The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - June.. ~~ ~ . i~as INDEX PEC January 13, 1986 TREETOPS PLAZA, exterior alteration to 180 sq ft, approved. FALL LINE APARTMENTS, conditiona use and condo conversion to time share, approved. HILL BUILDING, exter. alter, approved. POTATO PRTCH RESTAURANT, cu to expand and include condo unit, approved MEADOW PLACE (IPANEMA} CONDOS, density variance to convert storage to employee unit, apprc FORD PARK, cu for temporary parking on upper bench, approved January 27. LOT 7, PRT OF LOT 8, BLK 6, V VILL 7TH, front setback oar, approved Februar.v TO VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, cu and parking variance to expand, denied February 24 HONG KONG EXT ALT tabled ~- DOUBLETREE HOTEL, rezone for addition to SDD, approved PLAZA LODG~,'ext alt, tabled _ _ " VAIL GOLF COURSE CLUBH[?USE, cu for addition, approved PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES, new section of code March 10, VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, work session to review employee parking solution HONG KONG CAFE ext. alt, new building, approved CROSSROADS, BURGER KING, amend dev plan and detback variance to enclose deck, denied. PLAZA LODGE, ext alt, cu, approved BIGHORN LODGE, density, is and parking setback variances, for addition. approved March 24 SONNENALP variances, approved with conditions HILL BLDG exterior alteration, approved with conditions GLEN LYON OFFICE BLDG, extend approval for Deve. Area D of SDD4 SKI CLUB, conditi:ona7 use and variances, approved with conditions MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEE PARKING SYSTEM, approval-with conditions Apriil i4 GLEN LYON OFFICE BLDG, minor sub, approved with conditions ~- BISHOP PARK form an SDD and minor sub, approved with conditions VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, cu to amend plan, to park on Meadow Dr „ denied " TAX ASSESSOR'S CERTIFICATE `~ fay 12 , 1986 GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE, cu to expand bldg at Chair ~2, approved VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, relocate off-site parking onto Manor Vail, approved May 28, 1986 MUELLERJWYMAN, Lot 7, Vail Vill 1Oth, setback variances RAMSHORN LODGE, Unit 2, Cohn, setback variance to bid sun roam & deck, approved KIANDRA/SONNENALP, setback variances, approved with conditions SOLAR CREST initial zoning, approved SPRADDLE CREEK, initial zoning, tabled TOWN SHOPS, hand gun range, extend hours, approved June 9 GORSUCil cafe conditional use for dining deck, approved for one year with conditions CASCADE VILLAGE, ski lift conditional use, approved SPRADDLE CREEK, initial zoning, tabled GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE, ext alt pref. review, extend review period to 120 days June 23 BOYLE, Lot 20-D--1, Bighorn Terrace MILL CREEK COURT BLDG., cu to place banking facilty, approved SPRADDLE CREEK, initial zoning, tabled July i4, 1986 TREETOPS CONDOS grfa variance to enclose decks, denied GOLDEN PEAK, amend zone to a17ow outdoor food and beverage cart, approved CORNICE BLDG, setback variances, withdrawn PRIMARY/SECONDARY housekeeping ordinance Ord 18, 1986 Ju1.y 28, 1986 CORNICE BLDG, setback, parking and density variances, denied TUSCHMAN, Lot 1, Blk 1, V Vill 8th, setback and site coverage variances, approved SPRADDLE CREEK, amend time table, approved - CHAMONIX CORNERS, First Bank ATM, in county, county asked far comments VALLEY PHASE III ~~ ~~ ~~ lF Il 33 ~~ August 25 KIAHTIPES, Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows, minor sub, tabled BENKELMAN, Lot 16, Bighorn 4th, setback variance, table SIMBA RUN, amend SDD5 to pay funds in lieu of tot lot, approved SPRADDLE CREEK work session September 8 BENKELMAN, Lot 16, BH 4th, setback variance, approval DRISKO, Lot 18, Blk 7, VV 1st Filing VAIL POLICE DEPT, satellite dish, approve FLEISCHER PROPERTY, impose zoning on land, withdrawn. September 22 CORNICE BLDG, setback, parking and density control variances, denied FORD PARK, landing mats, conditional use, approved far 1986-87 only. LAND USE PLAN, presentation September 29 GOLD PEAK HOUSE ext alt. LAND USE PLAN October 13 LODGE SOUTH, ext alt and site coverage variance, approval CCIII, amend zone code to a11ow commercial storage and health clubs VAIL RUN, request to amend SDD5, add surface parking, approved. FLEiSCHER SUB, zone Parkin,~g District, tabled. October 13, (Cant) OLD~.70WN SHOPS, conditional use to change use, approval October 27 FLEISCHER SUB, apply zoning district, approval and minor sub V~ILLIAMS, Lot 13, Bighorn Sub, rear setback variance, approval November 10 ARTERIAL ZONE DISTRICT, amend to add convenience stores, approve November 24 KIAHTIPES, Lot 2, Pitkin Creek Meadows, minor sub, approved GOLDEN PEAR SKI BASE, cu to allow modular buildings indefinitely, denied MATTERHORN VILLAGE, etc. apply previous zoning to re-annexed area. approved PROPERTY WITHOUT ZONE DESIGNATION, recommend approval December 8 HONG KONG CAFE, request for minor amendment, relocation of a11ey gate, approved SITZMARK LDOGE, appeal of staff decision, interpretation of street level December 22 CLOCK TOWER, conditional use to replace dwelling unit with commercial space, approved TENNEBAUM, LOTS 14 & 17, BLK 7,V VILL 1ST, resub to create 3 lots, recs approval to TC VAIL VILLAGE INN, re-establish approval for Phase IV fnr 18 mos, rec approval to TC SLEVIN/ANDERSON, LOTS 1 & 2, BLK 3, U VALLEY 1st, minor sub, housekeeping, approval to TC WENDY, PARCEL A OF TRACT D, VAIL DAS SCHONE, minor sub and rezone, approval to TC CASCADE VILLAGE, minor amendment to expand restaurant, approval ZONING OF VRiL HEIGHTS, VAI DAS SCHONE, ETC. Planning and Environmental Commission January 13, 1985 1:30 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of December 9, 1985. 2. Request fora conditional use permit and for a condominium conversion permit in order to convert the Fa11 Line apartments into time share condominiums. Applicant: Kaiser E. Morcus 3. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add 180 square feet to the Treetops Plaza building. Applicant: Pierre Lakes, Ltd. 4. Request for an exterior alteration ~n CCI in order to enclose a deck and add a third floor at the Hill Building, 311 Bridge Street, Vail Village. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill 5. Request for a conditional use permit to expand the Potato Patch Restaurant by including condominium unit #44. Applicant: Campbell/Heilman, a general partnership 6. Request far a density variance in order to convert storage into an employee housing unit of 900 square feet at 44 West Meadow Drive. Applicant: Po71y Brooks To Be 7. 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 8. Request fora conditional use permit in order to permit temporary public parking using a protective matting on an area 200' x 50' on the upper bench of Ford Park. Applicant: Town of Vail PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1986 PRESENT Tom Briner Diana Donovan Bryan Hobbs (1st meeting} Pam Hopkins Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele STRFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Kristan Pritz Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack 1. Rpproval of minutes of meeting of December 9, 1985. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 2. This item was heard after item 3.. 3. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add 180 square feet to the Treetops Plaza Guiding. Applicant: Pierre Lakes, Ltd, Tom Braun explained the request and the fact that the staff recommended approval. After a brief discussion, Uiele moved and Hoskins seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated January 13, 1986. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 2. Request for a conditional use Hermit and for a condominium conversion permit in order to convert the Fa11 Line apartments into time share condominiums. Applicant: Kaiser E. Morcus Rick Pylman reviewed past meetings and memos. Rlice Parsons agreed with the staff in their concern about parking. Jay Peterson stated that he had researched parking at other time share projects in Uai1 and found that Apollo Park had .9 spaces/unit and their parking spaces were never filled; the Wren had 1 space/time share unit with less than 50% filled at any one time; Uail Run has 1 space/unit + 20,000 sq ft of commercial space and experienced no parking problem; Streamside has 1-1/2 spaces/unit {large units) and had no parking problems; and the Christy Lodge in Avon had 1 space/unit with about 35% useage of the parking spaces. He added that the bank did not want to escrow funds for the 25 covered spaces any longer than 3 years. Piper was concerned about landscaping and wanted the applicant to maintain the landscaping between the road and the building and the parking lot and the road. He mentioned that it appeared that all time share projects within Vail seemed to be well maintained. . Sriner wondered what would constitute a need far more parking and Peterson replied that if all cars could not be parked on the site that would constitute a problem. Parsons asked haw snow removal would be handled and was told that if it could not be stored on the site, it would have to be trucked away. Donovan was concerned about the impact on the bus system and mentioned that the bus was crowded when it stopped to pick up people at Simba Run. She wondered if the word "shuttle" should be defined. Peterson replied that many of the people on the Simba Run bus were from Va11i Hi. He stated that the bus from Streamside ran every 10 minutes and admitted that the shuttle must be adequate. Piper stated that a shuttle system was usually provided by all time share groups as a convenience and wondered if beyond that the Town could prevent people from using the Town bus service. Patten replied that we have required shuttles with other SDI]'s, Simba, Westin, etc. This is the rule rather than the exception. Donovan was concerned that condition #1 did not stipulate "year round" or "adequate" shuttle bus service. Donavan moved to approve the request per the staff memo dated January 13, 1986 with the word "adeauate" added to condition #1. Further discussion followed concerning underground utilities. Patten painted out that there was no description of what was a "fair share," cost, agreement, etc. Parsons explained that she had put underground conduit the length of Hobbit Hills and added that Holy Cross stated that she had to pay to have it extended to the transformer one block away. Therefore she did not feel that she should also have to pay to get the underground utilities to the €~orcus property or across Donovan Park. She had already paid 2/3 on her awn property. Patten felt there should be more discussion of what constituted a "fair share." Piper felt the applicant would have to meet with the staff to determine this because it shouldn't be determined at this meeting. Parsons said that she was willing to meet with anyone. Peterson stated that the applicant would like to remove the overhead lines. Parsons also mentioned that there was a water turn-off valve for Fall Line located on Hobbit Hills property. She wondered if there was an easement in this location and was concerned that when people came to use it they would trample on the landscaping of Hobbit Hills. Piper said that this would be brought to Upper Eagle Valley's atten£t'on . Hobbs seconded the motion and the vote was 7--0 in favor of the request. • 4. Request for an exterior alteration in CCI in order to enclose a deck and add a third floor at the Hili Building, 311 Bridge Street, Vaii Village. Applicant: Blanche C. Hi11 Rick Pylman showed the model and explained the modification to the proposal since it was presented to the PEC on September 23 and denied. Now the 2nd and 3rd floors were stepped back although the height was the same as the first proposal. Peterson mentioned that the height was below that which is allowed in CCI although there was still same impact on sun/shade and street enclosure. Pylman had a letter from Ron Riley supporting the addition. After more discussion, it was felt that most of the concerns had been answered. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request .per the staff memo dated January 13, 1986 with the added condition that the applicant participate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when one, is farmed. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 5. Request for a conditional use permit to expand the Potato Patch Restaurant by including condominium unit #44. Applicant: Campbell-Heilman, a general partnership. Kristan Pritz explained the request and stated that with the addition, 4 more parking spaces would have to be provided. Peterson disagreed with the need for a letter of credit to cover the additional parking spaces. Pritz responded by stating that if the 4 additional parking spaces could be found be restriping the lot, no letter of credit was needed. Donovan suggested setting a deadline for restriping. Pritz suggested that the restriping could be shown on a site plan and the restriping done in the spring. Then if it is decided to build 4 more spaces, a letter of credit could be required with the temporary certificate of occupancy. She felt it was logical to have a time frame. Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the request with the added condition that the restriping be done by June 15th. The vote was 6 in favor,. Wane against with Viele abstaining from the vote. 6. Request for a density variance in order to convert storage into an emplo.vee housing unit of 900 square feet at 44 West Meadow Drive, Meadow Place Condominiums. Applicant: Polly Blanton Brooks, Tom Braun explained the request and reviewed the memo adding that the applicant must present a written agreement with the Town that this unit would remain an employee unit and the agreement be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Retarder. Peterson explained that the space was already in the building, so no building was being added. Patten mentioned that this was the type of employee housing felt to be the most desirable: there was na expansion of the building and it was integrated within other housing, not segregated. Pam Hopkins wondered why enclosing a deck was considered a grant of special privilege, but that this was not. Braun answered that this was a benefit to the Town, and Patten responded that this was existing space that the community felt this type of use should be promoted. .. i + Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated Januar.v 13, 1986. The vote was 7-0 in favor of the approval. 7. 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 Peterson asked to table this item again to 2/24. Donavan moved and Viele seconded to table this to 2/24/86. The vote was 7-0 in favor of tabling. 8. A request for a conditional use permit in order to permit temporary parking using a protective matting on an area 200' x 50'on the upper bench of Ford Park. Applicant: Town of Vail Kristan Pritz explained the request emphasizing that the main reason to go through the testing of the protective matting was to see where additional parking could be placed for special events such as the World Cup. Ron Phillips, Town Manager, answered questions. Piper asked about the cost of the matting, and Phillips responded that it cast $17',000 for 9100 square feet, but did not know the cost of plowing and installation by the Town employees. He said that it would be removed as soon as there was any thaw, on or about March 1. It would be open any time for anyone to use and intensive use would be encouraged for the test. Donovan wondered if this was the most practical place as far a bus service was concerned and felt that 1/2 hour bus service was not enoughduring non-peak hours. She asked if the same buses would be used as are used for the golf course and Stan Berryman, director of Public Works, replied that the same buses would be used. Donavan asked how people would get from the lot to Golden Peak. She felt that people would not walk on the path once it thawed, but would walk on the pavement. Phillips replied that the bike path could not be used because it has been torn up and that the lot wouldn't be used once the snow melts. Donovan replied that it was likely that the metal would hold heat. If the sod is damaged, it cannot be replaced and used the same year and it was important not to damage the summer business. She stated that the Town must plan a long range parking facility. Donovan felt a first class resort must not resort to surface parking. Phillips replied that this test was a use question and the Council would examine the use further. Piper asked if there would be an analysis of the use, numbers, etc. and Phillips replied that there would bea follow up report on the effectiveness of the matting. Donovan asked if we needed to put specific dates on the use, and was told it was impossible to use specific dates because use depended upon the weather. Donovan stated that she would vote for the use this year, but may not for other years. Griner moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the use for this ski season onl,v. The vote was 7-0 in favor. The meeting adjourned at 4:35 pm. T0: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT I. U II III iV Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department January 13, 1986 A request for an exterior alteration to add 160 square feet of retail space to the Treetops Plaza Building. Applicant: Pierre Lakes, Ltd. THE PROPOSAL Just over two years ago, the Treetops Condominium Association completed the rezoning of their property to allow for a commercial expansion. Fallowing the rezoning of this property to Commercial Core II, an 8,000 square foot retail center was constructed just outside the east entry to the Lionshead Mall. A major element in the design of this building is a pedestrian arcade along the stare-fronts of the plaza. This proposal is far the infill of 160 square feet on the east end of the arcade. The proposed addition would be a mirror image of the west end of the building. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERRTIONS Applications for additions or new construction in Commercial Cares I or II involve review with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plans. These consist of both the sub-area concepts as delineated in the Guide Plans and maps, 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. 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 {when applicable} in any redevelopment proposal. There are no applicable sub-area concepts with respect to this proposal. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD There are seven design considerations to be reviewed when considering development in Lionshead. Because of the location and nature of this proposal, the majority of these considerations are not applicable. The following outlines each of these seven considerations: • A. Freight and NEassinc~ While the existing arcade helps create a pedestrian focus for the Treetops Plaza, the proposed expansion should not significantly impact this consideration. Approximately $p% of the length of the arcade will remain intact even with the proposed infill. This is not regarded as a detrimental aspect of this proposal. B. Urban Design Considerations These architectural considerations deal primarily with development in the mall area. Consequently, they are not directly applicable to this proposal. C. Roofs Existing roof elements of this building would not be affected by this proposal. D. Facades--Walls/Structure Identical materials to the existing building will be used in this infill. These are generally compatible with the design guide lines for Lionshead. E, Facades-Transparency Virtually the entire storefront created by this proposal will be transparent. F. Decks and Patios This element is not applicable to the proposal. G. Accent Elements This proposal would not add nor detract from any of the referenced accent elements in the guide plan. H. Landscape Elements Landscape elements is one design feature that staff feels merits some consideration. lVot so much with respect to this proposed infill, but with respect to the entire project. While it should be Hated that the developers have installed all the required landscaping as approved by the Design Review Board, it is the feeling of the staff that additional planting materials could be installed to enhance the appearance of this project. When considering the size of the structure, the planting of large size materials is rather sparse. There is potential for additional plantings on the site that could buffer the building while not obstructing the pedestrian site lines to the store fronts. Staff would encourage the commission to consider this when evaluating this proposal. . V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The only applicable zoning consideration is Located in Commercial Core II, this project contribute to the Town of Vail parking fund per required parking space. The 160 square spaces, or $1,590. Arrangements for this f the issuance of a building permit. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION with respect to parking. is required to at the rate of $3,000 feet requires .53 ee must be made prior to Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. The only significant consideration to be addressed with respect to this proposal is that of landscaping. While staff feels that the installation of additional materials is appropriate, we are not recommending it be a condition of approval for this proposal. This is because the additional development proposed at this time is not directly creating a need for additional plantings. The staff will be working with the applicant in hopes of reaching an agreement for additional landscaping on the site. • '~ . 1' t t ~' 4~ ~' t~ 't ~! L'~ 9. L 1 3 u. ~; -Y` '~ '~..~--~- • u ~I~i7W!1 ni iii. i~t,. ~~i ~~~uw ~~. ~..~~~s.ue it .. .Wi:4icl ~f~Mlii~li,:~l~.r bir ~~nn:1i, ~w.w,i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 1 - ~ ! . t .. ~t ~ ~ ~~ 1t W '.• p. I E r ~~' 5 1 ~•' F x~ .~ ~ a ...G l J s i ~ ~ J f d l I i i { i i i i is ji is s i II ` 1 l }1 ' rL.Y,•, ~ W', ~ ~~3t ~ ~ + ~~/ e 'q d ~~ N ~p~ 4 W Q N ~ 1 .. .ti'1' f11 v~ n , ~ n of m - ~~~t ~~~ xN ~ ~~ i ` 44 ~ _ µ ` 4' F OwC wt~ 7 . V . .' ~Q- ~Y } ;,i, i ~. i T0: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department January 13, 1986 Fall Line Time Share Proposal On November 25, 1985, the Planning and Environmental Commission heard a request to convert the Fall Line apartments to interval ownership condominiums. The approval process required for this request included: 1. An amendment to SDD7 2. A conditional use permit to allow time sharing in the HDMF zone district 3. A condo conversion approval according to Chapter I7.26 of the subdivision regulations. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved this request with the fallowing four conditions: 1. An an--site shuttle bus be provided. 2. A user tax be instituted as discussed and agreed to by the applicant. 3. A letter of credit be submtted to the Town far construction of the path between this project and Cascade Village. 4. The Fire Department review and approve the final parking lot configuration while maintaining a minimum of 51 parking spaces. In a subsequent review the Town Council upheld the PEC approval and conditions and added five more conditions to the approval. Those conditions are: 1. There shall be no marketing of the Fall Line time share project within the public right-of-way within the Tawn of Vail. 2. The project shall bear its fair share of undergrounding the utilities in the area. 3. The proposed budget for the project be adopted as a minimum and that there be an obligation on the part of the project to enforce their own parking problems. 4. A letter of credit be submitted to the Tawn of Vail in an adequate amount to cover the most expensive alternative of building a maximum of 25 additional structured parking spaces. The Town of Vail shall determine if there is a need for this parking within 3 years of occupancy of the project. The applicant will be required to construct this parking if the Town of Vail deems it necessary. 1 5. The additional parking, if needed, be limited to its own property; not any off site property. A technical error was committed by our department involving adjacent property owners notification of the public hearing. We have re-advertized and have met all procedural requirements. We are bringing this hatter before the Planning and Environmental Commission today in order to finalize the approval process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is far approval of this request with the four conditions originally placed by the Planning Commission, along with the additional five conditions placed on the approval by the Town Council. While additional public testimony may be taken at this hearing and may indeed affect the outcome of the approval process, we feel that the issues and impacts of this project have been thoroughly discussed at both the Planning Commission and Town Council levels and that the approval and conditions accurately represent the outcome of those discussions. • _-~i S TO: planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to convert the Fa11 Line apartments to interval ownership condominiums. Applicant: Kaiser Morcus I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE As this memorandum is closely associated with the memorandum addressing the amendment to SDD7 and the condominium conversion request for this proposal, pi ease refer to that memorandum for the description and background of the proposal. Briefly, the proposal is for the conversion of the Fall Line apartment building to an interval ownership project selling individual weeks for 53 dwelling units with major upgradings occurring to the existing structure including a recreation building addition for the use of the time share owners and their guests. The accompanying memo addresses the issues of employee housing and other items dealing with condominium conversions and the Marriott Mark's existing conditions regarding employee housing. The attached memorandum from the applicant describing the project should be used for the description of the proposed use. In an attempt to aid the Planning Commission's understanding of. the impacts of a time share project upon the community, I have enclosed a study entitled "An Overview of the Resort Time Sharing Market: Consequences for the Local Community" done by Richard Ragets, Associates, for the National Time Sharing Council of the American Land Development Association. I think you will find this brief study very important to understanding the general nature and impacts of time sharing on a local community. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Community Development Department recognizes the Community Action Plan and the Economic Development Commission report as the most recent documentation of development objectives of the Town. Please find attached a copy of the Community Action Plan with highlights relating to this proposal as well as the segment of the Economic Development Commission`s report on time sharing. In conclusion, it is evident that time sharing, properly constructed, managed and maintained is an appropriate use within the Town of Vail. It 15 extremely important that any time share project within the Town of Vail is of very high quality with respect to all aspects of the project, especially marketing. A negative impression of a resort community from shoddy marketing practices related to time share marketing can turn what would otherwise be a benefit to a community into a definite negative. Moreover, when one z recognizes that this particular proposal is eliminating an employee housing project, it tends to remove some of the positive attitudes one may have regarding the benefits of time sharing to a resort community. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilitiesz utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities and other public facilities' needs. A. Transportation Facilities The proposal includes the provision of a private shuttle bus ar van for the exclusive use of users of the project. There is also easy access to the Town of Vail bus system by walking a short distance to the westerly side of Donovan Park. Moreover, easy pedestrian access to Cascade Village to the east would be provided via the proposed asphalt bike path/walkway between Matterhorn Circle and Greenhill Court. It would appear, then, that there would be no negative effects upon transportation facilities due to the request with the possible exception of increased use of the Town of Vail bus system. B. Utilities There are overhead uti1itiy lines in this area currently and it is recommended that with the development of this project an appropriate length of that overhead system be put under ground as a condition of approval. . C. Parks and Recreation Facilities The project is ideally located for the use of the future facilities of Donavan Park. The master plan for Donovan Park contains a variety of recreational and open space related activities which would be directly utilized by the time share owners and their guests. Due to the increased use of these future facilities by this project, it would be appropriate to discuss the possibility of a small tax on each time share week sold to be earmarked for the development of Donovan Park. D. Other Public Facilities Needs The project would increase the utilization of the proposed Cascade Village chairlift. In fact, we feel the time share project should not even be considered without the full assurance of this lift. Locating a time share project is very similar to locating a hotel within various areas of a resort community. It should be centrally located with easy access to major recreational amenities and of course, in Vail, this means ski lifts. We feel that this project, if given approval, should not begin before construction on the Cascade Village lift has begun. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. As a staff, it is in this area that we feel the proposal falls apart. The Fall !• Line apartments have historically had the largest parking problem of any project in the Town of Vail. The Fire and Public Works Departments have had direct 3 experience of the problem. Several years ago, when the Park Meadows project was found to have emergency structural problems, the fire vehicles could physically not get through to the project because of all the cars parked along the road side. In another emergency call, an ambulance could not get into the Fall Line parking lot upon arrival due to the congested situation. Indeed, the entire neighborhood has a parking problem due to the inadequacy of on-site parking. Although we would agree that the time sharing project may not require as many spaces per unit as an employee housing project, we firmly believe that Tess than one parking space per time share condominium would be a problem to the neighborhood and would be poor planning policy. Allocating 51 parking spaces to the residential condominium units leaves no parking for employees, delivery and repair trucks, vehicles related to an-site sales promotions, or visitors of the guests themselves. The staff also feels that it is a mistake to make comparisons between the previous project and the proposal before us today with regard to the parking situation. It does not make sense to support a proposal which simply might take a terrible parking situation and make 'it merely poor. The regulations and criteria to evaluate this project clearly show that the project proposal must stand on its own with regard to physical site planning characteristics. The applicant states his willingness to provide shuttling of potential purchasers between the Marriott and the time share project. We feel that there is no excess parking most of the time at the Marriott Mark and that this would be an unenforceable condition in any regard. Moreover, the parking lot would have to be redesigned to allow the maneuvering room required for large fire vehicles. We feel strongly that the removal of snow from the street would be a difficult task with the amount of parking proposed for this project. 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. As alluded to earlier, the staff feels that with the addition of a chairlift in Cascade Village to Vail Mountain and with the pedestrian/bike connection between the project and Cascade Village, that this is a suitable location for an interval ownership project. Immediately to the east is the Park Meadows condominium project which is predominantly a short term project oriented to the guest. To the north lies the Coldstream condominium project which is a mix of resident owners and short and long term renters. Across the street to the south a newly constructed Hobbit Hi~ils townhouse project is being completed. Thus, there is no low density permanent resident housing in the immediate area which this project would significantly impact. The accessibility to Donovan Park if a bridge aver the creek is constructed on the east side of the park would be superb. The scale and bulk of the proposed project would be no different from what is existing on the site, and this is compatible with the surrounding uses. III. FINDIiVGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be denied based an the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is not in accord with the purposes of this 4 ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the praposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would not comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. VI. STAFF RE.COMMENDRTTCNS The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the proposed conversion of the Fall Line apartments to interval ownership. While we feel that issues of employee housing and physical upgrading can be mitigated (see the accompanying memorandum), we feel that as proposed, the project simply does not physically work on the site. The parking proposal is one which we cannot support, as we strongly feel that there would be a severe parking problem related to the project. While statistics show that some Vail time share projects require less than 2 spaces per condo unit, we have not been convinced that less than 1 space per time share unit is in any way adequate. We simply feel that the site is too small to accommodate the developer's proposal for 53 time share units. There is a possibility that if the project were reconfigured downward to the area of 35 units, we may be able to support it. As was clearly established in the evaluation of the criteria above, we do not have a problem with the location of a time share project on this site. We do have some concerns regarding a major employer within the community allowing an apartment project to become to become completely run down and uninhabitable and following it with a proposal to completely convert to a time sharing use. We feel this was a completely irresponsible lack of action and do not feel obligated to bail out a distressed property owner. Ffawever, if an acceptable mitigation plan regarding employee housing for the hotel and with a new proposal to satisfy the parking problem which will certainly arise if the project is approved as praposed, we could support the conversion to time sharing of the Fa11 Line project. If the Planning Commission nr Town Council proceeds with approval of this project we would respectfully request a list of conditions of approval which will be prepared for you. :7 a, I~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commmission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Request to amend Special Development District 7 (Marriott Mark Resort) and for a condominium conversion approval for the Fall Line Apartments located in the Matterhorn area. Applicant: Kaiser Morcus I. THE REQUEST Kaiser Morcus, owner of the Fall Line Apartments is requesting to convert the Fall Line apartment project containing 54 restricted employee dwelling units far Marriott Mark employees to an interval ownership condominium project. Approvals from the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council are necessary with respect to the following three requests: Amendment to SDD7 with respect to a restriction on Fa11 Line apartments to•serve as employee housing for the Marriott Mark Resort to 1989, a condominium conversion approval according to Chapter 17.6 of the subdivision regulations, and a conditional use permit far time sharing within an HDMF zone district. We will address the project in two separate memorandums. This memorandum will address the amendment to the special development district and the condominium conversion request in that the same basic issues are involved with these requests. The second memorandum will address the conditional use permit for the time sharing use. Because the issue of employee housing is contained within the condomiunium conversion regulations, the criteria for condominium conversions found in the subdivision regulations will be used to evaluate the request far the SDD amendment. Rather than attempting to summarize the details of the request at this point, it is of mare benefit for you to read the attachments from the applicant describing the project and responding to staff concerns discussed at the November 11th PEC work session regarding this proposal. II. BACKGROUND The Fall Line apartments were constructed in the mid-1960's previous to Town of Vail or Eagle County zoning regulations. The project has a1 ways been used as apartments and occupied predominantly by local residents. Due to the relationship between Kaiser Morcus and the Marriott Mark coupled with the employee housing crisis of the late 70's and early 80's, the project developed a direct relationship with the hotel in providing workers with local housing. This relationship was formalized in 1981 when the last phase of the Marriott Mark made its way through • the Town of Vail approval process. At this time, the Fall Line apartments were restricted to employee housing use by the Marriott for a period of 8 years. 2 ~~ As the managers of the Fa11 Line apartments, the Marriott Mark was responsible for the operation and upkeep of the apartment building. This responsibility was ignored over the last several years and the building became run down, unsafe for occupancy, and in a state of total disrepair. Upon discovery of these conditions the Town of Uail conducted thorough inspections in April 1985. A detailed l0 page report of building, electrical, health and fire safety violations was produced in April of this year. The report found that 22 units had at least one of the following: structural, plumbing, health, electrical or fire problems and code violations. At the time, 31 units were occupied. The building was promptly condemned by the Town of Vail and the occupants were required to leave. The Fall Line project has been vacant since that time. The following chart shows development statistics for what is allowed in HDMF as well as what is existing versus proposed for the site: FALL LINE APARTMENTS STATISTICS .Zone: High Density Multi-Family (HDMF) Site Area: 1.52 acres • HDMF EXISTING EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED ALLO~fEU/REQ'Q IN SQ FT/# IN % IN SQ FT/# IN NO. D.U.'s -- 54 -- 53 -- GRFA 39,726/.6 43,000 -- 43,000 .65 DENSITY (DU/AC) 25 35 -- 35 -- SITE COVERAGE 55% 18,396 28 21,796 33 PARKING AREA -- 17,438 26 16,214 25 LANDSCAPED AREA 30% 30,377 46 28,201 42 PARKING SPACES 1.06 -~ 51 --- 51 .96/du 1 loading 0 loading O loading i• i• • 3 III. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL AGAINST CRITERIA FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS Chapter 17.26 of the Subdivision Regulations deals with condominium conversions for both rental apartments as well as accommodation units. Our review begins with the requirements for condominium conversions as far as providing documentation for the submittal as found in Section 17.26.060. A. A condominium conversion report from the Town building inspector on the condition of the building including all building, fire, and related code violations which are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Staff response: This documentation was done in April by the Town staff as part of the condemnation proceedings. A copy of this report can be provided if you so request. B. A report of the proposed conversion addressing length of occupancy of present tenants and their household composition as well as information regarding rental rates and whether or not the proposal is for interval ownership and the pricing thereof. Staff response: Obviously, there are no present tenants as a result of the condemnation action. Because there are no tenants, this information was not required for the application. The rental rates in effect before condemnation were $325/month for a one bedroom furnished and $450/month 'For a two bedroom furnished. Pricing for the time share units would range from approximately $4,000-$12,000 with financing offered at market rates for SO-90°,6 of the purchase price for a seven year term. C. Provision of plans and descriptions showing site planning improvements, the treatment of parking facilities and agreeing to the correction of all violations in the building inspector's report on the condition of the structure. 5tafif response: As noted above in the chart on development statistics, the project currently does not meet HDMF zone requirements in the areas of density, GRFA, or parking (especially with regard to the requirement of 75% of the parking being enclosed). The parking proposed is the same as existing on the site--51 spaces which represents .96 space/du. Parking will be addressed in detail in the Conditional Use Permit memorandum. The 20 foot setback requirement is violated only on the north side of the site where the building is 10 feet from the property line. Both the existing and proposed plans violate the requirement of na parking located within the 20 foot front setback area. The building currently is approximately 34 feet in height, and this will remain unchanged. Bath the existing and proposed projects meet the minimum requirements for site coverage and landscaped area. 4 The applicant has agreed to make ail of the corrections noted in the 10 page violation report done in April 1985. The specific campliance with these would depend upon the final building plans as far as reconstruction and the new use. IV ACTTON ON PRELIMINARY MAP Section 17.26.080 requires the Planning Commission to consider whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the following housing goals of the Town: A. At the hearing on the preliminary (condominium) map, the Planning Commission shall consider whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the followinghousing goals of the town: 1. To encourage continuation;of social and economic diversity in the Town through a variety ofhousing types, 2. To expand the supply of decent housing for low and moderate income families, 3. To achieve greater economic balance for the Tvwn by increasing the number of jobs and the supply of housing for people who will hold them. i• Staff response: This is the section of this memorandum that will deal with the employee housing issue. Certainly, this proposal has an effect upon the current situation in the community with regard to employee housing. As a department, we feel that the employyee housing- issue is an important one far the long term viewpoint. Our employee housing crisis of the late 1970's and the early 1980's has clearly diminished as over-building of housing stock occurred simu'Itaneous1y. This has produced a renter's market within the community today which provides reasonably priced housing in relative abundance. However, as is the case with many planning and cieve1apment areas of concern, we should not allow ourselves to become short sighted about housing in Vail. Allowing wholesale conversions of existing apartment projects, changing local; regional and national economic scenarios and the pace at which existing inventory is reduced are all complex but critical factors in looking at housing in Vail for the longer term. The last major study conducted on affordable housing was coordinated by the Eagle County Community Development~,Qepartment in 1984 with assistance from Rosall Remmen Cares, a Boulder p1aY~ning firm. Please find attached relevant excerpts from that report which will help our understanding of the situation today as well as an attempt to look into the future. As a department, we feel it would be unwise to reverse policies completely toward employee housing in a period where there is no problem, only to find the problem come back at a later date due to factors beyond our control. The key to the issue at this pointat time is to arrive at an acceptable but flexible mitigation plan for units converted away from employee housing use so that adjustments to the requirements can be made as conditions • warrant. In addressing Section 17.26.080 A.1,2,and 3, we feel that the supply of housing within the overall community at the present time mitigates, for the most part, the loss today of this project being converted to condominiums. In a recognition that some mitigation be required at this time, the developer has agreed to lease 10 apartments at Valli Hi with the provision that the agreement may be reviewed annually by the Planning Commission to adjust the housing requirement accordingly. It is important to keep in mind that the Fall Line apartments are attached to the Marriott Mark Hotel, one of the major employers within the valley. The staff feels it important that the 4 years remaining on the employee housing restriction not be totally withdrawn, but rather reasonably mitigated for the current and future circumstances. We would find the flexible agreement as noted above an acceptable one at this time. B. The commission may require that a reasonable percentage of the converted units be reserved for sale or rental to persons of moderate income. Staff response: We feel that mixing employee housing and interval ownership units within the same project is not beneficial due to the incompatibility of the uses. Interval ownership users are present far one purpose--to vacation. Mixing that use with primary residents is not good planning policy. However, if there were a way to physica'Ily separate these uses to mitigate the conflicts, we would not be closed minded about reviewing a proposal to do so. i• C. The Planning Commission may deny the tentative or preliminary map upon finding that: 1. Based on the information required by 17.26.070 and on the vacancy rate for rental housing, tenants will have substantial difficulty in obtaining comparably priced rental housing. A rental vacancy rate below five percent based on the most recent town survey constitutes a housing emergency situation. 2. The ratio of multiple-family rental units would be reduced to less than 25% of the total number of dwelling units in the Gore Valley, from Dowd Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with no replacement rental housing being provided. Staff response: As mentioned earlier, the people who were displaced from Fa11 Line have certainly found suitable housing to meet their needs with the excellent rental market we are now experiencing. Again, we find no immediate problems within the housing market which would cause a negative response to this criteria. The longer term outlook is much more of a question mark to us. • 6 V. IMPRgVEME~fT SECURITY The final section of the condominium conversion chapter applicable to this. proposal deals with the potential requirement far improvement security. This section reads as follows: 17.26.130 Improvement security A. The Planning Commission and the Town Council may require a security to be posted by the applicant which shall consist of one or more arrangements which the Council shall accept to secure the actual cost of construction of such public improvements as are required by the ordinances of the Town. The improvement security may include any one or a combination of the types of security or collateral listed in this paragraph, and the applicant may substitute security in order to release portions of the condominium project for safe. The types of collateral which may be used as security are as follows: 1. Restrictions on the conveyance, sale or transfer of any unit within the condominium project as set forth on the final map; 2. Performance of property bond; 3. Private or public escrow agreement; 4. Loan commitment; 5. Assignments of receivables; 6. Liens on property; 7. Letters of credit; S. Deposits of security funds; ar other similar surety agreements. B. Security other than plat restrictions, required under the improvement security, shall equal in value the cost of the improvements to be completed but shall not be required on the portion of the condominium project subject to plat restrictions. The Council shall not require security with collateral arrangements in excess of the actual cost of construction of the improvements. The amount of security may be incrementally reduced a subdivision or condominium improvements are completed. The applicant is proposing a 10 foot wide walking path constructed of asphalt on the 20 foot wide easement between Matterhorn Circle and Greenhill Court. This path would provide easy access to the Cascade Village project where a chairlift is proposed to be constructed within the next 2 to 3 years. Some type of security in the form of a letter of credit or otherwise would be appropriate for this improvement. We would recommend that the path be constructed in such a manner that it will provide an emergency access between these two subdivisions. Also, the applicant has agreed and budgeted for a $1/week/unit tax which would raise $18,000/year. This money could be earmarked for a bridge over Gore Greek on the south side of the lower bench of Donovan Park or other improvements to the park. • ., V. STAFF RECOMMEI~DATId~! The staff recommends approval of the amendment to SDD 7 and the condominium conversion request with the condition that the applicant agree to providing a minimum of 10 employee housing units at a site acceptable to the Department of Community Development. This arrangement should have an annua'I Qctober review to make adjustments as housing conditions change. With the existing favorable housing conditions within the Town of Vail, we find it would be an onerous requirement to continue the entire project as employee housing or to require an equal number of units be provided on another site for Marriott Mark employees. However, we feel with four years remaining on an agreed upon condition for employee housing, that the Marriott Mark should provide at least minimal mitigation at this point in time. We forsee an annual review for both the Marriott and the Westin which could include all parties working toward a solution far employee housing on a flexible and ongoing basis. • '~ Td: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to expand the Potato Patch Restaurant by including condominium unit #44. Applicant; Campbell/Heilman, a general partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF USE: The new lessee of the restaurant at the Potato Patch Club, John Heilman, would like to expand the Potato Patch Club Restaurant to include condominium unit #44 as part of the restaurant area. Currently, condominium unit #44 is used as storage. In the original proposal for this space, the unit was to be used as a manager's unit. The space is 372 square feet which will allow 32 additional restaurant seats to be added to the dining area. According to current Town of Vail parking requirements, 4 additional parking spaces will be required. Town of Vail parking requirements state that one parking space shall be provided per each 8 restaurant seats. The parking calculations are based on seating capacity or building code occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive. In this case, building code occupancy standards are more restrictive and therefore 4 parking spaces will be necessary. The Potato Patch Club was given an original conditional use approval on December i3, 1977. At that time, 47 spaces were considered to be satisfactory for the private club with the condition that if the parking seemed inadequate, more spaces would be provided. Forty-seven spaces exist on the site. In the residential cluster zone district, a private club is listed as a conditional use. Because the conditional use is being expanded, the owner of the restaurant must request a new conditional use to allow for the restaurant expansion. 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: Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town., The upgrading of the existing restaurant is considered to be a positive impact in respect to development objectives of the Town. The conversion of unit 44 is not a negative impact, as the space is not used as a dwelling unit even though it was originally designated as a manager's unit. • • The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, narks and recreation facilities and other public facilities needs. No impact. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and . pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and contras, access, , maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and narking areas. The new addition will require 4 new parking spaces. By restriping the existing parking spaces and providing compact spaces, the owner will meet the additional parking requirement generated by this proposal. Twelve spaces may be compact spaces. The additional parking is to be located on the south side of the tennis courts. Staff believes that the restaurant expansion will have no impact an the other concerns under this criteria. 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 proposal will have very little effect on the scale and bulk of the existing building, as it is an interior expansion. The owner is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building at this time. Any trees or shrubs that are lost due to the additional parking will be replaced. . RELATED PQLiCIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN, None III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. IU. 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 approval of the conditional use permit be 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the restaurant expansion as the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and district. The proposed conditional use wi11 not be detrimental to the public health, safety or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. It is felt that the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. The environmental health officer has also reviewed the proposal and has no problem with the request. For these reasons, the staff recommends approval of the proposal contingent upon the applicant providing the parking at the same time that the building permit is requested for the restaurant space. The applicant may provide a letter of credit to cover the construction of the parking and landscaping if the weather makes it difficult to complete outdoor improvements at the time a building permit is requested. • • N ^F G • December 18, 1985 The Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81.658 Dear Planning Commission Members, Members of the Board of Directors for the Potato ',' Patch Club Condominium Association are pleased about the proposed expansion of the existing restaurant. We believe it will benefit the owners and our neighbors in the immediate'North Frontage Road community. ~f an increase of patrons creates a demand for ~~ more parking, we believe that problem can be dealt with in a timely manner and in a way beneficial to all parties. Specifically, the area between the fences and the road to the south and east of the tennis courts will afford us more than enough room to expand the present number of parking spaces. We are pleased with the new restaurant management and are confident that McKinley!s will be an asset to the community. Sincerely, i• Board Members ' Pepi Gr~mshammer ~ Beth Slifer Jenni s Wright T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a density control variance in order to convert an existing storage area to an employee housing unit consisting of 900 square feet at the Meadow Vail Place condominiums {formerly the Ipanema condominiums). Applicant: Po11y Blanton Brooks I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant has proposed converting space that was previaus1y approved as storage to an employee housing unit. As demonstrated in the table below, a GRFA variance is needed to allow for this conversion: bite Area 26,002 sq ft or .59 acres Allowable GRFA: 15,601 sq ft Existing GRFA: 16,441 sq ft GRFA with this proposal: 17,041 sq ft Allowable units 15 Existing units 9 Units w/proposal 10 It should be Hated that this project has allowable units remaining on its site, and the variance request is only for the GRFA. It is also important to consider that the additional GRFA is done through a conversion of existing space and will require no additional construction on the property. The applicant has agreed to restrict this unit to employee housing only, if it is approved. II. 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 fo'~lowinq factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The residential use that is proposed with this variance is compatible with the existing uses in the area. These uses are predominantly residential in nature. With respect to structures, this proposal involves no additional development an the site and this consideration is not applicable. • . The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives, of this title without grant of special privilege. With respect to the question of special privilege, the staff and Planning Commission have been supportive of employee housing units over the past few years. As evidence, the Treetops Plaza building, Vail Racquet Club Condominiums, and the Sunbird Lodge have been a1 lowed additional units provided they were restricted to employee housing. Due to these previous approvals, the staff does not consider this request 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. An additional unit an this site will generate a limited amount of increased traffic in the area. However, staff does not consider this increase to be significant. With respect to parking, there are presently 23 spaces on the property. Existing development requires a total of 2fl.5 spaces. This additional unit will generate a demand for 2 additional spaces leaving a surplus of .b spaces on the site. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN The most applicable element of the Community Action Plan with respect to this M proposal is with respect to employee housing. As stated in the plan, the Town should make along range goal of providing employee hawsing needs within the community. This project is a step toward meeting that goal. In addition, it should be noted that the Eagle Gaunty employee housing survey of 1984 identified this type of employee unit as the most desirable. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fallowing 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, nr 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 ti tie. That 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. IV. STRFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request. The one condition is that a restriction be placed on the unit limiting its use to long-term employee housing. To formalize this arrangement, a written agreement between the Town and the applicant will be required before the issuance of a building permit. Upon completion, this agreement will be retarded with the Clerk and Recorder's office of Eagle County. C~ T0: planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to install a temporary parking area using protective matting on the west end of an existing parking area on the upper bench at Ford Park. Applicant: Town of Vail DESCRIPTION OF USE: The purpose of this proposal is to determine if metal matting can be used for temporary parking areas without damaging existing sod, sprinkler systems, and other underground utilities. Town Council is interested in determining if the matting can be used effectively for temporary parking areas during special events such as the World Cup races or the upcoming World Championships in 1989. The Town of Vail is requesting to locate a test parking area on the west end of the existing parking lot on the upper bench at Ford Park. The parking lot is approximately 130 feet long and 60 feet wide with a 20 toot by 40 foot long access lane. It is estimated that approximately 30 to 35 cars will be able to park on the temporary lot that has a total square footage of 8,600 square feet. The existing parking area can handle 40-45 cars. With the metal matting and existing parking area, a maximum total of 80 cars may be parked on the site. Matting will be placed nn the site to protect the existing grass, electrical line, and irrigation line. The location of the matting was based on the following criteria: 1. Locate the parking area as close as possible to the existing parking area to avoid damage to the ball field. 2. Locate the parking area on the irrigation line south of the fence to determine impacts. 3. Locate the parking area south of an existing gas line directly below the berm off of the South Frontage Road. (Please see the enclosed site plan.) If any damage occurs to the sod ar utilities, the Town has agreed to repair the damage in the spring of 1986. The lot will be available to anyone who wishes to park on the site. Parking will be free. The Town is encouraging maximum utilization of this site to ensure that a thorough test of the material will occur. z The existing lot by the Ford Park tennis courts was used by Hertz Rent-a-Gar to park 60 cars. The Town has offered Hertz the option to park their cars at the Vail Golfcourse Clubhouse. Hertz has relocated their 60 cars to the Stoiport in Avon and is considering the Town`s proposal to use the Vail Galf Clubhouse parking area. If cars are parked at the Vail Golf Clubhouse, they will be located on the southwest portion of the existing lot. The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District has also given the Town approval to park Hertz cars an the clubhouse lot. Bus service will be provided for the parking lat. Eastbound buses will pull into the driveway in the parking lot and pick up passengers. Anew bus turn-out will be plowed out on the westbound lane of the South Frontage Road for passengers going into the Village. Fifteen minute bus service will be provided between the peak hours of 6:00 am to 9:00 am and 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Thirty minute bus service will be available during non-peak hours. The Town will also maintain a packed pedestrian path from the parking lot to the access road down into the amphitheatre. The path will extend along the northern boundary of the park. The Town felt that the path was important, as pedestrian traffic along the Frontage Road should be avoided. The Town will be responsible for plowing the parking area. The Town is not proposing to add any additional lighting for the lot. Rt this time, one street light exists an the lot. Appropriate bus stop signage and a sign indicating that the parking may be used by the general public will be provided by the Town of Vail at the entrance to the lot. If the proposal is approved by the Planning Commission, the Town would propose to locate the matting on the site soon after approval and remove the matting when the ground begins to thaw. In the long term, if the experiment is 5UCCe55ful, the Town would propose to use the metal matting from approximately Christmas time to March 1. Ford Park is located in the Public Use District. In this particular zone district, a public parking lot is considered to be a conditional use. Even though a parking lot already exists on this site, a conditional use review is required, as the use is being expanded. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: Upnn review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:, Gonsideratian of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The 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 far 198x. The excerpts from these reports relate to the proposal in the following way: • 3 COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Parks and Recreation Section 3. Vail should develop a parks and recreation master plan. o Ford Park is the tap priority. Transportation Section 4. The Town should continue to review the need for additional parking. Staff believes that this proposal is in compliance with the two policy statements found in the Community Action Plan. It is felt that the proposal does not conflict with the intent of the master plan far Ford Park. The test proposal also has the potential to provide the Town with a solution for parking during peak use periods. For this reason, staff believes that the proposal is in compliance with policy no. 4 from the Transportation section. FORD PARK MASTER PLAN "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) In the master plan, a parking area was designed for the northeast corner of the site. It was felt that this area had the least impact on the recreational activities in the park. The test site will also be in the same general area as the master plan's parking. Staff believes that the proposal does not conflict with the master plan and that the 1acation of the test site will not have any negative impacts on summer or winter activities in the park. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT 1985 The report states: "After moving the tennis courts to Golden Peak from Ford Park, provide landscaped parking in their p1 ace for overflow and/or Village employee parking." (page 18 of the report} This proposal does not conflict with the the Economic Development Commission's recommendation. 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 possibile 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. 4 The proposal is in compliance with this policy statement. Even if the parking is not actually on the tennis court site, the location of the test site is adjacent to the tennis courts and should indicate if people will utilize this area for parking. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities and other public facilities needs. The applicant has stated that any damage to the existing softball field or utilities would be repaired in the spring of 1986. Staff believes the impact on the softball field, irrigation, and electrical lines would be the only potential negative impacts that may result from the proposal. The purpose of the test is to determine if the impacts will occur. Staff also does not forsee any negative impacts an winter or summer recreation activities. Bus service will be available to people using the parking lot. Fifteen minute service should provide adequate and convenient service for users of the parking lot, 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., Staff believes that the users of the parking lot will have easy auto ingress and egress to the parking lot. The speed limit along the frontage road in this area • is 35 miles per hour. Visibility is excellent from the parking lot entry. There are also no adjacent egress and ingress points which would create traffic congestion. Pedestrian safety has also been addressed by locating the packed path on the northern boundary of the park. this path will provide a safe walkway for pedestrians who wish to walk along the path down to the access road and across the bridge aver to Manor Vail. Staff finds that the proposal has no negative impacts on these particular considerations. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be 1ocated~ including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This area is already used as a parking area. Staff does not feel that the addition of 40--45 cars will detract from the natural appearance of Ford Park. The parking is located away from the more natural areas found on the lower bench. The Town is proposing to remove the matting as soon as the spring thaw occurs. Therefore, the proposal will have no effect upon the character of the area during the summer. The use will have impacts on views from the east side of the Wren due to the additional 30 to 35 cars. However, the impacts should be minimal, as the site is already used for parking. • RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMNil1NITY ACTION PLAN 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 based on the fn1lowing 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. 5 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the temporary parking area. We find that the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use ordinance and the purposes of the public use district in which the site is located. Staff also finds that the location of the temporary parking lot and the conditions under which it would be operated and maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. Staff believes that the temporary parking lot also complies with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use ordinance. Far these reasons, staff recommends approval of the temporary parking lot. r 1 ~~ ~~' '= - . - ^~, ~' p iZ~~~ ~t,vE.~ N :~: ~.~:~~;q.s ~ ~t'a • r ~ ;c .. ti r :~• ~,4 - - 1 P- "F l- ~_ - 1 i.Y~ '. b. ~ _ f } f. fJ~ ~_ .. ~ ~ ~ _ z 1 -- P ; - - -~~ '' 4 k _ ~ ~ ~ilC f51a4 ~- '"+~~ _ a ~e3t~ ~ ~ E ~S r~ n. ~f ~ ~. k y l ~"."' , "'*..R•,.,.--,,. "v "'C"~ 'ti't -~-,:.~ ~ k ~ .- -~; ~, _~-, Wit- 5 ti a ''~ 7 ,.,,,~ - - ( '^^.-.-' y - ~e 1~~ +M1` ~...ti Y ` ~~. _~ s ]~, ~``` ~~. h * ~' . -~_ :rte 3 .~,~~ ~ , ~, . > . -~ . r ~ ^' r ` - _ '. ~ f ~ . - - ~~.[( _ l1~~~11~~~/11 / jHl[Q ~ V iP]~ f ~ - ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ^"~~'tr. 5 5 k T _ y Ys _r 3 ~ G~~'~. I - ! E ~~ /r-A } ~ _ - ~ ~~ e v ~.~ - n - _ llttt r '~' ~D(~(~lo~ :x ~ '1 }'~.~ry .k , - 5 . ~ ~ ~ i { - n r 'i } p r n~ i~?~~ ~ ~ ~ e~ y ~s s ~~ ~ - f. ~ ~ -y fk ~ Ott ~~S y~i f f _t~~ -}~-+" ~"., °f: ~r i/ / TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development DRTE: January 7, 19$6 work session SUBJECT: Hong Kang Cafe Redevelopment proposal The owners of the Hong Kong Cafe, located on a part of Lot c, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, have submitted plans for redevelopment of their property. The plans involve creating a kitchen and dining room at the existing bar level, with a bar area located above the restaurant, accessed from the Founders' Plaza level. Included in the plans for the bar level is an outdoor patio. This patio as currently drawn encroaches approximately 200 square feet onto Town of Vail property. The required approval process for the redevelopment as proposed, will include exterior alteration approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission, a conditional use permit to locate a patio at street level, and a site coverage variance. The developers would like an indication as to whether the Council would be amenable to entering into a lease agreement to allow this utilization of Town of Vail land as well as permission to include this area as a part of their submittal for the required approval processes. • i• . ~~ , ~, f ~ ~' ` ~~ FOUI~DFRS' PLAZA ~.,- ,;' ~'~~'~,, - -~; j I , „ _ "-~i ~~~ f~~~ ~'` / j i ,, , 1' '~ 4 ` ~~-~ ~~ ., ~' '` 1 1 ti .. ~' ~' ~ .' ~ , } l ` ~~.r 'I ~ , - 1 ' 1 ~ t.' ti~ ~ j 4 ~ I ,1 1~ 1 k ~ _ ~ 4 ~ ~i.~~1 '~ r_-~- -- - -'} ~ i• ~gG~~ _. ... , ~_ _ - - ~, ~, 's ~;1, ,, ~ ',~:y - - ~ ~~ I tl '~~~ /~ ', ` ~,'~ ~ 1 ~ j ,~; ~~ .. ,- ~-- ~ HONG~~~G . CA~~ bar level' .... //:.:. _ - y:. 1 n y - ~yy 3'~E'Y a~~'~ ~~ 1 . '__ ~ I`` ~~~ k i~ ,, i ~C~~_ `b ~ ~,.~~- - - ~~~ ..~ i~ r ~ ~' ,~ `, ,~ ~i I ~~ ~~ ~, `~J %~\ `; Lazier Arcade Building ~~ ext alt vail vill T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1986 SUBJECT: R request for exterior alteration of the Hill Building on Lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, to enclose existing 2nd floor deck space and to add a third story. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill I. THE PROP05AL The applicant, Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to enclose 433 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 972 square feet. The proposed third story addition is located on the southwest area of the building. On September 23, 1985 the Planning Commission heard a similar proposal. Following the recommendation by the staff, the application was denied by the Planning Commission. 1"he Planning Commission decision was subsequently appealed to the Town Council. The Council supported the position of the staff and the Planning Commission. Concerns of the staff and the Planning Commission revolved around the creation of a canyon effect and additional sun/shade impact on the One Vail Place Plaza. The current submittal represents a revision of the building sensitive to these concerns. II. COMPLIANCE KITH THE CCi CODE 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 of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Care I District is intended 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 CCI district. . . III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal relates to the sub-area concept 1OA. 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 improvements 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 the Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. A. Pedestrianization The third story addition and second story deck enclosure will have minimal if any impact upon pedestrianization. B. Vehicular 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 somewhat 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 1/2-1 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 4Z feet. This creates a ratio that varies from 2/3:1 to 1:1. • This consideration was a major concern of the staff in reviewing the . September 1985 submittal. In the current submittal the architect has reacted to these concerns by pulling the third floor addition and balcony back approximately 4 feet from the corresponding balcony on the second floor. By stepping back the third floor living area, balconies and roof line, the architect has greatly mitigated the concerns of the staff. The original submittal showed a three story vertical plane from the plaza. This revised submittal presents a more gentle building mass, with the buildings stepping away from the plaza area as it rises. ~t is our belief that the original concept was for the plaza to present a gateway into the Village. The Community Development staff feels that this design, while meeting the objective of the property owner, is more in keeping with the original concept of this plaza. E. Street Edge. No impact. All additions are above ground level. i• F. Building Height In Commercial Core I, up to 60% of each building may be built to height of 33 feet or less and no mare 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 criteria as described. The new roof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the same pitch and materials of the existing roof farms on the building. 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 west 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 Mi11 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 nr on the public right-of-way." This requested addition will increase the shadow pattern in the plaza area, according to the December 21 study diagram. While we do have some concern over the negative effects of this shading on activity on the plaza, we do recognize that the redesign efforts of the architect will result in substantially Tess impact than the original submittal. a ~ - ~ V • • ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Project Statistics Allowable GRFA Existing Znd floor Existing 3rd floor Total existing 6,400 sq ft 4,082 sq ft 696 sq ft 4,778 sq ft Stairway deduction 372 sq ft Total existing GRFA 4,451 sq ft Proposed 3rd floor addition 972 sq ft Proposed 2nd floor deck enclosure 433 sq ft Total proposed GRFA 5,856 sq ft Allowable GRFA Proposed GRFA Remaining GRFA 544 sq ft VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approvai. As a 2nd and 3rd story addition, there are really only two considerations that are impacted by the proposai. Although this project still has some impact on the One Vail Place plaza area through the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade design considerations, we feel that the architect, through this design, has attempted to respect the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade design considerations and has attempted to mitigate previous concerns of the staffi. We feel that by stepping the building mass away from the piaza area, the original concept of the piaza as an open gateway into Vail Village has been maintained. 6,400 sq ft 5,856 sq ft • Planning and Bnviranmental Commission F'ebruar 10 198b y 2:30 pm Site Visit 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. A request for a conditional use permit and a parking variance in order to construct an addition to the Vail Va11ey Medical Center. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center (Staff Recommendation: Approval) To Be Tabled 2. A request to amend Section 18.71 of the Vail Municipal Code to address small additions of Gross Residential F1aor Area to multiple family units. Applicant: Tawn of Ifail 3. Reminder of Booth Creek Tot Lot meeting. • PANNING AND ENVIFC?!!i~"tENTAL CCi~iMIS5I0N FEBRUARY 10, 1-986 PRESENT Tom Briner Diana Dono~~an Bryan Hobbs Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Uiele ABSEtdT Pam Nopk~ns 5TAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Tom Braun Rick Pylman Betsy Rosolack A request for a conditional use permit and a parking variance in order to construct an addition to the Uail Ualiey Medical Center. Applicant: Vail Ualley Medical Center Tom Braun explained the request and showed floor pions, site plans and elevations and pointed out the location of a liquid oxygen tank and trash durr~pster. He stated that the second floor area that contained the obstetrical care unit „as to be done at a later date, but should be considered as part of the proposal- 5raun pointed out that the Medical Center and the private clinics played a vital role in providing health services to both permanent residents of Vail as well as guests. Braun said that there :,ere a number of areas with respect to the proposal where it 4~~as felt that the development standards that have been adopted by the Uail comaunity ',sere not being met, but that the staff ~:as sympathetic to these shortcomings and had s~~orked with the ~'~edical Center in an attempt to resolve them to the greatest extent passible. There had been a williingness on the staff's part to corrpramise some areas of design and planning because of the nature of this facility. The staff felt that the Center served the community as a direct benefit and resouce and merited same considerations that could not be afforded to private development. He referred to the memo written on the proposal. zebra i:os=, administr-tor of the hiedical Center, cave a little background on the =~aGUest. She said t~~~:t studies had began three years previously on a five year pro;,iec.ia~, arc a ten var projection of the Center`s potential needs. The CQnC105lOn 1~a5 ~ra~ 4tiy~t~~ln i iVe ~'ear5 t~`;2re 1~JDl~ld vc a no°d for 3~ beds. MS. .lost admittzd that t~,e shuttle system Chas a step Yap measure and said that the chip t oy'r-r S ~,~d ::;~.'~~-?C ~r.~ USe ~ ShUi, tl E SO t~l?t t~',e t`',?ntG'r CQUI d have addl t i onal os. T s~ _ ~•iec i cal C~~:.er hoped tc raise fun~±s far a parking structure for the long t._rr soir:t'Gon. ~i 11 ary Jchnsc~r, the wrchi tect r~or the add i tiara, s;~or~aed a moael and some perspect;v2s. ;-;e ex;:lained that tie reason the proposed addition would have a flat roof „~s sa teat it could be e>:par~ded :~p~r;ard at a later date. :,ct'V Lap-;n, d r:s iCicnt cLrG55 ~'i2~wuYti' Ur iVe [ i'C'TEi i.lii. .'~EdiCal CBI",ter. Stated that • tyre FiedlCdi Center was an excellent neighbor but w~a; concerned about the parking Sid Schulte quoted the staff merno as stating that in the next construction phase the P~,edi ca i Cen.?r ~ti~aul d bui 1 d a parking structure. Ke wondered haw the 1 ater situation 1•;ould differ from the present situation to allow the construction of a parking structure. Ms. Jost responded by stating that this addition would take the burden off with additional beds and would give the Medical Center time to raise more funds. Schultz then asked if the staff felt that a four story building that had been mentlOned would be compatible in the neighborhood. Braun responded that the staff could only judge the present proposal of two stories_ Schultz asked the architect avhat the plans ~ti~ere for a long term parking solution and ti<<here it would b2 placed on the property. Johnson said that it would be on the northv~est corner and would be 2-1./2 tiers tall, the lowest tier would be situation because the lot at present was not alwaa~s ~~ontrglled. He suggested a pay lat. Lapin questioned the need to have parkirig spaces far the 1-awn employees of the ice arena and the libray. He suggested they park where the other Tawn employees park. Lapin also warned that he would be against any heliport On the site because in the past, pressure from helicopter flights twice had blown out t~indows of his residence and he was also concerned about the safety of having flights in the area. Lapin suggested that a time line be placed on cainir~g snare parking or praying the lack of need for more parking. He stated that he would like to have seen the figures that justified the ecanom~cs of postponing tb~e parking structure. He expressed the wish to have the oxygen tank and traah c:~mpster moved or buried. ye also suggested a compactor instead of a dumpster_ down one level from the street. hie indicated that future plans could call for rebuilding the original hospital because the roofs 4ti~ould not allow expansion ur3ivard. Donovan asked it the ~~ledical Center's plan was to expand again in five years and Jcst replied that although the studies were for five years, they would oat know for certain whether or not another expansion would be needed in five years because of sa many uncertain factors. Donovan also wondered if the Medical Center had discussed sharing parking with the Doubletree and last replied that they had pursued this far a time, but that the Doubletree (Crest) did not follow up on the idea. Gonovan asked the staff whether ar not they had felt this was a worthwhile idea to pursue and Braun replied that there had been same problems in the fact that the f~'~edical Center was non-profit, while the Doubletree was not, which Tade working together cumbersome. Braun felt that from a conceptual standpoint, a joint use parking facility was a solution worthy of study. He ;; ved that the '~o~,bl etree also had ...any other problems to sal ire • ~~'°aun s i.? t~~ t`; t the %~G parki ."rg 5~ aCpS ~~ ~Ure '~f~S far the 'tJhol e propD5d1 , bUt the 2nd fl^or ~,~ing ti•~as hair•ig pasT.pcned. If the end floor wing were to be onstr~~cte~ at a later time, parking for this part will already have been accouni.zd for ir, the ~2G figure. '~~!"'oVan Stc~2d ~~3at 5hc ag'"Fed w'1Ln Lapin ~n that i~'~vn Of Uall empla~'eeS did not i:r,'ti'e tC~ ~~a"t. nEar rife €ibrary gnu 1Ce wre~a, that C:"~gindlly the "ir;Ud lOt" 4NaS to be for patrons of the library sc that pecple could make a quick stop at the library. the Siai.ed teat the library and ice arer3a 1•Jere being made '.,rr-c~:cb' ~. ' ~_ i "__ eed and -elt t^at :~:v,e :°a~.s u d~sincent~ve to use the ~_ Cr ~}I_;.C __"~:~i' ~-~. r~~~ii°e :i''_3iic~ Rf :`i!