main Lodge building blocked. However, views of the ski slopes do not appear to be blocked. H. Service and Deliver Applicant and Staff: All service alleys are kept open and full access under the canopy for fire and emergency equipment is provided. Note that traffic into the Lodge will now be organized so that visitors entering the property will use the south entrance on the parking lot and visitors exiting will use the north exit. I. Sun /Shade Applicant and Staff: No adjacent properties are affected. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this proposal. The project has an overall positive impact when compared to the Urban Design Considerations. Staff feels that the entry addition and porte- cochere will greatly improve the appearance of the existing entry way. Staff recommends that the Design Review Board level, the applicant be required to provide some additional landscaping to replace several of the aspen trees that will have to be taken out due to the infill of the existing planter areas. • !9 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning code to allow as a conditional use "low power, subscription radio facilities" in both the Agricultural and Open Space district and the Primary /Secondary Residential zone district. Applicant: Stephens Communications, Inc. BACKGROUND ON REQUEST Stephens Communications, Inc. operates the Sounds Good radio rental service available to skiers on Vail Mountain. Stephens Communications is requesting this amendment so they may pursue relocation of their existing transmitter site from Forest Service land to property within the Town of Vail. The request involves the Agricultural and Open Space (AOS) zone district as well as the Primary /Secondary (P /S) zone district. The purpose of the AOS zone district is as follows: The district is intended to preserve agricultural, undevel- oped, or open space lands from intensive development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreation facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the agricultural and open space district, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site develop- ment standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district. The purpose of the P/S zone district is as follows: This zone is intended to provide sites for single--family residential uses or two - family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two - family primary /secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family occupancy, and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by estab- lishing appropriate site develoment standards. There are substantial areas within the Town of both the AOS and the P/S R zone districts. The AOS zoned areas are primarily i located on both the extreme north and south edges of the incorpor- ated boundaries of the town, although this district encompasses the golf course as well as many centrally located parcels of land. The Primary /Secondary Residential zone district is a much more intensive zone district than the Agricultural and Open Space and is generally subdivided into much smaller parcels. EVALUATION OF THIS REMO 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 land 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 Existin Zonin A. Agricultural and Open Space The Community Development staff feels that the existing permitted and conditional uses within the zone district are very well suited to the intent of the district. We believe that the addition of this request as a condi- tional use will not weaken the strength of this district as open space. The intent of this zone district is to . maintain open space while permitting low impact develop- ment to occur. We feel that the conditional use process will allow adequate review of any proposals and allow for development that will meet the intent of this zone district. B. Primary /Secondary Residential The emphasis of this zone district is for residential use although public utilities are allowed as conditional uses. The Community Development staff feels that to allow introduction of a private facility of the type requested is not suitable for residential areas. The average size of the parcels in this zone district and the proximity of neighboring residents do not warrant the addition of this use within this zone district. 2. Is the Amendment Presenting a Convenient, Workable Relation- shie Among Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives? A. Agricultural and Open Space District The intent of the AOS district is to maintain a strong sense of open space while allowing low impact uses. Staff feels that given the large amount of land currently within the AOS district, and the fairly specific nature • of the requested amendment, that this proposal will present a workable relationship with other uses and is not contrary to the municipal objectives of this zone district. B. Prima ry /Secondary Residential The purpose of the P/S R district states that this district is intended to "maintain the desirable residen tial quality of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. We feel that this use is not consistent with these objectives or compatible with other allowable uses within the zone district. 3. Does the amendment proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? A. Agricultural and Open Space District The addition of this request as a conditional use still allows the Town an adequate review process to insure that siting and site development standards are met. This also creates the ability to develop a use that is not otherwise allowed in the Town while preserving the basic intent of the zone district. This amendment may allow for the growth and expansion of the ,local commu- nication industry. B. Primary /Secondary Residential District As previously stated, we feel the addition of this use in the Residential Primary /Secondary district may not be in the best interest of the Town or the property owners within the P/S district. This use is not consistent with the intent of the district as a residen- tial area and may create negative effects upon the growth of our residential areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports the concept of this requested amendment for the Agricultural and Open Space district. We feel that this use does not adversely affect the intent or the strength of this district. We feel that through the conditional use process, adequate review of requests could maintain the viability of the district while providing a vehicle for the growth of local business. We believe, however, that the addition of this use in the Residential Primary /Secondary district is incompatible with the intent of the district and, therefore, recommend denial of this proposal as currently submitted. V TO: : 0 • • Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department FROM: August 12, 1985 DATE: SUBJECT: Request for a site coverage variance in order to build a garage on Lot 4, Block D Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: Michael B. Baskins DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant wishes to build a gar Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision. square feet, and the allowable site (20% of 13,150). Proposed is a feet which is 21.6% coverage, or a coverage than allowed. age on the west side of Lot 4, Che size of his lot is 1:3,150 coverage is 2,630 square feet site coverage of 2,849 square total of 219 square feet more CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.b2.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the followin factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or p otential uses and structures in the vicinity. The garage is in keeping with the existing structures and uses in the neighborhood. Two neighbors came into the Community Develop- ment offices to see the proposed plans and both expressed pleasure in the improvements the garage would make to the property and the neighborhood. The de ree to which relief from the strict or literal interpreta tion and enforcement of a specified re elation is necessarx to achieve com atibilit and uniformitX of treatment amon2 sites in the vicinity. The location of the garage is the most logical one on the lot and is in the least obtrusive area of the property. The garage size requested measures 24' x 23' which is not excessive. The lot is small and the existing structure is relatively large with the result that it is felt that to construct a garage of this size would not be a grant of special privilege. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of populatio n, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There is no effect. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a livable to the proposed variance. FINDINGS The planning and Environmental Commission shall findings before granting a variance. ke the followi 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 handship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development staff recommends approval of this site coverage variance. The construction of garages has been encour- aged in Vail as a means for improving the appearance of neighbor- hoods. The staff on the whole has looked favorably on setback variances for garages and in light of the small degree of variance needed in order to construct this garage, the staff feels it is important to encourage its construction. The applicant received preliminary DRB approval for the garage in 1982 (when it was discovered he needed a variance) and he will have to go back to DRB for final approval if he does receive this variance. • E• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1985 SUBJECT: Proposed expansions to the Gondola Building Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW On two previous occasions, the Planning Commission has reviewed proposals for expansions to a number of different areas within the Gondola Building. A number of changes have been made to this proposal since the last Planning Commission review. There are now six elements that comprise this most recent submittal. This memorandum will summarize these elements of the proposal, address how they relate to the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan, and present staff recommendations on this application. SUMMARY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THIS PROPOSAL The following summarizes the six major elements of this applica tion: 1. Real Estate Office Expansion. The previous submittal included a two -story 1860 square foot addition to the east end of the building to be used as office space for Vail Associates Real Estate. This element of the submittal has been reduced to a 110 square foot infill underneath the existing overhang. in addition to this physical expansion, proposed changes in this area include the addition of windows on the first floor of the north side of the building. The existing planters and seating areas in the vicinity of the real estate office will remain unchanged with this proposal. 2. Expansion to This Wicked West. The expansion proposed for This Wicked West consists of approximately 270 square feet located at the mezzanine level of the Gondola building. In addition to the expansion of the retail space, two planters are proposed as an element of this addition. The proposed addition extends anywhere from 5 to 8 feet from the existing store front. 3. Commercial Expansion Under Existing Stairwell This retail space is created by the physical expansion of the building as well as the conversion of existing Vail Associates Real Estate office space. Consisting of approximately 600 square feet, this is one element of the proposal that has not changed since the previous Planning Commission review. . 4. Retail Ex ansions at Mall Level The proposed retail expansions for Banner Sports, Le Petite Cafe, and Marcet's have been altered from the previous Planning Commission review. The most significant change was to reduce the amount of expansion in front of Marcet's and Le Petite Cafe to allow for more room for outdoor dining in this location. In addition, the installation of four trees have been proposed as has been called out in the Urban Design Guide Plan. This element of the proposal will be discussed in greater detail in a later section of this memo. 5. Second Floor Office Space Located Atop PreviousZ Approved Restaurant Expansion. The Gondola Building received a previous approval for a restaurant infill on the west end of the building. An element of this proposal is to infill a portion of this previously approved expansion with second floor office space. An additional element of this proposal is the reinforcement and improvements to the existing planter adjacent to the restaurant expansion area. 6. Addition to the Existing Stairwells. In order to facilitate internal circulation, horizontal additions to two existing staircases are proposed. These additions • are designed to facilitate circulation to third floor office space within the Gondola. Building. Stairwells affected by this proposal include the staircase adjacent to Purcell's patio and the staircase on the west end of building. This element of the proposal will also be discussed in greater detail later in this memo. 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 II involve review with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plans. These involve both the sub- -area concepts 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 consider- ations. The remaining portions of this memo will attempt to relate each of the elements of this proposal to these three review criteria. I. 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 redevelopment or new development in the mall area. This proposal affects two of these sub -area concepts: F1 . Sub -Area Concept 19 This sub -area concept reads: "Commercial expansion (one story), and ground floor office replaced by commercial, to improve pedestrian scale, accessibility, and create strong activity generator for south side of plaza - -cur rently a snow collector. Light tree screening either portable or in grade -level tree grates for snow removal and easy access." This proposed expansion is substantially in compliance with the developoment objectives outlined in the sub -area concept. One issue of concern voiced during previous Planning. Commis- sion review was with respect to the loss of outdoor dining in the event of the building being expanded. This issue has been resolved by recessing a portion of the expansion to allow for both outdoor dining and the addition of the building. In order to increase the size of the outdoor dining area, the applicant has proposed locating a portion of the outdoor dining patio on Town of Vail right -of -way. The extent of this dining area would be defined by the trees proposed for the area immediately adjacent to the Gondola Building. The Town Council has reviewed a preliminary design of this dining area and conceptually agreed to allow for this activity to take place on Town of Vail land. This conceptual approval by the Council was conditional on the Planning Commission approving this proposal and in no way pre -empts your review of this element of the application. Two other issues relative to this expansion include the maintenance of the area between the proposed trees and the store frontage expansions as well as the loss of street lighting now in place in this area. Both the Fire Department and the Public Works Department have approved the location of these trees with the condition that the tenants be responsible for snow removal during the winter season. It should be expressly understood that the applicant will be reponsible for an agreed upon arrangement with the Public Works Department for how snow removal in this area is to be handled. The applicant has stated that street lighting will be addressed by incorporating it onto the building expansion when constructed. Sub -area Concept No. ? 0 This sub -area concept reads: Gondola building ramp, the second access to the Gondola to distribute foot trafffic, 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 addition of commercial space in this area and feels that it will 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. If VA were to propose the construction of a ramp in the future, it could still be accomplished regardless of this proposed addition. YY. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Only two of the six elements of this proposal are addressed specifically by sub -area concepts. The following will address the design impacts of the remaining elements of this proposal as well as those previously addressed. Height and Massing With respect to building expansions, the Guide Plan recommends they be limited to one story unless a two -story addition is specifically called out in the Guide Plan. With respect to the proposed areas of expansion, the Wicked West addition is a one floor expansion, and the commercial in -fill at the mall level is a one floor expansion with a second floor greenhouse type addition. The office space proposed above the restaurant expansion, while at the second level, will serve to minimize the height and mass of the existing building behind it. This is not seen as a significant impact. One area of concern with respect to this application is the proposed increase in height to the existing stairwell adjacent to Purcell's deck. At present, the ridge line of this portion of the building adjacent to the pedestrian walkway is 19 feet high. As proposed, this height would increase to 25 feet high, step back and extend to a total height of 30 feet. While new windows are proposed in this area of the building, it is felt the increase in height to this stairwell will provide a substantial negative impact with respect to its effect on the pedestrian and this portion of the mall. Urban Design Considerations With the exception of the previously mentioned height of the proposed stairwell expansion, this proposal will generally improve the pedestrian scale and experience throughout the mall. Roof s Roof elements proposed in this application include both flat and vaulted roof systems. In addition, roof connections to the existing building are tied into the architectural elements of the Gondola Building. This element of the proposal is in compliance with the guidelines outlined. • Facades -Walls /Structure The proposed expansions appear to be with the Facade -Walls /Structure storefront finishes are to be done details of the proposed finishes are time. Decks and Patios in general compliance guidelines. However, by tenants, so exact not available at this The only area of concern with respect to this guideline would be the Le Petite cafe outdoor dining area. As has been mentioned, the Council has given a preliminary approval that will allow for the development of a lease for Le Petite to establish a portion of their dining area on Town of Vail land provided the design is approved by the Planning Commis- sion and Design Review Boards. Accent Elements These elements are best addressed at the Design Review Board level. Landscape Elements There are a number of landscape elements proposed with this application. The staff is supportive of all of these elements proposed and feel that with one exception they can best be reviewed at the Design Review Board level with respect to exact numbers and types of materials used. The exception would be with respect to the four trees proposed in front of Le Petite and Banner Sport expansions. Discussion has taken place with the applicants concerning the size of trees contemplated for this area. Staff would like to see minimum sizes established at the P.lanning Commission review for the trees which will be installed in this area. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The only zoning consideration relative to this application is with respect to parking.' Additional parking demand created from changes within the Gondola Building for V a i l Associates' uses can be met by the existing excess of parking spaces at the North and West Day Lots. Additional parking demand created by the commercial expansions would be the responsibility of the individual tenants. Assessments would be levied based on the square footage added as outlined in the zoning code. Dollar figures for each level of expansion would be determined and resolved by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit for new construc tion. ,` r IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is generally supportive of the numerous elements Of the proposed redevelopment. One exception is with respect to the increased height of the stairwell adjacent to Purcell's deck. It is felt that this increase in height will have a negative effect on the pedestrian in this area. With this exception, staff recommends approval of the exterior alterations as proposed. The staff recommends that the following conditions be included in any motion to approve this application: 1. Approval is conditional u on the deletion of the proposed staircase expansion adjacent to Purcell - s deck. 2. A minimum size for trees proposed adjacent to Le Petite Cafe and Banner Sports be established as a part of this approval. 3. That it is understood the tenants of Le Petite Cafe and Banner Sports expansion areas will be responsible for snow removal between the four proposed trees and the storefronts. Specifics concerning how this will be coordinated will have to be agreed upon with the Public Works Department. 4. That adequate street lighting be provided in the Le Petite and Banner Sports expansion area to replace the four Lionshead mall lights that would be lost from this expansion. • Planning and Environmental Commission August 26, 1985 2:15 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of August 12. 2. Request for exterior alteration in order to add an area less than 100 square feet to the Lodge at Vail east entry next to the Wildflower Restaurant. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. TO BE TABLED 3. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story at the Hill Building at 311 Bridge St. Applicant: Blanche Hill 4. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a stairway area of less than 100 square feet to the Sweet Basil Restaurant at 192 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Kevin Clair. 140 • Planning and Environmental Commission August 28, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Duane Piper Kristan Pritz Howard Rapson Sid Schultz Eric Affeldt ABS ENT STAFF ABSENT Jiro Viele Tom Braun Tom Briner Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack This meeting was postponed due to the lack of a quorum on the scheduled date of August 26. 1. Approval of minutes of August 12 Donovan moved to approve the minutes of August 12 as submitted, Rapson seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unaimously with Eric Affeldt abstaining. The vote was 4 -0 -1. 2. Exterior alteration request for the Lod at Vail to construct a new entry way in order to add an area less than 100 s ware feet, east entr next to the Wildflower Restaurant Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc. Kristan Pritz of the staff exDlained the memorandum and corrected the memorandum to read that it was an 88 square foot addition. Pritz explained that there were no sub -area concepts affected and that the design considerations of the Urban Design concept were really not impacted either. She went on to explain that the zoning requirements were met in that the one condition of approval would be that they provide adequate signage for a fire exit. C.D. from the Lodge at Vail stated that it was important the addition be constructed for energy related purposes. Donovan asked why the zoning calculations were.done separating out the Lodge Properties, Inc. parcel by itself. Patten responded that this related back to the recognition that separate parcels had been created many years ago and that this was recognized in the proceedings that occurred concerning the International Wing proposal which was approved three years ago. In tn.ose proceedings the Council decided that the Lodge Properties Inc. was indeed a separate parcel and could be treated as such for zoning purposes. Affeldt moved for approval as submitted with the condition regarding adequate fire exit signage. Donovan seconded with the comment that the Lodge should get their act together on the entire Lodge development. The motion was approved 5 -0 unanimously. 3. Re uest for an exterior alteration in order to,add a third story to the Hill Building at 311 Bridge St . Applicant: Blanche Hill This item was requested to be tabled by the applicant to the September PEC 8/28/85 -2- 23, 1985 meeting. 0 Donovan moved for approval and Rapson seconded, The motion carried unanimously. 4. Exterior alteration in order to add a stairway area less. than 100 square feet to the Sweet Basil Restaurant at 192 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Kevin Clair Kristan Pritz explained the proposal saying that it complied with the Commercial Core I guidelines, no sub -area concepts were affected and the design considerations were generally not affected except that service and delivery would be improved. One condition of the staff recommending approval was that the alley way between this building and the adjacent building be asphalted or cemented for reasons related to the health code. The applicant Kevin Clair stated that he had not been made aware of the condition until just before the meeting and that he does not own, or control that area. The property owners control that area. Kevin also stated that the owners have verbally agreed on separate occasions to do this but that he would like it not to be a condition on him. Donovan ex- pressed a concern that something nice be done on the second floor window along Gore Creek Drive. Clair stated that he was going to attempt to have that window display copper pots and pans and have the chefs visible through the window so that the cooking activity was evident. The problem regarding the condition of paving the alley was discussed further and Pritz suggested that maybe the project should go to Design Review Board and that we could deal with the owners implementing the condition at that level. Kevin Clair stated that if the owners would not do it that he would and that it would be done by November 15. Donovan moved for approv al as per the staff memo with the condition that the alle way be as halted or cemented and that it have adequate drainage provisions installed. Schultz seconded the motion and it was approved by a vote of 4 to 1. Howard Rapson opposed the motion because he felt that there were too man unanswered questions at this point The meeting concluded with Patten stating that due to the !Vest Vail deannex- ation Howard Rapson would be required to leave Planning Commission due to the lack of Town of Vail residency. He thanked Rapson for his time served on the Planning Commission and was sorry that something could not be worked out to keep }coward on the Commission. The meeting was then adjourned. • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission 10 C7 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 26, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration in order to add an enclosed stairway on the east side of the Gore Creek Plaza building. Applicant: Sweet Basil, Incorporated I. THE PROPOSAL Sweet Basil is requesting to add an enclosed stairway of 99 square feet to the east side of the Gore Creek Plaza build- ing. Sweet Basil is relocating their kitchen facilities to the second tloor in order to allow for expansion of the existing dining area on the first floor. This requested stairway will provide the service link between the proposed kitchen area and the dining room and bar on the first floor. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE CCI-:ZONE. Purpose: Section 18.24.UIU. The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predom- inantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types Of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considertions prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preser- vation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the Commercial Core I district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal does not relate to any of the sub -area concepts listed in the Urban Design Guide Plan. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONS IDERATIONS,' FOR VAIL V The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. is A. Pedestrtanizat ;on ie This submittal has no impact on the pedestrianization of Vail Village. The area proposed for the staircase is currently an alley. The sole purpose of this alley is for service and delivery to both the Schoeber and Gore Creek Plaza buildings. B. Vehicle Penetration No change occurs to what is currently on site. C. Street Enclosure There is no ettect on street enclosure. The proposed stair tower which is 24 feet in height will be located midway down the alley, well oft of the street. D. Street Edge This proposal presents no change to the existing street edge. The alley remains the same as it currently exists. E. Building Height The proposed staircase addition is 24 reet in height. The allowed height in Commercial Core i varies between 33 feet and 43 feet. This proposed stair tower is well within these height limitations. F. Views No mayor views are affected. G. Service and Delivery As previously stated, the proposed stair tower is located in the service alley between the Gore Creek Plaza and Schoeber buildings. The walk -in cooler that currently protrudes into this service area is being relocated to the second floor of the Gore Creek Plaza building. This proposed staircase will be located approximately where the walk -in cooler presently exists. The dimensions of this staircase are smaller than those of the existing walk -in cooler and will present less protrusion into the alley than is currently existing. As a part of this application the Community Development Department has talked to the applicant about the possibilities of paving or proposing some other impervious surface for this alley way. H. Sun /Shade 0 No adjacent properties are attected. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Statt recommends approval of this proposal. The project has no negative impacts when compared to the Urban Design Considerations. Statt feels that the removal of the existing walk- -in cooler and the addition of the stairway improves both the appearance and the tunctionability of this service alley. L� • P . 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 2b, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to add an entry vestibule on the east side of the Lodge at Vail. Applicant: Lodge at Vail I. THE PROPOSAL The Lodge at Vail is requesting to add an east entry vestibule that is located between the Arlberg Cate and Wildflower restaurants. The vestibule entry is approximately 70 square teet. The Lodge is proposing the new entry in order to improve pedestrian traffic and to increase energy conserva- tion. The Lodge management states that: • "At present pedestrian access to the main lodge trom the Arlberg terrace is via the Wildflower Restaurant's rather small entryway vestibule. Not only is this entrance /exit contusing to the general public, but it has the potential to become seriously congested during a lite satety situation. The proposed new entrance way provides a more natural tratfic pattern, and it is a wider and more direct line for emergency exit." , zoning Statistics LODGE AT VAIL MAIN WING ONLY (does not include Nortn Wing, Arcade, Condos, Lodge Promenade) Total Site Area Lot A: 2.0889 acres or 90,992 sq ft Site coverage_ 130% x total site area) Allowable: 72,794 sq ft Existing: 38,969 sq ft (Please note site coverage includes buildings, ground level patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Urban Design Guide Plan.) G .R.F.A. Allowable: 72,794 sq ft Existing: 19,192 sq tt Common Area: (20% of allowed GRF'A) Allowable: 14,b59 sq tt Existing: 12,bUb sq tt West Entry add. 88 sq tt New Total Common Including Entry 12,693 sq ft 0 II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CC:I ZONE Purpose: Section 18.24.UIU. The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predom- inantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clusterea arrangements of buildings tronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the Commercial Core I district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal does not relate to any of the sub -area concepts . listed in the Urban Design Guide Plan. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparision between the proposal and considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts tram the overall intent of the design considerations. A. Pedestrianization: Statt: This submittal has no impact upon the pedestrianization of Vail Village. B. Vehicle Penetration Applicant and statt: This proposal will not affect vehicle penetration. C. Street Enclosure Applicant and statf: No impact • D. Street Edge • Applicant and Statt: No impact. E. Bulldin Hei ht Applicant and Statt: The proposed vestibule is considerably lower than the adjacent main lodge structure. The vestibule will be 10 teet high, while the main lodge is 41 teet high. The vestibule's height Calls well within the height maximums within the Commercial Core I district. F. Views Applicant and Statt: No major views are obstructed. G. Service and Deliver Not applicable . H. Sun /Shade Not applicable V. STAFF RECOMMENDA'T'ION Statt recommends approval of this proposal. The project will help to turther identity the east entry of the Lodge. The entry vestibule also has an overall positive impact when compared to the Urban Design Considerations. Statf recommends approval of this entry vestibule. ^ 0 0 0 ° --_--___' m . �� JOINT MEETING AGENDA • August 20, 1985 A. Update on Comprehensive Plan 1. Parks and Recreation Plan 2. Village Study 3. Residential Area Improvements 4. Land Use Plan and Annexation Policies 5. Other Elements B. Sign Code Amendments 1. Commercial Core III Sign Code Update 2. Chalkboards for Restaurants C. Vail Associates' Mountain Expansion Plan • D. PEC's role in Capital Facilities Planning and Prioritizing n Planning and Environmental Commission September 9, 1985 1:30 pm Site Visits 3:O0 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of August 28, 1985. TO BE TABLED 2. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story to the Hill Building @ 311 Bridge Street. Applicant: Balnche Hill 3. A request for a GRFA variance in order to enclose a deck on a second floor of Unit 15 -C of the Sandstone Condominiums. Applicant: Karl F. Scherer 4. A request for exterior alteration of less than 100 square feet in order to enclose a portion of the dining patio at Blu's Beanery in the Gore Creek Plaza Building. Applicant: Blu's Beanery 5. A request for GRFA and setback varinces in order to construct additions on Units 12A and 12B of the Vail Townhouses at Lot 12, Resubdivision of block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: kobert GAivin TO BE TABLED b. A request for side, rear and watercourse setback variances in order to construct a deck and hot tub addition on Unit 5 of Vail Townhor,es, Lot 5, resubdivision of Block., Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Tiomas J. Pritzker 7. work Session on the Vail Valley Medical Center • Planning and Environmental Commission 0 September 9, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Eric Affelat Tom Briner Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins (1st meeting) Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele r 1 LJ I. Appro of minutes of August 28, 1985 in favor and 3'abstentions. Peter Patten Toni Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman The minutes were approved with four 2. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story to the Hill Building at 311 Bridge St reet. Applicant: Blanche Hill Due to insuffient notice, staff recommended tabling to September 23. Viele moved and Donovan seconaed to table to 9/23/85 Vote in favor of tabling 7 -0. 3. A request for a GRFA variance in order to enclose a deck on a second floor of Unit 15--C of the Sandstone ConQominiums. Applicant: Karl F. Scherer Tom Braun gave the staff presentation including a recommendation of denial. Brian O'Reilly, representing Karl Scherer gave a presentation on behalf of the proposal. Briner felt the proposal was to be an improvement and was not a dangerous precedent. Affelat wondered how the request related to the ordinance concerning additional GRFA. Viele had no problem with the aesthetics, but felt it may be a grant of special privilege. Piper felt that it was difficult to prove a hardship from the variance criteria. Donovan was sympathetic to the appearance, but felt the board oia not have the tools to approve the request, and the approval would create a precedent for allowing additional GRFA that would be difficult to deal with. Briner moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request The motion was defeated by a vote of 2 -5. _ 4. A request for enclose a port Building. exterior alteration of ion of the dining patio Applicant: Blu's Beanery Tom Braun gave the staff. presentation. He explained that no UDGP sub -areas were affected. He added that pedestrianization, streetscape framework and street edge were not negatively affected. The staff recommendation was for approval. Tom Armstrong, applicant, restated that only a very small encroachment on outdoor dining would be made and that the sliding doors would be open to allow for the outdoor dining experience inside as well. He added that 6-9 additional people would be able to enjoy the outdoors with this proposal and that it was not precedent setting. less than 100 square feet in order to at Blu's Beanery in the Gore Creek Plaza ,, . PEC 9/11/85 -2- Donovan asked what the main reason was for requesting the alteration, Armstong said it was to increase the feeling of "outdoors" in the main dining room. Piper inquired as to the physical means.of opening doors. The reply was that the doors are tract mounted and folded. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. Vote was 7 -0 in favor. 5. A re uest for GRFA and setback variances in order to construct additions on Units 12A and 12B of the Vail Townhouses at Lot 12, Resub of Blk 5, Vail Vill 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert Galvin The staff: presentation ` giveri. Pritz..:who stated - that the staff".. : recorimende6 approval for thE: siae setback variance 1. denial of the GRFA variance. Kurt Segerberg, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on behalf of the applicant. Discussion following concerning how Ordinance.4 applied to this proposal. Gordon Pierce spoke in an attempt to help explain the applicant's intent and the proposal's relationship to the ordinance. Piper pointed out that Ordinance 4 does not allow for multi- family deck enclosures. He stated that originally the PEC wanted multi- family exterior remodels addressed, however, multi- family exterior remodels were excluded from the ordinance. Donovan felt that there was no difference between this proposal and the Sandstone 70 proposal. Affeldt felt that this was another special privilege case. Viele felt the issue was identical to the one at Sandstone 70. He personally did not have a problem with the proposal and felt it was a good one for the community. Viele felt the PEC needs clear direction on the issue of multi - family deck enclosures from the Council. . Affeldt moved and Viele seconded to approve the setback variance because of the existi 0' setback, and to deny the GRFA on grounds of s pecial privilege. The vote was 5 in favor and 2 (Briner and Hopkins) opposed. . i tract fnr ciAn and watercourse setback variances in order Ross Davis, representing several of the owners of other townhouses, felt that the townhouse association could reject the proposal due to the fact that that this area was a general common element. Patten said that he would require the signature of the condominium association before the staff would accept the application. Segerberg requested the application be tabled indefinitely. Patten stated that Davis would be notified if and when the application appeared on the agenda in the future. Donovan moved and Affeldt seconded to table the item indefinitely. The vote was 7 -0. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 6, 1985 RE: Worksession of Hospital Expansion Plans As the Planning Commission may recall, the Vail Valley Medical Center is in the midst of developing plans for a future expansion to their facilities. One of the issues relative to this expansion is that of parking. Because of the importance of this issue a worksession with the Planning Commission has been requested by the applicant. Included, for your information, is a study conducted by the hospital that was done to evaluate both the present parking situation as well as future parking needs. It should be noted that the staff has not had ample time to review this information. As a result, we are unable to provide any input on this information at this time. F - I LJ • 0% 14 Vail valley r Planning Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81658 September 4, 1985 Dear Planning Commission Members and Staff, 181 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -2451 To facilitate discussion regarding the parking needs of the hospital, particularly in light of the proposed expansion of beds from 19 to 32, the hospital has undertaken a parking study. The purpose of the study was to determine how many people use hospital parking, for what purposes, and what parking is needed for the new expansion. The following table is a compilation of the study which was conducted from August 28 through September 2, 1985 to encompass all three work shifts of hospital employees. To interpret the statistics, the following facts are relevant: . 1. The hospital employs approximately 100 employees during ski season and 55 during off- season. There are three work shifts, 7:00 A.M.- 3:00 P.M., 3:00 P.M. -- 11 :00 P.M., and 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. The study was conducted from 7:30 A.M. with a count of cars in the lot from the night shift, and extended to 8 :00 P.M. to account for both the day and evening shifts. 2. At no time during the days surveyed were there less than 30 vacant parking spaces. In other words, given the heavy traffic for Labor Day weekend and regular staffing, we had 30 extra parking spaces at all times even while allowing people to park in the lot who had no affiliation or business at the hospital. 3. The most congested time during the study was from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. Visitors generally come during the evening hours until 8:00 P.M. when visiting hours end. 4. During the study, the back parking lot was closed, (adjacent to Sports Medicine) which provides 22 parking spaces. 5. There are 13 physicians who have private offices located within hospital space. There hours of operation are 8 :00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. 6. Parking was not controlled during the study. When visitors parked in the lot for other than hospital business, they were not asked to move their cars. 0 7. The maximum number of cars in the lot at any time was 130. Attached is a copy of the Parking Study. Deborah Jost Administrator VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING SURVEY August 28 through September 2, 1985 WEEKDAYS # OF AUTOS REASON DATE HOLIDAY WEEKEND DATE AVG. # OF AUTOS PER DAY AVERAGE TIME PER STAY 258 Employees 8 -28 8 -29 AVG. # AVERAGE # OF 7.1 hrs. 130 Patients 8 -28 OF AUTOS TIME AUTOS REASON DATE DATE DATE DATE PER DAY PER STAY 163 Employees 8 -31 9 -1 9 -2 54.3 6.7 hrs. 47 Patients 8 -31 9 -1 9 -2 158 55.12 min. 52 Visitors 8 -31 9 -1 9 -2 26.10 min 59.71 min. 77 Dr. Visits 8 -31 9 -1 9 -2 57.72 min. 40 Hosp. Bus. 8 -31 9 -1 9 -2 9 -2 38.16 min. 35 Emerg. Rm. 8 -31 9 -1 9 -2 53.57 min. • 24 Unauthorized 8 -31 9 -1 9 -2 16.52 min. 438 WEEKDAYS # OF AUTOS REASON DATE DATE DATE DATE AVG. # OF AUTOS PER DAY AVERAGE TIME PER STAY 258 Employees 8 -28 8 -29 8 -30 9 -3 64.50 7.1 hrs. 130 Patients 8 -28 8 -29 8 -30 9 -2 57.10 min. 109 Visitors 8 -28 8 -29 8 -30 9 -2 53.14 min. 347 Dr. Visits 8 -28 8 -29 8 -30 9 -2 52.50 min 158 Hosp. Bus. 8 -28 8 -29 8 -30 9 -2 26.10 min 36 Emerg. Rm. 8 -28 8 -29 8 -30 9 -2 65.42 min. 88 Unauthorized 8 -28 8 -29 8 -30 9 -2 20.10 min. 1 1T6 • VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING UPON BUILDING EXPANSION September 4, 1985 PARKING REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NSF HOSPITAL: Existing - 22,107 Proposed - 12,000 Total - 34,107 PARKING REQUIRED BY ZONING: 1 space /patient bed - 32 1 space /150 NSF 228 260 MEDICAL OFFICES_ NSF Existing - 7,181 Proposed - 6,131* Total - 13,312 PARKING REQUIRED BY ZONING: 1 space /200 NSF = 67 327 . * Sports Medicine PARKING PROPOSED HOSPITAL: 1 space /2 beds 16 1 space /Medical Staff 32 1 space /2 Employees 50 98 MEDICAL OFFICES: (15 physicians) 1 /physician (included w /hospital) -- 1 /Nurse 15 4 /physicians for patients 60 75+ 173 + 13,312 NSF 75 spaces = 178 NSF /Space R Following is a breakdown of Medical Staff and Employees: Medical Staff: 32 Employees: Off Season Total Ma Shift Total 55 25 100 Ski Season Max. Shift 55 VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER Following is a breakdown of existing facility Gross Square Feet and a breakdown of approximate Gross Square Feet for proposed expansion for Scheme 1, Scheme 2, and Scheme 3. The area of Sports Medicine is included with the area of Physicians Offices and Clinics. Ambulance Building isnot included. PHYSICIANS OFFICES EXISTING FACILITY - 19 BEDS HOSPITAL AND CLINIC First Floor 29,250 - -- ' Second Floor 5,945 15,245 Total. 35,195 15,245 PHYSICIANS OFFICES PROPOSED EXPANSION TO 32 BEDS HOSPITAL AND CLINIC Sch.1 Sch.2 Sch.3 Sch.1 Sch.2 Sch.3 Lower Level 7.600 9,950 - -- 6,700 - - -- - - -- First Floor 17,900 5,745 13,435 - - - -- 7,455 7,300 Second Floor 1,800 11,600 19,130 - --- --- - - -- - - -- Third Floor - - - -- 1,450 950 -- -__ - - -- - - -- , 27,300 28,745 33,515 6,700 7,455 7,300 TOTAL GSF OF EXISTING & PROPOSED 62,495 63,940 68,170 22,125 22,700 22,545 Following is a breakdown of Medical Staff and Employees: Medical Staff: 32 Employees: Off Season Total Ma Shift Total 55 25 100 Ski Season Max. Shift 55 • H � N O �D 00 N N �T N O k.D OD N Cr � N m �10 00 N CO ON H N N M 00 Q • O u1 P4 Oi Lr) U H H • 00 �Y U f 00 ul r� A W Fq H A W C/] p'.. N 1-I M O' N W O i1i C -� Cl u'1 00 Lr) O H W Va p P-1 w � H W W z H � N O �D 00 N N �T N O k.D OD N Cr � N m �10 00 N CO ON H N N 00 00 00 Q H P4 Gu • 00 �Y - + f 00 00 r� Lr) U H H C/] A O H • C7 W z z x o, O o +n A � w z Fu C H z H o m CA H r••I H H d, Tom] [ I H r! O w pi C7 U ih z � � A 4- :>4 Q, V) U) In A4 U) fA w N U] H • � ro H W f P-i U Lo (n H � N O �D 00 N N �T N O k.D OD N Cr � N m �10 00 N CO ON H N N 00 00 00 Q 00 P4 Gu N N m 00 00 P4 Gu N - + f 00 00 O M �7 a� O o m %lp 00 a% N u] H W P4 Gu CL4 w O H z O O O o +n Fu C CIA H r••I H H t [ I H r! ih 4-J 4J 4-J 4- :>4 Q, V) U) In U) fA -4 +-+ ro f Lo (n a) te a) � w a 'b w 41 u Pa a) 4" 4-1 4-1 PR �>, W fx+ C3 PA " * H r 1 O +3 Cf ) W 4J P-4 ttS 14 M "C1 co -- P a) W Pa rJ a) b p, v P4 W to o 4 ai Pq Q) 0 m w H U) H kc N W N %0 N \ PU A Fq A M M r I r-1 p. H r l H�E! ­4 H H H H H H (1) H —4 a) r r-i Cb • • r I* c K k G F C F C G C F G uo A q pn � rn a w Z p; H U] C!] W H CJ 7C P+ Un U W U H 114 In W V O H z U H U H (n I • lD 6t N 00 .7 r- N -7 OD 00 I�D c''1 .t {„' i• [Tl C'7 l!] lD '"� c`"Y lD �Y 61 � Cif iD u c N • �D rn N 00 --:T r- N _'T 00 co tD CV) U n CT M �D t-D r~-i M m 1-4 Cr [q r-i ,C �D 00 N 00 n N -t 00 00 tQ cn �t U n D• M W m cn m V1 co O m c0 m Ln %0 r %D I'D N Ln m r� r-i M N co 00 Ln ►s 'd W W 44 W b al Q) a) 44 t" 4i O 'd ^d W lu FA Fil ca x 'd ro b 44 N A on a) Fxa w a) a) Lk u a) +J Q) ca W cn FA m PP 4a v] pa vJ U} c/) w a) W co 3 O cd 11 w R1 , - 1 u W f 4 O W + ca t4 ca O + W Ra +� u] W P+ PI b G +J b ro + + rn cd " � as ro O ro cis ro m cd a) F + as M p r 'IT - I P+ CJ] z -- a« - � a+ P+ +-I Pa N - N rn � W Pa � H �_ r-i '� � co t `� � r 1 � '— W -- 1 `� -_ -` Pa I e I a R1 r-! ca r1 .-1 'd -4 1-1 r-I 11 1-1 co I-1 r-1 U r-1 .-1 IH rH 1-4 r-i • r-, U r-1 r-I N V) i » w� O' Q7 W � H Cn U] W H U D4 -4 W Pi U] U ri i_ M �O %D N �p M ON r-1 n 00 00 00 u, ill r - 00 M 00 %O Ln -zr -It 7 'T ul) L 00 00 O W W ul Fq A W N PC M H O O' H W Pw A W w q W z U W N O H n +7 110 u1 a, N ,r r- 1.0 O cn u , - a N z Us r-, U r-1 r-I N V) i » w� O' Q7 W � H Cn U] W H U D4 -4 W Pi U] U ri i_ M �O %D N �p M ON r-1 n 00 00 00 u, ill r - 00 00 00 %O Ln -zr -It 7 00 00 00 M W r-r ON T m u) .Y N N N m W r i--I 44 Cn� 4 l Q O H z V] H z r] I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 ! I { U 00 H � � U 44 w d • � aj aj rq w m a�i •d b (1) 1 - 3 N �++ U Pq 'GQ 44 D aj d rn as ru 0 cd b� a O co P W Cn CA W (n W Gl 4-� a i 4 1 � ICI � b ro a rd (a ca m U) a) rn a) 19 ca o r W w w, Pa •d m a s� z W P. a o o rd s r 0 o + -- o 0 -H cd 4-4 o N 0 rd cn o 60 0-11 m m m rd O rd �> H PL4 M M ti0 W 4H O i >r W M PG 0 Pa � r i r-4 r--1 PL4 N N H -- —� m '� r -.e r ll -- rr; H r--1 ,-1 to p rl r - 4 r 4 r-1 r-4 r I r-i 1.J 'C1 r-i r-I ca Cd ca r-1 r-i Fj MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1985 RE: A REQUEST FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION IN ORDER TO ENCLOSE A PORTION OF THE DINING PATIO AT BLU'S BEANERY IN THE GORE CREEK PLAZA BU''ILDIN.G, I. THE PROPOSAL Proposed is a predominately glass enclosure of appropiately 54 square feet of existing outdoor dining area. The area proposed for enclosure encompasses appropriately 25 percent of the existing dining area. As proposed, the existing fixed windows would be replaced with retract- able door /windows that could be opened during the summer months. As stated by the applicant, this proposal will allow for a greater number of people to experience the feeling of outdoor dining by open- ing the doors during the summer months. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED I N EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS • As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for additions or new constructions in commercial core 1 involve review with respect to the urban design guide plan. These involve both the subarea concepts as delineated in the guide plan and map as well as the design considerations outlined for the Village. In addition to this are standard zoning considerations. This memo will address this proposal with respect to these review criteria. III. COMPLIANCE 14ITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE The Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village identifies a number of subarea concepts which are to be addressed in any redevelopment or additional development in the village. However, none of these subarea concepts are impacted by this proposal. As a result, subarea concepts are not a factor in reviewing this proposal. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are identified as.the primary form- giving physical features of the village. It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that this proposal substantially complies with these considerations or that the proposal does otherwise not alter the character of the neighborhood. How this proposal relates to the nine considerations is summarized below. • A. Pedestrianization One of the major objectives for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe and pleasant pedestrian ways. While Blu's Beanery fronts directly onto an element of this network, this proposal would not effect the pedestrian use of this walkway. B. Vehicle Penetration Service /delivery or other vehicular activity is not effected by this proposal. C. Streetscaoe Framework While this proposal would involve extending the existing store front approximately three feet, it would have little effect on the streetscape framework. Any effect of this expansion is mitigated by the existing planter that presently defines the dining area. D. Street Enclosure This consideration is not effected by the proposed expansion. E. Street Edge • As proposed, this expansion would give Blu's Beanery a rather uniform, continuous store front. However, this facade does not continue over too long a distance to become.mo:notonous... In addition, the existing raised planter and remaining outdoor dining area give life to the street and add visual interest for the pedestrian. These elements would not be effected by the proposed expansion of the store front. F. Building Height This consideration is not applicable to this proposal. G. Views This proposal would. not effect any view corridors within the village. H. Service and Delive Service and delivery trips to Blu's Beanery will not be signif- icantly increased as a result of this expansion. 1. Sun /Shade • This proposed expansion will not change existing sun /shade characteristics in this area. 0 V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The only applicable zoning consideration relative to this request is with respect to parking. Additional parking requirements would be generated from this proposed expansion. If approved, the applicant would be required to contribute to the parking fund prior to the issuance of any building permit for this construction. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommendation for this request is approval. In evaluating the urban design considerations for Vail Village, it is evident that this proposal will have minimal negative impacts in the area. While this proposal will reduce the size of the existing outdoor dining area (and a resultant decrease in actual outdoor seating) , it will in turn allow a greater number of patrons to enjoy the feeling of outdoor dining during the summer months. It is important to note the precedents that have been set in denying applications to enclose outdoor dining decks in Vail Village. It is felt that this proposal is unique in that a majority of the outdoor dining area will be maintained as well as the positive impact of the retractable door /windows. • • Alma TO: Planning and Environment Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September g, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a GRFA variance and east and west setback variances in order to build an exterior addition to Units 12A and 12B of the Vail Townhomes, Lot 12, Resubdivision of block 5 a part of Gore Creek Drive, Vail Village, 1st filing Applicant: Robert Galvin DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting to add additional GRFA to both the lower unit and upper unit located on Lot 12 of the Vail Townhomes. In order to construct this addition, a GRFA variance is necessary as well as east and west side setback variances. Mr. Galvin owns both units. He is proposing to add 227 square feet to the lower unit and 144 square feet to the upper unit. The lower unit's additional square footage will be used to expand a basement bedroom, as well as the first level living room, dining room, kitchen, bunk room and ski storage area. The upper unit square footage will be used to expand an existing bedroom and to redesign a stairway. Similar to most units in the Vail Townhomes develop- ment, this particular project is also over the allowed GRFA for the lot. Given HDMF zoning, the total allowed GRFA is 1,763 square feet. The existing GRFA is 2,732 square feet. At this time the two units are already 969 square feet over the GRFA allowed for this property. With the new additions► the GRFA will exceed the allowable by 1,340 square feet. The setbacks for the lot are also effected by this proposal. HDMF zoning requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the proper- ty. Presently, the north and south setbacks meet the 20 foot standards. However the existing east and west setbacks are completely encroached upon leaving a U foot setback. The current proposal will not effect the north and south setbacks. The east setback will be encroached upon an additional 18 feet and will create a U foot setback. The west setback will be encroached upon an additional 12 feet and will create a U foot setback. • • Zoning Statistics HDMF Zone Lot Area = 2,938 s.f. Total GRFA Allowed = 1,763 s.f. GRFA GRFA Existing Proposed Lower Unit 16bb s.t. 227 s.f. (includes 25 s.f. deduction for airlock) Upper Unit 1076 s.f. 144 s.f. TOTAL 2732 s.f. 371 s.f. Total Existing 2732 Total Allowed -1763 Amount over allowed +969 Total Proposed + Existing 3103 Total Allowed -1763 Total Amount over GRFA with Additions 1340 SETBACKS: Required 20 ft. on all sid • Existing Setbacks: East: West: North: South: Given This Proposal: East: West: North: South: GRFA Including Addition 1883 s.f. 3103 s.f. es of property U ft. 0 ft. 29 ft. 20 ft. (16 ft. from front fence) Encroaches an additional 18 ft. creating a U ft. setback Encroaches an additional 12 ft. creating a 0 ft. setback unaffected unaffected APPLICANT'S REASONS FOR REQUESTING THESE VARIANCES "In regard to Units 12A and 12B of the Vail Townhouses, we are requesting additional square footage by means of exterior addition and alteration. First, in order to achieve the additional square footage as ottered under Ordinance No. 4, minor exterior alter- ations would be necessary. Although Ordinance No. 4 suggests that additional square footage can only be added to the interior shell of a multi - family unit, Townhouse Units 12A and 12B have no practical interior space to enlarge upon. Secondly, the Galvin family has indicated to us that they are very much interested in completely upgrading their two Vail Townhome units. The units have significant visibility within the village core and any efforts to upgrade the units would be beneficial to all and work would involve new exterior finishing and detailing to both the existing and changed portions of the Townhouse units. The Vail Townhouses have undergone numerable unit remodels of similar nature through the years and there certainly appears to be an enough variety to allow exterior changes without altering the project's architectural character." (Letter August 6, 1985} 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 GRFA requests and approval of the setback variances based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structure in the vicinity. GRFA Variances The exterior alterations to the upper and lower units should not have negative impacts on adjacent uses or structures in the vicinity. In general, the exterior alterations will serve to upgrade the structures and should have a positive impact on neighboring properties. • Side Setback Variances Both the east and west side setbacks will be effected by this proposal. However, U foot setbacks already exist on both sides of the property. The additions will create a larger area that encroaches into both the east and west setbacks. However, these encroachments will not negatively impact neighboring properties as they are basically infill additions to existing patios and decks. The decree to which relief from the strict or literal interpreta- tion and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessar to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectiv of this title without rant of special privilege. GRFA Variances Ordinance No. 4 was designed to make it easier for applicants to add GRFA to single family and primary secondary units as well as multi - family units. The stipulation on multi- family units was that no deck or balcony enclosures or any exterior additions or alterations will be allowed for multi - family dwellings. The reasoning behind this stipulation was that if multi- family building owners enclosed their decks, or added exterior additions the bulk and mass of the building would be greatly increased. It was felt that these types of enclosures would have a very negative impact on the appearance of the building as a whole as well as adjacent properties. • S t a f f does agree with the applicant in his statement that "the Vail Townhomes have undergone numerable unit remodels of similar • nature through the years and there certainly appears to be enough variety to allow exterior changes without altering the project's architectural character." Staff does not feel that the additions create a negative bulk and mass for the building. Moreover, staff feels that the exterior alterations in most cases serve to upgrade the structure. The statt does have some concerns about the appearance of the north elevation. However, the critical point to resolve is whether or not the GRFA additions should be considered to be a grant of special privilege. Staff cannot determine any physical hardship which would warrant the approval of the proposed GRFA. For this reason, staff believes that it would be a grant of special privilege to allow the GRFA additions. Setback Variances Staff feels that it would not be a grant of special privilege to allow the setback variances. At first glance, this opinion may seem to be in conflict with the staff position on the GRFA variances. It is important to remember that each variance request must be treated separately. Even though, given this proposal, the two requests are interdependent. The Vail Townhomes have a lot layout which makes it very difficult to add any square footage to a structure without requiring variances. In fact, the existing units on each property already encroach signiticantly into the 20 foot setbacks which are required on all sides of the property. These encroachments are due to the fact that the lots are so narrow. Staff strongly believes that there are extraordinary circumstances due to the lot layouts . which warrant approval of the side setback variances. The eftect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that there are no significant impacts in respect to these concerns for either the GRFA requests or side setback requests. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICALBE TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCES. 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 handship 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 GRFA Variances Given the stipulations in Ordinance No. 4 which state that deck and balcony enclosures are not allowed as well as the fact that there is really no physical hardship concerning this request, staff recommends denial of the GRFA variances. To grant the request would be a decision which is inconsistent with the limitations on other properties within this same zone district. Side Setback Variances Staff recommends approval of the side setback variances as there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances on the site due to lot layout which do not generally • apply to other properties in this same zone. It is also felt that the granting of the variances would not be detrimental to the public health, satety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In the past, staff has approved side setback variances for properties within this development. For these reasons, staff believes that it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve the side setback variances. • fffT 1 _ / UTILITY E� r4MJ ` 13 t� BA1 ARE • I � 0 (REDUCED) i t f 41 ' K :t ���5 Q:. ` fi r• y � � \J� .� • It x,01 - r H 5LF-VA, Pro osed (Drawings have been reduced) ''t . � 0 • LJ 9 T' (REDUCED) • f jc ;, f i H r� (PROPOS ) Drawings have been reduced) /¢" I'p Planning and Environmental Commission September 23, 1985 2:00 Site inspections Meet at Fou nders' Plaza at 2:00 3:00 Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of September 9, 1985 2. Appointment of member to DPB for October, November, December 3. Request for exterior alteration in order to addla third story at the Hill Building at 311 Bridge st. Applicant: Blanche Hill 4. A request to amend Section 16.04 of the Municipal Code by adding a new category of "Special Boards" to the Sign Code. Applicant: Restaurant Association of Vail 5. A request for an exterior altertation of less than 100 square feet in order to enclose an existing planter at Gorsuch at 263 E. Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dave Gorsuch TO BE TABLED 6. A request to amend the development plan for Crossroads Center at 143 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Snowquest Partners • i 0 Planning and Environmental Commission ! . September 23, 1988 PRESENT Diana Donovan Duane Piper Sid Schultz ,aim Viele ABSENT Eric Afieldt Tom Briner Pam Hopkins STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman 1. Approval of minutes of September 9 19bb. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Jim Viele and seconded by Diana Donovan. The minutes were approved 4 -0. 1. Appointment of member to DRB for October, November, December. Diana Donovan nominated Tom Briner to be the new Design Review Board member for October, November and December. Duane Piper volunteered to be the alternate member. This was approved 4 -10. 3. A request for exterior alteration in order to add a third story to the Hill Building at 311 Bridge Street. Applicant; Blanche Hi i 1. Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation for the Hill Building addition. The applicant► Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to enclose 430 square feet of deck space on the west side of the second floor of the Hill Building and to add a third story addition of 1,141 square feet. The proposed third story addition is located at the southwest area of the building. The statt.'s primary concerns were with the proposal's impact on Sun /Shade and Street Enclosure. Staff recommended denial of the proposal. Staff felt that the project was not in compliance with the Vail Village Design Considerations by its effect upon Street Enclosure and by the additional shading due to the bulk and mass of the design. In the staff's opinion, the design made very little attempt to respect the Street Enclosure Design Considerations or to maintain the original design of the plaza area. The addition of a two -story element, totalling three stories going straight up from the property line at the location of the existing deck compromises the open feeling opt the southern edge of this plaza which is the major gateway to Vail Village. Z . Jay Peterson, representative of the applicant, made a presentation as to why the proposal was a positive improvement to the village. Jay Peterson stated that the half to one ratio for Street Enclosure stated in the Urban Design Considerations was very difficult to achieve. He stated that the canyon area which has a ratio of .87 to 1 really is only about 5 feet in length. He felt that this area really did not have a great impact on the overall plaza. He stated that a pedestrian focus would be maintained by the awning on the west side of the Hill Building facade. He did not feel that the proposal created a solid wall area and also that the upper decks would have flower boxes and would add to the pedestrian experience on the west side of the building. With respect to the Sun /Shade consideration, Jay Peterson felt that the Sun /Shade issue really only had to be addressed at 12:00 noon. Jay Peterson had submitted a Sun /Shade analysis that began at nine and went on into the afternoon. Jay agreed that shade was substantially increased during the hours of 9 and 10 in the morning. However, in the afternoon he pointed out that no increase of shade occurred. He added that staff's suggestion to shift the addition over to the east side of the building would be very difficult due to structural problems, possible view encroach- ments on the view corridor, and a similar Sun /Shade problem. Jay stated that Vail Associates had no problem with the deck overhang- ing onto Vail Associates' property. According to. Jay, Larry • Lichliter said that the additional shade may affect snow removal and skiers during a portion of the morning, but in general, he had no major problems with the proposal. Jay pointed out that in his opinion the existing approved plan blocked views up to the ski mountain much more than the new proposal. He emphasized that the new plan was trying to respect the view corridor. He gave examples of many buildings in Town which he felt had significant impacts on the street enclosure. The A & D Building and Wall Street were mentioned as examples of enclosures similar to the type of street enclosure that would be proposed with the Hill Building exterior alteration. He emphasized that Mrs. Hill wants to simply maintain a viable residence in Commercial Core I. She is not asking for a maximum height or a maximum GRFA. Jim Vieie found it hard to believe that the sun was in the area of the plaza on December 21st at 9:00 am. It seemed to Viele that the sun would probably be behind the mountain at this time on December 21st, the longest day of the year. Jay responded that, yes, this area is catching sun on December 21st. Viele stated that there were good arguments on both the applicant's as well as staff's side of the issue. He felt strongly that the applicant had an inherent right to develop the property. He stated that he was inclined to vote for approval of the project. • Duane Piper questioned why the northeast portion of the building which was at three stories was not at exactly the same height as a the third story addition. Jay Peterson responded by saying that • the owner did not want to cut into the vaulted ceiling directly below the addition. For this reason, the new addition is approx- imately five feet greater than the adjacent northeast portion of the building. He also stated that they could not step back the bedroom from the west facade as it would significantly decrease the bedroom space. Piper mentioned that the impacts to the shade conditions did not seem to be all that significant. He also was sensitive to the property owner's development rights. He stated that his concern was that the mass seems to be the greatest problem and has quite an impact upon the pedestrian area. Jay responded by saying that the existing rooflines in his opinion looked very peculiar and that the mass of the building in the new proposal tends to organize the roof lines in a much better manner visually. .Peter Patten clarified the staff's position on this proposal by stating that the staff certainly appreciated the development rights of the owner. He emphasized that the Urban Design Guide Plan was not a vehicle for denying owners their right to develop their property. He said that the GRFA is being almost maxed out in that only 377 square feet of GRFA would remain on the property atter the proposal was built. Certainly additional commercial space is possible, however, zoning standards would also have to be maintained. He clarified that staff is not picking out only . two items from the list of Urban Design Considerations. In fact, only several of the considertions happen to apply to this proposal as it is on the third story of a building. Many of the Urban Design Considerations address street level additions. Do to this tact, many of the Urban Design Considerations do not apply to this particular proposal. He reiterated that street enclosure and sun /shade were the two Design Considerations most impacted by this proposal. With respect to street enclosure, Patten explained that this Consideration really had to be looked at in a three - dimensional way. The problem is that the existing One Vail Place has a 3/4 to 1 ratio to the street. In other words, a canyon effect is already being imposed on the street by One Vail Place. The Hill Building will only increase this canyon effect with this addition. The Consideration states that "An external enclosure is most comfortable where its walls are approximately half as high as the width of the space enclosed. The height of the addition on the Hill Building will be 30 feet to the eave line. The height of One Vail Place is 28 teet to the eve line. The plaza width varies from 33 to 42 feet. This creates a ratio that varies from 2/3 : 1 to 1:1. Patten said that the previous proposal focussed the mass of the building in a smaller area. He stated that the canyon ettect did not extend along the building to such a degree as in the new proposal. 41 Patten said that the Sun /Shade Considerations specifically states I that Sun /Shade shall be considered and shall influence the . massing of the building. Staff is requesting that the massing of the building should be stepped back to avoid the Sun /Shade impacts as much as possible. Staft is certainly not trying to deny the owner's right to develop the property. Staff is also trying to avoid any type of impacts on the Seibert Circle area due to the new addition. Donovan stated that she was concerned about the canyon effect given the new proposal. However, she did feel that this was a better proposal than the previous proposal, but that this proposal needed some improvement. Sid Schultz had no real problem with most of the addition. He did feel that the deck and balcony on the west side of the building emphasized the mass of the building. The additional shade did not create a concern for him. Duane Piper asked if there were any comments from the audience. Michael Staughton, property manager for the Ore House and Baxter's felt that the Guidelines were designed to guide. His opinion was that a proposal fell into a grey area with respect to the Guide- lines that the Planning Commission should side with the owner's right to develop property. Jay told the board that the project was not maxed out at all in commercial as there is no restriction in Commercial Core I. He stated that he could turn the project into a commercial building and then add the GRFA on top of that square footage. Jay felt • that he would get the same argument from the staff it he were to try to shift his proposal over to the east side of the building. He stated that the staft would be concerned from the shade on this side of the building and impacts on Seibert Circle. Jay added that it seemed that staff was treating the importance of views differently between the previous proposal and the present proposal. Kristan Pritz responded by saying that the views were treated basically the same in the old proposal as in the new proposal. In both situations, the views were impacted, however, they were not approved view corridors. She also stated that the shade was increased by only Y square feet in the previous proposal. Donovan stated that she felt that the Casino and A &D Buildings on Bridge Street were too close. She did not want to see this type of thing happen again as far as street enclosure was concerned. Jay stated that given the Hill proposals, the Founders' Plaza adjacent to the Vail Associates' ticket area diminished the impact of the street enclosure. He pointed out that on Bridge Street you did not get the benefit of any large open plazas to give relief to the high buildings. Jim Viele moved to a212roye the request which was seconded by Sid Schultz. Peter Patten requested that the motion include a statement that the applicant would not remonstrate against a special improvement district. Jim Viele amended his motion to include this statement. The vote was in favor, Z against. A tie vote is a vote of denial. 0 4. A request to amend Section 1b.04 of the Municipal Code b N addin a new category of "special boards" to the sign code. Applicant: Restaurant Association of Vail Rick Pylman presented the staff memo on a display of chalkboards. He gave a brief background of why the proposal was before the Planning Commission and on what signage restaurants are presently allowed under the existing code. He pointed out that they were allowed one projecting, hanging, or wall sign, one display box, and one window sign. Staff recommended denial of this request as it was felt that the existing sign code allows adequate opportunity for display of the same information that the special boards would carry. Staff also felt that the requested sign category, special boards would not meet the intent of the sign code to minimize the visual clutter. Staff agreed that the special boards have been an ongoing enforcement problem for the Community Development Department. After much discussion and deliberation, staft felt that by legimizing these boards, the problem would still exist. It was suggested that the restaurant community begin to utilize methods currently available to them to display this information, i.e. in their display boxes. Mike Staughton and Kevin Clair represented the Restaurant Asso- ciation. Staughton stated that the Restaurant Association did not want to circumvent the sign code. Their intent was to bring to the Planning Commission the restaurants' need for this type of signage. They felt that they were perhaps being discriminated • against, as they could not have sale signs on clothes racks such as the retail shops. Kevin Clair pointed out that they would be happy to work with the Planning and Environmental Commission on the ordinance. Their intent was to have special boards for restaurants for their daily specials and promotions as well as for entertainment. He felt that there was a great deal of competition among the restaurants in Vail, and that this type of advertising lets the consumer make intelligent decisions. He also asked the Planning and Environmental Commission to look at the petition done to show the broad support of the restaurant owners in Commercial Core I for this type of sign. Renee Gorsuch stated that the sale racks that are put out for special sales are not allowed in the other six areas that she has stores in. She suggested that perhaps the Town should move to try to stop this type of situation where stores are putting out store racks directly on the street. Peter Patten gave some background on how the retailers were allowed to have this type of outdoor display. In 1982 the retailers expressed a need for outdoor display and stipulations were made on this privilege in that they were required to locate their displays on their own property, that the displays had to be directly in front of the store, and that signage was not allowed. He agreed that enforcement was another problem with respect to the outdoor displays. Many times large sale signs are placed next to the racks which is a type of sign that is not allowed. He stated that chalkboards were a similar enforcement problem. Originally the state was positive about the proposal due to the t • fact that it might be a way to rid the staff of this type of sign problem. However, after further study and discussion, it seemed prudent not to allow chalkboards. He pointed out that restaurants had been treated specially by allowing each to have a menu box. Duane Piper then read a letter from Pepi Langegger which opposed the special chalkboards. Kevin submitted a letter from David Dowell, owner of Cyrano's, that strongly supported the special boards. Diana Donovan said that she was on the original sign code commit- tee. The menu box was intended to serve this exact purpose to show daily specials and menus. She felt that additional signage would create clutter and that sign boards became additional advertising. She stated that patios are probably the best way to market a restaurant to the customers. She also felt that chalk- boards looked very cheap. Sid Schultz basically agreed with Donovan. He stated that many times the multi- colors of chalk and markers are very unsightly. He also agreed that chalkboards are a very difficult type of sign to enforce. He encouraged the staff to develop a stiff penalty for those restaurants that continued to put up the chalkboards. He was also in favor of getting rid of the outdoor display tables for retailers. . Jim Viele also agreed with Donovan's statements. Personally, he was not in favor of temporary signs. He also emphasized that he was sympathetic with the competition among restaurants and that perhaps the staff should look at changing the dimensions of the menu box so that daily specials could more easily be placed inside the menu boxes. Duane Piper agreed with Pepi Langegger in that the menu boxes should be used for daily specials. He also felt that the sidewalk display was not consistent with our other regulations. Mike Staughton emphasized that the reason for coming to the Planning Commission was to come up with an acceptable type of special board. The present chalkboards were a makeshift way to advertise daily specials. Duane Piper pointed out that the Restaurant Assocation could also try to encourage members to assist in enforcement. Kevin Clair stated that most restaurant owners did not want to point the finger at other restaurants when they put out menu specials. Kristan Pritz mentioned that this staff certainly did not enjoy going to restaurants and asking them to take down their chalkboards. In fact, many restaurant owners ask the staff why they don't have better things to do with their time than bother them about chalkboards. She suggested that it would be helpful if the Restaurant Association would cooperate with the statt and therefore decrease the enforcement problem and free up staff time to do more useful things with their time. Members felt that five square feet was adequate for display of the menu as well as the daily specials. Viele was the R only member that felt that perhaps a larger menu box may be a way to solve the problem. The motion was made by Viele and seconded by Donovan to recommend denial of the proposal. The Planning Commission asked the staff to pass on the concerns to the Town Council with respect to the special boards. The vote was 4 -0 recommending denial of the proposal to Town Council. 5. A request for an exterior alteration of less than 100 square Feet in order to enclose an existing planter at Gorsuch, Inc. at 26:3 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dave Gorsuch Tom Braun presented the staff memorandum explaining that a compromise solution had been reached with the applicant and that the staff was now supporting this request to now enclose the planter at the southeast corner of the Gorsuch building. Staff was originally not in favor of the request because of the loss of landscaping on the site. The applicant proposed installing a portion of the landscaping as shown on the Gorsuch exterior remodel plans dated 8/29/83. This would include the three most westerly trees that are located on the applicant's property as well as brick pavers running the length of the store along Gore Creek Drive. A motion was made by Viele and seconded by Donovan to approve the plan as presented with a portion of the landscape Elan to be installed as an element of this approval. The vote was 4 -0 in favor of the plan. b. A request to amend the development plan for Crossroads Center at 143 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Snow uest Partners A motion was made and seconded to table this proposal and the vote to table was 4 -0 in favor. • TO: Town Council • FROM: Community Development DATE: October 15, 1985 SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision of denial for a request for exterior alteration of the Hill Building, Lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill I. THE REQUEST As outlined in the attached memorandum to the Planning Commission dated September 23, 1985, this request was to enclose 430 square feet of deck space on the west side of the second story of the Hill Building and to add a third story bedroom 1 square feet. The proposed third story addition is located at the southwest area of the building. The staff recommendation for this request was for denial. It was felt that this project would have significant negative impacts on the One Vail Place plaza area. Staff feels that this proposal is not in compliance with the Vail Village Design Considerations regarding street enclosure and the effect of the additional shading due to the bulk and mass of this design. r1 U II. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION A Planning Commission motion for approval resulted in a 2 -2 vote. A tie vote is a vote of denial. Those Planning Commission members voting against the motion indicated concern over bulk and mass and the impact to the pedestrian areas. These Planning Commission members felt that further design work could alleviate these concerns. • TO: ! • FROM DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development September 23, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for exterior alteration of the Hill Building on Lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing to enclose existing second floor deck space and add a third story. Applicant; Blanche C. H i l l I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to enclose 430 square feet of deck space on the west side of the second floor of the Hill Building and to add a third story bedroom of 1,142 square feet. The proposed third story addition is located at the southwest area of the building. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE Purpose: The Commercial Core I D District is i intended t to provide sites and to maintain the u unique character of t the Vail Village commercial area with i its mixture of l lodges a and commercial establishments in a p predominantly p pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I I District is i intended t to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to insure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways and to insure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. This proposal is substantially in compliance with the intent of the zoning for CCI district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal relates to the sub -area concept 10A. This sub -area concept refers to mountain gateway improvements and describes elements such as a landscape screen, minor plaza, and a pedestrian loop to Wall Street. The area specified for Sub -area 10A is on land currently under control of the United States Forest Service. The current Forest Service position on this property is that it will allow no improve- ments with regard to this sub -area concept. The Community Development Department would request that if this sub -area is ever developed, that the owners of the Hill Building not - remonstrate against any special improvement district that may be formed to complete such improvements. . IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considera- tions. A. Pedestrianization. The third story addition and deck enclosure will have minimal if any impact upon pedes- trianization. B. Vehicle Penetration. No impact. C. Streetscape Framework. Because the additions are located on the second and third floors, there will be little impact on the quality of the walking experience with respect to landscaping and ground level commercial infill. The quality of the pedestrian experience will be impacted by additional shade in the area of Le Petite Cafe (see Sun /Shade analysis) and the ticket offices and also by some blockage of views of the mountain as one enters Founders' Plaza from the north. D. Street Enclosure. The Considerations state that "an . external enclosure is most comfortable where its walls are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space enclosed." The Design Guidelines also state that a ratio of 1:1, height to width, creates a "canyon effect." The height of the addition on the Hill Building will be 30 feet to the eave line The height of One Vail Place is 28 feet to the eave line. The plaza width varies from 33 to 42 feet. This creates a ratio that varies from 2/3:1 to 1:1. The Guidelines state that in some instances the "canyon effect" is acceptable such as a short connecting linkage between larger open spaces. The area between the Hill and the One Vail Place buildings adjacent to the proposed addition is not an area where we feel the "canyon effect" is acceptable. Most of this area is not a walkway, but a very active public plaza. The ticket window area may be the most highly utilized plaza in Vail Village during the winter season. In addition to the ticket office area, there is also an outdoor dining deck for Le Petite Cafe. It is our belief that this addition would create a very negative impact upon this plaza. The One Vail Place building opens to a wider plaza area as it nears the mountain as does the current design of the second story of the Hill Building. It is the staff's position that a three- . story facade on this area of the Hill building will severely detract from the original design goals of this plaza area. • E. Street Edge. No impact. All additions are above ground level. F. Building Height. In Commercial Core 1, up to 60% of each building may be built to a height of 33 feet or less and no more than 40% of each building may be higher. than 33 feet but not higher than 43 feet. The ridge height of the proposed addition is 37 feet. This height does meet the 60/40 c r i t e r i a as described. The new roof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the same pitch and materials of the existing roof forms. G. Views and Focal Points. The proposed addition will slightly impact views of Vail Mountain from the Founders' Plaza area. However, this view is not a designated view corridor, although we feel it is an important consideration. This view allows visitors an opportunity to orient themselves with regard to Vail Mountain. The view from Seibert Circle looking southwest to Vail Mountain is a designated view corridor. The proposed addition does not project into this view corridor. The addition is most visible from the Mill Creek Court Building looking west. There is a substantial addition of bulk and mass projected into this view. However, • views of the forest above have been maintained. H. Service and Delivery. No impact. I. Sun /Shade The Design Consideration states that "all new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern on adjacent properties or on the public right -of- way." This requested addition will increase the shadow pattern by approximately 350 square feet according to the December 21 study diagram. The March /September diagram indicates that the size of the shadow would nearly double, shading a large amount of the plaza area. This shading will have a considerable negative effect on the people gathered to purchase lift tickets and also on the outdoor dining area of Le Petite Cafe. We feel that this addition does substantially increase the shadow patterns in this plaza and does not meet the intent of these design considerations. • V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Project Statistics. Allowable GRFA, 6,400 sq ft Existing 2nd floor, 4,082 sq ft Existing 3rd floor, 696 sq ft Total, 4,778 sq ft Stairway deduction, 372 sq ft Total existing GRFA 4,451 sq ft Proposed 3rd floor addition 1,142 sq ft • Proposed 2nd story deck enclosure 430 sq ft Total proposed GRFA 6,023 sq ft Allowable GRFA 6,400 sq ft Proposed GRFA - 6,023 sq ft Remaining GRFA 377 sq ft VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial. This project would have significant impacts on the Cne Vail Place plaza area. This proposal is not in compliance with the Vail Village Design Considerations by its effect upon street enclosure and by the additional shading due to the bulk and mass of the design. In the staf'f's opinion, this design makes very little attempt to respect the street enclosure design considerations or to maintain the original design of the plaza area. The addition of a two -story element, totaling 3 stories going straight up from the property line at the location of the existing deck compromises the open feeling of the southern edge of this plaza which is a major gateway to Vail Village. • L9_ i :7 r � l� -_ Appoop limn , � -IPnow vu�,� 112.1 /��,o �-.A ikM1q CSI -�DDW W� vio�� 7 0 L- It I I fxk��Ne�l dh ��Ktw I llv �GiHP(�l� 7�I/'�P�I�'1 Ga - S i I I f F i s l f I / } �1 ,.r 1 0 t i • • 1 7 % v v TO: FROM: DATE : Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department September 23, 1985 SUBJECT : Request for an amendment to the Town of Vail sign code to create a new sign category that would allow the display of chalkboards. This category would apply only to restaurants. Applicant: Restaurant Association of Vail BACKGROUND OF REQUEST Recent sign code enforcement actions have resulted in a petition to amend the sign code. This amendment, proposed by the Restaurant Association of Vail, involves the creation of a new sign category that would allow the display of chalkboards. This category would apply only to restaurants. The Town of Vail sign code as existing allows restaurants the following signage : A. Projecting and hanging signs or wall mounted signs or any combination thereof, not to exceed the maximum numloer or size of signs as designated. The purpose of this sign category is to allow or business identifica- tion. The allowable size of this sign is related to the business frontage with a one square foot per five lineal foot ratio with a maximum area of ten square feet per sign. B. Display boxes. The purpose of this sign category is to allow the display of current menus, current real estate listings, or current entertainment. The size shall be no greater than 5 square feet. C. Window signs. The purpose of this sign catetory is to allow Mentilcication of particular types of services, products or events. The size is restricted to 15% of the total window space or no more than 10 square feet. The proposed new sign category would read as follows: "SPECIAL BOARDS" Special boards shall be regulated by the following: A. Purpose, to announce daily food and drink specials, promotional events, and entertainment events. B. Size, no greater than 2'x3' (6 square feet) . • C. Location, on leased or owned property, within a reason- able proximity to menu box, subject to approval by the office of Community Development. ! . D. Number shall be as follows: I. Permitted, one special board. 2. Permitted, if a business has two consumer entrances on separate pedestrian ways and has been approved for two menu boxes, two special boards shall be allowed. E. Design, an erasable -type board. F. Lighting, no additional lighting specifically for special boards. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST In order to evaluate this request, we have utilized the same criteria used to evaluate an amendment to the zoning code, with slight modifications. Those criteria are, first, a discussion of the amendment request concerning the suitability /non - suitability of the existing code; secondly, the question of whether or not the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the code as well as municipal objectives; and finally, an evaluation of the request with regard to fostering the orderly and viable growth of the community. • 1. Suitability of Existing Sign Code The existing sign code allows restaurants the ability to utilize three categories of signage. The first allows identification of the establishment and its nature of business. The other two categories, display boxes and window signs, allow for display of the specialized infoxma- tion. Either or both of these categories could adequately function as a vehicle for the display of daily food and drink specials. It is the staff's belief that the existing code provides suitable methods for the display of information that the proposed amendment is requesting. 2. Is the amendment proposal consistent with the intent of the sign code as well as municipal objectives? The main intent of the sign code is to reduce the visual clutter associated with excess signage. The sign code is designed to allow the display of necessary and pertinent information to identify businesses in the most efficient and aesthetically pleasing manner . It is the staff's position that the addition of a new "special boards" category is not consistent with the intent of the Town of Vail sign code. In light of the fact that there are two categories of . allowable signage that may display this type of information, we feel that this requested category is unnecessary and in conflict with the objectives of the code. The allowance of these chalkboards could easily, in the long term, produce significant sign clutter and a congruent negative aesthetic perception of our pedestrianized areas. 3. Does the amendment proposed provide for the growth of an orderly and viable c ommuni y The first paragraph of the Town of Vail's zoning code, Section 18.59.010, states the following: V a i l is a town with a unique natural setting, inter- nationally known for its natural beauty, alpine environ- ment, and the compatibility of man -made structures with the environment. These characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors becoming permanent residents participating in community life. This chapter, of the zoning code goes on to establish the design review guidelines of the Town of Vail. These guide- lines, along with the related landscaping requirements, the Urban Design Guide Plans for Commercial Cores I and II, and our sign code were developed and adopted by the Town in an attempt to provide for the orderly and viable growth of our community. It is the staff's position that the requested amendment would have a negative effect upon the sign code by giving restaurants an unnecessary special privilege and therefore would be detrimental to the development objectives of the Town of Vail. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of this request. We feel that the existing sign code allows adequate opportunity for display of the same information that the "special boards" would carry. We also believe that this requested category does not meet the intent of the sign code to minimize the visual clutter. . The "special boards" have been an ongoing enforcement problem for the Community Development Department. We do not believe, however, after much discussion and deliberation, that legitimizing these boards is the proper solution to this issue. The restaurant community should begin to utilize methods currently available to them to display this information. 0 town at VHH 75 south frontage road vaii, colorado 61657 (303) 476 -7000 Dear Restaurant Owners in Vail Village and Lionshead, office of community development The recent proliferation of chalkboards and temporary display boards throughout both the Village and Lionshead areas has resulted in recent enforcement action by the Community Development Department. Within the past two weeks a Community Development staff member has personally contacted each establishment displaying such signage, requesting cooperation in the removal of this type of sign. We recognize that a restaurant has special needs and feel that the Town sign code respects those needs. The sign code allows restaurants additional signage in the form of a menu box. This may be used to display information such as daily specials in a pleasing aesthetic manner. • We would prefer to rely on a spirit of cooperation rather than utilize enforcement procedures, however to do so we need the unanimous support of the entire business community. We do expect your compliance. Any future violations of the Town of Vail sign code will be strictly enforced. If you have any questions regarding exactly the type and number of signs you are allowed or if you would like to apply to the Design Review Board for a menu box please contact our office. Thank you for your cooperation. Best wishes for a successful summer season. Sincerely, Peter Patten Director of Community Development PP /blf is Ea 1e Qu5taurant Company, Incorporated cyrandes Qckauraft 298 ffamon Qanch Load Vail Village Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5551 C G � . �' -?�' -.-� � ���C'i �2�� --C`. ,.� C" � Lam_.. e<1 o Z*x 3 The T l BoxT?go Va1l,Cda-d v 81658 4476 -2204 « r RECT SEP g September 13, 1985 VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Ladies a. Gentlemen: As a Vail restaurateur for the last l8 years, I would like to express my opinion about the proposed sign ordinance change for restaurants to allow handwritten signs on blackboards in front of businesses to advertise specials and attractions. The question is what do we want to be -W "a world class resort" or a tinsel town, cluttered with cheap chalkboards in different handwritings and t- shirts displayed on sale out on the sidewalks. It was a big mistake to grant shops to let them display their undesirable merchanidse "so to speak" in front of their stores. Sometimes it looks more like a sidewalk rummage sale out of boxes than "quote" Vail's unique boutiques. I hope, rather than creating another sidewalk sale image with restaurants, let's learn from the first mistake. I believe there is no gain for anybody and all we are doing is setting low standards for the clientele we want to attract. We have to give up short - sighted fast gains in favor of long -range quality planning. Sincerely., THE TYROLEAN INN Pep Langegger PL /jac 0 PETITION We the undersigned, are strongly opposed to the Town of Vail regulations prohibiting restaurants from displaying "special boards" for the following reasons: 1) Special boards are an important marketing tool for restaurants. These boards are most effective when displayed in conjuction with the menu. box. I3owever, the menu box , because of its restricted size is not adequ;,.tespace to explain a number of special dishes or a special discount offer. 2) It is discriminatory to single out restaurants for sign rest- rictions when retailers are permitted sale signs, street side clothes racks, and sale tables. 3) This kind of regulation is not in the best interest of the Vail visitor or local. Our customers want to know what specials are being offered. An attractive special board is a excellent means of commun- icating this information. Vie urge you to reconsider this regulation. SIGNATURE I �" If /T TITLE owner d�vr"._ 0W#ee4*__ RESTAURA17T &W7_-FW �s k�WI-00;4 /Z0 G s� r .r R � 10 OUAA4 AIAA P-A� es A •e/ * " Lv 0 £NeG4�E &SrwOoG R I t o .,y f N TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 9, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance in order to enclose a second floor balcony of Unit 15 -C, Sandstone 70 Condo- miniums. Applicant: Carl F. Scherer DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting to enclose a balcony of approximately 88 square feet on Unit 15 -C which is part of a 4 -plex of the Sandstone 70 Condominiums. The balcony would then become part of the applicant's living room. In the process of this construction, the applicant would also change the east (front) elevation with an alteration of the root line. (See enclosed elevation.) Currently, the Sandstone 70 development is over its GRFA allowance by 13,988 square feet. Therefore, any additions to living area would require a variance. See attached the applicant's request. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findinqs, Section 18.52.000 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 location of the proposed balcony enclosure will have minimal impact on neighboring residents because the balcony will not be extended. However, it the request were granted, it could become precedent setting and the enclosure of several balconies would would have an impact. Furthermore, existing development is dramatically over the allowable density and the enclosure of several balconies would be an even greater density increase. The deqree to which relief from the strict or literal interpreta- tion and enforcement of a specified regulation is _ necessaa to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity Historically, the staff has generally not supported requests for additional GRFA over what is allowed under existing zoning. The staff feels that to grant additional GRFA in an already dense area 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 The Community Action Plan encourages the upgrading and remodeling of structures and sites as well as the maintenance and upkeep of property within the Town. However, it should not be construed that these goals were intended to be given preference over development standards. While the staff does not question this proposal would be an upgrading of the property, it is important that any proposals comply with established development standards. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following tindin s before granting a variance. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons; The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship 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 Staff recommendation for this request is denial. While any physical impacts on the site would be negligible, it is felt that to approve this request would be a grant of special privlege. In addition, there is no apparent physical hardship evident to justify this request. As the Planning Commission is aware, Ordinance 4 of 1985 was designed to allow for small additions to existing residences. During the development of this ordinance, the issue of deck enclosures was discussed a great deal by the Council and Planning Commission. With the final adoption of this ordinance came a very clear message from the Council that they were not in favor of decks in multi- family structures being enclosed. For this and the above mentioned reasons, staff is unable to support this request. • • . i APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE KARL F. SCHERER UNIT 15--C, SANDSTONE TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY AUGUST 6, 1985 70 CONDOMINIUMS OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RE: STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED 1. The variance requested is from the GRFA requirements of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The purpose of the request is to allow the applicant to enclose a second floor balcony of approximately 100 square feet; the balcony would thereby become part of the applicant's living room. Other existing uses in the neighborhood are primarily residential, the exception being The Printery, a commercial use. 2. Only a very minor degree of relief from the existing zoning is necessary to the granting of this application; compatibility of this residential unit with the neighborhood will not be affec- ted. It should be noted that the Ted Martin residence at Sandstone 70 has an enclosed balcony. 3. The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and pub- lic safety will be nil. The applicant wishes to refer the Department of Community Develop- ment and the Planning Commission to the following considerations: a. One of the purposes of the Zoning Title of the Code is "to conserve and maintain established community qualities and econ- mic values; ". This improvement would help to maintain economic values. b. The applicant also wishes to direct attention to Vail's Community Action Plan; in it's statement of purpose, the Plan specifically is directed towards "recognizing the special needs of neighborhoods ". One specific need of this neighborhood, located directly across from Lionshead, is the upgrading of some of the older condominium projects. The Plan further recognizes that "New Growth and re- vitalization are essential to the continued success of Vail ", and urges the adoption of measures aimed at accomplishing "Neigh- borhood planning and upgrading" and "Community incentives and awards programs for upgrading of buildings and sites ". Respe�tf / itted, Karl F. Scherer u tr1} +tt�T +''� tt * Nt T f It 1 -0 4 1� tt�tt +TtaT.d - U, I = �M L L w O 1 !f - U, I 1 1 -- 2 , . Z �. c O •ate �r N = �M L L w O 1 1 -- 2 , . Z �. c O •ate �r N After discusion of a landscape plan, the staff recommended approval of this plan. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM. Community Development DATE- September 23, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to enclose an existing planter at Gorsuch Ltd. in Vail V i l l a g e . Applicant: Dave Gorsuch THE PROPOSAL This proposal is to enclose an existing planter located along Gore Creek Drive at the southeast corner of .Gorsuch Ltd. The enclosure is approximately 44 square feet and would be used for the display of merchandise. Exterior finishes of this enclosure would be similar to the existing finishing details throughout the building . 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 involve review with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan. These involve both the sub-area concepts as delineated in the Guide Plan and map as well as the Design Considerations outlined for the Village. In . addition to this are standard zoning considerations. This memo will address this proposal with respect to these review criteria. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN The Urban Design Guide Plan identifies a number of sub -area concepts which are to be addressed in any redevelopment or additional development in the Village. However, none of these sub -area concepts are impacted by this proposal. As a result, these sub-areas are not a factor in reviewing this application. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATI FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following Design Considerations are identified as the primary form giving physical features of the Village. It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that this proposal substantially complies with these considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. How this proposal relates to the nine considerations is summarized below. Pedestr. ianization. Gore Creek Drive serves as both a pedestrian corridor and a vehicle access way in this area. This proposal will not adversely affect either of these two functions. Vehicular Penetration Not applicable to this proposal. Streetscape Framework. Streetscape framework deals with the . quality of the walking experience among the pedestrianways within Vail Village. Two general types of improvements as outlined in the Guide Plan include the use of open space and landscaping as a colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes and the infill of commercial store fronts to create commercial activity and street life along pedestrian corri- dors. This proposal will add store front display area to Gor.such's that will in some respects provide visual activity for the pedestrian. On the other hand, it will also eliminate a planter that can be utilized in the display of flowers and other plantings. There presently exists a large amount of window display and a very small amount of landscaped area on this site. It is recognized that a variety of these two features is a preferred alternative. With respect to this proposal, the elimination of this planter area is seen as a negative impact on the existing streetscape. Street Enclosure. This criteria is not impacted by this proposal. Street Edge. It is the intent of the. Guide Plan to develop a Vi age core with a strong but irregular edge to the street. This type of development gives a certain amount of life to the street and visual interest to the pedestrian. While this proposal would enclose a portion of the building that is recessed from the street, the relatively small size . of the enclosure deems it to be a fairly insignificant factor . Building Height. Not applicable. Views. This proposal does not affect any view corridors. Service and Delivery Not applicable. Sun /Shade. Not applicable. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS If approved, this proposal would contribute to the parking demand created by Gorsuch Ltd. Payment of applicable parking fees would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Section 18.24.170 of the Zoning Code outlines landscaping and site development standards for the Village Core. This reads as follows: No reduction of landscaped area shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Design Considerations. As clearly stated in this zoning criteria, the elimination of landscaped area is prohibited unless sufficient cause is demon- strated by the applicant or the elimination of landscaped area is • the result of some consideration in the Vail Village Urban Design . Guide Plan. In this situation, the Guide Plan does not specific- - ally recommend that this landscaped area be removed. STAFF RECOMMEND Staff recommendation for this request is denial. while the total area to be enclosed is only 44 square feet, it is felt that if properly maintained, this planter could provide a great deal of color and life to this site. The intention of the applicant to increase the store front display is not considered a detrimental step. However, it is the feeling of the staff that to sacrifice this existing planter for additional display area is not in keeping with the Design Considerations outlined in the Guide Plan. This position is also substantiated by the Summer Quality surveys that have indicated our guests to be very impressed with the flowers and color found throughout the Village during the summer. months. This proposal would not be nearly as objectionable to the staff if alternative locations were available on the site to locate a new planter. However, this building is constructed right to the property lines (in some cases, over the property lines) in the area of this proposal. While the applicant has proposed locating decorative wooden pots with small pines in front of the store, these are not considered an appropriate trade -off when considering the loss of a permanent planter. Planning and Environmental Commission is October 14, 1985 2:00 pm Site Inspections 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a low power subscription radio transmitter facility on Tract A, Potato Patch subdivision. Applicant: Stephens Communications 2. Request for a setback variance in order to build a sun room at the Ramshorn Lodge. Applicant: The .Polar Partnership 3. Request for exterior alteration of an area under 100 square feet in CCI in order to remodel the existing entries and add 65 square feet to the Rucksack. Applicant: Rucksack TO BE TABLED 4. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an existing neck area . and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquest TO BE TABLED 5. A request for a setback variance in order to add an east entry to the Concert Hall Plaza Building. Applicant: Brad Quayle 6. Update by staff on results of appeals to Town Council of Galvin, Sherer and sign code. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission October 14, 1985 PRESENT Tom Briner Diana Donovan Pam Hopkins Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Eric Affedlt STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman The minutes of the PEC meeting of September 23 were moved for approval by Donovan and seconded by Viele. Vote was 6 -0 in favor. • 1. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a low power subscription radio transmitter facility on Tract A, Potato Patch subdivision. Applicant: Stephens Communi- cations Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation and stated that the staff recommended approval. He summarized the review criteria and reminded the PEC of the zone amendment previously approved that would allow low power subscription radio transmitters in the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. The staff found that the minimal impacts had been mitigated and were insignifi- cant. Pylman read into the record several letters from property owners in the Potato Patch subdivision: Two from Luc Meyer against the proposal, 1 from Georges Boyer against the proposal, telegram from Dr. Ivan Mindlan supporting the proposal, and phone calls from JJ Collins, Larry Mullin, and Bob Charles all in support of the proposal. Steve Wherry, the applicant, summarized the process he had followed to date and expressed concern with the Forest Service's attitude of requiring him to relocate his transmitter facility. He explained that he had tested a number of sites for relocation and most sites did not work because of site constraints. Joe Macy of Vail Associates explained the process /dialogue that had taken place with the Forest Service. Briner asked questions concerning the technical aspects of the signal. Donovan said the Town needs to put pressure on the Forest Service with respect to this type of application. Viele is and Schultz concurred. Briner had problems with the Location because even though slight, it would have a visual impact on adjacent property. Pylman stated that from a town -wide standpoint, staff saw this as a benefit. He added that covenants on the land would preclude this from happening if adjcent property owners were to oppose this. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the request per the staff memo and with the recommendation that Town Coucil send a etter to the Forest Service stating that the previous site was preferred and their change in posture was unfortunate. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of approval. 2. Request for a setback variance in order to build a sun room at the Ramshorn Lodge. Kristan Pritz explained that encroachments into setbacks were actually being decreased by the removal of the pool equipment room. There were no negative impacts on snow removal, a future sidewalk, or adjacent properties. Jim Morter, architect for the proposal, stated that the proposal actually has a positive impact on the area. Donovan commented that the design needs to be compatible with the existing building. she also recommended that the DRB address the condition of the fence. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request per the staff memo wh . included the condition that the applicant receive approvals from Public Service and Mountain Bell to construct the sun room on the gas easement and underground_t_e ep one line. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of approval. 3. Request for exterior alteration of an area under 100 square feet in CCI in order to remodel the existing entries and add 65 square feet to the Rucksack. Applicant: Rucksack Duane Piper stepped down as chairman and Jim Viele assumed the chair. Tom Braun described the proposal and the criteria for review. He stated that Sub- -Area Concept #12 was directly related to the proposal. This is a mid -block connection to Mill Creek. It was felt that this addition in and of itself would not create a great deal of difficulty in establishing this mid -block connec- tion when considering the existing obstacles in place. Braun reviewed the Urban Design Considerations and recommended approval. Duane Piper, representing the applicant, gave the presentation. He explained that the proposal would help increase transparency and create a more interesting street edge and focus on the entry to Bridge street. There was a motion for approval by Briner, seconded by Schultz per the staff memo. The vote was 5 in favor, with Piper abstaining. • 4. Request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an exIstxng deck area and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquest This was tabled to 10/28/85 by motion and 6 -0 vote. 5. A request for a setback variance in order to add an east entry to the Concert Hall Plaza Building. Applicant: Farad Quay This ws tabled to 10/28/85 by motion and 6 -0 vote. Patten gave an update to the PEC on appeals of GRFA variances. Staff will be resuming study of multi- family buildings. There was also an update on the Vail Village Study. F - I L J J • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in order to build a sunroom at the Ramshorn Lodge. Applicant: Polar Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Polar Partnership is requesting a side setback variance in order to add a sun room to Unit 3 of the Ramshorn build- ing. The sun room will add an additional 125 square feet to Unit 3. The addition will connect with the living room /dining room area of the unit. Twenty foot setbacks are required on all sides of the property in the Public Accommodation zone. The existing building extends approximately 11 feet into the setback. The new sun room addition will encroach 13 feet at the farthest point. The applicant is also proposing to move an existing pool equipment room which encroaches 18 feet into the setback. The pool equipment room will be relocted in an area adjacent to the existing building. By relocating the pool equipment room, the applicant is decreasing the greatest existing encroachment into the setback. L� Below is a list of zoning statistics for this property. Please note that the building is under the allowed GRFA as well as allowed site coverage. Public Accommodation Zone Site Area .533 acre or 23,216 sf existing (Note: project also has another lot of 6,000 sf zoned Parking) No. Sq. Ft. Accommodation Units 17 6,266 Dwelling units 7 5,903 Total Density 15.5 12,169 Common Lobby /Lounge 2 1,038 Total Allowed GRFA Total existing GRFA Remaining GRFA Proposed addition Remaining GRFA after deduction for addition 18,572 sf 12,169 sf 6,403 sf 125 sf 6,278 sf Site coverage: Allowed 12,769 sf Existing 6,595 sf approx Addition 143 sf Remaining after addition 6,031 sf II. APPLICANT'S REASONS FOR REQUESTING THE VARIANCE "The applicant requests to make his project LESS NONCONFORM- ING than it currently is, by relocating an existing pool equipment building, and constructing a new transparent sun room. The existing pool equipment building protrudes eighteen feet into a twenty foot setback area. A new pool equipment building would be constructed totally within the allowable building area, totally out of the setback area. The new pool equipment building would be approximately twenty -seven percent smaller than the existing one, and would be tucked under an existing deck in an existing recess in the building. • By comparison, the proposed transparent sun room would protrude only thirteen feet at its furthest corner into the setback (compared to the 18 feet of the existing pool equipment building). The sun room would be attached to the existing main building, rather than be detached, as the existing pool equipment building is." III. 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 13113777g factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the greenhouse addition will not have a negative impact on adjacent structures or properties. Public Works department has stated that the addition will not create any problems with their snowplowing. It is also felt that the removal of the existing pool equipment would 40 actually decrease the encroachment into the setback. The pool structure is not a particularly attractive building and it would be a benefit to relocate it as well as rebuild it in a corner adjacent to the existing building. For these reasons, staff feels that the proposal actually has a positive impact on the area. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a s ecified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity ot treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob jectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff's opinion is that it would not be a grant of special privilege to allow the 13 foot setback encroachment for the sun room. The removal of the pool equipment room creates a 5 foot decrease in the existing encroachment and is a net improvement for the property. Staff feels that a nonconform- ing situation is becoming less nonconforming and therefore should not be considered 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. This proposal does not have any great impacts on these areas of concern. • III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. IV. 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 limitatins on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the vriance 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 proerties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the opinions that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and will not constitute a grant of special privilege, as a nonconforming situation is becoming less nonconforming given this proposal. Staff believes that the variance is warranted due to extraordinary circumstances on this site, such as the existing building being located in the setback as well as an existing pool equipment room. These structures are already encroaching into the setback and the net result of the proposed variance will be to decrease the degree of the encroachment by five feet. Staff recommends approval of the variance contingent upon the applicant receiving approvals from Public Service and Mountain Bell to construct the sun room on the gas easement and underground telephone line. .� • � �"' - w �� • J • • • � Z � U -� 4 g �"► 1 1 c� 71.1 •i . � Z � U -� 0 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department . DATE: - October 14, 1985 SUBJECT. This is a request for a conditional use permit in order to erect a low power subscription radio antenna within Agricultural and Open Space zoned property owned by Vail Associates within the Vail Potato Patch subdivision. Applicant: Stephens Communication, Inc. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Stephens Communication, Inc. must relocate their existing transmitter facilities from Forest Service property. Stephens Communication has entered into an agreement with Vail Associates to utilize property owned by Vail Associates in the northwest area of the Potato Patch subdivision. This land is zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The facilities consist of an 8' x 6' x 8' equipment shed and an antenna and mast that, depending upon final location, may be from 15 to 30 feet in height. The applicant states that, "The height of the antenna and mast will not exceed the height of the surrounding aspen trees (approximately 30 feet)." 1 • In a letter sent to Potato Patch subdivision property owners, the applicant goes on to say, "In order to reduce the visual impact of the transmitter building, we are proposing that it be relocated along side of the access road that goes to the power sub - station. It can be situated on Vail Associates' property at a point along the road where it will not be visible from your home or Potato Patch road. There is a bend in this road just before the property line to the National Forest which will hide this structure. The building measures 8' x 6' x 8'. I am enclosing pictures of these facilities. I think you will see that the antenna and mast blend into the aspen tree background quite readily. The mast will be painted so that it matches the color of the surrounding tree trunks." The Planning and Environmental Commission should be aware that there are Potato Patch subdivision covenants which may not allow this type of use. It is the staff's position that covenants are private contractual agreements and are not enforced by the Town. The applicant is aware of this situation and is working towards resolution with the property owners. II. 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: • 0 Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the e Town. .. —. - The Agricultural and Open Space zone district was recently amended to allow "low power subscription radio service" as a conditional use. The development objectives of this zone district allow low impact development while maintaining quality open space. It is the staff's belief that this request meets those objectives. It is our belief that the service provided by these facilities provides a benefit to the citizens of the Town of Vail and to the skiing population on Vail Mountain. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of p opulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation face sties and other public facilities and public facilities nee s. The public may benefit from the utilization of this service due to the public service announcements regarding skiing, weather and traffic conditions. No effects on the other factors are perceived at this time. • The effect upon traffic with particular reference to conges- tion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, trattic flow a control, access maneuverability, and removal of snow from street and parking areas. This request will generate very little traffic within the Town of Vail. The facilities require service on the average of one to two trips per month. The effect of this additional traffic upon Red Sandstone Road is minimal. As previously related, this service may provide information to both guests and residents that may aid in traffic flow and control. Effect upon the character of the area in which the 2roposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Primary use of the Potato Patch subdivision is residential. Immediately north of the proposed transmitter building location is a large electric substation located on the white River National Forest. The proposed transmitter building is 6' x 8' x 6 48 square feet. The proposed location is completely screened from view of any residential properties. The proposed antenna and mast location is visible from several of the residential properties within the Potato Patch subdivision. The height of this antenna would be a maximum of 30 feet. The proposed antenna location is within a grove of aspen trees of approximately 30 feet in height. Staff feels that the overall effect upon the character of this area is minimal, if any. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. III. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Department recommends approval of the condi- tional use request. It is the staff's belief that the only negative impacts associated with this request are the visibility from the adjacent properties and that the applicant has mitigated these effects to the best of his ability. • , a 1%, u SOUNDS 0 GOOD September 27, 1985 Mr. Luc Meyer P. 0. Box 176 Vail, Co 81658 Dear Mr. Meyer: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and discuss the relocation of our antenna site. You asked me to write to you and explain our request. As you know, I own a company named Stephens Communications. We provide a subscription radio service to skiers on Vail Mount4in under the name "Sounds Good." We rent small Sony FM receivers to skiers who can pick up four special channels of music to ski with. We also provide • information to them every half -hour, such as lift line status, groomed trail announcements, weather reports, safer skiing reminders, ski patrol "call board announcements," road conditions, and Town of Vail traffic announcements. We do not sell advertising. Vail Associates uses the system for emergency communications to skiers when severe weather sets in or when other emergency conditions present themselves. As I mentioned to you, I am pioneering this concept in Vail. I have spent the last four years and most of my personal money developing this concept. For the last three years i,ae have been operating our prEiiary antenna site on Forest Service land above your home in Potato Patch. While we have operated on that site under a Temporary Special Use Permit, the Forest Service has informed me that they will not review the permit. I am enclosing a copy of Richard Woodrow's letter. Fie is the White River National Forest Supervisor. This Forest Service action has forced us to seek another antenna site. within the Town of Vail. As I explained to you in our meeting, we use a low power (10 watt) FM signal that must have direct line -of -sight to the front side of the mountain. I also mentioned 'that we had tested our reception from several other sites including Spraddle Creek and KVMT's translator site, about 2/3 of the way down Potato Patch Road. Unfortunately, these sites did not have the line -of -sight vantage . Stephens Communications, Inc. P.O. Sox 910 Vail, CO 81658 303 476 -4998 Mr. Luc Meyer September 27, 1985 Page Two point that is required and the tests were unsuccessful. As a result of this testing, we have determined that we must be as close as possible to the Forest Service site that we have successfully operated from. In looking for possible sites, we found that Vail Associates owns land to the west of your property that would be a suitable site for our transmission facility. Vail Associates was in concurrance with our use of this site so we contacted the Town to see what we would need to do to use this site. In uu rking with Peter Patton and Rick Pylman, I learned that we would first have to request a change of the zoning ordinances to allow for the "conditional use' of a "low power, subscription radio facility." We made the request that this use be permitted within the agricultural and open space and the pr imary /secondary residential zoning districts. The Town's Community Development staff recommended that the zoning ordinance be changed to allow this as a conditional use for the agricultural and open space district but not the primary /secondary residential district. The Town Council approved this in their second reading on September 3, 1985. . The next step was to apply for the conditional use through the Planning and Environmental Commission. Lie have filed our application and I understand our request will be heard at their October 14th meeting. I am enclosing a site plan which shows the proposed location of the facilities. We are proposing that we locate the antenna and mast approximately 5 feet from your property line on Vail Associates' land, and within 5 feet of the National Forest land. This gives us the line -of -sight view that we need of the front of Vail Mountain. The height of the antenna and mast will not exceed the height of the surrounding aspen trees (approximately 30 feet) . In order to reduce the visual impact of the transmitter building we are proposing that it be relocated along side of the access road that goes to the power substation. It can be situated on Vail Associates' property, at a point along the road where it will not be visible from your home or Potato Patch Road. There is a bend in this road just before the property line to the National Forest which will hide this structure. The building measures 8'x5'x8'. I am enclosing pictures of these facilities. I think you will see that the antenna and mast blend into the aspen tree badcground quite readily. The mast will be painted so that it matches the color of the surrounding tree trunks. Mr. Meyer, you asked me about our operating hours and the amount of access we would need to the equipment. We operate the transmission equipment from approximately 8:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., for the ski season . only. Once the transmission facilities are in place and tested, VP- should only have to access the antenna and mast for repair work. Mr. Luc Meyer September 27, 1985 Page Three • This is typically infrequent. Last spring no repairs were required of these components. There should be little impact on you since this is the only part of the system visible from your property. We will probably access the transmitter building about twice a month for routine checks, plus any maintenance required. We hope that the impact on you will be minimal since it is not visible from your home. In response to your request, I did talk further with the Forest Service to see if they would consider leaving the facility or part of the facility on National Forest land for this coming ski season. I met with Dave Stark in Minturn and he said they would not consider it. I also talked to Bob Miller in Mr. '4,bodrow's office and he assured me that Mr. Woodrow would not consider it. This seems consistent with their communications to date. You also asked if the transmission facilities could be placed near your neighbor's residence (primary /secondary residential zoning) . As I mentioned, we had originally requested that this conditional use apply to primary /secondary residential as well, but we withdrew this request when the Town staff opposed it. I checked with Peter Patten and he said it is possible tc back through the process of changing the zoning ordinances, but he reminded me that this is a lengthy process and we would be well into the ski season before it could even be considered. He also said the staff mold continue to oppose this change. Although we could try to pursue this as a long -term alternative, it does not appear to be a short -term solution. I would suggest that we go ahead with our plans to put the antenna on Vail Associates property to support our operations this ski season. This would give us an opportunity to review the operations and determine if the market for this service is large enough to justify continuing the operations. It will also give us a chance to review the impact on the surrounding property. If, at that time, it appears that.we should reapproach the Town to ask for the zoning change for primary /secondary residential,' then we would have the time to try and accomplish it. I am sensitive to your concerns. I would like to ask your cooperation with our request to relocate the equipment as described in this letter and as shown on the accompanying site plan. I believe we can accomplish this with minimal impact on you or your property. I sincerely believe in what we are trying to do. It provides a service to the skier and enhances the product offering that Vail provides to its resort guests. It also provides an amerg,ency communication system to the ski area operator. I believe that we fit into the Vail community and I look forward to your support in this . matter so that we will have the chance to demonstrate the viability of subscription radio In Vail this ski season. Mr. Luc Meyer September 27, 1985 Page Four � 0 If you have any questions please let me know. I can be reached in Denver during the days at 796 -7$00 or in Boulder in the evenings at 499 -5533. I might add that I am certainly available to meet with any of your neighbors. Thank you once again for your time and your attention to this request. Best wishes, STEPHENS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Awe Steve Wherry President SW /1 lr Enclosures cc: Larry Lichliter, Joe Macy, Vail Associates, Rick Pyl ma n, Town of Vail lie r • �. United States Forest White River P.O. Box 948 Department of Service National Forest Glenwood Springs, Agriculture Colorado 81602 Reply to: 2720 , Date: November 6, 1984 Mr. Larry Lichliter Vail Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 7 Vail, CO 81658 Dear harry: Vail Associates, Inc. has had temporary permits for the 1982/1983 and 1983/ 1984 skiing seasons for 'Sounds Good' radio transmitter sites operated by Stephens Communications. These sites were used to transmit low power FM signals for a closed circuit radio subscription system. The purpose of these permits was to test the marketability of the system. The first year the system had very limited availability and during the second year it was operational on 63 days with 20 to 70 rental units available for rent. On June 15, 1984 you applied for transmitter sites for.the 1984 /1985 season to District.Ranger Dave Stark. On August 14, 1984 Ranger Stark denied this application. On September 21, 1984 Vail Associates appealed his.decision. A response statement was submitted by Ranger Stark on October 12, 1984 and an oral presentation was made by you and Steve Wherry on October 19, 1984. Your appeal responds to ten points given in Ranger Stark's August 14, 1984 letter denying you a permit for the 1984/1985 ski season. I agree with Ranger Stark's reasons for denying your application except in regard to the opportunity you have had to test the system's marketability. The permits did provide adequate time for this test. Unfortunately, Mr. Wheery dfd not have workable radio receivers available in sufficient quantity to do an adequate test during some of the high season. While this was an equipment problem and the responsibility of Stephens Communications, as your agent, I do concede that further marketing tests may be needed to determine the system's viability. It is, therefore, my decision to allow you to continue to test the market— . -' ability of this system for the 1984 -1985 season with the transmitter sites you used last season. Permits to test the system beyond the 1984 -1985 season will not be issued. It is not acceptable to permit additional electronic sites in the Vail area. The existing sites at Dowd Junction, Eagles Nest, PHQ and Far East provide sufficient coverage for essential services for Vail Mountain, 115 F5.0200.28(7•82) 'a � 0 9 Mr. Larry Lichliter 2 The effect of this decision can result in a determination of marketability for this service. It does not, however, provide an opportunity for the new antenna sites on a long - term basis to provide the quality of reception you indicated was needed. In addition, the opportunity for providing this service.at other permitted ski areas on this unit, again using existing electronic sites, will have had a marketing test. Should you elect to proceed with the tests this year it must be with the understanding that my decision has been made in regard to not establishing additional electronic'sites. This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 211.18 (Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 63, March 31, 1983, pages 13420 to 13426). Notice of Appeal must be in writing and..submitted.._to- Richard E. Woodrow, P.O.-Box-948, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 within 30 days from the date of this decision. A Statement of Reasons to support the appeal and any request for oral presentation must be filed within the 30 --day period for filing a Notice of Appeal. RICHARD E. WOODROW 1 :: Forest Supervisor I• FS- 0200.28(7.62) • w 4� 100 U r. i N E0a10N ` Ik, cu in to € to N z rn r 11 .. _ 5 0 3 9 , � \ * 41 LOJ CO 'n _ a tip �` �a �>< bl w I ''�% n` r.: S * .. dip ab ! g uj ° 0 _. , � i O e G C��j � N� - ii � - �_ w 501 °45 S 00 1'14" E OF O J d 4r "� 143 54 OD AM- au ID 1 to p M r t in .Tr = in - N • M j� 1 . I ` O d am' �,"�'� `. ul " ° N 1441 6 6� ti to OD , * 4 10 Gt 0 ff 1�- tv 42+ .1 ��, .� 1 N M I, OD VIP M °llk /� ? N �&V v) 1 zfc T r � 4 I, 4 k 1 f 0 9 s TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 14, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to add 65 square feet of store area to the Rucksack on the south side of the Rucksack Building. Applicant: The Rucksack I. THE PROPOSAL This proposed expansion would acrd approximately 65 square feet of store area to the Rucksack. The expansion would take place by infilling a small corner on the south side of the building. An additional element of this proposal are changes to both the north and south entrys into the Rucksack as well as modifications to an existing planter along Bridge Street. II. CRITERIAS TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERA TIONS As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for additions or new construction in Commercial Core I involve • review with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan. While more subjective in nature, the Guide Plan establishes parameters to be used in evaluating development. The Design Considerations and the Guide Plan are intended to be utilized just as density control, building height, and setbacks are used in more traditional zoning code. The Guide Plan involves both the sub -area concepts as delineated in the plan and map, as well as the Design Considerations that outline specific urban design considerations. In addition to these are standard zoning considerations. This memo will address this proposal with respect to these review criteria. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE The Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village identifies a number of sub -area concepts which are to be addressed in any redevelopment or additional development in the Village. Sub -area Concept #12 is directly related to this proposal. It reads: Sub -area Concept #12-- Future mid -block connection to further tie Mill Creek Court to core area. Entry reinforced by pocket pock created on Mill Street. As you may recall, at one time a walkway did exist between . the Rucksack building and the Red Lion. This walkway led to a bridge which spanned Mill Creek into the Mill Creek Court Building area. Over time this walkway was eliminated by . infill development. Recognizing that the pocket park has been established in this area, the primary goal of this sub- area concept is to re- establish this walkway as a mid -block connection to the Mill Creek Court area as a key element of re- opening the Mill Creek Court area for new retail or other activity. At first glance, it would appear as though this addition is in direct conflict with the goal of this sub --area concept #12. It is felt that this addition in and of itself would not create a great deal of difficulty in establishing this mid -block connection when one considers the existing obstacles in place. This analysis can be more easily explained while on the site. The attached site plan demonstrates the relationship between this addition and the existing portion of the building that would have to be removed in order to re- establish the mid -block connection. This proposed addition would have a negligible impact on the existing pocket park that is to serve as the entry to this future mid -block connection. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are identified as the • primary form - giving physical features of the Village. It is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that this proposal substantially complies with these considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. How this proposal relates to the 9 considera- tions is summarized below: A. Pedestrianization While improving this store's pedestrian access off of Bridge Street, this proposal would have no negative impacts on the overall pedestrian network that has been established within the Village. B. Vehicle Penetration Frequency of serivice /delivery trips or other vehicle activity should not be significantly increased as a result of this expansion. C. Streetscape Framework 149 The proposed expansion is located some 20 feet off of Bridge Street and does not directly affect the street - scape framework. It will, however, add to the trans- parency at the pedestrian level that is presently offered by the Rucksack. It should be noted that this expansion will necessitate the removal of an existing . planter. However, a trade -off exists in that another existing planter located directly on Bridge Street will be expanded in size. D. Street Enclosure This consideration is not affected by the proposed expansion. E. Street Edge The existing pocket park adjacent to this proposal adds a great deal to the street edge along Bridge Street. This is accomplished by the significant jog in building frontage that serves to create this activity pocket. Because of the small size of this proposal, it is felt that it would not have any negative impacts on this concept. F. Building Height This consideration is not applicable to this proposal. G. Views I[] This proposal would not affect any view corridors within the Village. H. Service and Deliver Service and delivery trips to the Rucksack would not be anticipated to increase significantly as a result of this expansion. I. Sun /Shade Located on the south side of the building, this expansion would not impact any sun /shade considerations on the pocket park or elsewhere. 10 V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The only applicable zoning consideration is with respect to parking. While this addition is small, the parking section requires that a contribution be made to the parking fund for any expansions in the core areas. Calculated at one space per 300 square feet, this 65 square foot addition is equal to .22 parking spces. At $3,000 per space, the total parking fee would come to $660.00. Payment of this fee, or the establishment of a payment program, would have to be done prior to the issuance of a building permit for this construction. • VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is approval. Initially the staff was very concerned with how this proposal would impact our goal to re-- establish the mid -block connection between the Rucksack and the Red Lion. However, further study of this situation indicates that there are far greater problems in re- establishing this connection than are presented with this small 65 square foot addition. Our support of this proposal is conditioned on the following: 1. That the applicant participate in and not remonstrate against a Vail Village special improvement district if and when one is formed. • 0 C7 . . . r�.••�- - �SYX� n•'_.:,.ra..v�...x�Y+s'. r�wo-sd= 1 1 [ , .` ( {' r ' +' r t T "' ,_ ,.. Ste. i •, ,5 ' �",.k,�- ..°P r � } r k �,' i� ! c s iV i -r i 3e � -i• �yx s �' .3 �' , -r. r.y .� - �s: _J.� yt>} •i ! • -�. -. +@J 1 - 1 1+�^��.1 '• 1s � u - J ,° rK, T � i r + S � c> - f .t .•} a F �..}�. ^'r � -, •' i.. • , VI -7 7 7 z • f - �� 3+ 4 '' J ..fie ` � t r � �,K ! � s �' • f'x, ., � 4 � � 5 , S � �s - t - r l��t "7 r h ,fir -� iL :} �• - • � �i � k } {� w � s � r � ya 't '� L-�"�t F 4 •? : + � r ' ;,r _ r '� ? �. r ' ° �� � /S r' % 'I"""� � ••• 1 j � "S - .1� •� r + a �r z. � �"�' ? - f � 11 • ! ry i -' r r i � r � , t � " ^ � �_ _ •a - �-c.. r i d 1x�s4i9 �. }r + "}� r J ps•a.'? + s \ r - Y'i _ r ,! ti � � +'f1 �� :;, ��_� - +hi ,- i��� r�irrf� rr .,i� ,:. •-Y ^' �.'_ r 4'� k` �1i4 r� i !i�.j � f �;` • - � {� �. r \ { '1 ;��{ i r�i�l rt �: s } S ��Il r��j� ++. ti{ ate- r "3 � s r � ;, ` •'.' F l . • lrt dt�' - 19; �i�r � >��{�. f1i �1� } }J'� � j '' " F�1,_ �. i - - s u: S ' x' �, K � t 4/ "`` - ro) s v s'Cr T "�:: �-.. , ..ay •r e , ; %[ S 1 f .' �� - _� � 4 k r - � '.j • r F i^iC •7�flr �� r-� �i ,,; {_ - %c =i i+ -�- �� :��. _ "t• - � r l +,o ,�.' �`r i .�� y _sa {•fir lr4s t� !� r4, r.. i'_ i2 t -r ~, ]f r Y - Y � 4".'S • r sz Asa i , - {_ Y ' - - r - _s r.. � � fi :Si _ yrt ' _i. �'r -{ 1• - i � r.lrrs� r ' t� - � „�" � '-. tT °c y t,, Y 7 `��t1�� ' S• f Y - w r .:r•;Cl r� * = i .? z �t £ -J- it 1ti. �' .'� +'l�tr ' � t ti r "'� F `. .r 'K - Z" s - • s �' �. , ix , x t °:�.-'} _ � +�- tif.. 7 y. � t ' rr _ °.: - ;:� � 4 +, '� .T�.: s.. �K'a _ .. z. d �� � f• �� . sx • .. ' S j,„r mss" �:. �: � � t � -i r f - �„ � � t - > � j -= . y�l.. - .� y7Sr�r s 1' i 7�. ; -�• � _ .' , 3� � •� Z.�L' � � -� '� kp � .�y fi t'rz. �' s� �c +' \� { t - } -�`•�S . - • �t k--, t f Y•�" � 4a- F r]+{ rh -�F Y 4 � f Y' K - "I } JI,� ,. �t *� . ! r�-t XT ;�I•k it �: � ���•`+ ",i�"{t,` 7. •� .�. _ -� � , ,�," :� t ,. !•:?� -�: a i - ! '•s � ♦' t.a• _ _ r ���� r ^ � � r. ' k t4wa -.?-' �'��.ci .,� =' ". 'r, y^ `�'� 1 ' r.i • 1s .�- " � -fir'.. y�r >_. „ -�-:- �.+ rr -'� f1•" r , '� 3? !�r l f -} a Vyr �f-' i rr ti �; + � .�t '• Wr. ` •E }, 4- Ci` iiYi' : [f^ F- c_ `^; -:'- j r • ,1, , .�J..(�, �, .� { '�l ,y.�{Q �•c �s !�'� x�3 x.{li ° � - .r - ?; - •�� + i . sy 4,,rS' '��`it}�rh a t ���� ,�. , �7�� y - • Y � Sa �'S'F�h � .i4 �j i• ft -S: t I,�yi 1 $ f. • _ ✓r"' K i _ ' l 7i G .Yy£ . �� }� S ��,� _ .•G�i -f J- �:���� �','�r ^�•_� -G -S i�- -�`�j... Y✓l r°�4��.1! y • _1iM 1yi, - .�+ ^ " t ' 3 J r _ _ ?� r" , �RT - � t•� • D S.. �, - i iC.._ • iii ( •1. +^ •�' „%�J �?�C.•Y f+ s r � fif - ` _ ,,x. o '1 f � �*_S" �£ , �- •'+Z. r �v s�•• iT wx� 9,,.c U � ,� 'T +; � - . q t r • : � �- ,r _a,. �i' +•• 'tF �4= � r � + k, n � y ►!•j + ,r +t `3: � { �s[. y ' � ` � � a� 1.y� , �Y -3�ti � - f.!` • . � � Z , fi r -- �{ S; s� y� �1rr�S! 3N� �c�fr>~w X,�f _ - i fit'} E9•. a .f� 'fr,'Y,% '�• � �� .. )�Yt '-/S : r � f � �S_ `� i ft P,.M .n7 i a K � `x _ �MJ �� '� ^�� � Z'••. Y :�. y� � � -- KJ.L V Y���� F ; �l s • l " ,' 4 •� r ti �•}' n 3 ' �k g y i � ^ .i �� t`.=�+t�i' y, �f'. z F j r. J � �, R��7 .'t y - {� .�^ "�` -_ � } rr+ i � ` !" . i " r�r� :�r { f`v. tr1 Yi�.'•� "Cp � � � � Li t �. -rte '�2s `�"'. Y�' , k `�' x � C'C' 5 ..4 sy '� FY �r fT lr„�� ±' �' ..fi - �i.. _ - • +'h�( _ �r� -,. d,�. yk`s'Se• ��� , ��y � y ,# �§���; }c��L��' Tti - `�• ,y- � �fr r .�?� f- Lam ,. - k` a I � a S y r ,_ r S , k�_ t � -'2 r - �. �'�: '� a �i � t "{ 4. �•S\ s I -�`�' �. �'^`�„�r• r j �'S 7 Z �5� � > ;Y f' L ..fr�. k V ' - ''' �' r " r � _ 9: _. � j , .�i, }.,y#' 3-� i� •�'� �. �' x 5�� -� '�n �• a, -,� � tr 4i 1 i ;r � � /�- r - � -, r ��5�. :vf, 1' •rc .�i � !4.-� s 2' `��• �x { , n, "� 1 •�,� a "'} ms s- � $�ti � JF .7� r t�'i �:?a.F � +k.._ ;j 1�. _�1 o +�S `"R� x e��- __: Y-�Y rt,�k+� rte-' --.- Y �1 F7. y.- S.i•=� c F *t;: < �h ( ;'i •: - e -s _, . r '.rli� •+ Y.[Yi �,t`- _-`[�, �.; `' Iy. �••-r f +{ -3 '� - #�. A.� y � ✓r'. - L ��--yy..,, +4 ti`t , .:,"?}S, �_',ri. .'f �s�l 7 •- .roc. #_'�� �� �- r #Y y� F�`���'` z r d_ .. � 9Y r"- ,. '�'� 4• .Jr r 'd_` r :'•'•.!t Yi: Sjs+'{ , �•�, F` � a t ' t �? 1��5r•"r•...,aP _✓ -i r . ,'. �,cT r T; �t>�.s -. k.x t h 1.yk. s � '�' x r p +,r 3 v r -,fj. �•- `�- ;t � �� yA. �' " T �y.� .. t - ", F' ' ,rr�'f,, t� L�"Y�M•�i . ^ �t i .•t_ 7 �' f -W � 4 g ..��„•: •s. i -� w l� ti-�•4 -rYa+ f A' 3 . F • , .l_.1r, .• t , ,- L -. - ea s'� r• < Y r rr �7 i rr •i' ' ,! � { s `° ; rr _ f ,xF -3� :�`E �. _ •- � � - --;� ':- �� 3 `� ' �• " � +: .i "�Tii r'"fC 'k 7 - , 4 ' - �F'- � � � y ,�:,_ !+�� 1h. .' •.^ - L _'t• ',5� �«: �. +"'• t t'` � � . s�,. :"'+t4.S " r?' S `i. �ti"L'��1 v�;.•. ''fiu �,;� y r1 y - k ��c ' ♦ i-� � ,., - y - r � 4 .mss 4 fip � f� � g , � '.'K,"�• 'sf; rT,t'�d' .:.�� �: �_�•. i 1'.r s ,f. � . ��i r�` Y � �� �' t3.� rs i'1 - x,'�.1 �F �-, J�v,y c, • � r>k •�w�� �t' r� 5- c `'•. s3 j �. �-' t r } � r it r _ F „s �� ' �. ti x �� � _ � � � l �i' "� - � ti ,r5• �C y��„�r r 7 � � : Ci �' i}. �i f � �j�r - . j � - � � �. ,sue -J=T ;- x +. ., S� �: }� �. 'G � - �,� r � 5� �. xr► 5c.`� 4• `�.iy y ` ; � i s �`' >'� u ^ 3P � '•� � t .. a 2�+.SA '^'" �±S R-� t;lt '�=3 r � �--�' � -:.'7 ��-'- Y•�K_rr:, ��>t � > � � � +^� -t �' r' � j. � • �v �a4 � ! tk a 3 d y � i �; s' r • v va 4- -.F +� �~ � a L , r rt f � L � �..�: x S 35� iL_ � ' - - - '��ti��n�:�� f .''i 3T. iL A"^�.' -r`-i 4 C .o •r. � .�, y' ?� �7 .Frr -.. =e: � �' �.�.' z- �f_te�r�+�= �t�t•�:c<:.x,.1 ;r..� �._..�at . �?'t'�ti a -� sus. .�"�'f''t�:=+ • Planning and Environmental Commission October 28, 1985 2:15 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of October 14. 