_ $i'.11.'i, _?_.nd ~urlnL,' .~nlcn l,n~'ro !'~a5 ~'U r„e }~' ..%rk ~~•L"F vriC n~?Van also po~n4e c': out snot the access to and from the ~r '1 ii~iVd lUi." ~'. t75 i. ~i~i is C: f'uilj L}Ci c.u `~~ li, ices ~i ~~:. ... ..,bl~. ..., Ju"~ i7 ~i~e5 ... „,iii ng ~rarr, tiie .•~~St. ~Dr t~l15 YEaSOn, She ~!l`.U l{'~t t~i~. lOCatian of t'-!¢ Gx~'02n tLnl; ;x.'35 not Bond. Donovan felt that a 9U d~,v clause --= stated in the tentative agree;nent +•~ith the Center was too long, ar,d suggpsied it be shorter. Jost explained that t`re Town staff and the f~3edical Center stud had discussed this and felt that because the h',edical Center might not have im.lediate control over some problems to do with parking. Donovan felt the shuttle System would not work. She stated that she wanted to approve the proposal, but was hat totally convinced that the Center had done all possible to explore parking alternatives. Jost replied that the h'iedical Center had talked to the Doubletree, had looked at using the ~.ionshead Pari:ing Structure, had considered building a parking structure, and s~lere na+v proposing a parking shuttle. She added that if they had overlooked anything, they were open to suggestions. Jim Viele stated that he shared all of porovan`s concerns regarding the shuttle riot working, but did understand that aiternatives had been researched, and yet felt that Aare studies should be done on ;;arking. Jost asked for suggestlons on raw to go about studying the parking differently. Viele replied that he would like to see the financial papers which did not allow far the construction of a parking structure. Jost said the papers +~1ere available to the public, Dryan i~obbs felt that the parking situation t'~as atrocious. Piper asked about the cost of a parking structure. Johnson stated that he did not recall exactly, rut felt it was about $1.5 million. Piper asked for nurr~ber of spaces planned, and Johnson replied there ti'lere to be 2-1/2 tiers with 60 spaces per tier, about 15D spaces in all. The bond issue 4'.as for $6 million, the parking structure ;,Would be about 16-17°io of the budget. Piper asked if the parking structure could ~e built if the 2nd story wing were postponed, and Jost replied it could not, and was contingent upon financing. Piper felt that about 50% of the employees ;•~ould come from down valley and were not likely to drive past the hospital to she golf course parking lot to be shuttled to the hospital. Piper stated that he did hat know of any project that the Town had ever approved for expansion but allo'rled less parking than originally exisued. He added that the success of the shuttle was extremely important. Jost explained that the hospital was not negligent in planning, but that it has crowr, extrer~e1y fast. ~sraun stated that if there were a motion for approval, the placement of the cxycen tank should be given further staff study and should not be approved at this time. The location of the oxygen tank and the trash dumpster were di sctassed further. ~onovan felt that the Only way that she could Vote .or tt'rG expansion t'1as if ;.Here c_oul d be further study of park- r'~o . nl uti ans. She =.ugc~ested 1 imi ti ng visitor hours, spreading out visiting hours, etc. She felt that thm Ylhole Town needad to work on the solution, and some'~hing could be +~lritten that committed c'ersons to meet to work on a solution, and felt a solution could be found if ~nc'~~~h , ='on ; e '~raul d be W111 'E rg +U 'rear"}: on the parking ~:,-oil em. JUS t asked for 1 ~?d5 , and u'Jnal~an siJOCPSt~d ~irrr~=w•5 Nay- )g empl 0yee5 '~X%i"a, i~lay~ie shovel ng =-n,p'r,"°2$ hoY,' f!i{t.~,cil TlGr~°y they 1VOU1d Sw1l2 if they rode ~hc snUtLle. Jost replied what Ss e fel L LhC employees :>'au ! d ~° wl 1 " l ng t0 meet 1"11th the TO+~rn SLdff . ~':;er felt yF~at In sai,e ;~."ay ~ sruLtlp could ae vlOrked UUt, but did hat ~~e21 th'? ;s~'_ ,',',!a~.d ave ~o he }a.";lr'd. r~,~~'J`!aI! :;,ggested ~1'vll'C~' ~GnceNt::al u~7rUVal ar'Id :vG?"V,'~!1^y l~,~ersely for the next two v.ec~s to brainstarrrt I~iar~e Ideas far pdrklrlg. ..JSt r'c~;i .cu oral. Lh2y ha% ~.,~t ~'lth t~iv T^~4tiYl and explar~M ;rlany ldeds. ~iie ~ ,:J€"'.r=' ed if tf;e ;.O~:rCi ttaS ul';dk_,' Of dl I ~'V~ t';'Grk ~naU .V .. ~~ne 11+t0 the °~ Gctl°klna NrapcsGl. She awed that the ,~;a,a~.e~r,ent of the ~iOS~ital nod stated that they ~;ould not let employees park on site and would not give incentives to encourage the e;nployees to park in the ~ior:sh,ead Parking Structure. Donovan felt a solution to parking was still needed_ Piper stated that everyone was interested in solving the parking problem. L'iele moved and Donovan seconded a motion to deny the request. They i'e1t unco,~~fortable with the parking solution and felt there could be a better solution found. The vote was 3 in favor of denial, 2 against with Briner abstaining. - - 2. A rea,uest to amend Section 18.71 of the Vail f~lunicipal Code to address small auditions of Gross f?esidential f=loor Area. io rruitiple family units. Applicant: Town of Uail Peter Patten asked to withdraw this request. 3. The board was reminded of the Booth Creek tnt lot meeting on February 11 i n the Totirn Caunci 1 Chambers . Patten told the boar°d that a tentative date for a joint work session with the Council would be March 6th from noon until 2:Oa pal in order.to work on the Vail 1,ri 11 age blaster plan. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 10, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center. Applicant: Uail Va11ey Medical Center I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The proposed expansion to the Vail Valley Medical Center consists of a major addition located to the east of the existing structure. This two floor expansion will accommodate an additional 11 patient beds as well as upgraded and enlarged areas far hospital admittance and a relocated and enlarged sports medicine clinic. The existing sports medicine clinic will be reused for other clinical purposes. In addition to the proposed expansion, this redevelopment includes improvements to the loading area and trash enclosures, the addition of a pedestrian walkway along Meadow Drive, landscaping, as well as a re-aligned and controlled parking area. The following table is a statistical analysis of the proposed addition: HOSPITAL SPACE Gross Sq Ft Net Sa Ft Beds Existing 39,955 22,209 19 Proposed 38,958 14,982 11 Totals 78,913 37,191 30 CLINIC SPACE Gross Sq Ft Net Sq Ft Existing 15,245 11,192 Proposed 12,680 7,642 Totals 27,925 18,834 PARKING Existing spaces an site: 176 Proposed spaces on site: 159 SITE AREA: 162,610 sq ft or 3.15 acres SITE COVERAGE: 31% {includes existing, proposed buildings, and ambulance garage) • The proposed use with this addition is similar to the uses now in place on the site. The expansion proposed is the result of an exhaustive needs analysis study done by the Medical Center this past year. This expansion is anticipated to accommodate the needs of the Center over the next five years. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.50, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. With respect to the services provided by the Vail Valley Medical Center, there are innumerable positive impacts resulting from their operation within the Town of Vail. The hospital, Vail Mountain Medical Clinic, the Sports Medicine Clinic and other private clinics all play a vital role in providing health services to bath permanent residents of Vail as well as to our guests. In fact, the services of the Center extend well beyond the limits of the Town into Eagle, Summit and Lake Counties. The Medical Center is a very beneficial and much needed facility to serve the existing and future needs of the Town of Vail. Directly related to development objectives of the Town are the development standards that have been adopted by the community. These standards are carried out through an intense level of review and are intended to insure only the highest quality of development with respect to architecture, landscaping, and most importantly the workability of a development on any given site. It has always been the philosophy of this department that each development must stand on its own in terms of complying with the high standards of development that we have strived for within the Town. There are a number of areas with respect to this proposal where it is felt that these development standards are not being met {specific examples will be addressed in greater detail in other portions of this memo). The staff is sympathetic to these shortcomings and has worked with the Medical Center in attempt to resolve them to the greatest extent possible. There has been a willingness an the staff's part to compromise some areas of design and planning because of the nature of this facility. It is important to distinguish between the nature of the Medical Center as opposed to a lodge or commercial type of development. It is felt by the staff that the Center serves as a direct community benefit and resource and merits some considerations that cannot be afforded to private development. While the Medical Center has thoroughly studied its space needs to serve the community, it is unfortunate that the site of the Medical Center is not capable of handling the level of development as proposed. However, the benefits provided by this facility outweigh the importance of those development standards that have been compromised. This issue will become more clear throughout the course of this memorandum. 2 • The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilitiesz schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Improvements made on the site with respect to the above referenced factors would include drainage improvements along Meadow Drive, the implementation of a system to control parking on the on-site lots, as well as the addition of a handicap bus stop located near the east end of the building. At the present time, there are both east and west bound bus stops at the east end of the site along Meadow Drive. The new handicap bus stop would be designed to serve only those riders with injuries or other problems who would benefit from this more conveniently located stop. It would not be a regular stop on the bus route. It has been included in this plan, and agreed to by the Transportation Department, in an attempt to provide better services for those injured or rehabilitating persons who are utilizing the Medical Center facilities. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestian~ automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. There are a number of areas which need to be addressed with respect to these factors. With regard to pedestrian safety, a sidewalk separated from Meadow Drive has been included on the site plan to connect the existing bus stops with the main entry to the Medical Center. With respect to snow removal, the Public Works Department has expressed some concern as to whether adequate snow storage area is provided on the site. The level of development on this site, coupled with the size of the parking area, has left little roam for snow storage. It should be recognized that the Medical Center may have to truck snow out of its lot at various times during winter months to remedy this potential problem. Of all the areas of concern with respect to this proposal, the mast significant is with parking. As was demonstrated in the statistical breakdown of this proposal, a considerable expansion to the facility is planned with a reduction in the total number of parking spaces provided on site. In dealing with this issue, the staff has re-evaluated the parking requirements as outlined in our existing zoning code. As presently written, the level of development proposed on this site would require 359 an-site parking spaces. Recognizing that this number was well in excess of what would be needed an site, the staff began evaluating other communities` code requirements with respect to parking, surveying the utilization of the existing lot during the month of January, and developing a new formula for calculating the parking required far this development. While recognizing that 359 spaces under today's requirements is excessive, the staff also recognized and felt strongly that to propose an expansion to a facility while at the same time reducing the number of parking spaces on site is inappropriate. The goal of the study by the staff was to develop a number that would meet the demands of the Medical Center while being more realistic than the existing code requirements. ~• 3 In evaluating information from the American Planning Association, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, as well as other communities' parking code requirements, it became very clear that many factors other than square foot calculations (as is used in the Town of Uail code), should be considered when calculating parking needs. With other municipalities, factors such as number of employees, number of exam rooms, number of hospital beds, number of doctors and in some cases square foot ratios were used to calculate parking requirements. For comparative purposes, a parking needs analysis using the proposed plan for the Medical Center was done that utilized nine other communities` zoning requirements. The average number of spaces required using these communities as examples was well over 200. In addition, the staff conducted surveys of the Medical Center's parking lots over a 30 day period that included 14 survey days. The number of cars parked on-site ranged from 132 to 173, with an average of 152 cars parked on the lots. Finally, a formula was developed that was based on the number of beds, the number of E.R. rooms, number of exam rooms, number of employees and doctors in order to develop a figure that the staff felt to be the minimum number of parking spaces an site. (This formula is outlined in Appendix i of the conceptual agreement that is attached to this memorandum.) The conclusion of this study is that the staff feels 220 spaces are required to meet the demands of the development proposed with this addition as well as the existing facility. After a number of meetings with representatives of discuss the redevelopment plans, it became evident not financially capable of constructing a parking meet the parking demands as felt necessary by the submittal made to the Town included a request for .~ '"° 'te. Recognizing the were explored in an measures can be summa 1. Use of Town of Vail Lot # 10 the Medical Center to that the Center was structure on site to staff. The original a parking variance to parking situation as a attempt to remedy this rized into two areas: The Town Council granted the Medical Center permission to study design alternatives that would incorporate Town of Vail land into the overall site plan of the hospital. This property, the unpaved lot adjacent to the Ice Arena and Library, has been integrated into the main hospital lot on the site plan shown for the Planning Commission review. By doing so, the hospital was able to gain a number of spaces through the elimination of common aisle ways and entry ways. A copy of the attached conceptual agreement between the Town of Vail and the Medical Center explains the conditions related to the Medical Center's use of this property. Please refer to this agreement for a better understanding of this proposal. 4 spaces on si alternatives mitigating 2. Employees` Shuttle System At one time, it was proposed that a certain number of employees of the Medical Center would be required to park off-site in the Lionshead Parking Structure. This was felt to be necessary in order to leave an adequate number of spaces available to the users of the facility. While there may be an availability of spaces in the Lionshead Parking Structure at this time, staff was opposed to this concept because of anticipated increase in the useage of the Lionshead structure. The solution presented to the Planning Commission involves the implementation of an employee shuttle system designed to accommodate a minumum 61 employees of the Medical Center. This number was derived from the 220 spaces felt to be necessary minus the X59 spaces provided on site. The Medical Center is presently negotiating satellite parking locations as well as designing the operation of this shuttle system. It is the feeling of the staff that the 159 spaces provided on site can accommodate the patients and visitors as well as a limited number of employees on the site. The shuttle system is designed to accommodate the shortfall. As presently being considered, those employees not permitted to park on site would include employees of the hospital as well as employees of the private clinics. The shuttle system would be required to be operated only during the winter months and only for the day shift. The attached conceptual agreement between the Town and the Medical Center explains more clearly the terms and conditions of the shuttle system. 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 design proposed is a one to two story addition to the existing facility. The scale and mass of the addition is generally in keeping with the level of development nn adjacent properties. While it is acknowledged that the design of the facility could be considered institutional, it nonetheless blends fairly well into its predominantly residential neighborhood. In evaluating the impact of this type of use an adjacent properties, it is important to note that a landscaped buffer has been maintained between the Center and Meadow Drive. While the specific requirements for perimeter and interior landscaping are not being met as shown on the plan, substantial plantings are proposed between Meadow Drive and the parking area. Staff feels strongly that this area be buffered because of the high level of traffic along Meadow Drive and for some level of transition from the institutional use to the single family residential use across Meadow Drive. Another element of this proposal is an above ground oxygen storage tank. The proposed site for this tank is along Meadow Drive adjacent to the main entrance to the Center. There are a number of tradeoffs with respect to this facility that will be explained during the presentation of this application. Staff review of this tank is not complete and cannot be offered at this time. 5 ,• Related Policies in Vail's Community Action Plan While not specifically addressed in the Action Plan, the medical needs of residents and guests of the Vail community cannot be overlooked. This upgrade is designed to better serve those needs. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.b6. Not applicable Findinc.~s 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 ar 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 appTYCable provisions of this ordinance. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this conditional use permit is approval. While philosophically the staff feels it important that each development stand on its own with respect to meeting the development standards of the community, it also feels there are inherent differences between the Medical Center and other types of development that take place in the community. It is the nature of this facility that has allowed us to even entertain the idea of the compromises that have been made with respect to this proposal. While one may question the feasibility of the shuttle system, it is at the present time the best solution to the issue of parking. While it is unfortunate that the burden of satisfying the parking requirement will fall on the employee, it is hoped that this solution will be short term in nature. It should be emphasized that the Medical Center has agreed to construct all required parking on site with the development of its next phase. The successful implementation of a shuttle system, as well as the ability of the site to accommodate its parking needs is based in large part an good faith and a spirit of cooperation. A number of safeguards have been written into the formal agreement in order to insure the success of this solution. While it will in large part be the responsibility of the Medical Center to implement these mitigating measures, it has also become the burden of the Town to enforce and monitor this system. Through this cooperation, it is hoped that these problem areas will be adequately addressed to insure the successful operation of the Medical Center. 6 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 10, 1986 RE: Written Agreement Between Town of Vail and Uaii Valley Medical Center concerning the use of Lot 10 and the employee shuttle system As explained in the PEC memorandum, the Medical Center and the Town have conceptually agreed to a number of ways to deal with the parking needs of the facility. The following outlines the concepts to be contained in this written agreement. It should be emphasized that this is not the final agreement. It is a draft of the concepts to be addressed in the formal agreement between the Town Council and the Medical Center. Additions, modifications, and rewordings of this draft are expected prior to formal review and agreement between the two parties. USE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL LOT 10 1. The Town of Vail agrees to allow the Vail Valley Medical Center to utilize portions of Lot 10, Vaii Village 2nd Filing as a part of the Medical Center's parking area. 2. The Vail Ualley Medical Center agrees to provide a minimum of 15 spaces for Town of Vail use within the main parking area. A system insuring Town of Vail employees access to and use of these spaces shall be established. This system could include signing specific spaces, the issuance of tokens or passes to access the lot, or the use of stickers to identify Town of Vail users. The Town of Uail shall reserve the right to review and approve this system. 3. It shall be the responsibility of the Vail Valley Medical Center to construct, landscape and maintain the parking area and related improvements located on Lot 10. 4. Tawn of Vail reserves the right to terminate the Vail Valley Medical Center's use of this area {lot 10), in the event that it is needed for future Town of Vail improvements. EMPLOYEE SHUTTLE SYSTEM 1. After review and discussion concerning the issue of parking, both parties agree that 220 parking spaces are required to meet the demands of the existing facility as well as the proposed expansion. (Refer to Appendix A for information an this number.) Given the 159 spaces provided on site, there will be a shortfall of 61 spaces upon completion of the expansion plans (these numbers may change slightly upon review of the final site plan). It is agreed that an employee shuttle system will be established to accommodate the required employee parking for this development. Assuming a total of 93 day shift employees (38 employees of the private clinics and 55 hospital day shift employees), the VUMC has a total of 32 on-site spaces that may be allocated to "designated" employees. s 2. It shall be the responsibility of the Vail Valley Medical Center to establish and operate the employee shuttle system. The proposed shuttle system shall be presented to the staff and formally reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. This review will address the location of satellite parking areas including the lease agreements that are necessary, the scheduled operation of the shuttle bus, and some indication of what employees are to utilize the shuttle system. The Tawn staff reserves the right to monitor the operation of this shuttle system and it shall be reviewed annually by the Planning Commission for compliance with the agreed upon plans, particularly how it relates to the ability of the on-site 1nt to accommodate the other users of the facility. 3. The shuttle system would be required to operate only during the winter months. At those times when Vail ski mountain is not in operation, Medical Center employees would be permitted to use the Lionshead parking structure at no charge. ~ihen in operation, the shuttle system would be required only for those employees working the day shift including both hospital and private clinic employees. d. The Vail Valley Medical Center agrees to provide on site all required parking congruent with the construction of any future expansion to the facility. All required parking is to mean the 220 spaces as well as any additional spaces resulting from expansion beyond that indicated an the plans submitted far Planning Commission review by Fisher, Reese and Johnson on January 13, 1986. Future expansion is defined to mean additions that increase parking demand of the site. Existing plans include those portions of the Fisher Reese and Johnson plans of January 17, 1986 that are Tabled "alternative" (i.e. 2nd floor obstetric wing). 5. This system is to be reviewed an an ongoing basis for compliance with the approved pi an of operation with particular attention given to the VVMC's ability to accommodate all parking needs (other than designated employees) on site. If the system is not operated as proposed, or the approved an-site parking does not prove to be adequate to meet the parking demands of the facility, the hospital agrees to provide the total number of required parking spaces on site. 6. Vail Valley Medical Center agrees to not provide any reimbursement or compensation to employees toward the purchase of any type of parking passes in the Town of Vail parking structures. In addition, the Vail Va~iley Medical Center agrees to assume the responsibility of monitoring and controlling their employees' use of UVMC's on-site parking. 7. The Town agrees to a minimum 90 day relief clause to allow the Medical Center an opportunity to remedy issues or problems that may develop concerning this agreement. 8. Appendix A of this agreement demonstrates the formula used to generate the need for 220 cars as a result of this expansion proposal. It is understood that this number may be evaluated fallowing observation of the parking situation after this expansion. In regard to this, the hospital agrees to periodically monitor and survey the use of its on-site parking. Experience gained during this time period may be considered when determining additional parking demand far future expansions. ~' APPENDIX A TOWN OF VAIL/VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER AGREEMENT The following information outlines the process used by the Department of Community Development in forecasting parking demands for the existing and proposed addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center. The anticipated parking demand was developed by using a formula that takes into account the different users of the facility who generate a need for parking. This formula was developed after reviewing information from the American Planning Association, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and a number of other communities' parking requirements for medical facilities. After reviewing this information it became clear that existing Town of Vail requirements are excessive and do not accurately project the parking needs for these facilities. Dnder existing code requirements {1 space/z00 sq ft of net floor area for medical offices and 1 space/150 sq ft of net floor area plus 1 space per bed for hospitals}, the Medical Center would be required 359 parking spaces. The formula developed by staff indicates that z20 spaces are required to meet the demands of the existing facility as well as the proposed expansion. The proposed expansion is meant to include the entire second floor as indicated on the plans submitted by Risher, Reece and Johnson on January 13, 1986. The following table outlines how the 2z0 number was derived: OSE SPACES HOSPITAL 1 space per bed 30 1 space per emergency exam bed 9 1 space per employee (maximum on day shift} 55 94 94 CLINIC 1 space per doctor 32 1 space per employee 38 1 space per exam room 44 114 114 AMBULANCE GARAGE 1 space per transport vehicle 4 1 space per empoyee {on duty} 2 meeting room space 6 1z 1z Total Spaces required for entire facility 220 it is felt that this formula can be used to determine parking needs far any subsequent expansions at the Medical Center. Flowerer, Town staff will be receptive to modifying this formula if experience shows it to be inaccurate. It should be noted that this formula could be modified to either reduce or increase the parking requirements. Final determinations as to possible modifications to this formula should be based on surreys and observations of the operation of the on-site parking as well as taking into account the nature of any proposed expansion to the Medical Center. a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 24, 1985 12:00 pm Site Visits 2:15 pm Work Session on Fagle County Airport 3:00 pm Public Hearing Approval of minutes of February 10 and January 27, 1986. 1. A request for an exterior alteration of the Hong Kong Cafe in order to construct a two story building, and a conditional use permit in order to have an outdoor dining patio an ground floor on Lot C, Block 5YC, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Hong Kong Cafe Partners 2. A request to rezone Lot 2, Black 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family to Special Development District in order to develop an additional 92 lodge roams, 5 condominiums, and approximately 3,350 square feet of meeting/conference space as Phase II of the Doubletree Hotel. Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Partnership 3. A request far exterior alteration of the Plaza Lodge in order to expand retail space and remodel existing dwelling units and a request for a conditional use permit in order to eliminate two accommodation units and one dwelling unit. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates 4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct an addition and remodel the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse located at 177$ Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District. 5. A request to amend the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines to include a section on Park Design Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vail 6. 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) PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 24, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Tom Griner Peter Patten Diana Donovan Tom Braun Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Sid Schultz Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper. The minutes of the meetings of January 27 and March 10 were approved with corrections. 1. A request far an exterior alteration of the Hong Kong Cafe in order to construct a two story building, and a conditional use permit in order to have an outdoor dining patio on ground floor an Lat C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hong Kong Cafe Partners Rick Pylman explained the request. He stated that the redevelopment proposal included a 3,000 square foot freestanding, two story building. He reviewed the Urban Design Considerations and said that the staff recommended approval. Craig Snowdon, architect for the project, showed floor plans, site plans and elevations. He said that the snow removal from the patio would take place toward the west, not toward Founders Plaza. Snowdon then told the commissioners that he had been meeting with the owner of unit 309 in the Lazier Arcade, Mr. Bleckner, and made some alterations in the design that had been presented to staff. His firm found that they could lower the peak 30" in order to get the peak below Mr. Bleckner's deck railing and also could drop the perimeter 18". This would improve the sun/shade with the result that there would be no shade on Vendetta`s deck and no shade on the stairs until the late afternoon. Snowdon stated that he found that the restaurant would not have the use of the alley north of the building nor would they have access to the trash dumpster of the Lazier building. This would eliminate the door that had been proposed to access the staircase. He proposed to salve the problem by locating the door on the southeast corner and putting trash containers in a covered area near the planters on the east side of the building, with daily pick up. He proposed also to keep the access to the alleyway open for the Lazier building and build a wall to match the Hong Kong exterior with a gate to cover the alley. James Fallin, representing Mr. Bleckner, sated that his client did have objections to the design as it was originally proposed, but that the changes were amendable to Mr. Bleckner. He wished to make the changes a part of the conditional use request as follows: 1. The top of the skylight would be no higher than 6" below the railing of the deck of unit #309. (The railing is 25" above Wall Street.) 2. The top of the major roof line no more than 6" above floor level of Unit 309. 3. The top of the spokes in the skylight na mare than 18" above floor level of Unit 309. 4. The exhaust hood fans will be located on the southwest corner and screened from view of unit 309. 5. All skylights shall be bronze tint and inoperable, 6. No exit shall be located on the north side of the building on the 2nd floor. 7. All mechanical equipment placed on the roof shall be hidden from view from Unit 309. 8. Skylights on the north half of the building shall be shaded at night and shall be made of dark material. 9. No direct up light shall be used on the second floor. 10. The fireplace flue on the top shall be no wider than 18". Brian O'Reilly spoke for the applicant and listed same agreements the applicant had with Robert Lazier. Bab Lazier stated that the applicant came to him and showed him the proposed building. He had not known the trash plan before that time, and felt that the proposed solution of the Hong Kong using the Lazier Arcade Building's trash dumpster was unacceptable. He also did not want an access between the two buildings because he wanted this to be a buffer and for flexibility far future construction. Steve Simonett, manager of One Vail Place, said that the Owners of One Uail P1 ace were concerned about the construction to be taking place at the Hong Kong and at the Plaza Building. Their intention was to redo the paver bricks on their property in the spring and did not want to allow access for construction trucks or vehicles in the area between One Uail Place and Uail Ski Rentals. Snowdon said that he did not foresee using this access, but would access from the alley or from fall Street. Bryan Hobbs liked the building, but was concerned about the alleyway and what would be constructed in front of it. Snowdon replied that at present there was a blank wall. The alley would be torn up during construction, and afterward a wall could be constructed to match the building material of the Hang Kong and that it would be at least 6 feet high and would tie into the Lazier Arcade. Hobbs asked wondered if the Town had any problem with a lease agreement with the Hong Kong and Snowdon replied that the Council had heard the request in early 2 January. Patten added that requests in both villages are common far this type of use, and that the Town would allow encroachment onto Town property for dining decks, but not for structures. It was usually done in a lease. Tom Briner had no problem with the alley, but was concerned about the location of the trash. He suggested using a compactor or perhaps putting the trash an the west side. Snowdon stated that he had the access problem and the need to work with the existing patio wall. He felt that he could design something to entirely hide the trash. Viele liked the proposal and shared Briner's concern about the location of the trash. He asked about the drainage of the building and Snowdon replied that the building would be drained to the inside and so the snow problem on the roof would be self-contained. Viele asked about a parking study, and Pylman replied that he was planning to wait until he had received working drawings before trying to figure out the amount of parking fee required. Donovan agreed with Viele and also suggested that any agreements between two adjacent property owners was outside of the commissioners` jurisdiction. She also stressed that the wall must look permanent. Snowdon replied that this could be handled by the DRB. Donovan was also concerned about the location of trash, and would have liked to have seen it placed on the west side. She also would have liked the length of approval shortened to two years rather than three. Sid Schultz's concerns were with the alleyway and the location of the trash. Duane piper agreed and stated that since the location of the trash was in effect an 11th hour decision, he would like to see further study before making a decision. Tom Briner asked if the drawings presented to the board reflected the changes made in response to the neighbor, and Snowdon replied that they did not. Bob Lazier stated that currently all trash from the Hong Kong came out of the east side without a compactor. He felt that the few additional people who would be served with the new building would not result in much mare trash. He expressed the desire to have the project start as soon as possible. Dave Irish, one of the owners, felt that the trash dilemma could be worked out, but if there were a delay, there would be a late start on construction. He suggested two alternatives: 1, screen the trash on the east side, or 2, put the trash an the west side. Snowdon asked Irish if he could agree to access from the west side in order to put the trash on the west side. Irish replied he could, but needed to hear from Lazier. After more discussion, the applicant requested to table the request until the next meeting on March 1Q. Donavan moved and Viele seconded to table the reouest until March ~0. The vote was 6 in favor with one abstention (Hopkins)., 3 i 2. A request to rezone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High_ Density Multiple Family to Special Development District in order to develop an additional 92 lodge roams, 5 condominiums, and approximately . 3,350 square feet of meeting/conference space as Phase II of the Daubletree Hotel. Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Partnership, Tom Braun showed site plans and elevations and explained the request. He said that the PEC action that day would be advisory only, and the final decision would be made by the Council an March 4. Braun described the zoning analysis of the Doubletree. The end result of the request would be a density of twice that allowed by the underlying zoning and a parking shortage of 50 spaces. He reminded the board that this was a request far a special development district and that SDD's had been proposed in Vail to allow for the development of sites that would be unable to do so under conventional zoning. Braun explained the criteria to be considered as stated in the memo which included design issues, pedestrian traffic, open space and landscaping. He also reviewed the zoning considerations using the underlying, HDMF zoning. Braun felt that it was unfortunate that the Doubletree Inn was not located within the Vail Village study area, and that a Tawn-wide land use plan was only in its early stages of development and not near completion. This would have provided the staff with a better understanding of the implications that this project may have on other development potentials in the Valley. He added that the concern of the staff was how this request related to Town-wide development issues. For example, what would a cumulative impact have an the Frontage Boad if similar requests far additional density increases were to be allowed in this area? Braun showed the setback encroachments on a site plan, and discussed height, site coverage, landscaping and parking. He explained the method used to determine the amount of parking necessary for the site. Even with a 5°/° multi-use reduction and a 50% reduction far the required parking for the meeting room space, the result was a deficit of 50 parking spaces. The staff recommendation was far denial because of the shortage of parking and because of the amount of increased density requested. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, introduced several employees of the Doubletree Hotel. Jeff Olson and Anthony Pe1lechia, architects on the project, showed site plans and answered questions. Peterson stated that both the staff and Jeff Winston had expressed no problem with the design of the project. He added that the basic parking ratio had been retained with the addition. He also said that at present the Altitude Club was the place for locals to go and there was no control of parking. He felt that underground parking would not invite the casual user of the bar or restaurant to use it. Peterson stated that his studies showed that 75% of hotel patrons arrive by automobile and of those 75°,6, 75% keep their auto with them during their stay, resulting in 55% of hotel guests keeping their autos. He felt that the existing project worked with its parking even though much of the parking was uncovered. Peterson went on to quote the parking study that had been done in the Village. He said that it stated that there was a 20-70% vacancy rate in private parking lots. He added that Daubletree guests could use the Lionshead parking structure if there were . no parking spaces left on site. Peterson also said that the Marriott had 25% fewer parking spaces and na parking problem except in summer. 4 . Gary 5heluski of the Doubletree described similar Doubletree Hotels and their parking. Peter Jamar, consultant for the Doubletree, described the ETR. He stated that there was little data to back up the Town's parking requirements and that the data was arbitrary. He reminded the board that there was easy pedestrian access from the bus route. He repeated Jay's comments about numbers of hotel guests who keep their cars. Jay then addressed the density question by stating that the Town wants additional hotel roams. The Uail Village study did target certain areas for additional hotel rooms. Peterson felt the site could accommodate additional hotel rooms and the Town would need additional hotel roams with the Mountain expansion Plan. Peterson pointed out that hotels market towns as well as their hotels. Mike Dougherty, sales manager of the Doubletree, spoke of their need for more rooms and the additional money these rooms would bring to Vail. Oran Palmateer, spoke far the condo association in the hotel and as a representative of owner 5D to state that they were very happy with the current owners and felt that the former owners did a disservice to both the hotel and the Town. Pam Hopkins asked what could be done about parking at a later date if it proves that the parking is inadequate. Jerry ? of the Doubletree stated that if the parking does prove to be inadequate it would hurt the bar and restaurant economically. Peterson added that the overflew could go to the Lionshead Parking Structure which is usually under utilized Pam also asked about strengthening the pedestrian link to the parking structure, and Mr. Pellechia responded that they would work hard to improve the pedestrian pathway and he explained that the hotel would had added lighting to attract pedestrians from the west side to the west entrance. Pam felt that lighting on the path should be increased as well as better maintenance was needed in the form of snow plowing Sid Schultz was concerned about the need for larger hotel rooms, and felt that the rooms proposed might be ton small. Mr. Pellechia explained that this size was felt adequate for a conference focus. He felt that how the roam was furnished and planned was more important than size. Donovan asked toward which group was the hotel marketing and was told corporate groups. Donovan felt that the Town of Vail should get some trade-offs for granting such additional density, something broader than landscaping, something that would benefit the whole Town. She added that though the hotel stated they would have adequate parking, the ice arena did not have any, nor did the library, and all were to be dependent upon the Lionshead Parking Structure which would eventually not have any more roam. She did not like the encroachment onto the stream tract. Donovan asked if the Doubletree had been asked to give access from their property to the hospital and was told that Doubletree was willing to dedicate an easement over their property to the hospital site. Tom Braun pointed out that the parking survey was only for three days and was done on Presidents' weekend which was not as busy as had been anticipated. He reminded the board that this was oat an exhaustive study. Braun also stated that the Doubletree was advertising in Denver and was attracting the front range skiers nearly all of wham drive their autos. Braun pointed out that when the mountain expansion was finished, there would be a shortage of 60O parking spaces . in the Village and 200 in Lionshead and felt that the Town could not afford to take the risk of allowing projects like the Doubletree to not provide the 5 parking spaces as required by the zoning code. • Briner asked the representatives of the Doubletree to explain the amount of parking they had at other hotels they operated, and was told that Doubletree operates two downtown hotels with no on-site parking and several suburban hotels with acres of parking. Briner stated that he felt that some parking requirements have proven to not be necessary, i.e. Vail Spa and Simba Run. Briner felt that one problem with the density issue was that it was difficult to have a clear perception of the impact of the density. He felt the impact of the proposal was positive. Patten said the staff viewed the proposal as positive also, but without the land use poliicies being completed, did not know the impact of a decision to add a lot of density and providing inadequate parking. He stressed that the decision to increase densities in any areas of Town required extensive study and public input before going forward an a property by property basis, similar to the Vail Village Study. We also added that when the Town asked property owners if they had parking spaces they would like to lease, the Town heard only from the Ramshorn (who had only sold 2 units}. Patten felt that the parking requirements of the Town were valid, and that yearly there was an increase in the number of cars coming into Town. He pointed out that reductions were a1 ready built into the number of spaces the code required from the Doubletree (multi-use credit and SO°~ assessment for meeting rooms). Pam Hopkins asked if it would be possible to ask the Doubletree to put money into a fund for parking and perhaps in five years time see if their lot and the Lionshead lot were full, at which time they would have to use this fund for more parking spaces. Anthony Pellechia stated that rather than burden a project, the Town of Vail should be flexible enough to deal with issues as they occur, rather than speculate in advance. He felt it was unrealistic to deal with problems that might occur five years from now without knowing what the problem was going to be. Peterson stated that Vail had a 20 year history of not providing enough spaces, but that in winter only 50% of the tourists drove, as opposed to a larger percentage in summer when the occupancy was also less. Pam responded that the Town did want to grave, but must look for a way to handle future parking needs. Patten added that unfortunately the Town did not have all of the tools in place today to plan intelligently for that growth but that we soon would have policy guidelines far these requests. Bryan Hobbs also liked the project but had the same concerns regarding parking. He asked if the parking would be controlled and Jay responded that there would be control, probably with a gate. Pellechia stated that they hadn't decided on the amount of control. Braun said that with valet parking, control was needed. Peterson felt that the lot would not be inviting being underground. Hobbs asked if the first allotment would be to the hotel guests, then the bar/restaurant, and Jay said that was correct. Hobbs stated that since the zoning prior to the down zoning of 1977 was for b0 units/acre, he did not have a problem with density. Donovan mentioned that there was talk of charging to use the local buses, and if that happened, it would put the employees back into their autos, requiring still 6 more parking spaces. She also stated that historically, whenever Vail had a "bad" year, the Town depended on the front range skiers who drive cars, and that the front range skiers were essential for Vail to survive the "bad" years. Briner moved and Hobbs seconded to recommend to Council acceptance of the rezone and the development p1 an as reauested with the reason that the proposal met the development standards and design criteria for SDD's as outlined in the zoning code. Pam asked that if in 5 years the parking was pat adequate, whether ar not the Town could assess the property. Jay said this would make the property difficult to finance. He suggested assessing everyone a tax for parking to equalize the burden. He reminded the board that the Sonnenalp was allowed additional density with the requirement that they pay into the parking fund up front. Pam suggested advising the Council to perhaps look at same way of assessing all future projects for a parking district. The vote was 5 in favor of recommending acceptance, 1 against (Donovan} and 1 abstention (Viele}. 3. A request for an exterior alteration of the Plaza Lode in order to expand retail space and remodel existing dwelling units and a reauest for a conditional use permit in order to eliminate two accommodation units and one dwelling unit. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Kristan Pritz presented the request and showed a model, site plans and • elevations. She explained that the request would decrease the number of units by 2 accommodation units or l dwelling unit, that the density would still be within that allowed, as would the site coverage. Kristan then reviewed the urban design considerations and stated that there would be a positive impact on pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, street enclosure, street edge, height and service and delivery. Staff stated that the elevator was the one element of the plan tht had negative impacts in respect to the design considerations.5he said that the staff felt that there should be a large planter on the east side of the elevator to soften that elevation as well as a decorative cover far the elevator door. Peter Patten suggested one more condition in addition to the five listed in the memo: That the applicant agree to either amend the existing agreement or enter into the new agreement to void the right to a delivery/pick-up parking space on the west side of the building in the Founders' Plaza area. This must be done before a building permit is issued far the project. Craig Snowdon, architect for the project, explained several changes, and added that the popcorn wagon would still be tying into the Plaza Lodge for utilities and would be able to use storage at the Plaza Lodge. Sid Schultz was concerned with the elevator tower and felt that it could be moved to the north. He wondered if it was justified. Snowdon replied that the owner wanted the elevator to serve his personal unit. Donovan also felt the elevator tower was a negative part of the proposal as did Viele, Hobbs, and Piper. Briner suggested a smaller elevator. Donovan was also concerned about the trash situation. She questioned if Vendetta`s dumpster was really adequate to handle trash for the entire building. Members also wanted the location of the popcorn wagon specified. 7 F Snowdon asked to table the item until March 10. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to table to March 10. The vote was 6 in favor, none against with Pam Hopkins abstaining. 4. A request far a conditional use permit in order to construct an addition and remodel the Vail Golf Course clubhouse. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District Peter Patten explained the request, adding that although the VMRD recognized the need for 25 to 30 additional parking spaces to more comfortably accommodate some of their peak demand days, the proposal at this time was to leave the parking situation as is with the exception of the addition of 8 spaces required for the expansion. The applicants feel they can easily accommodate 8 additional spaces without a major redesign of the parking lot. The project will be phased with the cart storage done first. After discussion about the parking lot and building expansions Viele moved and Hobbs seconded to approved the reauest. The vote was 7-0 in favor,. 5. A request to amend the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines to include a section on Park Design Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vail Kristan Pritz presented the request. She pointed out the changes that had been made since the board last looked at the Park Design Guidelines. After discussion, Briner moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request. The vote was 7-0 in favor. 6. 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 that he did receive some plans from the applicant, though not in time for this meeting, and asked that the proposal be tabled to March 10. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table to March 10. The vote was 7-0 in favor of tabling. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm. r~ 8 • i• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Family to Special Development District in order to develop an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of meeting rooms/conference space at the Doubletree Hotel. Applicant: Vail Holdings, a Limited Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL A request has been made to the Town of Vail to rezone the Doubletree Hotel site from High Density Multiple Family zoning to a Special Development District. This proposal is requested in order to allow for additional development on the site. The rezoning is required because the present level of development is aver that allowed under existing zoning. The development proposed with this application includes 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums, and 3,350 square feet of additional meeting roam space. The following table illustrates how this proposal relates to the existing development on the site as well as that allowed under the existing zoning: ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL Site area 2.6298 acres or 114,554 square feet ALLO4~ED DEV. EXISTING PROPOSED UNDER EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT HDMF ZONING Units: 65 du's 83 du's (19 condos 128 lodge rooms) 25 units/ac 31.5 units/ac GRFA: 68,732 sq ft 73,577 sq ft Parking Req'd 52 enclosed 198 spaces 115 surface Meeting room space: 4040 sq ft 51 du`s {5 condos 92 lodge roams} 19 units/ac 42,576 sq ft 200 enclosed 11 surface Req'd 261 spaces 3350 sq ft TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 134 du's {24 condos 22O lodge roams) 50.95/ac 116,153 sq ft 20O enclosed 11 surface 7350 sq ft !, 2 . While this table illustrates some of the more significant elements related to this proposal, theta are other zoning considerations to be made when evaluating this application. These and other aspects of this development plan will be highlighted throughout this memorandum. II. BACKGROUND ON REVIEW PROCESS TO DATE Following the acquisition of this property by Vail Holdings, Tnc., a major renovation of the existing facility was completed during the summer and fall of 1985. It was at this time that the staff first began a dialogue with the developers and their designers concerning the feasibility of additional development of this site. To date, the staff has spent a considerable amount of time with the designers of this project resulting in a number of additions and modifications to the originally proposed development plans. To assist in this process, the dedeiopei'S ayi'eed t0 Na;y file will to b'r'iii~ J@ff Winston in aS a design consultant for the Town. Phis is similar to the role Jeff played in the review of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn proposal last year. In addition to this review, a worfc session was held far the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission in November to brief them on the concepts being proposed in this plan. As is the case with any rezoning request, final decisions concerning this application are made by the Town Council. The Planning Commission review is advisory to the Council and any approval of this plan would involve the adoption of a new ordinance granting the rezoning request. III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL. As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of special development districts is to: 18.40.010 Purpose The purpose of the special development districts is to encourage flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic provisions of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural and scenic features of open areas. Historically, SDD's have been proposed in Vail to allow for the development of sites that would be unable to do so under conventional zoning. Examples of these projects would include Valli Hi where density increases were allowed in exchange for restrictions on the property to ensure their use as employee housing, or the Vail Village Inn whose mixed use character required the SDD zoning. More often than not, however, SDD zone districts have been requested to allow for increases in densities over what existing zoning an the site would allow. This is the case with this application. • There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request of this nature. Foremost among these are the nine design standards that 3 are listed in the zoning code. As stated in the coda, "The development . plan for the Special Development Districts shall meet each of the following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved." In addition to these criteria, it is important to consider the underlying zoning as a point of reference in evaluating this request. These zoning considerations as well as other issues that have been raised during the course of this review will be addressed in this memo. IV. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVRLl1ATING SDD PROPOSALS The fallowing are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to the design standards as outlined in the zoning code. A. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development district that is adjacent to low density residential uses. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects an the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. The buffer zone referred to in this design standard is specifically for SDD's proposed adjacent to low density residential uses. Zone districts adjacent to this property include high density multi-family and the public use districts. Consequently, this standard is not directly applicable. However, with a few exceptions, the proposal is within the existing zone district's required 20 foot setback. B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic may be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. The proposed site plan involves a number of changes to the existing vehicular access to the property. Among these are the addition of a new access point to service the loading and trash facilities, the removal of an existing road cut to the hotel entrance, and the development of a newly aligned entry to the hotel. As a part of the environmental impact report for this project, a traffic report was done that evaluated trip generation anticipated from both the existing and proposed development on the site. One conclusion of this study is that both left and right turn lanes be provided as an element of this development proposal. In addition to satisfying the recommendations of the traffic report, if approved, slight grading changes would be necessary to the main entry to the facility as per Town of Vail engineer`s request. It should be noted that any changes to the road cuts requiring State Highway approval would have to be obtained prior to the issuance of any building permit for this development. 4 C. Functional open space in terms of: Optimum preservation of natu~^al features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and function. One change proposed in this plan relative to functional open space is with respect to the Middle Creek area. At the present time this area is overgrown with vegetation with no real relationship to the existing facility. Landscape improvements are proposed in this area of the site, as well as on the Town of Vail stream tract, in order to open the access to this stream. While a limited amount of landscape materials would be removed to allow for this development, a preliminary landscape plan has been submitted indicating a substantial increase in plant materials on the site. The views/spatial analysis provided in the environmental impact report indicates that there are no real significant view impacts with respect to vantage points along the Frontage Road and Interstate. The scale of the buildings, coupled with the grade change from the Frontage road to the site, has mitigated the potential view blockage from this addition. Short range views from some units in the Vail International Condominiums would be affected by the expansion proposed to the north of the existing building. D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space. With the exception of the five condominium units, the residential development proposed with this SDD is short term lodging. Other facilities on site in addition to the meeting room space include indoor Jacuzzis, an outdoor pool, a restaurant, a nightclub, and limited commercial. Also, see Section VI on Lodge Rooms and Condominium Restrictions. E. Privacy in terms of the needs of: Individuals, families and neighbors. Given the nature of the uses on this site, as well as the uses on adjacent sites, staff can see no factors with respect to privacy. F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: Safety, separation, convenience, access to points of destination, and attractiveness. At the present time, guests of the Doubletree are provided with a pedestrian linkage to Meadow Drive in order to utilize the Town of Vail bus system. With this proposed addition, an extension of this walkway is included linking the existing walkway with the Past Office/Municipal Building area. This walkway runs along the south side of the property. • b G. Building type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site relationship and bulk. It is felt that the designers of this project have done a commendable job in relating this addition to the existing structure. Specifically, the additions are done in a way that helps reduce the mass of the existing tower. As was referred to earlier, the grade change from the Frontage Road to the site has allowed for a design that does not appear to add considerable bulk to the site and works to enhance the overall visual quality as compared to the existing building. H. Building design in terms of: Orientation, spacing, materials, color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage. As is the case with the massing of this proposal, the siting of the proposed additions work well with the existing tower. The extensions of the existing building help "step" the building off the Frontage Raad. Considerations such as materials, color/texture, signs, and lighting would all be addressed at the Design Review Board level if this project were approved. A sun/shade analysis in the environmental impact report demonstrates that the proposed expansions would have a negligible effect on the Frontage Road. I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: Purposes, types, maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood. The proposed landscape plan shows 3l~ of the site being landscaped. This does not include portions of adjacent property between the Doubletree Site and the State Highway Department right-of-way that would also be landscaped. It should be noted, however, that this area is required to be landscaped. Particular attention has been paid to the loading/trash area as well as the surface parking that is on the site. A considerable amount of material is proposed in this area in order to screen this portion of the site. U. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THTS PROPOSAL ~lith the approval of an SDD, the development plan submitted establishes the development standards for the property. These would address the standard zoning considerations that are outlined in other zone districts. In evaluating this development plan, it is important to consider the standards established in the underlying, or existing zoning. The following is an analysis of these considerations: Uses There are na changes to existing uses that would nvt be allowed under HDMF zoning. b . - Density, Aside from the important site planning issues which must be discussed, the overriding issue is how to deal with the request far significant additional density. While the Town deals with requests for additional density quite frequently, seldom are requests made of this magnitude. Historically, the staff has not supported requests for densities above that allowed under existing zoning. While there have been notable exceptions, the Planning Commission and Town Council have a1 so been quite critical of requests for density increases. The growth management report of 1977 and a general concern of allowing additional development in what is perceived by many to be an overdeveloped Valley, are often cited as reasons for denying additional density requests. prompted in large part by the Sonnenalp request in 1984, the Tawn has been working on the Vail Village Study for over a year. One of the goals of the study is to evaluate the potential for additional density in the Village area. This potential is evaluated based more on design considerations than on what is necessarily allowed under existing zoning regulations. In conjunction with this evaluation, goals and objectives are being established to outline improvements that should be done to the Village in conjunction with this development. A trade off, or bonus system, is to be developed that would allow for additional densities in exchange for substantial return to the community in the form of public improvements or other exactions. It is important to note that this system is being proposed after a comprehensive evaluation of the entire study area that has identified both the improvements to be made as well as where additional density could be accommodated in a sensitive manner. It is also important that during the public process that has taken place far the Village Study, there was not a uniform response in favor of considering additional density in the Village. However, there has been support for a system that would allow density increases in conjunction with the comprehensive study of this type combined with a substantial return by the developer in the form of public improvements. Given the submittal before us, it is unfortunate that the Doubletree Inn is not located within the Vail Village Study Area. It is equally unfortunate that a Town-wide land use plan is only in its early stages of development and not near completion as is the case with the Village Study. The land use plan would provide the staff a better understanding of the implications that this project may have relative to other development potentials in the Valley. • While specific analysis of the Doubletree site would indicate that some degree of additional density could be accommodated, the concern of the staff is how this request relates to Town-wide development issues. For example, the traffic report for the Doubletree suggests that trip generations to the site can be accommodated off of the Frontage Road. But what would a cumulative impact have on the Frontage Road if similar requests for density increases were to be granted in this area? Likewise, it has been stated that the design impacts on the Doubletree site are positive from a standpoint of reducing the mass of the existing tower. However, without a comprehensive analysis, the staff is uncomfortable of what implications this proposal may have an other properties located along the frontage road. Another important consideration is a system of trade offs that would be established far increased density in the Village. While there has been a formal discussion with the developers on what public improvements could be provided in conjunction with this development, without a Town-wide analysis, the staff is unable to provide recommendations as to appropriate trade-offs for this grant of additional density. Setbacks The proposed addition encroaches into the required 20 foot setback in four areas. While three of these areas era along the Frontage Road and involve only a few feet, there is a considerable encroachment along the west end of the property adjacent to Middle Creek. A portion of this encroachment involves the infill of an area underneath an existing deck. However, new construction to accommodate a pre-function area for the meeting rooms is proposed to be constructed up to the property line. The staff had requested this area to be re-evaluated in an effort to reduce this encroachment on Middle Creek. It is important to maintain some amount of setback of buildings from the property line in this area. Height The proposed additions do not exceed the 48 foot height limitation in the HDMF zone district. The existing tower is 72 feet in height. Site Coverage Site coverage allowed under the HDMF zone district is 55%. This plan includes 47% of the site being covered by buildings. Landscaping As has been mentioned, 37% of the site is landscaped. This exceeds a 30% requirement for the HDMF zone district. r~ u 8 Parking There are a number of approaches that can be taken in evaluating what the required parking is for this development. Regardless of haw the numbers are calculated, the proposed development does not meet the parking that would be required for this level of development. There are 167 parking spaces on the site that can be considered a grandfathered situation (current requirements for the existing development on the site would be 198 spaces). The new development proposed far the site would require 94 spaces (this includes a 5% multi-use reduction as well as a 50% reduction for the required parking for the meeting room space). Considering the 167 grandfathered spaces, an additional 44 spaces are being added to the site to accommodate the new development proposed. This results in a net deficit of 50 parking spaces on the site. In evaluating the parking required, the staff is comfortable with a total of 261 spaces to be provided on site. It should be noted that this figure of 261 spaces gives the applicant consideration for a 5O% reduction of spaces for a meeting room facility as well as an interpretation that acknowledges a 25 space shortfall that is present at this time. Without these considerations, the required parking on the site could be as high as 316 spaces. It is felt that the 261 figure is both realistic from a planning standpoint as well as reasonable in terms of the interpretations that have been made. • VI. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL Fire Department Issues At the present time, the Fire Department has not signed off on this design because of inadequate access and operational widths for the additional development proposed far the site. Final determinations regarding code requirements will be made at the building permit review if this project is approved. Any significant changes to the site plan that may result from this review would require Planning Commission approval if made. Easements As proposed, the underground parking structure and portions of the lodge addition would encroach an existing utility easements. If approved, the design of the underground parking structure would allow access to these utility lines. Construction an these easements would require approvals of ail utility companies prior to the issuance of any building permit far this project. • 9 . - Restrictions an Lodge Rooms and Condominiums The staff has requested and the applicant has agreed that the accommodation units proposed in this p1 an would be developed as lodge roams. This would mean that if a proposal to convert these units to condominiums were to be made, they would be reviewed with respect to the criteria outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance {i.e. if approved for conversion to condos, they would be restricted to short-term rentals). In addition, the applicant has agreed to restrict the conversion of these units to a time share form of ownership for 20 years. The staff has also requested that the use of the 5 condominiums be limited by those restrictions outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. This would assure the Town that these units would be in the rental pool 48 weeks of the year. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As demonstrated in this memo, the proposed development plan satisfactorily addresses a number of design standards outlined in the SDD zone district. The plan presented provides a number of significant improvements to the existing site conditions on the property. iiawever, the plan is significantly short of what the staff feels to be the required parking for this level of development. In addition to the shortfall of 50 parking spaces, staff also questions the high percentage • of valet spaces within the structured parking area. As proposed, 76 of the 200 spaces would require valet service for utilization. Staff is also disappointed to see the proposed surface parking on the site, While the location of these surface spaces is not highly visible, it would be much preferred to have the parking entirely enclosed. It is the feeling of the staff that this project's inability to meet the parking requirements is an indication that the development proposed is in excess of what the site is capable of handling. The development proposed includes 134 dwelling units. This number is aver twice that allowed under existing zoning. To even consider supporting a project that is requesting this dramatic increase in density while not meeting its parking requirement is inconceivable to the staff. It is the feeling of the staff that it is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how it is satisfying the development standards of the Town. With an SDD rezoning request to allow for this increase in density, it is the feeling of the staff that this application should meet and exceed the respective minimum or maximum development standards of the Town to show the highest quality development possible. This project has not demonstrated that it is meeting this objective. The staff feels the parking requirements as described in the zoning code for those types of uses on this site are valid. Here again, it should be emphasized that the required parking acknowledges a 503 reduction in meeting roam space, the multi-use credits, as well as acceptance of the grandfathering of the existing situation. The Town simply cannot afford to make concessions with regard to parking. We cannot risk the creation of a parking problem with respect to private developments as this will aggravate the problem of providing skier parking. This becomes particularly true when considering a request far such a significant increase in density. 10 Without the information afforded us through the completion of a land use plan and policies applicable to these types of density increase proposals, the staff is not in a position to support density increases of this magnitude. Approval of this proposal would establish a significant precedent with respect to a Town policy an density increases within the Town. Aland use plan is an important tool in evaluating proposals of this nature or other issues such as the potential land trade at the Lodge and 5praddle Creek sites. The Planning Commission is strongly urged to consider these implications when evaluating this request. :J } . ' rc ~ J ` • ORDINANCE N0,5 Series of 1986 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SDD N0. 14) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AN6 SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETQ. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, Vail Holdings, a Colorado Limited Partnership, has submitted an application for special development approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lianshead 2nd Filing, to be known as Special Development District 14, and commonly referred to as the Doubletree Hotel; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 14 will insure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants and visitors to establish said Special Development District No. 14; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code • have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD 14, l Section 3. Purpose • Special Development District 14 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail and to promote the upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Tawn Council and meets all design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of Special Development District 14 which cannat be satisfied through the imposition of the standards in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. 5DD 14 is compatible with the upgrading and redevelopment of the community while maintaining its unique character. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan far SDD 14 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the special develapment district. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Anthony Pellechia, Architects as dated December 27, 1985, and consists of the following documents: 1. Site plan 2. Preliminary landscape plan by Berridge and Associates, inc. 3. Typical floor plans 4. Elevations and sections 5. The Environmental Impact Report dated January, 19$6 as prepared by Berridge and Associates, Inc. B. The Development Plan shall adhere to the following: Setbacks Setbacks shall be noted as an the site plan listed above. • Height Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations listed above. Coverage _. '' t~ parking and ~oadinq parking and loading sl floor plans as listed site be less than 211 maximum of 11 located by a gate (or similar acceptable methods. gall be above. spaces on the struct provided as indicated on the sate plan and In no case shall the parking provided on with 200 of those spaces underground and a surface. Parking access shall be controlled ure) or by an attendant or by other Section 5. Density Existing development an the site consists of 128 accommodation units and 19 dwelling units consisting of 73,577 square feet of gross residential floor area. The approval of this development plan shall permit an additional 92 accommodation units and 5 dwelling units, consisting of 42,576 square feet of gross residential floor area. The total density permitted with the approval of this development plan consists of 220 accommodation units and 24 dwelling units with a total of 116,153 square feet of gross residential floor area. Section 6. Uses Permitted, conditional and accessary uses shall be as set forth in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. Section 7. Amendments Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66,060. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. ~ < Section 8. Expiration The applicant must begin construction of the special development district within 18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. if the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of the special development district within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the special development district. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the special development district be extended, that the approval of the special development district be revoked, or that the special development district be amended. Section 9. Conditions of Approvals for Special Development District 14 A. The development contained within SDD 14 shall not be converted to any form of time share ownership for a period of 20 years from the date of the approval of this ordinance. The applicant agrees to limit the use of any new dwelling units approved with this development plan to those restrictions outlined in Section 17.26.075.A, Condominium Conversion, of the Vail Municipal Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the restrictions set forth in Section 17.26.075 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail shall not apply to the dwelling units during any period during which they are owned by any individual who is also an owner of the Doubletree Hotel. 8. The 92 additional accommodation units permitted with the approval of SDD 14 shall be developed as lodge rooms under a single ownership. Any proposal to condominiumize the accommodation units would require approval as per the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail. C. The applicant shall bear all costs related to the design and construction of the right turn deceleration lane and left turn lane as recommended in < < < D. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant sha11 demonstrate that all required approvals from the State Highway Department for changes to access off the South Frontage Road have been obtained. E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any improvement in SOD 14, the owner or owners of SDD 14 shall grant an easement to the Town of Vail for the use of the public for access across SDD 14 to the Vail Valley NEedical Center located on lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing, County of Eagle and State of Colorado. F. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any improvement in SDD 14, the owner or owners thereof sha11 pay into the Town of. Vail parking 1"und_.the,_sum_of $235,000.00. The amount of $235,000.00 shall be firm for six months. After a six month period, the Town shall have the right to increase said sum to reflect the increased costs of building parking spaces within the Town. The owner or owners of SDD 14 shall have the option of paying the parking fee in its entirety at or before the issuance of any building permit, or in the alternative may pay the fee in five equal installments of 20°6 of the entire fee. Should the owner or owners choose to pay the parking fee in installments, they shall pay the first installment to the Town of Vail at or before the issuance of the building permit and at said time shall issue a promissory note to the Town requiring the issuer to pay the rest of the parking fee in four equal annual installments of principal and interest payable on the anniversary date of the first payment and each year thereafter at a yearly interest rate of 10°/° until paid in full. The promissory note shall be secured by a deed of trust on the property included within SDD 14 and the form of both the promissory note and the deed of trust shall be as determined by the Town Attorney. • • Sermon lO'- If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance 15 for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section J. ].. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 12. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated '+~ herein. ,r INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 18th DAY OF March 1986, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 18th day of March 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 18th day of arc !~•~ ~ , 1985. Paul R. Jo}ton, Mayor ~A"~TE T ~ . ~~~~~ Pamela !!. BrandmEyer, Town Clerk ~, t t f TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request far a conditional use permit in order to construct an outdoor patio in conjunction with the redevelopment of a part of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vaii Village First Filing. Applicant: Hong Kong Cafe Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Section 18.24.030 of the zoning code of the Town of Vail lists outdoor patios as a conditional use in the Commercial Core I district. The redevelopment proposal for the Hong Kong Cafe, as discussed in an accompanying memo, involves creation of an outdoor patio at the Founders Plaza level, just south of the proposed building. The patio is located partially an Town of Vail land. The Vail Tawn Council has granted permission to the applicant to include this encroachment onto Town property in their exterior alteration proposal. The patio is approximately 500 square feet, with about half of that area located on Town of Vail property. 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: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use an development objectives of the Town. The Urban Design Considerations, as an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, are a reflection of the development objectives of the Community for the Commercial Core I area. These Design Considerations state as their intent "to guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of Vail Village." The following statements are excerpts from the section of the Design Considerations that pertain to decks and patios: "Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look at and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street--making it a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty." Given these statements from the Design Considerations, we feel that this proposal does indeed meet the development objectives of the Town. •- 2 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed outdoor patio has no effect on any of the above mentioned criteria except for perhaps distribution of population. The proposed outdoor patio will create an activity pocket adjacent to but removed from the Founders Plaza area. Staff feels that the addition of this patio will add positive reinforcement to the activity of the Founders Plaza area. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. While the proposed patio is adjacent to a major pedestrian way within Vail Village, the location and design is such that we feel that there will be no negative impacts to pedestrian safety or convenience, traffic flaw yr control or access. The creation of this outdoor patio will impact snow removal from the Founders Plaza area. The Public Works Department is currently quantifying that impact. If this outdoor patio is approved, the lease arrangement with the Town of Vail will reflect any increased costs to the Town caused by snow removal impacts. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The Community Development Department staff feels that this proposed use will have a positive effect upon the character of the area as an activity generator adjacent to the Founders Plaza. The use is compatible with the surrounding retail and restaurant/bar uses and we feel will complement the existing Vendetta`s patio area. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. In considering an application far a conditional use permit within Commercial Core I District, the following development factors shall be applicable: A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I district. This proposal presents no impact to this criteria. 8. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I district. This proposal presents no impact to this criteria. C. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking. This proposal presents no impact to this criteria. 3 D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles. This proposal presents no impact to this criteria. E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. The proposed patio will serve as an activity pocket adjacent to the public places. The staff feels that the patio will have a positive impact on the vitality of the plaza area. F. Continuance of the various commercial, resdiential, and public uses in Commercial Care I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. This proposal is harmonious with the development objectives of CCI and is compatible with the adjacent uses. G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. The proposed patio is an element of an exterior alteration submittal and will be reviewed relative to the Urban Design Guidelines for CCI. C. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. Nat applicable. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN There are no related policies in this proposal. IV. 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. LI~! 4 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this proposal is submitted in conjunction with the redevelopment plans far the Hong Kong Cafe, the Community Development Department recommends approval. Gammunity Development staff feels that the proposed outdoor patio is a positive element of the redevelopment proposal and that it will contribute to the pedestrian experience and activity of the area. • v TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration on a part of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing in order to construct a freestanding two story building. Applicant: Hnng Kong Cafe Partnership I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Hong Kong Cafe Partnership, is proposing a total redevelopment of the existing Hang Kong Cafe site. The existing Hong Kong Cafe is located on two different properties. The dining area is located within the basement of the Wall Street Building, and the bar area is an addition to that building, yet located on a fee simple 1608 square foot parcel of land. U The redevelopment proposal entails a 3,000 square foot freestanding, two story building located on the fee simple parcel. The building will consist of a sub-grade basement area far storage and accessory uses, a kitchen and dining area at the existing bar level with a second story bar that will access at the Founders' Plaza level. The bar area includes an outdoor dining patio located to the south of the proposed building, adjacent to the Founders' Plaza. This patio will encroach partially auto Town of Vail property. This encroachment will be handled through a lease arrangement between the Town of Vail and the Hong Kong Cafe. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE CCI ZONE 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 CCI district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the Commercial Core I zone district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are na sub-area concepts which relate directly to this redevelopment proposal. n U IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purposes of the comparison between the proposal and the Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. A. Pedestrianization Applicant: Pedestrianization is reinforced by the use of existing walkways, providing design elements and glimpses of activity projecting at the end of established pedestrian ways. Access to the proposal at street level (Founders Plaza) happens off the main circulation path through Founders Plaza without interfering with its normal flow, while maintaining the existing enclosure of the Plaza by the curvilinear sitting wall. Providing access to the bar/restaurant from Founders Plaza also adds an activity generator and reinforces the pedestrian nature of the Plaza, encouraging its use more than existing conditions. Staff: This proposal is located adjacent to two major pedestrian areas; Wall Street, which is a main pedestrian walkway, and Founders' Plaza, which is a major pedestrian plaza area. The staff feels that the proposal reinforces the pedestrian experience in both of these areas. The fenestration of the building will allow the pedestrian on Wall Street the ability to view the activity generated by the interior dining and bar areas. The exterior deck accessed from Founders' Plaza will generate further activity that will complement both the Plaza area and Vendetta's patio. ~!, B. Vehicle Penetration Applicant: Vehicle penetration is unaffected by this expansion of an existing and established use and will use all established traffic and access patterns. Staff: This proposal presents no further impact upon vehicle penetration within the Village. All loading and deliveries will take place from established loading zones. As the use is substantially the same as is existing, trip generation is not expected to increase. C. streetscape Framework Applicant: streetscape framework is reinforced by providing activity, color and landscaping on all levels and faces of the proposed expansion. Areas of the property which in the past have been very unsightly and a cold visual blank in the streetscape will be filled with activity throughout the year. Existing open space and landscaping shall continue to give a soft edge to the property. However, with a backdrop of lights, color and activity of the new proposal, new life and focal points will be added to the pedestrian ways. Views into and from the restaurant/bar levels will add excitement and vitality to the passing pedestrian and draw the passerby up the walkway or through the Plaza. The slightly raised dining patio a1ltiws far views into the adjacent pedestrian ways and takes advantage of the magnificent views and sunshine while providing a buffer to the passerby. Staff: The criteria related to streetscape framework states that 2 new construction should "improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements to the adjacent walkways are considered: 1) open space and landscaping 2) infill commercial store fronts, expansion of existing buildings." This proposal attempts to meet this criteria by maintaining the existing planter box on the lower west side of the Wall Street staircase with the second level of the building cantilevered partially over the planter in order to bring the activity and vitality of the bar area closer to the pedestrian way. The staff also agrees with the applicant that the infill of the existing patio contributes to the streetscape framework from both Wall Street and Founders Plaza, and that the proposed building design will contribute more to the streetscape than the existing addition. D. Street Enclosure Applicant: Street Enclosure is improved by providing an enclosure to the north edge of Founders Plaza, rather than an unoccupied hole. The expansion also provides a stepped dawn edge from the three story Lazier Arcade Building and develops an enclosure to both the east and west walkways by providing a counter to the three story Plaza Lodge (east) and one story Lodge wing (west), This also provides for a desirable enclosure to both walkways by narrowing down the pedestrians` view {the canyon effect} and then exploding the view to the Plaza and the mountain stapes. Staff: Street enclosure is being altered by the infill of the existing patio area as well as by the addition of a second level. From the pedestrian experience on Wall Street, we feel that the proposal accentuates the "canyon effect." We feel, however, that as a short connecting link, this is an area where that effect is acceptable. We also feel that the proposed patio improves the street enclosure area from the plaza area. The existing area consists of a deep landscaped packet and a recessed patio. The raised patio and landscape barrier involved in this proposal add bath definition and activity to the Founders Plaza. Street enclosure from the Lodge walkway is also strengthened by the removal of the existing greenhouse addition and infill of the existing patio. The proposed building will provide a stronger street enclosure from this pedestrian access into Founders Plaza. E. Street Edge Applicant: The street edge is reinforced by varying the facade, creating interest and activity along the streets, walkways and plaza. The step back of the southeast corner allows for glimpses of what is beyond without giving the entire panorama until the tap of the staircase is achieved. The creation of the patio alcove off the main plaza provides for an activity pocket off the main pedestrian way. The continuation of plaza materials toward the main entry carry the street edge toward this activity generator. Staff: The proposed building's facade, landscape treatments, and exterior patio will improve and reinforce the street edge on both Wa11 Street and the Founders Plaza. The utilization of similar materials continuing from the walkway and plaza into the proposed 3 patio and building reinforte street edge while maintaining a distinct architectural vernacular. F. Building Heiuht Applicant: The building height is consistent with building faces on opposite edges of the Plaza, providing a gradual step up to adjacent buildings. The building is well below any height requirements, and due to the small scale of the building, too large a roof mass would be out of proportion. Stepping back the northeast and northwest corners also soften the building edge. Staff: The height of the proposed two story building ranges from 22 to 28 feet. This variation is due to the grade changes around and along the structure. These heights are well within limits allowed in Commercial Core I. G. Views and Focal Paints Applicant: Views from the adjacent properties east and west are unaffected due to larger (3 and 4 story) buildings on each side. The views firom the Plaza north are unchanged due to the existing envelope of the building directly north of the expansion. The views from the south as one approaches the building are narrowed, but only as the stairs are approached. Prior to this point, the Lazier Arcade Building is controlling all views. As noted in item D, the views are reopened as the top of the stair cases are reached, providing the expansive views of the mountain and slopes. These views will be impacted if future expansions as proposed on other properties are pursued. Views from the adjacent building (Lazier Arcade Building) will be impacted at the second level by the expansion. However, these commercial condominiums presently have other views to counter the loss of this exposure. The third level residential condominium unit views will have minimal obstruction, as the majority of the building will occur below the existing solid balcony railing of the unit. Staff: Views are affected for a pedestrian moving south on either Wall Street or the Lodge walkway, as well as from the second and third floors of the Wall Street Building. Views south from Wall Street are currently limited by the Wall Street Building. The addition of a two story Hong Kang Cafe will further limit those views, with the plaza and mountain views not appearing until one reaches the top of the Wall Street staircase, adjacent to the Hong Kong Cafe. The proposal produces a similar impact to the southeast oriented view as one moves south on the Lodge walkway. The view from the second floor condominium of the Lazier building is seriously impacted by the adjacent wall of the proposed Hang Kong Cafe. This condominium is a commercial office space, which somewhat offsets this impact. A view analysis from the third floor residential condominium has been submitted with this proposal. This analysis shows little impact resulting from the proposal, as the control paints appear to be a balcony railing and the peak of the Qne Vail Place Building. 4 Overall, we feel the architect has attempted to mitigate these view problems through building height and design control. H. Service and Delivery Applicant: Service and delivery is unchanged and is consistent with the Town Plan by using existing loading and parking zones presently established along Gore Creek Drive. Emergency access is unaffected and will continue to access the property from the Wall Street and Lodge side easement. Staff: The current utilization of this area is as a bar/restaurant. This proposal will not alter or impact current service and delivery to this property. Deliveries will use existing approved loading and parking zones. Emergency access is not affected or further impacted by this development. I. Sun/Shade Applicant: Sun and shade are taken into consideration by placing the outdoor patio area south of the expansion. Shading will occur on the pedestrian staircase immediately east of the expansion, as it would with any expansion above Wall Street level. This shading would occur during the late afternoon hours. Shading of adjacent property patios and walkways is minimized by the proposal due to higher (3 and 4 story) buildings directly east and west of the property. Staff: The addition of a two story element on this parcel has significant shading impact upon the Wa11 Street area in the late afternoon hours. The March/September 4:00 pm diagram details a minor shade encroachment upon Vendetta`s patio, and a complete shading of the Wall Street staircase. In analyzing this diagram, it appears that lowering the building height by 1 to 2 feet or removing the eastern parapet wall would eliminate the shading of Vendetta's patio. There would still be considerable shading upon the Wall Street stairs, but as a short transition area, we feel that this is acceptable. The impact to the Lodge walkway will occur in the early morning hours. The March/September 9:00 am analysis shows an additional 40 feet of shading, thus lengthening the shading caused by the Wall Street Building. Any development of this parcel will create sun/shade impacts to this area and we feel that the proposed building design is sensitive to this issue. • 5 . ~. VI. • • ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Pro,7ect Statistics Lat Size: 1608 sq ft Site Coverage: 90°/° - This is over the allowable maximum of 80% site coverage within Commercial Core I but is not a change from the existing site coverage. Staff feels that due to the existing situation, no variance is necessary. Building Square Footage: Approximately 3,080 sq ft Parking: Parking requirement will be determined at building permit. Parking fees will be assessed and paid into the parking fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. Although this proposal presents impacts upon the view and sun/shade criteria of the guidelines, we recognize that any redevelopment of this site will create some impacts. We feel the design of the building reflects a serious attempt at meeting the design guideline criteria and minimizing impacts. We feel that the bar and patio located at the Founders Plaza level will add positively to the activity of the Plaza and that the infill contributes to the pedestrian experience on Wall Street. The Community Development Department staff would respectfully request the following conditions be placed on this project, should it be approved: 1. That the applicant not remonstrate against any special improvement district if and when it should be formed for Vail Village. 2. That a three year limit be placed on the approval of this proposal. 3. That a lease agreement be formalized with the Town of Vail for use of the patio area located on Town of Vail property. This lease agreement may reflect any increased snow removal costs incurred by the Town of Vail. b T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration of the Plaza Lodge in order to expand retail space and remodel existing dwelling units on Lots G,H,I,J,K and part of F, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd I. THE PROPOSAL Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. is requesting to expand the Christy Sports store as well as remodel dwelling units on the south end of the building. Christy Sports will be expanded at the basement and first floor levels to create an additional 840 square feet of retail space. Three dwelling units located above Christy Sports on the second and third levels of the building are being remodeled into two larger dwelling units. The second dwelling unit will also combine two accommodation units (130 and 139) into the existing dwelling unit. Anew elevator is being proposed to be located on the southeast corner of the building. Thirteen exterior balconies will also be added to the Plaza Lodge to existing units as well as one outdoor Jacuzzi and sun deck far the use of Lodge guests. Due to the expansion of Christy Sports on the southwest corner of the building, the popcorn wagon will need to be relocated to the landscaped island in Founder's Plaza. Mr. Willingham, owner of the Plaza Lodge, .has. stated that he is willing to work with Ila Buckley, owner of the popcorn wagon, to assist in hooking up whatever utilities will be required to keep the popcorn wagon in the plaza. However, it will be Ila Buckley's responsibility to cover all the costs relating to the wagon's move which will include utility relocation and landscaping costs. Originally, the popcorn wagon was to be located on the north end of the landscaped island. Ila Buckley is proposing to locate the wagon on the south side of the island in order to have batter exposure to pedestrians walking from the ticket office to Bridge Street and dawn Wall Street. In order to change this location, it will be necessary far I1a Buckley to redesign the landscaped island so that the landscaping functions well with the popcorn wagon. The Plaza Lodge has also stated that they would provide Ila Buckley with a storage area for the supplies necessary to run the popcorn wagon. The loading space on the southwest corner of the Plaza Lodge is proposed to be permanently removed. The Plaza tenants will now do all loading on the Bridge Street side of the building. Access to Founders' Plaza will be limited to emergency vehicles. The trash room, presently located on the southeast corner of the building, has been removed. All the trash for the building will now be handled at Vendetta`s trash dumpster. In addition, the proposal calls for adding a gas fireplace to the lodge lobby and relocating another existing fireplace within the third floor of the remodeled unit. 2 II. ZONING STATISTICS FOR THE PROJECT The zoning statistics indicate that the Plaza Lodge is already 8.5 units over the allowable 7 dwelling units for the property. The remodel will decrease the number of units by 2 accommodation units or 1 dwe11ing unit. This assumes that the Plaza Lodge will relocate the kitchen in the existing Christy Sports unit to another accommodation unit within one year. In respect to GRFA, site coverage and common area, the proposal meets all the zoning requirements. The owner has agreed to contribute to the Town ofi Vail parking fund for the additional spaces that will be needed due to the remodel. Zoning Anal.vsis Site Area: .2882 acres or 12,5x4 sq ft Density: Allowed 7 dwelling units (25 units/acre) • E 2nd Flovr 9 1 3rd Floor 1 10 10 D.U. or 15.5 xisting Proposed D.U. 2nd Floor 8 D.U. A.U. 1 A.U. D.U. 3rd Floor 1 D.U. A.U. 8 A.U. & 11 A.U. 10 D.U. & 9 A.U. D.U. or 14.5 D,U. (assumes existing kitchen is relocated to an accommodation unit within one year) GRFA Allowed: 7.0,043 sq ft Existing: 9,735 sq ft Addition: 236 sq ft Total GRFA with 9,971 sq fit addition Remainder GRFA after addition; 72 sq ft SITE COVERAGE Allowed: 10,043 sq ft Existing: 7,760 sq ft Addition: 488 sq ft Total Coverage with addition: 8,248 sq ft COMMON AREA: Allowed: 2,009 sq ft Existing: 1,935 sq ft Addition: 70 sq ft Tntal w/addition 2,005 sq ft Remaining after addition, 1,795 sq ft V III. COMPLTANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE purpose: The Commercial Core I zone 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 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses.' The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI district. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE, There are no Urban Design Guide plan concepts that directly relate to this portion of the building. Concepts 13A, 13B and 14 relate to the Plaza Lodge building, however, they do not address the southwest corner of the building where the addition is proposed. Z3A. Raised sidewalk may become major pedestrian route during delivery periods. Slight widening warranted. Potential for open arcade for snow protection over wooden walk. Landscape improvements include: new consolidated stairs, tie retaining walls replaced with masonry, upgraded planting. 138. Mid-block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village plaza. I.4. Village Plaza. Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visible from Gore Greek Drive. Major land form/planting in northwest for quiet corner, with evergreen screen planting to define west edge. Wall Street stairs, with mid-level jog landing, opens entry area to Lazier Arcade shops. U. 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 Considerations. A. Pedestrianization: Applicant: Pedestrianization is encouraged by reinforcing the edge of Founders' Plaza and associated accesses with display windows and planters. Unused portions of the site are filled in with shop displays and planters which add life and vitality to the street edge. The existing parking space on Founders' Plaza is eliminated leaving a pedestrian walkway unencumbered by vehicular traffic. 4 . Staff: It is a great improvement to space on the southwest corner of the space will eliminate auto congestion of the building. Pedestrianization B. Vehicular Penetration remove the existing parking building. The removal of the that now occurs on the corner is improved by this proposal. Applicant: Vehicular Penetration is not increased and is improved by the elimination of the existing parking space in the plaza and use of existing loading zones. Staff: It is staff's understanding that the Plaza Lodge will no longer deliver supplies ar guests on the Founders' Plaza side of the building. Staff believes that the proposal actually reduces auto penetration into the Founders' Plaza area. The proposal has a positive impact on vehicular penetration. C. Streetscape Framework Applicant: Streetscape framework is reinforced by providing landscaping and color with planters...on the proposed expansion. Activity is further reinforced with the addition of display windows and an undulating facade to add visual interest to the building. Staff: Landscaping is proposed as wall mounted planters on the south and west elevations of the building. Staff also believes that it is very important that a larger planter occur an the east side of the elevator to soften that elevation. At the Design Review Board level, some type of decorative cover far the elevator door should also be considered. Staff believes that a plain elevator door does nothing to improve the streetscape framework for the pedestrian. Staff feels that in general this proposal complies with the streetscape framework consideration as long as the design concerns for the elevator are addressed by DRB. D. Street Enclosure Applicant: Street Enclosure is maintained by providing a one or two story face to the street, and stepping the building facades both vertically and horizontally to keep the building in scale with the pedestrian and adjacent buildings. The inclusion of display windows, planters and changes in facade create high tension and activity at eye level. U :, . Staff: A canyon effect already exists to a certain degree in the pedestrian area between the Plaza Lodge and the Hill Building. The street enclosure guidelines states that "An external enclosure is most comfortable where its wails are approximately one half as high as the width of the space enclosed." In this situation, the height of the Hill Building is almost twice as high as the width of the existing pedestrian walkway. The existing Flaza Lodge terraces back from approximately 24 feet to a height of 35 feet. The pedestrian walkway is 15 feet wide so that the canyon is already in existence. The new proposal terraces the south side of the Plaza Building in a way that minimizes the canyon effect. The guidelines state that "When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special design considerations should be given to creating a well defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the canyon effect." The guidelines also state that "Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged." Given these considerations, staff believes that it is very important that the size of the elevator be decreased if at all passible. However, the staff does understand that certain building code requirements must be met. Secondly, the staff is asking that the planter on the east side of the elevator be increased in size to soften the impacts of the elevator on the pedestrian. The staff would also like to see some type of decorative mural or perhaps a wall sculpture used on the side of the elevator to bring down the scale of the tower. These design elements will create a pedestrian focus and divert . attention from the upper building heights anal canyon effect. This particular walkway warrants the canyon effect as the pedestrian sidewalk is only 15 feet wide. If the guideline was strictly followed, that would mean that the heights of bath the Hill Building and Plaza Lodge could not be greater than 7-}./2 feet. It would be an unreasonable restriction and does not apply to the existing situation on the property. Staff would like to emphasize that the applicant should include the additional landscaping and consider the idea of using some type of mural or wall accent on the tower of the elevator in order to fully meet the intent of this guideline. E. Street Edge Applicant: Street edge is reinforced by varying the facade to allow for interest and activity along the streets and plaza. Staff: The design of the addition has added greatly to the street edge while at the same time allowing for emergency and snowplow access. This guideline strongly encourages irregular facade lines in order to add life to the street and visual interest for the pedestrian. The design accomplishes the goals of this consideration. i• F. Building Height Applicant: Building height is consistent with the existing conditions, providing a single story facade toward the plaza and stepping the building back as it increases from floor to floor. The new elements added to the design are extensions to the existing building and accents which add to the vitality of the design. All portions of the design are well within height requirements of the Town. Staff: The new addition is approximately 36 feet high with the elevator having a height of 37 feet. These heights are well within the allowable under the height restrictions in Cammericial Core I. Height restrictions state that "up to 60~° of the building (building coverage area) may be built to a height of 33 feet or less. More than 40% of the building (building coverage area} may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. Tawers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flag poles and similar architectural features not useable as GRFA may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than 25% of the height limit nor more than 15 feet." The proposal definitely complies with this consideration. G. Views Applicant: Views are not impacted by the building expansion because all expansions occur inside existing building envelopes and are . creating new facades inside view planes of the existing building. The higher element of the elevator enclosure frames the pedestrian view of the Gore Range as they walk through the emergency access just south of the building and would have a minor encroachment on the views from across the plaza, but is minimized due to its stepped back location in relation to the western exposure. Staff: It is felt that the majority of the remodel does not have any significant impacts on views. However, the staff does feel that the view west from Seibert Circle of the elevator is significantly blocked 6y the elevator tower. Even though this is not a designated view, the guidelines do state that "first priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views from pedestrian areas, whether designated or not" staff would prefer to see the proposal without the elevator. However, the view impacts are not significant enough to deny the project solely on the view impact of the elevator tower. The remainder of the building steps back in such a way that views are not substantially decreased. For this reason, the staff feels that the proposal in most respects is in compliance with the view consideration. i• • H. Service and Delivery, Applicant: Service and delivery is consistent with the Town plan by removing an existing parking and loading space in Founders' Plaza {providing a vehicular free mall} and using established parking and loading zones on Bridge Street. Emergency access along the south property line is left open and useable for emergency vehicles. Staff: The proposal greatly improves the service and delivery for this building. Christy Sports has been contacted to make sure that they understand they will be required to cart their trash down to Vendetta's dumpster. Staff would like to emphasize that the applicant has "reconfirmed with Mr. John Brennan (Vendetta's owner) that the trash area presently used by Vendetta's restaurant will be available and used by all shops in the building {with trash pickup scheduled on a daily basis), If this procedure is strictly followed, there should not be a problem with trash. It is felt that the proposal is in compliance with this consideration. I. Sun/Shade Applicant: Sun and shade are taken into consideration by expanding within the already created building envelope..... Staff: On the Bridge Street side of the building the elevator tower casts an additional 280 square feet of shade onto Bridge Street and the roof of the Red Lion. On the Founder`s Plaza side of the building an additional 125 square feet of shade is cast into the Founders' Plaza area. It is felt that the additional shade does not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern from March 21st through September 23rd on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. The massing of the building has been terraced back in such a way that the shadows that have been cast from the building are minimized. The building is also well within the height allowances for the zone district. The elevator tower is the portion of the addition that is actually creating the additional shade on Bridge Street. However, the elevator is even well within the allowed height limits. For these reasons, staff feels that the additional shade is not significant enough to say that the proposal does not conform to the sun/shade consideration. • • 8 VI. STAFF RECQNiNlENDATION Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration. Each project should be reviewed against every consideration. The project does support wholeheartedly almost all of the EJrban Design Consideration. The two areas of staff concern relate to the impacts of the elevator tower on views and shade. It is felt that the view impacts and additional shade while not positive responses to these design considerations, are considered to be minimal impacts. However, because the overall project impacts are positive, staff recommends approval of the project. Approval is granted contingent upon the applicant agreeing to the fallowing requirements: 1. The applicant shall not remonstrate against any special improvement district if and when a district is formed for the Village. 2. This approval will expire within three years of Planning Commission approval date. 3. A11 drainage from the building will be tied into the existing storm sewer system. 4. The owner and building tenants will take responsibility for handling the trash on a daily basis. Trash will not be stored outside of any of the shops on the street or plaza. 5. The owner agrees to the conditions of approval outlined in the conditional use memorandum. • • • C ~ti r, f ~I CJ E.,, rE r _, , _ . S -.`} r~ ' `) : 7 -~' - ~l L~-t ~ ~ it r'-I .. r ~. r f rr 3 i-' ~ _ E 3 i ") •r-~ ~ ~ r { _ '.i.} : i C y ~-1 (!1 ~' ~i ~ ~.} . s-~. 1. () "(! . i { ~~ C] ['} ~ ~q t; F F ~'. q ~ ~ ti ~ ( ~. ' . (1 ~ ~ .. $ '1' ~7! tii J~1 if ( hi '~ ~y F~ ~t I r r. ~. , i,'. r ~ Oi: tlj C.. V r i N ~) ~ rt i '!~ k{ ~ ~ V ~t 4.~ `~ i•li Fig ;,rl :i ~) (! ~~ ..r ?.~ !) ~_~r°i ~~ .r{ tL v-i •r) FCi ~: ~1 "2~~ S; ~! J' .~~ L4' ~-a _. C]. _. 4i S T _ ., ~ ~ - .r C ~` ~,'L:'. -ter RS `C7 .--i ' ~; t-e [;, r'„ !i: TC} ~y ~. LL :^ U: .) r'S F C.; ;.~ `, rrJ O ^ t C` r:. ~..) .. - l~ r i t'I r-; ~] rC.; "C , ~-f T, r-i i'. ~.: c-, °C% G; n, ~], ~' !~ ~ r..i ~', [~ `; ~ ~: : , , ~ , ~.. Ltj .s -t ( r r ~ f t9 4 r ~ .i' ~" L. ~ r ["~: ,° O !-.f ; (;' C' 3.: ~ . ~~ ivr7 G ~ .t -6 •E' ~<', --! r t: .- -lJ t' r I fl a ~ l _, C., .-~ g_., 3.> :-.~ .T € i~ •¢' {" ~ r .' ~ .r: < ~ ,- --r r-' •! ~ •~ i CJ C) r~°I 7~ ~) r-' .r _! a y...i t_E rt , i.. ~, (' ~ ri C ~~ ~~? `v 3 C) tit E~ ~; tr; ~ r' G .t? ; ~:~ t_: ~ ; 'C' ! c" i,) .,-i r{ .~-5 ~!3 c, _!. r f ~ q .~ ;rS u) (1 + .r: O ~, r-_' ~ ~ ~.7 :`i - _ v-i ~: -! ? !?) f i r. .!: L'] l..'' --i r i ~ i' ' Cr; C ~ .. 'l r-I I -~ ~ { { ~_ C'7 (~ r.. ~ ~ i Ci; :) r ` `-y Cly i , ~r I r]) L~ , ", f ,. ; , r a r `C. U! ~ i r-! a- S-: " ''t' ^ :i~ f~ r-I r-I .. ~ :-., r:,. ~- r~1) ~ ~ r r o pl U: r ? ''y Cf~ i.! (' • r i I, \`) 4„ f.? ~ . C" i r 1 i !. r"I '', ~; : ,LCf ~.. ,i~ 'C} t' fi: •C'' r{ r .{ ~, ~ .-I ,:? ~? r~' ~' A7 r,~,i ?< a ~ :.1 L) r 7 •r ., ~ r' r .f r y ~ ~ ,) rl it e-'. 3y, C ~I :.~ N~ n= ~.i .Y' ,.e ~~ :C ': C'} n ;; 'y ~~ I er i ,L-i ~ ~ :l'4 _ r ~ ~ ~{ ~-{ r~i f'.i ~ S., :~j i J w ~. r•; 1 E{'. L;'~ , i ~ i i, '_ ~' rt ... , C7 - ~ I',. r i .':r 4_. il. .r 1 ~~.; .{ y _ r~i ;f1 rat .- i -. .-, !` r E r l C' u} _ 1-J: ~' C'1 {) ~ ~ ! ~"' F-.{ f - (' r ;i ' ! ,, ~' L': r C .r! ) : ~ -i ,I } -', r•~ ~ . C1 ;") C [~ fr) Cl: •L;! {? r t S'r 7.f ' ~ ~ y ~ ~ .- { :~ r! C ~ (• 't. ..{ ~l,Tr S ,I $ Cf -!-' ~' .t I .i• r~ 1. (:~ (t~ i',. I:.~ ~V r ^': r{ 3 CI D in r t. i r. ~~ G` : r . ~"„{ ~ ~ Ci . ~ it _ ... :j} :U rV . t ,_~il ,. r_ _ ~; ,y _~ ~~ . -a _: }~{ ( h v F~ ~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to eliminate two accommodation unit at the Plaza Lodge located on Lots G, H, I, J, K and part of F, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. is requesting to remodel three existing dwelling units on the second and third floor of the Plaza Lodge. The units are located on the south end of the building above Christy Sports. Presently, one dwelling unit on the second floor is used by Christy Sports as an office space. However, according to the zoning code, this unit is considered to be a dwelling unit, as it has a kitchen and is designed for residential use. The second dwelling unit on the second floor is used as a residential unit. The unit on the third float is also used as an existing dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing to redesign these three units into twn dwelling units. One unit would be located on the second floor and the second dwelling unit will be located on the third floor. Two existing accommodation units, Unit 139 (on the east side of the building) and Unit 130 (located on the west side of the building) will be combined with the third float dwelling unit. Bath Units 130 and 139 will be accessible from a public hallway and will also have a 1ockoff door that will connect it to the third floor dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing that Units 130 and 139 will be short term rentals when the owner is not using the main third floor unit. According to the zoning code (section 18.04.070}, " a dwelling unit in a multi-family building may include one attached accommodation unit." The code (18.04.030) defines an accommodation unit as "any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit ar dwelling unit." A conditional use review is necessary as the code allows a dwelling unit to have only one accommodation unit lack-off. Given this proposal, the owner is requesting to have two lack-offs connecting to the third floor dwelling unit. In respect to the loss of the second floor unit that presently is utilized by Christy Sports. The owner would like to relocate that kitchen into an existing accommodation unit. Due to the relocation of the dwelling unit, an accommodation unit will be last and a conditional use review is necessary. The owner has agreed to maintain the new dwelling unit as a short term rental premanently. The Plaza Lodge is already over the allowed number of dwelling units. The situation is considered to be nonconforming in respect to density. The Christy Sports kitchen may be relocated as long as it is replaced within one year. According to the zoning code (Section 18.64.070), "Any non conforming use which is discontinued for a period of 12 months, regardless of any intent to resume operation or use, shall oat be resumed thereafter, and any future use of the site ar structures thereon shall conform with the provisions of this title." (Please see the zoning analysis below.) Zoning Analysis Site Area: .2882 acres or 12,554 sq ft Density: Rllowed 7 dwelling units (25 units/acre) Existing 2nd Floor 9 D.U. 1 A.U. 3rd Floor 1 D.U. 1O A.U. • 10 D.U. & 11 R.U. or 15.5 D.U. Proposed 2nd Floor 8 D.U. 1 A.U. 3rd Floor 1 D.U. 8 A.U. 10 D.U. & 9 A.U. or 14.5 D,U. (assumes existing kitchen is relocated to an accommodation unit within one year) (The proposed remodel involves remodeling three existing dwelling units above Christy Sports into two dwelling .units. One accommodation unit is decreased due to the additional lock-off for the third floor dwelling unit. The second accommodation unit will be lost if it is used for the Christy Sports dwelling unit`s kitchen. This results in a total decrease in density of two accommodation units or one dwelling unit.} 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: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development ob,7ectives of the Town. • The staff feels that it is a positive impact to technically decrease the density an this site. The project already exceeds the allowed number of units by 8.5 dwelling units. Due to the reorganization of the floor plans of the second and third floors, technically two accommodation snits will be lost. However, the lock-off accommodation unit will be a short-term rental when the owner is not using the third floor dwelling unit. ~areover, the Ghristy Sports kitchen, although relocated in an accommodation unit, will be used in exactly the same way as the existing accommodation unit, i.e. a short-term rental unit. Staff believes that there is actually a net gain of residential space even though the zoning statistics indicate that the accommodation units are actually decreased. According to the zoning code, the Christy Sports unit must be considered to be a dwelling unit due to the kitchen and residential design of the space. In reality this unit is used as an office. Staff feels that the proposal results in a positive impact as the office use is being replaced by a residential use. Instead of an office, the space now contains two bedrooms. In respect to the relocated Christy Sports kitchen, even though the accommodation unit will become a dwelling unit because of the new kitchen, the owner has agreed to maintain the unit as a short-term rental. The extra lock-off (unit 139) will be used as a short-term rental when not utilized by the owner. In addition, it should be noted that the two lost accommodation units are only used at this time for guests during the winter. Unit 13p is used as storage for the Toy Shop and Unit 139 serves as a painting studio during the summer. According to the owner, Clark • Willingham, the Plaza Lodge only functions as a lodge during the winter season. In the summer, the Plaza`s roams are used as long-term rentals for the summer season. The owner has agreed to commit to managing the Plaza as a year round lodge by the end of October 1986. Staff believes that the proposal meets the spirit of the Town's efforts to encourage residential uses, particularly accommodation units in the Village area. Even though the zoning statistics indicate that technically two accommodation units are lost, it is felt that the overall square footage and use of space for residential uses is increased. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilitiesT utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. No impact. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposal will remove the parking and loading problem on the . Founders Plaza side of Christy Spurts. This is a positive impact. . 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff has reviewed the proposal against the Urban Design Considerations found in the Exterior Alteration review. It is felt that the proposal compares favorably against these criteria. For this reason there are no negative impacts with respect to this consideration. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. In Commercial Core I, it is required that the conditional use review also address the following development factors: 1. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Care I District. 2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I District. 3. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking. 4. Control of delivery, pick-up, and service vehicles. Tt is felt that this proposal will have positive considerations as the removal of the parking spa the Christy Sports will decrease traffic into an area. Loading and deliveries will also occur on of the project. This should decrease the number the Founders Plaza area. impacts on these ce on the west side of essentially pedestrian the Bridge Street side of trucks unloading on 5. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. No impact 6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. The proposal reinforces the existing uses in the Plaza Lodge. The commercial expansion will add more exciting retail at the pedestrian level. The remodeling of the lodge will create a more positive experience for the guest. In addition, the remodeling of the dwelling units actually results in greater square feet for residential purposes. Far these reasons, staff believes that the proposal promotes the continuance of the uses listed above. 7. Control quality of construction, architectural design and landscape design in Commercial Core T district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Through the exterior alteration review, the staff has determined that the proposal upholds the character of the Village area. r IiI. RELATED POLICIES IN UAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN None IV_ FINl1If~GS 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. U. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The conditional use meets the three findings listed above. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit contingent upon the owner agreeing to the following conditions: 1. Both units 139 and 130 will be used as chart term rentals for the general public when the owners of the third floor dwelling unit are not utilizing their main dwelling unit. Unit 139 wi11 have an access door to the common hallway. In the event that the project is condominiumized, units 139 and 130 will still be used as short term rentals when the owners of the third floor dwelling unit are not using their unit. 2. The new dwelling unit that will be created by the addition of the Christy Sports kitchen to an existing accommodation unit will be restricted as a short term rental unit permanently. This restriction will continue to apply to the unit even if the property is condominiumized. 3. The owner will give up the right to the Christy Sports kitchen if the kitchen is not relocated to an accommodation unit within one year of the date of PEC approval. 4. The owner wi11 agree to provide these conditions of approval in a legal agreement far the Town before a building permit is issued for the remodel. These conditions will run with the property and will not be affected by a change in ownership. It is felt that even though the numbers reflect that there is an actual decrease in accommodation units, the guest and owner use of the property will be substantially increased due to the new management of the project as well as upgrading of the facilities through this remodel. For these reasons staff recommends approval of the conditional use request. TD: Planning and Environmental Commission FRaM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration of the Plaza Lodge in order to expand retail space and remodel existing dwelling units an Lots C,H,I,J,K and part of F, Black- 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd I, THE PROPOSAL Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd. is requesting to expand the Christy Sports store as well as remodel dwelling units on the south end of the building. Christy Sports will be expanded at the basement and first floor levels to create an additional 840 square feet of retail space. Three dwelling units located above Christy Sports on the second and third levels of the building are being remodeled into two larger dwelling units. The second dwelling unit will also combine two accommodation units (13D and 139) into the existing dwelling-unit. Anew elevator is being proposed to be located on the southeast corner of the building. Thirteen exterior balconies will also be added to the Plaza Lodge to existing units as well as one outdoor Jacuzzi and sun deck for the use of Lodge guests. Due to the expansion of Christy Sports on the southwest corner of the building, the popcorn wagon will need to be relocated to the landscaped island in Founder's Plaza. Mr. Willingham, owner of the Plaza Lodge, has stated that he is willing to work with Ila Buckley, owner of the popcorn wagon, to assist in hooking up whatever utilities will be required to keep the popcorn wagon in the plaza. However, it will be Ila Buckley's responsibility to cover all the casts relating to the wagon`s move which will include utility relocation and landscaping costs. Originally, the popcorn wagon was to be located on the north end of the landscaped island. Ila Buckley is proposing to locate the wagon on the south side of the island in order to have better exposure to pedestrians walking from the ticket office to Bridge Street and down Wall Street. In order to change this location, it will be necessary for Ila Buckley to redesign the landscaped island so that the landscaping functions well with the popcorn wagon. The Plaza Lodge has also stated that they would provide Ila Buckley with a storage area far the supplies necessary to run the popcorn wagon. The loading space on the southwest carnet of the Plaza Lodge is proposed to be permanently removed. The Plaza tenants will now da all loading on the Bridge Street side of the building. Access to Founders' Plaza will be limited to emergency vehicles. The trash roam, presently located an the southeast corner of the building, has been removed. All the trash for the building will now be handled at Vendetta`s trash dumpster. In addition, the proposal calls far adding a • gas fireplace to the lodge lobby and relocating another existing fireplace within the third floor of the remodeled unit. 2 II. ZOfVING STATISTICS FOR THE PROJECT The zoning statistics indicate that the Plaza Lodge is already 8.5 units over the allowable 7 dwelling units for the property. The remodel will decrease the number of units by 2 accommodation units or 1 dwelling unit. This assumes that the Plaza Lodge will relocate the kitchen in the existing Christy Sports unit to another accommodation unit within one year. In respect to GRFA, site coverage and common area, the proposal meets all the zoning requirements. The owner has agreed to contribute to the Town of Vail parking fund for the additional spaces that will be needed due to the remodel. Zoning Analysis Site Area: .2882 acres or 12,554 sq ft Density Allowed 7 dwelling units (25 units/acre) Existing Proposed 2nd Floor 9 D.U. 2nd Floor 8 D.U. 1 A.U. 1 A.U. 3rd Floor 1 D.U. 10 A.U. 10 D.U. & li A.U, or 15.5 D.U. GRFA Allowed: 10,043 sq ft Existing: 9,735 sq ft Addition: 236 sq ft Total GRFA with 9,971 sq ft addition Remainder GRFA after addition: 72 sq ft SITE COVERAGE Allowed: 10,043 sq ft Existing: 7,760 sq ft Addition: 488 sq ft Total Coverage with addition: 8,248 sq ft COMMON AREA: Allowed: 2,009 sq ft 3rd Floor 1 D.U. 8 A.U. 10 D.U. & 9 A.U. ar 14:5 D.U. (assumes existing kitchen is relocated to an accommodation unit within one year) Remaining after addition, 1,795 sq ft Existing: 1,935 sq ft Addition: 70 sq ft Total w/addition 2,005 sq ft r J III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE Purpose: The Commercial Care I zone 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 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings franting 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 CCI district. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no Urban Design Guide Plan concepts that directly relate to this portion of the building. Concepts 13A, 13B and 14 relate to the Plaza Lodge building, however, they do not address the southwest corner of the building where the addition is proposed. 13A. Raised sidewalk may become major pedestrian route during delivery periods. Slight widening warranted. Potential for open arcade for snow protection over wooden walk. Landscape improvements include: new consolidated stairs, tie retaining walls replaced with masonry, upgraded planting. 138. Mid-block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza. ~4. Village Plaza. Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visible from Gore Creek Drive. Major land form/planting in northwest for quiet corner, with evergreen screen planting to define west edge. Wall Street stairs, with mid-level jog landing, opens entry area to lazier Arcade shops. V. 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 Considerations. A. Pedestrianization: Applicant: Pedestrianization is encouraged by reinforcing the edge of Founders` Plaza and associated accesses with display windows and planters. Unused portions of the site are filled in with shop displays and planters which, add life and vitality to the street edge. The existing parking space on Founders` Plaza is eliminated . leaving a pedestrian walkway unencumbered by vehicular traffic. 4 B. C Staff: It is a great improvement to space on the southwest corner of the space will eliminate auto congestion of the building. Pedestrianization Vehicular Penetration remove the existing parking building. The removal of the that now occurs on the corner is improved by this proposal. Applicant: Vehicular Penetration is not increased and is improved by the elimination of the existing parking space in the plaza and use of existing loading zones. Staff: It is staff's understanding that the Plaza Lodge will no longer deliver supplies or guests on the Founders' Plaza side of the building. Staff believes that the proposal actually reduces auto penetration into the Founders` plaza area. The proposal has a positive impact on vehicular penetration, Streetscaoe Framework Applicant: Streetscape framework is reinforced by providing landscaping and color with planters...on the proposed expansion. Activity is further reinforced with the addition of display windows and an undulating facade to add visual interest to the building. Staff: Landscaping is proposed as wall mounted planters on the south and west elevations of the building. Staff also believes that it is very important that a larger planter occur on the east side of the elevator to soften that elevation. At the Resign Review Board level, some type of decorative cover for the elevator door should also be considered. Staff believes that a plain elevator door does nothing to improve the streetscape framework for the pedestrian. Staff feels that in general this proposal complies with the streetscape framework consideration as long as the design concerns for the elevator are addressed by RRB. R. Street Enclosure Applicant:, Street Enclosure is maintained by providing a one or two story face to the street, and stepping the building facades bath vertically and horizontally to keep the building in scale with the pedestrian and adjacent buildings. The inclusion of display windows, planters and changes in facade create high tension and activity at eye level. 0 Staff: A canyon effect already exists to a certain degree in the pedestrian area between the Plaza Lodge and the Hiil Building. The street enclosure guidelines states that "An external enclosure is most comfortable where its walls are approximately one half as high as the width of the space enclosed." In this situation, the height of the Hiil Building is almost twice as high as the width of the existing pedestrian walkway. The existing Plaza Lodge terraces back from approximately 24 feet to a height of 35 feet. The pedestrian walkway is 15 feet wide so that the canyon is already in existence. The new proposal terraces the south side of the Plaza Building in a way that minimizes the canyon effect. The guidelines state that "When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special design considerations should be given to creating a well defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the canyon effect." The guidelines also state that "fang canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged." Given these considerations, staff believes that it is very important that the size of the elevator be decreased if at all possible. however, the staff does understand that certain building code requirements must be met. Secondly, the staff is asking that the planter on the east side of the elevator be increased in size to soften the impacts of the elevator on the pedestrian. The staff would also like to see some type of decorative mural or perhaps a wall sculpture used on the side of the elevator to bring down the scale of the tower. These design elements will create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and canyon effect. This particular walkway warrants the canyon effect as the pedestrian sidewalk is only 15 feet wide. If the guideline was strictly followed, that would mean that the heights of both the hill Building and Plaza Lodge could not be greater than 7-1/2 feet. It would be an unreasonable restriction and does not apply to the existing situation on the property. Staff would like to emphasize that the applicant should include the additional landscaping and consider the idea of using some type of mural or wall accent on the tower of the elevator in order to fully meet the intent of this guideline. E. Street Edge Applicant: Street edge is reinforced by varying the facade to allaw for interest and activity along the streets and plaza. Staff: The design of the addition has added greatly to the street edge while at the same time allowing far emergency and snowplow access. This guideline strongly encourages irregular facade lines in order to add life to the street and visual interest for the pedestrian. The design accomplishes the goals of this consideration. • v F. Building Height Applicant: Building height is consistent with the existing 7 conditions, providing a single story facade toward the plaza and stepping the building back as it increases from floor to floor. The new elements added to the design are extensions to the existing building and accents which add to the vitality of the design. All portions of the design are well within height requirements of the Town. Staff: The new addition is approximately 36 feet high with the elevator having a height of 37 feet. These heights are well within the allowable under the height restrictions in Commericial Core I. Height restrictions state that "up to 60% of the building {building coverage area) may be built to a height of 33 feet or less. More than 40% of the building (building coverage area} may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flag pales and similar architectural features not useable as GRFA may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than 25% of the height limit nor more than 15 feet." The proposal definitely complies with this consideration. G. Views Applicant: Views are not impacted by the building expansion because all expansions occur inside existing building envelopes and are creating new facades inside view planes of the existing building. The higher element of the elevator enclosure frames the pedestrian view of the Gore Range as they walk through the emergency access just south of the building and would have a minor encroachment on the views from across the plaza, but is minimized due to its stepped back location in relation to the western exposure. Staff: It is felt that the majority of the remodel does not have any significant impacts on views. However, the staff does feel that the view west from Seibert Circle of the elevator is significantly blocked by the elevator tower, Even though this is not a designated view, the guidelines do state that "first priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project an views from pedestrian areas, whether designated or not" staff would prefer to see the proposal without the elevator. However, the view impacts are not significant enough to deny the project solely an the view impact of the elevator tower. The remainder of the building steps back in such a way that views are not substantially decreased. For this reason, the staff feels that the proposal in most respects is in compliance with the view consideration. H. Service and Delivery Applicant. Service and delivery is consistent with the Town plan by removing an existing parking and loading space in Founders' Plaza {providing a vehicular free mall) and using established parking and loading zones on Bridge Street. Emergency access along the south property line is left open and useable for emergency vehicles. Staff: The proposal greatly improves the service and delivery for this building, Christy Sports has been contacted to make sure that they understand they will be required to cart their trash down to Vendetta's dumpster. Staff would like to emphasize that the applicant has "reconfirmed with Mr. John Brennan (Vendetta's owner) that the trash area presently used by Vendetta's restaurant will be available and used by all shops in the building (with trash pickup scheduled on a daily basis). If this procedure is strictly followed, there should oat be a problem with trash. It is felt that the proposal is in compliance with this consideration. Sun/Shade Applicant: Sun and shade are taken into consideration by expanding within the already created building envelope..... Staff: On the Bridge Street side of the building the elevator tower casts an additional 280 square feet of shade onto Bridge Street and the roof of the Red Lion. On the Founder's Plaza side of the building an additional 125 square feet of shade is cast into the Founders' Plaza area. It is felt that the additional shade does not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow pattern from March 21st through September 23rd on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. The massing of the building has been terraced back in such a way that the shadows that have been cast from the building are minimized. The building is also well within the height allowances for the zone district. The elevator tower is the portion of the addition that is actually creating the additional shade on Bridge Street. However, the elevator is even well within the allowed height limits. For these reasons, staff feels that the additional shade is not significant enough to say that the proposal does not conform to the sun/shade consideration. • 8 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration. Each project ~ should be reviewed against every consideration. The project does support wholeheartedly almost all of the Urban Design Consideration. The two areas of staff concern relate to the impacts of the elevator tower on views and shade. It is felt that the view impacts and additional shade while not positive responses to these design considerations, are considered to be minimal impacts. Elawever, because the overall project impacts are positive, staff recommends approval of the project. Approval is granted contingent upon the applicant agreeing to the following requirements: 1. The applicant shall not remonstrate against any special improvement district if and when a district is formed for the Village. 2. This approval will expire within three years of planning Commission approval date. 3. All drainage from the building will be tied into the existing storm sewer system. 4. The owner and building tenants will take responsibility for handling the trash an a daily basis. Trash will hat be stared outside of any of the shops on the street or plaza. 5. The owner agrees to the conditions of approval outlined in the conditional use memorandum. r clubhouse . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 24, 19$6 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to expand the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The VMRD proposes to remodel the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse. The building currently contains 10,002 square feet and the proposal would add 5,630 feet for an end product of 15,608 square feet. The major element of the expansion is a new cart storage facility which will accommodate a transition from gas to electric golf carts. Other significant changes include expansion of the existing bar and dining area to the south and east while eliminating the use of the pro shop for dining in the winter, a new meeting room, an expanded kitchen as well as a remodel to the locker rooms and a new entry way scheme. The parking area would remain unchanged with the exception of the addition of the required 8 spaces for the additional meeting room and bar/dining room. 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: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The golfcourse clubhouse is an important public building to the community in that its design and function should reflect a high quality consistent with other public and private buildings in the community. The existing building is in dire need of upgrading and repair and the proposal will serve to not only allow the building to function in a superior manner, but will provide a high level of service to our guests. In this regard, the proposal is consistent with the development objectives of the Tawn. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilitiest schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Utilities will be upgraded as a part of the proposal. The proposal itself is a significant improvement to a recreational facility and will reflect positively on the community, especially with respect to the summer guests. No effect upon the other factors are anticipated. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Although the VMRD recognizes the need for an additional 25 to 30 parking spaces to more comfortably accommodate some of their peak demand days, the proposal at this time is to leave the parking situation as is with the exception of the addition of 8 spaces required for the expansion. The proposed meeting room requires 4.8 parking spaces, while the additional 308 square feet of permanently enclosed restaurant/bar area requires 2.6 spaces for a total additional requirement of 8 parking spaces. The applicants feel they can easily accommodate 8 additional spaces without a major redesign of the parking lot. Last year the VMRD worked with the Public Works/Transportation Department in improving the bus circulation situation by relocating the ingress/egress points to the parking lot. This solution has been successful and will be unchanged with this proposal at this time. The VMRD is desirous of increasing the number of parking spaces provided by expanding toward the east and it appears that this can be done without any significant impacts upon the 18th green. There has been discussion between VMRD and the Fallridge condominium/office building about the possibility of leasing 20-25 spaces in the Fallridge complex for the employees of the golf course. The leasing of the spaces requires approval under the Town's lease parking program and if successful, could allow better utilization of the existing parking spaces by the summer guests. The Community Development and Public Works/Transportation Departments will continue to work closely with the VMRD on any parking lot remodel proposal to assure smooth and efficient bus circulation as well as the maximum parking useage for this lot. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, inc1udin~ the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The design proposed includes only minor changes in scale and bulk, so there is little change with regard to this factor. No negative effects upon the character of the area will occur. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. C. The environmental impact report cancernina the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. None required. • ,~ III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Under Community Design, Policy No. 2, upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged. IV. 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Golf Course Clubhouse remodel. The proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit and will result in a positive impact upon this most important community facility. Our recommendation for approval is conditional upon the provision of 8 additional parking spaces. The applicant shall propose an acceptable solution for adding these spaces before a building permit is issued and the additional spaces shall be installed prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the remodeled structure. The staff highly encourages the VMRD to continue studies and to work with our staff in expanding the parking lot to maximize the number of cars that can park on this site. .~ ---„ ~ . y -. ~' ~ ~ 22~.+~~ 7 ~'1~ o~'~ ~f ~~ C~a ~ S T i~~ fti~ ~~~ Yai7 Metropolitan Recreation District r~ Coif Course Clubhouse Remodel Area Tabulations: Space Description Difference Existing New Existing Cart Storage + 2,734 3,865 5,6D0 Existing Service/Storage + 40 760 800 Existing Bag Storage - <35> 333 300 Existing Men's Locker Raom + 485 350> 1,200 Existing Womens Locker Room 365 Existing Pro Shop Storage - <2D> 250 23D Existing Pro Shop + 64 936 1,D00 Existing Office + 184 156 34D Existing Kitchen + 3D4 396 700 Existing Bar/Dining Roam + 1,244 1,100 2,344 Existing Terrace - <386> 1,166 78D Fleeting Room + 576 -0- 576 t4ens & h'omens Toilets + 308 -0- 308 Entry + 106 324 430 Total 5,63D 10,OD2 15,6D8 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 10, 1986 2:15 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing Approval of minutes of February 24, 1986. 2. A work session to review the Vail Valley Medical Center's proposed employee parking system as required in conjunction with the conditional approval of the Center's proposed expansion. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center 3. A request for an exterior alteration of the Hong Kong Cafe in order to construct a two story building, and a conditional user permit in order to have an outdoor dining patio on ground floor on Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Hong Kong Cafe Partners 4. 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 5. A request far exterior alteration of the Plaza Lodge in order to expand retail space and to remodel existing dwelling units and a request for a conditional use permit in order to eliminate two accommodation units. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates 6. A request for density, landscaping and parking setback variances in order to construct an addition to the Bighorn Lodge located on Lots 6 and 7, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Bighorn Lodge Partnership 7. Request far an amendment to the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations Section 17.32.300 Title Certificate. Applicant: Town of Vail S. Consideration of zaning for the recently re-annexed portions of West Vail. Applicant: Town of Vail r' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 10, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz Duane Piper Rick Pylman Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele ABSENT Pam Hopkins "fhe meeting was called to order at 3:1.0 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of 2/24/86. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes of 2/24. Vote was 5-fl to approve. 2. A work session to review the Vail Valley Medical Center's proposed employee parkins system as required in conjunction with the conditional approval of the Center's proposed expansion. Peter Patten explained that the Medical Center was to come up with a p1 an to "make up" a shortfall of 61 parking spaces to meet the Town Council's condition of approval. The Medical Center was presenting the idea of using off-site parking and using valet parking. Their plan was to lease 12 spaces in the parking garage of Phase III of the Vail Village Inn, 2fl spaces from the Vail 21, and provide 36 spaces by using valet parking on the site. They determined through a survey that 8 employees walk to work. Patten stressed that this was to be only a work session, with no staff recommendation and no expectation of a vote from the pEC. Patten stated that the staff felt the lease spaces should be evaluated through the lease parking ordinance process. He added that the staff had envisioned a more permanent type of parking solution and felt that this solution was not ideal . Deborah Jost, hospital administrator, was confused about the parking along Meadow Drive and Duarte p;rpr rem~,~ded har +ba-t--the PEC had not approved any parking along Meadow Drive. Jost explained haw the valet parking would work: The back two rows would be for early arrivals who would leave their keys with a valet person, and the front row would be for short time parking only. She added that they were also pursuing the parking of 20 cars at the golf course parking lot with a shuttle. She referred to a letter to Tom Braun dated March 3 in which she outlined the above suggestions. Jost polled the board to see if they preferred off-site parking to the use of a shuttle. In general, the board did prefer the off-site parking but were very concerned that this be only a temporary solution. Donavan felt that a parking structure was needed immediately. She added that the use of parking spaces in other places was merely shuffling the problem to those other parking lots. Schultz stated that the Medical Center was not presenting any contingency plan in the event that the number of employees who walk to work should decrease. He added that the Vail 21 lot was usually full and that many VVI condos were not yet sold. He felt that the Medical Center should instead contact some project that really knew how many extra spaces they would have. i Jast said that if she utilized the latest parking survey, did the staff feel that this would be accurate, and Patten emphasized that the survey referred to was only for 3 days, and was done on a week-end that was not terribly busy. He added that the staff had not directed anyone to feel that the numbers in the survey were correct. He stated that the staff needed more information. Patten said that Joe Staufer {owner of Phase III of the Vail Village Inn) had been asked if he would be able to lease some of his parking spaces and Staufer had replied that he did not have any excess parking spaces, and so Patten was concerned about the spaces the VVI was promising to the Canter. piper suggested that there should be another more conclusive parking study done. Patten added that he would like to see more information from the people who had stated they would lease spaces to the Medical Center to see exactly how the spaces were being utilized before they were lease spaces to the Medical Center. Jost asked to poll the members about their feelings about the 21 spaces along West Meadow llri've. The members were not in favor of this, and some fe t t is should be a last ditch effort only. Donavan felt that not only should it be a last ditch effort, but that it should only be a temporary partial solution. She also stressed that she felt it was still important to gain access to the hospital parking lot from the South Frontage Road and Jost stated that she probably would proceed with an agreement far an access easement from the Doubletree. John Reece, architect for the Medical Center, showed the landscape plan along West Meadow Drive if the 21 spaces were to be allowed. Jost stated that the Medical Center was considering making the entire lot a pay lot. She asked if she should oat pursue the idea of a shuttle. Piper replied that it might not be necessary if she could work out other solutions. He asked Jost if an access agreement with the Doubletree could be worked out. Jay Peterson, representing the Doubletree, stated that they had agreed to allow an access across their property to the hospital. Piper stated that the PFC was still interested in seeing an access agreement because they felt it was important to reduce the amount of traffic coming down Vail Road and West Meadow Drive. Jost stated that they would formalize the agreement. She asked when the staff would need a new application, and Patten replied that it should be received by 9:00 am Tuesday, March 18. He added that Tom Braun had also mentioned the need to show a circulation loop on the west end of the parking lot and that the compact spaces appeared to be too small. Reece asked if they must show the concept in plan ar if it could be in narrative form, and was told it must be in plan. Gates to the lot were discussed and Dick Duran, Fire Chief, stated that one problem with gates was gaining access to the lot by the Fire Department in the case of afire. Donovan suggested that in the case of afire, the trucks could simply go through the gates with little trouble. Duran preferred sensors. He stated that if gates were put up, he would request that they be left the same width as the driveway. It was suggested that the gates could be tied into the fire alarm system, automatically opening the gates when the alarm system was activated. 2 3. A request far an exterior alteration of the Hong Kong Cafe in order to construct a two story building, and a conditional use permit in order to have an outdoor dining patio an ground floor on Lot C, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Hong Kong Cafe Partners Rick Pylman reminded the board that they had first heard the proposal on February 24th at which time 3 significant issues had been raised which were: ~. The aesthetic treatment of the alley way that will be created between the Hong Kang building and the Lazier Wall Street Building. 2. Location of trash facilities for the Hang Kong cafe. 3. Concern over enforcement of conditions requested by the owner of the third floor condominium in the Lazier Wall Street building. Pylman stated that the applicant had submitted drawings that indicate a eight foot high fence with gate to be constructed between the two buildings and would be made of the same siding material as the proposed Hong Kong cafe. He then explained that the applicant was now proposing to install a trash compactor and trash storage room in the basement level of the proposed Kong Kong cafe building. Tf it was built to proper standards had been reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health department and trash would be removed on an every other day basis. Pylman also stated that attorneys for the owner of the third floor condominium and for the Lazier Wall Street building had drawn up a contractual agreement detailing conditions and the contract had been reviewed by the Tawn Attorney. Craig Snowdon, architect on the project explained that after conversations with Gary Murrain, Chief Building Official, more exits and stairways were added. Tn modifying the interior, the elevation was changed which resulted in 30" more or less being subtracted from the height. Viele moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the requested exterior alteration and conditional use with the conditions per the staff memo. The conditions were:, 1. That the applicant not remonstrate against but will participate in any special improvement district if and when one if formed for Vail Village. 2. That a three year limit be placed on the approval of this proposal, 3. That a lease agreement be formalized with the Town of Vail for use of the patio area located on Town of Vail property. This lease agreement may reflect any increased snow removal costs incurred by the Town of Vail. The vote was 4 in favor and 1 against the approval. Donovan voted against the approval because she was not in favor of the conditional use permit encroaching onto Town of Vail property. • 3 Pic 3llalss 4. A request to amend the development p1 an of Crossroads and for setback variances in order to enclose an existing dining deck area at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquest Pylman stated that this request was originally heard on Qctober 24, 1985 and had been tabled several times since that time. The request is to enclose 454 square feat of an existing exterior dining area on the south side of the building adjacent to East Meadow Drive. He added that there was no real development plan because the building had been constructed prior to being zoned Gammercial Service Center, and the staff required the existing site plan be submitted as part of the application in an attempt to update the development plan. In the original request, the applicant replaced the enclosed outdoor dining with other outdoor dining and the staff supported the request using the Urban Design Guide Plan as criteria. Now the outdoor dining was not being replaced and the staff recommended denial of the amendment to the development plan . Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant felt that the retaining wall would have been too high in the original application. He also painted out that if the wall were to be moved, one tree would be lost, He said that the applicant planned to place benches above the wall where diners could sit if they wished to be outside. Peterson pointed out that Crossroads was not in Commercial Core I and should not be judged with CCI Guidelines. He stated that most of the pedestrian traffic was across the street, that many semi-trucks drove through the area, and that the Commercial Service Center was intended to be a service center with lots of vehicle access. The code stated that all activity must be located inside. Peterson said that the deck was located in a hole, and was not used much. Pylman pointed out that the Haagen Daz deck was encouraged and that the use ofi the Urban Design Guide Plan was used for the Haagen Daz deck and that the guidelines were used for other properties which were not in CCI or CCII, but were adjacent to it. Patten added that the Guide Plan was intended to encompass this area as well. Vieie felt that it was unfortunate that the applicant could not do the deck. He added that there was some inconsistency in evaluating the proposal under the Urban Design Guide Plan without Commercial Core I zoning. He was not sure if it was goad to plan an outdoor deck when the zoning did not call for outdoor decks. Donovan read the zoning and stated that it said one could still do outdoor decks. Peterson replied that authorization was needed to have outdoor activity. He felt that the Haagen Daz deck was not used much. Donavan stated that one could also argue convincingly that this use could be grandfathered. Larry Eskwith, town attorney, stated that nothing in the Commercial Service Center zone description says that one cannot have decks. Peterson replied that the zone code spoke of permitted uses and then conditional uses are listed with the addition of "any use permitted which is not conducted entirely within a building." Piper stated that the staff encouraged the Haagen Daz deck and Kristan Pritz added that this deck was for the use of all of Crossroads. Donavan painted out that the whole area had slowly changed to that of a pedestrian area, with nearly as many pedestrians as on Bridge Street. Schultz asked if the exterior dining was being enclosed because same of the interior dining had been lost and 4 PEC 3/10/8b Peterson said it was because the Burger King was trying to increase its visibility. He added that much of the area was not useable on the deck because of the dripping roof. Schultz asked what would be done to eliminate ice from falling onto the glass roof, and was told gutters would be used. Patten stated that this was one of the most popular decks in town and because of its exposure to the sun and the protection afforded it by being sunken, was very successful and was used most of the year. Peterson felt that CCI criteria should not be used for decks. Viele stated that in CCI and II, the Urban Design Guide Plan must be used, and that this was different. Patten disagreed and showed the map of the Urban Design Guide Plan which included elements outside of the CCI district. Eskwith stated that legally, Peterson was correct. Patten stated that in GCI and CCTT the Guide Plan was more strictly used, but it was evident from the map that the Guide Plan was specifically to be considered in other areas including Crossroads where it showed potential for infill. Jay said that this was for major projects, not 400 square foot additions. Viele felt that it seemed a little unfair to use the Urban Design Guide Plan for areas outside of CCI and CCII. Donovan felt the addition would have a negative impact, that the patio attracted many people because it was sunny and out of the wind. Vie1e moved and Schultz seconded to approve the amendment. The vote was 2-2 with Piper abstaining. A tie vote is a vote for denial. Eskwith pointed out that bath the variance and the amendment must be voted on at the same time. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve both the amendment and the variance. The vote was 2-2 with Piper abstaining. A tie vote is a vote for denial. 5. A request for exterior alteration of the Plaza Lodge in order to expand retail space and to remodel existing dwelling units and a request for a conditional use permit in order to eliminate two accommodation units., Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates Kristan Pritz reminded the board that they had heard this proposal on February 24 and that the board was concerned about the elevator tower. She showed a new elevation without the elevator tower. She added that the board also requested that the applicant and Ila Buckley specify the location for the popcorn wagon in Founders' Plaza. She also mentioned that Diana Donovan had been concerned about relying an Vendetta's trash dumpster for Christy Sports. Kristan showed a site plan of the landscape island with the popcorn wagon location designated including landscaping and a bench. She stated that staff recommended approval of both the exterior alteration and conditional use requests because staff's concern about the additional sun/shade and view impacts of the elevator were mitigated by the removal of the elevator and the new location of the popcorn wagon improves snow removal and fire access as well as creating an attractive pedestrian area. Craig Snowdon, architect for the applicant, discussed the changes as did Clark Willingham, owner of the building. Willingham added that he intended to use the lodge as a lodge year round. Donovan was concerned about the location of the popcorn wagon, feeling that it would block the view of the landscaping. Snowdon stated that direction from the staff was to make the wagon visible from 5 the ski slopes. Donovan felt orientation of the wagon to the mountain was a . mistake. Ila Buckley answered that the popcorn wagon also served as an information center. Snowdon added that the popcorn wagon added vibrancy to the plaza by not placing it in a corner and Pritz pointed out that maintaining access onto the plaza had been a design constraint. Donavan was also concerned about removing the Alaskan Pea shrub. Staff said they would replant the bush if it is living. It was also stipulated that Units 139 and 130 would each have doors accessing into the main common corridor so they would be considered to be lock-offs. Hobbs moved and Viele seconded to approve the exterior alteration and the conditional use per the staff memo dated March 10, 1986 with the following conditions: n LJ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS 1. Both units 139 and 130 will be used as short term rentals for the general public when the owners of the third floor dwelling unit are not utilizing their main dwelling unit. Unit 139 will have an access door to the common hallway. In the event that the project is condominiumized, units 139 and 130 will still be used as short term rentals when the owners of the third floor dwelling unit are not using their unit. 2, The new dwelling unit that will be created by the addition of the Christy Sports kitchen to an existing accommodation unit will be restricted as a short term rental unit permanently. This restriction will continue to apply to the unit even if the property is condominiumized. 3, The owner will give up the right to the Christy Sports kitchen if the kitchen is not relocated to an accommodation unit within one year of the date of PEC approval. 4. The owner will agree to provide these conditions of approval in a legal agreement for the Town before a building permit is issued for the remodel. These conditions will run with the property and will not be affected by a change in ownership. ExTERIOR ALTERATIONS REQUEST CONDITIONS The applicant shall not remonstrate against and will participate in any special improvement district when and if a specia l improvement district is formed for Vail Village. 1. 2. 3. • 4. This approval will expire within three years of Planning Commission approval date. All drainage from the building will be tied into the existing storm sewer system. The owner and building tenants trash on a daily basis. Trash shops an the street or plaza. will take responsibility for handling the will not be stored outside of any of the 6 5. The owner agrees to either amend in a written form the existing agreement or enter into the new written agreement to void the right to a delivery/pick-up parking space on the west side of the building in the . Founders' Plaza area. This agreement must be completed before a building permit is issued for the project. ~. The owner and Christy Sports as wail as any future tenants agree to not locate any signage within the display window an the east side of the trash room. 7. The owner agrees to the conditions of approval outlined in the conditional use memorandum. 8. The owner will agree to provide these conditions of approval in a legal agreement for the Town before a building permit is issued for the remodel. These conditions will run with the property and will not be affected by a change in ownership. The vote was 4 in favor and 1 (Donovan) against. Donovan opposed the relocation of the popcorn wagon to the area proposed. 6. A request for densit.v, landscaping and parking setback variances in order to construct an addition to the Bighorn Lodge located on Lots 6 and 7, block 7, Bighorn Third Addition. Applicant. Bighorn Lodge Partnership. Peter Patten explained the request and added that there was a fourth variance being requested, that of lack of covered parking. He said that in 1978 the building was converted from short term lodging to long term employee housing. The approval was for a density variance for the existing 16 accommodation units which subsequently were remodeled to include kitchens for each rental apartment with a time restriction for employee housing of three years. A 1980 letter from Jim Rubin to Joe Staufer indicated that the Town would be willing to discuss possible density increases for the continued provision of employee housing on the site. The proposal was to add a second floor with 9 one-bedroom apartments, each containing 589 square feet for a total additional square footage of 5,301 square feet on the second level. The first floor level contains 16 units with a total of 5,456 making the total proposed square footage 10,757 which is under the allowable of 10,903 square feet of GRFA. A density variance, however, is required for the proposed 25 units. The MDMF zoning allows only 12 dwelling units, but the 1978 variance approval allowed 16 units. Peter showed the site plan and elevations and explained the other needed variances. n U 7 Sid Schultz, architect far the project, felt that this request was different from others in that Pitkin Creek Park was constructed by a developer to be sold and Va11i Hi was developed to be rented for profit. He added that since 1978 when it was converted from accommodation units to dwelling units for employees, it had not been operated for a profit. He stated that it would only be used far 5onnenalp and Gasthof Gramshammer guests when those two facilities were full. He felt that the 1-own of Vail would benefit from 9 additional employee units plus the upgrading of the existing building. Schultz added that the applicant would agree to locate the utilities underground if this became possible. Schultz stated that the Fire Department insisted an the extra road cut onto Bighorn Road. Schultz was not in favor of building a bike path in front of the property because it would end in a dangerous place. Pepi Gramshammer, one of the owners, felt that he should not have to be held to restrictions requiring a long term commitment to employee housing. Donovan stated that she felt just the opposite. Piper asked about a master p1 an for the bike path and was told that this was really more of a sidewalk and a safety issue for pedestrians, especially at night. Piper did not know haw he felt about the sidewalk, but felt the increased density could create a microcosm of difficulties. He would have liked to have seen the curb cut removed an Bighorn Road and would have preferred to have seen greater restrictions than 7 years placed an the project. Viele agreed with Piper about the driveway, and felt that employee housing Bane this way was within reason. He did not feel it was fair to the applicant to have to build the sidewalk, especially without seeing a master plan. He would have liked to have seen the electric lines placed underground. He felt that the restriction should be imposed for a longer time than 7 years. Hobbs asked Pepi if he agreed with the conditions listed in the memo, and Gramshammer replied that he would not agree to them and felt that he had "paid his dues." Pepi said that there could come a day when he and 5heika would have to leave Vail and he would need to sell his property at that time, so the restrictions shouldn`t be too long. He also said that he would need to short-term some units in limited periods and that there was a problem with the 30 day minimum. He pointed out that he was improving the project. Fassler, son of the other owner, stated that he felt the conditions were unfair, but that they would have no objection to a time length of 1D-12 years. Piper asked Eskwith if this would be precedent setting, and Eskwith replied that each decision would be precedent setting and what the PEC did for one person, would be expected by others given similar situations. A discussion followed concerning the restrictions on Va11i Hi and on Pitkin Creek Park. Eskwith reminded the board that any restrictions imposed an the project should be recorded so that the restrictions followed the land. • 8 Viele moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variances with the findings the staff suggested in the memo dated March 10, 1986 with the restrictions changed as follows: 1. The units shall be restricted as follows: a. That the 25 dwelling units shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately (candominiumized} for a period of 12 years from the date that the certificate of occupancy is issued for said units, and b. That the 25 dwelling units shall be not leased or rented for any period of less than 30 consecutive days, and that if any unit shall be rented it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full time employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week, and c. That the 25 dwelling units shall not be divided into any farm of time shares, interval ownership ar fractional fee, and d. That a declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed of record in the office of the Eagle County clerk and recorder in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictions herein shall run. with the land. The vote was 3 in favor, 1 (Donovan) against, with Schultz abstaining., 7. Request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations, Section 17.32.300 Title Certificate. Applicant: Town of Vail. Kristan Pritz explained that the existing title certificate certifies only that the title company has verified that the land is free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, but does not verify ownership, The amendment would make the title company responsible for verifying ownership. Hobbs moved and Donovan seconded to approve the amendment and the vote was 5w0 in favor. 8. Consideration of zoning for the recently re-annexed portions of West. Vail. Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten stated that a special ordinance would be written to place the same zoning on the recently annexed Buffer Creek and Vail dos Schone #3 subdivisions as existed before the de-annexation if the PEC would recommend to Town Council that the same zoning be imposed. Donavan moved and Viele seconded to recommend to Town Council that the recently re-annexed portions of West Vail be zoned as they were before de-annexation, The vote was 5-0 in favor. After more discussion, the meeting adjourned about 7:00 pm. 9 • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 10, 1986 SUBUECT: A request for a setback variance in order to enclose an existing deck area at Burger King, Crossroads Shopping Center Applicant: Snowquest Partners I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Snowquest Partners, relatively new owners of the Burger King restaurant in the Crossroads Shopping Center, are proposing to enclose a portion of the existing outdoor deck area. This request will require both a setback variance and an approval for an amendment to the development plan of Crossroads Center. These approvals are addressed in separate memos, please see attached memo an development plan amendment. i• CJ The proposal involves enclosing approximately 2/3 of the existing outside seating area with a greenhouse style addition. The proposed greenhouse enclosure would encroach to within 3 feet of the property line. The Crossroads Shopping Genter is zoned Commercial Service Center. This zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on front, side and rear property lines. The applicant feels that this proposal will add to the street edge and pedestrian experience by increasing both visibility of the restaurant and the transparency of the building. II. CRITERIA AND FINCINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Gode, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors:. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity- Crossroads Shopping Center is located on the edge of Commercial Core I. Properties within the Urban Design Plan area have flexibility with regard to setbacks as long as the design considerations are complied with. In reviewing this proposal with the Urban Design Guide Plan criteria, we feel that the proposal creates negative impacts upon several areas. Those being pedestrianization, streetscape, and the criteria relating to exterior decks and patios. Staff feels that due to the relationship of the Crossroads Center building to Vail Village, utilizing this review criteria is a valid concept and feel that these negative impacts have not been adequately addressed. However, it should be Hated that the physical presence of the setback encroachment itself will not have significant negative impacts upon other exisrting or potential uses and structures in the vicinity (i.e. crowding roads, impeding snow removal, etc.) • The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve comoatibili~t.y and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privile ecL. A portion of the Crossroads Center 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. 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 approve the setback request. 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 request has been reviewed by all applicable Town of Vail departments, we see no additional problem for either snow removal or traffic congestion. Staff feels that there are na negative effects on any other of the above mentioned criteria related to this consideration. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the . proposed variance III. FINgINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings i 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. C7 iV, STAFF RECOMMENDATiQN Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance. Staff feels that due to the 1acation of the existing building, a setback variance is not a grant of special privilege. However, we recommend denial of the proposal overall due to the evaluation found within the accompanying memorandum addressing Urban Design Guide Plan criteria. • • . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 10, 1086 SUBJECT: Amendment request for the Crossroads Shopping Center located in the Commercial Service Center zone district. Applicant: Snawquest Partners I. TUE REQUEST Snowquest Partners, the owners of the Burger King restaurant located in the Crossroads Shopping Center, are requesting to enclose an existing exterior dining area on the south side of the building adjacent to East Meadow Drive. The area of the proposed enclosure is approximately 454 square feet. The enclosure is designed as a solar atrium. This atrium consists of a glass enclosure at existing grade level exterior dining deck, and is overhung by the second story deck and balcony of the building. Anew set of entry stairs and a heated brick paver patio surface are also a part of the overall upgrading being proposed. This proposal does not include any replacement of the exterior dining that is being enclosed. 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 X8.28.010 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 Tawn, together with limited mu'ltiple~family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without 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 goes on to require the adoption of a general development p1 an prior to the establishment of any area as Commercial Service Center zone district. This development plan as stated in the zoning code must contain the following information: L~ 1. Existing topography and tree cover. 2. Proposed locations, dimensions and heights of buildings on each site and the location of parking and loading areas, access drives, principle public and private open spaces and other site plan features. 3. Proposed division of the area into lots and building sites and the proposed uses. 4. Relationship of proposed development on the site to development an adjoining sites. 5. Such additional information as the Planning Commission and Town Council deem necessary to guide development within the proposed district. The municipal code goes on to state that this development plan shall be used as a guide far 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 increase the existing setback Planning Commission approval III. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL to alter the building footprint and encroachment, this proposal would require as an amendment to the development plan. A previous submittal of this proposal included the creation of a new exterior dining area equal in size to that area that was being enclosed. The proposed replacement of exterior dining played a major role in the staff`s decision to support that proposal. This was discussed in a PEC memo dated October 28, 1985. As Crossroads Shopping Center is located adjacent to Vail Village, it was felt that criteria from the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan was applicable to the project. At that time, staff felt the proposal met certain Urban Design Guide Plan criteria related to outdoor dining, streetscape, and pedestrianization. In review of the current proposal, without the replacement of any outdoor dining, the staff feels that the impacts relating to Urban Design Guide Plan criteria #~, Outdoor Dining, Streetscape, and Pedestrianization are negative. The Urban Design Guide Plan criteria relating to decks and patios states the following: "Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunity to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street--making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets were empty." . This section of the Guidelines goes on to state: "A review of successful decks/patios in Vaii reveals several common characteristics: 1. Direct sunlight from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm. 2. Elevated to give views into the pedestrian walk. 3. Physical separation from pedestrian walk. 4. Overhang gives pedestrian scale and shelter." While the existing Burger King patio is not elevated, but rather is lower than the existing sidewalk and street, we feel that the deck does meet the other three criteria, and it does provide a positive pedestrian experience as is. The very high level of use this deck receives, almost throughout the entire year, bears this out. With regard to parking, the Town of Vail requirements are ~ parking space for every $ restaurant seats and 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of retail space. The enclosure of the outside dining area of 450 square feet creates a parking demand of 3 spaces. Interior changes in the restaurant have resulted in the creation of a new retail space in what was the west dining room of Burger King. This transformation from dining to retail creates a net demand of negative 3 parking spaces. These two actions combined, create a demand of D spaces. • The Commercial Service Center requires 20 foot front, side and rear setbacks. The Crossroads Shopping Center currently encroaches within that required setback in the East Meadow Drive area. Any expansion or further development of the building in this area will require a setback variance. This issue is addressed in an accompanying memo. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the proposed amendment to the Crossroads development plan. The previous proposal, including replacement of exterior dining, was reviewed and supported by the staff. In order to justify our support, we utilized criteria from the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. We felt that due to the proximity of the Crossroads Shopping Center to Vail Village, this was a valid concept. In reviewing the current proposal, which includes no replacement of exterior dining, we utilized the same methodology to determine impacts. It is our belief that the current proposal presents negative impacts to these criteria; specifically, pedestrianization, streetscape, and the criteria relating to decks and patios. :7 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 1.0, 1985 SUBJECT: Exterior alteration of the Plaza Lodge in order to expand retail space and remodel existing dwelling units and fora conditional use permit in order to eliminate two accommodation units on Lots G, N, I, J, K and part of F, Block 5C, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: Plaza Ledge Associates, Ltd. INTRODUCTION At the February 24th PEC meeting, the applicant requested to table the item until March 10th. Donavan moved and Schultz seconded to table the proposal to that date. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to consider removing the elevator tower, as it was felt by most members that the elevator was very imposing on the site. The Commission also requested that the applicant and Ile Buckley specify the location for the popcorn wagon in Founders' Plaza. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE The applicant has removed the elevator from the proposal. A trash room is proposed to be located in the exact same location as the elevator. The trash room will be one story high and will have a window far Christy Sports' display of clothing. In respect to the location of the popcorn wagon, the applicant has provided a specific site plan for the redesign of the landscape island. This design has been reviewed by Ile Buckley and she has no problems with the proposal. The design also allows for snowplow and fire access. Please see the enclosed site p1 an. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of both the exterior alteration and conditional use requests. 5taff's concern about the additional sun/shade and view impacts of the elevator have been completely mitigated by the removal of the elevator. The new trash room will provide a backup trash alternative to the Vendetta`s trash dumpster. Two existing display windows are covered by the new trash room. A new display window will be located on the east side of the trash roam. This window will be used for the display of Christy Sports merchandise which will add interest at the pedestrian level of the building. Staff does not consider the display window to be a display box, as the display window is located on an exterior wall that is part of Christy Sports' lease space. In addition, this display area will only be used for the display of Christy Sports merchandise and will not have any signage in the display case. Staff also feels that the specific design for the popcorn wagon and landscaped island provides a positive improvement to the Founders` Plaza area. The additional bench and new landscaping will create an attractive pedestrian area. Snow removal and fire access has also been improved by relocating the popcorn wagon to its new location. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the two requests with the following conditions: . CdNDITIQNAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS 1. Both units 139 and 13d will be used as short term rentals for the general public when the owners of the third floor dwelling unit are not utilizing their main dwelling unit. Unit 139 will have an access door to the common hallway. In the event that the project is condominiumized, units 139 and 130 will still be used as short term rentals when the owners of the third floor dwelling unit are not using their unit. Z. The new dwelling unit that will be created by the addition of the Christy Sports kitchen to an existing accommodation unit will be restricted as a short term rental unit permanently. This restriction will continue to apply to the unit even if the property is condaminiumized. 3. The owner will give up the right to the Christy Sports kitchen if the kitchen is not relocated to an accommodation unit within one year of the date of PEC approval. 4. The owner will agree to provide these conditions of approval in a legal agreement for the Town before a building permit is issued for the remodel. These conditions will run with the property and will not be affected by a change in ownership. ExTERIOR ALTERATIONS REQUEST CONDITIONS • 1. The applicant shall not remonstrate against and will participate in any special improvement district when and if a special improvement district is formed for Vail Village. 2. This approval will expire within three years of Planning Commission approval date. 3. All drainage from the building will be tied into the existing storm sewer system. 4. The owner and building tenants will take responsibility for handling the trash on a daily basis. Trash will not be stored outside of any of the shops on the street or plaza. 5. The owner agrees to either amend in a written farm the existing agreement or enter into the new written agreement to void the right to a delivery/pick-up parking space on the west side of the building in the Founders' Plaza area. This agreement must be completed before a building permit is issued for the project. 6. The owner and Christy Sports as well as any future tenants agree to not locate any signage within the display window on the east side of the trash room. 7. The owner agrees to the conditions of approval outlined in the conditional use memorandum. 8. The owner will agree to provide these conditions of approval in a legal • agreement for the Town before a building permit is issued for the remodel. These conditions will run with the property and will not be affected by a change in ownership. • ~•. ~n n I ~~ ~ ~` 7 ~ I. ~I 4 .~~li l.J ~I i ~~ ~~ `~ ~ L - ~- `r V . _.._ h K ` S ~ ~~ t ~ ~~I~ItiIls P'te` ~_ X at 4~ ~ •,, ; , ~\ ~r K ~. ''t } ~ ~ x - ~ I (~~L.aGe.'rED ~oGfL --- ~ ~' .~ 1 M . ~ 1 -~~-g-~i~~~ ~Np~~arzo~i~l~a ~ l ~ - ~_ •~ ~ i r ~ '~ i ~ ~ ~ \/. ~ 'rd 1-~A•'fG'-f ~ Fz ~-O ~IJ ~ i 4-1Ca ~~ r ~~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ .~ , 1 1 t ~ `. i• u z ~ ~~ ~C -- -~ i ~~ I PLAZA ISLAND LANDSCAPE 114" : 1'--0" Bridge Street CHANGES TO DRAWINGS FOR PEC MEETING MARCH 10, 1986 PLAZA LODGE REMODEL March ~, 1986 1) Site Plan Remove new elevator; add trash enclosure Plaza Island Landscape Plan 2) Basement Plan Remove elevator .shaft and equipment room for elevator 3) First Floor Plan: . Remove elevator; add trash enclosure ~+) Second Floor Plan Remove elevator; show flat roof of trash enclosure. Relocate window at elevator 5) Third Floor Plan Remove elevator and elevator vestibule Add window to study Add door to bedroom 139 at stair 6) East Elevation and South Elevation Remove elevator; add enclosed trash room . Add flower basket at wall next to trash room New display window box at trash roan 7) West Elevation , Building Sect ion ' A' i . Remove elevator and elevator vestibule Shift March/September sun/shade line back to original roof cave T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: larch 10, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in order to enclose an existing deck area at Burger King, Grossroads Shopping Center Applicant: Snawquest Partners I. DESCRIPTION OE VARIANCE REQUESTED The Snnwquest Partners, relatively new owners of the Burger King restaurant in the Crossroads Shopping Center, are proposing to enclose a portion of the existing outdoor deck area. This request will require both a setback variance and an approval far an amendment to the development plan of Grossroads Center. These approvals are addressed in separate memos, please see attached memo on development plan amendment. The proposal involves enclosing approximately 2/3 of the existing outside seating area with a greenhouse style addition. The proposed greenhouse enclosure would encroach to within 3 feet of the property line. The Crossroads Shopping Center is zoned Commercial Service Center. This zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on front, side and rear property lines. The applicant feels that this proposal will add to the street edge and pedestrian experience by increasing both visibility of the restaurant and the transparency of the building. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Cade, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Crossroads Shopping Center is located on the edge of Commercial Core I. Properties within the Urban Design Plan area have flexibility with regard to setbacks as long as the design considerations are complied with. In reviewing this proposal with the Urban Design Guide Plan criteria, we feel that the proposal creates negative impacts upon several areas. Those being pedestrianization, streetscape, and the criteria relating to exterior decks and patios. Staff feels that due to the relationship of the Crossroads Center building to Vail Village, utilizing this review criteria is a valid concept and feel that these negative impacts have not been adequately addressed. However, it should be noted that the physical presence of the setback encroachment itself will not have significant negative impacts upon other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity (i.e. crowding roads, impeding snow removal, etc.) The degree to which relief from the strict ar literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessarx to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity ar to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege, A portion of the Crossroads Center 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. 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 approve the setback request. 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 request has been reviewed by all applicable Town of Vail departments, we see no additional problem for either snow removal or traffic congestion. Staff feels that there are no negative effects en any other of the above mentioned criteria related to this consideration. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance III. FI~pINGS 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 ar 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 ether 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. • . IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATICN Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance. Staff feels that due to the location of the existing building, a setback variance is not a grant of special privilege. However, we recommend denial of the proposal overall due to the evaluation found within the accompanying memorandum addressing Urban Design Guide Plan criteria. • • . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March lO, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration an part of Lot C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, in order to construct a free standing two story building. Applicant: Hong Kong Cafe Partnership I. INTRODUCTION The exterior alteration application far the Hong Kong Cafe was originally heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission on February Z4, 1986. During discussion of the proposal, three significant issues were raised. Those issues are: 1. The aesthetic treatment of the alley way that will be created between the Hong Kong building and the Lazier Wall Street building. 2. Location of trash facilities for the Hong Kong cafe. 3. Concern aver enforcement of conditions requested by the owner of the third floor condominium in the Lazier Wall Street building. Following discussion of these issues, the applicant requested the Planning and Environmental Commission table this proposal until the March loth meeting at which time the applicant felt he would be better able to discuss these issues. II. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO ISSUES A. Alley Treatment The applicant has submitted drawings that indicate a six foot high fence with gate will be constructed from the Hong Kang building to the Lazier Building in order to enclose the alley way. This fence will be constructed of the same siding material as the proposed Hong Kong cafe and will include a gate for access into the alley way. B. Trash Faci 1 i t.y Several alternatives for placement and handling of the trash facility were discussed in the previous planning commission meeting. Several of those alternatives involved reliance upon utilization of Lazier property and/or easements. The applicant, upon studying the situation, has decided it would be best to keep trash facilities completely independent of reliance upon other properties. The applicant is proposing to install a trash compactor and trash storage room in the basement level of the proposed Hang Kong cafe building. The trash removal company will take the trash directly from this room. No other exterior storage is involved in this proposal. This proposal, if built to proper standards, has been reviewed Health Department. The appl and has indicated to us that will be satisfactory to meet C. Requested Conditions Between Honq Konq Cafe Partnership and approved by the Environmental icant has contacted the trash company removal on an every other day basis their needs. Lazier Building Condominium Owner and At the February 24th meeting, an attorney for Mr. Edward Bleckner, the owner of Units 308 and 309, residential condominiums in the Lazier Arcade building, requested that the Planning and Environmental Commission place several conditions upon the approval of the Hong Kong Cafe Partnership. Although the Hong Kong Cafe Partnership had agreed to these conditions, Planning Commission felt uncomfortable in being placed in the position of enforcement. The attorneys for both parties have drawn up a contractual agreement detailing these conditions. This contract has been reviewed by the Town Attorney. D. Exterior Building Modifications Related to These Issues • In order to comply with the contractual agreement with the owner of units 308/309 Lazier Arcade, the building height and sky lights have been slightly lowered. This change is reflected on re~submtted elevations. All ingress/egress points have been eliminated from the Lazier alley. A11 access points are located on HKC property, on the south elevation at the plaza level and on the northeast earner of the lower dining level.. The north elevation of the building, for a length of 16 feet starting at the northeast corner, has been pulled back 8 inches to accommodate any future stairway that may be proposed for the Lazier alley. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that the issues discussed in the February 24th meeting have been adequately addressed and recommend approval for the exterior alterations of the Hong Kong cafe as submitted and modified. Staff would at this point defer to the staff recommendation and requested conditions outlined in the PEC memo dated February 24, 1986. • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: March 10, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for density, landscaping and parking setback variances for the Bighorn Lodge located on Lots 5 and 7, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Bighorn Lodge Partnership I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Bighorn Lodge is one of the oldest buildings in the east Uail area and was originally built along old Highway 6 to accommodate bath skiers and travelers. In 1978 the Bighorn Lodge was converted from short term lodging to long term employee housing. The approval was for a density variance far the existing 16 accommodation units which subsequently were remodeled to include kitchens for each rental apartment. The employee housing restrictions attached to the density variance were for only a three year time period. A 1980 letter from dim Rubin to doe Stauffer indicated that the Town would be willing to discuss possible density increases for the continued provision of employee housing on the site. The letter further stated that the building is in an excellent location far employee housing due to its location right an the Bighorn bus route. The proposal in franc of the Planning Commission today is to expand and upgrade the Bighorn Lodge to add a second floor containing nine 1-bedroom apartments, each containing 589 square feet for a total additional square footage of 5,301 square feet on the second level. The first level contains fourteen 310 square foot dwelling units as well as two 55S square foot dwelling units far a total existing square footage of 5,456 square feet. The total proposed square footage is 10,757 square feet which is under the allowable of 10,903 square feet of GRFA. A density variance, however, is required far the proposed 25 units an the site. The MDMF zoning allows only 12 dwelling units, but the 1978 variance approval allowed 16 dwelling units. Other variances required include landscaping, parking setback and covered parking. In MDMF zone, 30% of the site is required to be landscaped. Due to existing conditions, very little of the property is landscaped and the applicant is making an effort to add landscaping where passible within the property lines as well as add to existing landscaped areas outside of their own property. Parking is not allowed in the 20 foot front setback in the MDMF zone and 50% of the required parking is to be located within the main building or buildings or hidden from public view. Again, existing nonconforming conditions with regard to these development standards make it extremely difficult if not impassible to comply. • II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Dpon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval with conditions 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. In that the proposal is merely to add a second story to the existing structure and to otherwise improve the aesthetics of the site with regard to parking and landscaping, there is no significant change in relationship to other existing or potential uses or structures within the immediate vicinity. The existing conditions in regard to parking location are not being altered and do nat present any negative impacts upon the adjacent area today. Proposed additional landscaping should improve the aesthetics of the surface parking vn the site. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob,iectives of this title without Grant of special privilege. With regard to the density variance relating to the number of units on the site, significant precedents have been set regarding the allowance of additional units for employee housing. Density concessions were given to both the Pitkin Creek Park and the Va11i Hi projects as well as smaller variances granted to multi-family projects such as Ipanema and the Sunbird Lodge for employee-restricted manager's units. It has been a policy of both the PEC and Council to relax density controls on certain parcels to induce the construction of adequately restricted employee housing dwelling units. We feel that with proper restrictions on this property, that a similar density concession can be made. The proposal upgrades the appearance and workability of the site without meeting all of the development standards for the MDMF zone. Regarding landscaping, the existing nonconforming conditions are a major deterrent to the applicant's ability to meet the 30% requirement. The major mitigating aspect regarding landscaping is the heavily landscaped area between Bighorn Road and the site. This area is 65 feet in depth and almost 300 feet in length. The applicant proposes to add 8 spruce trees, 6 to 8 feet in height and 15 aspen, 1-1/2 to 2 in caliper to this buffer area. Also proposed on the west side of the site is the addition of two 8 foot tall spruce as well as an additional aspen tree. Interior of the site will receive planter boxes with native elder, potentilla, current and other shrubbery adjacent to the entryways to the units on both north and south sides. Thus, landscaping on the site will be improved over existing conditions. • Existing paved area far parking will be slightly changed in location so that all parking takes place within the prnperty lines and eliminates encroachments. The paved area under the proposal will be increased only very slightly. There is nowhere with the existing conditions that the parking meets the 2O foot front setback requirement. Regarding underground or covered parking for the site, the precedent has been set regarding Pitkin Creek and Valli Hi in relieving this requirement far restricted employee housing use. With this in mind, we feel that no special privilege would be granted by approving the variances far this employee housing project if employee housing restrictions, as recommended by staff, are met. 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 is an existing overhead electric line running across the site and over the existing building. This power line is one of the main electric lines for the entire east Vail area and thus the Tawn Engineer feels that this applicant would have no power or control in attempting to underground it. If the line were serving this property only, we would require the applicant to bury it. There is an existing pedestrian safety problem in this area along Bighorn Raad. The existing road does not have adequate sidewalk area for pedestrians and this is why the Town constructed the sidewalk/bike path beginning to the west of this site. Staff feels strongly that the granting of these variances should be contingent upon the applicant continuing the sidwalk/bike path along the length of their property and that a precedent exists for this requirement in the Va11i Hi project. Adding employee housing apartments to this site is ideal in relationship to the Bighorn bus route in that the bus shelter is located just outside the prnperty lines. The addition of 9 units is not expected to adversely affect the ability of the bus system to handle the additional riders. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance In order to support the granting of density and other variances for employee housing, the staff feels it imperative that long term use restrictions be imposed. Valli Hi's approval was for a period of 20 years, while the Pitkin Creek Park condominium project was restricted only far 7 years due to financing restrictions related to industrial development bonds by the Federal Government. Both the managers` units as well as the apartments allowed under the small lot provision in the Primary/Secondary zone district are restricted as per Section 18.13.080 B. 1 thru lO which are much longer term restrictions. The staff can support variances for employee housing only if these long term restrictions are met. AFFECTED POLICIES WITHIN THE VAIL COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN The Community Design section of the Action Plan states that "The Town of Vail . should make long range plans to meet needs for employee housing." The proposal is attempting to do this. 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, ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one ar mare of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specifiied 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. • IV. STAFF RECQMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variances for the addition and upgrading of the Bighorn Lodge for employee housing apartments. We feel the proposal is providing an important land use for which the community will have a continuing need in the long term. Additionally, the existing structure on the site will receive an aesthetic upgrading and be more in keeping with the quality of the development in the remainder of the East Vail area. However, we feel very strongly that the following conditions should be met for any variances granted to this proposal: 1. The units shall be restricted as follows: a. That the 25 dwelling units shall not be sal d, transferred or conveyed separately (candominiumized} for a period of twenty years and the life of Trent Ruder from the date that the certificate of occupancy is issued for said units, and b. That the 25 dwelling units shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than thirty consecutive days, and that if any unit shall be rented it shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, . Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avan and their surrounding areas. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per week, and r c. That the 25 dwelling units shall not be divided into any form of time shares, interval ownership or fractional fee, and d. That a declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed of record in the office of the Eagle County clerk and recorder in a form approved b,y the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land. 2. The applicant shall construct an off-road sidewalk/bicycle path from Lupine Drive to the east end of the property according to Town of Vail construction design guidelines. Note: To date, the applicant has not agreed to these two conditions. • • r • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FRONT: Community Development Department DATE: March 10, 1986 SUBJECT: Work session review of the Vail Valley Medical Center's employee parking solution BACKGROUND ON THIS PROPOSAL As the Planning Commission is undoubtedly aware, the Town Council overturned the PEC's denial of the conditional use for the hospital expansion on February 18th. Tied to this approval, however, were two conditions that must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction. They include: 1. The Planning Commission review and approve a system designed to accommodate the 61 parking spaces that are not provided on the site. 2. The Town Council and the Vail Valley Medical Center reach an accord on a written agreement addressing a number of issues relative to this proposal. The VVMC's first step in satisfying these conditions is to obtain Planning Commission approval of a parking solution to accommodate the shortfall of 61 spaces. A proposal has been submitted to the staff by VVMC and will be presented for your consideration Monday. it should be emphasi-zed that this will be a work session type of review. This is primarily due to the fact that the staff feels mare time is needed to evaluate this proposal. Because of the time frame involved in this process, a work session has been scheduled to give the applicant some indication as to the Planning Commission's reaction to the solutions proposed. II. VVMC'S PROPOSAL The medical center has proposed a combination of approaches in order to address the shortfall of 61 parking spaces. These include the following: 36 additional spaces provided on site to be serviced with a valet attendant. 12 spaces provided in the parking garage of Phase III of the Vail Village Inn 20 spaces leased from the Vail 21 structure $ spaces not needed as surveys indicated 8 employees walk to work . 76 total spaces This proposal would exceed by 15 spaces the conditions established by the Council. In addition to this memorandum, information concerning this proposal has been included in your packet at the request of the Medical Center. This information includes the employee survey, letters verifying the availability of off-site spaces, and correspondence between the Medical Center and the developers of the Doubletree Inn. III. STAFF COMMENTS ON THIS PROPOSAL During the Planning Commission review, it was generally assumed that the off-site parking solution was to be a bus/shuttle system from one or mare off-site parking locations. The staff is conceptually supportive of the two elements of this proposal presented to solve this problem. The fiollowing are our comments with respect to the valet parking and off-site parking locations. Valet Parking The revised site p1 an shows 85 spaces on-site that would require valet service to be fully utilized. These valet spaces are 3 cars deep and located on the site's main lot. Remaining are 1.08 spaces available far hospital use that would not require valet service. If properly controlled and operated with as many attendants as needed, staff feels that a valet parking program can contribute toward solving the parking problem on this site. There are, however, a number of details that need to be worked out with respect to the parking layout proposed. Among them are improving circulation through the lot as well discounting a number of inadequately sized spaces. Further clarification of these points will be presented at Monday's meeting. Off-Site Parking Spaces The staff is conceptually supportive of the VVMC obtaining parking spaces in close proximity to their site. With respect to the two locations proposed, both afford employees easy bus service to the medical center. However, as outlined in the lease program section of the zoning code, a determination must be made as to whether these proposed lots have an excess of spaces enabling them to be leased to the hospital. It is with respect to this concern that additional time is needed to evaluate the feasibility of this proposal. Additional information is to be provided to the staff by the applicant and the staff will be researching the specific situations with these lots as well. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff does not have a recommendation for this proposal at this time. Again, it should be emphasized that this is intended to be a work session review. While at a conceptual level this plan appears to have merit, it is in need of additional study before the staff can give its support. The PEC is encouraged to provide any comments they may have concerning the proposal that has been made by the VVMC. vain va~~ey ~ ~~ i~aedica~ ~ce~~er I March 3, 1986 Mr. Chuck Rosenquist Vail 21 Partnership P.O. Box 686 Vail, Cb1orado 81658 Dear Chuck: 1 a1 West Meadow Drive Vail, Goforado 81657 (343)476-2451 This is to confirm our earlier conversation in which we agreed that the hospital will lease 20 spaces from Vail 21 Partnership, effective November 1, 1986 through ski season {approximately April 15, 1987} at a rate of $300 per space. The total cost is $6,OQ0 to be paid November 1, 1986. The spaces are located at the top level of the garage and the hospital has permission to provide locks to you so the area can be secured. If you are in agreement, please sign both copies, keep one for your files, and return the other. I appreciate your help in resolving the need for hospital parking spaces. Your consideraltian is helping to make it passible to expand hospital services to the, community. Best regards, Deborah Jost Administrator /Ts I agree to the terms outlined in this proposal. ,- - - . ~~ . Chuck Rosenquist,/Vail 21 Date Deborah Jost Administrator • March 3, 1986 Mr. Tom Braun Town Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Tom: I am writing this Vail Village Inn spaces exclusively employees in the Va Upon Mr. Staufer's available. letter to v Corporation, for use by it Village Inn return from erify that Josef Staufer, President of has permanently reserved 12 parking designated Vail Valley Medical Center parking garage. San Croix a confirming letter will be Sincerely,,, ~° `~~' ~~ G~ ~. -_ ~~- Gordo ~. Britton Fund Raising Campaign Chairman [. ~~ ~ ~c~~~ ~c~~~~ 181 West Meadow Drivo ~~~ , Vail, Colorado 81657 `~= ~~~~'~~+~ ~~~~r (303) 476-2451 Mr. Abbas Rajabi Doubletree Inn Vail Holdings Sox 1928 Vail, Colorado 81657 October 15, 1985 Dear Mr. Rajabi, Vail Valley Medical Center is interested in pursuing with you your ideas regarding a possible joint venture fora parking structure. The Governing Board again needs to emphasise that at present, the hospital has no additional funds to devote to parking. However, we are open to considering utilizing our back parking lot in conjunction with the Doubletree and the Town of Vail if such a venture is financially and legally feasible, and requires no capital investment by the hospital. • The hospital has two other concerns: 1} we must meet the covenants of the existing bonds which limit our debt capacity and 2} there are deed restrictions on the portion of land donated to the hospital by Vail Associates. I will need more information and some time to research these points when the proposal is further defined. I am available to meet with you and the Town of Vail whenever needed. I am enthusiastic about the prospect of all three organizations cooperating to solve the parking needs. Sincerely, V ~~ Deborah .lost Administrator .~r ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~- /li (~E'~-~~ ../'?''{~'_ Deborah Jost Administrator ~31~3/~~ VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING SURVEY FOR DAY SFIIFT EMPLOYEES ONLY CHECK ONE 1. I live in: Avon J.( // Total Eagle 1 Total Eagle-Vail ~/~// Total q East Vail Total ~,' - Edwards J~ Total ~- -- Gypsum ~ Total 1 Leadvi1le //,/ Total 3 Minturn 1/! Total 3 New Castle ~j Total Red Cliff ~ Total / Summit County Tata7 Vail /! Total ~., West Vai 1 ~ ~i+,{l Total ~~ TOTAL: ~~ a} Carpooling -- The driver would be given $1O/week far gas, must have at least 3 people per car, and could park on site. b) I would not be driving but would either walk, or use the Town bus, or be driven by someone else. c) I would only use nn-site valet parking. - d) I would agree to park nearby the hospital if a space were provided at a nearby lot. (Lionshead codas, Crossroads, Vail Village Inn, Vail 21 Building.) a) Jul l Total ~ b) Lx~L _111 Total c) //1 Total ~~ d) ,~ ~!i ~ ~/ Total ~j Either a) ar b} Total Either a} or c) !/~! Total ~! Either a} or d) 11 Total ~Z-- Either b} or c) Total Either b} or d) /!!I Total ~ Either c ) or d } ~/~ Tata 1 ~ TOTAL INQUIRIES RETURNED ~~ r~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 10, 19$6 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations, Section 17'.32.300 Title Certificate It has been brought to the staff's attention that the existing title certificate that has been used on all of the Town of Vail's subdivision plats certifies only that the title company has verified that "Title to such land is free and c7 ear of all liens, taxes and encumberances, except as follows:." The title company is not being asked to verify ownership. The staff is concerned about this situation as we have no way of knowing if the appropriate owners are actually signing off on the subdivision plat. The staff is proposing to change the title certificate wording so that the title company would be responsible for verifying ownership. Below is the proposed title certificate warding: PROPOSED TITLE CERTIFICATE • Name of Title Company does hereby certify that the title to all lands shown upon this plat have been examined and is vested 1n and that title to such lands is free and clear of all liens and encumberances, except as follows: Dated this day of AD, 19 Title Company or Attorney's Name Address By (Signature) (printed name and title of officer or attorney} The Town Council has reviewed this proposal at their work session an March 4, 1985. They felt that the change was important and asked staff to proceed to Planning Commission. This amendment to the subdivision regulations will require an ordinance and therefore will also be reviewed again at the Town Council level. .~ ORDINANCE 6 Series of 1.986 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.32.3Q0 OF THE Ml1NICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL n u • WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that the revised title certificate will provide useful and necessary ownership verification when a parcel is subdivided; AND NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 17.32.300 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows: 17.32.300 Title Certificate does hereby certify that the title to all lands shown Name of Title Company upon this plat have been examined and is vested in and that title to such lands is free and clear of a]1 liens and encumberances, except as follows: Dated this day of Title Company or Attorney's Name Address AD, 19 - --1 Section 2. if any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under ar by virtue of the provision repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS DAY OF X956, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1956 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building in Vail, Colorado. r7 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 10, 1986 SUBJECT: Imposition of zone districts upon recently re-annexed areas of West Vail I. BACKGROUND State statutes regulating annexations require imposition of zone districts within 90 days of the effective date of the annexing ordinance. As you know, the Buffer Creek and Vail dos Schone Filing #3 areas have recently been re-annexed and it is time to impose new zone districts on these areas. Tt is not our desire to alter any of the previous zoning on these parcels, as we feel that the zoning adopted in 1981 has worked very well for the Tawn. Originally, there were a number of projects approved by Eagle County which were accepted by the Town through the provisions of Ordinance #13, Series of 1981. Attached please find that ordinance which applies to the Vail Commons mixed use project within the Commercial Core III area. Essentially, Ordinance 13 accepts the deve1apment plan approved by the County and provides for Design Review Board review as well as a process to be followed in the event of any changes to that plan. • II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the previously existing zone districts to be imposed on the recently re-annexed portion of West Vail as per the attached map. Furthermore, we recommend that the zaning regarding the Vail Commons project the same as impaled as Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981 which is also attached for your reference. • r'r . ' ~ ~ e' ~ • ORDINANCE N0. 13 {Series of 1981} •r ~ S` 75 s. ~; ~~; ~, ~;,~, read veil, ccEa~~,s.:r~ 3.`:57 1 i .t AI~T ORDINANCE IhIP05ING ZOI~'Iiv~G DISTRICTS ON CERTAIN DEVELOP!fEl'v'TS AND PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE RECENTLY A1i~TE~ED ~~EST VAIL AREA; ACCEPTING PRIOR ,'APPROVALS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY CO?~°11~~ 7 SS I ONERS RELATI\7G THERETO; SPECIFY ING AAIENDn~ENT PROCEDURES; Si~T1IvG FORTH CO~v`DITIO\YS RELATING THERETO; Ai+IENDING THE OFFICIAL IONIii~G ':IAP FOR THE TO~ti`N OF Z"AIL : AND ,~?~TTI?;G I'ORTH DET:~iI~S IN I?.ELATION THERETO. 1l~EREAS, the to~;=n of Vail, Colorado, xecently annexed the ~tiest ~~ail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on December 31, 1980; and iiHl'RFAS, Chaptex 18.68 of the Municipal Code of the To~~=n of Vail sets forth procedures for the imposition of Toning districts on recently annexed areas; and ~i'HEREAS, Section 31-12-11~ (s) C.R. S, 1973, as amended, rewires the Tol~~n to tiring tl~e ne~~.ly annexed SVest Vail area under its zoning ordinance «~ithin ninety (90} days after the effective date of said annexation; and ~4'HEREAS, because of certain actions taken by and approvals of the Eagle CDUnty Cor:~rnissioners relating to the ~v~ thi.n specif a.ed properties t}~e Tot+n Council ~ s of t.hc. opinion t.ha.~t tl~e zoning yes; g;1at~ on for t'_~,~ .~e a.xeas si~ould re.c.ognize said apl~r;,v~.ls and conditions; and ii71~F'R~„~~', thD P~•~1.~n 7.ng and ~I":t"-i ~'~----'r?7t al CCU?_^.i:11 SS 10n C71 t. ~1° ~J O'~'V'n of :'aa_1 has coa~s.iuered tl;e zo~~i~:,g to ue i;r;posed on the newly annexea ;`pest Z?ail area at a public hearing and has made a reca~riti~endation I ~ rc_ ~.~; ~_ i ng th~_~reto, o the Toy=.n Couz7cil; v..?~d i'~?~Z.~'.~.-hiS, iTle "'C''-~~.n CoilI1C11 C:O'_7SAC4:'.:~5 t~ia~. ~t 1S 1n i. }3 G' I.l:t, •~:S~ of tl,e p~.bl~c hc:al.~'_^:" sa.fc tt' and x','21 are tD s0 zon° s~~~d =~,~°Cilsc'?'t~t; ''7TH ~l' _....~. ~'~- - '~~~ IT ~'~:~_~3~ -__?) ._;1~ `l~F :0,'.\ ~''`~:_:yC ~, ~,y _~'°:_ _ -'~ , .." Sect:ion 2. Tn;position of Lc~nir~~; District on Certain Parcels aid Portions of the ne~v15= annexed ~`~est Vail area. Pursuant to Chapter 1$.GS of the Vail ,lunicipal Code, the properties described in subsections e, f, ~, h ~ i below are a portion of the ~tiest Vail area annexed to the Town through the enactment of Ordinance No. 43, Series of 195, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, effective on the thirty--t'ix'st day of Deccm}aer, 1J8O, aild hereby mooned as iollo~~=s: a. The developr]ents and parce] s of properti~ specified be]olY~ in Sui~secti.ons e, f, g, h w i shall ~,? deg.°eloped in accordance «~ith the prior agreement approt-als and actions of the Eagle County Cor.]missioners as the agreements, approvals and actions relate to each development or parcel of property. b. The documents and instru~a]ents relating to the prior county a}~l~rovals, actions and agreements are presently on file in the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail and said approvals, actions and agreements are hereby accepted and appro~=ed by t}~e Town of Vail. c. All buildings for which a building permit has not been issued, on the effective date of the annexation of Vest Vail sha11 comply with Design Review Criteria of the Vail ~lunicipai. Code prior to the issuance of a bui]ding permit. d. The Co~~]I~]unity Development Dppar~,ment assay issue staff approvals for minor changes in site design or other minor aspects of the plan for any of the specified develop;ner,~cs or parcels. These proposed changes ;i~:l' :Je <,~rroved ~S :~rF'Scir'ited, ai~]~rOL"ed wl.tli COnditzOTIS or C+~'nied rJV the Staff' with an appeal within 1.0 days of the Staff decision to the ~~;?~?n7'.]g 2nct Envzrol,r:?r'nt.al CGI:~r~a'cs~On. For ?i?a,~Or Changes, SuC~2 a5 a x•e--des=ign of a anajor part of the site, changes as use, densir~r cc~r;zr'ol, }~ic,igh~ or o~ i]er develop.nenr standards, a Planning and .~. _ .~.:!ii %t t. C~---.... _ -_.%~ii rl%~ c:1~'' tiI]c.rl_11Q [-r t' ..,_c7Ulrcd. l17e }J:'VCef;UrG' -r .r •, ..,--r~~• tiii'a ~ ~ ~~P i T? 3l'~'C]l"'Cs:=. ]`lr'[? tl'? l.~'i C.~i~~ per ~ c~ _ ~7~7 Of %LZe ~T~3 . - ~ ;` (4) Veil Intermountain Swim anti TF~~~nis Chub. (5} 13~^i.zr Pat.c•.h, Lots G~-2 , G-5 and G-6 Lions°idbe Sl~3~ditrision Filing loo, 2. (6) Casa Del Sol Condominiums. ~`or any zoning purpose beyond tl~e Eagle County Commissioners' appro~;als, agreements or actions, the c:ei~elopments 4~nd parcels at property speca.~xed in ~IZis subsec.tic~n (e) sr,all be zoned Residential Cluster (RC). i. Lio.,sricige S-~~I~dir•isicsn, filing No. 4, sha11 be subject to tl~e terms oi' this ordinance. For any zoning Isurpose beyond the Eable County Commissianers` approval, agreeii~ent or action, this parcel of property shall be zoned Single Family Zone District (SFR) with a special pro- ~-ision that an e~~r:pJ.o~°ee unit (as defined and restricted in Section 18.7 S .08C . of the Mail ?Riunicil~al Code) x'ill be subject to a.pprovaJ.s as per Section ;, 18.13.080. The secondar~t• unit :nay not emceed ozze third of the fatal Gross Residential Floor area { GRF~) allowed on the lot as per the Single Far,~ily lone District Density Control {Section 18.10.090 of the Vail liunicipal Code) and Greenbelt & natural Open Spaee (G~~OS). g. I,ot G--a, Lionsridge Sut~division, Fa.ling 'Vo. 2, has been the subject of litigation in the District Court of Eagle County, and a Co'art order Ix as bc3.en issued F~egarding the develop~:~e~~t oi' this property. `''_~e T~7'Eiil has f~ir~hF_r :wpprr_~Z~ed ?~iesolution='S oz 181 i.n regard to a subse- quent aVr,e.~.~n ~ -.. z ~}~ t~,e o~~ er. T}~e E,~si den .ial Cluster {RC) Zone District ti~~i11 'ee ti.~e .pplicaUle None an this property i.o guide the ftature cleZ-elo,?~°=r.~` of i',e ;~a.r,~~=1, ;~,o_^k.;;~g ;~itl7in thQ bounds set bar the Ci~llrt Order ~~_.d Resol~.tiar~ ~o. S:.rics o~ 19b1. h. Block ~.0, Fail Intc~~rnaur.zya,i.n Subdir•ision and the Elliott ?anch R~'~r~1j~~~~. Cdr?, '---`?_i.ry '~7 F', 1i1 ~,:}~:ct l,a Zh~ ~rxt,--~~ ~~7 ~-}"l~s C3I'i??;Z~I; C:~ F`a 1" c. ?: ~' ur ;~ c ..h~ r: Cou:~tr C~_~r..__stijois rs ,ap.-ot-al gr~ -.•C'?-i~, or al'.'L i_~':':, --,? C~!'!': ~ ~ =-zfi~ L I'le t~l i ~ Gott ii ,'-_i~C'i] ~ sl;al.l be 7,Uned Yr'_~x~1r ~-r/ . .~. ~- r. ~j ''~4~ ~_i i1-_ ~'u T- _~ ti i.~ Si .'_~ (~3 i. !~.i f~f. ~. ~~~ ~~~.~.. ~:~ ,~r•:~ '7 ', i r~ • Section 3. As pro~rided in Section 18.08.030 of the Vail it:unicipal Code, the ~onsng administrator is hereby directed to promiptly modify and amend the Official i i Zoning '~iap to indicate the ~onzng specified herein. Section 4. If any part, section subsection, sente~ice, clt~use or ~~i~r~se of this o~~~dinance is for any reason hetd to be invalid, s~~ch decision shall. not affect the valiclii:sT of the remaining portions of this ordinance, arci the To~~~n Council hereby declares it would have pat;:,ed this ordinance, and each part, section, sub--section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one oz more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared in~~alid. ~~ Sect~i.on 5. _ The Council hereby states that this ordinance is necessary for the protcact.ion of the puks]ic health, safety and ~~relfare. INTRODUCED, RE9D ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AIVD ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, th3.s 3rd day of itilarch, 1.981, and a public ]tearing oz~ this ordinance shall lie held at the regular meeting of the Torn Council of the Totitn of Vail, Colorado, on the l r th clay of 17arch, 1981 , at 7:30 ~~ . r.. in t'.:e x~Sunicipal Building of tine To«n of Vail_ _ -j '~;~~~~ or / ~~ t a'1Ti~SF': Toi;~z: Clt:rl: _ _Y_,`~~~)t',_.__D, .:S__~IJ, .._- '~'~!.f1 ~?''t :~:_~~i_i~tijl ';'__73_rf`r'Li ~~:vD {J'''_: L~ 'l~~z~~._~_.' _. ,~~: i ~ ~ ~ % 114'7 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMM2SSION March 24, 1986 1:00 pm Site Visits 2:15 pm Work Session - SDD 15 One Willow Place 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of March 10, 1986 2. Appointment of member to DRB for April, May and June 3. Request for side and rear setback, covered parking and assessary use variances and front setback variance for parking in order to construct an addition to the Notel Sonnenalp located on a portion of Tract C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hotel Sonnenalp 4. Request for an exterior alteration to change the facade on the Hill Building located at 311 Bridge Street. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill. ~~ 5. Request to extend an expired approval for an addition-to the Glen Lyon Office Building located in SDD #4 (Cascade Village) at 1000 South Frontage Road West. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building 6. Request for a conditional use permit, rear, side and front setback variances and a required parking variance in order to construct an addition to the Ski Club Vail building located at 598 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Ski Club Vail 7. A review of the Vail Valley Medical Center's proposed employee parking system as required in conjunction with the conditional use approval of the Center's proposed expansion. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Genter • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 24, 1985 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Tam Briner Peter Patten Diana Donovan Tom Braun Bryan Hobbs Kristen Pritz Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Duane Piper Betsy Rasolack Sid Schultz Jim Viele The meeting was called to order at 3:05 by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of March 10, 1986. Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 7-0 to approve. 2. Appointment of member to DRB for April, Mav and June This was to be handled at the end of the meeting. 3. Request for side and rear setback, covered parking and acsessory use variances and front setback variance far parking in order to construct an addition to the Hotel Sonnenalp located on a portion of Tract C, Vail Villaae First Filing. Kristen Pritz explained the request and showed site plans. She stated that the Sonnenalp Hotel was requesting five variances in order to construct an addition on the southeast corner of the building. The Sonnenalp was requesting to add 423 square feet of retail space which would make the project 472 square feet over the 10% accessory use square footage, setback variances and a variance to the covered parking requirement that stipulates that 75% of the required parking be covered. The applicant is proposing to have no covered parking. Pritz listed the zoning statistics and the applicant's written request. She then showed slides which revealed a very crowded parking lot with little room for cars to maneuver, and cars backing all the way onto East Meadow Drive in order to get out of the parking lot. The s1 ides also revealed a crowded loading area with cars parked there as well. She enumerated the criteria and findings and stressed the negative visual impact of the surface parking, the fact that the staff felt the additional square footage for accessory use was a grant of special privilege, the fact that the Urban Design Guidelines which are to be followed in considering new proposals had recommended below grade parking in this area as well as border planting to screen surface parking to reinforce pedestrianization. The staff recommendation was for denial. It was felt that the proposal did not realistically address the entire as well as the critical functions of the lodge and was particularly lacking in three key areas; the parking had inadequate back-up space, loading on site already was very minimal, and there was no justifiable reason to approve the new retail space. Pritz stated that the proposal was an incremental addition to a nonconforming structure that had reached its breaking point with respect to being able to handle any further development without a total revamping of the project. There were negative impacts on properties and improvements in the area. Approval would be a grant of special privilege. pec 3/24/86 privilege. . Sid Schultz, architect for the project, stated that since the Sonnenalp had been constructed before zoning, variances would be needed for any improvements. He said that the additional retail was strictly a guest amenity and added that there was a need for small hotels not run by chains, and the hotels needed luxury roams to meet demand. He stated that increasing the size of the rooms and increasing the retail space would likely not increase auto traffic or loading need. He said part of the problem of the crowded parking lot was that many people parked there illegally. They had tried to place a chain across the lot, but the Fire Department asked that the chain be removed. Sid read the following goal from the Vail Village Master Plan study: "To promote economic health and viability in the Village, and thus for the community as a whole." and "allow additional residential and commercial infill in areas that have been determined to be capable of handling increases in density." From the Community Action Plan he read, "Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged with incentives." Johann Faessler, owner of the Sonnenalp, stated that he did not like the parking situation but could not da anything about it. He simply wanted to enclose the balconies to enlarge the rooms, enlarge the retail shop and make the area more attractive. Pam Hopkins stated that she was sympathetic to what Fassler wanted to do and wondered if the additions would make the parking situation worse. She agreed that the west side of the plaza did not work but did not understand the plan for the area and wondered if the applicant would work with the Town of Vail to improve the plaza. Fassler stated that he was waiting far input from the Town of Vail. Pritz reminded the board that the Town of Vail and the Sonnenalp had agreements to work together in the approval of the SDD, but that the Sonnenalp did not go ahead with the SDD. Patten stated that since there was not to be an SDD, the Town plans for this area would depend upon funding. Schultz mentioned that the Town of Vail may eventually narrow the bus lane which would make it passible to place landscaping between the bus lane and the parking area. Donovan stated that she was a firm believer in granting a variance if the applicant does something in return to improve his property. She felt that an increase in the size of the rooms was a good idea, but had a problem with the increase in size of the accessary use. She felt that the parking needed to be addressed and also needed to be made more attractive. Viele felt that the changes to the property were beneficial. He shared the concerns regarding the parking situation, but wandered if what was being proposed justified denial. Viele stated that he would like to see the applicant present a long range plan for landscaping and covered parking. Griner had no problem with the proposal and felt that adding 20% more to the retail made sense. He said that the parking situation was bad, but did not feel that the proposal would make the situation any worse. He added that if there were a "hole" beneath the building containing covered parking, it would not be very attractive. Hobbs stated that he did not have any additional comments. Piper suggested that there might be an east exit out of the parking lot. He felt the proposal would add street life. Piper felt frustration about not being able to require payment into a parking fund as is required in CCI. PEC -2- 3/24/86 Pam Hopkins felt the the narrow bus lane would not be good, as one already had difficulty walking along East Meadow Drive. Peter talked about future parking needs and how the Town can't afford to have the private sector`s lack of parking compound the skier parking problem. He pointed out that the parking structures are filling many mare days each ski season and this trend is likely to continue. Donovan suggested a a that this would be an narrowed bus route pl replied that it would stated that the board parking fund. sensor gate improvement ~nned in the depend upon could regal to keep out illegal porkers. Piper stated over what was there now. Sid wondered if the aborted SDD could be done now. Patten funding. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, ~e that the Sonnenalp pay money into the Sid explained that the front desk personnel park cars for guests when there is a problem. He felt that if the guests did not complain, the system must work alright. Viele moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request as submitted with the nine conditions listed by staff plus two others: #10 would state that the applicant be required to pa.y into the Town of Vail parking fund for three spaces at whatever the rates are at the time of building permit application, and #11 would state that there must be a control s.vstem on the parking lot with a gate as in the case of the medical center. The vote was 6 in favor, none against with Schultz abstaining. 