2. Request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquest. Staff Recommendation: Approval 3• Request for side and rear setback variances, a density control variance, a parking exception, and a variance to the required setback from a major watercourse in order to construct an addition to the Cornice Building. Applicants: James Palmer and Dr. Robert Baker Staff Recommendation: Denial 4. A request for a setback variance in order to add an east entry to the Concert Hall Plaza Building. Applicant: Brad Quayle. Staff Recommendation: Approval r� L Discussion of meeting dates of 11 /11 and 12/23. Conference at Keystone on 11/14. GRFA discussion • 1 Planning and Environmental Commission . October 28, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT ERIC AFFELDT PETER PATTEN DIANA DONOVAN TOM BRAUN PAM HOPKINS KRISTAN PRITZ SID SCHULTZ RICK PYLMAN JIM VIELE ABSENT TOM BRINER DUANE PIPER 1. Approval of minutes of October 14. Donovan moved, Schultz seconded to approve the minutes as presented. -0 vote 2. Request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining at Burger Kina. Aoolicant: Snowauest. Rick Pylman made the staff presentation and explained how the Commercial Service Center zone district works in terms of approval process. There are two steps in reviewing this request: 1, the amendment to the development plan of Crossroads and 2, review of setback variances needed to enclose and modify Berguer King's • outdoor dining deck. Jay Peterson made the applicant's presentation supporting the staff recommendation. Hopkins voiced concern over snow shedding and potential loss of cottonwood. Peterson stated that the retaining wall could be redesigned to save the tree. Hopkins questioned the accuracy of the retaining wall height as one travels from west to east. She thought the wall would be higher than indicated on the sections. Schultz' main concern was with the cottonwood. He also felt that the wall should be stepped back. Donovan did not think the deck worked, felt the design was not an improvement, and suggested adding benches to create a more open feeling that would allow landscaping to be maintained. She expressed philosophical problems with allowing a deck enclosure, then granting property encroachment on Town of Vail land for a deck. She felt the patio footprint needed to be redesigned. Affeldt expressed concern over how design would work with respect to the site lines from the seating areas. ( ?) Viele had no problem with the enclosure and agreed with the staff that outdoor dining is valuable. He felt that there were details to be worked out in the design of the patio. Peterson requested tabling to 11 /11 to address concerns raised by the commission. Donovan moved and Affeldt seconded to table to 11 /11. Vote 5 -0. :7 ♦, 0 PFC 10/28/85 -2- 3. Request for side and rear setback variances, a density control variance, a a parking exception, and a variance to the required setback from a major watercourse in order to construct an addition to the Cornice Buildin . Applicant: Mike Palmer Tom Braun gave the staff presentation regarding the requested variances, the background of the project, impacts of the request, and stt recommendation of denial. Mike Palmer presented the applicant's request and further described the proposal. Affeldt felt this definitely a could show otherwise. Donovan restricted any further develops the building needed remodeling was critical, although he also right to develop his property. grant of special privilege unless the applicant felt that parking issue was critical and severly vent. Schultz agreed with Affeldt. Hopkins felt and a personality change. Viele felt the parking felt respect for the owner with respect to the There was general discussion regarding the employee housing restrictions on the property, with additional concerns from Hopkins and Affeldt were raised about the stream encroachment request. The applicant requested to table the request to 11/25. Affeldt moved and Donovan seconded to table until 11/25 and the vote was 5 -0 in favor of tablIER. 4. A re nest for a setback variance in order to add an east entry to the Concert Hall Plaza Buildinq in Lionshead. Applicant: Brad Quayle Rick Pylman gave the Staff presentation outlining the proposal with a staff recommendation for approval. He explained the location of the,$tairway and stated that the staff felt the use was compatible with existing uses in the vicinity and was not a grant of special privilege. Mark Donaldson gave the presentation for the applicant. Affeldt questioned how this was not a grant of special privilege. Rick. commented that it wasn't because of locations of existing buildings. Patten gave some history of the development of Lionshead. Quayle agreed to improve conditions of the walkway adjacent to Rat 'n Willie's. Affeldt moved and Sid seconded to ap2ro the request with conditions That ua le agree to improve the walkway-adjacent to Rat n Willie's, and that trees and lights be relocated in an area near the site. The vote was 5 -0 in favor. Affeldt asked the staff to write a letter to Montaneros requesting that the roof be improved atop Charlie's T -shirt shop. The meeting of 12/23 will be cancelled. Peter explained the Keystone conference and encouraged the commissioners to attend. A short discussion of GRPA ordinance was conducted. 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Commission DATE: October 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for side and rear setback variances, a density control variance, a parking variance, and a variance to the required setback from a major streamcourse in order to construct two additional units with a total of 609 square feet of GRFA to the Cornice Building. Applicants: Jim Palmer and Dr. Robert Baker. I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The five variances requested are necessary in order to construct the proposed addition to the Cornice Building. The following is a statistical breakdown of existing develop- ment on this site: Lot Size :.084 ac/3,659 sf Allowable GRFA: 2,195 sf Allowable # units: 2 • Existing GRFA: 1,677 Existing # Units: 4 Existing Commercial: Proposed GRFA: 2,286 Proposed # Units: 6 sf 195 sf sf Required parking: 7 spaces Existing parking on site: 0 spaces Required parking under this proposal: 10 spaces Parking provided with this proposal: 0 spaces As this table demonstrates, the existing development on this site is over its allowable number of units and very deficient in required on -site parking spaces. The proposed addition requires variances for the additional two units, a variance for 91 square feet of GRFA over the allowable, and a variance from the 3 additional parking spaces that would be required for this proposal. In addition to these variances, an exception would have to be granted to the required 50 foot setback from the centerline of Gore Creek, as well as side and rear yard setback variances. The remaining portions of this memo will address each of the variances requested with respect to the factors to be considered in evaluating these requests. Following this analysis, staff recommendations will be given for each specific request as well as for the project proposal as a whole. 0 II. CRITERIA AND F INDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variances based on the following factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. A. Density Control The additional 9l square feet of GRFA requested with this proposal would not have a significant impact on uses or structures in the vicinity in and of itself. However, the additional units proposed would have a negative impact. Most significant of these impacts would be the required on -site parking that is not an element of this proposal. In addition, 6 units on this extremely small parcel would generally overcrowd the site. . B . Setbacks The proposed addition would extend to some 3 to 5 feet from the property's southerly boundary. The proximity of this structure would have a negative impact on the existing walkway that is located adjacent to the applicant's property. While the existing structure is non - conforming with respect to existing setback require- ments, this proposal would increase that degree of non- conformance. This increased encroachment would have negative impacts on existing and future uses in this area. C. Stream Setback Because of existing development on this site and in the vicinity, this encroachment into the required 50 foot setback of Gore Creek is not seen as having significant negative impacts. D. Parking As was mentioned previously in this memo, additional development on this site would have negative impacts on this area with respect to parking. While this proposal did not address the additional parking that would be • required from this addition, it has been assumed that the applicant would request some type of variance from this requirement. One can further assume that parking demand generated by this addition would be accommodated • by parking on adjacent properties or in the Town of Vail parking structure. Neither of these two options are acceptable to the staff as a solution for meeting this parking . re"quirement The degree to ' from" strict or literal interpretation an en orcement of a specified requ ation is necessary to achieve compatz i ity ;and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of specxa przvz ege. With - the exception of - the' - streain course setback requirement, it is felt that each of these requests would be a grant of special privilege if they were to be approved. The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the staff what justification there would be to grant these requests. Because existing development on this site and on adjacent sites encroach into the required setback from Gore Creek in a number of cases, it is felt that this request would not be a grant of special privilege. consequently, with the exception of the variance for the required setback from a streamcourse, each of these requests would be a grant of special privilege if they were approved. This is particularly true with respect to the request for additinal units considering that absolutely no parking is provided on site. The effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilites, and public safety. A. Density Control The additional two units proposed with this application would increase the density on a site that is already over developed. The most direct impact with respect to this increase would be on the distribution of population and transportation and traffic facilities. It is the feeling of the staff that to provide accommodations for any additional number of people is inappropriate. Effects on transportation and traffic facilites will be addressed under the parking variance request. B. Setbacks The most signficant effect on the above factors would be on public facilities, specifically the walkway adjacent to this property. Discussion has taken place concerning the future development of a pedestrian connection between this area and Ford Park. The proximity of this proposal would have a negative impact . on both the existing walkway and any future development of this walkway. • C. Stream Setback There will be no significant impacts on the above mentioned factors with respect to the required stream setback. D. Parking ... The inability of this .si.t.e .t.o provide on- site parking would have a direct effect on transportation and traffic facilities. Approving this request would indirectly encourage additional parking in the Vail Transportation Center, on adjacent properties, or along Vail Valley Drive. Illegal on- street parking would create problems for buses, snow plows, and general circulation in an area that is already a poor situation. Staff feels that it is the responsibility and obliga- tion of this site to be capable of accommodating its required parking demand. This issue has not been adequately addressed through this application. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN There are no goals outlined in the Action Plan that would be applicable to this request. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed request. III. 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. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The following are staff recommendations for variances requested: A. Density Contro This request is for 2 units and 91 square feet of GRFA over what is allowed under existing zoning. The staff can find no justification for supporting this request. Physical hardship has not been established, and it is felt that it would be a grant of special privilege to grant this request. The site is simply not capable of handling any additional density. • B. Setbacks To grant these setbacks would have a negative impact on an existing walkway adjacent to this property and in general overcrowding on the site. Staff recommendation for the requested setback variances is denial. C. Str eamcourse Setback As has been mentioned, there is a great deal of existing development located within the 50 foot setback from Gore Creek. The encroachment from this proposal is minimal. Staff can support this element of the request. D. Parking The applicant has not established any basis with which to recommend approval for a parking variance. The zoning code requires that development in the HDMF zone district provide on -site parking (75/% of which must be enclosed). Because of site constraints, there is insufficient parking for existing development on the site. Staff cannot support a request for additional development which would increase this discrepancy and feels strongly that it is irresponsible site planning to ignore the parking requirements for development on this site. In considering this request, it is obvious that this site is unable to accommodate the additional development proposed. Staff strongly recommends that the Planning Commission deny this request. TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Do- partmeQt DATE: October 28, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in order to construct a new entry way into the lower east end of the Concert Hall Applicant: Brad Quayle I. DESCRI OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Brad Quayle is proposing to construct a new entry way into the lower level of the east end of the Concert Hall Plaza. This entry will be .adjacent to the existing staircase leading up toward Rat 'n Willie's Restaurant. This portion of the building is built right up to the property line. The nropos -�d new entry will require a set of stairs to be constructed. Beca. -ise of th(- Tocation of the building on the property line, it is necessary to locate the proposed staircase on adjacent property. This adjacent property cc of Tract C, owned by the Town of Vail; and Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, owned by the Montaneros condominiums. The Commercial Cora 11 area requires Ifs foot setbacks from all property lines. The location of this staircase will . require complete relief from this requirement on 2 sides of Tract C and 2 sides of Lot 8. A graphic representation of this de_sc - r i.pt.ion is available on the enclosed map. Montaneros Condominium Association has agreed to allow this encroach- ment. The staff was informed on Friday that Tract C is actually owned by the Town of Vail. Due to this fact, the Town Coranci.l has noc officially signed off on this proposal. II. CRI TERIA AND FINDING Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of tfie Municip Code tFi Comm unity De ve opment Department recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the T0aw6g factors: Consideration of Factors The relationsh of the req variances to ot existing or potenti uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed staircase will be located adjacent to a mid- level landing off of the staircase leading up to Rat 'n Willie's. The staircase leading up to Rat 'n Willie's is located on a public easement. Immediately to the south of this proposed `3t 1i.ccas e is the deck roof area of the ground • floor commercial space (presently Charlie's T Shirts) located in the Montaneros building. Above the staircase is the plaza area adjacent to the Rat 'n Willie's Restaur- ant. The Community Development staff feels that this new entry wi.i1. impro}r£� err: sc3 into the lower level of the concert Hall P.la?�a building, thus better utilizing existing space. We feel that the surrounding uses are compatible with this request. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal - - -.. interp and en orremerit o " a specified regu anon is necessary to ac vo compatibility and uniformity of t reatment a mon ___ g sites " - �n the vicinify or to attain the objectives of tM" - t e without grant' af species privilege - rivi ege Due to the siting of both the Concert Hall Plaza building and the Montaneros Condominium building, any improvement or exterior alteration in Uhl- aro-a will require relief from ,ho -io f,back regulations. The staff believes that this new <-�ntry is a positive addition to this area and is compatible with other uses in the area. We also feel that due to the siting of the existing buildings, the gcanti.ng of this request would not constitute a special privilege. The efre(,i- or`_ ;-he requ=ested variance on light and air, c'fistributI K of population, transportation F and traffic f`acill es, pub ic� acxl °i t' es an uti tie's, an ua ae s afety. . The proposed staircase is located adjacent to a public aW('0 ;s that leads from the Lionshead Mall into the Concert Full Plaza building. The proposed staircase presents no negative effect- to the public saLoty or public facilities involved here. The construction of this staircase will require relocation of an existing street light. The applicant is proposing to relocate this street lamo acr oss to the north of the public access way, This his been reviewed and agreed to by the Public Works Department. We see no tight and air, distribution of population, or transportation and traffic facilities. III. FINDINGS Th Planning and Erivtronmental Commission shall make the followi find before g ranting a variance: That the granting of the var. lance 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 inatorially irijur.iou,s 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 pract-3.0-al difficulty or unnecei-3sAry phy:3ical 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 thf� same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances contingent upon receiving approval from the Town Council to construct on Town of Vail land. Staff feels that due to the siting of the original buildings in this area, the applicant can demonstrate legitimate hardship, and the approval of this request would not be a grant of special hardship. • E ; F� "'Y'R4 A: 0 ff I a Bar lot oil AIN -.90 ilk dn -WE SO w Sc IN o s,— f M, % -K nml ........... 11, 04", � 49F TO: FROM: *ATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department October 28, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in deck area and to add other outdoor Applicant: Snowquest order to enclose an existing dining at Burger King I. DESCR IPTION OF VARIANCE RE UESTED The Snowquest Partners, relatively new owners of the Burger Kina restaurant in the Crossroads Shopping Center, are proposing to enclose a portion of the existing outdoor deck area and adding additional outdoor dining. This request will require both a setback variance and an approval for amendment to the development plan of Crossroads Center. These approvals are addressed in separate memos -see attached memo on development plan amendment. The proposal involves enclosing aproximately 2/3 of the existing outside seating area with a greenhouse -style addition. A new exterior eating area will be added to maintain approximately the same amount of outdoor dining area as is currently existing. The proposed greenhouse enclosure would encroach to within 3 feet of the property line. The addition of a new exterior seating area would encroach over the property line and onto Town of Vail. property. This exterior dining area would encroach up to 8 -1/2 feet over the property line. The Public Works department and the Vail Town Council have reviewed this specific area of the request and have agreed to allow this encroachment. The applicant feels that this proposal will add to street edge and pedestrian experience by increasing both the visibility of the restaurant and the transparency of the building. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS U an review of Criteria and Findings Section 18.62.060 of the Munici al Code the De artment of Communit Develo meet recommends approval of the re uested variance based upon the followin factors: Consideration of Factors The relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The Crossroads Shopping Center is zoned Commercial Service Center. This zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on front, side and rear property lines. Crossroads is located on the edge of Vail Village. The Vail Village area has no required setbacks, and through the Urban Design Guidelines for the Commercial Core I area, there is encouragement of both increasing transparency of buildings and • 4f r BurgerKing 2 10/28/85 maintaining or adding more exterior dining decks and patios. The staff feels that due to the relationship of the Crossroads Center Building to Vail Village that this is a valid concept and will add to the vitality of the streetscape and pedestrian experience. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of specified regulation is necessary to achieve com atibilit and uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The portion of the Crossroads Center building where the Burger King restaurant is located currently encroaches well into the required 20 foot setback. Any exterior alteration or improvement of this portion of the building will require relief from the setback regulation. The staff feels that due to the location of the existing building that in order to achieve compatibility among sites, it would not be a grant of special privilege to allow this enclosure and the additional exterior dining space to be located within this setback. The effect of the re guested variance an light and a,i--rii distribution p opulation, trans ortation and traffic facilities ublic facilities utilities, and public safety. This request has been reviewed by all applicable Town of Vail departments and we see no additional problem for either snow removal . or traffic congestion. The staff feels there is no negative effect on any of the other above mentioned criteria. Such other factors as the Commission deems a2plicable to the proposed variance. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followi findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on othe 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. i 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 RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance. Staff feels that due to the location of the existing building the setback variance is not a grant of special privilege and that this design relates very strongly to what is encouraged in the neighboring Commercial Core I district. • W i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1985 SUBJECT: Amendment Request for the Crossroads Shopping Center located in the Commercial Service Center zone district. Applicant: Snowquest Partners. I. THE REQUEST Snowquest Partners, the owners of the Burger King restaurant in the Crossroads Shopping Center, are requesting to enclose existing exterior dining area on the south side of the building adjacent to East Meadow Driveand to create additional exterior dining area equal to that which is proposed to be enclosed. The area of the proposed enclosure is approximately 476 square feet. A new set of entry stairs and a heated brick paver patio surface are also a part of the overall upgrading being undertaken. A new set of entry stairs and a heated brick paver patio surface are also a part of the overall upgrading being undertaken. *II. BACKGROUND ON REQUEST The Crossroads Center is currently the only property within the Town of Vail zoned as Commercial Service Center. The CSC district is structured similarly to an SDD, requiring a development plan prior to any site development approvals. Section 18.28.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code states the following purpose for the Commercial Service Center zone district: "The Commercial Service Center zone district is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the town, together with limited multiple- family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate wihout interfering with the basic commercial functions of the district. The commercial service center district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses." This chapter of the municipal code adoption of a general development of any area as Commercial. Service development plan as stated in the following information: goes on to require the plan prior to the establishment Center 7cne di - -i ct . This zoning code must contain the 1. Existing topography and tree cover . 2. Proposed division of the area into lots and building sites and the proposed uses to be established on each site 3. Proposed locations, dimensions and heights of site and the location of parking and buildings on each loading areas, access drives, principle public and private open spaces and other site plan features. 4. Relationship of proposed development on the site to development on adjoining sites 5. Such additional information as the Planning Commission and Town Council deem necessary to guide development within the proposed district. LJ The municipal code goes on to state that this development plan shall be used as a guide for subsequent development of the site for all buildings and grounds within the district. The staff required the existing site plan of Crossroads to be submitted as part of this application in an attempt to update the development plan. The original site plan has been altered through the years by small additions and alterations. The staff felt that in order to alter the building footprint and increase the existing setback encroachment, this proposal would require Planning Commission approval as an amendment to the Development Plan. III. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL The Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal with regard to its impacts on snow storage and snow removal from the public right -of -way. The Public Works Department notes that this isn't a snow storage area of significance and has no problem with the r -o -w encroachment. The Vail Town Council has reviewed this project with respect to the encroachment of the outdoor dining deck on Town of Vail right -of -way and has given their approval for this specific portion of the project. With regard to parking, the Town of Vail requirements are 1 parking space for every 8 restaurant seats and 1 parking space for every 300 feet of retail space. The enclosure of the outside dining area of 476 square feet creates a parking demand of 3 spaces. Interior changes in the restaurant have resulted in creating new retail space in what was the existing west dining room. This transformation from dining to retail creates a net demand of a negative 3 parking spaces. These two actions combined create a net parking demand of 0 spaces. • . One of the requirements of the CSC district states that the . development plan should show: 4. Relationship of proposed development on the site to development on adjoining sites. The Community Development staff feels that this proposal, in conjunction with the creation of a new retail space in Crossroads, relates very strongly to the redevelopment occuring on the Village Center project. We feel that the development of a series of defined crosswalks between Village Center and Crossroads is very important to this area. We believe that the addition of these crosswalks will greatly enhance the improvement to the streetscape and vitality generated by these redevelopment projects. The staff is requesting that Village Center, Crossroads and Burger King participate in a 3 -way funding of the crosswalks. IV. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Crossroads Development plan. We feel the effects of this amendment are positive, and there are no significant negative impacts. We would recommend as a condition . of approval that the Burger King restaurant participate in the creation of a set of brick paver crosswalks between this portion of the Crossroads Shopping Center and the Village Center building. • .1 F ' _ - .. . '. � - - IN � k le Planning and Environmental Commission November 11, 1985 1:30 pm. Site Visit- 2 :15 pm Work Session on Fall Line 3:00 pm 1. TO BE TABLED 2. Public Hearing Approval of minutes of October 28, 1985 A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquest TO BE TABLED 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a low power subscription radio transmitter facility on Tract A, Vail Potato Patch subdivision. Applicant: Stephens Communications 4 Planning and Environmental Commission November 11 , 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Eric Affeldt Peter Patten Diana Donovan Tom Braun Tom Briner Rick Pylman Pam Hopkins Kristan Pritz Sid Schultz ABSENT Duane Piper Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan in the absence of the chairman and vice-chairman. A work session on Fall line preceded the published items. Hopkins left after the work session. I. Approval of minutes of 10/18/85 was moved by Donovan, seconded by Schultz tb approve with a correction by Schultz. Vote was 3 -0 -1 2. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King Applicant: Snowquest Rick Pylman said the applicant asked to table this item to 11/25. Donovan moved and Briner seconded to table and vote was 4 -0 in favor. 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a low power subscription radio transmitter facility on Tract A, Vail Potato_ Patch Sub. Applicant: Stephens Communications Rick Pylman said the applicant asked to table this item to 11/25. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to table and the vote was 4 -0 in favor. F - LJ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: November 11, 1985 SUBJECT: Background on Fall Line Apartments proposal to convert to a time share project In preparation for the PEC's work session on this proposal on November 11, we feel it would be helpful to give you some backgound information as well as identify what we see as the key issues at this point in time. Basically, the proposal is for an interval ownership project at the Fall Line Apartments. The developer, Kaiser Morcus, would convert the existing 54 one and two - bedroom apartments to 53 one and two - bedroom time share units, each containing 50 weeks for sale individually. A major upgrade of the entire project -- interior and exterior - -is proposed, including a new recreation amenities addition located in the existing courtyard. Proposed parking is to remodel the existing parking area, but to have only the existing 51 spaces for the entire project. The project would be physically connected with the Cascade Village area via a new pathway and /or stairway to Westhaven Drive. . The proposal requires a number of different approvals from the Town including: a condominim approval to convert existing rental apartments to time share condominiums, an amendment to SDD7, Marriott Mark, in releasing the employee housing restriction connecting Fall Line and the Marriott until 1989, and a conditional use permit for the time sharing use within the HDMF zone district. If all of these are approved, then the project will also require approval of the condominium plat as well as the declarations and covenants. Enclosed please find the applicant's written application for this project for more detail and information on the specifics. The following outlines the staff's major areas of concerns and the key issues regarding the proposal: A. Parking Parking is a major concern in that less than 50% of the zoning code requirement is being proposed. The staff is open to studies and information which show that time sharing may not require 2 spaces per dwelling unit, but we are extremely sceptical that less than 1 space per dwelling unit will not create a major problem for this site as well as the surrounding neighborhood. The staff has encouraged the applicant to investigate methods to mitigate this parking shortage to parking agreements unfortunately, this this time. B. Employee Housing the possibility of joint use with surrounding projects, but appears to not be feasible at The proposal eliminates one of the major apartment projects in the Town of Vail which is currently tied into the Marriott Mark's employee requirement. Certainly the 1984 Eagle County Employee Housing Survey concluded that, in comparison to the late 1 70's and very early '80 we are in a better position with regard to employee housing, however, the staff feels strongly that to ignore employee housing by releasing all requirements on projects at this point in time is an ignorance of the long term situation. This area of major concern has been discussed with the applicant and we are attempting to work out some type of arrangement which would be a proposal to mitigate this loss of employee housing and acceptable to both parties. n LJ The troubled Valli Hi project has a potential to serve in capacity of mitigating the loss of not only the Fall Line Apartments for the Marriott, but also to serve as a centralized employee housing project for other major employers in Town. Moreover, a portion of Valli Hi could be utilized for "special guest housing" such as Coors Bike Classic racers, Denver Symphony Orchestra, and other amphitheatre performers, John Curry ice skaters, and other performers and guests invited into the community to further special events, etc. C. HISTORY OF TIME SHARE CONVERSION PROJECTS The track record of projects converted from one use to time share is not good. Time sharing has been most successful when conceptualized, designed, and built for time sharing from the very beginning. There are very specific and specialized design requirements for time sharing projects that need to be addressed and cannot be left out because a conversion project will not allow the existing site to be adapted. There is a major concern of the staff that this time sharing proposal is a result of a distressed and unkept property and could be viewed as a form of "bail out." However, it is hard to argue with the fact that if approved, the building and grounds will be substantially upgraded and, in the case that time sharing fails, could be utilized for whole owned condos or a short term hotel type use. D. TIME SHARING INDUSTRY'S TRACK RECORD Generally, it appears to be true with many projects that the worries of inadequate maintenance and management provisions are becoming a reality. The director of community development for Sanibel Island in Florida does not have a positive attitude for time sharing, especially from the consumer's point of view, after 10 years of experience with it. Some of the projects on Sanibel Island are becoming run down and ill kept due to inadequate maintenance funds because of the extremely high use of the common faciities provided. E. LAC OF WEEK PACKAGING Of course, one of the advantages of allowing time sharing in a resort community is the increased occupancy in the shoulder seasons and summer months. The Fall Line project does not propose to package the sale of their weeks (i.e. sell an off - season week with the purchase of 2 high season weeks) and this could result in the project selling out during high season only. However, this may be mitigated by the proposal to sell out four or five units at a time before putting the next 4 or 5 units on the market. n u On the more positive side of reviewing the proposal, we find that if and when a lift is constructed out of Cascade Village and a good connection is made between this project and Cascade Village, this is a suitable location for a time share project. Also, as mentioned above, approving the proposal would allow a major upgrading to the entire site and building and even in the event time sharing does not work, we have a much upgraded capital facility. If successful, the project would generally be in concert with the goals of the community to achieve higher occupancies for the summer season and off seasons. The proximity of the project to Donovan Park is also a big plus. We look forward to working with the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission as well as the Town Council on this project proposal. LJ • Addendum to Conditional Use Application A. Nature of Proposed Use The proposed use for the Fall Line Apartments is for timesharing in one week intervals. An owner of a time share unit will have a fee simple interest in a specific unit for a specific week. As owner of that week, he has the right to use, rent or exchange the week at other participating timeshare projects throughout the world. In addition, the owner can exchange his week at Fall Line for another week in the same category as his week (i.e. a winter weer for a winter week) as Long as a unit is available for usage. This allows flexibility for a person who can't or doesn't want to take the same vacation week each year. The usage is compatible with the surrounding properties, in that much of the surrounding property is short termed (i.e. Coldstream, Millrace, and Park Meadows). In addition, the Cascade Village area with a major hotel, commercial space, educational facilities, athletic club, and anticipated ski lift 49 has created a third village area for the Vail guest which will add a dimension to Vail Village and Lionshead. The operating characteristics of the project will be no different than other time share projects in town, or other projects that are short termed. B. Site Plans A Site plan is attached showing the current improvements, parking layout and landscaping. A site plan is also attached showing proposed modifications to the above. The new site work will include improved drainage (underground and surface), additional landscaping and a new parking lot layout. C. Elevations Photographs are attached showing current elevations. Proposed elevations are also attached to show renovations. Exterior remodeling of the building will include a new color scheme, new roof, new siding and trim, new covered stair towers, new balconies, new windows and doors. Interior remodeling of the building will include an additional bathroom in the two bedroom unit, new kitchen and bathroom fixtures, cabinets and countertops, new appliances, new doors and hardware, new carpet and floor coverings, new light fixtures, general repair and painting and all new furniture. . D. Other Information 1. Parking Currently there are 51 parking spaces on site for 54 employee housing units. This proposal calls for the same 51 parking spaces but in a reconfigured format for 53 units. In reviewing parking usage for time share projects in this area, two projects were consulted: a) The Christie Lodge Two hundred and eighty spaces are provided for 280 units. Approximately 350 of the parking is utilized by the timeshare owner or guest. b) Streamside Eagle County has reduced the parking requirement for Streamside from two and a half spaces per unit to one and a half spaces per unit because of Streamside's documentation showing parking usage by a timeshare owner. According to a former representative for Streamside, approximately 500 of the owners arrived by automobile and utilized a parking space. This usage is comparable with hotel parking in Vail, which shows approximately 50o usage by guests. • Parking for on -site sales will not create a problem, in that most sales will be generated off -site (meaning outside the Town of Vail) and the busiest period of on -site sales activity will be in the beginning when there will be only a few owners using the facilities. Streamside, which is a much larger project than the proposed project, generates approximately 80 walkthroughs a week or an average of 11 or 12 per day. Presentations are spread throughout the day so generally very few parking spaces will be needed for sales. 2. Recreational Amenities A new recreation amenities facility will Be created on site. The following will be provided: a) New front desk and b) Swimmina T)ool. c) Spa /jacuzzi. d) Steam room. e) Sauna. f) Recreation room and g) Shower facilities. lobby area. lounging area. All recreation facilities will be restricted for owner or guest usage. No outside memberships will be sold and no owner will be able to use the facilities except during his stay at the complex. Obviously the greatest winter amenity is skiing and with the • proposed lift at Cascade Village, the project will be able to offer skiing access without use of private or public transportation. Pedestrian access is achieved from the project through Glen Lyon to the lift. The owner or guest can also return to Cascade Village by ski trail, ski over the bicycle path to Glen Lyon and return by foot a short distance to the project. During the summer all of Donovan Park is available at the front door of the project. Unlike most visitors to Donovan Park, no private or public transportation will be needed by an owner or guest of the project. Very few projects of any kind in Vail will be able to offer the public and private amenities that the proposed project can, without the use of private or public transportation. 3. Marketing The marketing of the project will entail many facets, some of which will be: a) Media Advertising This form of marketing consists of newspaper ads offering families the opportunity to spend a mini vacation in Vail to become familiar with and enjoy the facilities availabe in the Vail area, and to attend a sales presentation about interval ownership. Typically, these ads are placed in papers in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Texas. In addition, other ads may detail the benefits of interval owner- ship and offer prospects the opportunity to find out more by calling the listed telephone number. b) Mailings These mailings will offer the same benefits to a prospective purchaser as the media advertising described above. While the media advertising hits the public at large, the mailings differ, in that they are specifically mailed to pre - selected families in general age groups (between 32 and 47 years of age) and a minimum income level (approximately $30,000 to $40,000 per year) in order to reach a qualified prospect. These mailings will typically be used in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Texas. No local mailings will be done, in that the residents of Vail will not be generally interested in the project. . A typical mailing would be a quality phamplet containing a general brochure on Vail, a brochure on vacation ownership, a brochure on answers to frequently asked questions about interval ownership, and a brochure on the project itself. C) Broker Referrals While no broker or sales- man would be expected to do a sales presentation or do a showing of the project, a referral fee would be paid to brokers or salesmen for procuring an ultimate purchaser. d) Owner Referrals Once the project sales program is under way and sales have been made, an owner will be able to invite guests to stay at the project and to attend a sales presentation. e) Independent Marketing Companies. The companies will set up booths at different shows (Sport, Boat and Travel Shows, Home Shows, and Fairs, etc.). f) Telephone Advertising Telephone advertising will most likely take place on the front range where people are hired to telephone a qualified prospect (as in the mailings advertising above), to offer the sales prospect an opportunity to attend a present- ation. g) Information Office at the Marriott An information office at the Marriott Mark Resort may be set up to disburse information and brochures to offer an opportunity to attend a presentation. The Marriott would obviously be consulted for their consent. While the use of "thank you gifts" and paid for mini vacations may be used in a portion of the advertising program, no deceptive advertising or promises will be made. Deceptive promises and practices have had some short term success in other time share projects, however, the effects have been short lived and most projects are now abandoning such practices. The applicant is willing to restrict its advertising program in such a manner so that no advertising activity will take place on public property. Any advertising taking place on private property will have the consent of that owner. . Prior to the commencement of any advertising program a detailed outline will be submitted to the Town staff for review and comment. In summary, the time share industry has been criticized for its "marketing excesses" and "boiler room" sales presentations and some of these problems continue to exist. However, with all but four sates now regulating the industry and with Colorado now having a five day recission period for a prospective buyer to cancel his purchase, such techniques are diminishing. The marketing of time sharing is changing with the likes of Disney World, the Marriott, the Holiday Inn, the Sheridan, and Vail Associates at Beaver Creek entering the field. 4. Details of Sales Proposal Weeks will be sold in one week intervals and a total of 51 weeks will be sold per unit with 53 units available for sale. Units will be brought on line for sale 4 or 5 at a time and until those units are sold out, no new units will be made available. Sales personnel are to be given so many winter, summer and shoulder weeks to sell and once again are not issued more weeks until all are sold. In this manner, which is now customary in the industry, a project does not sell out all the prime weeks while 500 of the project remains to be sold. 5. Management A management contract will be entered into between the owner's association, a non - profit corporation and an entity set up by the applicant or other professional management group. This agreement will contain among other things: a) The general purpose of the agreement will be to provide a broad and complete plan for the management and maintenance of the project for the purpose of relieving the members, officers and directors of the association from the day to day responsibilities of management as delegated in the time share documents. b) The manager will have the exclusive right to manage and maintain the project. The manager will appoint a general manager to oversee operations, however, the selection of such general manager will be subject to association approval and the retention of the general manager shall be subject to annual review by the association. c) The standard of management shall be equivalent to that maintained by the best condominium . projects in Vail. The duties of the manager shall include the following: 1. Fiscal Management a) Prepare an annual operating budget de- tailed to reflect expected operations for each month. b) Prepare budget projection for five (5) year sinking fund reserve for capital expen- ditures. c) Prepare monthly operating and cash posi- tion statements including reserve account state- ments. d) Analyze and compare operating receipts and disbursements against the association's approved budget, explain variations from budget and suggest corrective action. e) Collect the annual assessments from association members, the monthly maintenance fee expenses and special assessments, if any, charged to association members; and maintain compre- hensive records thereof. Establish individual checking and sinking fund reserve accounts, as directed by the Board of Directors of the . association. All funds collected by the manager from, or on account of members of the association, shall be deposited in a commercial bank account specifically established to handle funds of the association or in an income producing account on behalf of the association. No commingling of funds will be allowed and all employees of the manager will be bonded. f) Mail notices of delinquency to any member of the association in arrears, and exert reason- able effort to collect delinquent accounts. g) Examine all expense invoices for accuracy and pay all bills in accordance with the terms of the applicable agreements. h) Prepare a year -end statement of opera- tions for association members. i) Maintain complete books and records of the project in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures. 2. Physical Management The manager will provide the supervision for all interior and exterior repairs including the following: a) Sewer and water service. b) Unit interior repair. c) Garbage service. d) Electricity and bulbs for common area lights and interior lights. e) Maintenace of walkways. f) Trimming of trees and shrubbery as may be required. g) Removal of Leaves and tree cuttings. h) Cleaning of parking areas. i) Repainting of parking guide lines as may be required. j) Mowing and edging of grass in common area. k) Fertilization of grass and shrubbery in common areas. 1) Painting and maintenance of all outside areas of the structure of the project as may be needed. m) Cleaning of common area rooms and recreational facilities. n) Maintenance of driveways and outside parking areas which are part of common elements. o) Maintenance of the exterior of the struc- ture and roof of the structure of the project. p) Maintenance and cleaning of the sidewalks in and about the project grounds. q) Maintenance and cleaning of the garbage and trash areas. r) Servicing and maintenance of the central television cable system. s) Maintenance and service of the project facilities, including but not limited to, quest facilities, desk facilities, porter and bellhop facilities, management office and related facilities. 3. Administrative Management The manager would provide t -ct admInistrative service including the following: a) Inspect contractual services for satis- factory performance. Prepare any necessary compliance letters to vendors. b) Obtain and analyze bids for insurance coverage specified in the bylaws of the association and recommend modifications or additional coverages. Prepare claims when required and follow -up on payment; act as the association's representative in negotiating settlements. c) Exercise close liaison and supervision over all personnel to insure proper operational maintenance and to promote good management - member relationships. d) Act as liaison for the association in any negotiations or disputes with local, federal or state taxing agencies or regulatory bodies. e) Exercise close supervision over hours and working conditions of employed personnel to insure compliance with wage and hour and work- men's compensation laws. f) Assist in resolving the problems of individual members of the association as they pertain to the association. d) Term The term would be from year to year with a cancellation clause of 90 days prior to the expiration of the calandar year. e) Management Fees The manager would be paid a monthly fee for its services. In summary, the manager of the project would be providing the same services as any manager for any condominium project except here the service level is more intense and administrative duties are more time consuming. 6. Budget The preliminary budget would be as set forth on the attached exhibit. 7. Transportation A private van would be maintair.e,ji for the project in addition to public transportation provided -or that area. A pedestrian and emergency vehicle link does exist between Cascade Village and the project. The applicant would be willing to share in the cost of any improvements to such access along with the other users of the easement. 