4. A request for an exterior alteration to change the facade vn the Hi11 Building located at 311 Bridge Street. Applicant: Blanche Hill Rick Pylman explained the request and showed elevations and site plans and stated that the applicant had received approval from the PEC on January 13, 1986 to enclose 433 square feet of deck space on the west side of the second floor and to add a third story bedroom of 972 square feet. The current proposal represented a modification of a facade change on the southwest part of the building, with an additional 86 square feet being added to the second level. The new proposal also included the construction of the Urban Design Guide Plan Concept l0A involving the creation of a pedestrian walkway/plaza located to the south of the Hill Building. Pylman reviewed the compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village. With respect to Street Edge, Pylman stated that the proposal presented a fairly monotonous street edge and needed door and window awnings as well as flower boxes. The other considerations were in compliance with the Urban Design Considerations far Vail Village. There followed discussion of the sub area concept 10A. Donovan felt that there should not be an opening behind the wall into dead end space. Beardsley, the architect for the proposal, stated that the opening could be screened off. Donovan a1 so did not like the design combining the new design with the old building. Beardsley stated that the original design had problems with the great degree of complexities of balconies, etc. He stated that he was . comfortable with the combination of the two designs. Piper asked if the wall could be moved back to increase the size of the plaza. He wondered what the pec 3/24/86 ~3 line of the wall was tied to, and Beardsley responded that it was tied to the Forest Service property line. He added that the wall could be moved back, but that he wanted the added room to get to the shops. Piper felt that placing the wall an the property line was a bit arbitrary. Beardsley replied that perhaps the plaza area could be increased and add benches, etc. Piper asked if there was any possibility of moving the split rail fence farther south, and Beardsley responded that there was no reason not to. Jay Peterson stated that the Forest Service was reluctant to allow one to do much on their land. Briner felt the design as presented was fine. Donovan wished to ask the DRB to check to see if the wing wall made the pedestrian feel that he didn't want to continue walking around it. Hopkins wanted to see the space behind the wall closed off, as it could easily become a "rape corner." Briner moved and Schultz seconded to approve the proposal with the staff conditions as follows: 1. That the applicant will not remonstrate against a special improvement district if an when one is formed for Vail Village. 2. That the applicant will construct all improvements outside of their property line (sub-area 10, pedestrian and landscape improvements) as approved, totally at their awn expense. 3. That the approval is valid for a maximum of three years from the date of PEC approval {March 24, 1986). . The vote was 6 in favor, none against and Viele abstaining. 5. A request to extend an expired approval far an addition to the Glen Lyon Office Building located in SDD4 (Cascade Village) at 1000 South Frontage Road West. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Tom Braun explained that in January of 1983 the PEC approved an amendment to SDD4 to allow fnr a proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building which consisted of changing the front setback from 20 to 15 feet and changing the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet within Development Area D. Approvals of development plans in SDD's are valid far a period of 18 months from the date approval was obtained, which meant that approval for the proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building expired in July of 1984. The current request was to extend the approval for another 18 months. Braun showed elevations, sections and site plans of the proposed addition. Donovan moved and Hopkins seconded to recommend to the Council to extend the approval for Development Area D of SDD4. The vote was 6 in favor, Wane against, with Viele abstaining. PEC -4- 3/24/86 . 6. A request for a conditional use permit, rear, side and front setback variances and a required parking variance in order to construct an addition to the Ski Club Vail building located at 598 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Ski Club Vail. Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed elevations, floor plans and site plans for the addition. Charlie Adams, co-director of Ski Club Vail, stated that the club was attempting to improve the quality as opposed to enlarging and that the enrollment would not increase, but the congestion would be decreased. Steve Boyd spoke from the audience in favor of the addition, saying that this would benefit the community, since 85% of the racers in Ski Club Vail were from Vail. Donovan stated that the parking problem was awful and felt that it would make more sense to not have any parking at all to facilitate the movement of cars through the drop-off area. Tam Briner, architect for the project, stated that they had looked at several ways to get 3 spaces elsewhere. One option would have resulted in a 12 foot retaining wall. Piper felt that since the width of the drop-off was 18 feet, it may work. Donavan suggested a one year approval to see whether or not the drop-off and parking would work. Donovan moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request with the following conditions: 1. The facility must remain a private ski club facility. Any changes to the club that would allow for public access to the facility would require another conditional use review. 2. Ski Club Vail agrees to sign and strictly enforce the loading zone and parking. 3. Ski Club Vail agrees to submit a revocable right-of-way permit far the encroachments onto Town of Vail property. 4. Ski Club Vail agrees to p1 ow and maintain the turnaround so that auto access is maintained at all times. The snow will be hauled off the site by Ski Club Vail. Snow will not be dumped out into Vail Valley Drive. 5. Staff recommends that landscaping an the south side of the building be provided to soften this elevation. All landscaping should be designed with protection from snow storage. This is a detail that should be addressed at DRB 6. (This condition was added to those in the staff memo.) That there be a review after one year to see whether or not the parking and drop-off area needed to be changed. The vote was 5 in favor, none against with Viele and Briner abstaining. pec 3/24/86 5 7. A review of the Vail Valley Medical Center's proposed employee parkin system as required in conjunction with the conditional use approval of the Center's proposed expansion. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Genter Tom Braun explained the proposal that included 53 off site parking spaces in four different areas. In addition, a total of 191 spaces were now shown on a revised site plan of which 85 spaces were assigned/valet spaces. The staff could not support the 12 spaces located in the Vail Village Inn because it was felt that the availability of these spaces at the present time were undoubtedly due to the inaccessibility the general public had to those spaces. In addition, the VVI development as a whole was well short of what its required parking on site should be. Twenty spaces were proposed to be at the Vail 21 parking structure. Since there was no documentation concerning the utilization of that lot, the staff was unable to support this element of the parking proposal. One space within Village Center had been offered for lease to the Medical Center. Lacking additional information, it was assumed that this space was tied to a condominium in the project, and if leased to the Medical Center would theoretically eliminate a parking space for this unit, For that reason the staff could not support the leasing of this space. At Sun Vail, 2D spaces were proposed to be leased in an area of the site where parking would be provided far future development of the Sun Vail condominiums. The staff could support these spaces being leased to off-site users. The staff suggested additional parking be located at Sun Vail to make up the 9 space deficit. Deborah Jast, the Medical Center administrator, stated that Joe Staufer had demonstrated that spaces were available in the VVI. As for the one space at the Village Center, her husband leased this space separately from a condo and this parking space was formerly storage. She stated that one problem with the Sun Vail site was that is was the furthest from the Medical Center and that the Medical Center was being charged two times what the others were charging to lease parking spaces Piper agreed with the staff and stated that any leased spaces must not displace other locals from their parking spaces. Qiscussion followed concerning available parking at Vail Village Inn complex. Patten stated that that project was very short of parking and that parking on the site was required for retail or lodges. Qonovan pointed out that condo spaces at VVI have restricted parking spaces. Dan Feeney, who organized an experiment with valet parking at the Medical Center for three days, stated that the experiment want very well. He said that no more than 2 cars were backed up, usually during the 7:00 am to 8:00 am shift change, that after the employees got over the anxiety of having someone else park their cars, they became quite supportive. He kept hourly logs which he offered to distribute to the Town staff the next day. He stated that between . 6:30 am and 7:30 am they parked 22 cars, between 7:30 am and 8:30 am, they parked 28 cars, after which they experienced a slowing down to 6 to 8 cars per PEC -5- 3/24/86 hour until 3:30 pm. At 3:30 pm there were car keys were turned over to the personnel were pleased to be able to park at the fro Feeney stated that during the busiest time cars, that temporary signage was used, and parking. 20 cars. At 6:30 pm the remaining at the switchboard. The employees nt door of the Medical Center. 3 people were needed to park the that no patients used the valet Discussion returned to the parking situation at the Vail Village Inn complex, and it was learned that one needs a card to get into the parking complex at one entrance, and a gate is located at the other entrance. In Stouffer's letter agreeing to provide 12 parking spaces for the Medical Center, he stated that he had control over 50 spaces, 8 for tenants, 20-30 for the hotel, and had 12 to 22 not used. Piper wondered if it was fair to the retail owners to not be allowed to use these spaces. He felt that anyone going to the shops or restaurants in the VVI complex should have access to the parking spaces. Pritz added that when the teen disco was being contemplated, the staff was told that there was no parking available in the structure which houses VVI parking. Donovan stated that Vail 21 was used for employees, and that the Village Center was leasing spaces illegally. She felt that Sun Vail had potential. Jost stated that she felt her husband's lease of the space at Village Center was legal, and Patten read from the zone code which stated that "no owner, occupant, or building manager or their respective agent or representative, shall lease, rent, convey or restrict the use of any parking space, spaces or area to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided by the zoning ordinances or regulations..." In referring to the Village Center, Patten stated that the problem was that the property owners or developers have, in this case, chosen not to utilize the parking space for required parking, and instead, are leasing to people un-connected with the building which is technically a violation of the zoning code. He added that the staff had been dealing with the change of parking to storage in those areas for several years. Jost stated that she felt that she had covered all possible lease options in town, and Viele agreed with the staff that Jost must provide documentation that was asked for to prove the spaces were really available and Donovan and Schultz agreed. Hopkins suggested trying to get more cars on the site of the Medical Center using valet parking, and Piper felt the lot was already pretty crowded. Jost then asked if the board would approve 3 spaces at VVI, 3 at Vail 21, and 20 + 3 at Sun Vaii. Braun said the staff had no documentation about Vail 21 and could not approve leasing spaces there. As far as the VVI was concerned, Braun stated that the general public or users of the VVI site weren't allowed to use the parking spaces when Staufer was required by the zoning code to allow them to use the spaces. Jost stated that she had pursued getting more information on the VVI to the extend she could. She suggested the hospital request 9 additional spaces from Sun Vail. Piper summarized the request should be far 29 spaces from Sun Vail and the valet parking as shown on the site plan. Jost stated that this winter she would keep a log on the medical center parking lot to see if they have an • excess of spaces. pec 3/24/86 -7- Hobbs moved and Piper seconded to approve the proposal conditional on the . Medical Center securing 9 additional spaces from Sun Vail and 191 spaces on site with an annual review starting in the first spring after the first winter season of operation. The vote was 6 in favor with Briner abstaining., 2. Pam Hopkins volunteered to serve on DRB for April, May and June with Diana Donavan as alternate. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 pm. PEC -8- 3/24/86 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for Special Development District on Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant. Ira C. Rothgerber, Jr./ M. B. Trust Berridge and Associates, representing Ira Rothgerber and the M. B. Trust, has submitted application for a special development district on Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Vail Village First Filing. This item is scheduled for formal hearing by the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 14. The staff felt that it would be helpful to present this today as a preliminary work session item. The proposal entails a minor subdivision of Lots 1 and 2, eliminating the common lot line and easements, t1earing the way far development of the parcel as a whale. The development consists of 11 units with a common amenities area and a manager`s unit. The unit configuration consists of a duplex/townhouse type of approach with all required parking underground. Some preliminary issues identified by staff at this point are; GRFA, setbacks and building height. This is a work session item only, and no formal vote is expected to be taken, nor does the staff have any recommendation on this project at this point. ~. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Consideration of the Vail Valley Medical Center's proposed employee parking solution I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST The two conditions tied to the approval of the Medical Center's proposed expansion include the following: 1. The Planning Commission review and approve a system designed to accommodate the 61 parking spaces that are not provided on the site. 2. Town Council and the Vail Valley Medical Center reach an accord on a written agreement addressing a number of issues relative to this proposal. The request before the Planning Commission is the Medical Center's proposed solution to satisfy the first condition of approval. While this proposal varies from that presented to the Planning Commission during their work session on March 10, it is essentially the same in that it includes a combination of on-site valet parking with proposed off-site locations. The remaining portions of this memorandum will outline the solution, evaluate the merits of these solutions, and finally present a staff recommendation on this proposal. II THE VVMC`S PROPOSAL The attached letter dated March 18, 1986 to Tom Braun from Deborah Jost outlines the most recent proposal for off-site parking. These off-site spaces number 53 located in four different areas. In addition, a total of 191 spaces are now shown on a revised site plan. Of these 19i, 85 spaces are assigned/valet spaces. To summarize, the following table outlines how the VVMC proposes to meet the required 220 spaces for this development: Table A Total number of spaces to be provided: 220 On-site spaces 191 Off-site spaces 53 (1 at Village Center, 20 at Sun Vail, 12 at UVI, 20 at Vail 21) Total 244 As proposed, this application would exceed the required 220 spaces by 24 spaces. III. EVALUATION OF THIS PROPOSAL Valet Spaces Parking on the site p1 an presented shows a total of 206 spaces. Of these, 15 will be dedicated to Town of Vail employees, leaving a total of i91 for hospital use. There is a total of 68 Compact spaces which is 33% of the gross number of spaces provided on site. 84 spaces to be used by the Vail Valley Medical Center will require valet service to be fully utilized. The staff considers the management and operation of these valet spaces to be the key factor in haw well this parking solution could work. Recognizing this, the Medical Center has conducted a test run of a valet system on their lot. The results of this test will be available far Monday's meeting. Nonetheless, the staff feels that there is potential to make this valet system work if properly managed and operated. The administration of the Medical Center has indicated two attendants would be utilized during peak periods in order to facilitate this operation. It should also be Hated that a 30' wide aisle is provided to allow room for stacking cars when operating the valet system. Obviously this valet parking will create some hardship to those using these spaces (predominantly employees and staff members). However, it is considered a more viable solution to provide these spaces on site with a valet system rather than to provide them off site in some other location. While recognizing that the proposed plan is "tight', the staff is supportive of the valet system and parking/site plan-as shown. Off-site Parking Proposals A total of four locations are proposed to provide off-site parking for employees. These proposals are being reviewed by the staff with respect to the criteria outlined in the lease parking program. Generally, these criteria require the applicant to demonstrate how and why excess parking is available on the site to accommodate those leased spaces. The following is our evaluation of these four locations: 1. Vail Village Inn {12 spaces) Joe Staufer has agreed to provide 12 spaces to the Medical Center that would be located within the 50 spaces he controls in the parking garage of Phase III of the Vail Village Inn development. Joe has provided information to the staff addressing the utilization of these 50 spaces. This information indicates that on the average, 12 to 22 spaces are a1 ways available within this structure. The staff is unable to support this proposal to utilize the VVI structure for off-site parking. While recognizing that spaces may be available in the structure, it is felt that this is undoubtedly • due to the inaccessibility the general public has to this parking. In addition, the VVI development as a whole (SOD6) is well short of what its required parking an site should be. While the approved development plan for Phase IV of the Vail Village inn would make up this shortfall, the existing development within Phases I, II and III are 55 spaces short of what is required under zoning regulations at this time. Vail 21 (20 spates) The staff has received no documentation concerning the utilization of this lot. For this reason, it is unable to support this element of the parking proposal at this time. Village Center (1 space) One space within Village Center has been offered for lease to the Medical Center. Lacking additional information, it is assumed that this space is tied to a Condominium unit in the project. Eeasing this space to the Medical Center would theoretically eliminate a parking space for this unit, raising the question of where the occupants of that unit would park. For this reason staff cannot support this space as proposed. Sun Vail (20 spaces) The 20 spaces proposed to be leased from Sun Uail are in an area of the site where parking would be provided for future development of the Sun Vail condominiums. At the present time, 36 units exist on the site with all parking as required being provided. An additional 24 units are approved but unbuilt and the parking proposed to be leased is located where the parking would be provided for these additional 24 units. From . a utilization standpoint, staff can support these spaces being leased to off-site users. Fram a practical standpoint, these spaces: are located some distance from the Medical Center. it would be the responsibility of each employee using these spaces to find their own way to work from this satellite location. However, the site is only a short walk over the pedestrian bridge to the bus stop at the west end of the Concert Hall Plaza. From this location, buses run every 7 to 10 minutes beginning at 7:00 am. This Town of Vail bus route runs directly by the Medical Center. Summary of This Evaluation To summarize, the staff can recommend approval of only the on-site valet parking as well as the off-site parking proposed at Sun Vail. This results in a total of 211 spaces, which is 9 short of the required 220. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As proposed, the staff cannot support the total parking plan. However, staff would support additional parking located at Sun Vail in order to make up the 9 space deficit. As of late last week, the hospital administration was negotiating with Sun Vail for these additional spates. It should be known by Monday if the Medical Center is able to secure enough spaces at Sun Vail to meet the 220 space requirement. If this is . accomplished, staff is supportive of this proposal with 191 on-site spaces and a minimum of 29 off-site spaces located at Sun Vail. 3 ~ ~~ vgilvailey 4 medical ~~nt~r r1 ~J March 18, 1986 Mr. Tom Braun Town Planner Town of Vail 75 So. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 pear Tom: 1£i1 West Mcadow Drive Vall, Colorado 81657 (303)476-2451 In response to your request for a study of possible off-site parking, we have contacted the following to lease parking spaces beginning next ski season: # SPACES NAME 12 Vail Village Inn 20 Sun Vail 20 Vail 21 1 Village Center UTILIZATION Jo Staufer has contacted you re: utilization. Letter attached from Kit Williams. Documentation unavailable until Mr. Chuck Rosenquist is in town. Letter of Agreement already forwarded. Letter Attached In addition, we will know from Jack Rush of Manor Vail if we may lease up to ?.5 spaces pending his discussion with Vail Associates. I will provide the documentation from Mr. Rasenquist as soon as possible. Best regards, peborah Jost Administrator /ls Deborah Jost Administrator r G ~~~ ~~~ ~f~~ _ ~, / l~ may, ~~ F~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~' ~~~ ~ .. ~_ ~/~~~ ~_ . ~~~~r~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ .~ d~~~ ~~~ z~-~ ; ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~%~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1986 SUBJECT: R request for exterior alteration of the Hill Building on Lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing to enclose existing second floor deck space and to add a third story. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Blanche C. Hill, received approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission on January L3, 1986 to enclose 433 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 972 square feet. The current proposal represents a modification to this approval. While the building and addition foot print remain relatively the same, this proposal entails a major change to the facade treatment of the southwest area of this building. The net change in square footage is an additional 86 square feet being added to the second level. The new facade entails the removal of the overhanging second and third story balconies and the introduction of a new material, in the form of a stucco wall. This proposal also includes the construction of the Urban Design Guide Plan Concept lOA involving the creation of a pedestrian walkway/plaza located to the south of the Hill building. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CCI CODE 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 and open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. This proposal is substantially in compliance with the intent of the CCI district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GDIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal relates to Sub-area 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 Wa11 Street. The area specified for Sub-area l0A is on land currently under control of the United States Forest Service. During the approval process far the previously approved alteration, the Forest Service had indicated that they would allow no improvements with regard to this sub-area concept. The applicant has now secured permission of the Forest Service to construct this sub-area concept. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERRTIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the considerations is to show haw the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent ofi the Design Considerations. A. Pedestrianization. This proposal affects pedestrianization through the creation of Sub-area Concept 1OA. As described above, this sub-area refers to mountain gateway improvements and describes elements such as a landscape screen, minor plaza, and a pedestrian loop to Wall Street. We feel that creation of this sub-area will be a positive contribution to this area of Vail Village. We da feel, however, that this area could be strengthened by same modification to the proposed design. The proposed design shows the stucco wall wrapping around the southwest corner and following the property line to the east. If this south wall were to be pulled in toward the building more, it would allow for more landscaping and perhaps some bench seating. This would be more in keeping with the plaza/walkway concept of the sub-area as opposed to strictly a pedestrian loop. Enclosed with this memo is a copy of the sub-area concept as detailed in the Urban Design Guide Plan, We also feel strongly that the brick pavers should continue around the south end of the building to the junction of this plaza/walkway with Bridge Street. The design proposed details pavers only at the southwest corner, with the rest of the walkway as asphalt. B. Vehicular Penetration. No impact. C. Streetscape Framework. As previously described in the January 13, 1986 memo, the quality of the pedestrian experience will be somewhat impacted by additional shade in the area of Le Petite Cafe (see sun/shade analysis) and the ticket offices and also by same blockage of views of the mountain as one enters Founders' Plaza from the north. The most notable effect upon the streetscape framework of this current proposal is the removal of the second story decks on the west elevation of the building. The current storefront of Vail Ski Rentals is heavily shaded and has the appearance of being recessed because of the overhanging second story balcony. We feel that the elimination of this second level balcony is a positive contribution to the appearance of this commercial store front. • D. Street Enclosure The Considerations state that, "An external enclosure is more comfortable where its wars are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space enclosed." The Design Guidelines a1 so state that a ratio of 1:1, height to width, creates a "canyon effect." The height of the addition an 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, thus creating a ratio that varies from 2/3:1 to 1:1. The stucco wall rises from ground to a height of 23 feet in a continuous plane. At 23 feet above grade, the building steps back 8 feet to create a third level deck. The eave line, at 33 feet above grade is stepped back 8 feet from the first floor building edge. By maintaining the footprint of the third floor from the previous submittal, the architect has maintained the mitigation that the staff felt acceptable in the previous design. E. Street Edge. Other than the jog for Vail Ski Rentals' entry, this proposal presents a fairly monotonous street edge. The inclusion of door and window awnings, as well as flower boxes will be essential to the appearance of this facade. Sub-area l0A affects street edge and has been adressed previously in this memo. F. Building Height. In Commercial Core I, 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 criteria as described. The new roof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the same pitch and materials as the existing roof forms of the building. G. Views and Focal Points This proposal entails na further impacts upon views than that of the January 13th proposal. H. Service and Delivery. No impact. I. Sun/Shade. This current proposal entails no further impact on sun/shade than that of the January 13th proposal. V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS: pro.iect Statistics. Allowable GRFA: 6,400 sq ft Existing second floor: 4,082 sq ft Existing third floor: 696 sq ft Total existing 4,778 sq ft Stairway deduction - 372 sq ft Total existing GRFA 4,451 sq ft 3 Proposed 3rd floor addition Proposed 2nd floor deck enclosure Total proposed GRFA Allowable GRFA Proposed GRFA Remaining GRFA 972 sq ft 519 sq ft 5,942 sq ft 6,400 sq ft - 5,942 sq ft 458 sq ft VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval. The only changes in the current proposal as opposed to the approval of January 13th that relate to the Design Considerations are the removal of the second level deck and the creation of Sub-area Concept 10A. The introduction of new material and facade treatment will need to be reviewed by the Design Review Board and really do not apply to these Design Considerations. We feel that the removal of the second level decks improves the first level commercial property, although it leaves the west elevation of this building with very little relief to a height of 28 feet. We feel that the creation of Sub-area Concept l0A is a very positive contribution to this area of Vail Village, and the modifi- cations suggested to the design will certainly enhance this major gateway Pram the mountain into Vail Village. The staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. That the applicant will not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when one is formed for Vail Village. 2. That the applicaat will construct all improvements outside of their property line (Sub-area 10 pedestrian and landscape improvements) as approved, totally at their own expense. 3. This approval is valid for a maximum of three years from the date of PEC approval. ,, TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for exterior alteration of the Hill Building on Lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, to enclose existing 2nd floor deck space and to add a third story. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to enclose 433 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 972 square feet. The proposed third story addition is located on the southwest area of the building. On September 23, 1985 the Planning Commission heard a similar proposal. Following the recommendation by the staff, the application was denied by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission decision was subsequently appealed to the Town Council. The Council supported the position of the staff and the Planning Commission. Concerns of the staff and the Planning Commission revolved around the creation of a canyon effect and additional sun/shade impact on the One Vail Place Plaza. The current submittal represents a revision of the building sensitive to these concerns. II. COMPLIANCE 4~ITH THE CCI CODE Purpose: The Commercial Care 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 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 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 i refers to mountain gateway improvements and describes elements such as a landscape screen, minor plaza, and a pedestrian loop to Wali Street. The area specified far sub-area 1dA is on land currentiy under control of the United States Forest Service. The current Forest Service position on this property is that it will allow no improvements with regard to this sub-area concept. The Community Development Department wouid request that if this sub-area is ever developed, that the owners of the Hili Building not remonstrate against any special improvement district that may be formed to complete such improvements. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH 7HE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the Considerations is to show haw the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. A. Pedestrianizatian The third story addition and second story deck enclosure will have minimal if any impact upon pedestrianization. B. Vehicular 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 infi1l. The quality of the pedestrian experience will be somewhat 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. Q. Street Enclosure The Considerations state that "an external enclosure is most comfortable where its walls are approximately 1/2-1 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 wi11 be 3O feet to the cave line. The height of One Vail Place is 28 feet to the save line. The plaza width varies from 33 to 42 feet. This creates a ratio that varies from 2/3:1 to i:l. Y This consideration was a major concern of the staff in reviewing the ~ September 1985 submittal, In the current submittal the architect has a reacted to these concerns by pulling the third floor addition and balcony back approximately 4 feet from the corresponding balcony on the second floor. By stepping back the third floor living area, balconies and roof line, the architect has greatly mitigated the concerns of the staff. The original submittal showed a three story vertical plane from the plaza. This revised submittal presents a more gentle building mass, with the buildings stepping away from the plaza area as it rises. It is our belief that the original concept was for the plaza to present a gateway into the Village. The Community Development staff feels that this design, while meeting the objective of the property owner, is more in keeping with the original concept of this plaza. E. Street Edge. No impact. All additions are above ground level. F. Building Height In Commercial Core I, up to 60% of each building may be built to 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 criteria as described. The new roof will be a pitched roof. It wi11 reflect the same pitch and materials of the existing roof forms on the building. 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 west to Vail Mountain is a designated view corridor. The proposed addition does not project into this view corridor. The addition is mast 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. Sun/Shade The Design Consideration states that °ali 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 in the plaza area, according to '~ the gecember 21 study diagram. Whi]e we do have some concern over the negative effects of this shading an activity on the plaza, we do recognize that the redesign efforts of the architect will result in substantially less impact than the original submittal. .. b i V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Pro.7ect Statistics Allowable GRFA Existing 2nd floor Existing 3rd floor Total existing Stairway deduction Total existing GRFA Proposed 3rd floor addition Proposed 2nd floor deck enclosure Total proposed GRFA Allowable GRFA Proposed GRFA - Remaining GRFA VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 6,400 sq ft 4,082 sq ft 696 sq ft 4,778 sq ft 372 sa ft 4,451 sq ft 972 sq ft 433 so ft 5,856 sq ft 6,400 sq ft 5,856 sq ft 544 sq ft The Community Development Department recommends approval, As a 2nd and 3rd story addition, there are really only two considerations that are impacted by the proposal. Although this project still has some impact on the One Vail Place plaza area through the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade design considerations, we feel that the architect, through this design, has attempted to respect the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade design considerations and has attempted to mitigate previous concerns of the staff. 4~e feel that by stepping the building mass away from the plaza area, the original concept of the plaza as an open gateway into Vail Village has been maintained. w+....~. y+„~~~}(.~: _ ~~a. Y ,+r t«^- .. 'c'~~p1~L+-+~•-,; r,p,.. ti b ~ F ~1 '~. ~ ~~. -~...a....,"'_ 1~ ~ r r a. ~ ~' ' fiz o~a ~`f+ } •~t,.ll.~ .~ .9x. ewe ~ - s~Y ~ V}~ r'a F ~.~a: ~ f R y ~~ rS "L'~L~S~'1F- n S' ~ f fi ~ c `y~'~ f ~ +t ~`f~ Y - Y f y.. ~ 1 ~ Efil~l,~~11M1 ~, r~/ ~rR~. 'faisao- I ' ~ ", r ,r t ~' .~ ~~.1 ~4; ~ ~ d r4 r!~3`n~-~'~'f"~ ~ -=app 1~~,k t~i~~, ~~F ~+f f ~ .`~ i*` ~•~~,, ~# '-~, w ~ * ~~"~~~d-~'~ r ~~~k~i P' ~'4 ~7y{: ~I; ~~J~jt~}~"~1fx } -V~.a'. ~.~ ~ ~ - '~•:k;,ync ti f~ ~ ~ "~~1 a : t ~ `~ ~ t ~~ ~~ *~ ~S, ,( f ' it Vf~ "i ~~~~~ cr 7 I [ t u ~ 4 ~~ t r f .t ~~ '. "r 3~' y~n fi xa,f~ ~ ~L J~t,_ ~~ ~~"r ~twA a.t'. (; 'r ~~-~~ ~.. ,~y r.~` ~{r./ry~Y~ ' ~~ ~ ~ J -'.#'" j3' S. T ~r'f '_ 5~4 ' k '~ °~+a.- '~ tt 't, ~ ; ' .wew..~e ~~y. """ ~a`a ,,lf r ~ r ~ S ~Ert ll~~t h; }?L ` ~- ~.. ,.~ t:~. ~ } ~~` i ~. ~t .~ ~11b~^f'c4 t~ ~~ ~` f _ ,,., ' ;~~? ,}Wngx x Y ~ t~~i. rr .' H ~ ''} 3~ ,, R r c -j, ~,,,, : - a r, tf [ ~ ~ ~ +x~s ~~~' ~~ a t~ S r~ .. 1 +~ ~- u ~OI'~R ~ ~~ ~ ~ - j rx ~ i ~ x v :a ~ , ~,; tp5 R,'~, ,y?~ 'a pis ~t~, !~ '~ t a, ; ~~ `~ „x„_ f :.. a c t5 ~~ ~ c. w '~ sr '~; ~i'rF"`%r~~~.T~ `~,~~{,~5 :4e ~~ ~~~1`~~r ,~SF~_ f r`~ i ;' 7 <. ~ ~~3-~~'~ ~ y ~g: ryt ~'; `"' ~~? V} s~$ ~r, •`''. ` c~' Y~}~rr'~ ~'i '. ~ 'c~ r,`; .fit-~ z rYsrr~ ~ T,x Y Y #3 § Ey "~g Cf. ~. ~• 3. -~J=. f'4~3]s.Ys'~YIf ~ ~, .r, ' ~ ~ ~. xfT~-•.{s ~~~~~~3*i#~ ~ ~~i~ ~•~ ~ ~^.a „j<_ ~i 'e y~l'= 1 _'~~.,,~ ~~~~~.,y f _ 1 ! ~ _ ~, ! . ~ r~i . ~ ' !M'i+!~ , r~"':T .'3. YJx ~~~ ~ t.. 7 ;a -.- e~5'+'. iy. y. R - p ~. ~` r •s 5 c • r Y e Y pf'~ ?~ k ~ * r.'~$ z y}'`~ z~;?S~y~,~{~`~1.~ T ~a.. . ( ' h, ~ y !`K~ ~ r Y ~ N z, r~\ s 'r~ l y ~ ~~x ~~y. ~ > "' 3'. 1 ~ ) y~ 'r s r t .~ ;,~'?~(-4 ~ fir. ~~.• ',f '~ `~ r s~'. d~'AE ~'c}5:, ~~;~ ~. s ~,s rp e ".. f r t a 1 ~ `V' ~ Y F ~~ ~ ~r F "{. ~' ~' f' 1'+ . y ~ - r~ F ~ ~ W 1`! ~ ~ ~ l$~-s-:. ~y R ~ 4 ,~~ fs g r { t,'.) ~~ ~ G f~ f-f'~ i. i ~J ~ {~~ !'!'4- T 'jf rF .: 'I ~~ ~ - t ."F }' ~ ~' £,ti, n '~ r ~ T ~ i..r~,l C~ nrti t ~ ,' L ~ R ~~ 1~~~t~'£~`a, ~ ak~ ~ ~'s .s3 ~'R~t ~x ~~ ~ ~ j ~ !}F ~ ~ .: ~ ~ r, ~,. .,ft e .~ to ~, <: c ;~a~ ~~' vtx'l~"~F~ M ~: r> # ~ r~' F' *- 9 ~rl~ ~%` R s ' ~- r - Rt 3'r .. ~ a t as t7 ~~{ pq- ~~,vv~~ x e f ~ Y ~ f,~, ,~ y t ~ ~~ rF~^n - ~ ~~ f ~ ~~ z di c~ a t:. ~ u~,~ sa sr~~, d z T4` jF"` r s~:" { y' ? `t r erg '~ ~+ '+~'~iL _ tt ;' f{F'. l r 'b~, ]I E y~ ' t a~'' ,~ t. r r~ s ~ ~ ,,., :;F a i . ~ FA.~ ~ _r'' ~~ ~. l- a~~Ya.~,~,~ bbl`- ~ 1;~• }a t ~' '~ v t~ ~k .~ '~ ~ y b r ~ ,k r_ p r ~ J a7 ~"~~~ ~a j~ yy a3 ;.~ i~x~ ~'e`P'~ ',' S ~ f, d`~ t.. ~~' c y ~` 5 7 1 ~ 6 ~ y~y~ e r 7 ' ~r a~, ate- 3 4 y s.~§.`a4 ~ ~ "J„ ~~~~ " rt ~: } y'- ~, >. TTF~~hd i~` ~~i;' {~~ ~~~: ~5~~~.T.{ l'R.~h -F .r!•VEY.,~ ~~ 4~ - 1A'. '. ~. ., .e L~ Y; Y, :~7. t', :~',' - ~ ~ .C:..s'4.~ ~s ~'~ O:P~teY'tc `~~•' '~ ;tr t . 5 c+ - t .d ;` < _ 1 s s ' ~ ' is ~ f r $ 1. ~{JZ~i M`'dp, ~' a p ,~, 5 w~ yy ,,~T M _ ck j~vf ,+~~,~~ ~ ~ ~ 'ra 1 ~W f ~ s SLY' ~ ~ •' ~' t f .C `~ >~"' y~h~~+..~el 7E fry ~ ) "~~[. ~ Y : f tj 1•~,r'Y-l ~i ~ .f) u/~ 1]~~- .~,.~ ~T/3.~-`. ~ ~ t \•} '"`h ~ ~a ~' ~P 5 - ryY } '~ {~i S>< 4 ..E ~( ~ Q ~Y f~~' i "dA .p~ft • `~1 il'',~r. t} +'rlY~,r5 _ ~~ ~,~ .R'. ~• ec~~x~• 4 v~ t if, :y ~-r, ~a1 _-_'~ ),~~~ Yf, .;i ~ , ~,d ,f rS ~;. `qtr' '7 y_~'R :~n ~';` r -f ~,q'~.t S ^ R ~' f' F.1 ..; . ' rr ~tCb ~ RTi.3•". r9i4 1 Y ; 'r: .~ ~ ~~;~'S7f h i. " 4 r f d, k w z ..,@ t v,r,: ~,~ ~ iC~ a i.}, I ~, -.7tr,. r ~~ r - ~ 4 ,k JY 7. SR',;' ,pF ~ :. e~ t -' - ~y 1 '~YIIr'~} - 'Y - ~' ~i~ f ]a'y" ~ i'~ 4 + ~ *i ) ~ y~: V(~ a ryl: t~ j Y f i ~ 7. tai ~ ~`,s' ;1~r r~x ~ ~'s s ~,~ y r ~'~` Q ~ } , ~ „ ~ ~ " v r ~ ; ~ 6 ~~.aLlu -~h^s _ .,~ xk .i y *,", ~ rti,F~tl~~~•ei.t ~~ ~.~ ..r Wit, .~ _ 1 . ~` ~ f ~ 4 G Mth ~ ~rf(`y._e ~ i~a -x 5 - $ r -.~~ c ~ s'~; ~ ;- ~}~1 7 ~~X•' f ~r: y - 1- L~+r~.~, ~~p{ ~`'F•5.~1 E T r S~ ~~~ ,i'~ ~ ri• ~h~~''Ar Ys ~a ;.~. v. v.s C v i, ~• ~ >, s a n ~cl - I ' ~{- _ -' ~- ~ L i{ - e; h, r •~ F ~ 1 ' < h - i F~' ~8 r ~ 4 ~ L` A Y~ S F~ -~•~-~• ' ~ de 'Y ~! ~'~ - ''t ~ ~~ *JVi i ;' _~' s,t~ ~3 ~ F r ~ ~i j ~ e. E F ~S ~ 1' ~ f Q c ~ ti y k ~s. ~--. s~' _ x, ~ `~ t,ixR# x a * i~ p -., ~ ~ - ~ i ~. f ~ ~ ~ y _ ~~~' a ~t. > Er t~3~ !'a,.) ~~c u~ °t4' ~. ~ ~~~` V~~u>, ~~~..! xY ~ t~ ~~~' x ~~. - ~ ~~ ' ~•" 1, ,f t~ ~4 R+. .1x ,~_•.y~~"< .~ r. ~ ~ v r r t "rv _ t E • a 1 r:- ~ f *d;'. r --5, F 'T.*yr~P~s si c ~, _ ~x ~4,* .. ,, ~ 1 ~{. ~, . ~f r •' ~ ( ~L, fxv §~df~ ~ ~~` _r4 H ~,: ? ; k ~• ~f ~j ~"y ..~. ~ sF .25 :k'~9's.~- t' t ~ +n~t~,.~' t `' A -; ~ _ ~'.. ~ ~ : .fir '. ~ ~~ y ~, F ~ e3~',~r ~ yyl...,i1...k!~ k„ t ~ ; ~ . t } ~' a }'i', ,. - - 1, - ~5 ~;]K ty 2 ,i'~f: ~ :^:pFR ~ irr 1 ~ d °t,-. t ,_ r~ ~ < 1 ~ ,ay. ~ - .1 ~ L~"i 5 ~ ,E ' ~rr ~ .,~~ ft'7~"~Ad~4r.~' ~ ~)j'I b s'-x t t~~. Y I f}:' F" } ' ' / t .. r ~ # S~~ ~ t! S'td'-7 f 7ti F ~ fir`~.S d ~~~_` 'r ~ ~-.+ .•d - r ,~ 'T ~g •~ :.~ --c 7`*- a Yi..; ~x t' ' ~,. t r 16~~. .: .. ' t .~ ~ 'f'. r ~,s • ~tsca g `~ t~ f ~, t ~ n- y3 k ~ * _ r' yyq ~, ~ 1 ~ _y. ~ ~~`at~f "stx _~%l~-,.: .` `1~ '" :,x., s, ~ ~ :r^' -.;~s -. , s.Pl ~ :tr a ~ 4~' i $-.r Rj~' .i F Y'x 'e ~n a~ , i~v _3i tii~rlyi~ 1~" k ~ °v:,'•1,- ~ ~~`Py`. ..'" ~ .,n~.`r.r*`•'?"!~~~~t '}e.~~s3:s,•i~i~E~;k ~ .4~• ~ ~. y'°.~.' .+ `' ~ •e~ ~ ~.~.,_t ~~. • ~I _ I i I ..i I __ ~r ~, ~ I~ ~.~ ~~ ~j 1~ ~~~ .i -- ~ ~ --~ ~~.. -- ~I _" ~~~ ~ i I _~ "~ I ~'r~ I ~_ , ~~ i ~ , - ~~ ~ ~ -+~ ~--~ I . ~ ~~ ~ ~ __~~ ~ f" !I f ~F. ~~~ ~ -r ~'' --- ~ Cfl~ ~~~ ~~ ~ t~ .. ~~ ~~ ~~~ _~ ~~ ~~ ~- i• ,~ ,~ t ~~~ , ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~I ~~ ~, ~I ~ ~~, ~ . F ~ ~h~ J~ i I ~II I 3~I I.~' I~ I~ ~IE jfjII I i 1 +~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~il~ I I ~ i ~ ~I~.~i~ I~ f i~ ~ I ~~~ / _, , , ~ ~ ~ ~ I ,~ I ~~ f s ~! ~ ---~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ _~~ ~ ~-~ , , ~_ , ~_ ~ _~ 4 ~~ .~ ,: 1 ~ ~ _._ ~ ~_~~~ n s # ~i i~l~I'~~~i; ~~: i ~ ,~. _. _ _ . I .r --.. __. - ..-_ _ _.....~ r ,~ i~! ~~ ,~~, ,~ ~k, ;~~ ~'i~ I+~ Ali; ~,~ , ~~I~ i~,~~ ~~ I ~I ~~i~~ ~ , ~ it 1t ~~ ~ ~ I i-~I!~ ~ ~I~l~~~l .~i -- ~ ,_ -- .~~ ---~~--~-- IY ~~ _~~~ ,~ ~~ .~ - _~.._.~_.r. ~, . - ~ , .5 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to extend a currently expired approval for Development Area D (Glen Lyon Office Building) of SDD4 (Cascade Village) located at 1000 South Frontage Road West. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST The Cascade Village Special Development District was first established in 1976. The development plan delineates four development areas, one of which is the Glen Lyon Office Building {pevelopment Area D). In January of 1983, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an amendment to SDD4 to allow far a proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building. These amendments consisted of: 1. To change the front setback from 20 to 15 feet. 2. To change the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet {within Development Area D). Relative to this review in 1983, it was mentioned in the staff memorandum that while the Glen Lyon Office Building site was incorporated into the Arterial Business District zone {which was adopted. in March 1982), it is technically still a part of the Special Development District 4. As a result of this, the development standards outlined in the Arterial Business District were used in evaluating the merits of the 1983 proposed expansion. II. THE REQUEST As outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code, approvals of development plans in SDD's are valid for a period of 18 months from the date approval was obtained. With respect to SDD4, this 18 month period would be applied specific to each of the four development areas. Consequently, the approval for the proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building expired in July of 1984. The request before the Planning Commission is to extend the approval of this development plan for another 18 months. III, EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST Eighteen month time limitations are placed on SDD developments so as to allow the Town the opportunity to reevaluate a proposal if it has not been constructed within the 18 month period. For example, if an approved plan were to expire and significant changes were to have taken place within the Town or areas adjacent to the subject property, amendments to the approved plans could then be made. With respect to this proposal, there would not appear to be any complications involved in extending this approval period. In evaluating this request, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the Town Caunci1. That recommendation would include one of the following: 1. That the approval of the special development district be extended. 2. That the approval of the special development district be revoked. 3. That the special development district be amended. IV. STAFF RECO~MENQATION The staff would recommend that this approval be extended for a period of 18 months. In reviewing this request, the staff compared it to the initial review that took place in 1983. At that time the staff recommended approval of the request, and we would offer the same recommendation today with the same conditions of approval as outlined in the January 20, 1983 staff memo. • • . y MEh10RANDUM • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to amend Development Area D of Special Development District #4 to 1) change the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet and 2) to change the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. Applicant: Glen Lyan Office Building Partnership BACKGROUND In 1976 Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, was formed. Development area D of this 5DD is the Glen Lyon Office Building. The maximum allowable square footage for the office building was set at that time at 10,000 square feet. The building was constructed in 1979-80 at a gross area of approximately ' 13,000 square feet. In March 1982 the Planning and Enviromental Commission and Town Council approved an amendment to the SDD which allowed the space of approximately 3,000 square feet within the building built as storage to be utilized also as office space. The current request is to expand the office building to approximately 25,000 square feet. Two sections of the proposed addition, each approximately 25 feet in length, are proposed to be located 15 feet away from the north property line, and thus the need to amend the required 20 foot setback under the SDD require- . ments. In March 1982 the PEC and Council adopted the Arterial Business lone District for the area in which the Glen E.yon affice building is located. Technically, the property is still within the Special Development District. F~owever, the staff believes that it is reasonable to review the proposed amendments with regard to the standards of the Arterial Business District (ABD). THE REQUEST The first request is to amend the allowable square footage of building upon the lot. The current limit set by the SDD is 13,000 square feet, and the ABD zoning world allow 56,845 square feet. The proposal is to allow approximately 25,000 square feet of Gross area and 1$,750 net floor area. This would be an addition of 8,000 square feet of office space and 2800 square feet of common area such as mechanical areas, lobby areas, corridors, etc. The major factors affected by the additional square footage are the number and place- ment of the additional required parking spaces. A net floor area of T8,750 square feet requires 75 parking spaces. The applicants can achieve the parking requirement by adding 17 spaces to the east of the existing parking since the current parking provided is in excess of the requirements. One loading berth will also be provided. GLEN LYO~i OFFICE -2- 1/20/s3 ~~ ~~ • One requirement of the SDD is that 50% of the parking must be hidden from public view within a landscaped berm. The applicant proposes to comply with this require-- ment. The second request is to change the setback required by SDD along the earth property line from 20 feet to 15 feet. The applicant feels that this would permit some flexibility in breaking up the length of the building. Only two portions of the building, each about 25 feet in length, would project to the new 15 foot setback, and the remainder of the addition would be located about 78 feet off of the property line. The ABD requires a front setback of l5 feet far 6O% of the frontage and 20 feet for 40% of the frontage, Only 7% of the proposed frontage (including the existing structure) would have a 15 foot setback, 19.5% of the frontage would have an 18 foot setback, and 9% would have a 25 foot setback. The remaining 64.5% of the frontage is eat adjacent to the building. ~~~5` ~~ ---~ ,, The staff believes that revising the front setback requirement is consistent with the Arterial Business Zane District requirements and that the change permits a design for the addition which will certain enhance the appearance of the building. There should be no negative impacts that will result from the change. The building will be located 55 feet away from the edge of the pavement of the South Frontage Road. An additional aspect of the proposal which should be reviewed in relation to the ABD standards is the roof pitch. The ABD requires that the minimum slope of the roof shall be three feet in 12 feet with an allowance of 10% of the roof area allowed to be flat fora transition of roof lines. The applicants propose adding a covered entry with a 6/12 roof pitch to a portion of the existing part of the building and a 6/12 roof pitch an the north side of the addition, leaving the Gore Creek side with a flat roof. Considering that the existing portion of the building is flat roofed, the staff feels that the applicants have done a good job trying to _improve the appearance of the building with the sloped portion of the roof. The SDD has no requirement regarding roof pitch. CIRCOLRTION AND ACCESS As you'll recall, a circulation and access plan was to be required for the Arterial Business District. A memo regarding the plan is contained within this packet, and the item will be considered at Monday's meeting. The applicants are willing to comply with this plan, and improvements consistent with the circulation and access plan are indicated an the site plan.for the office building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The DCD staff recommends approval of the requested amendments. The changes are generally consistent with the requirements of the Arterial Business District which governs the development of the adjacent properties. The following conditions should be a part of the approval: • GLFN LYD~~ FICE -3- 1/20/83 1. The bike path, right turn, and Left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance with the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District; 2. The applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department. ' Pie 1/24/s3 _z~ ~:~ [ ~. ~" Piper mo ved and Donovar. seconded to approve the general circul~~tion and access plan for the Arterial Business District with the condition that funtEinq to impii~~~~~nt the bike bridge and pedestrian crosswa path, lks be worked ou~~~rithin a periru of . 60 days . from that day (January 24, 19$3} and that the road not be narrowed do~rn between the intersection with West Lianshead Circle and the Holy Cross access point, and that no bui7din4 permits be issued prior to the resolution of the funding plan. Jim Sayre asked if a building permit could be issued after the b0 days if no funding plan had been worked out, and Piper said, "No." Al Williams asked if DRS could process his application in the meantime, and was told that he could continue up to the building permit. Andy Norris asked about the location of the bike path near the Glen Lyon Office building. The vote was 5-0-1 in favor of the plan with Pierce abstaining. 3. A request for two amendments to Special Development District No. 4 in which the Glen Lyon Office Building is located. The first request is to change the front setback from 20 feet to 15 feet. The second request is to amend the allowable square footage of the Glen Lyan Office Building . Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building partnership Peter Jamar explained the memo, adding that the berm should be higher than shown on the site plan, that i~he DRB should review the ability of the berm to screen the parking as required, and that there were two conditions of approval, one that the bike path, right turn and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance with the Circulation and Access Plan for the Arterial Business Zone District, and the second condition was that the applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department. Jamar added that the financing would have to be worked ' out an the second condition, since Voliter and the M&W office building would also benefit from the hydrant. Gordon Pierce, architect for the applicant, showed a model and explained the roofs, setbacks and masses. Patten explained that this was an amendment to an SDD, that the SDG allowed 60% of the building to have i5 foot setbacks, but this building would only have i5 foot setbacks across 7% of the building. One concern was`~that the DRB require large sized trees between the building and the road. Trout asked about the Gien Lyon Office Building applying to be in the Arterial Business District. Patten said there was no real urgency, but that this would be worked out with Andy Norris. Trout moved to approve the requests for setback and sq~_are_.iootage.~er the staff memo but condition #1 would be reworded to _ir~cludg ~h~fa.~t that th.e._funding would be worked out within a period of 60 days. Andy Norris, one owner of the Gien Lyon Office Building, said that he had no problem with funding of the bike path, but was concerned about the left and right turn lanes, and felt that unless the funding were worked out, that this part may never get done. - • 1~ i~~ PF~ 1~24/~~ r3~ Patten stated that Norris solely would not have to pay for the bike path because it was part of the ~rhole distr7et. ---There was no secprid to the r~etiap, Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the two amendments per the staff memo ~at-ed January~0, 1983 wil:fi-the two eona~tjpns and that condition #1 would Inc ucie th"e fac-c ~ria~~~tbe fundir~q would be wor~cep out within a~ p~r~od o,f 60 days and no l3uildinq permit would -be -issued until t~~ -fund'inq 'was worked-out. 1`he vote was 3-0 in favor with ~ abstentions-Eorcaran, Viele and Pierce. 4. 9ppeal of an administrative decision regarding lot 17, Tract ~, Vai1 Village l~7tTi~~iTir~c~. ~ppellarit: ~a~ ~trauch___ _. _. @eter Jamar explained the happenings up to -phis date. Jan Stra~oh paid he agreed with ttie seguerlce of eveni<s, but s-~ated than i~l~e deck was under E feet of snow, ar~d couldn't correct the error practically. ~~ added that it wasn't until October i:l~aairYk~e had obtained the correct side of r~gtal chimney, and then it was too cold toVpai~t it. FTe then mentioned some problems ~e was having cpnv~rting his fire- ~lace to a gas bur-ping fireplace: Trout pointed ou_t that there was no spark arrestor in the flue oi' the wood burning si.ove. Strat~ch asked what that ryas, and Trg~i explained, adding that this should be~i~s~a71e~ imtaediately. Donovan stated -t_hai-Straueh had intentionally bpilt the deck into the setback ax~~a. She i'eli~ ivl~,~i± q.ne ehtmrr,~.~ ahould be ~~~e in.Qperable now, at~d the deck ~faould be~~orreciec# to be in ~-~mpTTanee wi~r icE~~ code at this time. P.i,er~e's feel irarg~ v~ere i:o ir+~taTl: if~e spari~ a,gto~^ immediately, wait 6 months ~ paf.~r~.i i<Me c~;i:,m~;ey„ but t~ai~ ~ ~k ~~;rt~ ~ cane now. Flo. ~~d a coupl e ®~ 'x~ Q'~ ~i~~~~~ ~!~~~1°~ ~TI~19~ t~~ C~~-~C.. ~'71~~? ~$~~'{~ Tf ~~`T4~ Ili~g a foundati©n> arac# r~pr•-e di.seu~~.i@~; rs~vea-tee iLf~,ai i/h:e 1"©un.~#,~t-F,¢r~. eras. inadequate, arRd that concrete p:i-ers would have to be poured.. Steve Pact-~t~ri,. building official, said that !~e had marked. 1>~e itiwo sets o€ p.T.ans that h~e~ bin submitted fQr a building permit ~.r}~ irhe ~irai_ir tai; a prt~p~r~ .~.~ati~r~~ W,q~;T,c~ Dave to be cctructed. He ~#dec# that the -Ic eflulc# be. E-ui{ ~r}c4 prl ing.~ ~p,t in at a later c~t~ without hear.-ing the whvle_ deck apart. - V~i;eT,e mooed ar~d P-~er~e. seeor~c~ed- 1Q mod-i.f.Y t~~ ~rit~rstrative cl~TgiQn as follows l~-~~~That-they ~r'equire imrnedi-a€e cgnVersion""ice g~s~of the wood burning fireplace, 2., Thai: the p~~r}iring of tha gli;i•,r~n~y.. and as.s~m sheet metal be ctQne by June 1, 3•.. ~ric~ chat J~ra~ T,,, 1883 a1;~ ~ the da.i~ ~~ ~ have the deck ~mrrection lh~ vote ~{a~ 3 =~: (~c~'i~~r~o.>. ?. ~~ T:~~.,~ ~~~t) The motirzn, fai 1 ed . T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development pepartment DATE: March 24, 198b SUBJECT: Request far side and rear setbacks, covered parking and accessory use variances, and front setback variance for parking in order to construct an addition to the Hotel Sonnenalp located on a portion of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Johannes Fassler, Hotel Sonnenalp I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The Hotel Sonnenalp is requesting five variances in order to construct an addition on the southeast corner of the building. The applicant describes the proposal in the following way: This proposed addition to the Sonnenalp consists of a more visible and better proportioned entry to the property off of the adjacent plaza, an addition to the retail space, expansion of 14 guest rooms (12 roams will have a small seating area, two rooms will become suites), and screening of the trash dumpster an the west end of the building behind waaden gates." ACCESSORY USE VARIANCE In order to add the retail addition, an accessory use variance is required. In the Public Accommodation zone, lodges may have "accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within the principle use and not occupying more than 10% of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures an the site." The Sonnenalp is requesting to add 423 square feet of retail space which makes the project 472 square feet over the 10% accessory use square footage. EAST SETBACK VARIANCE In this zone district, the minimum setbacks on all sides of the property are 20 feet. The applicant is proposing to maintain a 12 foot setback instead of a 20 foot setback on the east side of the building. Presently, the minimum setback on this side of the building is 9 feet. SOUTH SETBACK VARIANCE The applicant is proposing a 7 foot setback on the south side of the property. The existing setback is 12 feet. NORTH SETBACK VARIANCE The Hotel Sonnenalp building does not encroach into the 20 foot setback area. However, the parking does encroach up to the property line at this time. Cars are parking approximately 10 feet up to the property line. The new proposal would continue this practice and actually increase the parking encroachment to 16 feet. COVERED PARKING VARIANCE At this time the parking on site is all surface parking. In the Public Accommodation zone district, 75% of the required parking is to be covered. Given this proposal, 21 spaces would need to be covered in order to comply with this requirement. The applicant is proposing to provide only surface parking. Please see the zoning statistics below far the property: ZONING STATISTICS A. ZONE: Public Accommodation B. SITE AREA: 0.5531 acres 24,090 sf C. GRFA: (80% of site) Allowed: 19,272 sq ft Existing: lst floor apt: 735 sq ft 3rd float apt: 1,145 38 accommodation units 9,070 TOTAL EXISTING 10,950 sq ft Extra Common area over 20% allowed: 2,597 Total Existing GRFA 13,547 Proposed: 12 balcony enclosures, 46 sq ft/unit = 552 sq ft 2 suite additions, 463 sq ft/unit = 926 sq ft Total Proposed GRFA, 1,47$ sq ft Total after addition, 15,025 sq ft Remaining, 4,247 sq ft D. DENSITY: Allowed: 13.8 units Existing: 21 d.u. or 2 d.u. and 38 a.u. E. COMMON AREA: (20~ of allowable GRFA) Allowed: 4,818 sq ft Existing: 7,415 sq ft (spa, storage, hallways, office, tabby - mechanical is excluded) Amount over allowed 20% that is counted as GRFA = 2,597 -2- • F. 10% ACCESSORY {10°~ of existing GRFA) Allowed: 1,354 sq ft Existing: 1,403 sq ft (includes restaurant and retail) Proposed: 423 sq ft (new retail space} Total after addition: 1,826 sq ft Amount over: 472 sq ft (324 if new GRFA total is used after addition to guest rooms) G. SITE COVERAGE (55°~ of site) Allowed: 13,250 Existing: 8,360 Proposed: 800 Remaining: 4,090 N. PARKING 26 spaces on site (This figure was obtained from the information used during the recent SDD review} 3 additional spaces required for remodel 29 total ($ may be mini spaces, 8' x 16') 21 or 75% required to be covered--none are covered at this time r~ u i. SETBACKS 20 feet required east: existing: proposed: south: existing: proposed: north: existing: proposed: The applicant feels that the variances are justified for the fallowing reasons: on all sides 9' setback 12' setback with 8' bldg encroachment {3' actual new building} 12' setback 7' setback with 13` bldg encroachment 20' setback with 10' parking encroachments 20' setback with 15' parking encroachments "A look at the other properties in the PA district shows that they too are non-conforming with the zoning. host all of these sites have parking on ground level lots and some of this parking is within front setbacks. In the past, setback variances have been granted for these sites. The Vail Athletic club received several variances for setbacks and parking. -3- i The Sonnenalp can restripe its parking lot to gain the additional three spaces required far this proposal. The setback variance being requested is for the east and south sides of the building Both the side and rear of the hotel are currently over the setback lines with the east side being nine feet from the property line and the south side being twelve feet from the property line at its nearest point. In the area of this proposed addition, the side setback would be fourteen feet and the rear setback eight feet. The owners of the hotel have always felt that in order to have a first-class hotel, they need to provide their guest with the amenities expected in a first-class hotel, among those being the restaurant, bar, recreational and retail spaces that are limited in the PA zone. The variances requested for this proposal should have no effect an light and air. The addition of the retail space and restaurant entry adjacent to the plaza could help to direct pedestrians around the corner of the hotel and an toward the shops in Crossroads and Village Center, one of the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The effect on transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety will be minimal." II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variances based upon the following factors:, Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. A. ACCESSORY USE: Staff questions whether or not the location for the additional retail is actually a good location for this type of use. Visibility is a problem for the existing retail space in this location. Staff believes that it may be more appropriate to locate retail on the north side of the project which is called out in the Urban Resign Guide Plan. In order to make retail function properly on the east side of this site, the project would have to be totally reworked to create the proper pedestrian orientation and exposure for the retail space. It is felt that the seating east of the addition would be negatively impacted by the new retail. The proposal will require that an access way be cut through the existing seating. At least one tree will also have to be relocated due to the expansion. -4- B. EAST SETBACK This setback variance will impact the seating area adjacent to Slifer Plaza. However, the new encroachment is actually less than the existing encroachment. Presently, a small portion of the east side of the building has only a nine foot setback. The proposal would create a 12 foot setback an the east side in the area of the addition. C. SOUTH SETBACK Generally there are no major negative impacts due to this setback. The building already has a 12 foot rear setback. This proposal would decrease that setback to only 7 feet. The proposed bike path along Gore Creek is to be located on the south side of the creek. Therefore, this encroachment should have little impact on other uses along the creek. D. FRONT SETBACK FOR PARKING More cars will be parking in the front setback. The additional cars have a negative impact on pedestrians walking along East Meadow Drive. E. COVERED PARKING The additional surface parking will create negative visual impacts an pedestrians an East Meadow Drive. The site is in a location where surface parking, although it exists, is undesirable. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified re~uiation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment amanp sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob,7ectives of this title without grant of special privilege. A. ACCESSORY USE Staff believes that there are no valid reasons for allowing this additional square footage. It would be a grant of special privilege to approve this variance. Accessory uses allowed in the Public Accommodation zone are intended primarily to serve hotel guests. The Urban Design Guide Plan has identified certain areas where additional commercial infill is appropriate. The proposal does not further the intentions of the Urban Design Guide Plan. B. EAST SETBACK The east setback is already 9 feet. Given this proposal, the setback in the area of the addition would be 12 feet. The addition is building in an area that would actually create less of an encroachment than the existing building. The orientation of the building does create somewhat of a hardship for adding an addition to the building. However, this is not the only area on the site that can handle additional square footage. The difficulty is not so great that the approval of the variance is warranted. -5- In respect to other properties in the PA zone, the Vail Athletic Club did receive a "distance between building variance" on the west side of the property. According to the staff memo dated December 30, 1976, "the distance between building variance was necessary because the Mountain Haus is built on the east property line and encroaches on the applicant's property." Staff feels that this was a very special situation as the Mountain Haus was actually constructed on a portion of the Vail Athletic Club's property. C. SOUTH SETBACK The applicant is actually increasing the encroachment into the setback o~ the south side of the property. The existing setback is 12 feet. The new setback would be 7 feet due to the addition. Staff does not feel that there are any physical hardships which warrant the granting of this variance. Therefore, to approve the variance would be a grant of special privilege. It is true that the Vail Athletic Club received a south setback variance in 1976. The memo stated that "the setback variance is in keeping with others granted where a building abuts greenbelt. There is in excess of Yd0 feet to Gore Creek. The location of the building is also compatible with the others in the neighborhood such as the Mountain Haus, Vorlaufer, and Wedel Inn." Staff does not necessarily agree with this position. Not only should a variance be found to have no negative impacts on adjacent properties, but there also needs to be a physical hardship that warrants the variance. In the situation of the Vail Athletic Club, staff • is not aware of any physical hardship that warranted approval of the variance. In respect to the Mountain Haus, this building was constructed before our zoning was actually applied to that property. For these reasons it is difficult to make a comparison between the Mountain Haus and Sonnena1p's situation. D. FRONT SETBACK FOR PARKING Even though the existing parking situation encroaches into the front setback, staff believes that the situation does not function well for j guests trying to exit or enter the lot. The parking problem has reached a point where an entirely new parking plan is necessary in order to handle the parking effectively. The new spaces do not provide adequate room for backing nut and will create further traffic congestion on the site. E. COVERED PARKING The covered parking variance is not warranted. The entire parking system needs to be redesigned for this project. In respect to other properties in this zone district, in a memo dated October 27, 1977, the staff states that, "only one parking variance has been granted in a Public Accommodation zone (Mountain Haus) for existing space to be converted into a restaurant. Three other conversions have taken place in Public Accommodation zones where lobbies became restaurants {Tivoli, Talisman, . and Garden of the Gods Club). None of these required a parking variance. The Department of Community Development supported the 16 car variance which was granted in 1976, as the parking could be provided on -6- the site (i.e. covered parking). Nine additional cars could not be accommodated." In other wards, when the Vail Athletic Club parking variance was granted, the staff felt that the covered parking was a trade-off for not providing all the required spaces. The December 3Q, 197fi memo concerning the parking memo states, "since the area in front of the Transportation Center has been closed to traffic, it has developed into a major pedestrian area, and it seems more desirable to have landscaping adjacent to this area than surface parking. Staff feels the same way in that East Meadow Drive is still a very pedestrianized area. Surface parking, especially parking in the front setback should be minimized as much as possible. Covered parking should be encouraged in this area. In addition, the Urban Design Guide Plan recommends that future study should be given to the possibility of below grade parking to reinforce the pedestrianizatian of the area. For these reasons, staff feels that to approve the covered parking variance 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. A. ACCESSORY USE The retail addition could bring both increased auto and pedestrian traffic into this area. This is positive as long as the auto and pedestrian traffic is handled well. The existing proposal does not address in a positive way haw increased auto and pedestrian traffic will • be taken care of. The ski shop on the east side has constantly violated sign code regulations due to its poor visibility from the main plaza area. The parking situation on site is very constricted. There is also no viable loading area on site. Even though the owners have agreed to sign and enforce the loading area on the west side of the property, staff believes that the loading area is not very practical. The grade change and number of cars that are often parked around the loading area will make it difficult to maintain this area as a loading space. B. EAST SETBACK Staff believes that there will be a negative impact on the public plaza due to the addition. If the building were completely redesigned to allow for the lodge uses as well as the retail additions, then it is felt that perhaps the retail could work in a positive way with the public plaza. However, at this time the proposal does not complement the plaza. The shops will have poor visibility from the plaza area as there are a number of trees and planter areas in front of the retail space. In general, staff believes that the proposal for retail in this area does not work well. C. 50UTN SETBACK Staff feels that there are no significant impacts on light and air, population, transportation, traffic ar public facilities and utilities. -7- D. FRONT SETBACK It is true that the applicant has been able to locate three additional parking spaces on site. The staff does not feel that these parking spaces are functional. Architectural Graphic Standards states that the minimum back up distance for a small car (~5' S" length by 5' 10" width} requires 34` to 38'2" far back up space. Standard cars {17' 9" in length by 6' 8" in width) require 41' to 45' 6° of back up distance. The proposed back up distance for the new three spaces varies between 30 to 33 feet. It is clear that if someone wishes to back out of these spaces that they will have to literally back out of the entire parking lot before they will be able to turn around and exit onto East Meadow Drive. In fact, they may even have to back up onto East Meadow Drive if the parking lot is extremely full. Parking code regulations do not allow this due to the obvious danger. It is true that the existing parking requires that one backs up out of the spaces, driving backward through the entire parking iot before exiting. However, staff feels that this is not the type of parking system that should be promoted by any further variances. In addition, cars that are trying to get into the east parking area where the new three spaces are located will have to drive through an entrance area that is approximately S' 1O" in width. Staff feels that this is a very impractical entrance into the new parking area. E. COVERED PARKING The additional cars have negative impacts on the East Meadow Drive pedestrian way and seating area west of Slifer Plaza as was discussed in other sections of the memo. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance Urban Design Guide Plan The Urban Design Guide Plan states the following recommendations for this property: No. 23 (located along East Meadow Drive) Separated pedestrian walk in public right-of-way (by narrowing bus lane), with border planting to screen parking and make attractive connection to Covered Bridge Plaza. No. 24 (area on the north side of the Sonnenalp property} Future study of potential, and desirability, of below grade parking with open space and/or building expansion above to further reinforce pedestrian connection. -8- Staff feels that this proposal does not relate to these two Urban Design Guide Plan recommendations. Instead, this proposal is suggesting to locate retail on the east side of the building. No improvements to the pedestrian walk along East Meadow Drive, border plantings to screen the existing parking, or the possibility of below grade parking are proposed. At this time, no comparison can really be made between the present proposal and these recommendations. 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 mare 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variances. Tt is felt that the proposal does not realistically address the entire as well as the critical functions of the lodge. The proposal is particularly lacking in three key areas. First, the proposed parking is not functional as far as having adequate back-up space for cars exiting the site. Secondly, the loading capability on site is already very minimal. This proposal only aggravates a difficult situation. Thirdly, there is no justifiable reason given the variance criteria to approve the new retail space. The proposal is an incremental addition to a nonconforming structure that has reached its breaking point in respect to being able to handle any further development without a total revamping of the project. Staff believes that to approve this proposal privilege. The proposal also has a negative improvements in the area. For these reasons, request. would be a grant of special impact on properties and staff recommends denial of the -g- r If the proposal is approved, the staff would require that the following conditions are agreed to by the applicant: 1. A loading zone will be located on the west end of the property. The Sannenalp will be responsible for signing this ar ea and enforcing the loading zone. 2. A revocable right-of-way permit will be submitted to the Town of Vail staff far the existing parking and improvements on Town of Vail land, particularly on the east, north, and south portions of the property. 3. The 5onnenalp will maintain the sidewalks on the east side of the building 4. The Fire Department requires that three Class 1 inter connected standpipes be located in each of the three stairwells in the existing building. 5. The parking area on the east end of the site must rem ain open at all times for the use of guests and people using the retail space. 6. The informal agreement to allow Overland and Express Travel service to have temporary parking privileges on the Sonnenalp property must be discontinued. The temporary parking sign will be removed. 7. No signs will be allowed on TOV property. 8. The existing sign violation (menu box) on the north side of the building be removed or relocated to the approved location. 9. The existing sign code violation (Buzz's Boots and Boards chalkboard) on the east side of the building be removed. . ~ ~ ~ ' SOI~AI.P ROOM EXPANSION REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FUR SETBACK, ACCESSORY USES AND PARKING IN PA DISTRICT y, The Hotel Sonnenalp is located on a portion~of Tract C in Vail Village First Filing. Twa other hotels, the Mountain Haus and Athletic Club, are on the remainder of the Tract. The other adjacent properties are of various uses and zoning. Village Center immediately west of this site is condominiums and commercial and is zoned Commercial Gore 2. To the north is the Vai! Transportation Center and to the south is Commercial Care 1 with its assort- ment of lodges, retail shops, condos, restaurants and ,bars, This proposed addition to the Sonnenalp consists of a more visible and better proportioned entry to the property off of the adjacent plaza, an addition to the retail space, expansion of fourteen guest rooms (twelve rooms will have a small seating area, trio roams will become suites), and screening of the trash dumpster on the west end of the building behind wooden gates, 2. A look at the other properties in the PA district shows that they too are non-conforming with the zoning. ~9ost all of•these sites have parking on ground love! lots and some of this parking is within front setbacks. In fine past setback variances have been granted for these sites. The Vail Athletic Club received several variances for setbacks and parking. The Sonnenalp can restripe its parking lot to gain the additional three spaces regc.rired f<}r this proposal, The setback variance being requested is t'or the east and south sides of the building, Both the side and rear of the hotel are currently aver the setback lines with the east side being nine feet from the property line and the south side being twelve feet farm the property line at its nearest point, In the area of this proposed addition the side setback would 6e fourteen feet and the rear setback eight feet. The hotel Sonnenalp is also requesting a variance for the amount of accessory use space allowed. !f the hotel were to ,build out to its maximum GRFA it would be allowed ],927 square feet of accossory use space. This is over 450 square feat additional to what is being requested. The owners of the hotel have always felt that in order to have a first--class hotel they need to provide their guest with the ammenities oxpected in a first-class hotel, among those being the restaurant, bar, recreational and retail spaces that are limited in the PA zone. 3. The variances requested for this proposal should have no effect on light and air, The addition of the retail space and restaurant entry adjacent to the plaza could help to direct pedestrians around the corner of the hotel and on toward the shops in Crossroads and Village Center, one of the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The effect on transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety will be minimal. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request far a rear setback variance and a side and franc parking setback variance in order to construct an addition to the Ski Club Vail building located at 598 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Ski Club Vail I, DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Ski Club Vail is requesting three setback variances in order to construct a second story to the existing building. The Agricultural Open Space District requires a front setback of 20 feet, side setback of ~5 feet and rear setback of 15 feet. The existing building is a1 ready on the rear property line. The proposal will maintain the zero setback by adding a second floor directly above the first floor of the building. A front setback variance is required for the parking space that is located within the 20 foot setback. A five foot setback will be maintained from the property line to the edge of the parking space. On the west side of the property, another parking space will be located which will encroach seven feet into the 15 foot setback. An 8 foot setback will be maintained in this area. Setbacks: Front 2O': 5' setback due to 15' parking encroachment Side 15': 8' setback due to 7' parking encroachment Rear 15': 0' setback II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors:. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the reauested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, In respect to the rear setback, the second floor addition will have no significant impact on existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The height of the south side of the building is approximately 11 feet. The building already encroaches up to the property line and the second floor should not create any further impacts on adjacent properties. The front and side setbacks that are required for the parking areas will take away from some of the existing landscaping on the site which is a negative impact. Staff feels that the negative impacts of removing the landscaping can be decreased by either replanting the trees or planting new trees in their place to screen the loading areas and parking spaces. It is felt that the benefit of the three additional parking spaces and widened loading area will help with the congestion which presently exists on the site. The improved loading and parking plan should have a positive impact on other structures and uses in the area by improving the flow of traffic through the turn-around. • The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that it would not be a grant of special privilege to approve these variances, as there are special circumstances on the site which make it difficult to build an addition to the structure without requiring some setback variances. The existing grades on the site make it very difficult to locate parking anywhere e1 se on the site except in the present proposed locations. Staff is of the opinion that the high retaining walls that would be necessary to locate parking further back on the site would create more negative impacts than the parking that is proposed. The proposed parking plan will have timber retaining walls of a maximum of 4 to 5 feet. Staff believes that the location of the existing building also puts constraints on the possibilities for building an addition and parking within the allowed setbacks. It is felt that it is reasonable to grant relief from the strict interpretation of the setback regulations for this project. 