8. The following time share projects are currently in the Vail and Avon area: a) Christie Lodge Christie Lodge is composed of 280 units and 35 units remain to be sold. The anticipated sell out should be by winters end. The pricing ranges from approximately $6,000 to $12,000 with an average price of $8,500 per week. b) Streamside Approximately 250 weeks remain to be sold in the third building and 33 units in the newest building are presently being readied for marketing. The prices range from $6,000 to $13,000 in the third building with an average price of approximately $11,000. A special discounted price was . offered for the third building to sell the remaining weeks. The newest building will be priced between $6,000 to $23,000 per week (The higher price reflecting the availability of a 3 bedroom unit). The last building yet to be constructed will contain 39 units. c) Sandstone Park Approximately 300 weeks remain to be sold at prices comparable to Streamside. Another phase can also be built at Sandstone. d) Appollo Park and Wren The projects have been sold out with only resales remaining. (Beaver Creek time sharing has not been addressed, in that their product is much higher priced and basically competes with wholly owned condominium sales.) 9. Pricing for Fall Line Prices will range from approximately $4,000 to $12,000. Financing will be offered at then market rates for 80% to 90% of the purchase price for a term of 7 years. 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE November 11, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning code to allow as a conditional use "low power, subscription radio facilities" in the Primary /Secondary Residential zone district. Applicant: Stephens Communications, Inc. • BACKGROUND ON REQUEST Stephens Communications, Inc. operates the Sounds Good radio rental service available to skiers on Vail Mountain. In August of this year, Stephens Communications submitted an application to the PEC requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow this use as a conditional use in both the Agricultural and Open Space and Primary /Secondary zone districts. Because of opposition and concern over this use in the Primary /Secondary zone district at both the PEC and Council levels, Stephens Communications dropped the request for the Primary /Secondary district and received approval allowing this as a conditional use within the Agricultural and Open Space District. Since that time, Stephens Communications has submitted and had approved a request for a conditional use permit for this use in the Agricultural and Open Space district. Stephens Communications is resubmitting this request for the Primary /Secondary residential zone district in order to pursue an agreement with a lot owner in the Potato Patch subdivision. The purpose of the P/S zone district is as follows: This zone is intended to provide sites for single - family residential uses or two - family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two - family primary /secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family occupancy, and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by estab- lishing appropriate site develoment standards. U The Primary /Secondary utilized zone district subdivided into very conditional uses are t dwellings, public utili schools, public parks a residential zone district is a highly within the Town of Vail and is generally small parcels. The only permitted and io family and single family residential ties, public buildings, public and private id ski lifts and tows. • 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 land 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 emphasis of this zone district is for residential use although public utilities are allowed as conditional uses. The Community Development staff feels that to allow introduction of a private facility of the type requested is not suitable for residential areas. The average size of the parcels in this zone district and the proximity of neighboring residents do not warrant the addition of this use within this zone district. 2. Is the Amendment Presenting a Conv Workable Relation— ship Among Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives? The purpose of the P/S R district states that this district is intended to "maintain the desirable residential quality of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards." We feel that this use is not consistent with these objectives or compatible with other allowable uses within the zone district. 3. Does the amendment proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? As previously stated, we feel the addition of this use in the Residential Primary /Secondary district may not be in the best interest of the Town or the property owners within the P/S district. This use is not consistent with the intent of the district as a residential area and may create negative effects upon the growth of our residential areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department strongly recommends denial of this request. Through previous action this year, this use has been approved as a conditional use permit in the Agricultural and Open Space district and a conditional use permit request has been approved for this use for Stephens Communication Inc. Through the original application in August, both the Planning Commission and Town Council raised concerns with allowing this within the Primary /Secondary residential zone district. Staff believes that the addition of this use in the P/S zone district is incompatible • with the intent of the district and, therefore, recommend denial of this proposal. the addition of this use in the P/S zone district is incompatible • with the intent of the district and, therefore, recommend denial of this proposal. 0 • r -0 -I LJ ti it NO of voi 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 87657 (303) 476 -7000 October 31, 1985 William H. Miller General Manager Montaneros Condominium Association 641 W. Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Miller: office of community development The Town Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board recently reviewed a development proposal involving the Concert Hall Plaza Building. During this review process both the PEC and DRS raised concerns over the appearance of the roof of the Montaneros commercial space occupied by the Charlie's T -Shirt Shop and Lionshead Liquors. As you are aware, the Town of Vail and the Lionshead Merchant's Assocation have expended considerable time and money in the upgrading of the Lionshead Mall. Since completion of the mall project several building owners within the mall have initiated property improvement projects. An improvement to the appearance of the roof would certainly compliment these efforts in continuing to improve the mall area. I would like to request that the Montaneros Condominium Association address these concerns and consider improving the current appearance of this area. I am,sure that any positive action taken by the Condominium Association would be appreciated by your neighbors as well as the Town of Vail. SincE Rick Town Planner cc: Planning Commission cc: Design Review Board cc: Town Council • L� • November 4, 1985 Rick Pylman Town Planner 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Rick, Thanks for your letter of October 31, 1985. You are quite correct. The roof is a bit marginal in appearance. Emergency waterproofing necessitated an overlay of felt to protect the membrane. We have been reviewing decorative treatments to cover the felt and eliminate the boardwalk. Hopefully we will have the situation handled shortly. Now that I have your and the PEC, DRB, and TOVTC's attention, I would like to bring up a related matter. On July 30 this summer I sent Stan Berryman the enclosed letter. To date there has been some improvement, but attention has still been erratic at best. As you stated in your letter the Town and property owners in Lionshead have a substantial investment in the mall. Montaneros owners paid over $60,000.00, I believe. I'd hope that the DRB, PEC., and TOVTC might drop by even more frequently to see how things are going over here, both from a capital improvement and operational aspect. 1 imagine it's been a real. roller .coaster at the Tox-m offices with the West Vail happenings. I hope the outcome has given everyone a restoration of confidence to know that the populace does trust in the collective ability of the TOV Administration and that the overwhelming majority of residents want an already successful format to continue. I'm glad you gave me a motivational "kick" to get going on a postponed project and hope you can accept my concern about "dusting and sweeping" throughout the mall as valid. Y General Manager cc: Planning Commission cc: Design Review Board cc: Town Council Montaneros, 641 West Lionshead Circle, Vail, Colorado 81657 / Phone: (303) 476 - 2491 ® r Ako neros 1NWRL Mr. Stan Berryman Town of Vaal Public Works Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Stan, I am writing with regard to the overall cleanliness of the Lionshead Mall. Currently, there does not appear to be any consistent level of sweeping or trash pick --up off the mall surface and it looks terrible. As pretty as all of the flowers are, the cigarette butts and trash make a poor compliment. I understand that there is a regular pick -up of the container trash and it would seem logical that a person could have a broom and long handle dustpan with him at the same time. Better yet, it would also seem feasible that the sweeping machines used in the parking garage could make short work of things on a twice -a -week basis. On at least: 4- during the summer =of:1983, I personally... ran a Clark push sweeper over the entire mall and it took less than an hour. I hope that you will agree that if it makes sense to run the large truck sweeper on streets used by cars, it surely makes sense to keep a $2,500,000 improvement clean for people. If per chance there :is some beaurocratic'glitch'that prevents the garage sweeper from being used, I'll be glad to ,loan you our push sweeper and.demonstrate the proper way to operate it. Yours truly, i William H. Mill e7 General Manager Montaneros Condominiums cc Lionshead Business Association J.D. Griffith Dan Mulrooney Montaneros, 641 West Lionshead Circle, Vail, Colorado 81657 / Phone: (303) 476 -2491 Planning and Environmental Commission November 25, 1985 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of November 11. To be Tabled 2. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquest Withdrawn 3. Request for a front in order to construct a new entry at the Riva Ridge North condominiums located on Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Village First,Filing. Applicant: Mike Hazelhorst 4. A request to convert Fall Line apartments into time share condominiums which would entail an amendment to SDD7, a conditional use permit and an approval to convert apartments into condomniums. Applicant: Kaiser Morcus 1W be Tabled 5. Request for side and rear setback variances, a density control variance, a parking exception, and a variance to the required setback from a major watercourse in order to construct an addition to the Cornice Building. Applicants: James Palmer and Dr. Robert Baker 6. Request for an amendment to the Town of Vail zoning code concerning leasing of parking spaces in order to more effectively implement the private parking leasing program. Applicant: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission November 25, 1985 PRESENT STAFF "PRESENT Tom Briner Peter Patten Diana Donovan Tom Braun Pam Hopkins Kristan Pritz Duane Piper Rick Pylman Sid Schultz ABSENT Jim Viele . The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Duane Piper, chairman. The minutes of the meeting of November 11 were approved with changes. 2. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King Applicant: Snowquest The applicant requested to table this item until 12/9. This was so moved by Donovan and seconded by Briner. The vote to table was 5 -0. 3. A request for a front setback variance in order to construct a new entr at the Riva Ridge North condominiums located on Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Vi . 1st Filing Applicant: Mike Hazelhorst This application was withdrawn by the applicant. 4. A request to convert Fall Line apartments into time share condominiums which would entail an amendment to SDD7, a conditional use permit and an approval to convert apartments into condominiums Applicant: Kaiser Morcus Peter Patten introduced the project and explained the approval process that was required, the request and background information. First the issue of condo conversion was discussed, and the concern about converting employee housing to condominiums for sale. The staff felt it was important to mitigate the loss of the 54 employee units, not of 54 additional units, but with a minimum number of units to perhaps be leased from Valli Hi for the remaining 4 years of the original agreement which restricted Fall Line to employee housing for the Marriott Mark. Patten then discussed the issue of the requested conditional use permit to convert Fall Line to time share following the memo dated November 25. Patten verbalized the positive aspects of time sharing , i.e. shoulder seasons, etc. He also dealt with negative aspects from shoddy practices. Patten discussed transportation, Utilities, parks, public facilities, and parking problems and recommended denial of the conditional use permit allowing time share, and approval of the conversion into condominiums and the amendment to SDD 7 with the condition that the applicant agree to providing a minimun of 10 employee housing units • at a site acceptable to the Community Development Department PEC --2- 11/25/85 Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, gave a presentation. Andy Norris, developer of Cascade Village, spoke to the status of the proposed Cascade Village i chair lift and employee housing agreements of the Westin. Ray Warren of the Westin Hotel spoke to employee housing concerns of the hotel, stating that the need is not there presently. Commissioners' comments: U Briner: Discussed the success of Pitkin Creek Park condos. Donovan: Had concerns with total loss of employee housing agreement, was concerned about the parking issue, and suggested pursuing the dollar /week /unit tax for parks purposes. Schultz: Did not see parking as a problem- -felt parking use is low in time share /hotel uses in this area. Felt employee housing should be looked at on a year -by -year basis. He felt that an arbitrary 10 unit requirement did not seem fair. Piper: Was concerned about parking and believed that a worst case scenario was maintaining employee housing with regard to housing. He welcomed the face lift and felt the program could be a valid program with the amenities of the area. Piper expressed concern about the tax for parks. Briner: Felt employee housing may be a serious concern in the future. He expressed the opinion that the buildings could be redesigned to further upgrade them. Donovan moved and Schul z seconded to recommend_app per the staff memo of ith a mcInage r's unit on site and that l emoloy vote was 5 -0 in favor the amendment to uni is be provide Schultz moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request for a c.u..for time sh arin within the zone i s riE wi t e conditions that an on -site shuttle be pro vided and that a user tax be instituted as discussed b the a licant. Other conditions added to this were that a letter of credit be submitted to the Town for construction of a black top path between this roject and Cascade Villa e, and that the Fire Department review an a rove the parking lot configuration while maintainin ,p a minimum of 53 arking spaces. The vote was 4 in favor and Briner against. The s aff offered the following additional conditions, which the PEC did not incorporate as a part of the approval: 1. There shall be no marketin of the Fall Line time share project within the p ublic right-of-was of the Town of Vail. 2. An employee housing restriction similar to the on inal. will be laced .on the amendment to the SDD with an annual review dat in October 3. The project must bear its fair share of under grounding the utilities in the area. 4. The propose budget for the project must be ado ted as a minimum _ 5. There shall be an obligation on the part of the project to enforce their own parking problems • PEC -3- 11/25/85 5. A request for side and rear setback variances, density control variance, parking exception, and variance to required setback from a major watercourse in order to construct an addition to the Cornice Building. Applicants; James Palmer and Dr. Robert Baker The applicant was to have submitted new plans, but none had been received. No action was taken on this item, and the staff was to re- schedule upon receiving revised plans. 6. Request for an amendment to the Town of Vail zoning code concerning leasin of parking spaces in order to more effectively implement the 2rivate parkin leasing program Applicant: Town of Vail Patten presented the request on behalf of the Town of Vail. Jack Rush, manager of Manor Vail, spoke in favor of the amendment. Donovan questioned the reliability of the parking survey information, noting the negative impacts that could occur if a property were allowed to lease more spaces than could be spared. After further discussion, it was recommended that condo association approval be required on any applicable property. Donovan moved and Briner seconded to recommend approval per the staff memo The vote was 5 -0. r� u • 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 27, 1985 SUBJECT: Meeting of 12/23/85 The deadline date for submittals for the December 23 meeting has passed without any applications being received. For this reason, and the potential conflict with the holiday season, the December 23rd Planning and Environmental Commission meeting has been cancelled. • TO: FROM: DATE: Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development November 21, 1985 SUBJECT: Request to Amend Town of Vail Zoning Code Section 18.52.170: Leasing of Parking Spaces I. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail Department of Community Development proposes to amend the criteria contained in this section of the zoning code (attached) for the leasing of private parking spaces. This program was begun and put into place for the 1977 -78 ski season and has not been addressed or updated since that time. The program began as a trial program (see attached November 8, 1977 memo) and certain recommendations were proposed following the trial winter season (see attached October 18, 1978 memo) that were not included as a revision to the zoning code. Subsequent studies conducted in the reinter of 1985 (see attached Vail Village Study parking table) have updated the parking studies called for within the criteria, and we feel there are a number of necessary changes to the leased parking program according to our new information. II. THE PROPOSAL The following are the revisions being requested: 1. Section 13.52.170 B.1 -- - change the minimum lot size to q ualify for the program from 10 to 30 spaces. The staff time in administering the program is substantial enough to eliminate implementing for program for only several spaces on any one property. 2. Eliminate 18.52.170 B.4 We feel the owner can come to us with a proposal to lease "x" number of spaces for approval without having lessees in place. This year we were intending on setting up a central clearinghouse of leased parking spaces through VRA. However, only limited interest has been expressed by the property owners we've contacted. 3. Change the percentage of spaces which can be leased in Section 18.52.170 B.6. from 25% to 60 The follow -up on the test year indicates that the number of spaces qualifying for the program can be raised. 25% was proposed as conservative number to start with. We would like to try 60% of the "available" spaces and see how that works. 4. Add a new criteria prohibiting leasing of spaces to businesses based outside the Town of Vail i.e. rental car agencies, etc.) PEC 11/21/85 The purpose of the program, at this stage, is to help those local residents affected by other new parking policies to • find a parking place where it is convenient and where they are available. We do not want to see excess parking spaces on private property utilized for other businesses not serving this purpose. III. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested changes to the leased parking criteria. We feel that with these changes we will be able to more effectively and responsibly implement this private parking leasing program and target certain specific areas to solve our present day problems. These changes will also increase the efficiency of the program by eliminating the properties which could only lease several spaces. We are attempting to immediately publicize.and implement a program for the '85 -'86 ski season to address the problem of displacement of local resident parking in the Vail Village structure by providing alternatives in private lots that have vacancies according to our studies for these people. The Lionshead program at $200 far an entire ski season's pass should provide adequate parking for that area of town. The leased parking program was emphasized in the 1985 Parking Task Force and adopted as a policy statement by the Town Council in Policy Statement 85 -4. n u i ZONING e exception of dwelling units or accommodation unit sh 11 be three thousand dollars per space. The fee or dwe ing units and accommodation units shall b five thous nd dollars per space. The town coun l n ill establis fee rates for uses not listed in Section 1 .52.100. 6. Far addit'ons or enlargements of any existing uildinL_ or change of se that would increase the tot number of parking spac required, an additional par ing fee will be required only ' r such addition, enlarg cat or change and not for the tire building or use. 'o refunds ill be paid by the town the applicant o owner. 7. The owner or appli nt has the op 'on of paying the total parking fee at the tim of buildin permit or paying oN er a five -year period. If th latter nurse is taken, the fires payment shall be paid o or efore the date the building permit is issued. Four rnor annual payments will be due to the Town of Vail on le nniversary of the building permit. [merest often rcent er annum shall be paid by the applicant on the aid bal ace. If the owner o applicant do choose to pay the fee _ over a period of t e, he or she steal be required to sign a promissory no Which describes th total fee due, the schedule of p ments, and the interest ue, Promissory note forms re available at the offices of community developm t, 8. When fractional number of spaces resu s from the applie tion of the requirements schedul (Section 18.5 .100), the parking fee will be calculated using that fr tion. This applies only to the calculation f the arking fee and not for on -site requirements. (Ord. (1982) § 1: Ord. 47(1979) ti 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 14. MO. 18.52.170 Leasing of parking spaces. A. No owner, occupant or building manager, or their respecti�e .] or representative, shall lease, rent, convey or restrict the use of any parkin;; space, graces or :irv;l to any perm)n other than :1 tenant, OCCLlt)allt or user of the buildirr, for which the space, spaces or area arc require] to he prmided { 444 ` I .7 • 0 (_ `� : I OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING by the zoning ordinances or regulations of the town except as may be specifically provided in this section. B. Parking spate. spaces or areas may be leased by the owner, occupant or building manager thereof in accordance with the followin I. Any owner, occupant or building manager who owns, occupies or manages ten or more private parking spaces located in commercial core 1, commercial core 2, high density multiple- family, public accommodations or special development zone districts and provides sufficient parkins for use by employees may apply to the zonin;= administrator of the town for a permit to lease private parking spaces. �. Application shall be made on a form provided by the zoni110 administrator and upon approval of the application by the zoning administrator a leasing permit shall be issued with or without condition as determined by the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator may request that an applicant conduct a parking utilization study to determine the difference between the average capacity of the lot and the peak day utilization, and such other information as may be necessary for the proper consideration of the application. 4. Tile applicant shall submit with the application a proposed lease JL to be reviewed by the zoning administrator. 5. The proposed Rase a,,reenient shall be for the period of riot less than one month nor greater than ten months From the effective date: of" the ordinance codified in this section. 6. No applicant sliall be permitted to lease more than twenty - give percent of the parking spaces which are the Llifference hctwcen the average capacity of tlie lot and the peal; clay utilization as determined by the Zoning administrator. 7. No applicant who is operating a private parking area charging an hourly fee therefor on the effective date of the ordinance coditicd in this section ,hall be eligible for approval of his application. 444 -I :N,+ 1-4A 1 , C771 L] I� ZONING r t 8. Parking required for any use in accordance with this title may not be satisfied by the basing of space from another person under the provisions of this section. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant, or building manager who has leased spaces to others to provide adequate and proper signs therefor and to see that the leased spaces are used and occupied in accordance with the lease agreement. (Ord. 34(1977) 1.) 8.52.180 Variances. ng variance which is granted by Cl of the Vail Mun; ode sh eurecl to contribute into the town' un rth in Section i$.52 .1b0 ons. (Ord. 50(1978) § 3 1.) 4 (Vail 14-83) 44 4 —2 f . . ZONING r t 8. Parking required for any use in accordance with this title may not be satisfied by the basing of space from another person under the provisions of this section. 9. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant, or building manager who has leased spaces to others to provide adequate and proper signs therefor and to see that the leased spaces are used and occupied in accordance with the lease agreement. (Ord. 34(1977) 1.) 8.52.180 Variances. ng variance which is granted by Cl of the Vail Mun; ode sh eurecl to contribute into the town' un rth in Section i$.52 .1b0 ons. (Ord. 50(1978) § 3 1.) 4 (Vail 14-83) 44 4 —2 MEMO TO:' PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: NOVEMBER S, 1977 RE: PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW LEASING OF PRIVATE PARKING SPACES Section 18.52.170 is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Certain private parking spaces may be lrased, after review and approval by the Planning Commission, in conformance with the following provisions: A. Applicant must 10 or more private parking spaces. B. Parking spaces must be located in Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2, High Density Multiple- Family, Public Accommodations or Special Development Zone.Districts. • C. Lots that charge an hourly fee as of the date of this ordinance shall not be eligible for approval. D. Each applicant will be eligible to lease no more than 25% of the difference between the average capacity of the lot and peak day utilization, " defined by the Town of Vail. I E. Applicant is required to conduct parking utilization studies as determined by the Town. F. Lease agreement shall be as approved by the Town of Vail on a form provided by the Town. G.' Lease agreement shall be for a period of not less than one month nor greater than ten months. H. Leased spaces must be adequately signed and policed by the owner. I. A leasing permit must be granted by the Zoning Administrator in conformance with the regulations herein. r MEMO ° T0: TERRELL MItiGER/VAIL TON COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 11 OCTOBER 1977 . F RE: PROGRAH PEIELMITTING LEASING OF PRIVATE PARKING SPACES } t Both the Planning Commission and the Citizens Committee on Growth Management have determined that a method to better utilize available parking spaces would be to permit; the leasing of private spaces on a long—term basis. SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION Based on surveys conducted last season by Town staff, there are approximately 4,600 parking spaces; 65% of which are privately owned. TOTAL PRIVATE PUBLIC VAIL VILLAGE 1,968 962 2,979. LIONSHEAD 1,024 597 1,621 TOTAL, 2,992 1,559 4,600 According to seven surveys conducted since 1975 by V1I and TOV private parking spaces are generally under,- utilized. VILLAGE LIONSHEAD OVERALL Private Public Private Public Private Public UTILIZATION RATE 60 0 71% 56 % 80% 59% 75 0 To better utilize private parking; a. program is being suggested to allow unused private spaces to be leased on a long -- • term basis. This program has been discussed and endorsed by the Planning Commission, Vail Associates staff, the Forest Service, and several local merchants. Tho following outline includes the major points of the proposed, expcximcntal program: Page 2 Program permitting Leasing of.Private Parking Spaces 1.) GENERAL This would be an experimental program to test the community acceptance for a program to permit the leasing of privately owned parkin, spaces; the principal goal would be to increase available parking space through increased utilization. 2. TERM OF PROGRAM program would begin immediately upon adoption by the Town Council and would conclude on the last day of September, 1978. The results of the demonstration program would be evaluated and a report submitted by the Town Staff to the Council by November 1 , 1978). 3.) ELIGIBILITY: Any person or entity ovining 10 or more parking spaces in one lot would be eligible. Parking lots located in CC1, CC2, HD11F, PA, and SDD will be permitted to lease spaces. Other areas of tovrn are not included. Private parking lots that are available to the public on a fee basis shall not be eligible. 4.} NUMBER OF SPACES AVAI LABLE FOR LEASE: for purposes of this program, the capacity of the lot shall be the average number of spaces counted in the parking lot surveys conducted by the Town during 76--77 season. Each lot will be allowed to lease out ;o of the difference between the peak a. count (as determined by TUV study in 76-77) and the - ayera7e capacity of the lot The number will be determined by the staff; exceptions. will not be granted . during this demonstration period. 5. }' DOCUMENTATIO : Any person or organization leasin parking spaces would be required to conduct parking utilization studies, using .. TOV forms and an approved dates, and submitted to the Town. 6.} LEAST AGREE" :M ENT: The responsibility for execution of a lease agreement will be that of the parking lot owner a model.-agreement will be developed by the Town. 7.) RATES The Town will not regulate. the rates for lease spaces. Revenue and fee information wi11 be • Page 3 aces S Program permitting Leasing of Private Parking p kept by the lessor and made available to the Town upon request to permit evaluation of the program. g,) PERMISSION TO LEASE SPACE: Any parking lot owner wishing to base out parking spaces wil apply for a leasing permit from the Town for the appropriate number of spaces. A leasing permit of $15 will be required to cover administrative expenses. 9.) SIGNACE AUlleased parking spaces will be signed "RESERVID" by the owner. V-L4V6d tom` I'll-, The formula for determining the number of spaces that could be leased can be modified. The following table indicates the number of spaces that could potentially be leased under different formulas: Permitted Leasing Limit (% of Lot Capacity less Total Approximate Private Spaces weak day use) Available to be Leased 10070 56 75`po 50 478 • %a 2 25% 39 If the propo "sal is satisfactory to the Council, the staff will draft the necessary legislation for consideration at the next public hearing. KI >-> t44/L tl tAl� F � V 0 k t i t t MEMORANDUM TO TERRELL J. MINGER /TOWN COUNCIL FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE OCTOBER 18, 1978 RE LEASED PARKING PROGRAM. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1.) The program to permit leasing of private parking spaces should be continued. 2.) During the 1977 -78 season, approximately 64 private spaces were 'eased out of a potential of 240 spaces. It is assumed that this low number was a result of the tuning of the passage of the ordinance in December 1977. 3.) All participants in last year's program have endorsed its continuation. 4.) The formula used last year, permitting 25% of the difference between the peak day count and lodge capacity should • be increased to 657o this year. This is being recommended because we have more information based on an excellent ski season. The memorandum summarizes comments from participants in last year's programs and an inventory of spaces that would be affected. We recommend that you review the memo to better under- stand the positions taken by the participants. Interviews were conducted with Bud Benedict, Antlers; Jeff Selby, Landmark Commercial Building; Bob Lazier, a local contractor and building owner; and Jim Clarke of Vail Associates, Inc. For the past two years, the Department of Community Development, Vail.Associates, Inc., and the U.S. Forest Service have been monitoring parking facilities and useage in the Core areas of Vail and LionsHead in an effort to determine the various needs for parking facilities and Maximize their utilization. Our studies have shown that private parking facilities are being under - utilized, even in times of high parking demand such as during the last year's excellent ski season. In an effort to permit more efficient useage of private parking facilities, the Town Council amended Section 18.52.170 to allow Leasing of Parking Spaces (passed on second reading 20 December 1977) where before it had been prohibited. This report presents updated statistics that suggest further refinements to the ordinance or other alternatives to increase utilization of private parking facilities. Page 2 Memo - Leased Parking Program Private Spaces, Vail Village & LionsHead 1976 -77 1977 --78 3022 3203 Percent Growth in Private Spaces Available 181 3022 5% Percent Occupancy, Private Spaces 1976 --77 1977 -78 55.67o 6 Percent Growth in Private Space Utilization 12.1 21% Gross 10- 18 --;78 55.6 -or- �J 16% Net of 57o Growth in Facilities Average Number of Unused Private Spaces 1976 -77 1340 • 1977 --78 1033 1977 -78 Private Spaces Leased: 64 1978 --79 Leaseable Spaces Under current ordinance (257o) - 258 Under recommended revision (65%) -- 671 RE VIEW OF FINDINGS Vail Associates, Inc., the major lessee of private parking space, found that leasing unused private parking space made a significant contribution to easing its close --in employee parking needs. VA notes that 2 of its previously used facilities are no longer available for Leasing - the Sunbird Lodge and the open lot by the hiontaneros Building. An increase in staff for Beaver Creek planning and development, has augmented their employee parking requirements. Jim Clarke of VA's Mountain Planning, is apprehensive that -- employee parking - will compete with the Vaal visitor /skier for limited day lot space unless additional leaseable space can be made available. Page 3 1 Memo -- Leased Parking Program 10 -18 -78 The Antlers in LionsHead, a lessor of private parking, felt that the program was helpful and should be continued. Leasing 9 spaces proved to be an appropriate amount as determined by the existing ordinance. Even if allowed to ,lease additional spaces, Bud Benedict said Antlers would not do so because of administrative problems already experienced with signage and policing the currently allowed spaces. Jeff Selby of the Landmark building, states that a landlord already has sufficient professional and legal motivation to protect the parking rights of his tenants, be they commercial or residential. After satisfying the required parking of his tenants, Selby feels that no other restrictions should be placed on parking lease arrangements between private citizens or private property for a permitted use of that property. Asked what he . would recommend in terms of the existing ordinance, Selby called. for an increase to 90%- -1007b (from the existing 25 %). " . . , of the parking spaces which are the difference between the average capacity of the lot and the peak day utilization . . . - the leaseable spaces. Bob Lazier, speaking for the Tivoli, LionsHead Arcade, Lifthouse . Lodge and Lion's Pride buildings, decided not to participate in last year's leasing program even though he has an estimated 20 -30 leasable spaces. Lazier complains that item (9) of the leasing ordinance makes untenable.administrative and policing demands on the"owner /landlord in light of the persistent abuse of private parking facilities by Eagle County residents. Lazier suggests that: 1.) The percentage of leaseable parking space be increased in the existing ordinance; and that 2.) There be a $10 parking ticket issued to unauthorized users of the properly signed private parking facilities. Five dollars ($5) of this fine would be retained by the Town of Vail Police Department as is current practice. The other five ($5) dollars would be rebated to the property owners for recovery of his administrative! costs. CONCLUSIONS OF LAST YEAR' LESSORS Vail's private parking facilities are consistently under- utilized, (parking studies); The existing ordinance is unnecessarily restrictive (Selby) and counterproductive (Lazier); The ordinance should be changed to permit a greater util- ization of unused private parking spaces between 65% and, 90 0 ,o of the difference between capacity and peak day utilization, (Selby, Clarke, Lazier); w. 4' 0 Page 4 Memo -- Leased Parking Program 10-- 18-78 Provision should be included to allow owners to recoup costs associated with policing unauthorized users of properly signed parking on private property, (Lazier, Benedict) . 4 VAIL VILLAGE STUDY VILLAGE PARKING COUNT TOTAL 4 PARKING TOTAL 4 4 4 4 BUSES/ 4 % DATE LODGE D.U. SPACES RATIO A.U. LOCAL IN /ST. OUT /ST,RENTAL R.V. EMPTY EMPTY Avg. A& D Building 2 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0% Avg. All Seasons 14 50 3.6 12 13 3 5 0 19 38% Avg. Apollo Park 89 80 03 11 18 11 9 0 32 40% Avg, Chalet Road ** 37 22 6 4 2 0 3 8% Avg. Chapel ** 22 7 4 1 1 0 9 41% Avg. Charter Bus Lot ** 50 0 0 0 0 7 0% Avg. Christiana 9 30 1.4 25 6 8 3 7 0 6 20% Avg. Crossroads 175 62 30 12 10 0 63 36% Avg. Edelweiss 20 31 1.6 2 3 1 4 0 22 71% Avg. First Bank Vail * 4 36 9.0 13 6 3 0 0 14 39% Avg. Garden of the Gods ++ 11.5 39 2.0 17 5 8 1 4 0 22 56% Avg. Golden Peak ** 130 6 67 21 21 4 0 17 13% Avg. Holiday Inn /House 80 136 1.0 120 11 42 14 19 0 50 37% Avg. Kiandra /Talisman 99.5 125 0.7 139 28 21 15 18 0 43 34% Avg. Lodge At Vail /South 132 181 1,1 52 23 27 12 32 0 87 48% Avg. Manor Vail 123 190 1.5 21 21 10 25 0 114 60% Avg. Ore House ** 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0% Avg. Pepi's ** 16 4 2 2 4 0 5 31% 2/16 Ramshorn 1515 26 1.1 17 CLOSED 0% Avg. Riva Ridge North 10 22 2.2 0 3 2 3 0 15 68% Avg. Riva Ridge South 18 13 0.7 1 1 0 3 0 9 69% Avg. Riverhouse 10 5 0.5 1 0 0 1 0 4 80% Avg. Rowhouses 22 33 1.5 9 6 0 4 0 15 45% Avg. Sitzmark Bldg. + 24 36 0.9 34 15 4 1 5 0 11 31% Avg. Ski Club Vail ** 12 7 0 1 0 0 4 33% Avg. Sacoer Field ** 80 34 27 17 4 0 -3 -4% Avg. Sonnenalp 17 30 0.9 34 7 6 4 7 0 6 20% Avg. Texas Townhomes 14 30 2.1 5 6 6 4 0 11 37% Avg. Tivoli 20 28 0.7 38 6 9 2 3 0 8 29% 2/16 Tyrolean - 10 18 1.8 0% Avg. Vail Associates * 15 4 0 0 0 0 11 73% Avg. Vail Athletic Club 7 14 0.7 24 3 3 1 7 0 2 14% Avg. Vail Trails East /West 47 61 1.3 18 11 4 3 0 26 43% Avg. Vail Village Inn 59 109 1.3 52 25 14 6 11 0 54 50% Avg. Villa Cortina 25 23 0.9 3 5 1 3 0 13 57% Avg. Villa Valhalla 12 12 1.0 4 2 2 1 0 3 25% Avg. Village Center 72 86 1.2 18 5 9 6 0 50 58% Avg. Vorlaufer 23 21 0.9 8 6 6 4 0 -3 -14% Avg. Ward Residence 4 2 0 0 0 0 2 50% Avg. Willows 29 42 1.4 7 3 3 6 0 25 60% Avg. Wren 50 80 1.6 9 8 3 7 0 55 69% TOTALS 1068.5 2,131 1.6 568 483 349 181 226 7 824 Percent of Total 23% 16% 8% 11% 39% Totals W /out Commercial Lots 1068.5 1,767 1.7 47% Notes: Based on 3 counts, Feb 16, 18 & March 15 20 structure, 16 surface ** no residential units + includes Gore Creek Plaza (10 spaces) ++ includes Mystery Lot (11 spaces) " includes 6 employee spaces (west lot) - could not access structure VAIL PARKING STUDY WITH PROPOSED EXPANSION OF VILLAGE CHAIRLIFTS 8/15/85 FIRST LIFT: STAYING: VAIL VILLAGE OVERALL GONDOLA LIFT 8 LIFT 1 LIFT 16 --------------- OVERALL % - - - --- ---- - - - - -- -------------- 20% 15% - - - - -- 19% - - ----- 35% NO. SKIERS 15000 3000 2250 2850 5250 NO CAR 120 600 518 599 1155 CAR AT HOME @3.1 387 312 313 644 TRANSPO CTR @3,1peo /c 58 22 276 576 GOLD PEAK 210 0 0 18 17 FRONTAGE RD 450 0 0 9 11 LIONSHEAD 158 252 196 46 17 OTHER 0 77 29 64 51 STAYING: VAIL VILLAGE 270 315 LIONSKEAD 1200 900 EAST VAIL 330 225 W. VAIL 510 450 BC 30 23 EAGLEVAIL 240 135 AVON 120 68 OTHER 300 135 TOTAL 3000 2250 SKIERS 3000 2250 LOCAL RES 330 360 FR /RANGE DAY 180 68 SUMMIT DAY 210 45 OTHER DAY 120 45 COLO. O'NIGHT 450 203 0/S 0`NIGHT 1710 1530 TOTAL 3000 2250 SOURCE: ROSALL REMMEN CARES LIFT 12 LIFT 6 1% 10% 150 1500 44 390 28 213 7 63 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 53 884 1890 86 570 114 210 0 60 656 998 0 315 627 1208 65 255 29 53 0 15 171 368 0 45 114 158 0 90 257 368 0 150 2850 5250 150 1500 2850 5250 150 1500 684 840 21 420 200 210 0 150 86 158 0 30 86 158 0 0 428 735 0 165 1368 3150 129 735 2850 5250 150 1500 rl TOTAL 15000 3305 1896 1001 64 26 510 275 3773 CARS 0 0 * I 15000 .I Recommendations on Lodging XCt7! Time Sharing Discourage conversion of hotel -type units to j timeshare ownership . Although the real estate transfer tax generates more revenue than the sales tax on hotel room revenues, within three M. I\ or four years the tax on room occupancy will exceed the one -time real _Vbjz estate transfer tax. However, conversion of condominiums to timeshare T AIN 4 F VAJ1__ , ownership has the potential of increasing utilization of the units- -and 4-PP- is g ' higher utilization means more visitor spending, more jobs, more tax T_ revenues. In new time share projects, units without kitchens should be encouraged. 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. • Addendum to Conditional Use Application A. Nature of Proposed Use The proposed use for the Fail Line Apartments is for timesharing in one week intervals. An owner of a time share unit will have a fee simple interest in a specific unit for a specific week. As owner of that week, he has the right to use, rent or exchange the week at other participating timeshare projects throughout the world. In addition, the owner can exchange his week at Fall Line for another week in the same category as his week (i.e. a winter week for a winter week) as long as a unit is available for usage. This allows flexibility for a person who can't or doesn't want to take the same vacation week each year. The usage is compatible with the surrounding properties, in that much of the surrounding property is short termed (i.e. Coldstream, Millrace, and Park Meadows). in addition, the Cascade Village area with a major hotel, commercial space, educational facilities, athletic club, and anticipated ski lift has created a third village area for the Vail guest which will add a dimension to Vail Village and Lionshead. The operating characteristics of the project will be no different than other time share projects in town, or other projects that are short termed. B. Site Plans A Site plan is attached showing the current improvements, parking layout and landscaping. A site plan is also attached showing proposed modifications to the above. The new site work will include improved drainage (underground and surface), additional landscaping and a new parking lot layout. C. Elevations Photographs are attached showing current elevations. Proposed elevations are also attached to show renovations. Exterior remodeling of the building will include a new color scheme, new roof, new siding and trim, new covered stair towers, new balconies, new windows and doors. Interior remodeling of the building will include an additional bathroom in the two bedroom unit, new kitchen and bathroom fixtures, cabinets and countertops, new appliances, new doors and hardware, new carpet and floor coverings, new light fixtures, general repair and painting and all new furniture. � 0 . D. Other Information 1. Parking Currently there are 51 parking spaces on site for 54 employee housing units. This proposal calls for the same 51 parking spaces but in a reconfigured format for 53 units. In reviewing parking usage for time share projects in this area, two projects were consulted: a) The Christie Lodge Two hundred and eighty spaces are provided for 280 units. Approximately 35% of the parking is utilized by the timeshare owner or guest. b) Streamside Eagle County has reduced the parking requirement for Streamside from two and a half spaces per unit to one and a half spaces per unit because of Streamside's documentation showing parking usage by a timeshare owner. According to a former representative for Streamside, approximately 500 of the owners arrived by automobile and utilized a parking space. This usage is comparable with hotel parking in Vail, which shows approximately 50% usage by guests. • Parking for on -site sales will not create a problem, in that most sales will be generated off -site (meaning outside the Town of Vail) and the busiest period of on -site sales activity will be in the beginning when there will be only a few owners using the facilities. Streamside, which is a much larger project than the proposed project, generates approximately 80 walkthroughs a week or an average of 11 or 12 per day. Presentations are spread throughout the day so generally very few parking spaces will be needed for sales. 2. Recreational Amenities A new recreation amenities facility will be created on site. The following will be provided: a) New front desk and b) Swimming pool. c) Spa /jacuzzi. d) Stearn room. e) Sauna. f) Recreation room and g) Shower facilities. lobby area. lounging area. All recreation facilities will be restricted for owner or guest usage. No outside memberships will be sold and no owner will be able to use the facilities except during his stay at the complex. Obviously the greatest winter amenity is skiing and with the proposed lift at Cascade Village, the project will be able to offer skiing access without use of private or public transportation. Pedestrian access is achieved from the project through Glen Lyon to the lift. The owner or guest can also return to Cascade Village by ski trail, ski over the bicycle path to Glen Lyon and return by foot a short distance to the project. During the summer all of Donovan Park is available at the front door of the project. Unlike most visitors to Donovan Park, no private or public transportation will be needed by an owner or guest of the project. Very few projects of any kind in Vail will be able to offer the public and private amenities that the proposed project can, without the use of private or public transportation. 3. Marketing The marketing of the project will entail many facets, some of which will be: a) Media Advertising This form of marketing consists of newspaper ads offering families the opportunity to spend a mini vacation in Vail to become familiar with and enjoy the facilities availabe in the Vail area, and to attend a sales presentation about interval ownership. Typically, these ads are placed in papers in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Texas. In addition, other ads may detail the benefits of interval owner -- ship and offer prospects the opportunity to find out more by calling the listed telephone number. b) Mailings These mailings will offer the same benefits to a prospective purchaser as the media advertising described above. While the media advertising hits the public at large, the mailings differ, in that they are specifically mailed to pre - selected families in general age groups (between 32 and 47 years of age) and a minimum income level (approximately $30,000 to $40, 000 per year) in order to reach a qualified prospect. These mailings will typically be used in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Texas. No local mailings will be done, in that the residents of Vail will not be generally interested in the project. A typical mailing would be a quality phamplet containing a general brochure on Vail, a brochure on vacation ownership, a brochure on answers to frequently asked questions about interval ownership, and a brochure on the project itself. c) Broker Referrals While no broker or sales- man would be expected to do a sales presentation or do a showing of the project, a referral fee would be paid to brokers or salesmen for procuring an ultimate purchaser. d) Owner Referrals Once the project sales program is under way and sales have been made, an owner will be able to invite guests to stay at the project and to attend a sales presentation. e) Independent Marketing Companies. The companies will set up booths at different shows (Sport, Boat and Travel Shows, Home Shows, and Fairs, etc.). f) Telephone Advertising. Telephone advertising will most likely take place on the front range where people are hired to telephone a qualified prospect (as in the mailings advertising above), to offer the sales prospect an opportunity to attend a present- ation. g) Information Office at the Marriott An information office at the Marriott Mark Resort may be set up to disburse information and brochures to offer an opportunity to attend a presentation. The Marriott would obviously be consulted for their consent. While the use of "thank you gifts" and paid for mini vacations may be used in a portion of the advertising program, no deceptive advertising or promises will be made. Deceptive promises and practices have had some short term success in other time share projects, however, the effects have been short lived and most projects are now abandoning such practices. The applicant is willing to restrict its advertising program in such a manner so that no advertising activity will take place on public property. Any advertising taking place on private property will have the consent of that owner. I[] Prior to the commencement of any advertising program a detailed outline will be submitted to the Town staff for review and comment. In summary, the time share industry has been criticized for its "marketing excesses" and "boiler room" sales presentations and some of these problems continue to exist. However, with all but four states now regulating the industry and with Colorado now having a five day recission period for a prospective buyer to cancel his purchase, such techniques are diminishing. The marketing of time sharing is changing with the likes of Disney World, the Marriott, the Holiday Inn, the Sheridan, and Vail Associates at Beaver Creek entering the field. 