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 improved loading area and parking plan will decrease somewhat the congestion on the site. Due to the fact that the people entering this site tend to unload ski club members and then drive through, the site tends to be congested. This proposal tries to improve that situation by expanding the loading area and adding three on-site parking spaces. It would be very impractical to try to locate further parking on this site. Staff believes that 3 parking spaces for the addition is a number that is based on parking calculation procedures that we would use with any other project. We also feel that it would be unfair to require parking spaces for the ski club members due to the previous approval. Originally when the project was approved, the project was not required to provide on-site parking for all the ski club members. Staff is not saying that we necessarily agree with this approval, however, that was the decision that was made back in 1976. The parking calculations were based on taking the existing uses that we have parking requirements for and comparing those to the proposed uses. Staff focused on the area of offices, conference rooms and function rooms to calculate parking. The difference in number of spaces came to 3 spaces between the existing and proposed project. Given our existing parking regulations, staff believes that the applicant is complying with our parking ordinance. In general, the loading and parking should provide a much safer and better functioning area for Ski Club Uail. Ski Club Vail has also committed to providing loading signage and restricting the cars that park on site. They have agreed to insure that the loading lanes remain free of cars. These commitments should have a positive effect on adjacent properties who presently have had to contend with the congestion and numerous cars parked on site. • In respect to utilities, the applicant is proposing to locate a screen wall in front of the utilities that exist an the southwest corner of the site. Staff feels that this will be a visual improvement to the property. The rear setback variance should have no impact on transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities or public safety. 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 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 ar 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the three variances. The setback variances are necessary and warranted due to the small lot size and location of the existing building. There are also no negative impacts due to the variances except for the removal of 7 trees. The applicant has proposed to plant at least 7 new trees to make up for the loss. It is felt that the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting the same conditions of approval that are outlined in the memo describing the conditional use review. 5K1 CLUB P.O. Box 518 • Vail, Colorado 81858.3Q3/476-5119 To: Town of Vail Planning Commission From: Ski Club Vail Subject: Proposed use of Ski Club Vail building expansion Date: February 21, 1986 Description of Present and Proposed Use Ski Club Vail is a non--profit corporation whose sole purpose is to train and prepare ski racers for competition at all levels. Our enrollment is currently at 160, and includes adults and individuals as young as 7 years old. The Ski Club Vail building was designed and built in 1977, and since that time there has been no significant improvement or modification of the facility. Current and future activities include a year-round office, physical training from September 1 through April, on snow training from November through April. Club responsibilities also extend to organizing a wide variety of ski races each year from the Warld Cup level to our Town of + Vail Employee race series. As c~~«~~anity services, we also provide training programs for adults, help coordinate the Buddy Werner League, and work in cooperation with the Battle Mountain High School ski racing program. The emphasis here is that a wide variety of activities takes place at Ski Club Vail, and our operation extends far beyond actual on snow training. Our proposed building expansion is intended to provide better facilities for our racers and more working space for office staff, coaches, and volunteers. The proposed expansion would provide areas far changing clothes and putting on ski boots, expanded space for ski storage and preparation, expanded rest rooms, adequate general storage, much needed office space, and space far volunteers to work on SCV hosted races and other club activities. Our present building is inadequate in all the above areas. As a result, the quality of our program is not what we feel it should be. A Ski Club Vail building expansion will in no way increase enrollment. Both the staff and Board of Trustees see 150--160 participants as an optimum number. Limited space on Golden Peak's race arena as well as staffing considerations and program continuity are the major factors which determine the mamximum size of our enrollment. By expanding our building, we are striving to offer a better program to the same number of participants. Impact on Neighbors In Vicinity We are confident that because we have no intention of increasing enrollment, our expansion and future use will remain compatible with neighbors in the vicinity. The proposed expansion will, in our view; result in a more aesthetic building while the nature of our operation will remain unchanged. Parking Current parking is limited to four vehicles - three Ski Club Vail vehicles and one belonging to staff. While our members load and unload in our turn-around area, there is no provision far parking for our members on our property. We see our program as an instructional service much like a non-profit ski school, and we believe that our members would be skiing regardless of their participation in Ski Club Vail. Their parking needs should be viewed in the context of skier parking in general. Ski Club Vail employs two Co-Directors year-round, one office manager for eight months, four coaches for six months, and five coaches for five months on a part time basis. 30% of these employees use the TOV bus system to get to work. The remaining 74°s use the parking lots at the soccer field, at Golden Peak, or at the golf course. We acknowlege that there are approximately 24 days per year when a traffic flow problem, occurs at our facility. These are by in large days when races or race meetings are being held primarily during January and early February. Congestion is caused by vehicles loading or unloading and by vehicles parked illegally. The following steps are being taken to alleviate the problem: 1. We have secured 6 additional parking spots with Ramshorn Condominiums (see enclosed letter). 2. Enlarge turn-around to allow space for vehicles to unload while providing a lane fox entrance and exit. 3. "No Parking" and "Loading and Unloading Only" signage. 4. Increased policing of turn-around by staff. 5. Improved snow removal in turn-around. It is our intention to fully address the traffic and parking problem in a manner which satisfies our neighbors and the Town of Vail. • ,~ ~. i~ i~ehruar.y 24, 19$6 'ratan of Va:i 1. ~'lanning Commission 75 South I~'r.antage Road, idest Vail., Colorado 81657 'I'o tdham Tt May Concexn: I ani writing to verity that Ramsharn Condominiums has agreed in 1}rincipal to Lease six (6} parking spots to Ski Club Vail for the 1986-1987 ski season. The lease will commence October 1, 1986 and run through October 1, 1987. T11e lease will be renegotiated on a yearly basis thereafter.. S' _~rely, - Ltamsllor.n Condomini ms • • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, rear and side setback variances and a front setback variance for parking in order to construct an addition to the Ski Club Vail building located at 598 Vail Valley Drive. Applicant: Ski Club Vail I. DESCRIPTION OF PROP05ED USE Ski Club Vail, represented by Charles Adams, is requesting rear, front, and side setback variances as well as a conditional use approval in order to expand the existing Ski Club Vail building. Presently, the building is one story. Ski Club Vail would like to add a second floor to the existing structure. Essentially the same uses will remain in the building, however, the space for each use will be expanded in the remodel. • On August 26, 1976, the Planning Commission gave a conditional use approval for Ski Club Vail. The Planning Commission did not require any parking for this use. The memo stated, "The zoning ordinance allows the Planning Commission to set the parking requirement for conditional uses which have no specific requirement and we feel that additional parking in this location is not appropriate." The proposal was given unanimous approval. Please see the zoning statistics below which compare the new building to the existing building: ZONING ANALYSIS Zone District = Agricultural/Open Space Site Area = .265 acres Existing Floor Area: 3,115 sf Proposed Floor Area: 6,230 sf Allowed Density: 1 DU/35 acres i• Height: Flat roof: 30 ft Proposed: 23 ft approx Setbacks: Front 20': 5' setback due to 15' Side 15`: 8' setback due to 7' Rear 15`: 0' setback Site Coverage: 5°~ Allowed = 5,772 sq ft Existing = 3,293 sq ft Proposed = 3,293 sq ft Remaining = 2,479 sq ft parking encroachment parking encroachment Parking: No parking in any setback area except as authorized under the variance criteria. Parking requirements to be determined by the PEG. Existing Sq. Ft_ Parking Calculations Office 419 (= 250) = 1.68 spaces Conference 209 {~ l5 8) - 1.74 Function roam 598 (= 15 w S) = 4.98 8.40 spaces Proposed Office 558 {= 250) = 2.23 spaces Conference 216 (= 15 8} = 1.80 Function room 800 {= 15 ~ 8} - 6.66 10.69 spaces Difference between proposed and existing = 2,29 or 3 spaces required an site. The applicant has submitted the following statement concerning this request: "Ski Club Vail is a non-profit corporation whose purpose is to train and prepare ski racers for competition at all levels. Our enrollment is currently at 160, and includes adults and individuals as young as 7 years old. The Ski. Club Vail building was designed and built in 1977, and since that time there has been no significant improvement or modification to the facility. Our proposed building expansion is intended to provide better facilities for our racers and more wanking space for office staff, coaches, and volunteers. The proposed expansion would provide areas for changing clothes and putting on ski boots, expanded space for ski storage and preparation, expanded rest rooms, adequate general storage, much needed office space, and space for volunteers to work on SCV hosted races and other club activities. Our present building is inadequate in all the above areas. As a result, the quality of our program is not what we feel it should be. A Ski Club Vail building expansion will in na way increase enrollment. Both the staff and Board of Trustees see 150-160 participants as an optimum number. Limited space on Golden Peak's race arena as well as staffing considerations and program continuity are the major factors which determine the maximum size of our enrollment. By expanding our building, we are striving to offer a better program to the same number of participants. Current parking is limited to four vehicles - three Ski Club Vail vehicles and one belonging to staff. While our members load and unload in our turn-around area, there is no provision for parking far our members on our property. We see our program as an instructional service much like a non-profit ski school, and we believe that our members would be skiing regardless of their participation Ski Club Vail employs two co-directors year-round, one office manager for eight months, four coaches for six months, and five coaches for five months on a part time basis. 30% of these employees use the TOV bus system to get to work. The remaining 7'0% use the parking lots at the soccer field, at Golden Peak, or at the golf course. We acknowlege that there are approximately 20 days per year when a traffic flow problem occurs at our facility. These are by and large days when races or race meetings are being held primarily during January and early February. Congestion is caused by vehicles loading or unloading and by vehicles parked illegally. The following steps are being taken to alleviate the problem: 1. We have secured 6 additional parking spots with Ramshorn Condominiums (see enclosed letter}. 2. Enlarge turn-around to allow space for vehicles to unload while providing a lane for entrance and exit. 3. "No Parking" and "Loading and Unloading Only" signage. 4. Increased policing of turn-around by staff. 5. Improved snow removal in turn-around. 6. Three on-site parking spaces have been located on the property. It is our intention to fully address the traffic and parking problem in a manner which satisfies our neighbors and the Town of Vail." II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 1$.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: i~ .~ • A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Agricultural and Open Space District states in Section 18.32.010 that: The Agricultural and Open Space district is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, 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 this district, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district. r U Staff believes that this type of use is appropriate in the Agricultural and Open Space District as long as the site remains predominantly open. The proposal will not increase the building site coverage due to the fact that a second floor is being added to the existing structure. Even though same landscaping, approximately 7 trees, will need to be removed to provide the three parking spaces, the applicant has agreed to either replant the trees or plant new trees in their place around the site. This site is also a central area for ski base facilities. Even though the site is zoned Agricultural and Open Space, it is connected to ali the activities that take place at Golden Peak. Staff believes that the expansion of the building is in tune with the activities that occur in the Ski Base/Recreation zone district to the west of the site as well as the Agricultural and Open Space zone district. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schoals~ parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs.. The remodeled facility will provide a more functional building for the activities that take place at Ski Club Vail. New uses have not been added to the building. Instead, the existing uses have merely been expanded to allow for a more effective management and running of the ski club programs. Staff believes that the expansion will have a pasitive effect on the way the Ski Club Vail functions. The proposal has no significant impacts on light distribution of population, utilities, schools, recreation facilities. Skip Gordon, head of the system felt the proposal would have no impact on of his bus route on Vail Valley Drive. and air, parks, and Town of Vail bus the functioning 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. When this project was originally approved in 1976, the Planning Commission approved the proposal without any on-site parking. It was felt that it would be impossible as well as inappropriate to locate parking on-site for all the skiers and staff who would be using the Ski Club Vaii facility. Staff's opinion is that some on-site parking is appropriate in order to decrease traffic congestion an the site and allow for easier drop-off and loading. Square footage comparisons were made only for office, conference and function room uses in order to calculate parking. The staff chose these uses for two reasons. First, the Town has definite parking requirements for these uses. Secondly, the other expanded uses were related to the existing ski club members such as tacker rooms, ski preparation, storage and a weight room. Rue to the fact that the original PEC approval did not require parking for these uses, staff feels it is consistent to exclude these uses from the parking requirement for the addition given the previous approval. Parking calculations were made based on the existing and proposed square footages to come up with the difference between the two • buildings. The existing parking requirement would be 8.4 spaces. The proposed building would require 10.69 spaces. The difference between these two figures creates a parking deficit of 3 spaces. Staff feels that it is important to locate these three spaces on site as inevitably some parking does occur on site. The loading area has also been expanded so that loading should be improved through this proposal. The loading lane has been increased to a minimum width of 18 feet around the entire drop-off circle. The applicant has also agreed to enforce the loading and provide the necessary signage on site for the loading zone. Ski Club Vail has also contratted with the Ramshorn to use six parking spats at the Ramshorn site. Staff believes that this is also helpful to the traffic congestion an the site. However, we da not feel that it is a long term solution due to the fact that these spaces will not be available after those condominiums are sold. In general, the pra,ject will provide for easier and safer auto access onto the site while also creating three parking spaces that may be used by the staff. The drop-off area is wide enough to allow a car to be stopped while unloading as well as to provide for an exit and entrance lane for cars that want to drive through the turn-around. Far these reasons, staff feels that the proposal is in compliance with this criterion. • 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the propased use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This proposal will slightly increase the scale and bulk of the project due to the addition of the second floor. The new height of the building will be approximately 23 feet. This increase in height and bulk should not be substantial enough to create any significant negative impacts on adjacent properties. The new loading plan and parking on site should actually improve the function of the turn-around area and decrease the visual impacts of the cars on adjacent properties due to the enforcement of the loading zone. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. C. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. No EIR is required. III. RELATED POLICIES IN UAIL'S CDMMDNITY ACTION PLAN. There are no related policies in the Action Plan. • IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the propased 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. i• V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request. It is felt that the additional parking is very important to the functioning of the project as it removes parked cars from a loading area. The widened loading area will also improve the ease of loading on site. Staff does believe that it would be unfair to ask the Ski Club Vail to provide parking for all the skiers who actually use the facility, as this was never part of the original approval when the project was built in 1976. . , Conditions Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The facility must remain a private ski club facility. Any changes to the club that would allow for public access to the facility would require another conditional use review. 2. Ski Club Vail agrees to sign and strictly enforce the loading zone and parking. 3. Ski Glub Vail agrees to submit a revocable right-of-way permit for the encroachments onto Town of Vail property. 4. Ski Club Vail agrees to plow and maintain the turnaround so that auto access is maintained at all times. The snow will be hauled off the site by Ski Club Vail. Snow will not be dumped out into Vail Valley Drive. 5 Staff recommends that landscaping on the south side of the building be provided to soften this elevation. All landscaping should be designed with protection from snow storage. This is a detail that should be addressed at DftB. :7 i• TD: Planning and Environmental Commission FRDM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for Special Development District on Lots i and 2, Black 6, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Tra C. Rothgerber, Jr./ M. B. Trust Berridge and Associates, representing Ira Rothgerber and the M. B. Trust, has submitted application for a special development district on Lots 7 and 2, Block 6, Vail Village First Filing. This item is scheduled far formal hearing by the planning and Environmental Commission on April l4. The staff felt that it would be helpful to present this today as a preliminary work session item. The proposal entails a minor subdivision of Lots 1 and Z, eliminating the common lot line and easements, clearing the way for development of the parcel as a whole. The development consists of 11 units with a common amenities area and a manager`s unit. The unit configuration consists of a duplex/townhouse type of approach with all required parking underground. Some preliminary issues identified by staff at this point are; 6RFA, setbacks and building height. This is a work session item only, and no formal vote is expected to be taken, nor does the staff have any recommendation on this project at this point. • ~. .s Berridge Associates, inc. Planning . landscape Archi#ec#ure 'ONE WT'LLOW PTIACE RE¢UEST FOR F'ORM'ATION ~OF A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISfiRSCT The applicants request approval of the ~oxmation of a Special Development District on Lots One and Two, Vail Vil7.age, First Filing. The purpose of the Special Development District Zoning is to allow f'lexiba.Iity in the planning and design of the development of the two sites. cf PROPOSED DEVELOPNI~EN~T • Total site area: 30,823 Sq. Ft. Dwelling L3nits: ll + Caretaker ~A•~.C-,~~: 23,1.68 Square Feet Site Cover-age : l0, 766 Sq. Ft. (34.9 0 ) Parking: 3$ spaces {29 underground, 6 surface} Setbacks: Vary, see site plan Height: Varies, see architectural plans (Maximum proposed is 55 feet.) [3NDERLYZNG HDMF ZONE DISTRICT Units allowed: 17 GRFA Allowed: 18,493 Coverage: 550 Height: 48' Setbacks: 2Q' , 245 Vallejo St.. San Francisco, California 9=111 1 (415) 433-2357 1000 So. Franiage fad. West, Suite 100. Vail, Colorado 81657. (303) 476-0851 •~ R ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Based upon the criteria contained in Section 18.56.020 of the Vail Muncipal Cade the propased development does not require the submission of an Environmental Impact Report, Furthermore, the impacts of the proposed project will actually be less than the development allowed within the underlying HDMF Zone District due to the reduction in the number of units from the 17 allowed to Il units plus a caretaker unit. The Community Development Department has expressed a de- sire to review. the. massing and spatial qualities of the proposed development and therefore a massing model is being prepared. GENERAL PROJECT CONCEPT The general project concept is one of extremely high quality. The 11 units propased will be a combination of townhouses and condominiums with all required park~.ng in an underground parking garage and surface spaces to accom~- odate short term guest parking and deliveries. The buildings, have been designed around heavily Landscaped patio and courtyard areas. The site plan and architectural plans have attemped to increase the scale of the project from West to East in order to acheve a transition in terms of massing and visual character from Beaver Dam Road, to the higher density existing buildings along Willow Circle. The result is a development that fits well with the scale of the surrounding sites and buildings. There are many advantages developing the two sites from combined access to a tural character. DESIGN STANDARDS of planning, designing, and as one integrated project x'anga.ng consistent, yet varied architec- The following Design Standards are contained within the Special Development~District Section of the Vail Zoning Code and, if applicable, should be addressed as a part of any SDD proposal. The following summarizes the design considerativn5 of the proposed development, where appli- cable, with respect to these design standards: • A. Buffer Zone • A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development district that is adjacent to a low-- density residential use district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, signage and other comparable potentially incompatible factors. The proposed project is adjacent on the north, east and south to other properties zoned for high density uses. On the west, across Vail Road are parcels zoned Primary/Secondary. The proposed development will be buffered from these sites, and Vail Road by the use of heavy plantings along Vail Road. In addition the scale and density of the project`s west end is very compatible with the adjacent low density uses. B. Circulation • A circulation system designed Ear the type of traffic generated, taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access, noise and exhaust control.. Private internal streets may be permit- ted iE they can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic shall. be considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential purposes. The circulation system designed has been planned to accomodate both pedestrian traffic through the site and vehicular access to the underground garage and the surface parking. C. Open Space Open space has been designed which exceeds the require- ments of the underlying HDMF Zone District and preserves and enhances the features of the site. Many of the ex- isting trees on'the site which have been planted around the existing buildings will be relocated. C] N . D. Variety Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space: Not applicable E. Privac~r Not applicable F. Pedestrian Traffic Pedestrian traffic has been accomodated by an internal path and court yard-circulation design. G. Building Type The building type has been designed to attempt to provide a variety of visual interest as we11 as to provide a transition of scale from the surrounding buildings to the west to the larger more massive buildings to the east. The building setbacks and height have been varied to create an interesting spatial arrangement which would be difficult to acheive under the existing development standards of the HDMF Zone District. H. Building Design The materials, colors, and textures utilized in the buildings are very high quality and have a character which fits very we11 with the character of the Vail Village area. As mentioned above, the orientation and spacing of the buildings upon the site is varied in order to acheive almost a "Village within the Village" feeling and scale. Z. Landscaping The landscape design is o:E a very high quality and it is intended to provide a setting for ,the buildings which complements its beautiful natural setting along Gores Creak. A series of court yards and garden patios will be an integral part of the landscape plan. r , s RELATIONSHIP TO VAIL VILLAGE STUDY • The Vail Village Study has identified several goals and objectives for the Willow Circle Area. Objectives applicable to the proposed redevelopment are the following: 1. Provide required parking in structures or enclosed locations We have complied with this objective. 2. Allow density increases on the presently under- developed parcel to provide for developments that will more closely relate to the existing bulk and mass in the sub-area. Approval of the GRPA requested will help to accomo- date the acheivement of this objective. 3. Require redevelopment of parcels clang Gore Creek to include walkway in redevelopment plans as well as a pedestrian bridge linkinc the walkway with the Kiandra- Talisman site on the north side of Gore Creek... On-site analysis with the staff has determined that the north side of the creek is the most appropriate site for the walkway due to solar exposure and easy access. C: C] town of nail 75 south frontage road vall, Colorado 81657 {303) 476-7QOl] March 19, 198b Mr. Peter Jamar Berridge and Associates 1000 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: One Willow Place Proposal Dear Peter: afflce of community developmen# The Community Development Department staff has completed their preliminary review of the One Willow Place proposal. In review of this proposal relative tv the the criteria outlined in Section 18.56.020 of the zoning code, we have determined that a formal Environmental Impact Report is not required. We do feel, however, that some further information would assist us in our review of this proposal. Section 18.56.040 A (3), (4}, (6) of the zoning code relates to geologic, biotic, and visual conditions. A written and/or graphic statement addressing the relationship of the proposal to these conditions is requested. It is our understanding that a massing model is being constructed. This model may be sufficient to address visual concerns. Other issues that may arise relative to this proposal are GRFA and setbacks. It is my understanding that Henry Pratt is currently redlining a set of plans in order to submit an accurate GRFA analysis. This information should be submitted to our department as Soon as possible. With regard to setbacks, the operational departments of the Town of Vail will be reviewing this proposal and we will relate their comments to you as soon as possible, Another concern that was identified during our review was the locatiG~~ and size of the proposed trash facilities. Please submit any new or revised information by March 23rd with the exception of the model which should be submitted no later than March 31st. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Sin rely, Rick Pylman Town Planner • Berrid e Associates, Inc, g Planning . Landscape Architecture Max'ch 20, 19$6 Rick Pylman Town Planner Town, of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado, 81657 Dear Rick, Tn response to your letter of March 19, 1986 regarding the Willow Place project T am sub- mitting the following information. Regarding the information pertaining to Section 18.56.040 of the zoning code T have the Following response. Subsection 3: T assume that your concern here is the Gore Creek 100 year floodplain. According to the Town of Vail Floodplain maps no portion of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, Vail Village First Filing is located with the 100 year floodplain. Subsection 4: T assume that is that of tree relocation s a desire to relocate many of been previously planted upon our opinion that benefits of weigh the initial investment ed with moving them. your main concern here ince we have indicated the trees which have the property. Tt is moving these trees out- costs and risk associat- 245 Vallejo St. San Franr.is~o. California 941 l 1 {415) 433-357 1 U00 So. Fror~taye Rd. West, Suite 1 [lU . Veil. Colorado 131657 (3031 476-[)851 Rick Plyman March 2D, 1986 Page Two To decrease the risk of tree mortality, the following process is commonly used but should always be practiced. At the new site, the previously dug receiving hale should be prepared with a mixture of peat moss, sail and a bal- anced organic fertilizer, then mixed with water to farm a slurry. The slurry mixture is forced to fill any voids around the root ball, virtually eliminating all of the air in the pocket. The need for guying and staking of these trees will depend upon the success of the dig and how tight the ball stays during its move. Following its move, a standard watering schedule should be established for the first two years, To help the trees along during the first year, foliar misting with a nutrient solution can help improve the trees overall appearance. • Other than the costs involved to move the trees, other limitations at this point seem slight. The specie of the trees; spruce, allows ease of transplantability because of its nature to grow numerous fibrous rants at the soils surface, unlike the problems commonly found in transplanting trees with a deep tap root. It-first appears that the health of the trees are good, however positive visual appearance does not always provide acu- rate information thus additional testing should be pro- vided prior to digging. Since we desire to proceed with the construction of the project this coming summer, a spring dig or before dune 1 is common practice at this altitude. :The trees being located next to the road on level ground, will help in working around them and maneuvering them. However, because the site is located at the edge of Gore Creek and within a mountain valley, the possibilities of large boulders or large quantities of river rock are an unknown. 'These site conditions could hamper or completely abort the digging of the trees. in summary, while there are certain unknowns about re- locating the trees at this time, we feel confident that we will be able to utilize the majority of healthy trees. We may wish to discuss with you the possibility of stor- ing these trees within the park during construction. Rick Pylman March aa, 19s~ Page 'three Subsection 6: As you have indicated, we are preparing a massing model in order to demonstrate the massing and spatial arrangement of the proposed building upon the site. -Due to the nature of the site and its position in relation to surrounding structures, we do not feel that there will be any negative impact upon any views or scenic values. If anything, the visual quality of the site should improve due to the upgrade of the site and landscape and the construction of a varied and inter- esting architecture. i~Iith regard tof~e other issues, attached is a copy of our GR~'A calculations. Your concern regarding the trash location and size of facilities is one item we should discuss. We believe that since the units are all equip- ped with compactors that the size should not become a problem. We have triad to locate the. dumpster where it would be as unoffensive as possible. If you have an alternate suggestion far location, we would be happy to discuss that with you. I hope this has answered your questions. Please don"t hesitate to call if you have others. Sincerely, Peter Jamar PJ/db TO: Planning and Environmental Commission, FROM: Community pevelopment Department DATE: March 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to extend a currently expired approval far Development Area D (Glen Lyon Office Building) of SDD4 (Cascade Village) located at 1000 South Frontage Raad West. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST The Cascade Village Special Development District was first established in 1976. The development p1 an delineates four development areas, one of which is the Glen Lyon Office Building {Development Area D). In January of 1983, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an amendment to SDD4 to allow far a proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building. These amendments consisted of: 1. Ta change the front setback from 20 to I.5 feet. 2. To change the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet (within Development Area D}. - Relative to this review in 1983, it was mentioned in the staff memorandum that while the Glen Lyon Office Building site was incorporated into the • Arterial Business District zone (which was adopted in March 1982}, it is technically still a part of the Special Development District 4. As a result of this, the development standards outlined in the Arterial Business District were used in evaluating the merits of the 1983 proposed expansion. - II. THE REQUEST As outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code, approvals of development plans in SDD's are valid far a period of 18 months from the date approval was obtained. With respect to SDD4, this 18 month period would be applied specific to each of the four development areas. Consequently, the approval for the proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building expired in July of 1984. The request before the Planning Commission is to extend the approval of this development plan far another 18 months. III, EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST Eighteen month time limitations are placed on SDD developments so as to allow the Town the opportunity to re-evaluate a proposal if it has not been constructed within the 18 month period. For example, if an approved plan were to expire and significant changes were to have taken place within the Town or areas adjacent to the subject property, amendments to the approved plans could then be made. With respect to this proposal, there would not appear to be any complications involved in extending this approval period. F ~n evaluating this request, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the Town Council. That recommendation would include one of the following: 1. That the approval of the special development district be extended. 2. That the approval of the special development district be revoked. 3. That the special development district be amended. . IV. STRFF RECOMMENDATION The staff would recommend that this approval be extended for a period of 18 months. In reviewing this request, the staff compared it to the initial review that took place in 1983. At that time the staff recommended approval of the request, and we would offer the same recommendation today with the same conditions of approval as outlined in the January 20, 1983 staff memo. • Y,, ,. y~ / ~ T • f I r ro. '. MEF~ORANDUM , ~ ,'_ ,~ . ~. 4 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department ,. ,. DATE: January 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Request to amend Development Area'D of Special~Development District #4 to 1) change the front setback from 20 feet to i5 feet and 2) to change the allowable square footage from 13,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. Applicant: Glen Lyan Office Building Partnership BACKGROUND In 197& Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, was farmed. Del~e1opment area D of this SDD is the Glen Lyon Office Building. The maximum allowable square footage far the office building was set at that time at 10,000 square feet. The building was constructed in 1979-80 at a gross area of approximately 13,000 square feet. In March 7982 the Planning and Enviromental Commission and Town Council approved an amendment to the SDD which allowed the space of approximately 3,000 square feet within the building built as storage to be utilized also as office space. The current request is to expand the office building to approximately 25,000 square feet. Two sections of the proposed addition, each approximately 25 feet in length, are proposed to be located 15 feet away from the north property line, and thus the need to amend the required 20 foot setback under the SDD require- ments. In March 1982 the PEC and Council adopted the Arterial Business Zone District for the area in which the Glen Lyon affice building is located. Technically, the property is still within the Special Development District. However, the staff believes that it is reasonable to review the proposed amendments with regard to the standards of the Arterial Business District (ABD). THE REQUEST The first request is to amend the allowable square footage of building upon the lot. The current limit set by the SDD is 13,000 square feet, and the ABD zoning wo:~ald allow 56,8G~5 square feet. The proposal is to allow approximately 25,000 square feet of gross area and 18,750 net floor area. This would be an addition of 8,000 square feet of office space and 2800 square feet of common area such as mechanical areas, lobby areas, corridors, etc.. The major factors affected by the additional square footage are the number and place- ment of the additional required parking spaces. A net floor area of 18,750 square feet requires 75 parking spaces. The applicants can achieve the parking requirement by adding 17 spaces to the east of the existing parking since the current parking provided is in excess of the requirements. One loading berth will also be provided. • r. GLk1~1 LYUN UFFIC:k ~~ ~~ -l- I /LU/ti,i One requirement of the SDD is that 50~ of the parking must be hidden from public view within a landscaped berm. The applicant proposes to comply with this require-~ ment. The second request is to change the setback required by SDD along the north property line from 20 feet to 15 feet. The applicant feels that this would permit soma flexibility in breaking up the length of the building. Only two portions of the building, each about 25 feet in length,-would project to the new 75 foot setback, and the remainder of the addition would be located about i$ feet off of the property line. The ABD requires a front setback of i5 feet far fi0~ of the frontage and 20 feet far 40~ of the frontage, Only 7~ of the proposed frontage (including the existing structure) would have a i5 foot setback, 19.5% of the frontage would have an 18 foot setback, and 9°b would have a 25 foot setback. The remaining 64.5°l of the ,. frontage is not adjacent to the building. ~~ '~ f~4 ~ The staff believes that revising the front setback requirement is consistent with the Rrterial Business zone District requirements and that the change permits a design far the addition which will certai n enhance the appearance of the building. There should be no negative impacts that w~71 result from the change. The building will be located 55 feet away from the edge of the pavement of the South Frontage Road. ., An additional aspect of the proposal which should be reviewed in relation to the ABD standards is the roof pitch. The A8D requires that the minimum slope of the roof shall be three feet in i2 feet with an allowance of i0°~ of the roof area allowed to be flat fora transition of roof sines. The applicants propose adding a covered entry with a fi/12 roof pitch to a portion of the existing part of the building and a 5/12 roof pitch an the north side of the addition, leaving the Gore Creek side with a flat roof. Considering that the existing portion of the building is flat roofed, the staff fees that the applicants have done a good job trying to _imprave~the appearance of the building with the sloped portion of the roof. The SDD has no requirement regarding roof pitch. CIRCULATION AND ACCESS. As you'll retail, a circulation and access plan was to be required for the Arterial $usiness District. A memo regarding the plan is contained within this packet, and the item will be considered at Monday's meeting. The applicants are willing to comply with this plan, and improvements consistent with the circulation and access plan are indicated on the site plan.for the office 6ui]ding. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The DCD staff recommends approval of the requested amendments. The changes are generally consistent with the requirements of the Arteria] Business District which governs the development of the adjacent properties, The following conditions should be a part of the approval: GL FN LYO~-~FFICF -3- 1/20/83 _ *, ~ ~., 1. The bike path, right turn, and left turn lanes shall be provided in accordance with the Circulation and Access Plan far the Arterial Business Zone District; 2. The applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost of providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department. • • PEC 1/24/83 •-Z-• u ~:~ ~ ~ ~- Piper moved and Dnnovar. seconded to approve the general circul~~tion and ~iccess olan for the Arterial BusinQSS District with the condition tha~C funding to imn_lr~nt;:nt • the bike bai:h,bridge and pedestrian crosswalks be worked out ~witl~in a per•i~;d of 60 days from that day (January 24, 1983) and that the road not be narrowed down between the intersection with West Lionshead Circle and the Holy Cross access poin , and that no building permits be issued prior to the resolution of the fundin~l plan. . Jim Sayre asked if a building permit could be issued after the 60 days if no funding plan had been worked out, and Piper said, "No." Al Williams asked if DRB could process his application in the meantime, and was told that he could continue up to the building permit, Andy Norris asked about the location of the bike path near the GIen Lyon Office building. The vote was 5~0-1 in favor of the plan with Pierce abstaining. 3. A request far two amendments to Special Development District No. 4 in which the Glen Lyon Office Building is located. The first request is to change the front setback from 2O feet to 15 feet. The second request is to amend the allowable square footage of the Glen Lyon Office Building. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership -Peter Jamar explained the memo, adding that the berm should be higher than shown on the site plan, that ithe DRB should review the ability of the berm to screen the parking as required, and that there were two conditions of approval, one that the bike path, right turn and left turn Lanes shall be provided in accordance with the Circulation and Access Plan for the. Arterial Business Zone District, and ~~ the second condition was that the applicant shall agree to sharing in the cost - of. providing an additional fire hydrant within the vicinity as required by the Vail Fire Department. Jamar added that the financing would have to be worked out on the- second condition, since Voliter and the M&W office building would also benefit from the hydrant. Gordon Pierce, architect for the applicant, showed a model and explained the roofs, setbacks and masses. Patten explained that this was an amendment to an SOD, that the SDD allowed 50~ of the building to have 15 foot setbacks, but this building would only have 15 foot setbacks across 7°6 of the building. One concern was~~:that the DRB require large sized trees between the building and the road. Trout asked about the Glen Lyon Office Building applying to be in the Arterial Business District. Patten said there was no real urgency, but that this would be worked out with Andy Norris. Trout moved to approve the requests far setback and sguare.__fo.o~age,~er the staff memo but candi~tidn ~1 would be reworded to n~lud~. t~.~a.ci: that t,h~_fundi'ng would be worked out within a period of 60 da~rs, Andy Norris, one owner of the Glen Lyon Office Building, said that he had no problem with funding of the bike path, but was concerned about the left and right turn lanes, and felt that unless the funding were worked out, that this part may never get done. ''~. ` ,,~ P~~` ] /24/83 ~~~ .~ Patten stated that Norris solely would not h~v~ to pay for the bike path because it~was part of the }vho7e disiriet, --~'~ere was po seEep~ ~o the mo~iop, Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approvethe two amendments per the staff r~emo dated Januar-y ~~, T983 witFi ~e -two eonq~~~ans =aid that cond~~~on #7 would 3nciude the fac~~~ia~~~he funding wound be wor~ce~ out within a~~ p~r~od of 60_ days - -- and r~o-building permit would be 3~ssued until tti~ funding was worked out. 1'he vote was 3-0 in favor with 3 abstentions--~orearan, Viele and Pierce. ~. 9ppeal of an administrative decision regarding lot 17, Tract ~, Vail Village ,1rtt11 filing. appellant: ~ar~ ~trauch- @eter Jamar explained the happenings tip to this date. Jan Stra~ch said he agreed wi~#~ tki~ sequence of events, but ~~ated thaict.~q deck was under ~i feet of snow, and c_ouldn't correct the error @ractically. ~~ added that it wasn't until October ghat he load o~tai~ed the corre~i sire of .~neival chimney, and then it was too cold ~o paiht it. Ike i=hen mentioned ~.ome problems he was having cpnverting his fire- p~ace to a gas burning fireplace. Trout pointed ou_t that there was no spark arrestor in the flue of the wood burning • ~ shove. 5trauch asked what thai eras, and 1-i~qt explained, adding that this should be~i~asta~ied immediately. ~Dvnovari stated t-~at Straueh hack intentionally gilt the deck intp the setback ax~a. She del it i~,~i Qne eh ir~n,e~ ~.hou1 d b~ ra~d.~ ~n.gperabl a now, and the deck should be corrected iv be in c~plianee wig ~h~ rode a~ this iiime. P_iex-cc's feelings were to ir3st~a11 i.he sparfc ~rgtor ir~nediately, wait 6 months i<Q, p~,air~i izhe. c~irrt~aey, but their ~:~ Lek. ~o~l;~ ~ dine now. He said a coupl e ~~ I~°~~ Q~ ~~~~1'~~ ~4~~1~ cli~~ ~Q: ~~k.. ~~p~~ eked. if i<~~~ +or~s a foundation, ar~d rROr~ c#i$cu~s~Q~, x-eveal.ed ~~tair ~~ fQUnc+~~i~,t~r~, v~.as inadequate, aMd that concrete ~.i_ers would have ito be Poured., Steve Patt~-~sgr~,. t~gilding official, said that he had marked i`he i,wo sets of plans that ha:# i~~en gubmitted for a building permit w.=}t~ tie ~~a~er;~ t-~?a~ a pr~g:~ ~c~.r~c#a~rc~r~ ~,1c~ F~~ve to be ct~rrstr~ucted. Ike armed i#~at the de.~,~ could be E-~tr and pi~l ing_~ {~~~ rn at a later efi~te witha~:t itaar-ing the whole deck apart. V~iele maned ar~d Puce seconder tQ moc#ify Vie= ~d~ir~istrative d~r`:sTan as x'011 ows > :~~~hat~-they -rQq,uire immedi-ale c-oi~versior~--1~ gds-of the- wood bur°rr.ing firep] ace, 2.. ghat the pair~iring of the ch:rmney.~ and a~s.~m# sheet metal be stone by dune 1 , 3~., l~ncf ~~hat June_ 1.,, 148.3 al:s/Q ~~ it~e da.~~ ~~ ~ have the deck ~rrection 1h~ ~{~te wasp 3 ~~, t~,R)'~EQ~'~.n.,. Qom, ~~ ~ nq~,~-~ i.~~t~ The moticm, failed. • T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 24, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for exterior alteration of the Hill Building on Lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing to enclose existing second floor deck space and to add a third story. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill I. THE PROPOSAL The applicant, Blanche G. Hi11, received approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission on January 13, 1986 to enclose 433 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 972 square feet. The current proposal represents a modification to this approval. While the building and addition foot print remain relatively the same, this proposal entails a major change to the facade treatment of the southwest area of this building. The net change in square footage is an additional 86 square feet being added to the second level. The new facade entails the removal of the overhanging second and third story balconies and the introduction of a new material, in the farm of a stucco wall. This proposal also includes the construction of the Urban Design Guide Plan Concept 1DA involving the creation of a pedestrian walkway/plaza located to the south of the Hill building. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CCI CODE 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 and open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village. This proposal is substantially in compliance with the intent of the GCI district. III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE This proposal relates to SubWarea 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. During the approval process for the previously approved alteration, the Forest Service had indicated that they would allow no improvements with regard to this sub-area concept. . The applicant has now secured permission of the Forest Service to construct this sub-area concept. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations, A. Pedestrianization. This proposal affects pedestrianization through the creation of Sub-area Concept 10A. As described above, this sub-area refers to mountain gateway improvements and describes elements such as a landscape screen, minor plaza, and a pedestrian loop to Wall Street. We feel that creation of this sub-area will be a positive contribution to this area of Vail Village. We do feel, however, that this area could be strengthened by some modification to the proposed design. The proposed design shows the stucco wail wrapping around the southwest corner and following the property line to the east. If this south wall were to be pulled in toward the building more, it would allow for more landscaping and perhaps some bench seating, This would be more in keeping with the plaza/walkway concept of the sub-area as opposed to strictly a pedestrian loop. Enclosed with this memo is a copy of the sub-area concept as detailed in the Urban Design Guide Plan. We also feel strongly that the brick pavers should continue around the south end of the building to the junction of this plaza/walkway with Bridge Street. The design proposed details pavers only at the southwest corner, with the rest of the walkway as asphalt. B. Vehicular Penetration.. No impact. C. Streetscape Framework. As previously described in the January 13, 1986 memo, the quality of the pedestrian experience will be somewhat 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. The most notable effect upon the streetscape framework of this current proposal is the removal of the second story decks on the west elevation of the building. The current storefront of Vail Ski Rentals is heavily shaded and has the appearance of being recessed because of the overhanging second story balcony. We feel that the elimination of this second level balcony is a positive contribution to the appearance of this commercial store front. 2 D. Street Enclosure . • The Considerations state that, "An external enclosure is mare 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 fine Uail Plaee is 28 feet to the eave line. The plaza width varies from 33 to 42 feet, thus. creating a ratio that varies from 2/3:1 to l:l. The stucco wall rises from ground to a height of 23 feet in a continuous plane. At 23 feet above grade, the building steps back 8 feet to create a third level deck. The eave line, at 33 feet above grade is stepped back 8 feet from the first floor building edge. By maintaining the footprint of the third floor from the previous submittal, the architect has maintained the mitigation that the staff felt acceptable in the previous design. E. Street Edge. Other than the jag for Vail Ski Rentals` entry, this proposal presents a fairly monotonous street edge. The inclusion of door and window awnings, as well as flower boxes will be essential to the appearance of this facade. Sub-area l0A affects street edge and has been adressed previously in this memo. F. Building Height. In Commercial Core I, up to 600 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 50/40 criteria as described. The new roof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the same pitch and materials as the existing roof farms of the building. G. Views and Focal Points This proposal entails no further impacts upon views than that of the January 13th proposal. H. Service and Deliver. No impact. I. Sun/Shade. This current proposal entails no further impact on sun/shade than that of the January 13th proposal. ll. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS: Project Statistics. Allowable GRFA: 6,400 sq ft Existing second floor: 4,082 sq ft • Existing third floor: 696 sq ft Total existing 4,778 sq ft Stairway deduction - 372 sq ft Total existing GRFA 4,451 sq ft 3 Proposed 3rd floor addition Proposed 2nd floor deck enclosure Total proposed GRFA Allowable GRFA Proposed GRFA Remaining GRFA VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 972 sq ft 519 sq ft 5,942 sq ft 6,400 sq ft - 5,942, sq ft 458 sq ft The Community Development Department recommends approval. The only changes in the current proposal as apposed to the approval of January 13th that relate to the Design Considerations are the removal of the second level deck and the creation of Sub-area Concept iOA. The introduction of new material and facade treatment will need to be reviewed by the Design Review Board and really do not apply to these Design Considerations. We feel that the removal of the second level decks improves the first level commercial property, although it leaves the west elevation of this building with very little relief to a height of 28 feet. We feel that the creation of Sub-area Concept lOA is a very positive contribution to this area of Vail Village, and the modifi- cations suggested to the design will certainly enhance this major gateway from the mountain into Vail Village. The staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. That the applicant will not remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when one is farmed for Vail Village. 2. That the applicnat will construct all improvements outside of their property line (sub-area i0 pedestrian and landscape improvements) as approved, totally at their own expense. 3. This approval is valid fora maximum of three years from the date of PEC approval. • 4 r • ;~ TO: Panning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January Z3, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for exterior alteration of the Hill Building on Lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing, to enclose existing 2nd floor deck space and to add a third story. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill I. THE PROPOSAL. The applicant, Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to enclose 433 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 972 square feet. The proposed third story addition is located an the southwest area of the building. On September 23, 1985 the Planning Commission heard a similar proposal. Following the recommendation by the staff, the application was denied by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission decision was subsequently appealed to the Town Council. The Council supported the position of the staff and the Planning Commission. Concerns of the staff and the Planning Commission revolved around the creation of a canyon effect and additional sun/shade impact on the One Vail Place Plaza. The current submittal represents a revision of the building sensitive to these concerns. II. COi~PLIANCE WIT~i THE CCI CODE Purpose: The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vaii Village commercial area with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended 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 c]ustered arrangements of buildings fronting an 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 CCI district. C] 1~ c 4 III. CONEPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE ~ . This proposal relates to the sub-area concept lOA, 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. Tie area specified for sub-area I.OA 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 improvements 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 Hi11 Building not remonstrate against any special improvement district that may be formed to complete such improvements, IV. CONfPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the Considerations is to show haw the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations. A. Pedestrianization The third story addition and second story deck enclosure will have minimal if any impact upon pedestrianization. B. Vehicular Penetration c 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 ]andscaping and ground level commercial infill, The quality of the pedestrian experience will be somewhat impacted by additional shade in the area of L.e Petite Cafe (see Sun/Shade analysis) and the ticket offices and also by same 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 1l2-1 as high as the width of the space enclosed," The Design Guidelines also state that a ratio of i:l, height to width, creates a "canyon effect." The height of the addition on the Hi11 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. ~`~. r~ This consideration was a major concern of the staff in reviewing the September 1985 submittal. In the current submittal the architect has reacted to these concerns by pulling the third float addition and balcony back approximately 4 feet from the corresponding balcony on the second floor. By stepping back the third floor living area, balconies and roof line, the architect has greatly mitigated the concerns of the staff. The original submittal showed a three story vertical plane from the plaza. This revised submittal presents a more gentle building mass, with the buildings stepping away from the plaza area as it rises. It is our belief that the original concept was for the plaza to present a gateway into the Village. The Community Development staff feels that this design, while meeting the objective of the property owner, is more in keeping with the original concept of this plaza. E. Street Edge. No impact. All additions are above ground level. F. Building Height In Commercial Core I, up to 60% of each building may be built to height of 33 feet or less and na 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 60/4D criteria as described. The new roof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the ~ same pitch and materials of the existing roof forms on the building. . G. Views and Focal Paints. The proposed addition wi11 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 west 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. 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 in the plaza area, according to the December 21 study diagram. While we do have some concern over the negative effects of this shading on activity an the plaza, we do recognize that the redesign efforts of the architect will result in substantially less impact than the arigina1 submittal. ., f r r ~ ' V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Pro.iect Statistics Allowable GRFA 6,400 sq ft Existing 2nd floor 4,082 sq ft Existing 3rd floor 695 sa ft Total existing 4,778 sq ft Stairway deduction - 372 sq ft Total existing GRFA 4,451 sq ft ' Proposed 3rd floor addition 972 sq ft Proposed 2nd floor deck enclosure 433 sq ft Total proposed GRFA 5,856 sq ft Allowable GRFA 6,400 sq ft Proposed GRFA - 5,855 sq ft Remaining GRFA 544 sq ft VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Depa rtment recommends approval. As a 2nd and 3rd story addition, there are really only two considerations that are impacted by the proposal. Alt hough this project still has some impact an the One Vail Place plaza area through the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade design considerations, we feel that the architect, through this design, has attempted to respect the S treet Enclosure and SunlShade design considerations and has attempt ed to mitigate previous concerns of the staff. We feel that by steppi ng the building mass away from the plaza area, the original concept of the plaza as an open gateway into Vail Village has been maintained. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 14, 1986 2:15 pm Site Visits 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of March 24. 2. A request for the formation of a special development district and a request for a minor subdivision to a11nw development on lots 1 and 2, block 6, Vail Village First Filing. Applicants: Ira C. Rothgerber, Jr./M.B. Trust t'.~ ~•'•?~~ '~G``{~ 3. A request for a minor subdivision of the Glen Lyon Office Building located on Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivsion. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building. 4. A request for a conditional use to amend the development plan of the Vail Valley Medical Center. Applicant: Vai 1 Val 1 ey Medical Center ~~~-~'~'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ " 5. A request to amend Section 17.1fi.130 C, Final P1 at Requirements and Procedures to include an Eagle County Tax ~~ Assessor's Certificate and to include the actual certificate in Section 17.32.800. Applicant: Town of Vail Note: The second PEC meeting date in May falls on Memorial Day. We doubt if anyone wants to meet on that day, so a replacement date has been scheduled on June 2. That makes the June meeting dates June 2, June 9 and June 23. :~ . t~ • .PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTRL COMMISSIQN April 14, 1986 PRESENT .. _ STAFF pRESFNT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Pam Hopkins Tom Braun Duane Piper ~ Rick Pylman Sid Schultz ~ Kristan Pritz - Jim Viele .._• ABSENT ~ ~ - -. _ Bryan Hobbs ...-. ... .. - - ~~ . •. ~ .. The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper, at 3:00 pm. i. Approval of minutes of March 24, "~• ~ ,.. . Some members had pages missing. The minutes will be`reviewed at the next meeting. ., 2. A request for the formation of a special development districtryand~a request for a minor subdivision to allow development on Lots 1 and 2, flock 6, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ira Rothgerber Jr. / MB Trust. :. The staff presentation was made by Rick Pylman. He stated that the staff recommended approval, that the staff feels the proposal meets the SDD requirements. Pylman asked for an agreement on the applicant contributing to the walkway. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, addressed some of the staff's concerns: .. 1, On the side adjacent to Riverhouse Condominiums, the applicant will move the gatehouse and garage ramp further away from the Riverhouse Condos. 2. Building 6 would be moved back from the street. 3, They are looking at pulling buildings l and 2 to the north so that there would be a 5 foot setback in the rear. Jamar stated that the height basically meets HDMF restrictions except in one location. As far the payment of the walkway, the owners would like an ~~ eouitable method of pay~~er?t. George Webster, adjacent property owner, stated that he would like the Town of Vail to consider making Willow Circle a two way street. He expressed approval of the project. Pam Hopkins felt the direction was good, but was concerned about the scale and massing of the two smaller buildings. Sid Schultz felt the proposal worked pretty well, but was concerned about the building closest to Vail Rnad. Jamar ~" stated that they would bring the grade up an the west end so mare landscaping _ could be placed between Vail Rnad and this building. r. -~ Diana Donovan had the same concerns about the building near Vail Raad and felt • that the buildings were pushing the setbacks on Willow Road. Jay Peterson, ,enting the applicant, stated that is was hard to visualize what the ect would look like when it was finished. Jamar stated that the applicant ,t that they could save and re-use all the existing trees except two. ,. .,. anovan asked if the large rear elevation would be screened with big trees, and Jamar assured her that the trees would be large in that area. A discussion followed concerning the construction of the bike path, and staff suggested a fair share of $4900 rather than an Improvement District in the future. Peterson pointed out that the 5DD did not have an impact, although the bike path along the creek is a good idea, and the applicant agrees to contribute to it. Patten replied that SDD's have been required to do bike - paths, and this is no different. Peterson stated that they did not mind paying a fair share for a bike path as long as the money did not go into the Town of Vail general fund. Donovan asked about the feasibility of a sidewalk along Willow Place and Jamar replied that since this was a low impact area, there was no need for a sidewalk. Diana was concerned about the lighting, and Jamar said they would address this concern at Design Review Board. Viele agreed with Diana that this project was a good use of the SDD process. Piper asked why surface parking ' spaces were planned. Patten stated that both the staff and owners felt the spaces were practical. Duane asked about the stair tower and was told that it would come up to the foil height of the wall, not the top of the roof. He then asked if the courtyards could be tightened up to increase setbacks, and Jamar replied that he did not feel the buffers were inadequate. Piper asked if it was possible to recommend that the bike path be a fair and equitable figure rather than a specific dollar, and Patten replied that the final decision would be made at the Town Council meeting. Viele moved and Hopkins seconded to recommend approval of the minor subdivision and of the rezoning to an SDD including the minor suggestions for building 5 and b that the applicant try to increase the setback on Willow Road without going into the 50' stream setback and that a fair and equitable solution be -found to the dollar amount to be contributed by the applicant to the bike path fund. The vote was 5 - 0 in favor. 3. A request for a minor subdivision of the Glen Lyon Office Building located on Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen L.von Office Building, Tom Braun made the presentation and explained that Andy Morris would like to create a new lot but development would be limited to the previous plans approved far the parcel. Norris added that this would enable them to divide ownership prior to construction. Braun explained how the proposed plat was tied to the development plan as well as how covenants would be recorded to ensure a unified development of the parcel. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request for a minor subdivision per the staff memo with the five conditions attached to the memo. The vote was 4 in favor, none against with Viele abstaining. • -2- T0: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 14, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision of the Glen Lyon office building located in Development Area D of SDD 4 at 1000 South Frontage Road. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST This request is for a minor subdivision of Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision (the Glen Lyon office building located within the Cascade Village Special Development District), from one lot into two lots. Parcel B (1.268 acres) would include the existing office building and all of the surface parking on site, while Parcel A (.479 ac) would include the westerly portion of the site where a previously approved office expansion is to be located. As the Planning Commission may recall from a recent review of this property, it is located in Development Area D in SDD 4 (Cascade Village). in 1982, property adjacent to this parcel was rezoned to the Arterial Business District. While the subject property is technically in the SDD zone district, the ABD development standards are utilized in the review of any development proposals for this site. This is similar to the manner in which the High Density Mu1ti~Family zone district was . utilized in evaluating the proposed SDD for the Doubletree Hotel site. While this property is oat in the ABD zone district, the development standards are utilized in review to ensure continuity between the adjacent parcels in the ABD zone district. ii. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST The approval of a minor subdivision creates a new parcel for development within the Town of Vail. The purpose of reviewing the minor subdivision request is to ensure that the subdivided parcels are suitable for development and meet the applicable development standards the Town has established. The following review criteria is from Section 17.16.110 of the Subdivision Regulations: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.1.6.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses. • III. THE PROPOSAL The approved development plan for this parcel allows for an expansion of the existing office building. This expansion would increase the allowable square footage of the building from 13,000 to approximately 25,000 square feet of gross area and 18,750 net float area. This would be an addition of 5,000 square feet of office space and 2800 square feet of common area such as mechanical areas, lobby areas, corridors, etc. This addition would be located on what is proposed to be Parcel A. Without taking measures to insure a unified development of Lot 54, the approved development of the proposed Parcel A would be difficult to take place as an independent parcel. It is the intention of the applicant to insure that Parcel A and Parcel B are developed and operated as one tract of land. The attached agreement outlines the conditions that would be applied to this property if this subdivision is approved. This agreement restricts the development of Parcel A to those plans on file with the Town of Vail, that the parking provided on parcel B be shared and available for use by the users of Parcel A, and that a pedestrian easement insure access from the parking area to the development on Parcel A. In addition, the subdivision plat refers to the development plan, which refers to the approved development plans to insure that Parcel A is developed as a part of Parcel B and not as an independent tract. A final condition that should be noted is that any changes to these recorded agreements will require approval of the Town of Vail, thereby insuring that the Town have an opportunity to review any changes to this development plan. IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The only zoning consideration relative to this proposal is with respect to the required minimum lot size as outlined in the ABD zone district. Parcel A {20,895 square feet) does not meet the minimum lot size in the ABD zone district of 25,000 square feet. This minimum lot size was established to insure that parcels created in the zone district were of ample size to accommodate the type of development to take place in this zone district. Given the steps taken to insure that both Parcel A and Parcel B would be developed as a whole, staff does not feel this consideration is a significant issue relative to this requested subdivision. U. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff`s main concern with this request is that the property be developed as one parcel. The applicant has proposed a number of steps that would insure that the approved development of Parcel A would be an element of the entire tract. The recorded conditions and references on the subdivision plat insure that the development of Parcel A would be compatible and function in harmony with the existing development on parcel B. Given these assurances, the staff is comfortable with this request and supports it as presented. Agreement to be Recorded with Eagle County . for Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision The following agreements outline the conditions and stipulations set forth with the minor subdivision proposed for Lot 54 of the Glen Lyan Subdivision. It is proposed that this agreement be filed with the County on the land records of this parcel prior to the formal approval of this minor subdivision. It is the intent of this agreement to insure that the development of Lot 54 proceed in a timely and efficient manner consistent with the previously approved development plans on file with the gepartment of Community Development. The agreements to be filed include the following: 1. The development of Parcels A and B shall be limited to those plans by Gordon Pierce dated December 27, 1982, approved by the Town of Vail and on file with the gepartment of Community Development, or other plans as approved by the Town of Vail. 2. Concurrent with the development of Parcel B, the owner/developer shall be required to comply with those conditions set forth by the Planning Commission memorandum dated January 20, 1983. 3. The 30 foot pedestrian access easement as shown an the development plan for lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision shall provide pedestrian access from the Parcel B parking easement to Parcel A. 4. The parking easement as shown on the development plan for Lat 54 of the Glen Lyon Subdivision shall be a common parking area for development on • both parcels A and B with a minimum allocation of 32 spaces to parcel A and 42 spaces to parcel B. 5. Any modifications or amendments to this agreement shall require review and approval of the Town of Vail. • t' T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 14, 1986 SUBJECT: Request to amend a previously approved conditional use permit for the Vail Valley Medical Center expansion project. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Medical Center is requesting to amend their development plan for the expansion project which was approved by Town Council an February 18, 1986. The request is to construct an 18 space parking lot in the landscaped area along West Meadow Drive on the southeast of the site. Additionally, another row of valet parking spaces is proposed in the northwest corner of the site. This would allow cars to be parked four spaces deep rather than the three spaces as previously approved. The additional row of valet parking farces a shift to the south of the entire parking space layout. • The addition of the southeast corner parking lot provides 18 additional spaces, ten of which are compact spaces. Access into the parking area would be controlled by a wooden gate mechanism and a proposed sidewalk would continue in the same location as previously approved. A liquid oxygen enclosure and trash enclosure area would remain essentially as previously approved as would a pull-out area for the semi-truck delivering the liquid oxygen. The plan shows a landscaped berm approximately 13 feet between the sidewalk and the edge of pavement of West Meadow Drive. One mature pine tree would be lost under the proposal. The 13 foot wide berm would be landscaped with potentilla shrubs. Fire Department access would not be diminished under the proposal. Snow would be required to be comp'}etely hauled out from this area in order for it to be fully utilized. Also, the proposed berm between West Meadow Drive and the sidewalk would be reduced by a maximum of four feet {resulting in a 9 foot width) to accommodate a drainage Swale as required by the Public Works/Transportation Department, The sidewalk would be maintained by the hospital due to its location on private property. The proposal removes approximately 7500 square feet of landscaped area-- the only significant landscaped area remaining as per the approved plans. The additional row of valet parking on the northwest corner of the site adds 13 parking spaces for a total of new parking spaces over and above what was previously approved of 31. A timber retaining wall approximately 3 feet high would be constructed along the property line in this area to accommodate the additional parking. This portion of the revision removes another 1800 square feet of landscaped area for a total of approximately 9300 square feet of landscaping {both revision areas) replaced with asphalt. The impact of shifting the entire west parking area to the south is that six additional spaces are partially located on Tnwn of Vail-awned Lot 10 which would be required to be relocated when Lot 10 is utilized for municipal purposes. Moreover, the spaces closest to Meadow Drive on the very south are proposed to be relocated even closer to the road by approximately 8 feet. Due to the design of this parking area, all the snow will be required to be hauled on a regular basis. II. BACKGROUND . Last summer, in the original proposal by the hospital, the southeast parking area was proposed to the staff. We felt at that time that this was a "sacred" landscaped area essential to the hospital's compatibility with the surrounding low density residential use as well as creating a pleasant pedestrian atmosphere along West Meadow Drive. Further, it was agreed by both the applicant and the staff to allow the severe reduction of both interior and perimeter parking lot landscaping requirements as a trade-off to preserve the landscaped area along West Meadow Drive. We felt that this was the best solution for both the hospital and the community by maximizing the spaces that could be located in the main parking lot and preserving what we feel is an important buffer between the hospital, the pedestrian and the law density residential area to the south. The applicant agreed and removed the southeast parking area from the plans and received approval from the Council for their parking plan. The applicant had second thoughts about this parking area recently and brought it up in a discussion with the Planning Commission on March 10. An informal polling of the commission members took place and a verbatim record of that polling is attached. Following the Planning Commission work session, the applicant chase to apply for the revision to the plan to include this additional parking area. On April 3, 1986 the applicant verbally withdrew the application previously submitted for the addition of the spaces and agreed to deliver a statement in writing to that effect. The letter was not received by the Community Development Department. • On April 8, at a Council work session to discuss the final agreement between the Town and the hospital for off-site parking, following the March 24th PEC approval for 29 off-site spaces at the Sun Vail Condominium project, the applicant again brought up the issue of the parking area in the southeast corner of the site. The result of this discussion was a direction of Council to immediately go back to Planning Commission (April 14) to consider the merits of this proposal, which brings us where we are today. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the conditional use permit based upon the fallowing factors: A. Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Tawn. The Urban Design Guide Plan, adopted in 1980, designated West Meadow Drive as an important pedestrian connecting street between Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. Pedestrian and landscaping improvements were called out to accomplish this end. In general, . a pleasing pedestrian walking experience requires landscaped open spaces and a separate walking area. While the proposal provides for construction of a sidewalk, it takes away the last remaining landscaped area on the site. -~- 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, narks and recreation facilities, and other oublic facilities needs. No impacts upon these factors are foreseen. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access= maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The solution to haw to get the 18 wheel truck out of this area when it delivers the liquid oxygen on the southeast corner of the site has not been solved. As to traffic flow, the proposal further restricts vehicular flow on the western end of the site. However, if a1i snow is continually hauled out from the entire parking area, it appears the plan remains workable. The applicant claims the fourth row of valet parking will require only another 15 to 20 second delay to an individual receiving his car. They feel the fourth row will only be used at the most crowded time of the year. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The proposal will have a very negative effect upon the character of the area by replacing this very important buffer area with a parking lot. Intense hospital use requires a buffer between it, the pedestrians and the residences to the south of West Meadow Drive. The staff has made many concessions regarding landscaping on the site to enable the hospital to maximize the number of cars to be parked. The staff's concessions were made in areas that would not impact the pedestrians or the residences to maintain the existing character of the area. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be denied based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is not in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is . located. -3- . That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would not comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. U. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As mentioned earlier, we have continually given and made numerous concessions regarding the site plan for the hospital expansion proposal. The loss of an additional 9300 square feet of landscaping on the site, especially along West Meadow Drive, is simply not acceptable. The existing approval represents a very long process of trade-offs and negotiations between the staff, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Council and the applicant. One redeeming characteristic of the approved site plan which led the staff to support it was the retention of the landscaped buffer along West Meadow Drive while allowing virtually the remaining 3.75 acres to be building and asphalt. We feel strongly that approval of the proposed revision would represent a special privilege to this applicant and we continue to support the off-site parking plan for 29 spaces at the Sun Vail Condominium Project. The fourth row of valet parking is causing some negative impacts as noted in this memorandum and may be pushing the • parking capacity of the site over the brink of workability. However, since this element of the proposal was received by staff only Thursday, April 10, we have not had adequate time for review. If this proposal is approved, we would appreciate the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall construct a drainage Swale on the north side of West Meadow Drive to the satisfaction of the Public Works/Transportation Department. 2. The applicant will continue to work with the applicable Town of Vail departments to came to a satisfactory solution for the exiting of the semi-truck delivering liquid oxygen to the site. 3. The two spaces shown on the far eastern end of the site plan near the steps from the bank will be eliminated. 4. A heavily landscaped screen other than potentilla shrubs as shown shall be agreed to by the applicant. -4- Partial Minutes from PEC Meeting of 3/10/86 Jost: Is it appropriate to open the 21 spaces along Meadow Drive for parking for physicians since that was deleted at the staff level and not a PEC level---with landscape between the cars and the street? Piper: We will poll the members. The staff presentation was without parking along Meadow Drive, saying they preferred that buffer and I concurred with that personally. Patten: The principal reason was that this is a low density residential area which is needed to be buffered from the intensive hospital use. A second reason was strictly aesthetics, that the existing buffer provides a nice relief on a highly pedestrianized street. Brian: I would give up the buffer as a necessity if no other solution could be arrived at. Viele: I feel the use of the buffer for parking should be a last ditch move. The site is intensely used. We need landscaping from a planning point of view. Donovan: I would be in favor of giving up the buffer only as a last ditch temporary means. We keep talking about this street as being the main pedestrian link between Lionshead and Vail Village and what we are going to da to increase the pedestrian link. I would like to see you get the traffic to the hospital via the Frontage Road thru the Doubletree. I feel it was negligent on the part of the hospital not to pursue this and make it happen. Jost: We will pursue that. Sid: Landscaping there is very important, with that road being a pedestrian link. I'm afraid that if you turn that into a parking lot, what is going to happen is that you'll wind up with people double and triple parking and cars sticking out into the road and there will not be any way to control parking. I really would like to see the landscaping stay. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FRONT: Community Development DATE: April 14, 1986 S~IB,lECT: Amendment to Section 17.16.1300 Final Plat Requirements and Procedures to Include in Eagle County Assessor's Tax Certificate, Paragraph No. 15. It is required that the existing paragraph 15 be renumbered to paragraph 16 and to include the actual tax certificate in Section 17.32.800. It has been brought to the staff's attention that the title company does not have the authority to sign off on taxes when reviewing a Town of hail plat. Our original title certificate required that the title company check the taxes for the property. This requirement was not reasonable, as the only entity that has the power to sign off on taxes is the Treasurer of Eagle County. In order to remedy this situation, the staff has created a separate tax certificate that will be included on all plats. The requirement for this additional certificate will be added to Section 17.16.1300 of the Subdivision Regulations. This section of the code addresses final plat requirements and procedures. The new tax certificate will come under Section 17.16,1300, paragraph 15. Paragraph 15 shall state, A certificate by the Treasurer of Eagle County as outlined in Chapter 17.32.840 of this title that will certify that the entire amount of taxes due and payable upon all parcels of real estate described on the plat are paid in full. The actual certificate shall be located in Section 17.32.800. The certificate shall read: Certificate of Taxes Paid I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the entire amount of taxes due and payable as of upon all parcels of real estate described on this p7 at are paid in full. Dated this day of R.D., 19 Treasurer of Eagle County Staff recommends approval of this amendment as the new certificate will clearly address the issue of whether or not taxes and assessments have been paid as required on the parcel of land being subdivided. Staff feels that this is an important detail that should be corrected. . PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 28, 1986 1:15 pm Site Visits 1:45 pm Workshop with Tawn of Vail Directors 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of March 24 and April 14, 1986. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow a service station/retail tire sales an the Voliter property at 1031 South Frontage Road in the Arterial Business District. Applicant: James Verhey 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to combine two dwelling units {6C and 7C) into one dwelling unit in Building A of the Village Center Condominiums at Black 5E, Vail Village First Filing zoned Commercial Core II. Applicant: Allen T. Gilliland 4. Discussion of need for second May meeting. U PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 28, 19$6 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Pam Hopkins Tom Braun Peggy Osterfoss Kristan Pritz Duane Piper Rick Pylman Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack Jim Viele ABSENT Bryan Cobbs The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper, at 3:00 pm after a work session with the Town of Vail supervisors. This was Peggy Osterfoss' first meeting. 1. Approval of minutes of March 24 and April 14, 1986. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes of the March 24 meeting. Vote was 5 in favor with Osterfoss abstaining. After making corrections, Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes of the April 14 meeting. Vote was 5 in favor with Osterfoss abstaining. 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow a service station/retail tire sales on the Voliter property at 1031 South Frontage Road in the Arterial Business District. Applicant: James Verhey Rick Pylman presented the staff memo with a recommendation for approval with several conditions. He showed a site plan. The conditions were: 1. The easternmost access point to this property be closed by continuing the existing berm to the eastern property line. 2. The existing berm be cleaned up and reuegetated. 3. The applicant clearly define and physically delineate the parking areas proposed on the site plan. 4. The entire eastern portion of this property be reuegetated with at least a ground cover. The above improvements were to be made by June 15, 1986. 5. This conditional use permit be approved for a maximum time period of one year. 6. An agreement be signed by the property owner, lessee and the Town of • Vail agreeing to the above conditions including enforcement provis~ans relating to this permit. Viele moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request with the necessarX findings and per the staff memo dated April 28, 1986. The vote was 6 -0 in favor. 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to combine two dwelling units {6C and 7C) intc one dwelling unit in Vail Village First Filing zoned Commercial Core II. Applicant: A11en T. Gilliland Kristan Fritz presented the staff memo and explained that this must be reviewed as a conditional use because the zone was CCII, and the retluest included the removal of a dwelling unit. Fritz showed floor plans and elevations. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request per the findings and the staff memo dated April 281, 1986. The vote was 6-0 in favor. Titer~e F=ollowed a discussion concerning the second meeting in May which would normally have been May 26 and was Memorial Day. It was decided to meet on May 28, Wednesday instead of Memorial Day. The meeting ad,~aurned at 3:30 pm. • • WORKSHOP WITH TOWN OF VAIL DTRECTORS AND PEC MEMBERS 1:45 pm April 28, 1985 The purpose of the workshop is to explain to the PEC what each Town of Vail department looks at when a project comes through the development process. The discussion will begin with each director explaining the issues they look at when reviewing a project. PEC members are encouraged to ask questions and discuss department concerns after each presentation. 1. Fire Department, Dick Duran: 10 minutes Tssues: Fire Access/Access Gates Fire Alarm Ordinance Sprinkler Requirements PEC questions: 15 minutes 2. Police Department, Curt Ufkes: 10 minutes Issues: Loading Safety/Break-In Protection PEC questions: 15 minutes 3. Public Works, Stan Berryman: }.0 minutes Issues: Snow removal Drainage Utilities/Easements PEC questions: 15 minutes n LJ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • r1 LJ FROM: Community nevelopment DATE: April 14, 1985 SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 17.15.130C Final Plat Requirements and Procedures to Include in Eagle County Assessor's Tax Certificate, Paragraph ~o. 15. It is required that the existing paragraph 15 be renumbered to paragraph 16 and to include the actual tax certificate in Section 17.32.800. It has been brought to the staff's attention that the title company does not have the authority to sign off on taxes when reviewing a Town of Vail plat. Our original title certificate required that the title company check the taxes for the property. This requirement was not reasonable, as the only entity that has the power to sign off on taxes is the Treasurer of eagle County. In order to remedy this situation, the staff has created a separate tax certificate that will be included on all plats. The requirement for this additional certificate will be added to Section 17.15,130C of the Subdivision Regulations. This section of the code addresses final plat requirements and procedures. The new tax certificate will come under Section 17.15.130C, paragraph 15. Paragraph 15 shall state, A certificate by the Treasurer of Eagle County as outlined in Chapter 17.32.800 of this title that will certify that the entire amount of taxes due and payable upon all parcels of real estate described on the p1 at are paid in full. The actual certificate shall be located in Section 17.32.800. The certificate shall read: Certificate of Taxes Paid I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the entire amount of taxes due and payable as of upon all parcels of real estate described on this plat are paid in full. Dated this day of A.D., 19 Treasurer of Eagle County Staff recommends approval of this amendment as the new certificate will clearly address the issue of whether or not taxes and assessments have been paid as required on the parcel of land being subdivided. Staff feels that this is an important detail that should be corrected. LJ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 28, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow a service station/retail fire sales an the Valiter property at 1D31 South Frontage Road in the Arterial Business Zone District. Applicant: James Verhey I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant, James Verhey, would like to utilize the existing "car shine" building an the Voliter property to locate a retail tine center and automotive service garage. The existing automobile bays would be utilized for activity associated with tire sales and for light automotive service. No gasoline sales are included with this request. Due to the current status of this property, the applicant is proposing this as a temporary use, and is seeking a six month lease on the property. Other than general "clean up" no other site improvements are being proposed. Parking demand far this use is six spaces. The applicant's proposal shows approximately 12 spaces to be delineated an the site. 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: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The Arterial Business District was created in 1982 in order to provide a transition area between the Lionshead and Cascade Village areas. The purpose section of the Arterial Business District code states the following: "The Arterial Business District is intended to provide sites for office space, public utilities, service stations, and limited shopping and commercial facilities serving the town and Upper Eagle Valley residents and guests." The current condition of this property certainly does not contribute to the intent and the purpose of this zone district as described. We feel that this proposal, even as a temporary use as proposed, could and should contribute to the upgrading of this property. We feel that the use proposed is compatible with those uses described as conditional uses within the zone district, and that with certain site improvements this proposal would have a positive relation to the development objectives of the Town of Vail for the Arterial Business District. .. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of ~apulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Na impact. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. This use will require six parking spaces. The applicant's proposal indicates approximately 12 parking spaces and there is obviously plenty of room on the site for mere should they be needed. Community Qevelopment staff feels that these parking spaces should be conspicuously delineated and defined. This could be done by the use of curb stops or timber edging that would effectively direct customers to proper parking areas. We feel that this is important to contain and define the proposed use on the site. The applicant is proposing to utilize two existing access points off of the Frontage Road for this use. As a site improvement related to traffic flow and control and automotive safety, we would request that the easternmost access from the Frontage Raad onto this property be eliminated by continuing the existing berm all the way to the eastern end of the property. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. This proposal has the potential to have a positive effect upon the character of the area in which this use is proposed. Currently there is little to no utilization of this property and any site improvements would be a positive note. We do feel that the utilization of the property will create more traffic on the lot and will require certain site improvements in order to negate any impacts to adjacent developed properties. We feel that the existing berm along the Frontage Raad should be extended to the eastern edge of the property, should be cleaned up and planted with same type of ground cover and landscape materials. We also feel that a general clean up of the site is warranted, and that the entire eastern portion of the site should be revegetated with at least some type of ground cover. • B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. _2_ a III. RELATED POLICIES IN HAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN None IV. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based an 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of a conditional use permit for a retail tire/service station located on the Uoliter property with the following conditions: 1. The easternmost access paint to this property be closed by continuing the existing berm to the eastern property line. 2. The existing berm be cleaned up and revegetated. 3. The applicant clearly define and physically delineate the parking areas proposed on the site plan. 4. The entire eastern portion of this property be revegetated with at least a ground cover. We request that these improvements be made by June l5, 1986. 5. This conditional use permit be approved for a maximum time period of one year. 6. An agreement be signed by the property owner, lessee and the Town of Vail agreeing to the above conditions including enforcement provisions relating to this permit. r~ _~_ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission C7 FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 28, 19$6 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to combine two dwelling units {5C and 7C in Building A) into one dwelling unit at the Village Center Condominiums on block 5E, Vail Village First Filing in the CCII zone district. Applicant: Allen T. Gilliland I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The applicant is proposing to combine units 6C and 7C in Building A of the Village Center Condominiums by constructing a stairway to connect the units. Each of the existing units contains 3 bedrooms and 3 baths. The result will be one unit which will still only contain 3 bedrooms, with a larger living area. There are 72 dwelling units in the Village Center complex at present and there would be 71 units if 6C and 7C are combined. Village Center is located in the CCII zone district. The removal of either an accommodation or dwelling unit in CCI or CCII requires a conditional use permit. Criteria for this review for CCII is the standard Conditional Use Permit criteria. • The applicant states: "With the changes proposed, density will be decreased, property values increased, and compatibility with other properties enhanced." The purpose of the CCII zone district is to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. The district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permited types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. 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: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. n It is felt that although one development objective is to retain dwelling units in the core, the reduction of one dwelling unit will not have a significant impact in the development of the Town. Another development objective is to lessen traffic congestion and flaw. The decrease in the number of owners of condominiums at Village Center will decrease the number of automobiles traveling through this area to the parking garage underneath the building. r 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, uti1ities~ schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. There will be a no effects on these factors (except for a slight reduction in population). 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The elimination of one dwelling unit will have a minor positive effect upon these factors. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Not applicable. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. III. RELATED POLICIES TN VAIL`S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Under the Community Design section of the Action Plan, goal 2 states: "Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged." Ill. FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the fallowing 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit. We can see no real detriments as a result, and there are positive effects with this proposal related to reduction of vehicles in the Village. • PLANNING ANO ENVIRONMENTRL COMMISSION May 12, 1986 2:30 pm Site Visit 3:00 pm Public Hearing 1. Approval of minutes of April 28, 1986 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to expand the lift operator building at the base of Chair 12 in the Golden Peak Ski Base zone district. Applicant: Vail Associates 3. A request for a front setback variance in order to build a residence on Lot 7, Vail Village I.Oth Filing. Applicants: John Mueller and Frank Wyman {To be tabled) 4. A request for an amendment to the approved development plan in order to re-locate previously approved off-site parking on Lots E and F of Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center LJ ~. f PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 12, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Tam Braun Pam Hopkins Kristan Pritz Peggy Osterfoss Rick Pylman Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack Sid Schultz Jim Viele ABSENT Bryan Hobbs The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper, at 3:04 use after 51te V15itS. 1. Approval of minutes of April 28, 1986. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes and the vote was 6-0 in favor. A request for a conditional use permit in order to expand the lift operator building at the base of Chair 12 in the Golden Peak Ski Base Recreation zone district. Applicant: Vail Associates Rick Pylman presented the staff memo with the staff recommendation of approval. He showed elevations of the building and explained that the total size of the building after expansion would be 768 square feet and that the approval wau7d expire in ,lone of 1987. He stated that a conditional use permit to allow a previous expansion of this building was granted in September of 1984 and since that time VA had received approval for a new development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base area. That redevelopment plan had since been put on hold and a two year interim development plan had been approved which would expire in June of 1987. The interim development plan did not address this facility or the needs of the lift operations personnel. Although the expansion of the lift operator`s building at Chair 12 did not further the redevelopment of the Golden Peak area, the Town strongly supported efficient mountain operations, and due to the location of the building, felt that there would be no negative impacts. Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, explained how the building would be used and stated the existing building was severely inadequate for VA's needs. Peggy Osterfoss asked if the expansion wau~ld be large enough when considering that the mountain expansion plans would include China Bowl. Macy replied that it would not only be large enough for the China Bowl expansion, but also for the expansion of lifts 6 and 10 as well. Piper asked if the building would remain after the new facility was built, and Macy said that it would remain and it would probably be used far storage and part would be used for the operation of Chair 12. Diana Donovan felt that it could be more aesthetically pleasing, and Macy said that he would pass on the concern to DRB. Donovan stated that the redevelopment of the Golden Peak facilities seemed to have been placed on the back burner. She felt that the mare the Town allowed VA to construct "add-ons" the more remote the construction of new facilities at Golden Peak seemed. She did not like the indefinite time period. Macy replied r r that it was frustrating to all that Golden Peak was not yet constructed, but added that if the present request were not approved, he did not know if it would change Golden Peak's priorities. Donovan asked if it would do any good for the board to express their feeling to Gillett in a letter, and Macy felt that if the board chase to write him, that would be fine. He added that Gillette was aware of many aging lifts, etc., whereas, Golden Peak~cou1d still function as it was. Because of the many other priorities, Macy felt that Golden Peak would not be #1 in priority fora number of years. Vie1e moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request for a conditional use , to enlarge Chair 12 with the staff recommendation that the approval would only be valid far as long as the interim development p1 an was valid and would be reconsidered at such time as the interim development plan was reviewed by the Town. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 3. A request for a front setback variance in order to build a residence an Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicants: John Mueller and Frank Wyman This was tabled until the May 28th meeting. 4. A request for an amendment to the approved development plan in order to re-locate previously approved off-site parking on Lots E and F of Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center • Tom Braun explained that one element of the Medical Center's approved development plan involved the lease of 30 off-site parking- spaces to meet the parking demands of the proposed expansion. At the PEC's last review of the project, they approved off-site spaces to be located at the Sun Vail condominiums. Any changes to the location of these spaces were to be reviewed and approved by the PEC. The Medical Center was now requesting to locate the spaces at Manor Vail rather than at Sun Vail. Through a parking utilization study which Manor Vail conducted, the staff determined that Manor Vail could lease fi7 spaces to others. Braun stated that the staff recommended approval of the Manor Vail site, with the condition that a letter of approval from the Manor Vail condo association be submitted to the staff indicating that the condo association agree to the lease arrangement. Ray McMahan, representing the Medical Center, stated that he had talked with Bob Lazier, owner of the spaces at Sun Vail, and Lazier indicated no opposition. Donovan said that she would like to have a way to find out just exactly where the people who work in the Medical Center are actually parking. She was opposed to the fact that they may be using the parking structure because the hospital may never actually add on and in the process of adding on, construct a parking structure. McMahon indicated that the Medical Center did know who was parking on their lot. Donovan felt that since a parking pass did not really cost that much, there would be employees who felt that their time was more valuable, and in fact she had spoken to employees who had said they would buy a parking pass. Braun said that there would be no way to prevent anyone from using the parking structure. He added that in the case of the hospital people parking at Manor Vail, that Jack Rush, manager, would be able to monitor this. Osterfoss asked McMahon if he would have any way of knowing if employees were parking at the Medical Center, and McMahon assured her they could by use of valet parking. Donovan suggested adding another column to the patient sign-in sheets asking exactly where they parked and whether ar not they had a problem finding a parking space in order to find out exactly what the situation was. Braun pointed out that one condition placed upon the Medical Center was that they monitor the parking situation. Piper felt that having the hospital do their own monitoring was a little like a fox in a chicken house. Diana felt that the Town should do the survey. Hopkins stated that she would like to see what traffic is generated by the hospital, by broken legs, doctors` offices, new babies, etc. She added that in mast cities, the doctors' offices were not on the same site as the hospital. Braun stated that one condition of the original approval was that there be an annual review of the parking situation starting the first spring after the first winter of operation. Donovan asked what could be done if it the parking situation was found to be inadequate, and Braun answered that the number of required parking spaces to be leased off-site could be increased. Hopkins stated that in a year she would want to re-evaluate to see exactly the number of spaces being used by the Sports Medicine Facility, the doctors and the hospital. • Hopkins moved and development plan staff memo dated because she felt Schultz seconded to approve to amend the previously approved for the expansion to the Vail Va11eY Medical Center per the Mav 12, 1986. The vote was 5-1 with Donovan voting against that this was poor planning. 5. Appointment of a member to the Land Use Plan Committee Rick Pylman stated that it would be good to have one member from the PEC an the committee. Donovan nominated Jim Viele, and Jim said that he would be willing to serve on this committee. The meeting adjourned at 3:50 pm. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission r~ FROM: Community Development Department DATE: day 12, 1986 SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit to allow for expansion to the Chair No. 12 Lift Building in the Ski Base/Recreation district. Applicant: Vail Associates I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE This facility is presently used as headquarters, locker rooms, and storage for lift operations personnel during the ski season. Vail Associates is proposing to expand this building because it is presently undersized for their needs. The expansion will bring this building up to a size of 768 square feet. The expanded building will be 48 fleet long by 16 feet wide. The architectural style of the two shed roofs on the ends will remain. This proposal is being reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission because any addition or expansion of mountain buildings in this zone district (Ski Base/Recreation district) requires a conditional use permit. • A conditional use permit to allow a previous expansion of this building was granted in September of 1984. Since that time, Vail Associates has received approval for a new development plan for the Go1d~n Peak Ski Base area. That development plan included facilities in the main building to house the lift operations personnel. That redevelopment plan has since been put on hold and a two year interim development plan has been approved. 'This approval will expire in June of 1987. The interim development plan did not address this facility or the needs of the lift operations personnel. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the fallowing factors: A. Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on development ob3ectives of the Town. • The development objective of the Town of Vail for this area is to redevelop Golden Peak according to the original, approved deveiopment plan. The interim development plan is, of course, only a short term solution to the needs of Vail Associates in this area. This request for a conditional use permit does not further the redevelopment of the Golden Peak area as designed in the original redevelopment plan. However, the Town strongly supports efficient mountain operations and therefore sees no long term negative impacts from this request. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. There will be no effect upon these factors other than the improved ability of Vail Associates to service mountain facilities. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. No impact upon any of the above. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The addition is expanding this building to the point where it is well beyond the size of a standard lift operation shack. However, due to the fact that the building must serve as a main facility for lift operations and due to its location, we feel that there are no negative impacts to the character of the surrounding area or to the surrounding uses. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. IV. FINDINGS The Community Development 6epartment 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 yr 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. V. STAFF REGQf~MENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the condition that this approval will only be valid far as long as the interim development plan is valid and will be reconsidered at such time as the interim development plan is reviewed by the Town of Vail TO: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department RATE: May 12, 1986 SUBJECT: A request to amend a previously approved development plan for the expansion to the Vail Valley Medical Center. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center BACKGROUND ON TMIS REQUEST As the Planning Commission may recall, an element of the Medical Center's approved development plan involves the lease of 30 off-site parking spaces to meet the parking demands of the proposed expansion. At your last review of this project, the Planning Commission approved off-site spaces to be located at the Sun Vail Condominiums. Following that meeting, the Medical Center reached accord with the Town Council on a written agreement addressing a number of elements pertaining to the hospital's expansion. One of these items stipulated that any changes to the location of off-site parking spaces are to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The Medical Center has requested the Planning Commission's consideration of locating these 30 off-site spaces at Manor Vail Condominiums instead of the Sun Vail location. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS REQUEST The primary objective in reviewing applications for the leasing of parking • spaces is to ensure that the site proposed has excess capacity to accommodate additional users. Section 18.52.170 6.2 states that 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. The results of a survey taken this past ski season are included with this memorandum. This survey indicates that the Manor Vail condominiums do have enough capacity to accommodate the leasing of these spaces to the Medical Center {see letter to Mr. Jack Rush from Peter Patten dated April 21, 1986}. In addition, Community Development Department surveys on three dates indicated that the utilization of the Manor Vail parking lot averaged only a 37% occupancy. This would tend to support the survey conducted by Manor Vail this past year. It should be noted that Vail Rssocites will continue leasing 30 spaces from Manor Vail with a total number of 60 leased spaces an the property for the 1986-87 ski season. One other area of concern is the location of this parking with respect to the Medical Center. While there is obviously some distance between these two sites, a Town of Vail shuttle operates directly across the street from Manor Vail and serves the hospital with a stop adjacent to the Medical Center. This should allow convenient transportation to and from the site for those employees using this parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request. It has been demonstrated by the • applicant that there is ample capacity on the Manor Vail site to accommodate these spaces to be leased by the Medical Center. One condition of approval is that a letter of approval from the Manor Vail Condo association agreeing to this lease arrangement be submitted to the Town staff. ----.t _ _ _ ~.:, ~~: _. April 14, 1986 Mr. Ray McMahon Vail Valley Medical Center 191 E. Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81557 l `~~., C~c{o 5~65~ 4 03.47E -5651 2~c~x 9: 02(79 Re: Lease of Barking Spaces Dear Ray: Please let this letter serve to. confirm our recent telephone conversations regarding the Vail Valley Medical Center's desire to lease thirty (30) parking spaces from Manor Vail Lodge. These spaces .will be made available to Vail Valley Medical Center per-- sonnel for,the 8b/87 winter season. At the conclusion of the 86/87 season, it will be the intent of Manor Vail to re-negotiate with the Vail Valley Medical Center for the leasing of these spa- . ces for the 87/88 winter season. The cost for the above mentioned spaces will be $10,000. This will be made payable to Manor Vail at the beginning of the 86/87 winter season.- This lease is subject to approval by the Planning Department of the Town of Vail based on their review of Manor Vail's vacant parking spaces from this past winter season. I feel gi7ite confi- dent that this will not be a problem. The Vail Valley Medical Center will be responsible for all insurance liability pertaining to the leasing of these spaces. Tf this is agreeable to you, please sign below where a.ndicated. Sincerely, MANOR VAIL LODGR k Rush , A - Ma aging Agent Ray McMahon Vail Valley Medical Center . __..~ .~ .~ • OPTION AGREEMENT TO LEASE PARKING SPACES MANOR VAIL LODGE in consideration of the payment of $ 10.00 receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants to Vail Clinic, Inc, dba ~, -Vail Valley Medical Center and irrevocable option to lease 30 parking ~~G'`,:' spaces at 595 E. Vail Valley Drive, Vail, CO for the I986-1987 Vail Moun- tain ski season at the price of $333.33 per space. This option will expire ninety (90} days after the date indicated below, if not formally exercised by Vaii Clinic, Inc. in writing within that time. • ':' _~ . - ~ MANOR VAIL LODGE ... TITLE : ~~,c<sC-~ ~~~ DATE: APQt~ 17. ~9~ l I. .. ~ - Sg5 ~.~a'iC 1~aC~ wive- ~~, G~.{~ SIG5J .~o: • g~~ • s~.s? Ap a- i 3 15 , l 9 8 6 ?`clf x -i {)~ (~ Mr. Peter Patten - Plann.ing Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Rc:: Review of Manor Vail- Leased Parking Spaces Dear Peter: The following is a study on the amount of available parking spaces at the Manor Vail Lodge this past winter. I hope this wilI.~ provide sufficient information for you to approve Manor Van 's re- quest to lease parking spaces fox the winter seaso~3 of I.98~/87, Date i• Spaces Available -~- o of Occupancy Feb. 2 I1G Feb. 9 112 69~ F'eb. 16 76 73$ Feb. 23 103 100 Mar. 2 94 80~ Mar. 9 76 96~ Mar. 16 81 100b Mar. 23 89 100 Mar. 30 72 ~ 86~ 98% It should also be Hated that in addition to providing free parking for Manor Vail's guests, owners and employees;' this count also included the 3d spaces leased to Vail Associates this past winter and spaces to Col. Hugh Nevins' instructors. I. Based on these figures, Manor Vail respectfully requests to lease 30 spaces to Vail Associates and 30 spaces to the Vail Valley Medical Center for the 1986/87 winter season. - ..Sincerely, MANOR VAIL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCTATYON - i,#; ~~ ~ ~ ... ,. 'i J c iRush, CHA - ~. ~ ~, M ging Agent ~ ,,,_ j;ti g5 4 . ~ s-., - ., L_J ~~ .. ~ _ ~ ~~~~~ y 75 south #ronlage road vaii, ca[orado 81657 {3p3) 476-7tlOp Apri 1 23., 3986 Mr. Jack Rush Managing Agent Manor Uail Condominium Association 595 East Uail Valley Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Request to lease parking spaces at Manor Vail Dear Jack: office of commursfty devefopnles7t 1 Thank you for your letter of April 15 in which you explained the results of your parking study. According to Section 17.52.170 of the Vail Municipal Code, Manor Vail may lease 60% of the parking spaces which are the difference between the average capacity of the lot and the peak day utilization as determined by our office. It appears that the average spaces available are 111 and this number multiplied by 6Q% equals 66.6 spaces. Therefore, the maximum number of parking spaces which you may lease to others is 67. llnder the provisions of an agreement signed by the Town Council and the Uail Valley h1edical Center on April 18, your lease agreement with the Medical Center must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. We are enclosing an application for your convenience and ask that you return this along with a letter of approval from your condominium association. Sincerely ~ ~~~ A. Peter Patten, Jr. Director Community Development APP:bpr Enclosure cc: Dan Feeney Deborah Jost Ron Phillips • From: Bob Voliter 1031 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colo. 8167 To: Ron Phillips-Yawn Manager Vail Town Council Town of Vail Staff Planning & Environmental Comm. Others concerned I cancelled a meeting planned for May 8, 1986 after discussing the proposod meeting with Ron Phillips, Town Manager. The meeting was designed to produce imput on some key issues now facing the 'Town of Vail. I .felt discussing some of these • issues, with a crass section of the different business amities that are involved in our community, could benefit a planning strategy for the Town of Vail. Representatives from the Town of Vail, Vail Associates, Vail Resort Assoc., Vail Beard of Realtors, the lodging community, and the development community were invited to attend. Proposed topics of discussion in this informal meeting were to be, but not limited to, impact fees, Vail Village Master Plan, Veils economic base, short term verses long term goals and our debt service. The purpose of the meeting was not to reach conclusions, but to imput, possibly to come up with some new thinking that could benefit the towns direction on these subjects. Why was the meeting necessary, if the Town of Vail provides meetings to imput on these subjects? These subjects era not often discussed by a cross section of our community, but are discussed by a small number of people who may feel impacted by an issue. How many council meetings • _~_ or planning meetings are attented b,y t~3e r roues that were invited to this meeting? I beJ.ieve I have upset some people by organizing this imput session. That was not my intention, my intention was to help. I apologize for any turmoil I have caused, I believe my intentions were good, possibly my methods of organ- izing this imput lacked the proper background and e~cperi.ence. I do hope community imput will continue to influence the direction of those that formulate town policy, future growth and change. Sincerely and respectfully, ~~ Bob Voliter ~~ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 28, 1986 1:30 PM Site Visits 3:00 PM Public Nearing 1. Approval of minutes of May 12, 1986. 2. A request for side setbacks and a front setback variance in order to build a residence an Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicants: John Mueller and Frank Wyman 3. A request for a setback variance in order to build a sun room and deck at Unit 2 of the Ramshorn Lodge on Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicants: Harold and Marshall Cahn 4. A request for rear and front setback variances in order to construct a trash enclosure, dining terrace, new entry/lobby and second floor dining deck at the Kiandra Lodge. Applicant: Sannenalp Properties, Inc. 5. Consideration of initial zoning of a two parcel area recently annexed and commonly known as "Solar Crest" located at 1420 Lionsridge Loop. Rpplicant. Town of Vail 6. Consideration of initial zoning of an area recently annexed and owned by Vail Associates known as "Spraddle Creek" located northeast of Interchange Exit No. i76 (main Vail interchange). Applicant: Town of Vail (To be Tabled) 7. A request to extend the hours of use of the Tawn of Vail hand gun range located at the Town Shops in the Public Use zone district. Applicant: Vail Police Department • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . May 28, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Peggy Osterfoss Betsy Rosolack Sid Schultz ABSENT Duane Piper Jim Viele The meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan in the absence of the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. Approval of minutes of Ma.v I2, 1986. A question was raised concerning a request of Hopkins and Donovan for future parking studies. It was determined that that had not been part of the motion for approval. Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5-O in favor. 2. A request far side setbacks and a front setback variance in order to build a residence on Lat 7, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicants: dohs Mueller and Frank W.vman Kristan Pritz gave the staff presentation and explained the results of the studies by Arthur Mears, P.E. and Jack Haney, P.E. who were designing an avalanche mitigation structure for the residence. Haney stated that the design far the mitigation structure would be in accordance with the report by Mears. Staff felt the visual impact would be minimal and there definitely was justifiable reason to allow relief from the strict 20 foot setback requirement. Kurt Segerberg represented the client and explained that at first the design of the house was wedge-shaped, but because of trying to save the large evergreens, the design was changed. Osterfass asked if any of the major trees would have to be moved, and Segerberg replied that a large stand of aspens may be impacted, but that they would try to protect those aspen as much as possible by using manual labor rather than heavy equipment to construct the avalanche fences. The fence was to be constructed of 2 x 8's of natural colors supported by bracing every ten feet. There was a possibility that the fence would be bermed to lessen the visual impact. Osterfoss wondered if there would be any damage to adjacent properties as a result of the mitigation fences and was told that because the ends of the fences are are brought out and upward, they would catch much debris. Honey's letter to Segerberg stated, "These structures will be designed to provide shedding of an avalanche event as well as to reasonably contain flow within the subject property lines." Hobbs moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the variance requests. The vote was 5-O in favor. 3. A request for a setback variance in order to build a sun room and deck at Unit 2 of the Ramshorn Lodge on Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicants: Harold and Marshall Cohn Kristen Pritz showed site plans and elevations and explained that the Cohns had received approval for a deck, spa, and landscaping. The sun room would be constructed an the deck. She added that the PEC in October, 1985 had approved a setback variance of 13 feet to allow a sun roam an Unit 3 and to relocate an existing pool equipment room. The existing lodge encroaches into the setback area in several places ranging from 3 to 13 feet. The Ramshorn is well under their allowable GRFA. Dave Peel represented the Cohns and explained that the glazing of the sun roam would match the larger sun roam approved for Unit 3. Pritz pointed out that some landscaping had been removed in the latest drawing (which had been shown on the previously approved drawings) and the staff felt the need for landscaping as it had been approved. Donovan felt the need for bushes in front of the fence. She also felt the board should relate to the Ramshorn the need for a master plan on the Ramshorn. Marshall Cohn, one of the owners, replied that the board should not feel a need to be concerned, because the landscaping would be done as approved. Peel added that the owners of the Ramshorn, the Cartons, had agreed to match Cohn's sunroom when they proceeded with the unit 3 sunroom. Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the variance request. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 4. A request for rear and front setback variances in order to construct a trash enclosure, dining terraces new entr.v/lobby and second floor dining deck at the Kiandra Lodge. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, lnc. Kristen Pritz showed site plans and floor plans and explained the requested variances. She stated that originally the staff had looked at the property as though it were one lot, but technically two lots exist. Vail Associates owns part of Lot K and the Sonnenalp owns part of Lat L. The staff was informed by the Sonnenalp attorney that legally the two properties could not be treated as one lot due to the ownership situation, even though the two properties function as one project. The trash area would be reorganized and decrease the present encroachment. The dining terrace on the east would replace four parking spaces. The staff felt that it was positive to get rid of the sea of asphalt and replace it with an outside dining deck. The proposed lobby and entry vestibule do not encroach into any setback area, but the columns that support the new entry encroach into the setback by 5 feet with a roof overhang of 11 feet. The staff felt the column would not impact traffic entering or exiting the site, and the appearance would be greatly improved as well as providing adequate lobby area and a protected drop-off and loading lane for guests. The second floor dining deck is over an existing ground floor patio which already encroaches into the same area as the deck. The staff recommended approval of these variances. Pritz added that the staff would like to see same screening around the utility . box that is located on Meadow Road and would like to see the planter remain that now exists near the present dining terrace. 2 Ray Story, representing Gordon Pierce Architects, stated that the applicant . agrees to the landscaping proposed. Hopkins felt the proposal was exciting for the Town. Donavan asked about parking and was told the Talisman had a casual letter of agreement with the Kiandra and that the parking seemed to work well with assigned spaces for the Talisman Condominiums. Irene Westby, manager of the Talisman Condominiums, indicated agreement. Donovan asked if the four remaining parking spaces near the dining terrace on Vail Road could be removed as well and was told that this was only the first phase, and that later phases may include eliminating those parking spaces. Pritz explained that the parking requirements actually decrease by 22 spaces, and that with restriping, the parking spaces increase by 8 spaces. Donovan asked if the applicant agreed to put back the planter and Story replied that he did, but it may be decreased in size but it would be as large as passible. Story stated that the cottonwood in this area would be moved and replanted next to the stairway between the dining deck and the cars. He wasn't sure if transplanting at this time of year would work. He also added that another tree would be p1 aced next to the loading dock. Donovan asked if the applicant would be asked to contribute to the pathway, and was told they would pay amenity fees, but were not being treated like SDD 15 which required density increases. Patten added that some of the negotiations were still being worked out. Condition #1 was discussed which stipulated that if and when a pedestrian path • were constructed along the south side of the property, the owners would allow the Town access across their property in the area between the northeast corner of the Vail Road bridge abutment and new trash room. Patten explained that this was so that the Town could come across with a path. Story responded that if the owner agreed to the access, it would imply that the owner supports the idea of the path. He stated that the owner had not had enough time to work with the staff on this item. Johan Fassler stated that there was no way they would agree to a walk right next to their swimming pool, and that this was a totally unacceptable condition. Pritz explained that the staff was only speaking of one area where it was tight because of the variance being requested. Story pointed out that the applicant was actually tearing dawn a structure and reducing the encroachment.on the south setback. However, the one encroachment for the trash room was increasing on the west or front setback. Osterfoss asked if the rest of the pathway would be an Town of Vail land entirely, and was told it would be. Kristen pointed out that the property line next to which the path would be placed was 33' to 45' to the edge of the creek. Patten said that historically this property has encroached an Town of Vail property in many places. He painted out that four setback variance were being requested and felt that a certain degree of cooperation and trade-offs were not unreasonable to ask. He added that the staff did not want to walk out of the meeting without being able to do a path aver an area that has had encroachment onto Town of Vail property. The encroachment of the asphalt path down to a loading area has existed for many years. Fred Otta, also representing the owner, stated that is one thing to grant access for the purpose of constructing the path, and another to grant access if the Town of Vail does not construct the path. Story added that there was still . three feet of room with which a stairway could be constructed along the bridge abutment. He stated that he would like to see people walk past the commercial area rather than being diverted along the stream. 3 Earry Eskwith, Town attorney, stated that if the owner does not want to give access, he could not be made to. Otto said that the Town can condemn the property. He said the owner wanted to see the whole plan first. Eskwith stated that the problem with the condemnation process was that is was cumbersome and sometimes expensive. He asked Otto what the problem was if the easement was not exclusive. Otto replied that he would be giving up the right to disagree with the idea of a path. Story added that the Town had not even technically arrived at what they want to build. Donovan felt that the path was not being designed as a major thoroughfare, but was mare a benefit to the lodges for their guests. Patten added that the Summer Survey showed that the summer guests wanted passive recreation and specifically paths along creeks. He explained that the path was in the Master Plan and he felt that it was extremely important to respond to the guests` requests. He added that it would indeed not replace any major pedestrianways. He admitted the Town did not have a drawing to show where the pathway was to be, but did not feel that that should preclude an act on the access way. He said the staff understood the privacy issue, but needed to protect themselves. Patten added that in similar 5ituatians he has found people came back and said they were wrong about the negative impacts of a path and were in favor of the action. Otto ,added that vehicles are in place to provide the Town of Vail other means of attaining the access. Donovan replied that this meeting was part of the process and the Tawn had a right to ask fora right-af-way in exchange for the variances. Otto replied that the Town had the ultimate threat. Story said that they were reducing the encroachment in that area. Donovan stated that she would like to see something specific in the warding of the variance for that corner. Patten asked what exactly would be done in the corner, and Story replied that they would take the asphalt out and get the dumpster off of TOV property and take off the retaining wall. Patten painted out that the Town may want to leave the asphalt in place. Story replied that they could leave the asphalt and fix the retaining wall anyway, then the TOU could use the condemnation process if necessary. Patten painted out that anything done on TOV property must go through the Town Council (asphalt, wall). Story stated that he would take the project to the Tawn Council. Patten said that he would like to avoid loggerheads, and still felt there must be an access for the pathway. Donovan asked if the Town Council could require an easement or access. Eskwith stated that the Council had the right to grant an encroachment, and could state that the applicant may keep the asphalt in exchange for access. Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the requests for variances per the staff memo with the following conditions and their changes: (See attached page.) • The vote was 4-1 in favor with Donovan voting against because she felt that the Planning Commission meeting was the vehicle in which to resolve the access to the pathway. Patten told the applicant that the staff was willing to sit down and discuss the path at any time. 4 5. Consideration of initial zoning of an area recentl~r annexed and cammonl.y • known as "5alar Crest" located at 242Q Lionsridge Loap. Applicant: Town of Vail Rick Pylman explained the two parcels to be zoned. The staff recommended that the northerly parcel containing six condo units be zoned as Law Density Multiple Family (COME) and the southerly parcel, currently vacant land, be zoned Residential Primary/Secondary (R P/S). The board had made a site visit to the property. Hobbs moved and Osterfoss seconded to approve the zoning. The vote was 5-0 in favor. 6. Consideration of initial zoning of an area recently annexed and owned by Vail Associates known as "5praddle Creek" located northeast of Highway w 70 Interchange No. 176 (main Vail interchange). Applicant: Town of Vail Kristan Pritz explained that this parcel was annexed and the owners, Vail Associates, had 180 days to provide written Notice i;o de1annex if the property wqs not zoned Primary/Secondary. In ~lu1y 1985 the Town extended the agreement to January 1986 and to date the Town has not received notice to de-annex. A letter was received from George Gillett, Jr., chairman of VA, asking to table the zoning because he was negotiating to purchase the property. Osterfoss moved and Hopkins seconded to table the item until June 9 or at the latest, June 23. The vote was 4-0 with Hobbs abstaining. 7. A request to extend the hours of use of the Town of Vail hand quo range located at the Town Shops in the Public Use District. Applicant: Vail Pal ice department Rick Pylman stated that this was a request to amend the conditional use granted to the hand gun range in January, 1985. The police were asking to extend the allowed hours of operation to 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM four evenings per month during the months of January, May and October only. He explained that it was better to train the officers far qualification in low light. The Police Department will continue to the use the shooting range in Gypsum for training in larger weapons. Statistics were listed. One statistic was that over the past decade, 65% of the officer murdered were killed between the hours of 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Donovan registered a complaint. Her home is across the valley from the hand gun range and the shots she hears when in her yard are very loud. Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the extension of the hours as requested. The vote was 5-0 in favor. • 5 .~ Conditions of Approval of the Sonnenalp Variances Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting May 28, 198fi Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the requests for variances per the staff memo with the fallowing conditions: Z. If and when a pedestrian path is constructed along the Tawn of Uail stream tract south of the Sonnenalp property, the owners will allow the Town access across their property in the area between the northeast corner of the Vail Road bridge abutment and the new trash room for construction purposes only. This shall be a legal agreement submitted at the time of building permit. The Sonnenalp owner shall be responsible for submitting this agreement to the Town of Vail staff for their review. 2. The vacant utility easement that bisects the Bully III Restaurant will be vacated before a building permit is released for the project. 3. The parking calculations for recreational facilities inside all four buildings assume that these facilities would be private. If the recreational facilities become available to the general public, the Sonnenalp will go through the appropriate Town of Vail review procedures. 4. The applicant agrees to provide the 6" curb and gutter system with a drainage Swale along the west side of the property along Vail Road from the west entry south to the Vail Road bridge. 5. The planters which exist adjacent to the kitchen will remain. 6 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 28, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance in order to build a duplex residence on Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing. Applicants: John Mueller and Jahn Wyman I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants are requesting a ten foot front setback variants in order to build a duplex residence on Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing. According to the Town of Vail's geologically sensitive area maps, this lot is located in a Medium Severity Rock Fall area as well as a Debris Avalanche zone. The Town of Vail`s Geological Sensitivity Ordinance #5 requires that the owners of a property in a geologically sensitive area must complete a site specific geologic investigation to certify that, "The site is a geologically sensitive area, but development will not increase the hazards to other properties or structures or to public buildings, rights-of-way, roads, streets, easements, utilities, facilities or other properties of any kind.....if the . finding of the engineer or geologist performing the site specific geologic investigation is that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished so that there is no increased hazard to other property or structures or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights-of-ways, easements, utilities or facilities, the issuance of a building permit or grading permit shall be conditional and contingent upon approval of plans for corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations as set forth in this ordinance." In respect to this site, Arthur Mears, P. E. has determined that, "The hazard designation will not apply after engineered defenses are in place. These defenses can be incorporated into the building or can be separated a short distance above it. Avalanche forces can be resisted by engineered defenses, but as you know, I will not be providing the structural engineering, only the loads. For example, the fence system you already provided could resist the load (if properly designed) and could prevent lateral expansion onto adjacent property." "In my opinion, the best building location would be as close to the street as possible. This would reduce loads and spare some of the conifer forest above the building." (see letter dated May 12, 1986 from Art Mears to Kurt Segerburg.) . Tn a letter dated March 19, 1986, Art Mears states that, "This letter addresses the feasibility of building a duplex on Lot 7, Vail Village 10th Filing, Vail, Colorado. The conclusion of this letter is supported by the following previous work. 1. A report by myself to Stuart ho11ander, dated October 14, 1985, recognized that avalanches may reach the building location. That report concluded that all hazards could be mitigated with proper building design. 2. I reviewed your sketches of the proposed building plan and concluded that the building form and orientation would be acceptable and efficient in minimizing avalanche loads. This conclusion was stated in my letter to you dated March 3, 1986. 3. The proposed building location was reviewed by me on this site on March 18, 1986 and was determined to be the best site on the lot in terms of hazard reduction. 4. During our March 18th meeting, I also concluded that deflection of avalanches toward adjacent property was possible, however, this deflection could be prevented by building a masonry or momentum absorbing fence at the sides of the building. • The four points discussed above also support the conclusion that bud ding is feasible with special design at this location and that hazard to neighboring property would not be increased as a result of such building." The owners have also been working with Jack honey, P.E. who is designing an avalanche mitigation structure for the residence. Me states in his letter dated May 6, 1986, "The design will be in accordance with the April 1980 report written by Arthur Mears, P.E. and subsequent recommendations. It is probable that the final mitigation structure design wi11 incorporate two uphill structures spaced approximately 20 feet apart with the lower structure being 20 to 40 feet uphill from the rear wall of the residence. These structures will be designed to provide shedding of an avalanche event as we11 as to reasonably contain flaw within the subject property line." Please see the enclosed correspondence that has been referenced in the paragraphs above. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Mueller/Wyman 5/28/86 ~2- • Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that there will be only slight visual impacts an adjacent properties due to the fact that the house is located ten feet into the required 20 foot setback far this zone district. The house has been designed so that only the corners of the two garages extend into the ten foot setback. The main portion of the house is actually located behind the 20 foot setback requirement due to the "u° shape of the structure. Lot 1 across the street also received a front setback variance on June 13, 1978. A 12 foot setback variance was approved for this property. It is felt that the request will pat impact negatively adjacent uses or structures in the area. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob.iectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Due to the debris flaw avalanche and medium severity rock fall impacts, it is felt that there is a justifiable reason to allow relief from the strict 20 foot setback requirement. Staff does not believe that this relief would be a grant of special privilege as the property is subject to geological hazards. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and , utilities, and public safety. Staff feels that there will be na impacts on light and air. Public Works did review the proposal and found that traffic and snow plowing would pat be affected by the setback encroachment. 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 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. Mueller/Wyman 5/28/86 -3- • 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the ten foot setback variance for the Mueller residence. It is felt that the debris flow and the medium rock fall designations on the lot create a physical hardship which warrants the variance. if the 20 foot setback were to be interpreted strictly, the owners would be forced to build their house in an area that is more dangerous than the one that has been proposed. The location has also been verified by Art Mears, P.E. as the most suitable for the structure. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the variance. Mueller/Wyman 5/28/86 W4- ARTHUR. I. MEARS, P.E., INC. C~ Natural Hazards Consetl;ants 222 Fac Gothic Ave. Gunnison, Goluradn 81230 303 - 641.323b Niay 12 , 1986 r t~1r. Kurt Segerburg Gordon Pierce Architects 1000 South Frontage Road Vail, CO $1657 Oear Kurt: As we discussed last week, I have been in touch with the Town of Vail Department of Community [}evelopment regarding the Mueller Project an Lot 7, 10th Filing. They were concerned with (1) residual hazard to the building and position of the hazard line after defenses, (~) adequacy of defenses, and (3) deflection of avalanches onto adjacent property. lC: The hazard designation will not apply after engineered defenses are in place. These defenses can be incorporated into the building or can be separated a short distance above it. Avalanche forces can be resisted by engineered defenses, but, as you know, I wi71 not be providing the structural engineer- ing, only the Toads. Far example, the fence system you already provided could resist the loads (if properly designed) and could prevent lateral expansion onto adjacent property. In my opinion, the best building location would be as close to the street as possible. This would reduce loads and spare some of the conifer forest above the building. I have also resubmitted my invoice of last month. Noy charges include aIl_ .work . done through my report of last month. I would appreciate your attention ta.'._'' °_.°_ thl5, Please contact me with any questions. ~- Sincerely, - Arthur i. tears, P.E. AIN4:be Enclosure Mau Wasting • Avalanches • AonlancheConlsalEngineering - - .' ARTHUR I. NIEARS,P.E„ 1NC. ~BttE.l~ ~~l lr0[~.sulLall$ 722 ~ ~iatTvc ~.v[. ,c.t__s., r3rs3a 303 -641-323b March 19, 198b i~ Mr. Kurt Segerburg Gordon Fierce Architects TODD South Frontage Road veil, co 8165 Dear Mr. Segerburg~ a This letter addresses the feasibility of building a duplex an Lot '~~ Yail Village 10th Filing, Vail, Colorado. The conclusion of this letter is supported by the following previous work. The 4,.points discussed above all support the conclusion that wilding 3s~' feas~ble,~.with special;"design, =at this lacation,~and tha~.~ia~a~d ~.o :ne~.g~3 box?n~ property.- ~rculd`not be inc~eassd_as~a..rea~a3.t;~i~..such bu.~.lding~..; i. A report by myself to Stuart Hollander, dated October 14, 19$5 recognized that avalanches may reach the building location. That report concluded that all hazard could be mitigated with proper building design. 2. I reviewed your sketches of the proposed building plan dated 2/zb/86), and concluded that the building form and ori.entatian xould be acceptable and efficient in minimizing avalanche loads. This conclusion was stated in my letter to you dated March ~, 1986. 3. The proposed building location was reviewed by me at the site an March 1$, 1986, and was determined to be the best site on the lot in terms of hazard reduction. 4. During our March I$ meeting also concludec3._that deft"ectlon o _, ;avalanches toward :adjacen$ proper~yy~ras possibleh owevsr,'~.thi _ ion .could Abe per~en~ed by'buil3:~ng ~amasoiry.~r u-omar~tiu~- ,deflect ~absorbing fence ; at ~,the,,,_sides, .~f the iix~ld~~g. The performance specifications far hazard defenses wi11 Sae provided by myself early next month, as we discussed. Please contact me if you have'any further questions. AA4~lc Sincerely, ~~ ~~~ Arthur I. Mears, P.E. ~~ Mss Waattn; • Ao~ncl,es • Amranchc C.o~rrocF.r+$r,x~.r~ -~ ~ . Y 'a ~ ~ Q~~~C!i/b11v~~ ~i :~ Consulting Structure! Engineers May 5, 1.986 Mr. Kurt Segerburg Gordon Pierce Associates 1000 South frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: A1ueller-Wyman Duplex Lot 7 Vail Village Tenth Filing Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado r Dear Kurt, ~^ This shall serve to confirm that we are designing an ava- lanche mitigation structure for the referenced residence. The design will be in accordance with the April, 1986 report written - by Arthur Mears, P.E. and subsequent recommendations. It is probable that the final mitigation structure design will incorporate two uphill structures spaced approximately twenty feet apart with the lower structure being twenty to forty feet uphill from the rear wall of the residence, These strut- tures will be designed to provide shedding o~ an avalanche event as well as to reasonably contain flow within the subject property lines. Enclosed is a sketch of our preliminary design concept for your files, if you should require additional information please contact this office. ~~~ V ry ruly yours, ..~., !~~ - ~i y ~~ }r. ?: { w a k R. Haney, .E, ~~;~~~~ ~s -`'` R. Haney & Associates r L ~~£ t TRH ~~.,,~r ~~` _,.-` ..r~irrilt• ah enclosure I• I02 Inverness 'r`erraca lJast 1 Sete 102 / Er~evrood; Cr~lorado 801I2 / (~03~ 782-~Z80 ~- e ~ p ~o ~^ ~~~~~~ ~'~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ Boa ~~. P~o~tic~ ~~ z ~~? ~a ~ G(1~1 PAGE ~ cL1ENT ~i~'"~ ~~~ bESCRIP~l41d ~~~1~~~ ~ ~n~~~~~~~~ ~ti ~~aCi~~E ~~t~ct ~~ ~~ ~- ~~~ GbtS~irlS ~~~.~~ ~~ ~ v~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ `~\~ I ~, s I i y ~i-` T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATF: May 28, 1986 SUBJECT: Imposition of zone districts upon recently annexed areas of the Town of Vail, commonly known as Solar Crest. Applicant: Town of Vail I. BACKGROUND Colorado State statutes regulating annexations require imposition of zone districts within 9Q days of the effective date of the annexing ordinance. The Solar Crest area has long been an enclave of Eagle County jurisdiction within the West Vail area. The Solar Crest property was never annexed during the original annexation proceedings of West Vail. The Solar Crest property was annexed April 1, 1986 and the Town of Vail must impose zone districts on these parcels. The Solar Crest property currently consists of two parcels of land, a X6,886 square foot parcel containing six units known as Solar Crest Condominiums and to the south a 26,674 square foot parcel of land that is currently vacant. These two parcels of land totalling one acre are all that is remaining of a large planned unit development that was proposed through Eagle County. The original PUD concept nos been abandoned and with the exception of these two parcels, all of the remaining land has been replotted. The current Eagle County zoning on these parcels is Residential Suburban Medium {RSM}, which allows five units per acre. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the following zoning for the Solar Crest parcels: The northerly parcel containing six condominium units should be zoned as Low Density Multi-Family {COME). The LDMF zone district allows nine units per acre. This parcel of 16,586 square feet contains six units which equates to approximately 15 units per acre. The LDMF zone district is recommended because it closely parallels the existing development on the parcel. Staff feels that due tv the condominiumization of the parcel in addition to site constraints such as parking, that na further development an this parcel is appropriate. The southerly parcel, currently vacant land, should be zoned Residential Primary/Secondary {R P/S). The zoning of the southerly parcel as Residential Primary/Secondary would result in the development potential of one tat with an allowable GRFA of 4,97 square feet. The Town of Vail Residential Cluster Zone {RC) was developed in an attempt to match the Eagle County RSM district. The RC zone, as well as the County RSM zone, allows three units on a 26,674 square foot parcel. The RC zone, however, contains slope restrictions which affect density. The property owner, as well as the Town staff, agree that the R P/S zone district is most appropriate for this parcel. .+ ;~I, ~ ~ .. ~ ~~ I \1~\ \ ~ y. \ _ \ ~~ 1 \ /~• i~" ~ i i~ ,i ! \/~ \ ~ Y O i ~ T - ~S .`.. ._ 3 •Sl r • ' • ~ O` Y~ .. c'; ~~~• ~4c~' •"' - Z ' ,.~•. t~ ~ ~ 6 m ':~ ~x d :...:.~ S . - 000 000 . ~ i 0 • Y f ( J _.;; + ..... yid _ ...\.\\ N J 1 r '~ \\~,\\~\\\\ .~: - JCObi \~~.\~\\~~• y a:• ,.: ~J I w IE ~•ai , 4. E ~_ . M W LL! W 1 ~ N a ~ ~ M :::~ ~ I ~j ~~~~ \• { ~ • w 'kh.•~.'. 000° .~~.~~~~~~~~~ \1\ .. ~'.....'.•. .'.',.••:'•: ~\• 0 X00 \~\\\\\\\\\\~ d'y ~ ,\ \ I J a ' •\\~ 006 .\\~~\~~~\\\\\ ~ ~u ~~.W.':•'• ': ~, .• \\\~ 0000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ ~~ `~~\\\~~\~ Q\\~`~ \ Q • O •~\\~\{\C~A[~~\~~~\t\~\ 00 COO \\ © ODD \\\\]d t`1~~~~~.~\\• ~ O 0 \~ •.~\~~•000~~~\ •~\~\\\~\~ 000,~OpOp000 ~ Z : ~..\\\~ 00 ~\\\~lia m\\\\\\~\ q0 °~O ~00 DD ~\\~\\\\\11+. `{1\\\\~~ 00000 O ~:~•.'.'.•:. ~~.\\\~\\` '0000 ~j q 0 O O :: ~~t\\\\\p'y \\.~\` O O D Op~O 000 J :~ :,~ :&.::,~~.. \\\\\ y•~ CZ~~r\\ \ O 0000 ~DroO OOODO°O O~ ••• \\\\~~~t]7~ C\~~\\\~ 6 0 0 p _ 0 0 •~~''•• o'. •~~~\~~ ~~~~~~\\• pD ~p°O OOJ°O-D -! O 00000 a.•. '. •. \ •~~~~~\~\ fy D O 3 O O O 1.i, v1~ .\..~6 ~~\\....\ D O O D OQ O Db gOOp N O dJ' \~\\YO '9\\...,\,.. OODDD°O 4 000 ~:: ~\ ..\\..\\\. ~~DOo-ogD DoD q~. gq~pgo ~' ~cIS.\\\\\\\ Z cy.~' \~~~\~~~~~~~~~~~' ~~0000D0000 60p00 p p0000 a Z d • •\\\\\\\\\~~~\• //~~..\ 0Ci~0 O p000gar0 p00Dc ~".• .~\~~\\\\\~~\\• y~,~• 0000 D0D 0000 ~ ~ 9m ' •\\\\\\\\\k\\• ~~ 00 00 ° O O 000000 Z \\\\\\\\\\\\\ ~l ~ \\~\\\\\\i.-\\\\ i3.\\• 000 DD 0~~00 000 ~ _ . •\\\~\\\\~\\~,~\\• 000 000° O I \\\~\\\\b\\\ \\\\\• p00000 `~'p •\\\\\\\\\\\~• ~y~•\\• 0 0 0 O ~ D ~ •\~~\\\\\\\• y~ \\\• 0 000F0D0 0 co $y O 00 ~ \\\\\\\\\\• \\\\• D O O ~ \\~~\\\\\~• \\~\~ 00000000 0~0 p0p IL' \\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 00 00`^D OD a a.~'~ - T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 28, 1985 SUBJECT: A request to amend the conditions of a conditional use permit regarding hours of operation for a hand gun range located at the Town Shops in the Public Use District. Applicant: Town of Vail Police Department I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In January of 1985 the Vail Police Department received approval of a conditional use permit to construct a hand gun range just west of the Town of Vail bus barn building that is located in the Public Works compound. As a part of that proposal, the Police Department proposed to uti']ize this range only during the daylight hours. The Vail Police Department is now requesting to amend the allowed hours of operation from 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM one evening per month during the months of May, October and January. During the other nine months of the year, the daylight hours restriction would still apply. The Police Department has submitted the following statement in support of their request: "It is extremely important for officers of the Vail Police Department to receive this lowlight training. Nationally in 1884, 56% of the police officers murdered were killed between 4:OO PM and midnight. Over the past decade, 64% of the killings happened during the hours of 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Additionally, 73% of all assaults on police officers occurred between 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM in 1984. Between 70:00 PM and 2:00 AM 34% of assaults on police officers took place. Municipalities are being held liable for under training their police officers with increasing frequency. The National Rifle Association and the F.B.I. groups who provide training for police firearms instructors strongly recommend that police officers train in limited or low light conditions. This is critical both in the defense of civil law suits and to the officer working during these times of day. We will limit our night time use of the range to the months of January, May and October and will finish our training prior to 10:00 PM. In addition, officers will not use the range at night without firearms instructor supervision." • . II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.50, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development ab.iectives of the Town. The primary concern with respect to this application is the noise impact from the sounds of the shooting. Of concern is the potential noise impact to the residential developments surrounding the golf course area. The Police Department has mitigated this impact by proposing to utilize the extended hours only during the months of January, May and Qctober. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. As has been stated, the major concern with this proposal is the noise impact on the golf course residential areas. Based on the results of testing conducted prior to the previous conditional use permit request and the agreement of the Police Department to . restrict the utilization to the months of January, May and October, staff is satisfied that this proposal will have a minimal negative impact on these fetters. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion) automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The staff feels that extension of the hours of operation during the three months stated wi11 have no further impacts on these factors. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The character of the area surrounding the golf course is primarily residential. in order to mitigate any negative impacts created by this shooting, the Police Department has restricted their use to times of the year that are traditionally quiet in the Town of Vail. The staff feels that this mitigation does negate any impacts to the character of the area. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. C. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter X8.56. III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN No related policies. IV. 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 previsions of this ordinance. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of this request. The Police Department has attempted to mitigate any negative impacts created by the noise of the shooting by restricting the extension of the hours to the months of January, May and October. By restricting the use to traditionally slaw periods in the Tawn of Vail, we feel that the Police Department has mitigated these noise impacts successfully and therefore support their request. .J T0: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 28, 1986 SUBUECT: Request fora side setback variance in order to construct a sun room at the Ramshorn Lodge on Lot a, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicants: Harold and Marshall Cohn T. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Harold and Marshall Cohn are requesting a side setback variance in order to add a sunroom to Unit #2 of the Ramshorn Condominiums. The Ramshorn Condominiums are located in the Public Accommodation zone district in which all setbacks are 20 feet. The sun roam will encroach 2' 9" into the setback area. The size of the sun room is approximately 6O square feet and is proposed to be located within a deck a1 ready approved by staff on December 27, 1985 along with a spa, landscaping and screen fence 42" high. On October 14, 1985, the PEC granted a setback variance of 13 feet in order to allow a sun room to be constructed on Unit 3 and to relocate an existing pool equipment room which encroached 18 feet into the setback area. The reasons given far the variance at that time were the fact that the existing lodge building encroached into the setback area in several places and the fact that the pool equipment roam was being moved out of the setback area, making a nonconforming situation less nonconforming. This sun room was to be built concurrently with the relocation of the pool house, but has not yet been constructed nor has the pool house been relocated. The applicants state: "The sun room will be adjacent to the kitchen/living room and will provide a needed small dining area to the limited living area. Dining presently takes p1 ace at a pass-thru counter between the kitchen and living rooms. The sun room addition is in conjunction with a patio, spa, screen fence and landscaping applications that received Town of Vail approval on 12/27/85. The sun room will encroach 3O"-33" into the setback at it`s furthest point. The applicant does not feel that the sun room will have a negative impact on adjacent structures or property. The transparent structure will be screened in large part by the already approved patio fence and signficant landscaping additions. Since it is proposed to be a smaller version of the sun room (that was) approved for Unit #3, it will further act to tie the building design elements together. Due to the approved sun room for Unit #3 (i3' encroachment variance) and the extraordinary circumstances of the site, such as • adjacent units in the existing building being located in the setback, we do not feel the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege. The addition does not have any great impacts on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety." Below is a list of zoning statistics far this property. Please note that the building is under the allowed GRFA as well as allowed site coverage. Zone: Public Accommodation Zoning Statistics Site Area: .533 ac. or 23,216 sf (Nate: Project also had another lot of 6,000 sf zoned Parking.) No. Accommodation Units 17 Dwelling Units 7 Total Density 15.5 Common Lobby/Lounge 2 Total allowed GRFA Total existing GRFA 12,169 Addition Unit #3 125 Proposed Addition 60 12,354 Remaining GRFA after deduction including addition Site Coverage: Allowed EX15ting unit #3 proposed total with proposal Remaining after additions II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Sq. Ft 6,266 5,903 12,169 1,038 18,572 sf 12,354 6,218 sf 12,769 sf 12,769 sf 6,595 sf apprax 143 64.5 6,802.5 sf 6,$02.5 5,966.5 sf Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff believes the sun room will not have a negative impact on adjacent structures or properties. The Public Works department has stated that the • addition will not create any problems with their snowplowing. The staff does feel that the previously approved fence and landscaping must be constructed at the same time as the sun room to buffer the addition. ~2- • The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibili~t.v and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. ' Staff's opinon is that it would not be a grant of special privilege to allow the 2' 9" setback variance for the sun room. Upon inspection of the improvement survey, it is apparent that many portions of the Ramshorn Lodge building encroach into the setback ranging from a 3 foot encroachment to a 13 foot encroachment. 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 impacts. 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 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 far one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practica'f difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances ar 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. • -3- IV STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the opinion that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. This request is not a grant of special privilege because of the granting of a sun room addition to Unit ~3. Staff believes that the variance is warranted on this site due to extraordinary circumstances such as the existing building being located in the setback in many places. The strict or literal interpretation of the special regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the other owners in the Ramshorn Lodge. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance with the condition that the fence and landscaping as approved by staff must be added at the same time that the sunroom is built. • • _4_ 7~~3 0 ~ ~. ~„ 1 ~ 111 ~ _ `~~ . - ~~ ~ _ 4~A ....-nom ~M+"'.k~. ~~ ~• h ~ c f 1 . x 4~ .~~ N'e :: ~ I .. .~,~ 1111 ~T W Y} ,(x~ ~ r ~~\ n \ x ~ -.~~ ~ .,,. ~ ~~ w-- - ~ ! ~li I` ~ ~ K r ~K x .1 ~ ~ MI t !C 4 ~.' ~~ -}^, . - _ ~, ,.~,_~ 0:;x.2. ~ ~'~~' pry; <.~, ~ ,., I~ j,4+ ~~~>:¢ _ 1 - - q s air` > ~, ; - I ~ ~ Fp '~ ~s _ ~ '~ . X115 ~1 - 7 q~'v+9r0~' f k 4 yY gk $T ` k "tY ~i v't'b~c5~+~s~s A~~ .r.~"~„3:K .,..: ~..»,~N .r. xi :a1e`:._.u-s vYry`a~ ~ •~.; l ~ . ~. . f J~ y4'w~[+\' i4- tF ~ ,1i • ~ ~ ~ i ~ x ¢" ~ it r 'i ...~ ~~ '~'~S i:~. X11 ~ I n r i ~ ~[:~ f ~ - ~ Y~. __~ ~ a ~ :~ -' ~}'~~. ~ 4~1 ~ ~ ,., ~~- ~ r v~ • • ~- ! ~.~; ~, ~ .1.. ~ ~ ~ `i ' i, r~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 tl1.~ ' - ~~ ~ ~~~ ~. :°~ µ. ,. 9 ,~ ~ ~' V ~ . ~, _ ~ ~ } ~~ ~ ~? t; '~!! I ., ~,. ~ ~~. ~ ;3 ~~ ,~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ,r I ' ~~ ~ `~ ~, ~ ;; i ~~~ ~ ~, ~ , ~, }+. ~ ~~ N .` ~ ~- ~ a ~ ~. r+ .~+ 1 y !~~ ~, -~ ~ a ~- ~ ~. ~ ct `,~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~- ; ~' ~ . ~ ~~I ~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~~ .I ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~. - T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: May 28, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for front and rear setback variances in order to construct a trash enclosure, dining terrace, new entry and second flovr deck at the Kiandra Lodge located on part of Lots L & K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnena1p Properties I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED Sonnenalp Properties has recently acquired the Kiandra Lodge and is proposing to remodel several areas in the existing lodge. The property is located in the Public Accommodation zone which requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the property. Variances are required for the following remodeling work: A. Trash Area: The existing trash room area on the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the Bully III Restaurant is proposed to be redesigned so that a trash compactor, delivery dock and dumpster will be enclosed in this area. The existing trash room encroaches 14 feet into the rear setback and 2 feet into the front setback. The new design would encroach 10 feet into the rear setback and 7 feet into the front setback. B. Dining Terrace: The proposed dining terrace is located to the west of the existing entrance into the Bully III restaurant. The zoning code allows decks to extend half way into the required setback. The applicant is requesting to go beyond half way into the setback and extend the deck up to the property line. The request is for a zero front setback in the area of the dining deck. C. Entry Column: The proposed lobby and entry vestibule do not encroach into any setback area. This expansion infills the existing canopy and drop-off area. The columns that support the new entry encroach into the setback by 5 feet with a roof overhang of 11 feet. D. Second Floor Dining Deck: The applicant would like to add a second floor balcony off of the existing main dining room. The second floor balcony is located over an existing ground level patio that already encroaches nine feet into the setback. The second floor balcony would also have a nine foot encroachment beyond the allowed 10 foot encroachment for decks and patios. The remodel also includes other areas of construction, however, this work does not require variances. Below is a summary of the work that is proposed: • Sonnenalp West: At the basement level, additional restaurant storage will be . added as well as a meeting room. Two dwelling units will be removed in order to create the meeting room. On the first floor the kitchen will be expanded. Sonnenalp Northwest: The lobby will be enlarged and new ski lockers located adjacent to the lobby. Sonnenalp Northeast: At the basement level, the existing Mariachi space will be remodeled to include an employee kitchen, dining area and lockers, meeting room, and nursery. On the ground level, the leather shop and Skandia shop will be replaced by a combined bar/lounge and breakfast cafe, one new retail space and new lobby area. Sonnenalp East: On the basement level, five accommodation units, one dwelling unit and an accounting office will be removed to create a health spa area for the Sonnena'Ip's guests. The remodel will also include revamping the interiors of all the accommodation units and dwelling units. The remodel will not require any variances to GRFA, density, 10% accessory uses, or the ZO% common area requirement. Parking actually improves, as the owner will restripe the lot to provide 8 additional spaces. The net gain of 8 spaces takes into consideration the 4 spaces lost due to the dining terrace and 1 space loss due to the new entry. Parking requirements also actually decrease by 22 spaces due to the remodel. Please see the zoning statistic • sheets attached for further details an the property. II. CRITERIA AND FINDTNGS 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 follawinq factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinit.v. A. 'trash Area: The remodeled trash area will have a very positive impact on adjacent properties due to the fact that the trash will be completely enclosed in the dumpster and trash compactor. The staff has received numerous complaints about the trash area in the past. Tt is felt that this remodel will greatly improve the appearance of the trash area as well as the functioning of the trash pick-up. The loading area is recessed so that trucks will be able to pull completely off the street. The required dimensions for a loading space are 12 feet width x 25 feet in length. The proposed space is 12 feet width x 29 feet in length. An additional loading space is also provided. • Kiandra/Sonnenalp 5/28/86 -2- Sonnena1p loading will be centralized in this new facility which should decrease the loading on the east side of the property by Bridge Raad. This will take some pressure off the east loading area which is very congested due to the Crossroads and Village Center commercial areas. B. Dining Terrace: The dining deck will replace four existing parking spaces. The deck will be buffered from the road by a 7-1/2 foot to 5 foot buffer of landscaping. Staff believes that it is very positive to get rid of the sea of asphalt and replace it with an outside dining deck. This portion of the remodel should have nothing but positive impacts an adjacent uses. C. Entry Column: The column will not impact traffic entering or exiting the site. It should have a positive impact on adjacent properties, as the entry way`s appearance will be greatly improved over the existing entrance onto the site. One parking space will be lost due to the widening of the entry. The tree in the area of the parking space will be replanted or replaced if necessary. D. Second E1oor Dining Deck: A pedestrian path is proposed adjacent to the second floor dining deck. The dining deck should not create any problems for the path, as approximately 42 feet exists from the deck to the edge of the creek. This is adequate roam to allow for a path if and when it is constructed. In summary, the requested variances will have positive impacts on adjacent properties and structures. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a Soecified regulation is necessary to achieve Compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. A. Trash Area: With the new proposal, the rear actually decreasing by four feet. The front feet beyond the existing 2 foot encroachment relief from the strict interpretation of our justified due to the existing building being setback. setback encroachment is setback encroachment is 5 It is felt that some setback regulations is 1~ feet into the rear B. Dining Terrace: It is true that the patio could be reduced in size so that it would only encroach half way into the front setback and thus not require a variance. ~lowever, there are no negative impacts from the terrace. In fact, staff feels that there are really only positive impacts due to the new terrace. ~l-here is also an adequate landscape buffer to separate the street from the terrace area. :7 Kiandra/Sonnenalp 5/28/86 -3- . C. Entry Column: The existing column a1 ready encroaches 2 feet into the front setback. The new column will extend an additional 3 feet to allow for the expanded entry. Staff feels that due to the location of the existing building, it would be difficult to build an entry that would not require some type of front setback variance because of the location of the existing columns. It is felt that some relief from the strict setback requirement is warranted due to the location of the existing building. It is true that the canopy could be completely excluded from the project, however, staff feels that the entry way has been designed to provide adequate lobby area as well as a protected drop-off and loading lane for guests. D. Second Eloar Dining Deck: Staff believes that some relief from the strict interpretation of the rear setback requirement is in order due to the fact that an existing ground patio already encroaches into the same area as the proposed second floor dining deck. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. A. Trash Area: It is felt that the improved trash area will have a very positive impact upon traffic and public safety. Presently, the existing trash area does not have adequate loading for trash delivery and pick-up. The revised plan will greatly improve the trash pick-up functions by providing adequate space far trucks to pull off Vail Road and safely unload and pick up goods. B. Dining Terrace: The dining terrace will have a very positive impact on the street, bath visually and practically. Public Works has worked with the architect to design a landscape buffer area and curb and gutter system that will actually improve the situation for snowplowing and drainage. C. Entry Column: No impact D. Second Floar Dining Deck: No impact Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance IIT. RELATED POLTCIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN Community Design 2. Upgrading and Remodeling of Structures and Site Improvements should be encouraged. Kiandra/Sonnenalp 5/28/86 -4- • IV. FINQTNGS 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, ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted far one or mare 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMEN~ATTON The staff finds that the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege nor will the variances be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Staff feels very strongly that this proposal upgrades the functioning of the lodge and is not merely a cosmetic addition. The improved loading area is an improvement that will have many positive impacts on neighboring properties. The additional deck area will also add street life to Vail Road without compromising the landscape buffer and traffic circulation. The entry column will have no negative impacts on transportation or the functioning of cars entering and exiting from the site. The second floor dining deck does not encroach any further than the existing patio at grade. The effects of the dining deck should be positive due to the outdoor dining that will be provided for Sonnenalp guests. In general, the staff feels that the owners of the Sonnenalp are greatly improving the functioning of their lodge while also improving the exterior appearance of the building. Staff recommends approval of the variances required for all four areas of the remodel with the following conditions: 1. Tf and when a pedestrian path is constructed along the south side of the property, the owners will allow the Town access across their property in the area between the northeast corner of the Vail Road bridge abutment and new trash room. ~fhe dimension of this access would need to allow for the 8 foot path plus additional feet far construction. Kiandra/Sonnenalp 5/28/8 -5- • i• 2. The vacant utility easement that bisects the Bu11y III Restaurant will be vacated before a building permit is released for the project. Please see the enclosed letter from Dave Krenek dated May 19, 1986. 3. A new access easement agreement will be completed to allow far access across the Talisman property. Presently the access between the Sonnenalp West and Sonnenalp East properties already passes across the Talisman property. Staff believes that it is important to have an access easement agreement to legitimize this traffic pattern. It will be the responsibility of the owner of the Sonnenalp Lodge to submit this written access easement agreement before a building permit will be released. 4. The parking calculations for recreational facilities inside all four buildings assume that these facilities would be private. If the recreational facilities became available to the general public, the Sonnenalp must agree to provide additional an-site parking for these uses. 5. The Sonnenalp property has been reviewed as one project, even though in reality there are two parcels, "part of lot L" and "part of lot K." Staff is requiring that the Sonnenalp owner provide a written legal agreement stating that if the property is divided into two ownerships, the Sonnenalp would be required to obtain Town of Vail approval for the change of ownership so that parking and other zoning requirements could be addressed. This is a requirement that would run with the land. This written agreement shall be submitted before a building permit is released for the project. 6. The applicant agrees to provide the 6" curb and gutter system with a drainage Swale along the west side of the property along Vail Road from the west entry south to the Vail Road bridge. 7. The applicant agrees to abide by the Eire Access Agreement outlined by Genff Wright in a memo to Mike McGee dated October 11, 1983. If the applicant Wl5he5 to amend this agreement, Town of Vail Fire Department approval will be required. 8. The Sonnenalp owners shall submit a written legal agreement that addresses the issues outlined in points 1, 4, and 5 before a building permit will be released. Kiandra/Sonnenalp S/28/86 -6- SONN~NALP ZQNING STATISTICS . Zane: Public Accommodation Site Area: 2.812 acres or 122,491 sf GRFA (.$0) al1awed: existing: proposed: GRFA amt aver 20% common 97,993 sf 97,993 sf 53,191 sf 50,319 2,183. 52,500 sf 52,500 sf Remaining GRFA after addition: 45,493 sf Density: {25 units/acre} allowed: 70 dwelling units existing: 134 a.u. or 67 d.u. + 16 d.u. 83 d.u. proposed: 129 a.u. or 64.5 d.u. + 13.0 d.u. 77.5 d.u. (decrease of 5 a.u. and 3 d.u. = total loss of 5.5 d.u. clue to remodel) 10% Accessory Uses: (.10 x tnta1 existing GRFA) allowed: 5,319 sf existing: rest/bar 9,233 sf off/acess 1,666 retail 2,284 meeting 3,997 17,1$0 sf proposed: rest/bar 8,545 sf aff/access 1,127 retail 1,124 meeting 5,270 16,066 sf 20% Common Area: (20% of allowable GRFA) . allowed: 19,599 sf existing: halls, lobbies 7.7,636 sf recreation 727 18,363 proposed: halls, lobbby 17,902 recreation 3,878 21,780 less amount allowed, - Amount over allowed to be added to GRFA Site Coverage: allowed: existing: proposed: total: remaining: • Parking: SONNENALP WEST (.55 x site) 67,370 sf 27,350 sf 2,434 29,784 sf 37,586 sf 50NNENALP NORTiiWEST SONNENALP EAST SONNENALP NORT~iEAST Total Net decrease, 22 spaces Existing on site, approx: Proposed with restriping: Net increase: 19,599 sf 18,363 1,236 remaining 21,780 sf 19,599 2,181 2,181 sf Exist. Regrd. Accord to Code Remodel 44 44 spaces 72 72 42 35 65 50 223 spaces 201 spaces 110 spaces 118 spaces 8 spaces Note: The parking statistics assume that recreation facilities are fnr the Sonnenalp's guests and are not available to the general public. Four existing spaces are lost due to the dining terrace. One space is also lost due to the expanded entry. i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ N 7 N ~ a ~ °. ~ 1 LL LL t7 !1~ LJ' Q ~ ~.. u- ~ ~ W J ~ at, '~ :-+ c4 ul---` m -~., i~' ~ d '`; , ~ ~ Z `L ~ ~ ~ N C..) • O M M O t,C1 ~ ~ d' ~ i . r ?•~ k n ..~ to U cu ~, S- Gb ~ ~ ,r r r~ ~ ~ Qy ~ ~S7 '~` ~ 1 1 1 r N r-~ M 0 d r ~ r N ~, r N N in ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r..., N I r' ~ r ~ i ~ I" ~ N f 1 r~ ~ ~ F '" M C#' Gi' ~S^r c' ~ cl? ou r^ ~. N ~ d O"+ ~ ~ ~ f"^ 1 1"`~ M ! CO d ~ ci' Lfi C7 4C1 f"` ~p r ~n ~ a `~ :- M ~ ~ {- ~ ... ~ ...1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cv o a ;, ~ f ~ ., ra ~ M z ~- w a- ' ~ ' m } 1 1 ~ r --r ~ 1 ~ LL' ~ d LI.. d ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn d i ~ ~ r ~ ~ i LL y, t_-.- td ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ; f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ F- tn M H m ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ N M W ~ a GL J cC ~ ~ tQ ~ ~ r.,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ N ~--~ F-- N H L1! M ~ N ~ ~ # ; 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lf9 ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N t4 ~ ~ ~ ... v r ~ 4~ y... rn r~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 9, 1986 2:15 PM 3:00 PM Public Hearing Site Visit: Agenda: 1 1. A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish an outdoor dining deck on East Gare Creek Drive adjacent to the Gorsuch shop at 263 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dave and Rene Gorsuch 2 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a ski lift at Cascade Village, 1300 4~est Haven Drive. • Cor oration Vail Ventures Ltd. Montane p Applicant. , To be tabled 3. Consideration of initial zoning of an area recently annexed and owned by Vail Associates known as "Spraddle Creek." Applicant: Town of Vail 4. Exterior alteration preliminary review for the Golden Peak Nouse. 5. Possibility of Town meeting on Growth Issues sponsored by PEC and TC on June 2~th, 7:00 pm as part of public meeting process for the Master Land use Plan. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 9, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Peggy Osterfoss Tom Braun Duane Piper Kristan Pritz Sid Schultz Rick Pylman ABSENT Bryan Hobbs Pam Hopkins The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper. 1. A request far a conditional use permit in order to establish an outdoor dining deck on East Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the Gorsuch shop at 263 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dave and Rene Gorsuch, Tom Braun made the staff presentation. The dining deck was to be delineated by a wrought iron fence to be constructed at the edge of existing pavers on the south side of Gafe Gorsuch. The staff recommended approval as it is a positive addition to the streetscape. Approval is contingent upon the four conditions stipulated in the memo. Curt Segerberg represented the applicant and asked for questions. Sheika Gramshammer was against the proposal, stating that tables would crowd the loading on Gore Creek Drive and would create a dangerous .situation for pedestrians. She mentioned that the Cheese Shop has wanted to put tables out in front of here shop for along time and it would be unfair to allow Gorsuch the privilege to use TOV land far business purposes without allowing the privilege to other businesses. Sid Schultz asked about the nearest loading zone and the dimensions of Gore Creek Drive and suggested that the restaurant association should come in as a group so each restaurant has the chance to request this additional space. He felt the need for guidelines as to who gets a dining deck. He also felt that the Town should be reimbursed for the use of TOV land. Diana Donovan stated that she has never supported decks on TOV land. She felt that this deck did not look like it belonged there, looked temporary and blocked the display windows. Jim Viele had mixed feelings about the deck. He had a concern about traffic and stated that they would have to rely upon Public Works and the Fire Department to review this aspect. He felt the issue would be precedent setting. Viele also felt the deck would add a lot of street life to Gore Creek Drive in this area. He wished that there had been trees planted along the A & D Building to improve that side of the street. Viele felt that decks should be looked at on a case by case basis and pointed out that this was a seasonal deck, and not a permanent structure. Peggy Osterfoss said that the Town needs to come up with a policy because the decision would be precedent setting-others will want cafe areas. She felt ii that the Town Council needed to set a policy. l~ 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a ski lift at Cascade Village, 1300 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Vail Ventures, , Ltd, Montane Corporation Tom Braun stated that the specific request was for a ski lift at Cascade Village. He pointed out that the request was to be reviewed against conditional use criteria. Braun said that the joint review process through the Forest Service would address wildlife concerns and other state agency concerns. Any approval was contingent upon Forest Service approval. Braun said that if the request was approved and the lift constructed this summer, temporary modular accessary service structures would be necessary until complete accessary services--tickets, etc.-could be built northeast of the lift, southeast of the transit plaza. The staf"f recommended approval with conditions per the memo. Andy Norris of Vail Ventures said the timing of the project was important. The excavation far the Terrace was complete and the foundation would be in by the end of June. The Plaza foundation would be completed in the fall, steel and building in by the spring of 1987. He stated that the financing for the Plaza was tied to the lift. He stated that if the permit for the lift is issued soon, the transit mall, road improvements and delivery of the lift would be completed as soon as passible, but the full lift may not be available until next year. Larry Warren of the Forest Service identified two issues: 1) Adequacy of day skier parking. He said that the town staff had determined this was not a problem, that parking needs were being met. 2) Wildlife. Elk and deer use i this area. The Division of Wildlife had concerns about the displacement of the elk. VA, Division of Wildlife and the Forest Service were trying to determine ways to mitigate the wildlife impacts. At this time the Forest Service has not issued a decision on the Mountain expansion plan. Warren stated that two conditions must apply to any approval: 1) no ski-down trails except the Westin Ho trail and 2) only winter use of the lift. Piper asked about the impact area far wildlife and was told the area extended 250 meters from the Cascade Village Building. Osterfoss stated that she was not willing to judge the wildlife impacts, but felt the benefits to the community were that the lift would enhance the project and be a positive addition to Vail. The additional point of entry was a good idea and she liked the idea of a transit mall. Viele agreed with Peggy. Donovan liked the transit mall after it was clarified that people would not have to crass the street to reach the lift. She felt some design for the entry was needed because the parking structure now blocked the view of the Westin. Donovan felt it should be remembered the elk study was done during a winter of heavy snow. Joe Macy of Vail Associates stated that the study of elk was goad in that it was done during a heavy winter snowfall. Patten stated that mare specific drawings would be submitted for the transit facility structures and will be brought to the PEC far their review. Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request per the memo which includes five conditions, approval of the temporary stairway, but no approval . of modular buildings. The vote was 5-0 in favor. Duane Piper felt that decks have been approved on TOV property before and that this would not be precedent setting. ~e felt that aesthetically the deck was needed in this area. Piper stated that sometimes it was important to look beyond straight requirements far 40 foot public right-of-way and property lines. Peter Patten stated that it was necessary to look at the street as a total pedestrian walkway. If safety were being jeopardized the staff would be concerned and would probably not recommend approval. He said the staff felt that this portion of Gore Creek Drive needed more street activity and life. The southeast corner of Gorsuch has helped greatly to bring pedestrians to the east to the Mill Creek Court Building. Patten added that the Council has not said na to these requests in the past. Perhaps there were a few that were denied due to obvious problems. Ne felt that it would only be precedent setting in that it is in a public right-af-way. Piper stated that the decision could be left to the Council who could determine whether or not it was precedent setting. Osterfoss asked about the time periods of the leases and Tam answered that normally the leases run one year. Donovan asked what Gorsuch had given the Tawn in return and was tall pavers, trees and a public bench. Donovan felt the deck looks very temporary and added an. She questioned crowding of the street during the Coors Classic. Curt said the fence could be removed during special events. Gramshammer said that she had called the Liquor Board and found out that the area of service must be separated from the street by a level or type of platform, the railing must be permanent and it was not feasible to separate liquor and food service. Piper stated that the licensing for Tiquar is outside of the realm of this board. Viele moved and Piper seconded to approve for one year the conditional use request with the following conditions: 1. The Tawn Council shall formally review and approve the application. 2. A formal lease agreement shall be signed by the applicant and the Town Council. 3. The operation of the deck is for the summer months only. If the applicant proposed to use this deck in the winter, it will require staff review and approval. Establishing the actual dates of operation will be made by the applicant and the Council during the review of the lease agreement. 4. The applicant agrees to comply with those days that the operation of the deck will be restricted as established by the Town Council and these dates will be incorporated into the lease agreement. The vote was 4-1 (Schultz). Donovan voted in favor because of the contributions made by Gorsuch by adding pavers and trees. She felt the DRB should look at planters that are removable to add further landscaping to the site. f ! i 3. Consideration of initial zoning of an area recently annexed and owned b.v . Vail Associates known as "Spraddle Creek." Applicant: Town of Vail No information had been received at this time. Viele moved and Donovan seconded to table this item until June 23rd. 4. Exterior alteration preliminary review far the Golden Peak House. Patten updated the PEC on the progress of this proposal. He noted that Ron Riley, as the applicant, has requested a 120 day review period. ponovan moved and Osterfoss seconded to extend the review period by 30 days to 120 days. Motion carried. Discussion followed concerning a possible meeting with the Council on Long Range Planning issues. The first public meeting of the Land Use Plan would possibly be June 24 with June 26 as a passible alternate date. :7 i• ` ~ ~S T0: Punning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a conditionai use permit in order to construct a ski lift at Cascade Village, 1300 Westhaven Drive. Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd., Montane Corporation I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The main feature of the uses requested with this application is the proposed chairlift. The base of the lift would be located directly east of the future Terrace Wing expansion and would proceed up Vail Mountain to deposit skiers on Simba Run. The lift would cross Gore Creek and continue aver three residential lots in the Glen Lyon Subdivision. Related to the ski lift is a development of a transit center designed to accommodate both Town of Vail buses and private shuttle vans. This transit way includes the development of new bus shelters as well as a revised entry into the Cascade Village development. Related to the bus shelters is the future development of a small expansion of the Cascade Club that wi11 accommodate a lap pool. 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: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Tawn. The planning and development of Cascade Village has been an ongoing process for the past nine years. From the beginning, the basic concept of the project was to create a self contained village providing guest accommodations, conference facilities, an educational center and support retail. While a ski lift was not included in the original master pi an proposals, it has been under discussion for the past several years. It is feat that the development of a ski lift will contribute to the ongoing development of Cascade Village as a self contained activity center. The addition of this lift is felt to be compatible with the overall development objectives of not only this SDD, but with the Town as a whole specifically in the area of relieving existing congestion in other out-of-valley lift portals. • . The development of a ski lift was included as an element of Vail Associates' Master Plan for Vail Mountain. The Planning Commission should be aware, however, that the Forest Service has not issued a final decision on this Master Plan. The development of this lift is not possible without this Forest Service approval. Nonetheless, the staff has accepted this application for the Planning Commission"s review in anticipation of a decision by the Forest Service in the very near future. We have requested the Forest Service to be present at Monday's meeting for a status report. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. With respect to the above mentioned criteria, a key aspect of this proposal is the transit facility to be developed in conjunction with the ski lift. in addition to expanding the shuttle drop-off area for Town of Vail buses, the transit facility will provide a considerable drop-off area for private shuttles. At the present time there are over 70 private shuttles operating within the Town of Vail. It is felt that many of these shuttles will begin to utilize the Cascade Village drop-off point after the development of the ski lift. Theoretically, this will lessen the congestion found at the Lionshead, Vail TRG, and Golden Peak drop-off paints. • Related to the lift are the support facilities such as ticket sales, restraoms and rental lockers. While the development of these facilities is planned, the timing of their construction is dependent on when approvals are granted for the lift. Ff approvals for the lift are received soon enough, construction of the lift will begin this summer. This would necessitate the use of a temporary structure to accommodate the above mentioned services because time would not permit the construction of permanent facilities. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access= maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Various Town departments have been involved in reviewing the design of the proposed transit center and entry revisions to Cascade Village. The result has been a design that is intended to provide a safe and convenient flow of private vehicles, pedestrians and buses. The layout of these alterations affect the Frontage Road which is a part of the State Department of highways system and will require their approval prior to construction. There remain, however, a few design issues yet to be resolved with respect to the vehicular circulation between the Frontage Road and the rest of the Cascade Village SDD. These will be discussed at the meeting on Monday in greater detail, Cascade Lift - 6/9/86 -2- Another issue to be addressed with respect to this proposal is parking. The 421 space parking structure an site was designed to meet the requirements of all the previously approved development within Cascade Village. chile there is no additional parking proposed in Conjunction with the ski lift, staff feels that new skiers using this lift to access Vail Mountain can be accommodated through the shuttle systems as well as through a limited amount of parking provided in the existing structure an a space-available basis. chile the lift is open to the public, the transit facility is intended to accommodate the majority of the users' access to the lift. For those persons who drive to the lift, a limited number of parking spaces may be available in the existing structure. This parking will be accommodated on the third level of the structure which contains 149 spaces. This third level is designed to provide parking for the uses within the CMC Building, the Cascade Club, and the yet to be developed retail space within the Terrace and Plaza wings. The majority of the parking demand generated by these uses will be in the evening hours. This contrasts well with the day skier which obviously creates a parking demand during the daylight hours. Provided the parking facility honors the uses fiar which the structure was designed, it is felt that a limited number ofi day skiers can be accommodated on the third level on an "as available" basis. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. A ski lift is a natural element of a destination resort community such as Vail and felt to be very much in character with the Cascade Village area. One signifiicant issue is with respect to the area in which the lift crosses over residential lots in the Glen Lyon Subdivision. Three lots are directly affected by this lift by either the location of lift towers or by the lift passing above the property. An analysis of lots 38, 43 and 44 of the Glen Eyon Subdivision has been completed by Morter Architects and is included for your information. This analysis assesses the impacts on each of these lots with respect to the lift alignment and how it will affect the buildability of each of these lots. chile the degree of impact varies, there is no question that the lift will affect these lots. It is important to note that a chairlift easement will be required prior to beginning construction for all areas below the alignment of the chair. These easements would be required from property owners affected by the chairlift route as well as the Town of Vail where the lift passes over the Gore Creek stream tract and Town right-of-ways. Easements on the residential lots would have to be obtained from their owners. This has created a situation where the owners most affected by the alignment of this lift will have a direct say as to the granting of these easements. Far this reason, we are regarding the impacts on these residential Tats to be, for the mast part, a civil matter between the property owners and the developers of the lift. Cascade Lift - b/9/86 -3- B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. C. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.55. No environmental impact report required. III. FINDTNGS 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 ar maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety ar 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 REGOMMENDATTON Staff recommends approval of the request with the understanding that the following be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit far construction of this lift: 1. The State Highway Department must approve the revised access plan off of South Frontage Road. 2. The applicant must obtain a chairlift easement from the Town of Vail where the chair lift passes over Town of Vail right-of-ways and stream tracts. 3. The applicant must demonstrate to the Town that easements have been obtained from private property owners affected by the lift alignment. 4. The Forest Service must grant approval of this lift through their review of the Vail Mountain Expansion Plan. 5. It is understood that the applicant will construct the bus shelters needed to service the transit facility and that the Town of Vail will maintain the Town of Vail bus shelter area. It should a1 so be noted that the staff is still involved in reviewing the final details of the circulation system throughout this area. Minor alterations could take place concerning the design of this facility. These will be highlighted during the presentations on Monday. Cascade lift - 6/9/86 -4- [w W,~ ~m N I a O ~ ~ ~ ~. Z ~ i O ~ ~, m ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ I O ~ ~~ !s - ' ~ ii, O ~ N 9 133HS 3~S M08'k! 'SS:L ~. `~ W lSd VS 03H ~ -i.7; .;;• ,;~; •_f;,, -` • 3N11 ~OldYll M 18'i! -S87 E' `~~ . 'r,:.F~, ,. ~ ~ p~=:: '~. ~~ iwi - m 7 g -.., i .'r I i' ~ 3 ~.~•~. +t ~. J {~t •.f l7 ~ ~ r-- . ; :1.. s 1 - € ~ _ = liJ ~ ~ ~\ ~ U X 4 . ~ ~' `y 1'^ V3 /t jsp~' ' ~ < ,5+ ~ S fit(( (E( ~~~~ S - . - u7 0 • O~, "' N '.~' t -n N+ , .. ',f' V' .. ::;, ~: g ;•. ~''• • i ,~ t + D ~y ~ ~ ~ pOpa00 •, ~rs ;•y I ' \:\. ~' yob •/• \\\\\\\ (/~~ l ' f6. .\\\\\\\\\ ~ ~:C~~~.iei~':.-•.'.'.'•'.•' • 604) 0 \\\\\\\\\\\g \\\~\` ~o • •~r \ b O .~\\\\\\\\~• ~ \\ '. D p \\\\\\\\\\\\\ Zo F- \\ \ . C7 z \\\\\\\\\\\\~\ O \\\\ \\' k3• ~ .. \\\ a c \\\\\\\\..\\\\. r\ \\\ \\\ \~ ~{ .;.~F. .: \\\• 000 \\\\\\\\\r\~\\\\• Q \\ \~~ \ ~-•- ~ \\• p b •\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\ F+ \\\• OO~QO \\\\\\\\~\\\\\il - \.\• ~ '. ~~• \\\• 000 •\\\\\\\\\\\\\~ ~~\\ \ ,\\\ p \\\\\\\\4h\\\i\\\ \w\ /~yy \\\\ O •\\\~\rSy.1 ~\\\\\\\\ rr ~{ ~\\\\• 000 •\\\\\U~`\\\\\\\\ 00 Oc0 \ ~ Q O Q \\\\•D b \\\• ey. \\\\\\\\ O 0 \ •\\• ~ \\\\ Y"\\\\\\\\\ OtY~ ppq~00QU ;3 .~Lj,r Q \\• O O\\\\~ •\\\\\\\ D b Z \\• D \\\ \\\\\\\\ D ,~~.a p O •\ .\\\\\..~y \\\\.\\ D00 q0 ~~g4z;DpQR M '. .; :•::.. \\\\\\r\\v"~\\~1.\\\\\~~ D1.~ •Cf ~ f.,CTy,('~yS1 ,, \ L1..! :'~. \\\\\\\.~~ta tl~~\r\\\. Qn`~C7 ~ \i,+,C G.ZO~n~,s,, ~ \ f ~~ DECEMBER 3, 1985 ANALYSIS OF LOTS 38, 43 & 44 GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION VAIL, COLORADO rt The follovring is an analysis of residential Lots 38, 43, and 44 of the Glen Lyon Subdivision in Vail, Colorado. None of the three cots is currently de- veloped. Anew ski lift is proposed to provide direct access to Vail Moun- tain for the residents and guests of the Glen Lyon subdivision and will pass over portions of the three lots. The impacts of the new lift on these three lots is discussed herein. The attached plan and section drawings illustrate the physical relationships. All three lots have been staked to locate property corners and the proposed ski lift easements. On-site analysis of all three lots, and adjoining areas, was conducted. Additional resources for this study include: aerial photo survey information; data from the engineers who have designed the proposed ski lift; Glen Lyon Covenants, Zoning, and Design Controls; and governing agencies, including the Town of Vail and the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation Districts. GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING ALL THREE LOTS PRIVACY The privacy of the outdoor living spaces of a home can certain- ly be affected by having a ski lift passing overhead. However, we view the negative effect as being minimal, if indeed the lift will only be operating during the winter months, when decks and terraces are seldom used. PROXIMITY We have taken as objective a look as possible at the pros and cons of having a ski lift passing over a portion of one's lot. The potential negatives include: noise; litter; loss of priva- cy; loss of view. However, we have found that in a ski resort such as Vail, the psychological and physical advantages of such close proximity to a ski lift outvreigh the negative effects. Real estate values in Vail support this opinion. Lots in close proximity to ski lifts consistently have higher values than si- milar lots which are not in such proximity. We are aware of no instance where a ski lift easement has caused a reduction in the value of a lot. LOT 38 ACCESS Access to the lot is not affected. .., ~r v DECEMBER 3, 1985 ANALYSIS OE LOTS 38, 43 & 44 GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION; PAGE -2- LOT 3£3 PRIVACY The chairs wi11 be roughly 30 feet high as they pass over Lot 38, and should provide minimal views, if any, into the home. Lot 38 is quite large and long, and this minor problem can be mitigated. VIEWS Lot 38 enjoys a range of view of more than 1800. Views are affec- ted only minimally. BUILDABILITY The effect on the buildability of Lot 38 is negligible, h1ITIGATING MEASURES Because of the length of the lot in the north/south direction, the home can be located far enough to the south to effectively minimize any negative impacts of the ski lift. Limiting the use of the ski lift to the 4rinter (ski) season mini- mizes the impact on the privacy of outdoor living spaces. • LOT 43 ACCESS While the frontage onto Westhaven Circle is reduced by the chair- 1ift easement, adequate access to the site remains. PRIVACY The chairs will be relatively high (approximately 30 feet) as they pass over Lot 43, and should present no problems regarding privacy within the home. VIEWS Because the chairs will be relatively high as they pass aver Lot 43, views from the home will be minimally impacted, if at a11. BUILDABILITY Because of an existing utility easement and a large spruce tree, the most logical development area of Lot 43 is the northern por- tion. The chair7ift easement crosses the southern portion, and has little impact on the actual buildable area of the site. MITIGATING MEASURES Limiting the use of the ski lift to the winter {ski) season mini- mizes the impact on the privacy of outdoor living spaces. _ _ LOT 44 _ _ ACCESS While the frontage onto Westhaven Circle is reduced by the chair- lift easement, adequate access to the site remains. QECEr~~ER 3, 1985 ANALYSIS OF LOTS 38, 43 & 44 GLEN LYON SUBDIVISIOII PAGE -3- LOT 44 _ PRIVACY The height of the chairs varies as they pass aver Lot 44, from roughly 23 to 38 feet in height. Because they are 23 feet high at a portion of the buildable area, the potential for loss of privacy within the home exists. VIEIdS For the reasons discussed in the PRIVACY paragraph above, and the placement of the support tower within 3 feet of the buildable area, views from the structure can be affected. BUILQABILITY The buildability of Lot 44 is significantly affected by the chairlift easement. Lat 44 is very steep in an east-west direc- tion. The normal, most efficient way to develop such a site is in a linear fashion, along the contours in a north-south direc- tion. An existing sewer easement a7 ready significantly reduces the buildable area, but would allow a north--south development, along the site's contours. The chairlift easement cuts the re- maining buildable area by more than half, and forces a more ex- pensive east-west development, up and down the hill. The resul- taut 4,100 (approximately) square feet of buildable site would yield a building of roughly 3,250 square feet of GRFA. This is 790 square feet less than the 4,040 square feet GRFA permitted by zoning, or a reduction of 20 percent. Assuming a sales mar- gin of $70.00 per square foot, this represents a loss in value of $60,800.00 based on saleable square feet. A 4,040 square foot GRFA structure typically requires a buildable area of at least 5,100 square feet. The shape of the buildable area; the amount and direction of the slope; and the reduced size of the buildable area, all com- bine to add cast to the construction of the structure. Compared to developing a more conventional site, the increased costs of developing this site could include: additional design costs of $3,000 - $5,000; additional excavation and foundation costs of $25,000 - $35,000; and the possible inclusion of a small hydrau- lic elevator, at a cost of $22,000 - $25,000. The range of these costs totals $50,000 - $66,D00. The amount of vertical circulation dictated by this buildable area makes for a less efficient plan, and definitely limits the potential sales and rental markets for the project. MITIGRTING MEASURES Relocation of the sewer easement to the west, nearer the river would provide a larger, more level buildable area on the lot. w e • DEGEhiBER 3, 1985 ANALYSIS OF LOT5 38, 43 & 44 GLEtr' LYON SUBDIVISION gAGE -4- MITIGATING NiEASURE5 Costs for sewer relocation could run as nigh as 520,000, but tcont'd) would increase the buildable area of the lot by 2,400 square feet (approximately), thereby offsetting the 2,400 square feet lost under the ski lift and air space easements. Development would still occur along the east/west axis, but the increased area to the west is more level, mare buildable and the more desirable portion of the lot on which to build. By seeking a garage setback variance from the Town of Vail and/ar site access through Lot 45 to minimize steep site ac- cess, the buildability can be enhanced. As mentioned in the "BUILDABILiTY" paragraph on the previous page, the inclusion of an elevator could mitigate the amount of slope on the site. Limiting the use of the ski lift to the winter (ski) season minimizes the impact on the privacy of outdoor living spaces. • ~a j T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 9, 3.986 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to establish an outdoor dining deck at the Cafe Gorsuch along Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dave and Rene Gorsuch I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE. The proposed use involves the placement of a small number of dining tables immediately in front of the Gorsuch building to be served by the Cafe Gorsuch. The tables would be located on the newly installed pavers that front the Gorsuch building along Gore Creek Drive. A removable wrought iron fence is proposed that would define the limits of the outdoor dining deck. The Planning Commission should be aware that the outdoor dining deck is located predominantly on the Town of flail right-of--way. The Gorsuches have previously met with the Town Council at a work session to discuss this request. At this meeting, the Council gave the Gorsuches approval to proceed through the review process with the understanding that the Planning Commission is actually making the final decision concerning this request through the conditional use review process. It should also be noted that the applicant has requested this dining deck far the summer months only. • Request far conditional use permits in Commercial Core I are reviewed with a special set of criteria designed to ensure that the use is compatible with the specific characteristics found within the Village care. These criteria differ from those commonly used in other conditional use requests. The following is the staff response with respect to each of these criteria. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 and Section 18.24.070, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors t. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I district. As stated above, the dining deck is proposed to be located predominantly in the Tawn of Vail right-af-way along Gare Creek Drive. After reviewing this proposal with the Public Works, fire, and Police Departments, it was concluded that this encroachment would not create significant impacts on the vehicular circulation in this area. The potential of negative impacts on vehicular circulation has been mitigated by the removal of the loading zone across the street from the Gorsuch building as well as by the fact • that the deck is proposed to be operated only during the summer months. 2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I District., It is not anticipated that this proposal, if approved, would cause a reduction or increase in vehicular traffic in the Village area. 3. Reduction of nonessential off-street parking. This proposal would not affect any reduction in off-street parking. 4. Control of delivery, pick-up, and service vehicles. The location of the outdoor dining deck does not directly impact any existing service or delivery areas. The Cafe Gorsuch is in operation and the proposed dining deck would add a small number of seats to this operation. It is not felt that this would create any additional burdens with respect to loading or delivery requirements. 5. Development of public spaces for use b.v pedestrians. The dining deck, while located on Town right-of-way, would be limited to those patrons of the Cafe Gorsuch. However, the bench and seating area provided by the Gorsuches would be maintained at the southwesterly corner of their property. This seating area will continue to be open for use by the general public. 6. Continuance of the various commercial, residentialz and public uses in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Over the past few years, the staff, Planning Commission, and Council have been faced with numerous requests to enclose or eliminate outdoor dining and public seating areas in the care. With this request, we are faced with an applicant who is proposing the addition of a new outdoor dining area in Vail Village. The staff is very supportive of this proposal because of the positive impacts it will have on the street life and activity generated along the streets of Vail Village. 7. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. The proposed improvements in conjunction with the dining deck are fairly limited. They involve the installation of a movable wrought iron fence that will be compatible with the existing wrought iron found on the Gorsuch building. The simple installation of tables and chairs will constitute the dining deck. Related to this deck are the pavers and street trees that were installed earlier this spring. These materials and improvements are very compatible with the development in the existing area and add to the high quality of design and development that is desired for the core areas. Gorsuch - 6/9/86 - 2 B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. III. RELATED PgLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN As has been stated, the outdoor dining area will contribute to the ambiance and street life found in Vail Village. This will serve to foster the continued success and growth of our summer and shoulder seasons. IV. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations highlight a number of criteria to be considered when evaluating dining decks and patios (see attached copy}. While this proposal is compatible with same of these guidelines, it is also in conflict with others. For example, the dining deck will benefit from direct sunlight during most of the day throughout the year. It is sited to provide the users of the deck the opportunity to be seen and see the activity that is taking place in the core. This contributes greatly to a much richer pedestrian experience than if the street were void of activity. On the other hand, the ideal dining deck should be slightly elevated with a strong physical separation from the pedestrianways. While this dining deck is lacking in these two factors, it is the feeling of the staff that its location and other positive impacts far outweigh the shortcomings of being elevated and having a greater physical separation from the street. 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 ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. • Gorsuch - 6/9/86 - 3 . VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of this request as submitted. While there were same initial concerns with the proposal being located on the Town right-of-way, the nature of the operation of this deck is such that these concerns have been mitigated. It is felt that the deck will add another element into the overall fabric of the Village that contributes to its pleasing pedestrian environment. While properly located, the deck is lacking in same design elements as outlined the Urban benign Guide Plan. However, the staff feels that the deck can be a great success, both for the proprietors and for the streetscape as proposed. The staff would recommend the following conditions of apprava1 to be applied to this request: 1. The Town Council shall formally review and approve this application. 2. A formal lease agreement sha11 be signed by the applicant and the Town Council. 3. The operation of the deck is far the summer months only. If the applicant proposes to use this deck in the winter, it will require staff review and approval. Establishing the actual dates of operation will be made by the applicant and the Council during the review of the lease agreement. 4. The applicant agrees to comply with those days that the operation of the deck wii1 be restricted as established by the Town Council and these dates will be incorporated into the lease agreement. • Gorsuch - 6/9/86 - 4 i ' . - DECKS AND PATIOS Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of a busy street-- making aricher pedestrian experience .than if those streets were empty. A review of successful decks/patios in Vail reveals several Gammon char- acteristics: - direct sunlight from 71:00 - 3:00 increases use by many days/year and protects from wind elevated to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse) - physical separation from pedestrian walk (planter better than a wall) ~, -overhang gives pedestrian scale/ she1 ter. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to: - sun -views ~- wind -pedestrian activity .~ _:~. Um~re~~~ ~Y a~~~.~~evn~wf._ _. A~. - _ _ ' for c~~Of ~nQ ~G~~e .~ _ ~ ~ : _. _ _.. .__. 1... __..-..- __. _ _.-.... _.. ____. --__.--_.__..__. . ._ _.u._ _-._._.. ..~~ _ ~- .~_- - -_-.--- . ----~ _: - - - ------ ~ ~ n ~__ ~ -- f --- -____-_--- v - _ _ _ ~_ ~_..-. p ~ { __. . _ ._.~~.._ a __. .. _.~._. -. - --- -- to _ _ _. _.__~ . ,- --_. 22 _ f ' S a.'T . S 1:~_ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION June 23, 1986 2:15 P.M. 3:00 P.M. Site Inspections Public Hearing 2 1. A request for a GRFA variance of 395 square feet in order to add a third story addition to a residence on Lot 2O-D-1 of Bighorn Terrace. Applicants: Tim Boyle and Debbie Nicholson 1 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to place a satellite banking facility in the Mill Creek Court Building. Applicant: Vail National Bank 3. Consideration of initial zoning of an area recently annexed and owned by Vail Associates known as "Spraddle Creek." Applicant: Town of Vail 4. Appointment of a PEC member to DRB for July, August and September 5. Approval of minutes of May 28 and June 9. .7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION . Dune 23, 1986 PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Diana Donovan Peter Patten Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman Peggy Osterfoss Betsy Rosolack Duane Piper Sid Schultz Jim Viele 1. A request for a GRFA variance of 395 square feet in order to add a third starx addition to a residence on Lot 20-D-1 of Bighorn Terrace. Applicants: Tim Ba.vle and Debbie Nicholson Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed the site plan and also the elevations of the new and the previous proposal one year ago. She stated that one year ago the applicants came before the PEC with a request for setback variances and with the same request for a GRFA variance. The PEC granted the setback variances and denied the GRFA variance. In the current request, the exterior design of the third level had been changed, but the floor plan and the amount of GRFA variance being requested were identical to the request one year ago. She reviewed the memo, stating that the staff felt that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the request because the applicants could upgrade their unit within the 250 square foot limit of Ordinance 4 of 1986. Tim Boyle, one of the applicants, stated that the reason he came back to the PEC was because last year he did not take advantage of the opportunity to appeal the decision of denial to the Town Council. He stated that 250 square feet was tough to work with. He added that since the roof leaks, he could correct the leak at the same time that he added a third floor. Viele pointed out that the PEC and Council had all agonized over the amount of GRFA to be placed in Ordinance 4. He felt that it was a policy issue and precedent setting. Hobbs and Osterfoss agreed with Viele. Piper added that much deliberation had gone into establishing some means for upgrading units and some limits to that ordinance, and that it was not a slam dunk thing. Piper felt that if the request were granted, mare landscaping should be added to the project. Pritz pointed out that this would be dealt with in DRB. Patten stated that if the request had been for 25O square feet or less, the request would have gone straight to DRB, not to the PEC. Donovan felt there should be more landscaping and that the phone wires were dangerous. She felt this request should go to the Council to be reviewed. Donovan felt this design was better and landscaping would help to scale the building down. Viele moved and Osterfoss seconded to deny the request per the staff memo. The vote was 7-0 for denial. • 2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to place a satellite • bankin~_facility in the Mill Creek Court Building. Applicant: Vail National Bank Rick Pylman presented the request and said the staff recommended approval. The staff felt the proposed use would comply with the Town development objectives and would replace a nonconforming use with a conforming use. Piper wondered where Wells Fargo trucks would park and was told there was a loading zone on Hanson Ranch Road and one on East Gore Creek Drive. Donovan wondered if the bank could 6e requested to post signs an the interior regarding parking of vehicles. Pylman mentioned that the applicant must pay a fee into the parking fund for the amount of .9 parking space, the increase in the change of use. Hobbs moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. The vote was 7-O in favor. 3. Consideration of initial zoning of an area recently annexed and owned by Vail Associates, Inc. known as "Spraddle Creek." Applicant: Town of Vail Peter Patten explained that the staff was recommending that this item be tabled. He had met with VA who stated that they were coming in with a new application which would include a reduction in the number of lots requested to perhaps 4 to 6 total lots. He added that the staff felt that it did not make sense to zone this parcel Agriculture and Open Space and then turn around and receive a petition to rezone it to Residential Primary/Secondary. Since the applicant was in the process of requesting R P/S zoning, the staff felt it would be better to wait. If the applicant fails to submit a complete proposal by July 28, the staff would recommend that they proceed-w~th the application of ADS zoning for the property. If the applicant does submit a complete proposal by July 28, the PEC would hear this request on August 25. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to table this item until August 25. Vote was 7-D in favor of tabling. 4. Pam Hopkins volunteered to remain as the PEC representative on DRB through August. 5. Approval of minutes of Ma.v 28 and June 9 May 28 minutes were approved 5-Q-2 with 2 members abstaining. June 9 minutes were approved 7-O. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 23, '1986 SUBJECT: Application of Zoning to the Spraddle Creek Parcel The Tawn of Vail is requesting to table the application of zoning to the Spraddle Creek property until the August 25, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. The Town would like to provide the opportunity for the new owner, Mr. George Gillett, to submit a complete proposal for ultimate build-out for the Spraddle Creek property. This submittal must be made to the Planning staff by July 28, 1986 in order to meet the August 25th meeting. If the proposal is submitted by July 28, the Town will withdraw the present application. If the owner fails to submit a complete proposal on July 28, the Town staff will proceed with the application of Agricultural and Open Space zoning for the property. Staff is supporting this process for the following reasons. Firstly, thi proposal for Agricultural proposal by s time table all the property. and Open Space the owner of the ows the owner adequate time to submit a complete It avoids the duplication of reviewing an proposal and then having to review a future property to rezone the land to Primary/Secondary. Secondly, this approach will allow for public input as to what should happen with the Spraddle Creek property through our land use planning process. By . August 25, the Land Use Plan should provide information as to what should happen with this property. It should also be emphasized that the staff is not supporting Primary/Secondary zoning at this time. This request to table will allow the applicant time to submit a complete proposal and avoid several reviews of the same issue. • t ~ Vail Associates,Iric. ,curie ~.~. ~ 13 85 Creatc3rs and Operators of Vail and Beavec• Creek ivis. Kristan Pritz Town Planner Town of Vail Planning and T~;xxvironmental Commission Gctath Frontage Road Vail, Colarada 81657 ~: Spraddle Creek Zoning Dear Kristan: In responsEr ;:.o tlxe Town of Van's request to proceed with zoning of ttxe 39.5 acxe 5praddle Creek parcel, it is felt that the sate may warrant higher density zoning than the Sizxgle Dwelling Unit, Agricultural Open Space zoning currently being proposed. As you know, the property cores recently transferred from Vail Associates, Inc.'s ownership to George N, Gillett, Jr. As the new owner, George teas asked for alternative development proposals to be considered. Vail Associates, tnc. has completed a major subdivision package which would call for 18 high quality, primary/secondary home sites. This proposal has received an extensive amount of input from the Planning staff and from the Town Council in general, and it is felt the project represents a very thoughtful., prudent approach to a possible development of this parcel.. Included with this letter is the complete subdivision proposal at~xu the assoc:iateu F.T.S, for your reference and review. Also being considered at this time is a lower density, modified approach to land use which may involve the development of be~l:ween one to four private home sites near the proposed lower cul-de-sac indicated on the 1$ unit site plan. This area could be accessible by a much shoxter road alignment and would minimize the overall impacf~ to the site. For discussion purposes, this approach warrants additional consideration as an alternative to the 1$ unit proposal. This 1--4 lot approach would also meet the requirements for minor subdivision application procedures. Due to the recent ownership charge and Lhe Town's need to complete the zoning process, only prel.i~~izxary investigations into this option have been performed, lout t.l:ie results are • promising. Past Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 ~ (3[}3476-5601 ~,.. .~ In practical terms, it does seem important to zone this . parcel in la.ght of current development trends in the Vail area and to establish a use that is consistent with this large parcel and economically viable for the proponent. As proposed in recent conversations with Peter Patten, this would involve a minimum of upgrading the proposed Single Family, Agricultural Open Space designation to one Primary/Secondary Unit designation. This would be more consistent with the style of private homes currently being constructed at other high-end areas of Vail and at Beaver Creek. It should also be clearly stated that all €u~i.ure zoning requests will be made according to Town of Vail regulations and that other properties (including the Christiania parcel} should be considered independently in a7.1. future. :and use ~.,~opo5als. To review briefly: • Additional possible uses of the Spraddle Creek parcel are being considered, and future rezoning of this parcel should not be precluded. • George N. Gillett, Jr, is requesting the approval, at a minimum, of "one" Primary/Secondary Unit on this parcel. • Other Vail Associates, Inc, parcels should be reviewed in an independent manner from this parcel. Sincerely, VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. _ ,/ ~ ~ a,~ George N. Gillett, Jr. ~~ ~- C:hairman GNG/clc R T0: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 23, 1986 SUBJECT: Request fora conditional use permit in order to place a satellite banking facility in the Mill Greek Gourt Building at 302 Hanson Ranch Road. Applicant: Vail National Bank I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE The Vail National Bank would like to place a satellite banking facility in the space being used by Arthur Bishop and Company on the ground floor of the Mill Creek Court Building. (see attached site and floor plan.) Arthur Bishop and Company is a real estate firm and they have been located on both the ground floor and the second floor of the Mill Creek Court Building on the west side of the building. Having a real estate office on the ground f1onr in Commercial Core I is a nonconforming use. The pedestrian oriented bank would be a conditional use which would make the use of this space more conforming. The applicant states: "With the proposed banking facility, CCI will have a banking facility . within the confines of the pedestrian village. For commercial tenants this means pedestrian access for all banking purposes without having to use their vehicles or the public transportation. For the guest it means a convenient banking outlet far cashing checks and other banking services located within walking distances of the ski slopes. A like-type' of facility in Lianshead has worked well in satisfying the development objectives of the Town." The size of this space offices is 1 space per parking spaces for ban parking spaces. Thus, The applicant must pay parking fund. is 864 square feet. 250 square feet whit cs is 1 space per 200 there is an increase $3,000 x .9 = $2,700 Required parking spaces for ~ equals 3.4 spaces. Required square feet which equals 4.3 in parking needs of .9 space. for the one space into the Town II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section I8.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Service to the guest is an important goal. The accessibility of • the bank will improve this service level. Moreover, any time a street level office use in the core can be eliminated, it is a benefit to the Town. 2. The effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, narks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. There will be no effect an any of these factors. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safet.v and convenience, traffic flow and control, access: maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. As this is a satellite bank facility of an existing bank in Town which has easy auto acccess, we don't foresee customers attempting to drive into the core to get close to this bank.. 4, Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The character of the area will not be changed. B. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. IV. 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of this request. The fact that guests and residents of the Village core can walk to a banking facility reinforces the pedestrianization of this area of Vail. Furthermore, the conditional use replaces a nonconforming use, which is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. ~xs •~ ' ~ _.: ! r. .~;bL --~... ! I ~ J ~ '. i ~ . .___ ..s 4- , i ~~rm '~ a~a~an~fz~ S ~ r ii ~; .{~ .i j i ! I ~~~ f#~I i ii - ~~ '~ 1~ ' +.-_~ i -^ f , ~ vii ; ~ ~ .v.' ~y 3y i, ~ ~~ n?a__._.~_ Oj .df o 5:. or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ' ~' ^ + 4:'~V'~ G ~' c l 4LC7 ~ ~t-~ Tr;o~ w ~ ,~~ y. ~~ ! A~, ~ MI i ~ {~ ~' ~ i i i~ V ~ .tI~~,9~5'* ,b~Tj---~.~c~._.~virY.S.':c i~j~. 'r,i ! i j ~ ~~ ~ ~ I~ 1 _ N ',mod ~.~• i ol~~ F' "j ~ 'n ~ ~.--. ~ 'mo'd=1.:J .y~..l .._-... y. •(1 r' ~ IS. l4. ~'r 1111 ~ `G'i { ~• ~ N ~ ~~ i I I f ;~-~ ! ~ ~ ~'~' ~ ~ ~ I / r•O ~. b I 1 ~ w ~ O a ,r .~C Lr ~ ~ a p ~ S . ~ e ~ i ., C7 c;3 ' O ~ fl- Q ~ ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ I i '~ G.a V i I~ I I! I c Ii z ~ i y • 3 ' i ~I ~~+ it ~. _.i_ ~ ' a a; ~~,~jJ ~ e I%~."a ~ = i~;ls o s -fi~- ~jf ~ ~. ,_. ~~ „ - ~;. =~~. .'7 sii a~ k ~.' . a' ~' ~: ..., I;~ ~I~ .i"~, !i ~' i A~+1 i~ ~~ . ~ ~ ' T0: Planning and Environmental Commission • FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 23, 1986 SUBJECT: A request for a density 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 i. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicants wish to add a third story to their two story single family residence. In order to construct this addition, a GRFA variance of 395 square feet is needed. In June of 1985, the applicants came before the Planning Commission with a request for setback variances and with the same request for a GRFA density variance. The Planning Commission granted the setback variances and denied the GRFA variance. Minutes from that meeting indicate that the reason for the denial was that it would have been a grant of special privilege and that it was disregarding Ordinance 4, Series of 1985 which was intended to allow home owners to apply for no more than 250 square feet of additional GRFA to upgrade their homes. In the current request, the exterior design of the third level has been changed, but the floor plan and the amount of GRFR variance being requested are identical to the request of June 1985. The enclosed memo from June 1985 shows a table of statistics for this property. 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 request as a request under Ordinance 4, 1985, which al laws for additions up to 250 square feet. The applicants are requesting 145 square feet above the 250 square feet. The intent of Ordinance 4 is to address this type of upgrading far dwelling units which have been located within the Town of Vail at least five years. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings. Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors: . Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinit.v. A third story would somewhat impact the neighbor to the south. 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 minor due to the location of the windows and views in the adjacent unit. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformit.v of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff feels that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve this GRFA variance. The enclosed memo from June 19$5 gives a history of Bighorn Terrace variance requests. This table indicates that approving the GRFA variance would be a grant of special privilege due to the large amount of GRFA. There have been 7 requests for additional GRFA. The staff recommended approval of only one in 1977 for 130 square feet and recommended denial of the others. Only two requests were far an amount greater than 130 square feet, that of Rowe in 1978 for 473 square feet and Curfman in 1980 for 177 square feet. Staff believes that to approve this GRFA variance would be . inconsistent with other requests that have been acted upon within Bighorn Terrace. More importantly, staff feels that this request disregards Ordinance No. 4 which was intended to address upgrading of existing homes by allowing small GRFA additions for site improvement trade offs. The pEC and Tawn Council worked for aver a year to write an ordinance that would allow small scale improvements to occur to older residences without allowing an excessive amount of additional mass or bulk. 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 cerain 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 25O 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. . Boyle 6/23/85 -2- . Staff believes that applicants' desire to upgrade their unit can be achieved within the 250 square foot limit. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safet.v. The allowed height in the Medium Density Multi-Family zone district is 38 feet for a sloping roof. The existing height is 18 feet and the proposed height is 35.6 feet. The third floor addition will decrease slightly the amount of light and air between the Boyle's unit and the unit to the south. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance III.FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fol1owin~ 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. Boyle 6/23/85 -3- IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends denial of the GRFA variance. This request conflicts with the intent of Ordinance No. 4 which allows far additions of up to 250 square feet. Staff believes that the applicants could work within the allotment of 25Q square feet for their addition. The applicants have the opportunity to add 25Q square feet either on the third floor or perhaps on the ground float. Staff realizes that setback variances would be necessary far an addition on the ground floor. 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 is 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. C Boyle 6/23/85 -4- ~i -~ ,~'l ~ ~ ~ ~} I ~,~ x, 6, 9 ~-r x i I j ~ r+ I •~ 1 J r ~ d~ ~ ~ O O y i f ! ` { ; \-/ ~' ~' ~f ~ ,o~ x i - x ~ I I S I i X ~ ~ lll~~~ a ~ d: ? 'a t p 4 x X U ]I s ~I ~~ ~ o, x ~ x x [ `~ x v x ~ 0 o .~ __~ .c `~ , %'6 7~7~/ 9 + S .J ~--.. __.,_~~ i ~~~ •r.~ 4 '• ~. r} -4 1 ~ti V ` W_ 0 4~ I~ 0 F- D t- ~ L Q z ~ T i cc Q ao w '~ d Z ~ O a` ~ u. ~d iN ,[~ ~yF, K x x ,S~'91 - -` ~. + 7'~ a s ~~ _ __ i ~ `q -~ ~~ vk ~'z~ ~~'I ~ ~_ ~ ~ 40 ~ U ~~ ~ z ^~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~,a~ ~a O r ~ ~ ~ j }--..J ~~ t- ~i ~ U3 ~ ~ O'er 0 ~v ~ 0 ~~ Q u} ~n ~ ~N ]~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O'O~ M ~ ~.t~og~ S ~j~ ~Y V ~ ~. C '~y ~. C { H ~ Sj ~` c n ~- ~`. ~a ~: ~~ i• ~ ~~~~ ~__--- -- ---_ - _----- ~. _ _ J-- `- f ._._.~- r_.-~ ~~ ~~r- ~Q~h~ yation __---- 1 /4" ~~. ~ ----`Q?- ,~o~ l~~ ti ~.~ ___ _~--- --~-`~_-- -~ ~---r'~- - - ~- _----~ ~1 ` i I ~~~~ ~~~yatiQn I~ O olo ,hE. _-- ~{a~ _.tJM- 19a~~~ -- C( 2~ ~~ t+j, d ~___~ .3~,~i ~~ ,~. ~?~ It ~•a~ ~~~,~ ~~~W~tio~- '~ l~ ''{l • ~~}_ i.. N TO: Planning and Enva.ronmtental Commission FROM: Community Deveiapment Department DATE: June 10, 1985 SUBJECT: Request for side, front and rear setbacks and fox a GRFA variance of 395 square feet in order to add a third story addition to a residence on Lot 20-D-- I of Bighorn Terrace Subdivision at 4277 Columbine Road. Applicants: Tim Boyie and Debbie Nicholson DESCRIPTION OF YARIANCS REQUESTED The applicants wash to add a third story, including a clerestory to their two story single family residence. 1n 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 statistaics for this property: zone: E~edium 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 i9.2 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 sf which would necessitate an additional parking space. Therefore, the lega 1 non-conforming situation is adequate for the addition. L •~~ . Boyle -2- 6/10/$5 T~eight: 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 Vaal at least five years. Zf Ordinance 4 were not applied to this request, the applicants would be able to add another 250 square feet in the future. ~'or 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 an the east side. The proposed addition wall be located on top of the existing structure. The addition wall nit 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 requests i• "The purpose of this letter is to request a GRFA variance for a proposed addition to my residence at 4277 Columbine brive. 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. T 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 be solving the roof problem and creating additional space at the same time. Presently the home has twa 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- 6/70/85 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 ~Erom 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 Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development rec,.,~,~.:ends ~ approval oft_he 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 existing_ 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 tour 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. li i~ i• Boyle -4- 6/10/85 The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessar~r to achieve compatibilty and uniformity .of treatment among sites in the vicinitX or to attain the objectives of this title withou t grant of special privile e. A. Setback Variances Staff feels that due to the existing building, it would not be a special privilege to grant the va riances for setbacks as the setback encroachments wi.Ll 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: VARIANCE REQUEST IiISTORY OF BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION GATE APPLICANT TYPE OF AMOUNT OF ST~.FF PEC REQUEST VARI ANCE RECO~~1MEfdDATION 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 .7uly 7$ Alder GRFA 75 sq ft Denial Approval Setback 8 ft Denial Approval Aug 78 Turnbull - Setback 7 ft Approva7 Approval Aug 80 Curfman GRFR 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. T here have been 13 requests for additional GRFA. The staff recommended approval Boyle.--5- 6/10/85 of only one in 1977 for 130 square feet, and recommended denial of the others. Only two requests were ~a~r an amount- greater than 130 square feet, that of Rowe in 1978 and Cu~fmar~ xn 1980. (Rowe is Boyle's neighbor to the south.) Scarf belYeve~ tnac. 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." I t 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 light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities,and public safety. i• 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 MpMF height requirement if the third floor is added. .. Boyle -6- 6/70/85 Related Polices in Yail'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 ie The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following f findings before granting a variance: T hat 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 ar 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 Yariance 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 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. 1, 1! i _~ T N ~± ~~~ - ---- ~ 1 .~~~ E :-~J ~i ~~ ! ; ~;~ ~ ~-, e f ~ '~ ~ -- ~, ,., ,_a ~~ ~ '~-~ 4 ~~ j- ~_ --- -- __ -- _-~----_ R ~ ~~~ ~t ~, CTS .{~ n I ~ ~ ! ! ~< i Q o -s N (~ ~" w I ~I I I I _ ~_.__ i ~~ .. _o .~ ~: _ o ~I~! _~ ~_~ ~ ~~~ -- _~ _Q 0 i ~ i i• i• f 7 l~ ~_ i ~ 11 C Q ~~ _ __ ___ i e-1.._ '~.- i~ ,~-~ _ r ~~~ ~_ 1 f ~~ ~ -~, , -~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -z ~ _ _ ~ , I~'~ ~~ _ _ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ._t ~- _ _.~ F. ~- r __ Y ~ L I ~_ `- { ~ _ ~~ ~J _~ , ' _ - ..~ ~~ ~,~ ~~ ~ {=_1~ I 4` } V i - - Y i ~~-_~ - ~ f~~ I~ 1~ r