4. Details of Sales Proposal Weeks will be sold in one week intervals and a total of 51 weeks will be sold per unit with 53 units available for sale. Units will be brought on line for sale 4 or 5 at a time and until those units are sold out, no new units will be made available. Sales personnel are to be given so many winter, summer and shoulder weeks to sell and once again are not issued more weeks until all are sold. In this manner, which is now customary in the industry, a project does not sell out all the prime weeks while 50% of the project remains to be sold. 5. Management A management contract will be entered into between the owner's association, a non - profit corporation and an entity set up by the applicant or other professional management group. This agreement will contain among other things: a) The general purpose of the agreement will be to provide a broad and complete plan for the management and maintenance of the project for the purpose of relieving the members, officers and directors of the association from the day to day responsibilities of management as delegated in the time share documents. b) The manager will have the exclusive right to manage and maintain the project. The manager will appoint a general manager to oversee operations, however, the selection of such general manager will be subject to association approval and the retention of the general manager shall be subject to annual review by the association. c) The standard of management shall be equivalent to that maintained by the best condominium projects in Vail. The duties of the manager shall include the following: 1. Fiscal Management a) Prepare an annual operating budget de- tailed to reflect expected operations for each month. • [7 b) Prepare budget projection for five (5) year sinking fund reserve for capital expen- ditures. c) Prepare monthly operating and cash posi- tion statements including reserve account state- ments. d) Analyze and compare operating receipts and disbursements against the association's approved budget, explain variations from budget and suggest corrective action. e) Collect the annual assessments from association members, the monthly maintenance fee expenses and special assessments, if any, charged to association members; and maintain compre- hensive records thereof. Establish individual checking and sinking fund reserve accounts, as directed by the Board of Directors of the association. All funds collected by the manager from, or on account of members of the association, shall be deposited in a commercial bank account specifically established to handle funds of the association or in an income producing account on behalf of the association. No commingling of funds will be allowed and all employees of the manager will be bonded. f) Mail notices of delinquency to any member of the association in arrears, and exert reason- able effort to collect delinquent accounts. g) Examine all expense invoices for accuracy and pay all bills in accordance with the terms of the applicable agreements. h) Prepare a year -end statement of opera- tions for association members. i) Maintain complete books and records of the project in,accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures. 2. Physical Management The manager will provide the supervision for all interior and exterior repairs including the following: • a) Sewer and water service. b) Unit interior repair. c) Garbage service. d) Electricity and bulbs for common area lights and interior lights. e) Maintenace of walkways. f) Trimming of trees and shrubbery as may be required. g) Removal of leaves and tree cuttings. h) Cleaning of parking areas. • � 0 i) Repainting of parking guide lines as may be required. j) Mowing and edging of grass in common area. k) Fertilization of grass and shrubbery in common areas. 1) Painting and maintenance of all outside areas of the structure of the project as may be needed. m) Cleaning of common area rooms and recreational facilities. n) Maintenance of driveways and outside parking areas which are part of common elements. o) Maintenance of the exterior of the struc- ture and roof of the structure of the project. p) Maintenance and cleaning of the sidewalks in and about the project grounds. q) Maintenance and cleaning of the garbage and trash areas. r) Servicing and maintenance of the central television cable system. s) Maintenance and service of the project facilities, including but not limited to, quest facilities, desk facilities, porter and bellhop facilities, management office and related facilities. . 3. Administrative Management The provide total administrative service the following: manager would including a) Inspect contractual services for satis- factory performance. Prepare any necessary compliance letters to vendors. b) obtain and analyze bids for insurance coverage specified in the bylaws of the association and recommend modifications or additional coverages. Prepare claims when required and follow -up on payment; act as the association's representative in negotiating settlements. c) Exercise close liaison and supervision over all personnel to insure proper operational maintenance and to promote good management - member relationships. d) Act as liaison for the association in any negotiations or disputes with local, federal or state taxing agencies or regulatory bodies. e) Exercise close supervision over hours and working conditions of employed personnel to insure compliance with wage and hour and work- men's compensation laws. f) Assist in resolving the problems of individual members of the association as they pertain to the association. d) Term The term would be from year to year with a cancellation clause of 90 days prior to the expiration of the calandar year. e) Management Fees The manager would be paid a monthly fee for its services. In summary, the manager of the project would be providing the same services as any manager for any condominium project except here the service level is more intense and administrative duties are more time consuming. 6. Budget The preliminary budget would be as set forth on the attached exhibit. � 0 7. Transportation. A private van would be maintal -ned for the project in addition to public transportation provided -or that area. A pedestrian and emergency vehicle link does exist between Cascade Village and the project. The applicant would be willing to share in the cost of any improvements to such access along with the other users of the easement. 8. The following time share projects are currently in the Vail and Avon area: a) Christie Lodge Christie Lodge is composed of 280 units and 35 units remain to be sold. The anticipated sell out should be by winters end. The pricing ranges from approximately $6,000 to $12,000 with an average price of $8,500 per week. is b) Streamside Approximately 250 weeks remain to be sold in the third building and 33 units in the newest building are presently being readied for marketing. The prices range from $6,000 to $13,000 in the third building with an average price of approximately $11,000. A special discounted price was offered for the third building to sell the remaining weeks. The newest building will be priced between $6,000 to $23,000 per week (The higher price reflecting the availability of a 3 bedroom unit). The last building yet to be constructed will contain 39 units. c) Sandstone Park Approximately 300 weeks remain to be sold at prices comparable to Streamside. Another phase can also be built at Sandstone. d) Appollo Park and wren The projects have been sold out with only resales remaining. (Beaver Creek time sharing has not been addressed, in that their product is much higher priced and basically competes with wholly owned condominium sales.) 9. Pricing for Fall Line Prices will range from approximately $4,000 to $12,000. Financing will be offered at then market rates for 80% to 90% of the purchase price for a term of 7 years. U W 1 • T0: Peter Patton DATE: November 20, 1985 FROM: .Tay K. Peterson RE: Fall Line Apartments Dear Peter, The following are my responses to your questions from your November 11, 1985 memo: A. PARKING As you are aware by my previous memo attached to the application, the parking for a timeshare project is in actuality much less than it is for a normal employee housing project or a condominium project. In contacting the various projects around the town, the following is what I have found: 1. Streamside. The Streamside project has a parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per condominium unit. The project has shown by experience that this amount of parking is more than ample to meet the needs of the project. Prior to the current requirement the county had a requirement of 2 spaces per condominium unit. In addition, the Streamside project has much larger units than the Fall Line Apartments with large one bedrooms, two bedrooms and three bedroom units making up the complex. Each unit sleeps from six to twelve people while our project will sleep from four to a maximum of six people per unit. 2. Vail Run. The Vail Run project provides 1 underground parking space per unit plus some overflow parking for the commercial enterprises and if needed for the timesharing project. In talking to an employee it was noted that the project contains plenty of parking underground for the timeshare project and the project has shown no parking difficulties. 3. Christie Lodge. At the Christie Lodge 1 parking place is provided per unit and approximately 35% of the parking places are being utilized with over 70% of the project being sold out. • In talking to people that have had experience with the time- sharing industry, they inform me that the parking requirements are much like those of a hotel in this town, where approximately 50% of the people arrive by car and keep a car. In addition, only one car per unit is brought when the people do desire to maintain a car at the project. For your scenario requiring 2 spaces per unit to be valid an assumption is needed that two different families would be using the unit at the same time and that both families would be bringing a car. This hardly seems a likely scenario given the fact that most of the timeshare owners do not drive nor does more than one family generally stay in one unit. Currently, the project provides less than 1 parking space per unit for an employee housing project which is the most intensive use of parking for the town. By changing the use of the project from employee housing to timesharing, we would actually be improving upon the current parking situation by lessening the number of cars on the site. Rather than proposing as you have stated in your memo less than 50% of the current zoning requirements for parking we are actually improving upon an already legally non-conforming use for the property. in addition, during the period of initial sales activity when you suggest the parking might be a problem the developer would be willing to valet park the cars at the Marriott lodge and provide shuttle transportation back and forth to the project. There is very little on -site sales activity during the winter months because of the expense of bringing people to the project during our high season. Almost all on --site sales activity occurs during the shoulder season and summer season when there is a good availability of parking at the Marriott. B. EMPLOYEE HOUSING While the proposal does eliminate an apartment complex for employee housing in the Town of Vail, experience has shown that the project cannot survive as an employee housing complex nor does the Marriott Mark desire to use such complex for their employees. It seems unfair to us that the Westin. Hotel which also had an employee housing requirement has been relieved of such burden and is under no requirement to provide employee housing for the future. In order to remain competitive with other hotels in town, none of which have an employee housing requirement, it becomes necessary to discontinue providing employee housing where there is no need. In talking to Andy Norris, of the Westin Hotel, he stated that they had rented twenty Valli Hi units at approximately $8,000.00 per month and considered it an absolute waste of money and would not be doing that in the future because there is no need. • The applicant, however, would be willing to work out some type of an arrangement whereby all major employers in town would be required to address the problem if the need should arise in the future. However, to require us to provide something where there is no need and not to require it of all like type operations in town seems unfair. At the time the Fall Line Apartments was closed in the spring of 1985, nineteen of the units were occupied out of a total of fifty -four. • C. HISTORY OF TIMESHARE CONVERSION PROJECTS Contrary to your memo, the track record of projects being converted from condominiums to timesharing in this area has been an excellent one. Vail Run which was originally conceived as a condominium and a commercial project was converted to timesharing some time ago and has been tremendously successful. In addition, it is a well maintained project. The Wren was also converted from a condominium project to a timesharing project and once again was a total success. It also is a well maintained project. Apollo Park was converted from an employee housing project to timesharing after substantial renovation and was a successful project. That project is also well maintained. The Christie Lodge was converted from condominiums to a timeshare project and has enjoyed total success with just a few units remaining to be sold. Streamside and Sandstone Creek Club were conceived and constructed as a timeshare project. While it would appear that this is a form of a bail -out of an unkept and distressed property, nothing further could be from the truth. Timesharing of the Fall Line Apartments because of its location, substantial proposed renovation and amenity package is an ideal candidate for a timesharing project, whether conceived originally as timesharing or as a conversion from an existing project. D. TIMESHARING INDUSTRIES TRACK RECORD I agree with your concern that if a timeshare project is not adequately maintained it could become a burden on the town. However, this is true with any condominium or commercial project. In reviewing the Addendum to my application I think you can see that the provisions which would be part of the management agreement are certainly adequate and in reviewing the budget you will notice that approximately $107,000.00 per year is earmarked for interior and exterior upgrading and renovation. The total budget represents a budget which is approximately six to eight times the normal budget for a condominium project of the same size and scale. In looking around the town at the local timesharing projects it becomes apparent that all of the projects are well maintained and are run in an orderly fashion. While the timesharing industry has enjoyed somewhat of a blemished record, at the current time major leisure oriented corporations are entering the field which will have nothing but a positive influence on the industry as a whole. Currently, the Marriott, the Sheridan, the Holiday Inn and Disneyland have entered the .� field of timesharing projects. E. LACK OF WEEK PACKAGING Because of the type of timesharing project Fall Line will become, it is impossible to package the weeks in four to five units at a time. This would simply destroy the marketability of the project and would do nothing to insure the success of the project. The purchaser of an individual week, however, is certainly encouraged to purchase more than one week and will be given financial incentives to do so if he so desires. By packaging four or five weeks at a time the town would not be insured of an off season increase in occupancy because the person that was forced to buy four to five weeks at a time would probably not use the week during the off season. However, if a person knowingly purchases a one week interval during the off season generally that person would use the week, otherwise he would not purchase that specific period of time. I would appreciate your reviewing my Addendum to the application where you will find some of these areas of concern expanded upon. JK P • • ASSOCIATION BUDGET . 1. Real Estate Taxes and Personal Property Taxes 2. Holy Cross Electric (not indluding heat and hot water or common electrical) 3. Public Service and Holy Cross Electric (common electric, total heat, total hot water, pool and Jacuzzi) 4. Water and Sewer 5. Trash 6. Snow Removal 7. Cable T.V. 8. Maid Service and Supplies and Unit Maintenance 9. Insurance 10. Transportation Lease on Van • Fuel Maintenance 11. Janitorial and Maintenance of Common Areas (including landscaping) 12. Association Management 13. Supplies 14. Telephone 15. Employees (office personel and van drivers) 16. Professional Fees 17. Interior of Unit Reserve 18. Common Area Reserve and Capital Improvements 19. Possible Town of Vail Time Share Occupancy Fee $1.00 per day per unit 4D TOTAL $ 40,428.00 $ 19,344.00 $ 36,000.00 $ 16,200.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 8,650.00 $ 94,605.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 67,575.00 $ 40,545.00 $ 18,921.00 $562,268.00 Average Weekly Cost = $ 208.02 5��J c9. - SAC mac= ��,�� (- iq� vajme-� 0, 4 CHAPTER VI - CONCLUSION In 1994, it appears that the housing situation has improved from what it was four years ago. The information in this study seems to indicate that housing has diminished as both a perceived and an actual issue facing residents in Eagle County. Although the issue has diminished in visibility from four years ago, it has not disappeared. In fact, it has apparently shifted from a situation where there was a major identifiable group in "need' of housing to a middle level professional group that "desires" something more than the economy is providing. The survey showed that the labor force is maturing in age, remaining in the area for longer periods of time, and broadening its residential location. The growth at Beaver Creek has played a large role in strengthening the economics of the lower valley communities and dispersing the location of both residence and employment. As Beaver Creek continues to grow, and Arrowhead comes on line, we can expect this trend to continue. In the past, Vail has been the community where the housing problem was most critical.. Today, we see that this is no Longer the case. Housing has become more of a critical. concern for the middle income group than for the lower service workers. Seasonal employees tend to want to be where the action is and are willing to spend a disproportinate amount of their income on housing. But as the new ski areas in the County mature, job oportunities will become more concentrated in the lower paid service sector and job advancement will become even more difficult. This could lead to a shortage of housing for the lower incomes similar to what happened in the Vail Valley in late 1970s. With many of the lower income jobs also being seasonal in nature, it makes the provisions of this housing difficult to economically justify. For these reasons, it is important to not dismiss housing as a solved problem. a a t 35 the very k From this study, we learn that people prefer to live in housing which is integrated within communities rather than in projects which are labeled as "employee housing ". Accordingly, Solutions to the affordable housing problem should be directed in a decentralized fashion. Affordable housing is also perceived as a very real problem for middle income groups. Specific programs should be developed to assist these people. One desirable method is to add affordable housing units to the current housing stock through the concept of a "Granny Flat ". The term "Granny Flat" is used to describe small secondary units which are allowed to be attached to single family houses. This provision for affordable housing has a variety of advantages. First and most importantly, it creates housing which integrates the employee into the community while minimizing the visual impacts commonly associated with large employee housing projects. It benefits senior citizens who are able to obtain additional income from a rental unit and helps them remain in their home town. This concept also does not involve the creation of new subdivisions, thereby more efficiently utilizing existing urban land. Governmental agencies should provide zoning regulations which allow for the "Granny Flat" concept and encourage such units when reviewing subdivision proposals. Local governments should encourage small lot subdivisions which reduce the price of housing. Home ownership brings with it a more serious involvement in the affairs of the community. Provisions should also be made for the creation of mobile home subdivisions. Because of their relatively low cost, many people purchase mobile homes but because of the lack of subdivisions designed for mobile homes, they are required to rent a space in a mobile home park. Considerable progress has been made in the field of manufactured housing and land use policies should be adjusted to provide an attractive location for this form of housing within our communities. In conjunction with programs aimed at reducing the cost of housing, efforts should be directed at making mortgage money available at reduced rates for local residents. The high interest rates of the past few years have been a problem for locals who want to purchase a house. In this rase as well as in all our efforts to reduce the cost of housing, public /private cooperation is very important. 36 t The original affordable housing commitments of Beaver Creek and Arrowhead called for housing to be built on rather concentrated areas in their respective projects. We recommend that this requirement be relaxed to allow more flexibility in both the type, location, and tenure of this housing. The question which we should ask in evaluating any proposal of affordable housing is, "How well does it blend into the community ?" In order to create a more normal or average living situation, we recommend that the rental housing provided by these large developments be open to the general public and not restricted to employees that work for that company. A re- evaluation of the rental policy used by the "Tarnes" should be undertaken in an effort to broaden its occupancy. The results of this study give us direction in which to move our efforts to provide housing for our residents. However, the housing market is dynamic and changes, when they do occur, can happen in an extremely short time frame. Our recommended solution for the next few years is to continue to monitor the situation closely. If occupancy rates show signs. of increasing and rental units become more difficult to find, the County, municipalities and various other affected entities must be ready to respond. A survey similar to the one discussed here should be done at least every four years, if not at shorter intervals. Such a survey can provide a great amount of useful information especially when it can be compared with those done in the past. This committee should remain intact and prepare annual reports on "affordable housing" within Eagle County. New proposals for the provision of affordable housing in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county should be reviewed by this committee and its comments forwarded to the respective Planning Commissions. It is hoped that this report can and will lead to continued efforts to study the housing issue and to formulate _ policies. It is again important to re- emphasize the need for the various entities, both governmental and private, to work with each other in understanding and responding to changes in the housing market. As conditions change, policies also have to be re- examined to test their effectiveness. By doing this, future housing needs can be planned for in an orderly fashion. l 1 -0 CHAPTER V - CURRENT HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES In this section, we will review the current status of 11 resident housing projects of various types and summarize the results of an overall market review of Housing for Sale in the price range of less than $150,000. The eleven projects which were included in our review include two mobile home parks: The Eagle River Park and The Benchmark Park; six rental projects: River View Apartments, Valli Hi, Benchmark Condominiums, Sunridge, The Tarnes, and Fall Tine; and three for sale projects: Homestead Meadows, Pitkin Creek Park, and Cliffside. a) Rental Market 7 I I. 00 Generally speaking, the level of occupancy of the rental projects change quite markedly with the season. The exception to this being the River View Apartments. This project is operated as part of the Federally Subsidized "Section S" program in which the renter pays 30% of his income with the remainder of the rent being paid by the government. The River View Apartments continually maintain 100% occupancy. The remainder of the projects generally maintain 110% occupancy during the winter and drop to 50 -60o during the summer. This situation is to be expected in a county whose winter employment requirement is significantly greater than that required during the summer. As the Vail Valley moves toward becoming more of a four season resort, we can expect a smoothing oiit of rental occupancy levels. Mobile Home Spaces are occupied at close to 100% throughout the year. However, the occupancy of the unit themselves fluctuates with the season. Because the majority of mobile homes for rent within a park are not controlled by any one management entity, we do not have reliable occupancy rates. However, we believe the summer occupancy rate to be somewhere close to 75 %. b) Ownership Market Two of the three surveyed are sold out. which was constructed i severe housing problem. with favorable interest Mortgage Bond Money. For Sale Housing Projects which we Pitkin Creek was the earliest project n 1980 during a period when there was a The project offered low prices coupled rates obtained through Municipal 32 i 5. RN J .. 7 11 Sunk Description: This project was built as a condominium project in 1981 and many of the owners have placed their units on the rental market. Management company survey controlled 50 d.u. Location: Town of Avon opposite the West Parking Lot of Beaver Creek. Size Phase 1, 165 units and Phase 11, 202 Units. Tenure: Rental. Rental Rate: 5400 - 450 - 2 bedroom unfurnished $550 - 600 - 2 bedroom furnished $575 - 650 - 3 bedroom unfurnished $600 - 700 - 3 bedroom furnished For Sale: $ 85,000 - 2 bedroom $100,000 - 3 bedroom Benchmark Condominiums Description: This project was built in early 1970 = s and is a dormitory appearing building. Management agency survey controlled 43 units. Location: Town of Avon Size: 92 dwelling units Tenure: Rental Rental Rate: $300 - 350 - 1 bedroom (plus utilities) $400 - 450 - 2 bedroom $450 - 500 - 3 bedroom Fn1 1 T inc Description: Early employee project constructed in West Vail currently reserved for the employees of the Mark (Marriott). Location: West Vail Size: 53 units '7 Tenure: Rental Rate: 8. Homestead Mead Rental $325 - 1 bedroom furnished $450 - 2 bedroom furnished Description: This condominium project was built as the first phase of a residential development of some 500+ mixed density units. Location: Edwards Size: 56 dwelling units Sale Price: $75 - 77,000 - 1090 sq.ft. $83,500 - 85,600 - 1210 sq.ft. Comments: These units are part of a cooperative affordable housing program worked out between the developer and the County. The developer committed to for sale prices and through a purchase option clause controls the resale for a period of 3 years of owner occupancy. Project is a fine example of public /private cooperation. 9. The Tarnes Description: This project was built in partial fulfillment for the provision of affordable housing within Beaver Creek P.U.D. Location: Northwestern portion of the P.U.P. Size: 60 units - 30 - 1 bedroom 30 - 2 bedroom Tenure: Rental Rental Rate: $345 - 1 bedroom unfurnished (all utilities included) $400 - 2 bedroom furnished $500 - 2 bedroom unfurnished $580 - 2 bedroom .furnished J AN OVERVIEW OF THE RESORT TIMESHARING MARKET: CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY A Summary Of THE RESORT TIMESHARING INDUSTRY A Socio- Economic Impact Analysis of Resort TimeSharing in Two Volumes This summary made possible by a grant from: Captran Resorts International P.Q. Box 06100 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 (813) 472 -6400 Prepared for THE NATIONAL of the TIMESHARING COUNCIL AMERICAN LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION Washington, D.C. by RICHARD L. RAGATZ ASSOCIATES, INC. Eugene, Oregon Under the Direction of The Socio- Economic Task Force of the National TimeSharing Council George I. David, Chairman 0 Grateful Acknowledgement ALDA /NTC Officers During Preparation NTC Socio-Economic of The Resort Timesharing Industry Task Force ALDA President and Chairman — 1980 -82 Norman B. Conkle, President Consolidated Development Corp. Phoenix, AZ ALDA President and Chairman ---- 1978 -80 Richard Norman, President All- American Realty Company, Inc. Wayne, NJ Chairman, National Timesharing Council of ALDA — 1981 -1983 Carl G. Berry, Partner California Resorts San Francisco, CA Chairman, National TimeSharing Council of ALDA — 1979 -81 .. _ Keith Romney. President Keith Romney Associates Salt Lake City, UT Chairman, National TimeSharing Council of ALDA — 1978 -79 Keith W. Trowbridge, President Captran Resorts International Ft. Myers, FL. Chairman: George I. David, President The David Time Share Group Inc. Stamford, CT Members: Carl G. Berry, Partner California Resorts San Francisco, CA Carl H, Burlingame, President The CHS Company, Inc. Los Altos, CA John Reinhardt, Vice President The David Time Share Group Inc. Stamford, CT Keith B. Romney, President Keith Romney Associates Salt Lake City, UT Ex officio Gary A. Terry, Executive Vice President American Land Development Association Washington, D.C. Keith W, Trowbridge, President Captran Resorts International Ft. Myers, FL Sponsors and - Contributors Whose Generous Contributions Made This Slfrvey and Analysis Possible Sponsors American International Vacations, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada The Bank of California, N.A. Los Angeles, California Captran Resorts International Ft. Myers, Florida DEL Marketing, Inc. Palmyra, Virginia Dunes Marketing Group, Inc. Hilton Head Island, South Carolina Fairfield Communities Knoxville, Tennessee Helmsley -Spear Hospitality Services, Inc New York, New York Lehigh Corporation North Miami. Florida Leisure Resource Group Austin, Texas Platinum Exchange Group Grand Rapids, Michigan Resort Condominiums International Indianapolis, Indiana Resort Marketing Associates, Inc. Honolulu, Hawaii Keith Romney Associates Salt Lake City, Utah San Diego Country Estates Ramona, California Shawnee Development, Inc. Shawnee -on- Delaware, Pennsylvania Snowmass Inn Resort & Club Snowmass Village, Colorado South Seas Plantation, Ltd. Sanibel Island, Florida Paul G. Spining & Associates, Inc. Dallas, Texas Suncoast Resorts Pty. Ltd. Melbourne, Australia Sweetwater Properties Salt Lake City, Utah Contributors All-American Realty Co., Inc. Wayne, New Jersey California Resorts San Francisco, California Carriage House at Pocono Manor Pocono Manor. Pennsylvania Club Land'or Ltd. Ladysmith, Virginia Cox, Castle & Nicholson Los Angeles, California Driftwood Resorts Vero Beach, Florida Holiday Clubs International Memphis. Tennessee Investment Corp. of Florida Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Lehman -Pike Development Co. Bushkin, Pennsylvania Lyanne Rennie Indio, California ill Mid - Continent Associates, Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota Vacation Resorts Houston, Texas Vacation Spa Resorts Las Vegas, Nevada The American Lana Development A .. . is an independent, nonprofit trade association formed, in 1969, to represent the recreational and resort development industry. Since then it has grown to represent residential developers as well and today ALDA's membership is interna- tional in scope. It includes property owners who are holding land for future development or investment purposes, and companies that build, sell and develop: • Primary residential homes • Vacation homes • Condominiums • Planned unit developments • Destination resorts • Retirement and new communities • Recreational vehicle parks and campgrounds • Mobile home parks • Timesharing projects • Marinas ALDA is also fortunate to count among its members professional firms and individuals who provide products and services to the developer — lenders, marketing experts, attorneys, architects, accountants, engineers, adver- tising specialists, real estate agents, consultants, homebuilders. To represent a membership which includes such a wide diversity of speciallzed interests, ALDA organized the first of its present seven councils in 1976. In addition to the pioneering Resort Timesharing Council (now the National TimeSharing Council), ALDA's other councils are: International Council; Marina Owners, Developers and Operators Council; Property Owners Council; Residential Development Council; Resort and Recreational /Secona Home Council; and RV Park and Campground Council, With a full range of professional and membership services, ALDAserves as a medium forthe exchangeof infor- mation and ideas among its members and between the industry and the general public, media, governmentani regu- latory bodies, and interested business sectors and individuals. A monthly newsletter, annual magazine, council reports and special publications, such as this survey, provide the ALDA membership and the industry with important industry research results and a forum for news, feature articles and advertising. An annual industry -wide conference /exposition in addition to specialized conferences and seminars throughout the year provide opportunities for ALDA members and non - members to meet, discuss and hear aoout the latest trends in the business. A strong government relations program ensures that ALDA members are represented on Capitol Hill and before government agencies and kept informed of legislative/ regulatory issues and activities affect- ing development interests. ALDA was founded in response to the real estate development industry's greatest needs in the late'60s and early '70s — a strong code of ethics and an industry -wide response to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSFDA), enacted in 1968. In the latter half decade of the 1970s and now in the 1980s, timesharing became a major new focus within ALDA. Serving the members of ALDA who are involved in timesharing is the National TimeSharing Council (NTC). Director of Publications & Research: Jeanette E. Smith iv Table of Contents Page Introduction........................................... ............................... 1 Sources oflnforriation ................................. ............................... 2 Consumer Characteristics and Motivations .............. ............................... 3 Consumer Satisfaction ................................. ............................... 4 Use of Timeshare ...................................... ............................... 5 Consumer Expenditures ................................ ............................... 6 Government Revenues and Costs ....................... ............................... 11 Employment Patterns .................................. ............................... 11 Other Expenditures .................................... ............................... 12 OtherImpacts ......................................... ............................... 14 • A Model for Assessing Economic Effects of Timeshare Projects ......................... 19 Footnotes............................................. ............................... 23 Addendum............................................. ............................... 25 U v Table of Contents • Page Introduction........................................... ............................... 1 Sources oflnfor6 atio n ................................. ............................... 2 Consumer Characteristics and Motivations .................. . ........... . . . .... . .... . . . 3 Consumer Satisfaction ................................. ............................... 4 Useof Timeshare ...................................... ............................... 5 Consumer Expenditures ............................................................... 6 Government Revenues and Costs ................................ E m ploy m ent Patterns .................................. ............................... 11 Other Expenditures .................................... ............................... 12 Other pacts ......................................... ............................... 14 A Model for Assessing Economic Effects of Timeshare Projects ......................... 19 0 Footnotes............................................. ............................... 23 Addendum............................................. ............................... 25 v • Introduction Timeshare ownership of resort accommodations is growing rapidly throughout North America, Europe, Japan, Australasia, and elsewhere. Timeshare projects are now found in over 30 countries around the world. In the United States, it is estimated that 300,000 timeshare owners now exist in about 500 different projects. Projected sales in 1981 are $1.5 billion. As recently as 1978, the market consisted of only 250 projects with an annual sales of roughly $309 million.' Nearly any resort area with an established tourist trade is experiencing timeshare development through the construction of new units or the conversion of existing resort condominium or other overnight lodging units. In addition, timeshare development is becoming apparent in communities with little previous experience with tourism. Although the bulk of timeshare development is in the form of condominium units, otherforms of accommodations are also being offered on an interval basis, including detached units, and facilities such as yachts, ocean liners,and camp- ing and recreational vehicle facilities. It is evident that timesharing, as a form of ownership, can be applied to a wide range of recreation and other facilities as consumers continue to become increasingly receptive. In light of such rapid and recent growth of the market, it is natural that resort and other commum ask about the effects which timeshare development will have on their residents, economy, government, and tourism in- dustry. Timesharing is a relatively new concept which is not always consistent with commonly held conceptions about ownership of property. Its uniqueness has contributed to questions arising in a number of communities about whether timeshare development will bring in a less desirable tourism group, result in excessive and uncompensated government costs, and perhaps even displace current residents. Thus far, resort timesharing has encountered mixed reactions from public regulators and local comriunities in this country. Reactions range from encouragement to neglect to restriction. Several states and municipalities already have proposed, and in several instances actually implemented, regulations that could readily be generalized beyond the local situation. S In the past, most public regulations in the real recreational property market have been created for two reasons, including: (1) to protect the individual consumer, such as the various SEC, FTC, and OILSR pieces of legis- lation; and /or (2) to protect the host community or the public at large, such as the various taxing, environmental, and land use regulations. The image that many persons hold of resort timesharing often has been created by the negative publicity coming forth from the raw land sales industry of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This image frequently consists of a product for which a demand has been falsely created, one that is permeated by consumer fraud, one that is unused and unusable, and one that does not pay its way in regard to societal costs and benefits. Hence, decisions are made and legislation is created that could irrationally hinder future development of the timeshare market. The broad question of timeshare desirability in a local community involves several specific issues which should be addressed in a non - biased fashion by local decision makers before rendering recommendations. Some of the most important issues include: 1. Are the typical consumers of resort timeshares of the "appropriate quality" to make them desirable to attract to the local community? 2. Are timeshare consumers satisfied with their purchases or is the market wrought with many of the con- sumer fraud problems associated with the old raw land industry of the past decade? 3. Do timeshare buyers use their purchase or do the units sit idle, again like the hundreds of thousands of unused and unusable recreational lots developed throughout the country in the late 1960s and early 1970s? 4. Are the public revenues generated by timeshare development adequate to cover associated public costs? 5. Is employment generated by timeshare development adequate and of a form considered to be desirable to a community? 6. Are overall patterns of public facility use generated by timeshare development appropriate to a healthy tourism sector and the community in general? Information on the above questions is contained in a recent study sponsored by the National Timesharing Council of the American Land Development Association, The Resort Timesharing Industry: A Socio- Economic Impact Analysis of Resort Timesharing in Two Volumes, Results from this study are summarized in the document at hand. The vast majority of the findings are posi- tive toward the resort timeshare industry in regard to the above set of questions. However, two additional points should be emphasized: 1. The study did not address three evident impacts that improperly developed, marketed, and managed timeshare projects can create in a local community: a, sales techniques — the hard sales "peddling on the street" approach which frequently results in: (1) pressure sales to persons who probably should not be purchasing recreational property with their limited discretionary income; and /or (2) disruptive activity to local residents and tourists. b. Integration of timeshare with primary housing — industry data has shown that opposition to time- sharing is more likely to occur in ownership developments than in right -to -use resorts since right -to- use timeshares are often contained within a hotel or motel where transiency is expected and accepted. c. conversion of other units to timesharing — the change in use from apartments or other types of resi- dential shelter to timesharing which implies a loss of year -round primary housing for local residents. 2. Results of the study cannot be generalized to all real estate projects which are termed "resort time- shares". Many small, marginal- quality projects in poor locations and without proper construction, amenities, marketing and management cannot be included in the positive remarks. However, if properly developed, marketed and managed, there is a wealth of evidence to conclude that a quality resort time- share project will greatly benefit all involved, including the consumer, the developer, and the host community. Sources of information Volume One of The Resort Timesharing Industry was concerned with characteristics of timeshare buyers. Questionnaires were mailed to 26,730 buyers from 13 sponsoring companies who either had developed and /or mar- keted timeshare projects. Some 33 projects were represented by these 13 companies. Another 6,000 questionnaires were mailed to members of the two major exchange companies, including 3,500 members of Resort Condomir ;ums International (RCI) and 2,500 members of Interval International (11), The questionnaires were mailed in December 1979and January 1b80, with a cut -off date being establisr ed of March 15, 1980. Some 9,685 usable questionnaires were returned fora very high reponse rate of 36.2 percent. it is estimated by industry experts that roughly 215,000 timeshare owners existed in the United States in spring 1980. If this represented the true total, then roughly five percent of all existing timeshare owners in the country participated in the survey. Based upon statistical sampling theory, the high rate of return coupled with the sizeable representation of the overall population, were more than enough to ensure reliability of the results. The 9,685 respondents owned timeshares in 183 different projects throughout the United States, Mexico, and the Caribbean. The 183 projects included almost all of the large resort timesharing projects in the country, and about one -half of the 350 total projects estimated to have existed in spring 1980. Volume 11 was most directly concerned with the economic impacts that resort timeshare projects have on their host community. In this regard, in -depth case studies were conducted of the following three projects: Kuleana Club near Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii. This project contains 30 timeshare units which are integrated with 60 wholly owned condominium units. All units contain one - bedroom with 625 square feet. The pro- ject is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and contains a swimming pool, tennis court, and clubhouse. At the time of the study, 570 buyers had purchased 1,531 weekly intervals for an 80 percent sellout. • The Good Life at San Diego Country Estates near the small town of Ramona in San Diego County, Cali- fornia. It contains 64 units in eight separate eight -unit buildings, with 32 units having one - bedroom and the other 32 having two - bedrooms. it is in the midst of the several thousand acre San Diego Country Estates, a large residential- recreation community. Some 1,400 buyers have purchased a two -week minimum package for a 100 percent sellout. 3. Sanibel Beach Club II on Sanibel Island, Florida. This project was newly constructed fortimesharing. It contains 29 two - bedroom units in eight separate buildings. Each unit contains 1,260 square feet. On -site amenities include ocean frontage, swimming pool, tennis court, and sauna. Here, 785 buyers have pur- chased 1,479 weeks for a 100 percent sellout. Involved in the three case studies were dozens of interviewswith local public officials (both elected and staff), a review of numerous public documents and local budgets, and research into relevant literature describing impacts from other tourist- recreation types of markets. Whenever possible, comparisonswere made between impactscreated by resort timesharing projects and those created by othertypes of overnight recreation lodging such as resort condo- miniums, hotels and motels. Consumer Characteristics and Motivations An initial question that many local communities seem to ask is, "Are the typical consumers of resort time- shares of the 'appropriate qualify' to make them desirable to attract to our community "? In this regard, when aggre- gating the demographic variables of age, education, income, and family type, itappears the timeshare market iscom- posed of a very stable and high quality population. Due to their high income and educational attainment, their age profile and marital status, it would seem they are relatively protected from extreme problems of recessionary trends in the country. Over one -half (56.3 percent) had household incomes in 1979 of $30,000 or more, and 17.1 percent had in- comes of $50,000 or more. The approximate median annual income was about $33,500. By way of comparison, the median income of all households in the United States in 1979 was only about $16,500. In a 1977 survey of timeshare buyers, the median income was only about $23,000. If the medians from the two surveys are accurate, itwould mean that the median income of timeshare buyers increased about 45 percent in two years. A significant portion of this increase was due to nationally inflating incomes during this period. (Average income for all households in the United States increased roughly 22.2 percent between 1977 and 1979.) However, it is suspected that a greater portion of the increase was due to: (1) increasing costs of timeshare units; (2) the increasing degree of credibility that timeshare is gaining amongst higher income households; and (3) the increasing availability of higher quality timeshare projects in more expensive and higher quality locations. The average age of the head of household for timeshare buyers was 45.4 years. Over one -half (527 percent) were between the ages of 35 to 54. The vast majority of buyers were married couples (89.4 percent). By contrast, only about 62 percent of all households in the United States are now composed of married couples. Only 3.2 percent were under 25 (most likely due to lack of discretionary income) and only 4.8 percent were over 65 (most iikelydueto either lack of discretionary income, already having owned other types of recreational properties, or finding the timeshare- concept unattractive for a variety of reasons such as health, inconvenience of travel, etc.). It is significant, however, that almost one- quarter (19.2 percent) of the buyers were in the relatively young age group of 25 to34years. These people can probably not afford to buy a detached vacation home nor wholly owned resort condominium, but are able to afford the relatively low cost of a timeshare unit for a week or so, and thereby gaining access to a quality resort. One of the most interesting findings from the survey was the extremely high level of education attained by timeshare buyers. Over three- quarters (75.8 percent) of the respondents had attended college, with over one -half . (54.9 percent) being college graduates, and 31.4 percent having done graduate work. The median numberof years of education attained by respondents was 15.4 as compared to the national average of only 12.5. In regard to why people buy timeshares, the mostfrequent responses werethe opportunity to save moneyon future vacation costs and the exchange opportunity. Thus, respondents appear primarily influenced byflexible vaca- tion plans while at the same time being interested in holding down future vacation costs. Resort timesharing is per- • haps the only type of recreational real property which simultaneously offers these advantages. A wide array of response was found in regard to the distance between primary home and timeshare unit. Very few (10.6 percent) live within 50 miles of theirtimeshare; however, about one -third (32.5 percent) live within 100 miles. The most common distance seems to be just about 100 miles. While most owners live within close vacation -com- muting distance of their timeshare, over one - quarter (26.4 percent) live 1,000 or more miles distant. These respon- dents primarily represent: (1) all owners in Hawaii, Mexico, and the Caribbean; (2) mid -West owners who have pur- chased in Florida; or (3) East Coast owners who have purchased in the Rocky Mountain states. The average number of weeks purchased was about 1.8. The vast majority (90.0 percent) of resper,d3nts owned their timeshares at just one resort location. While the remaining 10.0 percent proportion may appear low, it is interesting that some timeshare buyers are already beginning to collect not only multiple weeks but also multiple locations, even though being offered the exchange privilege with other locations. Consumer Satisfaction Respondents in the survey were asked, "In general, how satisfied are you with your timeshare purchase"? Answers were overwhelmingly favorable with a very high 86.3 percent stating they were either "very satisfied" (44.6 percent) or "satisfied" (41.7 percent). Some 72.5 percent said they would again purchase theirtimeshare in hindsight. High satisfaction was most apparent amongst respondents who: 1. have owned their timeshare longer 2. have purchased multiple weeks 3. have purchased higher priced units 4, have purchased larger units 5. have purchased for use or because they like the unit as opposed to just purchasing to take advantage of the exchange opportunity 6. have used their timeshare 7. have requested an exchange 8. have had an exchange confirmed 9. received their own first trade choice in regard to the exchange 10, were very satisfied with their trade 11. felt the exchange privilege was fairly represented by their salesperson 12, are middle age and above 13. have attained higher educational levels 14. have higher incomes 15. have purchased fee -type units 16. have purchased units in projects originally built for timeshare. 4 Another question in the survey asked respondents to rate their degree of satisfaction for 13 specific items. Results are summarized below by listing the percent of respondents who said they were "dissatisfied" with the specific items, Percent of Respondents Percent of Respondents Stating "Dissatisfaction" Stating "Dissatisfaction" With Items Relating to the Unit With Items Relating to the Area or Site Item: Item: 1. cleanliness of unit 2.9 1, shopping 6.4 2. storage space 2,2 2. restaurants 5 3. kitchen facilities 1.3 3. recreation for children 4.6 4. quality of construction 1.2 4. responsiveness of management 4.3 5. size of unit 1.2 5. on -site recreation 3 6. furnishings 1.1 6. nearby recreation 1.9 7, bathroom(s) 0.8 The vast majority of timeshare buyers appear very pleased with their purchase. None of the items ir. the first column which related directly to the unit itself had a negative response rate of overthree percent. Only two (cleanli- ness of unit with 2.9 percent and small storage space with 2.2 percent) had more than two percent of the buyers check- ing "Dissatisfied ". It is to be remembered that these responses came from almost 10,000 timeshare owners repre- senting 181clifferent projects around the United States and elsewhere. Rates of dissatisfaction were slightly higher for items in the second column, but again almost negligible. . Several of these items were checked by more than four percent of the respondents, including shopping (6.4 percent), restaurants (5.6'percent), recreation for children (4.6 percent) and responsiveness of management (4.3 percent). An extremely high 61.5 percent intended to buy additional timeshares, either at their present resort location (24.6 percent) and /or at another location (36.9 percent). Such findings not only indicate a high degree of satisfaction amongst present owners of timeshares, but also a vast potential demand increase in the overall market. In other words, a potential market not only exists with untapped buyers but also with almost two-thirds of the existing buyers. Only 18.6 percent of the respondents said they intended to sell their present timeshare and not buy another. Some 40.2 percent stated they did not plan to buy additional timeshare but rather just keep what they presently own. Use of Timeshare A frequent argument made in the past against traditional types of recreational real properties (recreational lots, detached vacation homes, and wholly owned resort condominium units) was that they rarefy are used by their owners. Such does not seem to be the case with resort timeshares. Some 62.0 percent of the respondents already had vacationed in their own timeshare unit. When combined with the respondents who have taken advantage of the exchange privilege, it appears that about three - quarters of the respondents already had used a timeshare unit of some kind. This is true even though 38.7 percent had made their purchase only within six months prior to the survey. Some 58.1 percent said they planned to use their interval every year in the future. Another 28.3 percent * planned to use the exchange privilege every year, for a total planned timeshare annual use of 84.6 percent. 1. these figures are generalized to all projects for all seasons of the year, it appears that the issue of this type of property sitting idle for long periods of time is much less relevant than it has been for the traditional types of recreational property. 5 About one -half (55.7 percent) of the respondents had vacationed in their timeshare for a seven -day period, with the average stay being 8.2 days. The average number of visitors per party for the overall stay was 4.0, including 3.0 adults and 1.0 children. Timesharing frequently has an image of attaining popularity only in peak vacation periods; for example, winter for skiing in the Rockies or beaching in Florida, or summer for hiking in the Rockies or boating at Lake Tahoe, and so forth. Many observers of timesharing have criticized the concept due to perceived severe peaks and declines in seasonal use periods. However, according to the survey of almost 10,000 buyers, timeshare intervals have sold well during all seasons of the year. Based upon a sample of the almost 17,000 weeks purchased by the respondents, seasonal- purchase ranged from a low of 23.9 percent in the fall to a high of 26.3 percent in the summer. Consumer Expenditures A major reason for positive response toward resort timesharing by some local public officials and others knowledgeable about the market relates to the economic impacts created by this land use. One very direct way of analyzing this issue is to describe the extent of expenditures that timeshare occupants make in the local community. Respondents in the survey were asked, "During your most recent vacation in a timeshare unit, what would you esti- mate your party's average daily expenditures to be in the local area for each of the following items "? This question is of special importance, so please be as careful as possible ". For eight different items, the respondent was to write in a dollar estimate in regard to: (1) only the most recent visit; (2) the daily expenditure average; (3) expenditures for the entire party; and (4) expenditures only made in the local area. Some 6,005 respondents completed this question. Overall average daily expenditures for the eight items are listed below: Overall Average Item Daily Expenditures 1. Eating out and nightclubs $25.47 2. Groceries and liquor bought in a store 17,02 3. Recreation (movies, green fees, tours, lift tickets, etc.) 14.00 4. Local shopping (souvenirs, gifts, apparel, etc.) 13.90 5. Rental car 5,10 6. Other overnight lodging besides timeshare unit 2,67 7. Local transportation (public bus, taxi, etc.) .76 8. Other 6.42 $85.34 If averages for the eight items are accumulated, the overall average daily expenditure was $85.34. The follow- ing paragraphs provide additional detail in regard to consumer expenditures. 1. Eating out and nightclubs. This item resulted in the highest average daily expenditure ($25.47). Appar- ently, even though kitchens exist in the vast majority of timeshare units, occupancy of a timeshare is viewed as a true vacation and does not involve extensive cooking by the user. More than one -half (52.8 percent) of the respondents spent an average of more than $20 a day on this item. 2. Groceries and liquor. Many respondents included a hand - written comment in the questionnaire for this item and "eating out and nightclubs ", stating they brought most of their food from home and did little local shopping or eating out. However, only 14.6 percent spent an average of less than $10 per day ar� 31.7 percent spent more than $20 per day. 101 • 3. Recreation. Over one - quarter (27.5 percent) of the respondents stated they spent no additional money on recreational activities during their timeshare vacation. This implies that either many timeshare users are content just to relax and /or that all necessary recreational activities are provided free on -site. On the other hand, about another one - quarter (25.2 percent) spent an average of $20 or more per day. 4, Local shopping. This was another item with a fairly high daily average ($13.90). It also was an item with extensive disparity between respondents. For example, 32.8 percent spent less than $5 per day while 23.5 percent spent more than $20 per day. 5. Rental car. About one - quarter (22.2 percent) of the respondents rented a car at some time in the local area during their timeshare vacation. 6. Other overnight lodging. Only 11.3 percent of the respondents stated they spent any money on this item, which implies the vast majority of timeshare users travel directly from their home to theirtimashare unit without any intervening overnight stops. It also appears they mostly return to their timeshare unit at night even if touring the surrounding area during the day. 7. Local transportation. Here, the average daily expenditure was only $76, with the vast majority of respon- dents (90.2 percent) stating they spent no money at all on this item. Another question in the survey was, "Please estimate your party's expenditures in the local area during your most recent vacation in a timeshare for the entire time you were there. Do not include the occupancy or maintenance fees charged for the timeshare ". Hence, respondents were requested to give a singular overall estimate of their expen- ditures during their timeshare vacation, rather than a daily itemized estimate as requested in the earlier question. It was found that about one -third spent a total of less than $100, probably representing the few respondents whose most recent visit to a timeshare was only for one or two days. At the other end of the expenditure range were the 13.3 percent who spent more than $1,000. An attempt was made to compare expenditures by timeshare occupants and other tourists /overnight recrea- tionists at the three case study areas. Unfortunately, comparable data were not available for the same groups in all three areas. However, some findings include: i. Timeshare occupants at Kuleana Club had average total per party expenditures that were: (a) 62.7 percent higher than for all tourists to Hawaii;^ and (b) 46.7 percent higher than for occupants at wholly owned resort condominium units on neighboring islands.' Comparisons are shown in Table 1. 2. Timeshare occupants at The Good Life at San Diego Country Estates had average daily per party expenditures that were 38.7 percent higher than for all tourists to San Diego County. Comparisons are shown in Table 2. 3. Timeshare occupants at Sanibel Beach Club 11 had average daily per party expenditures that were 11.0 percent higher than for all tourists to Lee County, Florida (the county in which the timeshare project is located).' Comparisons are shown in Table 3. • See page 8 for TABLE 1 • See page 9 for TABLE 2 • See page 10 for TABLE 3 0 In summary, it appears that timeshare occupants spend considerably more (either on atotal visitor on a daily basis) than do other tourists /recreationists. Differences are especially significant in expenditures for groceries, rental cars and shopping, TABLE 1 • Average Party Total Expenditures, Kuleana Club, All Tourists to Hawaii and Condominium Visitors Y Kuleana Neighbor Club Hawaii Island Condo Expenditure C ategory Owners' Tourists Visitors' Groceries $ 318.30 $ 32.57 $ 97.42 Restaurants, nightclubs 395.85 294.69 205.79 Rental car 288.60 41.59 157.20 Inter- island a1r 126.52 51.21 103.;;4 Other transportation 12.15 27.86 18.25 Recreations - 155.55 89.27 62.28 Shopping 6 334.05 235.83 136.89 Other 75.30 62.20 59.53 Subtotal (excluding lodging) 1,706.32 835.22 834.60 Timeshare maintenance and use fees 283.29 Lodging or other lodging 86.55 440.86 580.64 Total $2,076.16 $1,276.08 $1,415.24 'Includes only those who used their own timeshare unit. 2 Hawaii Visitors Bureau, "1977 Expenditure Study ", as reported in Hopkinsand Penseyres (1979); correctedto reflect prices of July 1979, using the authors' methodology. 3 Hopkins and Penseyres (1979); Maui and Kauai only; corrected to July 1979. 'Assumes one round trip from Honolulu to a neighbor island for timeshare and condo users, cost equivalent to average common fare for 1979. 'Includes tours, attractions, admission fees, etc. ' gifts, apparel, other retail goods. 9 LJ TABLE 2 Average Party Daily Expenditures San Diego Country Estates and All Tourists to San Diego • San Diego Country Estates San Diego Expenditure Category Owners Tourists' Groceries Restaurants, nightclubs Rental car Other transportation' Recreation Shopping Other Subtotal Timeshare maintenance and use fees Other lodging Total $18.34 $ 5.43 29.02 24.25; 2.94 9.6 .41 12.52 6.62 4.41 7.24 2.69 70.33 16.04 .97 $87.34 53.23 $62.93 'Total from San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau (1979); distribution by categoryfrom San Diego Chamber of Commerce, n.d. Assumes average visitor size of 2.7 2 Does not include air or auto travel to the point of accommodation. r � f� 0 TABLE 3 'Florida Division of Tourism (1980). Weighted average of air and auto travelers assuming equal proportions each. Data for air travelers are statewide and probably under - represent actual Lee County expenditures. 10 Average Party Daily Expenditures, Sanibel Beach Club II and All Tourists to Lee County Sanibel Beach Club II Lee County Expenditure Category Owners Tourists' Groceries $17.13 $ 4.25 Restaurants, nightclubs 23.22 22.90 Rental car 9.07 Other transportation 0.32 12.90 Recreation 4.77 9.29 Shopping 18.58 5.07 Other 7.71 3,81 Subtotal 80.80 58.22 Timeshare maintenance and use fees 7.47 _ Other lodging 3.43 24.39 Total.. $91.70 $82.61 'Florida Division of Tourism (1980). Weighted average of air and auto travelers assuming equal proportions each. Data for air travelers are statewide and probably under - represent actual Lee County expenditures. 10 Government Revenues and Costs Given that a community has embarked on economic development which involves tourism, a major concern is the balance between the public sector revenues and costs associated with the various forms this development may take. Public policy might seek to enhance development with beneficial net effects on the public sector, or at least avoid development having clearly adverse effects. Therefore, an important part of the economic impact study was to develop a set of reliable revenue /cost ratios in regard to the three case study projects. Unfortunately, reliable "leakage rates ", (i.e., the proportion of local expenditures that filter out of the local community due to the parent company being located elsewhere) were not available in any of the case study communities. However, even if a leakage rate as high as 60 percent were assumed (which is quite unlikely), very positive revenue /cost ratios were found for the three timeshare projects. Such ratios were calculated by employing an in -depth regression analysis. Public revenues from consumer expenditures, taxes, licenses, etc., were compared with public costs of servicing the timeshare project and its occu- pants (e.g., police, fire, roads, sewer, and water). When a revenue /cost ratio is greater than 1.0, it means that the project is more than paying its way its the local community; in other words, creating more public revenues than public costs. Revenue /cost ratios directly generated by the three case studies, assuming a leakage rate of 60 percent, for the counties in which the projects are located were calculated to be: Kuleana Club: 2.8 Sanibel Beach Club II: 6.6 . San Diego Country Estates: 3.5 These results were based on the most conservative treatment of timeshare accommodations expenditures. They would indicate an even more favorable revenue /cost balance if a greater proportion of timeshare investments, beyond just maintenance and use fees, were included as income to the community. For example, timeshare sales bring funds into a community which can in turn result in investments and enterprise which bring further economic benefits. Such benefits are not associated with hotel or other rental accommodation development, although rental income does accrue over a much greater period of time. A very important factor related to expenditure patterns and public revenues /costs was the finding that con- siderably less seasonality in occupancy is found in timeshare projects than in comparable quality hotels or wholly owned resort condominium projects. Year -round occupancy is more stable in timeshare projects because owners probably feel some type of psychological obligation to vacation there forthe time they have purchased. Such patterns are, of course, very important to local merchants, many of whom would appreciate more steady year -round expendi- ture patterns. For the two case study projects for which the information was available, the overall annual occupancy rates were 78 and 85 percent, high by visitor accommodation standards. In the three case study communities, only San Diego rental accommodations (80 percent) approached these figures. Amore general comparison of timeshare occu- pancy conducted in 1979 showed that in a nationwide study of 60 developers, the average occupancy of theirtime- share units was about 78 percent, compared to 50 percent for rental units." Employment Patterns Employment considerations in the three case studies included direct employment in timeshare projects, plus employment created in the surrounding community through timeshare visitor expenditures. The nature of timeshare 18 accommodations limits the direct employment it offers compared to that associated with most rental accommoda- tions. Hotei and motel operations not only provide greater number of direct services than timeshare, butalso include more restaurants, shops, or other facilities which offer employment. 11 The data indicated that timeshare units are among the lowest providers of such direct on -site employment. It 41 was also evident, however, that this employment was not subject to strong seasonal variations, such as was evident! n many resort communities. It also consisted of a high proportion of full -time positions which are useful as primary family income. Although on -site timeshare employment is limited, employment occurs off -site in restaurants, stores, and recreational facilities which attract timeshare visitor expenditures. The relatively high non- accommodation expendi- tures of timeshare parties, compared to the average tourist party will lead to relatively greater indirect employment generated by timeshare development. The low seasonality of timeshare use also fosters a steady stream of expendi- tures in the community, hence minimizing seasonal variations in employment opportunities. The greater the propor- tion of timeshare in a community, the greater this smoothing effect will be. Whether overall timeshare related employment, on -site as well as off -site, is greater than for rental accom- modations was not determined in the study. Timeshare visitor party non - accommodation expenditures well in excess of those for the average party will probably produce indirect employment which will easily offset the more limited employment in accommodations firms. A more similar level of such spending, however, given the labor intensity and relatively low leakage of accommodations firms, will probably be associated with greater direct and indirect employ- ment created by rental accommodations. In any event, the community with a relatively diverse and well developed commercial sector will capture a greater proportion of visitor expenditures, and this ability is of greater importance than small differences in expenditure levels among types of visitors. Timeshare development also offers employment during an initial sales phase, setting it apart from other accommodation types. This is in addition to employment associated with construction and/or renovation. The data indicates, however, that much of this employment is created outside the communities in which the timeshare projects are located, limiting local benefits. Study data showed that sales employment and expenditures were located pre- dominately outside the local community in all but Hawaii; in addition, the average local proportion for construction and renovation expenses was about half, Those communities with relatively developed economies will be able to cap- ture a greater portion of these development expenditures, particularly if the developer is committed to patronizing local firms, and employing local residents. Other Expenditures In addition to the economic impacts already mentioned, timeshare projects also contribute other monetary expenditures to the economic base of both the local area and elsewhere. Such expenditures can be divided into three categories including development, sales, and on -going expenditures. Development Expenditures. As an example of variations in expenditures amongst timeshare projects, some comparisons can be made between the three case studies. For instance, land costs ranged from $1.5 million for the 5.7 acre site for Sanibel Beach Club II to $200,000 for the 5.0 acres at San Diego Country Estates. Also, while the latter project contributed $194,000 in government fees and applications (including a$120,000 systems development charge), no permitsof any kindwere required forconverting condominium units to timeshare units at Kuleana Club. San Diego Country Estates paid outside attor- neys some $70,000 to prepare the California timeshare registration forms, while this fee was only$7,500 for Sanibel Beach Club 11 and not originally required for Kuleana Club (although the project was regis- tered in the State of Hawaii since the conduct of the case study). Design and land planning fees ranged from $11,500 for the 30 converted units at Kuleana Club to $160,000 for the 29 new units at Sanibel Beach Club 11. The former project, being a conversion, had no site development costs, while San Diego Cotantry Estates required about $500,000 forthis Item. The high costs of building a new project compared to converting from condominiums is highly emphasized with the costs of construction. For instance, Kuleana Club expended only $240,000 in this category while Sanibel Beach Club 11 cost about $2 million and San Diego Country Estates about $3.5 million. On a per unit basis, these totals represent about $8,000, $68,200, and $54,700, respectively. 12 • Due to the lack of complete information from one of the projects, it is impossible to provide overall summary figures for development costs. However, it is known that over $4.5 million was spent at San Diego Country Estates in development costs, and about $3.8 million at Sanibel Beach Club 11. It is assumed that considerably lesser amounts were spent at the other project since it was a conversion rather than a newly built project. These figures represent an average of about $71,000 for the 64 units at San Diego Country Estates and a very high $132,000 for the 29 units at Sanibel Beach Club 11. Despite the effort to document thoroughly development expenditures made by resort timeshare pro- jects, it is realized that some items have been neglected. An obvious item concerns contributions made to leading institutions in the local community orelsewhere. Such contributions include: (a) interest pay- ments made by the developer on construction loans; (b) interest payments made by the consumers on take -out loans; and (c) income to designated companies from pre -sales escrow deposits. 2. Sales Expenditures. Variations in total sales costs were less extreme than for development costs ranging from $1.2 million at Kuleana Club to $3.0 million at San Diego Country Estates. However, the ranges are quite wide when comparing specific items. For example, Kuleana Club only spent $78,000 on advertis- ing and promotion whereas this figure was $1.2 million at San Diego Country Estates. On a per- interval- sold basis, it cost an average of $965 at Kuleana Club, $1,404 at Sanibel Beach Club II and $1,875 at San Diego Country Estates. Estimates by two of the developers in regard to the proportion that sales costs were of total gross sales ranged from 22 percent at Sanibel Beach Club 11 to 27 percent at San Diego Country Estates. . 3. 'On-Going Operating Expenditures. Developers of the three case study projects also were asked to estimate their annual on -going project costs. These total annual costs ranged from $262,000 at Sanibel Beach Club I1 to $465,000 at San Diego Country Estates. One of the more significant variations in these expenditures is the high property tax paid by Sanibel Beach Club 11 ($95,000) compared to the other projects, especially Kuleana Club ($3,640). Wide variations occur amongst the projects when reviewing the proportion of expenditures which were made in the local community. For instance, 95 percent of the development expenditures for Kuleana Club were made in the local area of Maui County (probably due to the expense of bringing in outside workers and the availability of local contractors), and 70 percent of these expenditures for San Diego Country Estates were made in the small town of Ramona (primarily due to the policy of the employer to employ local people). Conversely, this proportion was only 13 percent at Sanibel Beach Club ii (pri- marily due to the lack of local labor force). The bulk of sales expenditures, both for commissions and advertising, were made outside the local areas, ranging from 43 percent at Kuleana Club to 77 percent at Sanibel Beach Club 11. When aggregating 46 different expenditure items for the three case study projects, it appears that 41.2 per- cent of the total expenditures were made in the designated "local areas" and 58.8 percent were made elsewhere. The 123 total units and 4,300 sold intervals generated about $7.0 million in development expenditures and $63 million in sales expenditures. On a per unit /interval basis, this would represent $56,900 per unit for development. expenditures and $1,465 per interval for sales expenditures. Some 52.3 percent of the total development expenditures were made in the local areas, as were 28.3 percent of the total sales expenditures. In regard to on -going operational costs, the 123 units and 4,300 intervals generated about $1.1 million of expenditures from July 1979 through June 1980. This represents $8,943 per unit and $186 per weekly interval. Some 43.3 percent of these expenditures were made in the local areas. • 13 Other Impacts The purpose of this concluding section is to provide some brief and rather subjective! nsights into compara- tive impacts on public services created by resort timeshare projects, wholly owned resort condom inium projects, and transient overnight accommodations. in regard to the two latter categories, emphasis is on: (1) condominium projects containing organized rental pools; and (2) larger hotels /motels. Comments are based primarily upon conjecture offered by the author and /or the various interviewees as part of the field research for the three case studies. Actual verification on the impacts is dependent upon more extensive research. In each of the case study projects, interviews were held with staff from numerous public agencies toascer- tain whether variations in demand for services existed amongst different forms of tourist accommodations. Un- fortunately, these dozens of interviews resulted in little usable information. No public agency in any three corn - munities had any quantitative comparative data. Several interviewed persons expressed subjective comments but could provide no supporting numbers. Most conversations resulted in reactions of the, "on the one hand,..., but t' en again on the other hand ..." variety. From the three case study communities, at least, it appears safe to conclude that no definitive answers yet exist as to which type of tourist accommodation creates most demand for public services: resort timeshare, resort condominiums, or hotels /motels. The following sections simply provide some qualitative insights which may br may not be entirety accurate. It should be noted that many of the insights reflect positively on resort timesharing. Again, these comments are directed toward the larger, higher quality projects. They cannot be generalized to the numerous small, marginal quality projects containing, for example, a handful of converted motel units with neither_- recreational amenities nor adequate management. 1. Police. Tourists in general usually place more demands on the public service of police protection in resort areas than do permanent residents, not because they themselves commit more crimes, but because they are more vulnerable to burglaries. Concentrating on enjoyment and recreation, they frequently forget the usual protec- tive procedures of locking doors, not leaving valuables in the car, finding a safe place in the residence to hide valu- ables, and so forth. 0 Resort.timeshare occupants perhaps are less vulnerable than the more transient hotel occupants due to being better acquainted with their living space (for safe storage) and hence being less apt to keep valuables in their cars. Timeshare projects tend to have higher year -round occupancy rates than do hotels and especially resort condominium projects. On the one hand, this is positive toward timesharing because burglary rates tend to be higher in these units. However, larger hotels often have an internal security force which frequently handles many problems. in timeshare projects and most resort condominium projects, the first telephone call upon the occurrence of a pro- blem is made to the local police station. 2. Fire. Interviewed staff from local fire departments in the three case study communities report that more serious fires probably tend to occur in hotels due to a higher degree of transient occupancy, the possibility of major kitchen or electrical fires, etc. However, these buildings are probably better serviced with fire preventive facilities. They also more frequently have their own internal fire brigade which has received advanced training. Fewer trained employees usually exist in timeshare and resort condominium projects. Also, the frequency of fires in the latter two types of projects is probably greater because most units have their own individual kitchen. Occurrence of fires in tourist accommodations was not cited as a serious problem in any of the three communities. 3. Roads. Shorter -term, more highly transient residents in hotels probably use the local road /highway sys- tem more intensively because they spend a greater proportion of theirtime sight- seeing. Timeshare and resort condo- minium occupants probably undertake sight - seeing in a more leisurely manner due to their longer average -stay -per- visit. The amount of sight - seeing is, of course, dependent upon the surrounding attractions and the supply and quality of on -site recreational amenities. Impact on local roads raises an important question which can be generalized to a series of other impacts and is basic to the entire tourism industry. The issue concerns a community's willingness or hesitancy to welcome tourists 14 on a year -round basis versus just during seasonal peaks. For example, local opposition to resort timesharing h2s been raised by some sectors of the Sanibel Island community. There, occupancy of resort timesharing is quite high throughout the year, whereas occupancy of resort condominiums and hotels/ motels tends to peak during spring and winter and fall off considerably during summer and fall. Many Sanibel Island residents are opposed to high year - round occupancy because it creates constant use of local public services, road congestion, etc., and does not allow periods of low -use. Other sectors of the Sanibel Island community support resort timesharing because year -round high occupancy creates a more stable economic situation due to consistent expenditure patterns in locat stores, restaurants, and other places. 4. Recreation. Since occupants of timeshare and resort condominium units tend to have longervisits than do hotel occupants, they perhaps place greater demands on local public parks and recreational facilities. This, of course, depends upon the extent, type, and quality of on -site recreational amenities. Local residents probably prefer timeshare projects which provide a full -range of on -site amenities, thereby making them more self- contained. 5. Solid Waste Disposal. According to interviewed local staff, limited variation probably occurs with demand for this public service amongst the three types of tourist accommodations. Larger hotels generate much solid waste due to their extensive kitchen /restaurant facilities. On the other hand, occupancy rates tend to be higher in timeshare projects and the vast majority of the units have their own individual kitchens. 6. Public Utilities and Energy. It is probable that hotels make more per visitor party demands on energy sources (electricity, gas, and oil) and water and sewer facilities than do resort timeshare and condominium projects. This assumption depends upon occupancy rates, extent of internal facilities, and so forth. Most larger hotels have their own kitchens, restaurants, laundries, and other support facilities, all of which require extensive servicing by water and sewer. Potential major servicing problems are greater in larger kitchens due to clogging of grease traps and breakdown of other machinery. . On a per unit basis, timeshare and resort condominium units probably make greater demands because of: (a) the higher frequency of individual kitchens; and (b) the fact that the occupants probably spend more time in their units than do the more transient hotel occupants which creates more opportunities for showering, hand washing, toilet flushing, and so forth. Complaints about perceived high - number -of- persons- per - visitor -party have been made about resort time- share projects. Accusations concern a perceived "piling -in" of large numbersof persons perunit, which intern would create greater demands on water, sewer, roads, and other public services. Responses from interviewed timeshare developers negate these accusations and imply that their occupancy numbers are more highly regulated than those in resort condominium projects (where on -site management frequently does notexist) or in motels (where itmight be economically advantageous to accept more people because higher rates can be charged). It also is possible that timeshare occupants are more careful about the amount of water and electricity they use than are occupants of hotels and rental pool condominiums because they (as a group of many owners) end up paying utility charges through their annual dues /assessments. Occupants of hotels and rental pool condominiums might be more inclined to think, "Since I am paying a high priceforthe use of this facilityand since I am not personally being charged for the utilities, why be careful about conserving electricity and water ?" Admittedly, the extra charges created by overuse of energy and water during a one -week stay ina timeshare unit are rather minimal, and may or may not actually effect use - habits of the occupants. r1 15 A Model for Assessing Economic Effects of Timeshare Projects 4 A review of the overall methodology of these case studies is worthwhile for those who are interested in their replication in other communities or situations. This concluding section summarizes the broad research and offers a model for timeshare analysis which is intended to facilitate the assessment of timeshare development in a range of circumstances and in a manner which relies on a minimum of primary data collection and sophisticated analysis. The approach and primary components of the model are illustrated on the following page. Overall, there are three phases; data collection, analysis, and the assessment of the results. Each of these phases has a number of components as well, f. Data Collection. The diversity of information required, and the number of locations from which it must be collected, lead to a considerable time commitment, First, the future timeshare visitor must be described requiring a survey, or the use of avail- able data if possible, of estimate expenditures, average party size, length of stay, and other timeshare visitor characteristics. Data from other Communities must be used if timeshare is not established locally. This information is used primarily for the revenue/ cost analysis. Second, comparable data describing non - timeshare visitors is necessary for purposes of comparison, Data allowing more than one comparison group is most useful since comparisons provide some of the most illuminating resuffs of the study. Sources for this information include visitor bureaus, government research units (such as state or regional tourism office;), plan- ning departments, or private sector development or banking firms. A certain amount of investigation may be necessaryto unearth all that is available. Third, the proposed timeshare resort itself must be described, using data which are generally collected from the owner and /or operator. This includes a wide range of descriptive and economic data covering expected operations, expenditures, and income and sales, Much of this material is most useful ifthe study involves comparisons among several timeshare projects or com- parisons between timeshare and rental accommodations. However, certain data will be necessary in any case, including antici- pated tax payments, employment, and occupancy and seasonality figures, The fourth category consists of information on rental and other accommodations against which timeshare will be com- pared. Such °data include tax payments, employment, and occupancy figures. Finally, a considerable amount of data must be collected from the community. This includes data on government costs and revenues by category, the latter for a period of at least several years. Such data are collected from each level of government* for which a revenue /cost analysis will be conducted (municipal and county are used in the current study) and may require visits to a number of different government units. Population and visitor estimates for several years are also necessary for the community, Certain other data used in the revenue /cost analysis are available from the U.S. government in regular publications. 2. Analysis. The analysis stage of this study is organized into three components. The first, and most detailed, is the com- parison of public sector revenues and costs for timeshare projects, and a limited comparison with rental accommodations. The second component includes an estimation of the direct employment generated by timeshare developments, a brief discussion of indirect employment, and a comparison with other forms of accommodation. Overall, the level of detail is more limited than forthe first component. A final component reviews a range of timeshare project characteristics and presents a qualitative comparison between timeshare and other visitor use of public facilities and services, The analytic procedures used for each component are related to the level of detail involved and the quantity of data available. 3. Direct Revenue /Cost Analysis. The procedure used for the direct revenue /cost analysis is illustrated on page 22, Analysis begins by estimating public sector costs per visitor -day. Budget expenditure figures loran appropriate and recent period are used to represent costs. Departments, programs, or other budget categories are chosen which represent expenditure areas directly related to visitor activities. There is some discretion regarding what is included here, but recreation, transportation, public safety and perhaps facilities such as water and sewer are probably appropriate. Care should be taken to assess whether these figures are reasonably representative of the expenses of a typical year, considering inflation. Also, capital items in these categories should be included; the capital expenses for the year chosen can be simply taken as the typical expenditure, or capital expenditures can be averaged over several years so as to smooth the year -to -year variations one typically sees in capital expenses. A final step in estimating total direct costs is to remove thost costs which are covered by transfers such as federal revenue sharing, block grant, transportation or other funds. Removing these amounts yields the net expenses which must be covered by local revenue sources. A portion of these costs are allocated to visitors depending on their average proportion in the area's population over the Period studied. Average population figures are summed with the annual average visitor census to yield the total number of resi- dents and visitors to whom government costs can be attributed. Deriving the averages can be difficult in communities with highly seasonal visitor and /or resident population, However, it is important to include all visitors, if possible, so as to avoid over- estimating per - visitor costs. Finally, the total net direct cost figure is divided by the average resident /visitor population to yield the average cost per visitor -year (assuming the period study in one year). Note that this is the same cost one would assign to a resident for a year, an assumption implicit in this cost allocation approach, This cost per visitor -year, multiplied by the total number of visitor -years generated by the project under analysis, gives the total direct costs the project generates, 19 • r� • Evaluation Model Timeshare Impacts z O w J J O U a 90 , TIMESHARE DATA (individual Projects and Visitors) OTHER VISITOR DATA (Projects and Visitors) LOCAL ECONOMIC DATA 1 1 n F REVENUE /COST EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS • Direct Effects • Direct Effects • Total Effects • Total Effects 0 TIMESHARE TIMESHARE W OTHER OTHER Q TOURISM TOURISM Q COMPARISONS COMPARISONS H z W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS U) QUALITATIVE COMPARISONS • Project Characteristics • Facilities Use TIMESHARE OTHER TOURISM COMPARISONS OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF TIMESHARING i 0 Estimating visitor - related public sector income is somewhat more complex due to the variety of sources from which it is derived. The model used is based on the premise that certain revenues derive from visitor expenditures and the economy activity they generate in the local community, and a portion from property tax and other levies on the timeshare project itself. Direct revenues derived from visitor expenditures are considered in two categories. The first consists of tax and other income on that portion of expenditures which is leaked out of the community immediately after being received by individuals and firms in the area. If leakage rates are available in the community under study they can be used at this stage. The current study em- ploys a range of leakages to compensate for these values being unavailable for the case study communities. Local taxes which most commonly apply to such leaked expenditures are sales or excise taxes, but other taxes, such as a roorh tax, might be included as well. To summarize, the total revenues from this source consist of: revenues from leaked expenditures = (total visitor expenditures) x (proportion leaked from the community) x (local tax rate on expenditures), In some cases, there is no income in this category since the government unit had no sales or other expenditure tax. Estimating government income on the portion of expenditures which is retained in the community makes use of his- torical data on tax and other revenues for the government unit involved. Estimating this relationship involves analyzing govern- ment revenues over a period of at least several years, comparing changes in revenues tc changes in personal income of community residents. The major assumptions are: (a) that historical relationships between the income of community residents and govern- ment revenues will hold; and (b) that all visitor expenditures which do not leak out of the community can therefore be considered direct income to community residents. The formula is as follows: revenues from detained expenditures = (revenue elasticity) x (revenue proportion of income) x (income from tourist expenditures) Revenue elasticity is the change in government revenues which is associated with a change in community income. In a community with a tax system which is responsive to increases in its residents' incomes, this would have a value of more than 1.0. Elasticity values can be estimated using relatively simple tabular techniques as in this study, or if more data are availale, the use of statistical regression analysis is appropriate. 0 The revenue proportion represents that percentage of community income which is collected as government revenues Transfer payments should be excluded from the revenue figures so as to be consistent with excluding such payments from the cost figures calculated earlier, Most other forms of income should be included, however such as property taxes, fees, assessments, or other sources of local government income. These figures are typically available from budget documents of the government units involved. It is necessary that these documents list transfer payments separately, on both the revenue and cost sides, so they may be deleted. The income gained from this portion of tourist expenditures will always be larger than that gained from leaked expendi- tures since it includes whatever direct levies exist on visitor expenditures but adds to these the less direct income gained from indi- viduals and firms who receive this income. In some communities, the only direct revenues from tourist expenditures derive from the proportion of expenditures which is not leaked. The revenue elasticity and revenue proportions of income figures are derived from past financial records of the com- munity and hence represent conditions of the past. In some cases, these conditions may show considerable change, limiting the appropriateness of using these figures to represent the situation in the future. This was the case in San Diego County, where changes in tax laws altered the means by which local government is funded and made past tax collection performance unrepresen- tative of future conditions. In such cases, the use of this methodology requires estimating the necessary figures from other sources, such as previous studies, secondary data, or professional judgments, and decreased the reliability of the revenue esti- mates derived, The third and final component of revenues are those levies paid directly by the project in the form of property taxes, license fees, or other on -going assessments. Only those levies which accr,te to the government unit under study should be included; that is, if the municipality is the unit of study, non - municipal levies should be excluded, such as county or state taxes. In study, school taxes were excluded from direct revenue calculations since school costs were considered indirect costs of 'ourism development. These taxes were included in estimates of the total revenue gained by the community. The total direct reve- "uQ figure can then be derived by summing the revenues from leaked and retained expenditures and from direct levies. 21 r� LJ • Evaluation Model Timeshare Impacts z O 1= w J J O U LO TIMESHARE DATA (Individual Projects and Visitors) OTHER VISITOR DATA (Projects and Visitors) LOCAL ECONOMIC DATA I F REVENUE /COST EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS • Direct Effects • Direct Effects • Total Effects • Total Effects CQ TIMESHARE TIMESHARE U) OTHER OTHER Q TOURISM TOURISM Q COMPARISONS COMPARISONS z w COMMUNITY U) DEVELOPMENT CO w GOALS +) U) Q QUALITATIVE COMPARISONS • Project Characteristics • Facilities Use TIMESHARE OTHER TOURISM COMPARISONS OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF TIMESHARING 20 ANALYSIS MODEL DIRECT REVENUE COST VISITOR DIRECT DIRECT PUBLIC EXPENDITURES TAX RATE SERVICES AND FACILITIES COSTS IMPORT CONTENT r -- HISTORICAL REVENUE/ PERSONAL INCOME RELATIONSHIP REVENUES ON LEAKED EXPENDITURES REVENUES ON RETAINED EXPENDI - TURES REVENUES FROM EXPENDITURES DIRECT TAX REVENUES TOTAL REVENUES PER VISITOR 22 POPULATION AND VISITOR CENSUS AVERAGE DIRECT COST PER VISITOR DIRECT REVENUE /COST COMPARISON L FOOTNOTES 1. The CHB Company, Inc., Los Altos, CA 2. Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc. (1981). The Resort Timesharing Industry: A Socio- Economic Impact Analysis of Resort Timesharing in Two Volumes, American Land Development Association, Washing- ton, D.C. 3. Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc. (1978). Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, CHB Company, Inc., Los Altos, California. 4. Hawaii Visitors Bureau (1978). "1977 Hawaii Visitor Expenditure Survey," Honolulu. 5. Hopkins, Michael, and Marjorie Penseyres (1979). "Study of Resort Condominium Visitor Expendi- tures," prepared for the Hawaii Resort Developers Conference, June 1979, 6. San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau (1979). Visitor Industry Digest, December. 7. Florida Division of Tourism (1980). Statewide Quarterly Reports, Office of Marketing Research, Tallahassee, 8. Romney, Keith and Associates (1979). Unpublished report produced by Keith Romney and Associates. n 1 ­1 23 u t a f t ADDENDUM During the interim period of time between completion of The Resort Timesharing Industry; A Socio- Economic Impact Analysis of Resort Timesharing in Two Volumes and the publication of the Summary contained herein, Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc., has completed three additional nation -wide surveys of the resort,timesharing market. These include: (1) a 1981 survey of about 300 timeshare owners in the United Kingdom=from 70 different projects in Europe, which was conducted forthe International Property Timeshare Conference; (2) a 1981 survey of about 1,500 timeshare owners in Canada from 102 different projects in Canada and the United States, which was conducted for the Resort Timesharing Council of Canada; and (3) a 1982 survey of about 5,200 timeshare owners in the United States from 244 different projects, which was sponsored by Resort Condominiums International. The purpose of this Addendum is to briefly summarize some of the additional data in order to provide the reader with the most current information available on the timeshare market. The.following tables show how selected items have varied amongst these four national surveys (and an earlier 1978 survey conducted in cooperation with RCI). For the most part, results have been quite similar, although some subtle variations are apparent and are more fully explained in the five individual documents. 25 • w Survey Selected Items 1982 1980 1978 1981 1981 US' USz U5 3 UK Canadas 1. Consumer Characteristics Average Age 45.8 45.4 44.5 48.8 44.1 Median income $37,500 $33,500 $23,000 $30,400 $40,000 Average years of education 15.1 15.4 15.0 n/a 14.5 Average children at home 1.0 1.5 1.2 0.6 1.4 Percent of married households 88.3 89.4 92.6 90.7 87.7 II. Timeshare Characteristics Average weeks purchased 1.6 1.8 1.2 2.1 1.9 Average maintenance fee $144 $119 $95 $101 $123 Percent studio units 16.7 10.8 26.9 5.0 30.8 Percent 2- bedroom units 41.9 60.2 30.1 72.9 24.0 Percent paid cash 28.8 32.4 32.0 92.8 50. Ili. Satisfaction with Purchase Per expressing satisfaction 78.5 86.3 84.8 89.8 88.1 Percent who would purchase in hindsight 62.5 72.5 78.1 84.7 73.6 Percent who would buy more 49.3 61.5 47.6 74.0 78.6 Percent who would sell 20.7 18.6 13.9 14.4 13.5 Percent satisfied with exchange 87.6 89.6 90.7 92.8 90.1 IV. Percent Who Purchased For: Exchange privileges 79.1 71.4 75.3 50.6 74.2 Save money in future 65.4 59.4 63.0 71.4 71.8 Investment or resale 37.3 38.8 38.0 49.6 31.6 Like timeshare unit 27.7 30.4 30.0 34.5 28.1 V. Miscellaneous Items Percent used own timeshare 60.3 62.0 57.2 32.9 66.7 Percent requested exchange 55.4 36.7 32.9 12.6 35.0 Total vacation expenditures $540 $507 n/a $430 $644 Average distance from home 585 598 n/a 364 1,441 1. Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy - 1982 Edition. Available from Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc., 998 Ferry Lane, Eugene, Oregon 97401, (503) 686 -9335. 2. The Resort Timesharing Industry: A Socio- Economic Impact Analysis of Resort TimeSharing in Two Volumes. Available from National Timesharing Council, American Land Development Association, 1000 16th St., NW, Suite 604, Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 659 -4582. 3. Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy. Published by the CHB Company, Inc., Los Altos, CA. 4. United Kingdom Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy. Available from Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc. 5. Canadian Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy. Available from Resort Timesharing Council of Canada, Ste 1903, P.O. Box 12, Toronto'Dominion Bank Tower, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1A8, (416) 361 -1207, 868 -1900. 26 J � The Authors RICHARD L. RAGATZ has been active in research and analysis of the vacation and recreational land markets since 1965. His Ph.D. dissertation from Cornell University is recognized as the first thorough document written on these topics, and he has published extensively in both scholarly journals and trade magazines. His academic background includes a Ph.D. degree in City and Regional Planning from Cornell University, a Master's degree in City and Regional Planning from the University of California, and a Bachelor's degree in Geo- graphy from the University of California. In addition to consulting activities, his related professional experience in- cludes: Professor, 'Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Universityof Oregon (1969 -81), Assistant Professor, Department of Housing and Design, Cornell University (1966- 1969), and research positions with the Center for Housing and Environmental Studies at Cornell University. DEAN RUNYAN has participated in a number of research studies regarding tourism and vacation housing. His work has emphasized the economic and social aspects of tourism and recreation and has been published as reports and in academic journals. He received his Ph.D, in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Michigan. Previously, he earned a Master's degree in Industrial Engineering from Michigan and a Bachelor's degree in Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles. He currently holds the position of Associate Professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Oregon (1978- 1981). Previously, he was Assistant Professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Hawaii (1973 - 1978), and held research positions at the Hawaii Environmental Simulation Laboratory in Honolulu and the Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor. btatement or Purpose Community leaders, sensing the serious nature of the economic, social and environmental challenges that face Vail, have organized a concerted effort to plan for the future rather than wait for the future to happen. The focus of the plan is the near future, and the objective is to make as much progress as possible during the next several years. Given Vail's location, physical configuration, programs, facilities, human resources, recognized markets, and current product orientation, overall community goals for the next several years should be: . 1. To recognize that Vail is moving quickly from an economy based on recreation and real estate to a mature resort community with a stronger more diverse economic and social base. Marketing the community and providing service to guests remains extremely important. 2. To recognize and strengthen Vail's principal products and services: • Quality of life • Outdoor sports • Social recreation • Business and professional meetings • Education and the arts i The mountain environment 1 To set community direction through united leadership. Reaching these broad goals will require achieving a series of other goals. 1. To develop, maintain and improve community support programs that sustain and enrich the lives of residents. 2. To assure continuing public and private maintenance and enhancement of major community products and facilities. 3. To create or expand programs in undeveloped or new product areas. 4. To market and promote all community products within the framework of a community marketing program that is coordinated when appropriate with regional programs. 5. To create a master plan that provides guidelines for action, establishes procedures for monitoring progress, and recognizes the special needs of neighborhoods. There are nine sections to the plan that have been developed by community and business leaders. The sections are Social/ Cultural /Educational, Parks and Recreation, Economic Considerations, Transportation, Community Design, Utilities /Public Services, Water Use /Water Quality and Air Quality. Social /Cultural /Educational Considerations 1. The community should improve communications with residents and guests. • Establish central information clearing house • Improve use of radio, community television and print media . • Place kiosks in key locations • Continue improvement of guest relations programs • Produce weekly and monthly community bulletins 2. Vail should develop and improve educational, recreational and social programs for children. 3. Vail should improve as an educational and intellectual cultural center. • Promote Colorado Mountain College • Research opportunities for attracting other educational institutions • Promote seminars and conferences • Develop facilities to provide for these activities • Develop process and encourage art in public places 4. The Vail Town Council should appoint an ad hoc six -month committee to study the desirability of establishing a permanent committee on arts and education that would develop art and education programs for community enrichment and for economic development. 5. Programs should be encouraged that develop the human, spiritual, physical, social and mental resources of the community. • Support drug awareness and education programs • Support mental health programs • Support other social programs Parks /Recreation 1. Vail should make every effort to maximize the use of its recreational facilities and resources. • Comprehensive use plan for Dobson Arena • Bike paths • Gore Creek and other streams • Vail Mountain • Forest Service lands • Cross- country trails • • Eagle County schools • Eagle County • Parks • Open Space • Tennis facilities - Vail should recognize that recreational opportunities expand its economic base and should promote the recreational product effectively. • Produce recreation guide • Encourage recreational events that provide national and international stature. 10 3. Vail should develop a parks and recreation master plan. • Ford Park is the top priority. 4. A short -term commission should be created to: • Evaluate the economic potential of greater use of Dobson Ice Arena • Research the potential for expanding recreational opportunities (e.g. Olympic training facilities, sports medicine) • Evaluate advantages and disadvantages of establishing a recreational board • Explore creative ways of funding recreational programs and facilities 5. Vail should provide relatively undeveloped open spaces accessible to the core areas (e.g. walking paths and benches along Gore Creek, conversion of portions of those paths to cross - country ski trails). Economic Considerations 1. New growth and revitalization are essential to the continued success of Vail. • Hotel rating system • Neighborhood planning and upgrading • Special improvement districts • Community incentives and awards programs for upgrading of buildings and sites • Other rating systems to evaluate community products and facilities 2. Develop a comprehensive marketing program. 3. The summer season should be significantly developed and promoted. • Maximize current summer programs, opportunities and facilities • Study new . summer programs, opportunities and facilities • Set up marketing programs to promote the summer season • Survey summer guests 4. The shoulder seasons also should be significantly developed and promoted. • Expand shoulder season educational and cultural activities • Encourage complimentary alternative business . • Identify and promote opportunities for recreation, shopping, etc. • Survey shoulder season guests 5. Study the feasibility of an economic development commission to organize efforts to direct this activity. • Town of Vail, Vail Associates, Vail Resort Association and other interested people represented (5 members) • Economic information • Study summer economy • Study the feasibility of building a convention facility • Develop a reliable economic data base • Define the role of municipal government in economic development 6. Employees who provide goods and services to guests should be trained to promote Vail's recreational opportunities. Transportation 1. Streets, drainage, bike paths, street lights, and signs should be maintained, upgraded and completed. • Develop ways to finance street improvements 2. Vail should continue to have a high quality bus system and should look for long -term funding. 3. Transportation problems should be studied, solutions found and implemented. • Develop master circulation plan for Gore Valley • Four -way stop • East Lionshead Circle • Golden Peak • East and West Vail Interchanges • Service and delivery vehicles in Vail Village 4. The Town should continue to review the need for additional parking. 5. The Town should continue to explore fixed systems of transportation and other systems to determine the economic feasibility of using these systems in Vail Village and Lionshead. � 6. Transportation links between Stapleton Airport and Vail should be strengthened and promoted. . The feasibility of implementing a transportation system for the upper Eagie Valley should he further explored. 8. The problems and opportunities of transporting people to Colorado and Vail by air and rail should be explored. 9. A long -term funding mechanism for transportation systems should be provided. I0. Develop strong and effective relationship with Colorado Highway Department to resolve problems on Interstate 70 and the frontage roads. ' Community Design 1. Detailed physical planning should take place to insure planned, informed decisions about land use. • Develop a comprehensive series of plans: Gore Creek and its tributaries, master plan and landscaping plan for the entire Gore Valley, master plan for Vail Mountain, landscape plan for Town of Vail, master plan for parks and recreation, neighborhood and land use plans. • Create design guidelines for the community and for neighborhoods. 2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged. • Stimulate community awareness • Incentives 3. The Town of Vail should make long -range plans to meet needs for employee housing. 4. ` - A process should be established for defining neighborhoods and for planning neighborhood improvements. • A sense of neighborhood identity should be fostered • Inform. neighborhoods of zoning and land use decisions • Set up private /public joint ventures for improvement 5. Maintenance and upkeep should be a priority of property owners and of the town. • Completely finish site improvements and ! andscaping • Create special improvement districts 6. The Town of Vail and Vail Associates should formalize Vail Associates' dedication of land to the Town. 7. The Town should continue to preserve unique natural features as open space or park land to enhance the uuality of life in Vail. 8. When pine bark beetles, Canadian thistles, or other natural infestations threaten the environment, the Town should set up a preventative program. • Reforestation plan 4. Acquiring key parcels of land through the purchase of development rights, fee simple gifts or purchases financially feasible and other measures should be a Town priority. 10. Landscaping and signs that complement the environment should enhance entryways to the Town and to neighborhoods. 11. The community should stimulate activity and improve ambience within the core areas. • Street lighting • Streetscape planning and design • Street events, entertainment and special events • Aesthetic and effective signage Utilities /Public Services 1. All new utility distribution and service lines should be located underground and the Town should work with utility companies to bury all above - ground lines. 2. The Town should continue to work with utility companies to develop contingency plans that can be used when there are power outages or when various utility systems are unavailable. 3. The Town should institute a system to regulate the design and placement of all utility systems for safety, aesthetics, and other factors affecting the welfare of the community. 4. The Town should continue to supply the various public service companies with development statistics and other data so the companies can measure present and future demands. Water Use /Water Quality 1. Surface water, underground water, and related ecosystems should be protected from depletion and degradation. 2. The Town should continue the use of water saving devices and techniques in existing and proposed developments. 3. The Town should make the strongest possible efforts to keep Gore Valley water for the Gore Valley. 4. Minimum stream flows should be determined and maintained. 5. Reservoirs and other water projects should promote the most beneficial, efficient use of water resources. 6. The Town should work with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to improve the fish and wildlife habitat of Gore Creek and other streams within the Gore Valley. • Gold medal stream designation for Gore Creek 7. The Town should continue to work with the Upper Eagle Valley and Sanitation District to ensure the efficient, cost effective provision of water and sanitation services. 0 Air Quality 1. The Town should continue to monitor air quality in the Gore Valley and, when deemed appropriate and necessary, should study and implement measure to control air quality. Thanks to the task force members, Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, citizens of the community and Town staff who have spent many hours working on developing this plan. Success of the plan will be in implementation of the policies over the next few years. kn Recommendations on Lodging Time Sharing Discourage conversion of hotel -type units to timeshare ownership . Although the real estate transfer tax generates cQ►tl' ��_� more revenue than the sales tax on hotel room revenues, within three COMM. N X:_ or four years the tax on room occupancy will exceed the one -time real T6 estate transfer tax. However, conversion of condominiums to timeshare 7 WA OFVAIL, ownership has the potential of increasing utilization of the units- -and 44L. ��/ ��.� higher utilization means more visitor spending, more jobs, more tax T_ ( Z • revenues. In new time share projects, units without kitchens should be encouraged. 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. L ,M..___ A 11 0 Planning and Environmental Commission December 9, 1985 1:45 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of November 25, 1985 2. Request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 9, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Names R. Horton To be 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to expand the Potato tabled Patch Restaurant by including condominium unit #44. Applicant: Campbell /Heilman, a general partnership To be 4. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback tabled variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquest 5. Request for a conditional use permit in order to permit public parking on Ford Park's lower bench. Applicant: Vail Associates 6. Preliminary review of exterior alteration proposals concerning: a. Treetops, Lionshead b. Hill Building, Vail Village c. Hong Kong Cafe, Vail Village d. Plaza Lodge, Vail Village 7. Announcement of ,point work session with Town Council December 17 concerning Doubl • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 9, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Tom Briner Tom Braun Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Duane Piper, chairman. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of November 25. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 5 in favor with Viele abstaining. 2. Reauest for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 9, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: James R. Horton Tom Braun gave the staff presentation explaining that saving a number of trees justified the 4.5 foot encroachment. Viele moved and Hopkins seconded to approvethe request per the staff memo. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 3. Request for a conditional use permit to expand the Potato Patch Restaurant by including condominium unit #44. Applicant:Campbbell /Heilman • The applicant requested to table until January 13. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to table. Vote was 6 -0. 4. Request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other_ outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquest The applicant requested to table until January 13. Viele moved and Hopkins seconded to table. Vote was 6 -0 in favor 5. A request for a conditional use permit in order to permit public parking on Ford Park's lower bench. Applicant: Vail Associates Kristan Pritz made the staff presentation. She presented background, the description of the proposed use, and criteria involved in the evaluation of a conditional use permit. The staff recommendation was for approval. It was stated that the proposal provided a short term solution to the Town's lack of parking. Due to the fact that the land used for parking would be disturbed for two years anyway, it was felt that the proposal would not negatively impact the site. Staff did point out that the proposal would only be appropriate for two years. Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, spoke on behalf of the proposal. He stated that this was to be a short term solution creating 110 -120 parking spaces. • Duane Piper opened the floor for public discussion. Alice Cartwright, golf course property owner, registered her reservations regarding the proposal. She was concerned about the additional traffic and slipperiness of the road for drivers trying to enter and exit the lot. Lou Meskimen asked several questions regarding project design. Jay Peterson felt that the area was not meant to be a parking lot and that it would not remain a short term solution. He stated that once on a site, you do not get rid of parking because the Town has such a great need for parking. £die Hudson, the manager of the Wren, was concerned about the road design and the impact on the Wren condos. Pritz also stated that she had received one call from Louie Pintowski who was against the proposal and one letter from Monie Beal who was also against the proposal. Piper read into the record a letter from Marka Moser stating her reservations regarding the project. PEC comments: Tom Briner: He asked about the number of spaces in the Golden Peak conversion. Macy replied that there were 120 spaces converted from employee to public fee parking. Briner wondered where VA had assumed those employees would park. Macy answered that they were to be assimilated into other lots such as Chalet Road, the soccer field, and the golf course. Briner was leery of the short term claim and felt that there would be problems with day skiers trying to use the lot if there would not be a permanent parking attendent. He also felt that the parking had the potential to impact the Nature Center, micro climate along the creek, as well as views from the Wren and Vail Valley Drive into the park. Jim Viele: He also shared the concern of the lot being used as a long term i parking area. However, he pointed out that the area to be used for parking is currently disturbed and therefore he saw little impact if the use would only be short term. He did state that if the solution was for more than two years, he would have reservations about the long term use. Diana Donovan: Diana stated that she did not see how the proposal met the approval criteria for a conditional use permit. She felt that it would be difficult to draw the line on short term /long term use. She stated that Vail Associates had agreed to lose employee parking at Golden Peak. She pointed out that the parking on Chalet Road that VA utilized was actually on All Seasons' property and was lost when the All Seasons' condo association decided to upgrade and landscape their parking area. She stated that during the Ford Park study process there were strong community voices stating that there were to be no cars in the parks. She also felt that there would be negative impacts on cross country skiers due to the parking. She pointed out that the amphitheatre was planned to open in the fall of 1986 which seemed to be a conflict with the two year time frame for the parking. She was concerned that the area around the amphitheatre not be left without landscaping in 1987 if the amphitheatre was actually to be opened in the fall of 1986. She felt there seemed to be no control over who would be parking at the lot, and felt that Vail Associates should be looking at long range solutions to their parking problems. Donovan stated that every other employer /business is required to provide parking. She questioned why Vail Associates did not have the same obligations. She felt the club house was a good alternative and perhaps the Beaver Creek transit bus could be used to provide additional bus service to employees using the club house lot. . She felt that the parking would conflict with the alpine garden. She stated that originally in the Park master plan the road was thoroughly discussed and purposely designed with a curve. She felt that a road 20 feet wide would have a negative impact upon the park. She stated that the curve worked for the number of vehicles in the summer seasonal use that was required for the amphitheatre. She also felt that the drop -off from the road down to the creek was very dangerous for drivers. She emphasized that the traffic from the parking lot would create congestion on the Frontage Road. She stated concern about pedestrians walking from Manor Vail to the lot in the dark. She summed up her comments by stating that she felt that to approve the request would be a grant of special privilege. Sid Schultz: Sid asked about the number of parking spaces VA owned in Lionshead. Macy stated that there were 120 spaces in the North Day lot and that this proposal was merely making up for the loss of employee parking due to the Golden Peak conversion. Shultz stated that he felt that VA should be responsible for providing parking like other employers /businesses, and should look at long term solutions. He stated that the proposal was a short term band aid solution. Pam Hopkins: Pam asked at what level the Town Council had discussed this project. Staff responded that as land owners, the Council had given their approval to allow the application to proceed through the conditional use process at Planning Commission. She suggested that perhaps the $20,000 for the road could instead pay for a bus driver to handle the route from the golf clubhouse lot to the mountain. She asked Joe Macy why the golf clubhouse lot was not used. Joe stated that it was inconvenient for the employees. She was also concerned with the possibility of drivers sliding into Gore Creek, mud during nice winter weather, and other traffic concerns. She pointed out that if by chance this is not a big snow year, the lot will become very muddy. • Duane Piper: Duane asked Joe Macy when VA would like to begin work on the lot. Macy stated that construction would take approximately 10 days and that they would like to begin as soon as possible. VA hoped, if the request was approved, that they could use the lot by Christmas, 1985. Duane asked if there was lighting on the Manor Vail bridge. Staff responded that there was no lighting. It was stated that if the road was constructed, construction may be possible for the amphitheatre throughout the winter. This construction would involve bringing in fill for the amphitheatre. Duane asked if the Manor Vail parking lease would continue if this proposal was approved. Joe responded that they did have a lease agreement with Manor Vail for 30 spaces and that the 30 spaces are allocated per department according to numbers in each department. Duane felt that the parking task force recommendations and the Vail Associates' decision to allow parking at Golden Peak were good decisions, but that to turn around and request to use public property to make up that need was questionable. He questioned the actual benefits to the Town. He felt that the loss of the curve in the road was a problem, however he felt that the revegetation plan was a definite plus. Duane suggested that perhaps the land for parking could be leased from the Town and the money would then be used to develop the lower bench according to the master plan. He also felt that more control at the entry would help the proposal and that perhaps the lot should only be used for VA people to make it easier to distinguish employees from day skiers. Macy responded that the proposed lot really would be a benefit to the entire community and not just Vail Associates, as it would help out with our short term parking needs. Duane stated that it is probable that we were looking for short term solutions through out 1989 World Championships. Joe again expressed VA's concern over long term parking solutions. Duane also agreed that parking was very important but that we need to take great care in the solutions that we come up with. Alice Cartwright mentioned again that really all VA needed to do was get a bus from the clubhouse to Golden Peak and that would help out greatly with parking. Diana mentioned again her concern about the steepness of the road's drop off to the creek and traffic congestion. She felt that employees need to accept parking away from the base of the mountain. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to deny the request based on the fact that it did not meet criteria for a conditional use permit. The vote was _5_in favor of denial and 1 (Viele)against. 6. Preliminary review of exterior alterations _c oncernin a. Treetops, Lionshead b. Hill Building, Village c Hong Kong Cafe, Village d. Plaza Lodge, Village Viele moved and Donovan seconded to make Treetops and the Hill Building 60 day studies and the Plaza Lodge and the Hong Kong cafe 90 days studies. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. The meeting adjourned at 4.50 pm. U i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to permit public parking on Ford Park's lower bench. Applicant: Vail Associates I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE: Operation of Parking Lot Vail Associates is requesting to locate a temporary parking area on the lower bench of Ford Park. Ford Park is zoned as a Public Use District. Under this zone district, public parking requires a conditional use review. The staff has also checked with a title company to make sure that there were no development restrictions prohibiting parking on the site. The title company checked back to 1969 for any type of restrictions. To the best of the staff's knowledge, parking is allowed on the site. Vail Associates is going to pay for the construction of the access road down to the lower bench parking area. The temporary parking • area is proposed to be used for the winter of 1985 -86 and 1986 -87. Hours of operation of the lot would be from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. The area will be used to provide parking only for V.A., Village, and Golden Peak based employees. The Town has requested that the lot be used for skiers only if both parking structures are full and it is after 10:00 am in the morning. It is felt that this allowance would decrease the number of skiers parking on the Frontage Road when the structures are full. A parking attendent will patrol and periodically check the parking area. This person will not be permanently stationed at the lot. The maintenance of the lot and road will be the responsibility of Vail Associates. The Town of Vail will assist in sanding the road only when extremely snowy road conditions exist. Vail Associates will also be responsible for checking the condition of the lot. If the ground begins to thaw, or other problems occur, VA will close the parking area. VA will revegetate the area in the spring of 1987. Phvsical Lavout of the Parkinq Area The lot will be able to handle approximately 100 to 130 cars. Truck access will also be maintained for the amphitheatre. The road is approximately 20 feet wide. A 2% grade is proposed for the first 80 feet of the road. The next segment of the road has an 8% grade. The road extends approximately 300 feet and then evens out to a grade of about 2 %. The maximum dropoff from the shoulder of the road to the existing grade is approximately 8' - 10' at the greatest grade change. This portion of the road is 100 feet long. The roadway will be covered with pit run road base. Originally, the 2 master plan proposed a curve in the access road to discourage traffic down • into the park. The curve of the road was taken out due to the dangerous situation that the curve would create for semi trucks entering the amphitheatre as well as cars entering or exiting on the slippery roads. The actual area of the parking lot is 55,000 - 75,000 square feet. The lot is located only on the disturbed area of the park. This area has been disrupted due to the construction of the amphitheatre, and will remain disturbed for the two ski seasons proposed whether winter parking is implemented or not. The parking area will also provide for an adequate fire turn--around. The turn - around will have a radius of 50 feet. No lighting is being proposed for the entrance or the main parking area. Signage for the lot will include a sign stating "employee parking only" at the Frontage Road entrance, "no parking" signs along the access road, and fire lane signage at the end of the parking area. A "full lot" sign will also be hung on the "employee parking only" sign when the lot is full. This will hopefully discourage people from driving down into the park when the lot is full. As property owners, the Town Council has given their approval to Vail Associates to proceed with the review of the request at Planning Commission. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: 0 Upon review of Section 18.60, the Commu_nit recommends approval of the conditional use following factors: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town Development objectives of the Town are reflected in the Community Action Plan, Ford Park Master Plan, Economic Development Commission report, and Parking Task Force recommendations for 1985. The excerpts from these reports relate to this proposal in the following way: • COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Parks and Recreation Section 3. Vail should develop a parks and recreation master plan. B Ford Park is the top priority Community Design 1. Detailed physical planning should take place to ensure planned, informed decisions about land use. i Develop a comprehensive series of plans: Gore Creek and its tributaries, master plan and landscaping Development Department ermit based upon the 3 plan for the entire Gore Valley, master plan for Vail Mountain, landscape plan for Town of Vail, master plan for parks and recreation neighborhood and land use plans. 7. The Town should continue to preserve unique natural features of open space or park land to enhance the quality of life in Vail. Transportation 4. The Town should continue to review the need for additional parking. There are certainly many statements in the Community Action Plan that relate to this proposal. The staff has chosen only the statements that most directly relate to the parking proposal. It is very clear from these excerpts that the Town of Vail places a great deal of value on Ford Park and the proper development of this land. One of the primary reasons for completing the Ford Park master plan was to prevent ad hoc uses appearing on Ford Park. The staff and Town Council agreed that a master plan would provide the blue print for the most effective development of Town park land. This approach also allowed for informed decision making about the development of our town parks. Parking is also an important issue that the community must address. Staff feels that this proposal provides a temporary solution to the parking problem. However, this proposal should not be viewed as a long term solution, as it is diametrically opposed to the development objectives of the Town for Ford Park. FORD PARK MASTER PLAN • Throughout our public input in the planning process, it was stated that the lower bench should be used for passive recreational uses such as picnicking, a tot lot, bike paths, an informal playing field, and a historic building area. This preference also was compatible with the site constraints on the lower bench. The final report states: "Areas with difficult access routes have been improved through the addition of a well planned system of bike paths, bridge crossings, and pedestrian trails. Parking areas have been sensitively planned to provide needed parking without impacting the natural or recreational use areas and are visually screened. Vehicles have been prohibited from park areas except for periodic maintenance and service visits." (page 35, final report) Parking was definitely considered at Ford Park. Proposed parking is to be located in the present area now used for the tennis courts. This location has the least impact on the park as a whole. Staff feels very strongly that this is the most appropriate location for parking on the site for the long term. As a temporary solution, the parking on the lower bench is feasible. The staff recommends that this solution only be temporary and that the master plan provides the most appropriate long term parking solution. 0 4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT 1985 The report states: "After moving the tennis courts to Golden Peak from Ford Park, provide landscaped parking in their place for overflow and /or Village employee parking." (page 18 of the report) The comission recognized the importance of the parking issue and the potential role Ford Park could play in meeting the Town's parking needs. PARKING TASK FORCE POLICY STATEMENTS 1985 5. Create new parking at Ford Park a. Construct a new parking lot in 1986 at Ford Park to the size needed for the park facilities and activities. b. Initiate discussions with VMRD for possible utilization of tennis courts as parking for the 1985 -86 ski season. C. If current 15 minute bus service provided by the Bighorn bus is not adequate, additional bus service would be added. Once again, this policy is a long term suggestion on how to address parking. In general, the proposal complies with these policies only if it is considered to be a short term solution. If parking were to remain in this location long term or even during the summer of 1987, the staff's opinion • would be that the proposal is in conflict with the development objectives of the Town. Recreation and the preservation of the Town's unique natural features are equally as important as parking to Vail's success as a first class resort community. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities utilities schools parks and recreation facilities and other public faci lities needs. As long as the proposal is only a two year solution, it should not have many negative impacts on these areas. If the proposal remains for more than two years, it will definitely impact the amphitheatre as well as the entire plan for the park.If the alpine garden proceeds through the approval process this winter, Vail Associates has agreed that they would cooperate with the Town and alpine garden supporters so that any problems between the parking area and construction of the alpine garden would be cooperatively resolved. • I Through our Ford Park planning process, it became clear that residents would like to expand the use of the park throughout the year. Staff believes that using this area for parking for only two years will have minimal impacts on recreation in the area, as this site will be under construction anyway, at least for the first season of use. The proposal will probably impact cross country skiing through the park to some extent. However, the current construction activity also makes it more difficult to ski through the area. Staff would like to emphasize that this proposal should not be precedent setting and should not be considered as an indication of approval on the part of the staff to use other park lands for parking. 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 access road was definitely planned into the master plan. However, the access road was never intended to provide easy auto access into the park. The primary purpose of the road was to provide access for trucks going to the amphitheatre. The curve in the road was used to discourage people from driving into the park. By straightening the road, truck access and maneuverability is made much safer. Once construction is completed on the amphitheatre, the Town will use wooden decorative posts to prevent auto access into the park. i The master plan recommends the park. Minimal traffic the park as well as not to of the access road should congestion on the Frontage access road is very close traffic should be only for the Wren and Frontage Road that traffic be as minimal as possible through was recommended so as not to impact users of impact the natural park setting. Traffic off also be as minimal as possible to avoid traffic Road. The ingress and egress point of the to the Wren's entrance. In the long term, the amphitheatre to avoid traffic problems with circulation. 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 width of the unpaved road is proposed to be 20 feet. The master plan calls out for a paved road width of 8 to 10 feet with grasscrete shoulders extending 2 feet on either side of the road. R long term solution for the road should be a narrower road. Oil from the cars will impact the natural vegetation. The Wren and to some degree, Manor Vail will also be affected by the number of cars going in and out of the park as well as the headlights of cars parking on the site. Due to the existing construction on the site for the amphitheatre, winter impacts will be increased only slightly, as construction is already occurring on the site. Staff believes that a revegetation program is absolutely necessary to remedy the damage done to the site due to the parking. • I • III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable_ to the proposed use. IV. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. V. 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. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS A balance must be found between the parking needs of the community . and the development of Vail's recreational facilities. It will be important to have well designed parks with complimentary recreation facilities that function together as a whole to maintain Vail as a quality resort. It will also be critical to uphold the goals of the master plan and community action plan throughout our future planning. The solution of one issue should not mean the demise of the success of our other goals. When compared to the conditional use permit findings, it is only feasible to recommend approval of this project contingent upon it being only a two year solution. The first criteria states that "the proposed location of the use should be in accord with the purposes of the ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located." This proposal is only appropriate due to the existing construction on the lower bench. Due to the fact that the site is already disturbed, the parking should not have a great impact on the site. The second criteria states that "the proposed location of the use should not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." Staff believes that the proposal will meet this criteria as long as the following conditions are met: • 7 0 1. An insurance liability agreement is entered into between Vail Associates and the Town of Vail. 2. An appropriate revegetation plan is committed to by Vail Associates which will be implemented in the spring of 1987. 3. Vail Associates is responsible for cleaning up the site during the summer of 1986 and 1987. Glean -up includes removal of trash and other debris left from the winter parking. 4. Signage on the road and fire lane is provided by Vail Associates. 5. A State highway access permit is approved for the road with assistance from the Town of Vail. 6. All commitments in the letter dated December 5, 1985 from V.A. to the Town are met. The third criteria states that the use should comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. The proposed use complies with the provisions of the conditional use review only when viewed as a short term solution. A long term proposal for parking in the lower bench is impossible to support given these three conditional use criterias. Staff • would like to caution that there are unusual circumstances due to the existing construction on the site that make it feasible to locate the parking on a short term basis on the lower bench. The staff's recommendation for approval should not be seen as precedent setting or an indication that further parking on park sites is condoned by the staff. • -0�. Vail Associates, Inc. Creamrs and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek December 5, 1985 Ms. Kristen Pritz Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristen: The purpose of this letter is to provide further information regarding the proposed amphitheater parking project. The purpose of the parking lot would be to provide interim ski season parking for Vail Associates and other village employees for a minimum of two years or until long -term solutions to the village parking shortfall can be found. . Signage the lot will be signed "Employee Parking Only ". A stop sign was suggested at the intersection with the South Frontage road. We believe that providing the above signs should be the Town's responsibility since the signs are needed whether the lot is developed or not. Several no parking signs will be provided by Vail Associates to prevent parking along the access road to the lot. The lot will be signed appropriately to prevent vehicles blocking the turnaround for fire equipment at the east end of the lot. "Lot Full" Signage will be posted when needed by Vail Associates. Hours of operation the lot will be signed "Lot Opens 6:00 a.m. -- Closes 6:00 p.m." Some of our employees will be there as early as 6:00 a.m. and will be on the mountain until 6:00 p.m. Parking Attendant: the lot will be patrolled and checked periodically by our parking personnel. However, we will not permanently station an attendant at the lot. Lighting: we will not light the entrance of the lot since the great majority of use will be during daylight hours. • Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303)476 -5601 r] • Ms. Kristen Pritz December 5, 1985 Page Two State Highway Access Permit we believe that obtaining the required state highway permit should be the Town's responsibility. The proposed amphitheater road is a project which the Town had committed to do previously. The project is on Town of Vail property and it is therefore appropriate that the Town be the applicant. Vail Associates will do everything possible to assist the Town in the application process. Fire Turnaround: Please refer to the attached site plan. Maintenance Vail Associates will plow the lot and perform the necessary maintenance on the surface of the lot as needed. Checking Condition of the Lot Vail Associates will check the condition of the lot and close it due to mud or other problems if necessary. Removal of Road Base Vail Associates will either remove the road base or cover it up with top soil and revegetate the area when use of the lot ends (restore the area to its original condition at present). Sanding Barrels Several sanding barrels will be placed by Vail Associates along the steeper section of the road. Insurance Vail Associates, Inc. has already named the Town of Vail as'additional insured on Vail Associates insurance policy pertaining to the Ford Park lot. If you have additional questions and /or concerns, please refer them to Joe Macy or Mike Larson. Sincerely, J y E. ichliter utive Vice President Mountain Operations LEL /k1 • r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 9, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot 9, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition, 5197 Main Gore Drive. Applicant: James R. Horton I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED This proposal involves the addition of a garage to an existing residence located at 5191 Main Gore Drive. The garage is of standard size (20'6" x 21') and is proposed to be located on the north side of the existing residence. This garage would encroach 4 feet 6 inches into the required 15 foot setback. The applicants have proposed the garage in this location so as to utilize an existing driveway area as well as to save a number of mature pine trees. In addition to this garage, the applicant is proposing an addition to the living area of their home. This does not involve the issuance of a variance and need not be considered by the Planning Commission at this time. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code the De artment of I 11:111 Development recommends L1111proval 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. As an accessory use to an existing residence, the garage is obviously compatible to existing and potential uses in the vicinity. With respect to structures, the adjacent property to the north would be the only impacted property from this project. In evaluating this proposal with respect to the neighbor's property, it would appear that this location is more sensitive with respect to their view corridors than a location within the required setbacks. Please see the attached letter from the adjacent property owner supporting this request. The d� ee to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enfor cement of a s ecified regulation is necessar to achieve com e o e and uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain thhe objectives of this title without grant of special rivile e. I � Provided there are no negative impacts from the proposal, the staff has generally been supportive of setback variances required for garage additions. This location is not unlike others the staff has supported over the past few years. The effort to save a number of pine trees on the property, in addition to the location of the existing structure on the lot, serve to justify this . request. Staff would not consider this to 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 utilities, and_public safety It is not felt that any of these factors would be negatively affected by this proposal. Related policies to Vail's Community Action Plan. Under Community Design of Vail's Community Action Plan, the upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements are encouraged. The addition of this garage would definitely fall under the category of upgrading. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following find before arantino 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 RECOMMENDATION As has been stated, it is the feeling of the staff that this request would not be a grant of special privilege if it were to be approved. In addition, the . attempt to save existing pine trees has been accepted as a physical hardship in the past. The staff feels this request has merit with respect to these two considerations. Staff recommendation is for approval of this request as proposed. Gilbert E. Johnson ' 310 South 14th Street Colorado Springs, Colorado 80904 October 29, 1985 Mr. Peter Patten Town Planner - City of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Bear Mr. Patten: We have a home at 5187 Main Gore Drive in East Vail and it has been brought to our attention that Dr. Jim Horton, who is the homeowner just south of our property, is planning to build a garage on his lot. The garage, as we understand it, would be built on the back side of his property. As you are probably aware, we just recently finally approved plans for an extension of the deck area on the south side of our property. This was done to expand our i views and take advantage of the quality of the environment in the area. If Dr. Horton was to build his garage where planned, this would block our view and create a very undesirable situation. review and favorable consideration o the location of Dr. Norton's garage. 4 LA A W y i f 1 F �} J � . 4J � � 1 _ ~� i �{ ,� * I 4, i r � } � i � 1 � � � � 44 _ � � 1 3 � � r }} � �? �. # is - � �l 1 ��t��� �� ��� � ���� .:� � TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 12, 1985 SUBJECT: Work Session on Doubletree The enclosed memo is a preliminary analysis of the Phase II development of the Doubletree Inn. The work session is scheduled to provide the Council and Planning Commission an opportunity to express any comments, concerns, or questions that they may have concerning this proposed development. A formal submittal and request to rezone the property to SDD is anticipated within the next few weeks. Your input at the work session on Tuesday, December 17th, will be appreciated by both the staff and the applicant. The meeting is to start at 2:00 pm with the Doubletree presentation estimated to begin at 2:30. Please don't hesitate to call our department with any questions you may have concerning this proposal. We look forward to seeing you on Tuesday.